[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 27, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30232-30284]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12800]
[[Page 30231]]
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
[[Page 30232]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 (202) 267-1100; 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
[[Page 30233]]
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.
[[Page 30234]]
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 30235]]
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
[[Page 30236]]
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
[[Page 30237]]
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
[[Page 30238]]
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.
[[Page 30239]]
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
[[Page 30240]]
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
[[Page 30241]]
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
[[Page 30242]]
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
[[Page 30243]]
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
[[Page 30244]]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 30245]]
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
[[Page 30246]]
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
[[Page 30247]]
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
requirements in the future because the FAA's regulations describe an
exemption as a request for relief from the requirements of a
regulation. 14 CFR 11.15.
\54\ The FAA will revise Order 8900.1, Flight Standards
Information Management System, Vol. 5, Chapter 1, Sec. 4,
Considerations for the Practical Test, 5-85 AIRCRAFT AND EQUIPMENT
USED DURING PRACTICAL TESTS to describe the process for obtaining an
authorization that designates an aircraft as a TAA in accordance
with Sec. 61.129(j). The FAA will also revise AC 61-65 to provide
guidance on how to submit a request to the Administrator to gain
approval of an airplane as a TAA, if the airplane does not already
meet the express requirements of Sec. 61.129(j).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AOPA stated that the terms ``Primary Flight Display (PFD)'' and
``Multifunction Display (MFD),'' which are not defined anywhere, will
cause confusion. AOPA further noted that the same argument applies to
removing ``advanced'' from ``electronically advanced avionics system.''
The addition of ``advanced,'' without any clarification, will generate
questions over whether a particular system qualifies as advanced or
not. AOPA commented that if a particular airplane is equipped with the
items in proposed paragraphs (i) and (ii), then the airplane should be
considered equipped as a TAA with the appropriate electronic avionics
system.
The FAA is retaining the terms ``Primary Flight Display,''
``Multifunction Display,'' and ``advanced'' in the TAA requirements.
The FAA disagrees that the terms PFD and MFD will cause confusion.
These terms are currently used and described in several FAA
publications that are recognized by the aviation industry, including
the Airplane Flying Handbook (FAA-H-8083-3B), the Pilot's Handbook of
Aeronautical Knowledge (FAA-H-8083-25), the Aviation Instructors
Handbook (FAA-H-8083-9A), the Instrument Flying Handbook (FAA-H-8083-
15B), and the FAA/Industry Training Standards (FITS). The Pilot's
Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge defines a PFD and MFD in the
glossary. PFD is defined as ``a display that provides increased
situational awareness to the pilot by replacing the traditional six
instruments used for instrument flight with an easy-to-scan display
that provides the horizon, airspeed, altitude, vertical speed, trend,
trim, and rate of turn among other key relevant indications.'' MFD is
defined as a ``small screen (CRT or LCD) in an aircraft that can be
used to display information to the pilot in numerous configurable ways.
Often an MFD will be used in concert with a primary flight display.''
The FAA believes the terms PFD and MFD add clarity to the TAA
requirements by describing and prioritizing the display features and
elements for TAA avionics and their respective functions. For example,
the term PFD is specific to the use of the primary flight controls to
maintain aircraft attitude and positive control. The PFD is used by the
pilot to execute appropriate use of the control stick or yoke for pitch
and bank, rudder pedals for yaw, and throttle for engine power. The PFD
is designed specific to controlling the aircraft attitude and altitude
relative to the horizon and the surface of the earth, especially when
outside visibility is poor or unavailable. The MFD has a different
priority; its function is secondary to the PFD. The MFD is designed for
navigational use and position awareness information, even though it may
include some PFD features for redundancy. Furthermore, the FAA is
requiring certain minimum display elements for both a PFD and MFD,
respectively, thereby clarifying what will be considered a PFD or MFD.
As for the term ``advanced,'' the FAA finds it necessary to
describe the avionics system of a TAA as ``advanced'' to differentiate
current new glass cockpit aircraft designs from older aircraft that
used six independent mechanical dial/analog style flight instruments.
Twin City suggested the FAA clarify whether the MFD requirement may
be satisfied by a split-screen display (e.g., Dynon Skyview) or two
independent screens (e.g., Garmin G500) contained within a single
physical unit. Twin City also asked whether the moving map display of
common GPS/WAAS navigators (e.g., Garmin GTN650/750, Avidyne IFD 440/
540) would meet the MFD requirement.
Section 61.129(j)(2) requires only the minimum elements of a MFD;
it does not preclude the use of a split-screen display or two
independent screens contained within a single physical unit. Therefore,
a manufacturer may use a split-screen display or two independent
screens for the PFD and MFD provided the displays contain the minimum
elements required for each. Furthermore, in response to Twin City's
comment, the FAA is clarifying the MFD requirements by first describing
what the display shows (i.e., a moving map) and then describing how the
display is facilitated (i.e., using GPS navigation). Accordingly, Sec.
61.129(j)(2) now requires the MFD to include, at a minimum, a moving
map using GPS navigation. The FAA believes this revision to the
proposed language clarifies that a system with a moving map display
common to GPS/WAAS navigators would satisfy the MFD requirement.
Additionally, the FAA is requiring the aircraft position to be
displayed on the moving map. The FAA finds this additional language
adds clarity to the MFD requirement and ensures that existing
equipment, such as the systems identified by Twin City, would satisfy
the MFD requirement for a TAA.
Several commenters noted ambiguity with requiring the MFD to
include an ``integrated two axis autopilot.'' Garmin noted that the
G500 and G600 have autopilot mode control and annunciations
capabilities for select autopilots on the PFD, not the MFD portion of
the display. Therefore, the autopilot function itself is provided in a
separate piece of equipment and not included in the MFD. Garmin also
noted that equipment, such as Garmin's GTN650 and GTN750, could be
considered an independent additional MFD that includes GPS with moving
map navigation but the autopilot function and related mode control and
annunciations are provided in separate pieces of equipment. Twin City
suggested the FAA remove ``integrated'' from the description of the
autopilot, allowing the use of independent/aftermarket autopilot
systems.
In response to these comments, the FAA did not intend to exclude
systems that provide autopilot functions separate from the MFD. The FAA
is therefore separating the ``two-axis autopilot'' requirement from the
MFD requirement. Accordingly, under new Sec. 61.129(j)(3), the two
axis autopilot is no longer required to be included as part of the MFD.
This change from what was proposed allows the use of independent/
aftermarket autopilot systems.
Twin City also asked the FAA to specify whether the integrated
autopilot must include GPS roll steering (GPSS). Furthermore, Twin City
asked whether the proposed two-axis requirement would have been
satisfied by autopilots
[[Page 30248]]
with altitude hold function only, or if vertical navigation (altitude
preselect, glideslope tracking, etc.) is required.
In response to Twin City's comments, the TAA requirements of Sec.
61.129(j) do not require the autopilot to have GPSS. However, Sec.
61.129(j) specifies only the minimum requirements for a TAA. Therefore,
an autopilot may have additional features, including GPSS. The ``two
axis'' requirement refers to the lateral and longitudinal axes. The
autopilot at a minimum must be able to track a predetermined GPS course
or heading selection, and also be able to hold a selected altitude. The
autopilot is not, however, required to control vertical navigation
other than holding a selected altitude. The FAA is revising the
proposed language for clarity and to accommodate future advancements in
technology. Rather than requiring the MFD to have an integrated two
axis autopilot, the FAA is requiring the TAA to have a two axis
autopilot integrated with the navigation and heading guidance system.
The FAA believes this revision from what was proposed clarifies the
minimum requirements for the two axis autopilot and also allows for
flexibility in autopilot design and installation.
AOPA, Garmin, and GAMA recommended that the FAA not require the MFD
to be an ``independent additional'' piece of equipment because this
requirement would preclude a single display that features the required
information of both a PFD and a MFD from qualifying as a TAA.
The FAA agrees that the proposed definition of TAA would have been
unintentionally restrictive and would have excluded some qualifying
aircraft unnecessarily with its use of the phrase ``independent
additional.'' The proposed requirement for an MFD to be an independent
additional piece of equipment was intended to ensure that the minimum
display elements are visible at all times. The FAA is not opposed to an
aircraft having one display or piece of hardware that meets the overall
definition requirements of Sec. 61.129(j). The FAA is therefore
removing the phrase ``independent additional'' from the proposed
language to allow a single piece of equipment or single display to
satisfy the requirement for both a PFD and MFD. However, to ensure that
both displays are visible at the same time, the FAA is requiring the
display elements for both the PFD and MFD (paragraphs (j)(1) and (2))
to be continuously visible.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ 14 CFR 61.129(j)(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Garmin noted that the proposed phrase ``(MFD) that includes, at a
minimum, a Global Positioning System (GPS) with moving map navigation
and an integrated two axis autopilot'' is problematic. Garmin explained
that the MFD portion of the G500 and G600 has a moving map that is
driven by GPS but the GPS is a separate piece of equipment and not
included in the MFD portion of the display.
In reference to the G500 and G600 equipment identified by Garmin,
the FAA understands that the PFD and MFD can be driven or supported by
other pieces of equipment to provide for its required functionality.
Many of the display features for the PFD and MFD can be driven by
separate pieces of equipment that are connected to the display. The TAA
requirements in no way restrict the use of peripheral or supporting
equipment that enables the display functionality described for the PFD
and MFD in the TAA requirements. Therefore, the FAA finds that the G500
and G600 equipment identified by Garmin likely satisfies the
requirements for an MFD.
Garmin also commented that the phrase ``Global Positioning System
(GPS) with moving map navigation'' inappropriately mixes ``GPS'',
``moving map'', and ``navigation'' functionality. Garmin noted that FAA
has separate TSOs for these functions, including for GPS sensors: TSO-
C145 (GPS with SBAS), TSO-C161 (GPS with GBAS), and TSO-C196 (GPS
only); for moving map: TSO-C165, and for navigation: TSO-C146
(standalone navigation equipment using GPS/SBAS sensor) and TSO-C115d
(required navigation performance (RNP) equipment using multi-sensor
inputs). Garmin added that it would be better to list these functions
separately to allow for avionics architectures that provide these
functions in different equipment that still supports the concept of a
TAA.
In response to Garmin's concern with the use of the terms GPS,
moving map, and navigation, the FAA is only describing the display
functionality requirements of the PFD and MFD equipment. The FAA is not
adopting any requirements for the underlying architecture or supporting
equipment that would provide for the display functions or
capabilities.\56\ Therefore, while there may be different TSOs for the
various functions of GPS, moving map, and navigation resulting in
separate pieces of underlying equipment, this equipment can support the
MFD requirements so long as the MFD includes a moving map that uses GPS
navigation with the aircraft position displayed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ The FAA notes that any installed equipment must meet the
appropriate regulatory requirements and standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
GAMA commented that the FAA should consider whether it is
appropriate to evaluate designating certain rotorcraft as technically
advanced for certain training and testing related initiatives in the
future, noting several benefits.
The FAA appreciates GAMA's comments. However, the FAA finds it
unnecessary to designate a rotorcraft as technically advanced at this
time because there are no regulatory requirements to obtain training in
a technically advanced rotorcraft.
2. Amendment to Aeronautical Experience Requirement for Commercial
Pilots
The FAA proposed to amend Sec. 61.129(a)(3)(ii) and appendix D to
part 141 to allow a pilot seeking a commercial pilot certificate with
an airplane category single engine class rating to complete the 10
hours of training in a complex airplane, turbine-powered airplane, or a
TAA, or any combination of these three airplanes.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ As previously stated, 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. 14 CFR
61.129(a)(3)(ii) and appendix D to part 141.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AOPA, American Flyers, Bemidji, Eagle Flight Centre, UND, NATA,
Twin City, and nine individuals, supported the proposal, noting that it
would provide training alternatives to aging complex airplanes and
reduce costs. Several commenters noted that allowing TAAs in place of
complex airplanes would introduce commercial pilot candidates to risk
management and increase pilot proficiency in systems management,
integration, and use of glass cockpit instrumentation, which would
result in a safer, more valuable training experience. Commenters
explained the costs and maintenance issues associated with aging
complex airplanes, and stated that allowing TAAs to be used as a
replacement would address the lack of availability of complex
airplanes. Furthermore, several commenters believed the proposal would
enhance safety, while others commented that any potential risk to
safety would be mitigated by the requirement in Sec. 61.31(e) that a
pilot receive training and an endorsement from an instructor prior to
acting as PIC in a complex airplane.
As commenters noted, there are several benefits associated with
allowing TAAs to be used in place of complex airplanes. For these
reasons and for the reasons explained in the
[[Page 30249]]
NPRM, the FAA is amending Sec. 61.129(a)(3)(ii) and appendix D to part
141 to allow a pilot seeking a commercial pilot certificate with an
airplane category single engine class rating to complete the 10 hours
of training in a complex airplane, turbine-powered airplane, or a
TAA.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ General Aviation Airplane Shipment Report, End-of-Year 2006
(Washington, DC: General Aviation Manufacturers Association, 2007)
indicates that 92 percent of the 2,540 piston airplanes delivered
during 2006 were equipped with glass cockpit electronic flight
displays. An Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association Air Safety
Foundation Special Report titled ``Technically Advanced Aircraft--
Safety and Training'' states ``virtually every newly designed
transportation airplane is a TAA, including Lancair, Cirrus,
Diamond, and the Adam 500 * * * Many owners are retrofitting their
classic aircraft to convert them to TAA with IFR-certified GPS
navigators and multifunction displays.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AOPA recommended the FAA revise the proposed rule language of Sec.
61.129(a)(3)(ii) and appendix D of part 141 to clarify that the
combined use of complex, turbine-powered, and technically advanced
airplanes is permitted.
As evident from the NPRM, the FAA intended to allow a pilot seeking
a commercial pilot certificate with a single engine class rating to
complete the 10 hours of training in any combination of complex,
turbine-powered, and technically advanced airplanes. However, the
proposed rule language did not reflect this intent. The FAA is
therefore adding language to Sec. 61.129(a)(3)(ii) and appendix D to
part 141 to clarify that any combination of a complex airplane,
turbine-powered airplane, or TAA may be used. For consistency, the FAA
is also adding language to Sec. 61.129(b)(3)(ii) and appendix D to
part 141 to clarify that a pilot seeking a commercial pilot certificate
with a multiengine class rating may complete the 10 hours of training
using any combination of multiengine complex airplanes or multiengine
turbine-powered airplanes.
Furthermore, as explained in the NPRM, the FAA proposed to amend
Sec. 61.129(a)(3)(ii) and appendix D to part 141 to allow an applicant
for a commercial pilot certificate with a single-engine class rating to
complete 10 hours of training in a complex, turbine-powered or
technically advanced airplane. The FAA explained how demonstration of
proficiency in an airplane that is electronically complex will be
comparable to the demonstration of proficiency in an airplane that is
mechanically complex. Thus, based on the FAA's proposal, the option to
use a TAA was intended to apply to all commercial pilot applicants for
a single-engine class rating regardless of whether the applicant was
seeking a land or sea rating. The FAA recognizes, however, that
proposed Sec. 61.129(a)(3)(ii) did not accurately reflect this intent
as it applied to commercial pilot applicants for single-engine sea
ratings. Rather, proposed Sec. 61.129(a)(3)(ii) would have allowed a
commercial pilot applicant for a single-engine sea rating to use only a
complex airplane. Therefore, consistent with its intent, the FAA is
revising proposed Sec. 61.129(a)(3)(ii) to allow applicants for a
commercial pilot certificate with a single-engine class rating
(including both land and sea) to complete the 10 hours of training in a
complex, turbine-powered, or technically advanced airplane, or any
combination thereof. The FAA is specifying in Sec. 61.129(a)(3)(ii),
however, that the airplane must be appropriate to land or sea depending
on the rating sought, which is consistent with the requirement in Sec.
61.129(a)(3)(ii) as it existed prior to this final rule. The FAA is
also adding language to appendix D to part 141 to clarify that the
airplane used to satisfy the 10 hours of training in a complex,
turbine-powered, or TAA must be appropriate to land or sea depending on
the rating sought.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ Under appendix D to part 141, each approved course must
include flight training on the approved areas of operation listed in
section 4, paragraph (d) that are appropriate to the aircraft
category and class rating for which the course applies. For an
airplane single-engine course, paragraph (d) requires training on
airport and seaplane base operations. Therefore, the FAA finds that
the ten hours of training in a complex, TAA, or turbine-powered
airplane should be appropriate to land or sea depending on the
rating sought.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bemidji suggested the FAA add an exception to Sec. 61.31(e), which
prescribes additional training for operating complex airplanes, and
Sec. 61.31(f), which prescribes additional training for operating
high-performance airplanes, to allow a part 135 flight instructor
without a current flight instructor certificate/flight instructor
instrument certificate to satisfy the training and endorsement
requirements of paragraphs (e) and (f). Bemidji recommended an
exception similar to Sec. 61.31(g)(3)(iv), which excepts from the
training and endorsements requirements of paragraphs (g)(1) and (2)
persons who can document satisfactory completion of a PIC proficiency
check under part 121, 125, or 135 conducted by the Administrator or by
an approved pilot check airman. Bemidji noted that complex airplane
training is becoming difficult for new pilots to receive in both part
61 and part 141 flight school environments and that an increasing
number of part 135 instructors do not maintain a current flight
instructor certificate because it is not required. Bemidji added that
the current language in Sec. 61.31(e) may become an issue in the
typical flight training environment if the complex airplane is no
longer needed for the commercial certificate, and if fixed gear
multiengine aircraft become more popular in the flight training
environment.
The FAA agrees with revising 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. However, the FAA is not
providing an exception for part 121 or 125 operators. The change to the
commercial pilot training requirements to allow use of a TAA instead of
a complex airplane for the airplane single-engine class rating could
require a part 135 air carrier or operator to provide this training to
newly employed pilots who may not have previous experience in complex
airplanes. The FAA understands Bemidji's comment to indicate that this
change could also require a part 135 air carrier or operator to provide
high-performance airplane training to newly employed pilots. The FAA
infers this suggestion from Bemidji's comment because many complex
airplanes are also high-performance airplanes. As a result, many pilots
complete complex and high-performance training using the same airplane.
Therefore, since a complex airplane is no longer required for the
commercial certificate with an airplane single-engine class rating, it
is more likely that a newly-employed pilot at a part 135 air carrier or
operator might not have previous experience in a high-performance
airplane.
In accordance with Sec. 135.323, a part 135 air carrier or
operator is currently required to establish and implement an approved
training program that ensures that each pilot, flight instructor, and
check pilot is adequately trained to perform his or her assigned
duties. Therefore, a part 135 approved training program for an airplane
that meets the definition of complex or high-performance will include
the required ground and flight training necessary to meet the intent of
Sec. 61.31(e)(1)(i) and (f)(1)(i), as applicable. All part 135 pilots
are required to complete a Sec. 135.293 competency check every 12
calendar months. Therefore, the FAA agrees with Bemidji that it is
appropriate to include an exception in Sec. 61.31(e) and (f) for
persons who have successfully completed a Sec. 135.293 competency
check in a complex or high performance airplane, or in an FSTD that is
representative of a complex or
[[Page 30250]]
high performance airplane.\60\ The FAA is adding these exceptions to
Sec. 61.31(e)(2)(ii) and (f)(2)(ii).\61\ The FAA notes that, in
accordance with these exceptions, the competency check must be
documented in the pilot's logbook or training record. Because part 125
operators are not required to have approved training programs, persons
will not have received the required ground and flight training specific
to the operation of complex and high performance airplanes in
accordance with an approved training program prior to completing a part
125 competency check. Therefore, the FAA is not providing an exception
for part 125 operators. Furthermore, the FAA finds it unnecessary to
include a part 121 proficiency check as an exception to Sec. 61.31(e)
and (f). Section 121.159 prohibits certificate holders from operating a
single-engine airplane under part 121. To obtain a commercial
certificate with an airplane multiengine land class rating, Sec.
61.129 requires a pilot to have received training in a multiengine
complex airplane. Furthermore, Sec. 121.436 requires pilots serving in
part 121 operations to hold an ATP certificate and an appropriate type
rating, and Sec. 61.159(a)(3) requires an applicant for an ATP
certificate with a multiengine rating to have 50 hours of flight time
in a multiengine airplane (of which 25 hours may be completed in a
FFS). As a result, the FAA expects that pilots will receive the
training and endorsements required by Sec. 61.31(e) and (f) prior to
obtaining employment at a part 121 air carrier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ In accordance with Sec. 135.341, part 135 air carriers or
operators with only one pilot employee are not required to have an
approved training program. While these pilots are still required to
have satisfactorily completed a Sec. 135.293 competency check every
12 calendar months, the FAA finds that they may only be excepted
under new Sec. 61.31(e)(2)(ii) and (f)(2)(ii) if they have received
ground and flight training under an approved training program.
\61\ To add the exceptions to paragraphs (e)(2) and (f)(2), the
FAA had to reorganize the paragraphs. Accordingly, the exceptions
that were provided in former paragraphs (e)(2) and (f)(2) are now in
paragraphs (e)(2)(i) and (f)(2)(i), respectively. The new exception
for persons who have satisfactorily completed a competency check
under Sec. 135.293 are now in Sec. 61.31(e)(2)(ii) and (f)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An individual, who identified himself as a pilot, suggested that to
mitigate the risk of gear up landings for students that did not receive
training in complex airplane it may be appropriate to amend the
requirements of 14 CFR 61.31(e). This individual suggested requiring
additional experience and/or training prior to receiving the complex
endorsement, rather than keeping the requirement under Sec.
61.129(a)(3)(ii) with respect to commercial pilot certification.
Similarly, SAFE and one individual recommended the FAA require a
commercial pilot to have at least 10 hours of PIC time in a complex
airplane prior to exercising commercial privileges in a complex
airplane.
The FAA is not adding additional training or experience
requirements to Sec. 61.31(e). Adding the option to train in a TAA at
the commercial pilot level does not change the FAA's safety assessment
that a person who complies with Sec. 61.31(e), which requires training
and an endorsement from an authorized instructor certifying that the
person is proficient to operate a complex airplane, is sufficient.
LOBO and four individuals, including one who identified himself as
an instructor, opposed the provision, asserting that the proposed
amendments would provide for a commercial pilot certificate without
experience operating the controls of a mechanically complex airplane.
LOBO stated that as proposed, training will result in a pilot who can
operate TAA, but will know nothing about systems and procedures on
complex airplanes such as controllable pitch propellers and retractable
landing gear systems. LOBO further stated that many of these commercial
pilots will go on to get flight instructor certificates and teach in
single engine airplanes, again without having to demonstrate complex
system operations. The individual, who identified himself as an
instructor, stated that it is the degradation in physical pilot skills
that has been noticed over time as having become problematic to the FAA
and National Transportation Safety Board. This commenter noted the
importance of demonstrated skill with learning, understanding and
demonstrating a complicated aircraft system in the performance of
flight duties. Another individual noted that the proposal would provide
the pilot with no experience in the flight dynamics (changing pitch and
drag) when operating landing gear, flaps and a controllable propeller.
LOBO and three individuals, one of whom identified himself as an
instructor, noted that a combination of complex airplane and TAA for
use during training and checking would be a better choice.
Specifically, LOBO suggested that commercial pilot applicants should
have to demonstrate proficiency with both glass cockpit technology and
complex system operations, including use of the landing gear.
LOBO and three individuals generally noted that current
requirements provide valuable experience in cockpit management
procedures and complex systems operations, not provided by TAA.
Specifically, LOBO noted that the perception that an FAA checkride in a
single engine TAA will produce a commercial pilot with the same skills
as one who had to learn complex airplane operations is false. One
individual noted that training in a complex airplane provides the
proper mindset and cockpit management procedures needed in order to be
successful long term pilots. Additionally, one individual, identified
as an instructor, noted that the original purpose of the regulation was
to ensure pilot demonstration and mastery of both the technical aspects
of the system operation and incorporating that understanding into the
safe and efficient operation of the airplane. This individual further
believed that the FAA has lost sight of that purpose in seeking to
substitute a TAA in place of complex or turbine powered airplanes.
The FAA disagrees with comments suggesting that TAA skills are not
as significant or as necessary as complex airplane skills. The FAA does
not suggest that this is the same skill set required for operating a
complex airplane, but an appropriate experience requirement for a
commercial pilot applicant. This final rule allows the combined use of
a turbine-powered, complex, or TAA for satisfying the experience
requirements. In fact, most, if not all, production aircraft currently
produced now have glass cockpits utilizing advanced LCD displays for
aircraft control and navigation. These advanced flight information
systems are becoming mainstream equipment in both general and
commercial aviation aircraft operations, and many older aircraft are
being retrofitted with this new instrument glass cockpit technology.
The FAA emphasizes that prior to acting as PIC of a complex
airplane, a commercial pilot (or any other certificated pilot) must
receive and log additional ground and flight training in a complex
airplane and receive an endorsement from an authorized instructor
certifying that the person is proficient to operate a complex
airplane.\62\ This final rule does not remove or amend that requirement
in any way. The FAA does not dispute that proficiency in a complex
airplane is a necessary skill for a commercial pilot who intends to
operate as PIC in such airplanes. Authorized flight instructors who
provide these complex airplane endorsements have a responsibility to
[[Page 30251]]
ensure the pilot is proficient and competent before providing the
endorsement. Therefore, pilots will continue to be formally trained and
required to demonstrate competency and proficiency in a complex
airplane prior to receiving an endorsement authorizing a pilot to
operate and act as PIC in a complex airplane.\63\ The FAA further
emphasizes that a fixed amount of time or experience in an aircraft
does not guarantee pilot proficiency. Training time requirements
leading to pilot proficiency can vary from one individual to another. A
flight instructor is expected to provide a sufficient amount of
training time as necessary to verify proficiency before providing a
pilot operating privileges and endorsements.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ 14 CFR 61.31(e).
\63\ 14 CFR 61.31(f) and (i).
\64\ 14 CFR 61.31(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOBO and two individuals believed that the proposal would increase
the risk of gear up landings. LOBO asserted that the number one cause
of all Lancair accidents and incidents is failure to follow proper
procedures. An individual explained the need for pilots to be trained
on operations of retractable landing gear and the associated emergency
procedures. This individual emphasized that training in a TAA cannot
serve as a substitute.
This final rule does not eliminate the requirement for a pilot to
receive training in complex airplane operations prior to acting as PIC
of a complex airplane. The amendment to Sec. 61.129(a)(3)(ii) allows a
pilot to use a TAA as an alternative to a complex airplane to satisfy
the aeronautical experience specified in paragraph (a)(3)(ii). However,
under Sec. 61.31(e), a pilot is still required to receive training in
a complex airplane and an endorsement from the authorized instructor
certifying that the pilot is proficient to operate a complex airplane
prior to acting as PIC of a complex airplane. An authorized instructor
is responsible for providing as much training time as necessary to
ensure a person is proficient before providing a complex airplane
endorsement. Therefore, the FAA does not expect the final rule to
result in an increase in gear up landings.
LOBO cited a report by Tom Turner of the American Bonanza Society
that noted ``Tracking accident reports through other sources, I've
found that nearly 20 percent of all accidents in piston-powered,
retractable gear aeroplanes are gear-up landings. The U.S. Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) tells us there is an average of three
gear-up landings every week in the United States.'' (Turner, 2015).
LOBO stated that Turner also stated that landing gear related mishaps
cost the insurance industry (and the owners who pay premiums) nearly $1
million per month in claims or $12 million per year, far more than the
$1.6 million per year in savings proposed by the NPRM.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ In the NPRM, the FAA proposed that the cost savings
benefits allowing the use of TAAs would be about $9.7 million or $8
million in present value at a 7 percent discount rate. While the
commenter did not explain where he came up with $1.6 million, the
FAA assumes that the commenter divided $8 million by 5 years because
the FAA estimated the net quantifiable present value benefits over a
5 year analysis period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA reviewed the gear up landing statistics referenced by LOBO
and has determined, with the assistance of the National Transportation
Safety Board, that the gear up landing statistics are significantly
less than described, representative of mostly private operators, and
the majority of them not engaged in commercial operations. The NTSB
reported to the FAA that between January 2013 and June 2016 there were
a total of 59 gear-up incidents and accidents reported, and all but one
was operating under part 91 operating rules.\66\ Additionally, of the
59 reports, half were private pilots acting as PIC and 93% reported no
injuries. This information suggests that the cost of such incidents or
accidents is much lower and contradicts the LOBO's position and
referenced data. This would also reduce the insurance costs estimates
that LOBO references from Turner, and suggests that those costs are
also significantly lower. LOBO failed to provide how this third party
statistical data is captured, substantiated, or verified. In the NPRM,
the FAA determined that the cost savings benefits allowing the use of
TAA would be about $9.7 million or $8 million in present value at a 7
percent discount rate. This was based on half of all initial single
engine commercial pilot applicants (based on the number of certificates
issued in previous years) using a TAA aircraft for training and on the
practical test. This also included cost savings associated with those
who would train and use a TAA for the flight instructor airplane
practical test.\67\ The FAA believes this is a very conservative
estimate and it is likely that more than half will take advantage of
using a less expensive TAA airplane for the commercial pilot experience
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ NTSB data available at https://app.ntsb.gov/avdata/ or
contact the National Transportation Safety Board at 202-314-6000 and
ask to be transferred to the Safety Research and Statistical
Analysis Division and request a query of the database.
\67\ 81 FR 29719, May 12, 2016 (and the associated regulatory
evaluation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOBO disagreed with the FAA's position that there are certain
challenges with availability, maintenance and cost of complex
airplanes. Specifically, LOBO stated that the FAA's position that
airplanes with retractable landing gear are unavailable for purchase,
expensive to maintain, and are not equipped with glass cockpits, is
false. LOBO noted that it is aware of at least one retractable gear
airplane with a Garmin G500 cockpit and that there are single engine
retractable gear airplanes suitable for flight training available at
affordable prices, but did not provide any specific data. One
individual acknowledged the higher maintenance costs for complex
airplanes, but also noted the higher acquisition costs for TAAs. This
individual explained that there is little cost difference to the
student because the equally high maintenance and acquisition costs are
passed on to the renter. Another individual believed that the initial
acquisition costs for TAAs makes the cost of training in TAA far
greater than in complex airplanes.
Based on public comment, the GAMA shipment database, and discussion
with large general aviation organizations, the current fleet of
available complex airplanes is decreasing. Many commenters describe
limited or no availability of complex airplanes for rent. New
production of these types of complex airplanes used for initial flight
training is at an all-time low,\68\ and maintenance costs for many of
those older complex airplanes is steadily increasing. As noted
previously, other commenters discussed the difficulty of obtaining
parts and the associated cost. Additionally, the FAA never stated that
complex airplanes do not have glass cockpits. The LOBO statement
describing a new complex airplane with a G500 glass cockpit at an
affordable cost is contradictory to the current understanding of the
high cost for such complex airplanes. Also, the commenter's reference
to higher acquisition costs for TAA fails to take into account that the
acquisition cost for a retractable gear airplane of the same year of
production as a TAA aircraft, is also equally expensive if not more so
[[Page 30252]]
than a TAA.\69\ It may be true that there are older less expensive
complex airplanes available, but again, the limited availability,
difficulty of obtaining parts and the cost associated with maintenance
and refurbishing these older aircraft, makes their use cost
prohibitive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ The General Aviation Manufacturers Association website
shows Cessna has not produced a piston engine retractable gear
airplane since 1985 and Piper has produced only 28 piston engine
airplanes with retractable gear since 2008 (16 being the Piper Arrow
model). Production for Beechcraft is also at an all-time low for
piston single engine airplanes with retractable gear.
\69\ See www.controller.com (listing the price of a 2017 C-172
with G1000 equipment (non-complex) at $403,295 on June 15, 2017);
SkyTech Piper Dealer (quoting the price of a 2017 Piper Arrow
(complex) at $466,880 on June 15, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA also received comments on ensuring the flight instructor
providing the training in a complex airplane or TAA is qualified to
provide the training. Specifically, SAFE recommended the FAA amend
Sec. 61.195 to require a flight instructor to have at least 10 hours
of PIC time in a complex airplane prior to giving instruction in a
complex airplane and at least 10 hours of PIC time in a TAA prior to
giving instruction in a TAA. An individual also recommended requiring
flight instructors to have 10 hours of PIC time in a complex airplane.
The FAA is not requiring a flight instructor to obtain a minimum of
10 hours as PIC in a complex airplane prior to instructing in a complex
airplane. As discussed previously, the FAA finds that the current
training and endorsement requirement to act as PIC of a complex
airplane as set forth in Sec. 61.31, in conjunction with the flight
instructor's demonstrated knowledge of the fundamentals of instruction,
is sufficient to ensure that this type of training is provided
effectively. Furthermore, the ability to provide training in a complex
airplane without having been evaluated on a practical test is
consistent with other Sec. 61.31 endorsements, including high
performance aircraft, tailwheel aircraft, and high altitude operations.
Additionally, the FAA is not requiring a flight instructor to
obtain 10 hours as PIC in a TAA prior to instructing in a TAA. The
proposal was intended only to introduce commercial pilot candidates to
TAAs. Flight instructors are currently permitted to provide flight
training in airplanes with glass-cockpits without having to receive any
specific amount of training in the aircraft. Therefore, allowing a
flight instructor to provide flight instruction in a TAA without first
receiving extensive training in the TAA will not result in a decreased
level of safety. Flight instructors have the responsibility of ensuring
their familiarity with an aircraft prior to providing flight
instruction in that aircraft.
Furthermore, since the NPRM, the FAA has determined that the
requirement in Sec. 61.129(b)(3)(ii) that a seaplane have flaps and a
controllable pitch propeller has not been updated to reflect the
revised definition of ``complex airplane'' in Sec. 61.1. In 2011, the
FAA amended the definition of ``complex airplane'' to include airplanes
and seaplanes equipped with a full authority digital engine control
(FADEC).\70\ The FAA is, therefore, adding language to Sec.
61.129(b)(3)(ii) to accommodate seaplanes equipped with a FADEC
consistent with the definition of complex airplane in Sec. 61.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ Final Rule, ``Pilot in Command Proficiency Check and Other
Changes to the Pilot and Pilot School Certification Rules, 76 FR
54095, 54101 (Aug. 31, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Amendments to Commercial Pilot and Flight Instructor Practical Test
Standards
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to revise the commercial pilot single
engine airplane practical test standards (PTS) to permit the use of a
TAA in place of a complex or turbine-powered airplane during the
initial practical test.\71\ The FAA also proposed to revise the flight
instructor single engine airplane PTS to permit the flight instructor
applicant to use a TAA during the initial practical test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ Prior to this final rule, the commercial pilot PTS for
airplane required a pilot to use a complex or turbine-powered
airplane for takeoff and landing maneuvers and appropriate emergency
tasks for the initial practical test for a commercial pilot
certificate with an airplane category. Similarly, the flight
instructor PTS for airplane required an instructor candidate to use
a complex airplane for the performance of takeoff and landing
maneuvers as well as appropriate emergency procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AOPA supported the proposed changes to the commercial pilot and
flight instructor PTS because they are necessary to carry out the
proposed amendments to Sec. 61.129(c)(3)(ii) and appendix D to part
141.
UND recommended the FAA not require an applicant to use a TAA for
the flight instructor practical test. UND described that, according to
the flight instructor single engine airplane PTS, the TAA would be
needed for ``takeoff and landing maneuvers as well as appropriate
emergency procedures'' and questioned why a two axis autopilot is
needed to demonstrate proficiency for takeoff and landings in a VFR
traffic pattern. UND suggested that this PTS requirement should be
removed from a PTS that focuses on VFR maneuvers. UND requested the
removal of both the complex airplane and the TAA airplane requirement
from the flight instructor single engine airplane PTS.
Upon further review, the FAA decided not to revise the commercial
pilot airman certification standards (ACS) and flight instructor PTS to
include the option to use a TAA during the commercial pilot (single-
engine airplane) or flight instructor (single-engine airplane)
practical tests.\72\ Instead, the FAA removed from the commercial pilot
ACS the requirement to provide a complex or turbine powered airplane
for the initial practical test.\73\ Additionally, the FAA removed from
the flight instructor PTS the requirement to provide a complex airplane
for the practical test.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ The FAA is in the process of replacing the practical test
standards (PTS) with the airman certification standards (ACS).
\73\ Notice N 8900.463, Use of a Complex Airplane During a
Commercial Pilot or Flight Instructor Practical Test (Apr. 24, 2018)
(outlining a change in policy regarding the testing of applicants
for a commercial pilot or flight instructor certificate), available
at https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Notice/N_8900.463.pdf.
The FAA no longer requires applicants for a commercial pilot
certificate with an airplane single-engine rating to provide a
complex or turbine-powered airplane for the associated practical
test. Id.
\74\ The FAA no longer requires applicants for a flight
instructor certificate with an airplane single-engine rating to
provide a complex airplane for the practical test. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained in the NPRM, there are far fewer single engine complex
airplanes available to meet the ACS requirement, and the single engine
complex airplanes that are available are older aircraft that are
expensive to maintain. Revising the airmen certification standards to
include the option to use a TAA for the commercial pilot and flight
instructor practical tests would have alleviated some of the cost,
maintenance and production issues associated with single engine complex
airplanes. However, the FAA found that removing the ACS requirements to
furnish a complex or turbine powered airplane achieves the same
objectives. Additionally, the FAA determined that removing these ACS/
PTS requirements, rather than adding the option to use a TAA, more
significantly reduces costs for persons pursuing a commercial pilot or
flight instructor certificate by allowing applicants to utilize less
expensive airplanes on the practical test that are not turbine driven,
complex, or technically advanced. Furthermore, the FAA found that no
longer requiring a complex airplane to be furnished for the initial
commercial pilot or flight instructor practical test will not result in
a decreased level of safety. Airplanes provided for the practical test
will be less complex, newer, and not as likely to fail due to
mechanical and maintenance issues associated with older single engine
complex airplanes. Additionally, prior to operating as PIC of a complex
airplane, a pilot is still required to receive flight training and an
endorsement from an authorized
[[Page 30253]]
instructor certifying his or her proficiency in a complex airplane.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ 14 CFR 61.31(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA concluded that any airplane may be used to accomplish the
tasks described in the commercial pilot (single-engine) ACS or flight
instructor (single-engine) PTS, provided that aircraft is capable of
accomplishing all areas of operation required for the practical test
and is the appropriate category and class for the rating sought.\76\
Therefore, the aircraft used for the practical test must still meet the
requirements specified in Sec. 61.45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ 14 CFR 61.45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Flight Instructors With Instrument Ratings Only
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to revise Sec. 61.195(b) and (c) to
allow a flight instructor who holds only an instrument-airplane or
instrument-helicopter rating on his or her flight instructor
certificate to conduct instrument training.\77\ As proposed, the flight
instructor and the pilot receiving instrument training would both have
been required to hold category and class ratings on their pilot
certificates that are applicable to the aircraft in which the
instrument training is accomplished. Therefore, under this proposal,
the flight instructor would no longer have been required to hold the
appropriate category and class ratings in addition to the instrument
rating on his or her flight instructor certificate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ Section 61.195 sets forth the limitations and
qualifications for flight instructors. Prior to this final rule,
under Sec. 61.195(b), an instructor could not conduct flight
training in any aircraft for which the instructor did not hold a
pilot certificate and flight instructor certificate with the
applicable category and class ratings for the aircraft in which the
training was provided. Additionally, under Sec. 61.195(c), a flight
instructor who provided instrument training for the issuance of an
instrument rating, a type rating not limited to VFR, or the
instrument training required for commercial pilot and ATP
certificates was required to hold an instrument rating on his or her
pilot certificate and flight instructor certificate that was
appropriate to the category and class of aircraft used for the
training.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA received four comments on this proposal. Three commenters
supported the proposed changes to Sec. 61.195(b) and (c); one
individual opposed them.
American Flyers stated that if an instrument instructor holds the
appropriate category and class on his or her commercial pilot
certificate, he or she has already demonstrated proficiency on the
tasks required for the commercial practical test. Eagle Sport stated
that instrument procedures are standard across the board and instrument
instructors should be qualified to teach them. One individual believed
that removing the requirement of category and class for instrument
instructors makes absolute sense and instrument flying and the
regulations are the same no matter what aircraft is being flown.
The FAA recognizes that instrument procedures are fundamentally
consistent within a particular category of aircraft and that the same
instrument flight rules apply in the NAS regardless of what aircraft is
being flown. However, upon further review, the FAA has determined that
a flight instructor who does not possess an airplane category
multiengine class rating on his or her flight instructor certificate
has not been trained and tested on giving instruction in a multiengine
airplane, specifically instruction on one-engine inoperative tasks. The
Flight Instructor Instrument Practical Test Standards (PTS) are not the
same for single-engine and multiengine airplanes because the PTS
contains two tasks that are specific to multiengine airplanes.\78\ If
an applicant is completing the flight instructor instrument practical
test in a multiengine airplane, the standards direct the examiner to
have the applicant perform at least one of the following tasks: (1) An
engine failure during straight-and-level flight and turns (Task IX. C);
or (2) an instrument approach with one engine inoperative (Task IX.
D).\79\ Similarly, the Flight Instructor Airplane PTS contains
additional tasks for persons completing the practical test in a
multiengine airplane, including tasks related to operating a
multiengine airplane with one engine inoperative. Therefore, a flight
instructor who holds an instrument rating and an airplane category
multiengine class rating on his or her flight instructor certificate
has been trained and tested on conducting training in a multiengine
airplane to include one-engine inoperative maneuvers and/or approaches.
The FAA emphasizes that an initial flight instructor candidate who
completes a flight instructor instrument-airplane rating practical test
in a single engine airplane has not been trained and tested on
providing instruction in a multiengine airplane to include these one-
engine inoperative tasks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR INSTRUMENT Practical Test Standards for
AIRPLANE and HELICOPTER, FAA-S-8081-9D with Changes 1 & 2, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration (July
2010). In ``IX. Area of Operation: Emergency Operations,'' the FAA
notes that ``[t]he examiner shall omit TASKS C and D unless the
applicant furnishes a multiengine airplane for the practical test,
then TASK C or D is mandatory.''
\79\ The Flight Instructor Instrument PTS does not contain
separate tasks for applicants completing the practical test in a
multiengine helicopter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the interest of safety, the FAA has determined that, in order to
provide instrument instruction in a multiengine airplane competently
and safely, the flight instructor must have been trained and tested on
giving instruction in a multiengine airplane including instruction on
one-engine inoperative tasks. Any task required for the multiengine
airplane rating has the potential for becoming a single engine
operation. Verification of flight instructor proficiency in teaching
emergency scenarios such as a loss of an engine during multiengine
operations ensures that flight instructors can successfully mitigate
such risk and safely provide instrument training in multiengine
airplanes.
Therefore, the FAA is revising proposed Sec. 61.195(c) by adding
new paragraph (c)(2), which requires a flight instructor who possesses
an instrument rating on his or her flight instructor certificate to
also possess an airplane category multiengine class rating on his or
her flight instructor certificate when conducting instrument training
in a multiengine airplane.\80\ Section 61.195(c)(1) contains the
proposed requirement, which has been revised to apply only to flight
instructors giving instrument instruction in aircraft other than
multiengine airplanes. Thus, Sec. 61.195(c)(1) allows an instrument-
only flight instructor to conduct instrument training in an aircraft
(other than multiengine airplanes) provided the instructor and the
pilot receiving instrument training hold category and class ratings on
their pilot certificates that are applicable to the aircraft in which
the instrument training is accomplished.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ Section 61.195(c)(2) requires a flight instructor
conducting instrument training in a multiengine airplane to meet the
requirements of Sec. 61.195(b), which requires the flight
instructor to hold the applicable category and class rating on his
or her flight instructor certificate.
\81\ As the FAA noted in the NPRM, the powered-lift category
does not contain any corresponding class ratings, on either a pilot
certificate or flight instructor certificate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA is also revising Sec. 61.195(e) to clarify that a flight
instructor may not give instrument training in an aircraft that
requires the PIC to hold a type rating unless the flight instructor
holds a type rating for that aircraft on his or her pilot certificate.
While this revision was not proposed in the NPRM, flight instruction
includes instrument training; \82\ therefore, former Sec. 61.195(e)
[[Page 30254]]
would have applied to flight instructors conducting instrument training
under paragraph (c). The FAA is revising paragraph (e) only for
clarity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ Under Sec. 61.1, ``Instrument training'' means that time
in which instrument training is received from an authorized
instructor under actual or simulated conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One individual, who is identified as a flight instructor, believed
that an instrument-only flight instructor may not possess the skills
necessary to manipulate the aircraft if the pilot flying loses control
of the aircraft. The commenter further stated that instrument-only
flight instructors do not have to demonstrate stalls or spin
proficiency on the practical test, and described observing many pilots
on instrument proficiency checks incorrectly recovering from an unusual
attitude training event pushing the aircraft closer to a stall/spin
scenario.
For the reasons explained above, the FAA agrees that an instrument-
only flight instructor may not possess the skills needed to conduct
instrument training in a multiengine airplane and is revising proposed
Sec. 61.195(c) accordingly. However, the FAA believes that a flight
instructor with only an instrument-airplane rating or instrument-
helicopter rating possesses the skills necessary to conduct instrument
training in an aircraft (other than a multiengine airplane). The Flight
Instructor Instrument Airplane and Helicopter PTS states that examiners
shall place special emphasis upon areas of aircraft operations
considered critical to flight safety, including positive aircraft
control, stall/spin awareness, and other areas deemed appropriate to
any phase of the practical test.\83\ Additionally, because Sec.
61.195(c)(1) requires the flight instructor and the pilot receiving the
instrument training to hold on their pilot certificates the appropriate
category and class ratings in advance of the instrument training, both
the instructor and the applicant will have already been found
proficient in stall prevention, recognition, and recovery for the
aircraft in which the instrument training will be accomplished.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR INSTRUMENT Practical Test Standards for
AIRPLANE and HELICOPTER, FAA-S-8081-9D with Changes 1 & 2, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration (July
2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, the FAA is revising and restructuring proposed Sec.
61.195(b) for clarity. Proposed Sec. 61.195(b)(2) would have required
the flight instructor to hold a pilot certificate with a type rating,
if appropriate. The FAA finds that this language could have been
interpreted as requiring the flight instructor to hold a type rating,
which was not the FAA's intent. Prior to this final rule, Sec.
61.195(b) required a flight instructor to hold a type rating only if
appropriate. The FAA did not propose to change this requirement.
Therefore, the FAA is revising proposed Sec. 61.195(b) to require the
flight instructor to hold a flight instructor certificate appropriate
to category and class; to hold a pilot certificate; and to meet the
requirements of Sec. 61.195(e), if applicable. Section 61.195(e)
requires a flight instructor to hold a type rating on his or her pilot
certificate if the aircraft requires the PIC to hold a type rating.
The FAA will revise FAA Order 8900.1 to be consistent with the
flight instructor privileges and limitations associated with this rule.
Additionally, these instructor privileges and limitations described for
instrument training in an aircraft will also be applicable to training
credits permitted when using an FFS, FTD, or ATD.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ 14 CFR 61.65(h) and (i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Light-Sport Aircraft Pilots and Flight Instructors
1. Sport Pilot Flight Instructor Training Privilege
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to add new Sec. 61.412 to authorize
a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating to provide training on
control and maneuvering solely by reference to the instruments to sport
pilot applicants receiving flight training for the purpose of solo
cross-country requirements in an airplane that has a Vh
greater than 87 knots CAS.\85\ Because a flight instructor with a sport
pilot rating is not evaluated on this instructional knowledge, the FAA
proposed to require a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating to
receive training and an endorsement from a flight instructor
certificated under subpart H that affirms the flight instructor with a
sport pilot rating has been found competent and is qualified to provide
flight training on tasks and maneuvers performed solely by reference to
the flight instruments.\86\ Proposed Sec. 61.412(b) would have
required the flight instructor with a sport pilot rating to receive a
minimum of 1 hour of ground training and 3 hours of flight training in
an airplane with a Vh greater than 87 knots CAS or in a FFS
or FTD that replicates an airplane with a Vh greater than 87
knots CAS.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ Prior to this final rule, a flight instructor with a sport
pilot rating was not allowed to provide training on control and
maneuvering solely by reference to the instruments. However, sport
pilot applicants are required to receive this training for the
purpose of solo cross-country requirements in an airplane that has a
Vh greater than 87 knots CAS. 14 CFR 61.93(e)(12).
Therefore, prior to this final rule, sport pilot applicants were
required to obtain this training from a flight instructor
certificated under subpart H of part 61.
\86\ A flight instructor with a sport pilot rating is not
required to receive this endorsement. The endorsement will only be
required if the flight instructor with a sport pilot rating seeks
the privilege of providing training to sport pilot applicants on
maneuvering solely by reference to the flight instruments.
\87\ Private pilot applicants have a similar requirement under
Sec. 61.109(a)(3) that requires 3 hours of flight training in a
single-engine airplane on the control and maneuvering of an airplane
solely by reference to instruments, including straight and level
flight, constant airspeed climbs and descents, turns to a heading,
recovery from unusual flight altitudes, radio communications, and
the use of navigation systems/facilities and radar services
appropriate to instrument flight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA also proposed to revise Sec. 61.415 by adding a new
paragraph (h) to clarify that a flight instructor with a sport pilot
rating may not conduct flight training on control and maneuvering an
aircraft solely by reference to the instruments in an airplane that has
a Vh greater than 87 knots CAS without meeting the
requirements in proposed Sec. 61.412. Additionally, the FAA proposed
to revise Sec. 91.109(c) to permit a flight instructor with a sport
pilot rating who has obtained the endorsement proposed in Sec. 61.412
to serve as a safety pilot only for the purpose of providing flight
training on control and maneuvering solely by reference to the
instruments to a sport pilot applicant seeking a solo cross country
endorsement in an airplane with a Vh greater than 87 knots
CAS.
The FAA received six comments regarding this proposal. All
commenters supported the FAA allowing flight instructors with a sport
pilot rating to provide training to sport pilot applicants on control
and maneuvering solely by reference to the flight instruments. However,
each commenter expressed concern and offered revisions to proposed
Sec. 61.412.
AOPA, Chesapeake Sport Pilot (2 individuals), and one individual
recommended the FAA except flight instructors with a sport pilot rating
who also hold at least a private pilot certificate with a single-engine
airplane rating from the proposed Sec. 61.412 training requirement.
The FAA is not providing an exception to the training and
endorsement requirements of Sec. 61.412 for flight instructors with a
sport pilot rating who also possess a private pilot certificate or
higher. As the FAA explained in the NPRM, Sec. 61.412(b) involves
flight training for the purpose of giving instruction on control and
maneuvering solely by reference to the instruments. While a person who
holds at least a private pilot certificate with a single-engine
airplane rating has received three hours of flight training in a
single-engine airplane on the control
[[Page 30255]]
and maneuvering of an airplane solely by reference to the instruments
pursuant to Sec. 61.109(a)(3), he or she has not received training
specific to ``giving instruction'' on control and maneuvering solely by
reference to the instruments. Therefore, the training requirements of
Sec. 61.412(b) are not duplicative to Sec. 61.109(a)(3).
Eagle Sport LLC commented that requiring a flight instructor with a
sport pilot rating to obtain additional instruction and an endorsement
in order to provide training on control and maneuvering solely by
reference to the flight instruments is needlessly cumbersome. One
individual commenter suggested that an endorsement may be sufficient
(without the need for a specific training time requirement).
The FAA is requiring a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating
to receive and log a minimum of one hour of ground training and three
hours of flight training, as proposed. As stated in the NPRM,\88\ the
basic instrument flight training should involve flight training for the
purpose of giving instruction on control and maneuvering solely by
reference to the flight instruments, including straight and level
flight, turns, descents, climbs, use of radio aids, and air traffic
control directives.\89\ Therefore, Sec. 61.412(c) requires a flight
instructor with a sport pilot rating to receive training for the
purpose of giving instruction on the tasks specified in Sec.
61.93(e)(12), as proposed. The FAA believes that a minimum amount of
training time on the tasks specified in Sec. 61.412(c) and an
endorsement certifying proficiency in those tasks are necessary to
ensure that a flight instructor with only a sport pilot rating has the
experience, proficiency, and skills necessary to provide his or her
sport pilot students with the training and skills required to safely
operate a light-sport aircraft solely by reference to the flight
instruments.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ 81 FR at 29734.
\89\ 14 CFR 61.93(e)(12).
\90\ Section 61.315 prescribes the privileges and limitations of
a person who holds a sport pilot certificate. Under Sec. 61.315(c),
a person who holds a sport pilot certificate may not act as PIC of a
light sport aircraft when the flight or surface visibility is less
than 3 statute miles, or without visual reference to the surface.
The FAA notes that receiving flight instruction on control and
maneuvering solely by reference to the flight instruments does not
give a sport pilot privileges to operate contrary to the limitations
established in Sec. 61.315(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAFE agreed that a one-time endorsement is appropriate, but
asserted that the minimum training requirement is insufficient. SAFE
recommended that the flight instructor with a sport pilot rating be
required to demonstrate all the tasks described in the Private Pilot
ACS Area VIII, Task F.
The FAA disagrees with SAFE's assertion. The training and
subsequent endorsement that will be provided to the flight instructor
with a sport pilot rating is not meant to be a practical test and
should not be treated as such. The instructor providing the training
can make the determination of competency without referencing the PTS
standards. The training and endorsement required under Sec. 61.412 is
similar in nature to the other training and endorsements instructors
provide, such as for high performance, complex, or tailwheel airplanes.
SAFE also stated that it is unclear what ``use of radio aids and
ATC directives'' means under proposed Sec. 61.412(c). To more clearly
define it, SAFE suggested referencing the ``Private Pilot ACS Area
VIII, Task F, Radio Communications, Navigation Systems/Facilities, and
Radar Services'' instead.
Because Sec. 61.412(c) requires the flight instructor with a sport
pilot rating to receive an endorsement certifying that the instructor
is proficient in providing the flight training specified in Sec.
61.93(e)(12), the FAA is describing the flight training in Sec.
61.412(c) by using language that mirrors the language of Sec.
61.93(e)(12). Thus, the language ``use of radio aids and ATC
directives'' does not introduce a new concept into the regulations. It
has been used in 14 CFR 61.93 since 1997.\91\ Flight instructors
authorized under subpart H of part 61 have been conducting the flight
training required by Sec. 61.93, which includes ``use of radio aids
and ATC directives,'' for over 20 years. The FAA believes the phrase
``use of radio aids and ATC directives'' is sufficiently clear.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ Final Rule, ``Pilot, Flight Instructor, Ground Instructor,
and Pilot School Certification Rules,'' 62 FR 16220 (Apr. 4, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAFE also stated that it is unclear what type of instructor would
be authorized under subpart H. SAFE questioned if this should be any
flight instructor that meets the appropriate category and class
requirement, an instrument flight instructor, or an instructor who
meets the requirements to provide instruction for an initial flight
instructor certificate applicant. SAFE suggested the training be
provided by an instructor with substantial experience who also meets
the requirements to provide training for the initial flight instructor
certificate.
The FAA intended for any flight instructor authorized under subpart
H to provide the requisite training and endorsement to a flight
instructor with a sport pilot rating. However, in its own continued
review of the NPRM, the FAA discovered that the express language of
Sec. 61.195(c) would have prohibited an instrument-only flight
instructor from providing flight training on the control and
maneuvering of an airplane solely by reference to the flight
instruments. As explained in the NPRM, a subpart H instructor is
instrument rated and knowledgeable on the appropriate techniques for
safely accomplishing flight by reference to the flight instruments.
Because flight training on the control and maneuvering of an airplane
solely by reference to the flight instruments is not instrument
training, it may be provided by a flight instructor who does not hold
an instrument rating on his or her flight instructor certificate.\92\
The FAA, therefore, concludes that a flight instructor who holds an
instrument rating on his or her flight instructor certificate that is
appropriate to the aircraft in which the training is provided should
also be allowed to provide flight training on the control and
maneuvering of an airplane solely by reference to the flight
instruments. Accordingly, the FAA is adding new paragraph (l) to Sec.
61.195 to expressly allow an instrument-only instructor to provide this
training notwithstanding Sec. 61.195(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ Legal Interpretation, Letter to Scott Rohlfing from Lorelei
Peter, Acting Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations (Feb 24,
2016); Legal Interpretation, Letter to Taylor Grayson from Rebecca
B. MacPherson, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations (Jan. 4,
2010); Legal Interpretation, Letter to Taylor Grayson from Rebecca
B. MacPherson, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations (July 6,
2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA understands that a flight instructor with a sport pilot
rating has already demonstrated proficiency in the fundamentals of
instruction and course development. A flight instructor with a sport
pilot rating is evaluated and then qualified on the fundamentals of
flight instruction before receiving a flight instructor
certificate.\93\ That same flight instructor with a sport pilot rating
will then receive additional training from a flight instructor
authorized under subpart H, specific to giving instruction on control
and maneuvering solely by reference to the instruments. The FAA
believes this will enable the flight instructor with a sport pilot
rating to provide the training under Sec. 61.93(e)(12) effectively and
safely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ FAA-S-8081-29 SPORT PILOT Practical Test Standards for
Flight Instructor Pg. 4-13, I. AREA OF OPERATION: FUNDAMENTALS OF
INSTRUCTING.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AOPA recommended the FAA revise proposed Sec. 61.412(b) to allow
flight instructors with a sport pilot rating to receive the required
three hours of flight training in an ATD. AOPA explained
[[Page 30256]]
that a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating who holds an
endorsement under Sec. 61.327(b) has already been found proficient in
an airplane with a Vh greater than 87 knots CAS.
Additionally, because the flight instructor with a sport pilot rating
and the sport pilot student will not be rated to fly under IFR, all the
training to be conducted under proposed Sec. Sec. 61.412 and
61.93(e)(12) will be performed under simulated instrument
meteorological conditions, not actual instrument meteorological
conditions. Lastly, AOPA also stated that limitations on the use of
certain ATDs being used for this type of flight training can be imposed
by the LOA process when the FAA evaluates and approves an ATD.
The FAA recognizes that proposed Sec. 61.412(b) would have allowed
the three hours of flight training to be conducted in an airplane with
a Vh greater than 87 knots CAS, or in a FFS or FTD that
replicated an airplane with a Vh greater than 87 knots CAS.
The FAA did not intend to preclude the use of ATDs under this
provision. Because ATDs are currently permitted to satisfy training
requirements for the instrument rating and recency, the FAA finds that
they should also be allowed to satisfy the flight training requirements
of Sec. 61.412(b). Accordingly, the FAA is revising proposed Sec.
61.412(b) to also allow the use of ATDs, as AOPA recommended.
AOPA also recommended clarifying changes to proposed Sec. 61.412.
First, AOPA recommended revising the proposed rule language to clarify
that the solo cross-country endorsement is not issued pursuant to Sec.
61.93(e)(12). Rather, the required flight training maneuvers and
procedures are listed under Sec. 61.93(e)(12). Second, AOPA stated
that Sec. 61.327 requires two different endorsements. AOPA recommended
referencing Sec. 61.327(b), rather than Sec. 61.327 in its entirety,
because paragraph (b) requires the endorsement for sport pilots who
want to operate a light-sport aircraft that has a Vh greater
than 87 knots CAS.
The FAA is revising proposed Sec. 61.412 to clarify that the
flight training on control and maneuvering an aircraft solely by
reference to the instruments is provided under Sec. 61.93(e)(12), and
the solo cross-country endorsement is issued under Sec. 61.93(c)(1).
Additionally, the FAA is using the phrase ``student pilot seeking a
sport pilot certificate,'' rather than the proposed term ``sport pilot
applicant,'' because it more accurately describes the pilots who must
obtain the solo-cross country endorsement under Sec. 61.93(c)(1). The
phrase ``student pilot seeking a sport pilot certificate'' is also
consistent with the terminology that exists in current Sec.
61.93(e)(12). Furthermore, the FAA is referencing Sec. 61.327(b) for
the reasons identified by AOPA.
Eagle Sport LLC expressed concern with requiring student pilots
seeking a sport pilot certificate to receive training on flight solely
by reference to the flight instruments as part of training for cross-
country flight if operating a light sport airplane that has a
Vh greater than 87 knots CAS.
This requirement has existed since February 1, 2010.\94\ The NPRM
did not propose any changes to this requirement; therefore, Eagle Sport
LLC's comments on this provision are outside the scope of this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ Certification of Aircraft and Airmen for the Operation of
Light-Sport Aircraft; Modifications to Rules for Sport Pilot, 75 FR
5204 (Feb. 1, 2010). The FAA removed the training requirement for
student pilots seeking a sport pilot certificate to receive training
in the control and maneuvering of an airplane solely by reference to
flight instruments prior to conducting solo cross-country flight in
an aircraft other than airplanes with a VH greater than
87 knots CAS. 75 FR at 5211.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One commenter recommended the FAA add instrument time to the
requirements for flight instructors with a sport pilot rating. The FAA
is not adopting this recommendation. The FAA finds it unnecessary to
require a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating to obtain
instrument training because a sport pilot may not operate when the
flight or surface visibility is less than 3 statute miles, or without
visual reference to the surface.\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ 14 CFR 61.315(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA notes that Sec. Sec. 61.415 and 91.109 remain unchanged
from the NPRM. The FAA also notes that it will revise AC 61-65F to
include the appropriate endorsement language that can be used when
authorizing a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating.
2. Credit for Training Obtained as a Sport Pilot
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to revise Sec. 61.99 and add new
Sec. 61.109(l) to allow a portion of the flight training received from
a sport pilot instructor who does not also hold a flight instructor
certificate issued under the requirements in subpart H to be credited
toward a portion of the flight training requirements for a recreational
or private pilot certificate with airplane, rotorcraft, or lighter-
than-air categories.\96\ The FAA proposed that any training received
from a sport pilot instructor that would be credited must be completed
in an aircraft appropriate to the category and class rating for the
recreational or private pilot certificate sought.\97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ Under Sec. 61.51(h), a person may log training time when
that person receives training from an authorized instructor in an
aircraft, FFS, or FTD. A sport pilot instructor is not authorized to
conduct training for a recreational pilot certificate or a private
pilot certificate with airplane, rotorcraft, glider, or lighter-
than-air category ratings. 14 CFR 61.413. Therefore, prior to this
final rule, under Sec. 61.51(h), a pilot could not count flight
training received from a flight instructor with only a sport pilot
rating (subpart K instructor) towards the training requirements for
a recreational pilot certificate or private pilot certificate with
category ratings other than powered parachute and weight-shift
control aircraft.
\97\ For the airplane category single engine class, the FAA
proposed to allow 10 hours of sport pilot training to be credited
toward the 15 hours of training required for a recreational pilot
certificate and toward the 20 hours of training required for the
private pilot certificate. For the rotorcraft category gyroplane
class, the FAA proposed to allow 10 hours of sport pilot training to
be credited toward the 15 hours of training required for the
recreational pilot certificate and toward the 20 hours of training
required for the private pilot certificate. For the lighter-than-air
category airship class, the FAA proposed to allow 12.5 hours of
sport pilot training to be credited toward the 25 hours of training
required for the private pilot certificate. For the lighter-than-air
category balloon class, the FAA proposed to allow 5 hours of sport
pilot training, including 3 training flights with an authorized
instructor, to be credited toward the 10 hours of flight training,
including 6 training flights with an authorized instructor, required
for a private pilot certificate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As an alternative, the FAA considered allowing all training
received from a sport pilot instructor to be credited by an applicant
seeking a recreational or private pilot certificate. An applicant would
still be required to obtain a minimum of three hours of training in
preparation for the practical test (within the preceding 2 calendar
months) from a flight instructor under subpart H,\98\ as well as be
endorsed by a flight instructor under subpart H as being prepared for
the required practical test. The FAA sought public comment, and any
associated data, on this alternative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ 14 CFR 61.109(a)(4), (d)(3), and (g)(3). The FAA notes,
however, that a person who applies for a private pilot certificate
with a lighter-than-air category and balloon class rating is
required to obtain a minimum of 2 hours in preparation for the
practical test within the preceding 2 calendar months from the month
of the test. 14 CFR 61.109(h)(1) and (2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA received 13 comments on this proposal. Twelve commenters
supported the proposed rule changes; one commenter opposed them.
EAA, AOPA, one individual, and two commenters writing on behalf of
Chesapeake Sport Pilot recommended that all the training time received
from a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating be allowed for
credit for the recreational or private pilot certificate. Both EAA and
AOPA indicated that the same fundamental knowledge is required for the
sport pilot certificate as other pilot certificates, that many of the
flight training requirements and tasks
[[Page 30257]]
are the same, and that the credit limit does not provide a safety
benefit. AOPA stated there are sufficient safeguards in place,
including subpart H instructor training and endorsements, to ensure
that a sport pilot will be properly qualified for the recreational or
private pilot certificate and to ensure there is not a reduction in
proficiency or safety. EAA and one individual stated that a flight
instructor with a sport pilot rating is equally capable of providing
instruction on the areas common to the sport, recreational, and private
pilot certificates as a subpart H instructor. Several commenters,
including EAA, noted how the proposal would lower the cost and provide
a viable path for those pursuing higher certificates. One individual
supported the proposal, noting how the current regulations imply that a
flight instructor with a sport pilot rating is less qualified than a
subpart H instructor.
After review of the comments and further analysis, the FAA has
decided to allow all training received from a flight instructor with a
sport pilot rating to be credited by an applicant seeking a
recreational or private pilot certificate. The FAA recognizes that an
applicant for a sport pilot certificate must complete flight training
on many of the same areas of operation required for a recreational or
private pilot certificate.\99\ Additionally, as explained in the NPRM,
many of the tasks and maneuvers outlined in the practical test
standards for a sport pilot are the same as those outlined in the
practical test standards for recreational or private pilot.\100\ In
fact, these areas of operation must be performed to identical
proficiency standards.\101\ Therefore, the FAA believes that all
training received as a sport pilot candidate is relative to the
aeronautical experience required for a higher certificate. Accordingly,
the FAA is not going to limit the sport pilot training that may be
credited toward a higher certificate to a prescriptive number of hours.
The FAA notes, however, that sport pilots applying for a higher
certificate are still required to complete all the requirements for the
specific certificate or rating sought, which includes additional
training provided by a subpart H instructor and successful completion
of the knowledge test and practical test.\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\99\ 81 FR at 29735.
\100\ Id.
\101\ Id.
\102\ Sections 61.99 and 61.109 contain the aeronautical
experience requirements for recreational and private pilot
certificates, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, before receiving solo cross-country privileges, all
student pilots pursuing a sport pilot (in airplanes with a
Vh greater than 87 knots calibrated airspeed (KCAS)),
recreational pilot, or private pilot certificate in a single engine
airplane must receive the training specified in Sec. 61.93(e)(12) that
includes control and maneuvering solely by reference to flight
instruments, including straight and level flight, turns, descents,
climbs, use of radio aids, and ATC directives. In recognition that
these training tasks are similar to the ones described in Sec.
61.109(a)(3), which requires ``control and maneuvering of an airplane
solely by reference to instruments, including straight and level
flight, constant airspeed climbs and descents, turns to a heading,
recovery from unusual flight attitudes, radio communications, and the
use of navigation systems/facilities and radar services'', the FAA will
allow training tasks described in Sec. 61.93(e)(12) provided to a
sport pilot candidate by a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating,
to be credited toward the private pilot training requirements specified
in Sec. 61.109(a)(3). This training credit will only be applicable if
the training was provided by a flight instructor with a sport pilot
rating who has received the training and endorsement required by Sec.
61.412.\103\ However, the FAA has identified that the requirement for
training specific to ``recovery from unusual attitudes'' specified in
Sec. 61.109(a)(3) must be accomplished by a subpart H instructor.
Sport pilot candidates are not required to receive training on recovery
from unusual attitudes under Sec. 61.93(e)(12). Therefore, Sec.
61.412, which allows flight instructors with a sport pilot rating to
provide the flight training under Sec. 61.93(e)(12) provided the
training and endorsement requirements are satisfied, does not require
flight instructors with a sport pilot rating to receive training from a
subpart H instructor on recovery from unusual attitudes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\103\ The FAA is adopting new Sec. 61.412 in this final rule.
Section 61.412 allows a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating
to provide flight training under Sec. 61.93(e)(12) on control and
maneuvering an aircraft solely by reference to the flight
instruments for the purpose of issuing a solo cross-country
endorsement under Sec. 61.93(c)(1) to a student pilot seeking a
sport pilot certificate, provided the flight instructor with a sport
pilot rating holds an endorsement required by Sec. 61.327(b), has
received and logged the required training specified in Sec.
61.412(b) from an authorized instructor, and has received a one-time
endorsement from a flight instructor authorized under subpart H who
certifies that the person is proficient in providing training on
control and maneuvering solely by reference to the instruments in an
airplane with a Vh greater than 87 knots CAS. See Section
III.E.1. Sport Pilot Flight Instructor Training Privilege of this
final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A student pilot seeking a sport pilot certificate is not tested on
basic instrument maneuvers during the sport pilot practical test.\104\
However, the holder of a sport pilot certificate who seeks a private
pilot certificate will be required under Sec. 61.109(a)(4) to receive
3 hours of flight training in a single-engine airplane with a flight
instructor authorized under subpart H in preparation for the private
pilot practical test. Because a large portion of the Private Pilot ACS
requires a demonstration of basic instrument flight maneuvers, a flight
instructor under subpart H must observe an applicant's proficiency
before endorsing the student pilot for the private pilot practical
test.\105\ As such, even though a sport pilot may credit basic
instrument flight training received from a flight instructor with a
sport pilot rating toward Sec. 61.109(a)(3), an applicant for a
private pilot certificate will likely receive as part of the training
required by Sec. 61.109(a)(4) a substantial amount of flight training
from a subpart H flight instructor on basic instrument flight
maneuvers, including straight and level flight, constant airspeed
climbs and descents, turns to a heading, recovery from unusual flight
attitudes, radio communications, and the use of navigation systems/
facilities and radar services appropriate to instrument flight.
Furthermore, a designated pilot examiner (DPE) will observe and test
the private pilot candidate on these basic instrument maneuvers
according to the proficiency standards in the private pilot ACS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ Sport Pilot Practical Test Standards (FAA-S-8081-29 Change
1, 2 and 3).
\105\ 14 CFR 61.103(f), and Private Pilot Certification
Standards (FAA-S-ACS-6A Change 1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA agrees with AOPA that sufficient safeguards are in place to
prevent any reduction in safety, including the additional training and
recommendations \106\ required and provided by a subpart H instructor
and the requirement for the applicant to pass a knowledge test and
practical test to the standards specified for that grade of
certificate. These safeguards would also include any additional
training not provided by a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating
that is explicit to the recreational or private pilot certificate.\107\
As previously stated, an applicant is also required to receive at least
3 hours of training in preparation for the practical test (within 2
calendar
[[Page 30258]]
months preceding the month of application) from a flight instructor
qualified under subpart H.\108\ This includes an endorsement from the
flight instructor certifying that the applicant received training on
the applicable areas of operation for the certificate sought and is
prepared for the practical test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ Authorized instructor recommendations include signing the
applicant's pilot logbook record and airman application certifying
he or she is prepared and qualified for the test.
\107\ For example, an applicant for a private pilot certificate
will still be required to receive night training and additional
cross-country training requirements. 14 CFR 61.109.
\108\ 14 CFR 61.109(a)(4), (d)(3), (g)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the reasons discussed above, the FAA is revising Sec. 61.99
and adding new paragraph (l) to Sec. 61.109 to allow all flight
training received from a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating to
be credited toward the aeronautical experience requirements of
Sec. Sec. 61.99 and 61.109, provided certain conditions are met. The
FAA notes that proposed Sec. 61.109(l) would have allowed only a
certain amount of sport pilot training to be credited toward the
private pilot certificate based on the specific aircraft category and
class rating sought. Because the FAA is now allowing all sport pilot
training to be credited, the FAA is revising proposed Sec. 61.109(l)
to no longer differentiate credit based on specific aircraft categories
and classes and to clarify the conditions under which a sport pilot may
credit sport pilot training toward a private pilot certificate.
Therefore, new Sec. 61.109(l) allows the holder of a sport pilot
certificate to credit flight training received from a flight instructor
with a sport pilot rating toward the aeronautical experience
requirements of Sec. 61.109 if the conditions specified in paragraphs
(l)(1) through (3) are satisfied.
Section 61.109(l)(1) requires the flight training to be
accomplished in the same category and class of aircraft for which the
rating is sought. This requirement is consistent with the NPRM, which
stated that any training received from a sport pilot instructor that
would be credited under this rule must be completed in an aircraft
appropriate to the category and class rating for the recreational or
private pilot certificate sought.\109\ Section 61.109(l)(2) requires
the flight instructor with a sport pilot rating to be authorized to
provide the flight training. This requirement is consistent with the
NPRM, which explained that the FAA was not proposing to expand the
privileges of a flight instructor who holds only a sport pilot
rating,\110\ other than as discussed in section III.E.1 of this
preamble.\111\ The FAA emphasizes that flight instructors with a sport
pilot rating are still subject to the privileges and limitations of
their flight instructor certificate.\112\ Therefore, a flight
instructor with a sport pilot certificate is not authorized to provide
flight training under subpart H to a recreational or private pilot
candidate. Lastly, paragraph (l)(3) requires the flight training to
include either: (i) Training on areas of operation that are required
for both a sport pilot certificate and a private pilot certificate; or
(ii) training on the control and maneuvering of an airplane solely by
reference to the flight instruments, provided the training was received
from a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating who holds an
endorsement required by Sec. 61.412(c). The FAA finds that new
paragraph (l)(3)(i) is consistent with the NPRM, which explained that
the FAA was proposing to allow sport pilot training to be credited
toward the flight training requirements of a recreational or private
pilot certificate because of the common areas of operation and
proficiency standards in flight training for sport pilots, recreational
pilots, and private pilots.\113\ As explained above, the FAA is adding
new Sec. 61.109(l)(3)(ii) because new Sec. 61.412 of this final rule
will allow sport pilots to receive the training specified in Sec.
61.93(e)(12) from flight instructors with a sport pilot rating if the
training and endorsement requirements of Sec. 61.412 are met.\114\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\109\ 81 FR at 29735.
\110\ 81 FR at 29735.
\111\ As explained in section III.E.1 of this preamble, new
Sec. 61.412 authorizes flight instructors with sport pilot ratings
to provide training on control and maneuvering solely by reference
to the instruments to sport pilot applicants receiving flight
training for cross-country flight in an airplane that has a
Vh greater than 87 knots CAS.
\112\ Section 61.413 prescribes the privileges of a flight
instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating. Section 61.415
prescribes the limits of a flight instructor certificate with a
sport pilot rating. Section 61.315 prescribes the privileges and
limits of a sport pilot certificate. More specifically, the FAA
notes that Sec. 61.315(c) prohibits a sport pilot from acting as
PIC of a light sport aircraft at night, and Sec. 61.415(c)
prohibits a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating from
providing training to operate a light sport aircraft in Class B, C,
and D airspace, at an airport located in Class B, C, or D airspace,
and to, from, through, or at an airport having an operational
control tower, unless the instructor has the endorsement specified
in Sec. 61.325, or is otherwise authorized to conduct operations in
this airspace and at these airports. Therefore, a flight instructor
with a sport pilot rating is not authorized to provide flight
training at night and may not be authorized to provide flight
training at an airport with an operating control tower.
\113\ 81 FR at 29735.
\114\ Under Sec. 61.93(e)(2), when a student pilot seeking a
sport pilot certificate receives training for cross-country flight
in an airplane that has a Vh greater than 87 knots CAS,
that student pilot must receive and log flight training in a single-
engine airplane on control and maneuvering solely by reference to
flight instruments, including straight and level flight, turns,
descents, climbs, use of radio aids, and ATC directives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA is revising proposed Sec. 61.99(b) to be consistent with
the reorganization of proposed Sec. 61.109(l).
SAFE commented that pilot certification under part 61 is based on
demonstrated performance. Therefore, if a sport pilot meets the
required performance standards, the pilot should not have to accomplish
additional training just because the previous training was provided by
a subpart K instructor.
The FAA notes that pilot certification under part 61 is based on
more than flight proficiency. An applicant for a pilot certificate must
meet all the applicable aeronautical knowledge, flight proficiency, and
aeronautical experience requirements. Sections 61.99 and 61.109, which
contain the aeronautical experience requirements for a person who
applies for a recreational or private pilot certificate, respectively,
prescribes flight training and experience requirements above those that
are required for a sport pilot certificate.\115\ Therefore, while this
rulemaking allows a sport pilot to credit flight training received from
a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating toward the flight
training requirements for a recreational or private pilot certificate,
that pilot is still required to accomplish additional flight training
and experience requirements that exceed those required for a sport
pilot certificate. These additional requirements include additional
training (e.g. night training), verification of proficiency, and a
recommendation from a flight instructor (qualified under subpart H)
that the applicant is prepared for the practical test for the
recreational or private pilot certificate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\115\ For example, Sec. Sec. 61.99(a)(2) and 61.109 require a
person to receive 3 hours of flight training with an authorized
instructor in the aircraft for the rating sought in preparation for
the practical test within the preceding 2 calendar months. Section
61.109 also requires 3 hours of night training, 3 hours of flight by
reference to instruments, operations at an airport with an operating
control tower, and some additional cross-country time requirements.
The FAA notes that night and instrument time are not required for
balloon, powered parachute, or weight-shift control aircraft at the
private pilot certification level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One individual suggested that if a private pilot candidate can
credit time in a light sport aircraft, then the FAA should allow a
sport pilot candidate to credit his or her sport pilot training toward
the private pilot certificate in the future.
This final rule allows an applicant for a higher pilot certificate
who receives flight training from a flight instructor with a sport
pilot rating, to credit that pilot time toward the aeronautical
experience requirements for a recreational or private pilot
certificate. This can include training accomplished in a Light Sport
Aircraft (LSA).
[[Page 30259]]
Both EAA and Chesapeake Sport Pilot discussed that allowing only
partial credit would have placed undue burden on designated pilot
examiners when trying to differentiate training provided by a subpart K
instructor verses a subpart H instructor since this time is documented
as ``dual'' instruction in a person's logbook.
Because the FAA is allowing full credit for training received as a
sport pilot applicant, this alleviates concerns with differentiating
training received from a subpart H instructor versus training received
from a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating, when recording
flight instruction in a person's logbook. Flight instructors provide
additional details in the applicant's logbook other than just
describing dual instruction. A subpart H instructor is required to
provide a recommendation in the pilot applicant's logbook certifying
that he or she has provided the required additional training
referencing Sec. Sec. 61.103(f), 61.107(b), and 61.109, for the
private pilot certificate.\116\ This same flight instructor will
certify flight training entries, in which he or she was the instructor
providing the training, in the student's logbook with a signature,
flight instructor certificate number, and expiration date. This allows
an examiner to verify that the additional flight training provided
qualifies for the higher certificate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\116\ AC 61-65F Certification: Pilots and Flight and Ground
Instructors provides recommended endorsements and rule references.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA notes that currently examiners are not required to verify
the credentials of the recommending instructor unless there are
extenuating circumstances such as ensuring the flight instructor meets
the requirements of Sec. 61.195(h). Section 61.59 provides safeguards
to ensure that the training flight instructors provide is appropriate
to the certificate or rating for which a student is applying.\117\
Applicants have a responsibility to understand and be familiar with the
qualifications of the person providing them training and
recommendations. The FAA expects applicants to provide additional
scrutiny to their own pilot records before providing them to an
examiner or inspector, who will verify the applicant's experience and
qualifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\117\ Section 61.59 governs the falsification, reproduction, or
alteration of applications, certificates, logbooks, reports, or
records.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
GAMA stated that since the publication of the proposed rule, the
FAA replaced the PTS for private and sport pilots with the Airman
Certification Standards (ACS), which became effective in June 2016.
GAMA recommended referencing the ACS instead of the PTS to help
facilitate the proposed changes in this rule.
The FAA implemented the ACS for Private Pilot Airplane on June 15,
2016, subsequent to the publication of the NPRM. Because the Private
Pilot ACS for Airplane superseded the Private Pilot PTS for
Airplane,\118\ this final rule preamble refers to the Private Pilot ACS
rather than the PTS. However, the FAA will continue to refer to the
Sport Pilot PTS until it is replaced by the applicable ACS.\119\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\118\ The Private Pilot PTS for Airplane was cancelled as of
June 15, 2016.
\119\ In light of GAMA's comment, however, the FAA has decided
to update its terminology in 14 CFR to reflect the transition from
the PTS to the ACS. For further explanation, see section III.L. of
this final rule preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One individual commenter opposed the provision. The commenter
stated that a sport pilot instructor only has to have a private pilot
certificate and no instrument rating. The commenter suggested that a
sport pilot instructor does not have the appropriate experience and
background to provide ``airline discipline,'' and claimed that sport
pilot ratings are sought due to a non-requirement for a medical
certificate. The individual claimed the ``general aviation safety
record shows the need for rigorous, standardized training from the
student's first flight.'' Additionally, this individual asserted that
the private pilot certificate requires 20 hours of instruction from an
authorized instructor who has a vastly superior background than a sport
pilot instructor.
A flight instructor with a sport pilot rating is not required to
possess a private pilot certificate. He or she is required to hold at
least a sport pilot certificate with the category and class ratings or
privileges, appropriate to the flight instructor certificate held.\120\
The commenter's reference to ``airline discipline'' is irrelevant since
those who possess a flight instructor certificate are not held to
airline standards. Only those pursuing an airline transport pilot (ATP)
certificate with an airplane category and multiengine class rating are
required by regulation to be trained on air carrier operations as
outlined in Sec. 61.156. There is no doubt that a subpart H instructor
must meet higher experience requirements than a flight instructor with
a sport pilot rating. However, flight instructors with a sport pilot
rating are trained and tested on the same fundamentals of instruction
as a subpart H instructor. Additionally, flight instructors with a
sport pilot rating provide flight training on many of the same tasks
and maneuvers as subpart H instructors because many of the training
requirements and practical test standards for the recreational and
private pilot certificates are identical to those required for the
sport pilot certificate. For example, as stated in the NPRM, ten of the
twelve areas of operation required in the airplane practical test
standards for private pilot are also listed in the airplane practical
test standards for sport pilot.\121\ These areas of operation must be
performed to identical standards. Furthermore, sport pilots who pursue
a recreational or private pilot certificate will still be required to
receive additional training and endorsements from a subpart H flight
instructor and meet the additional experience and proficiency
requirements for that certificate. For example, an applicant for a
recreational or private pilot certificate will still be required to
receive a minimum of three hours of training within 2 calendar months
of the practical test from a flight instructor certificated under
subpart H.\122\ A flight instructor certificated under subpart H is
still required to conduct training on all the areas of operation and
certify that the applicant is prepared for the practical test.\123\
Thus, only a subpart H flight instructor may recommend an applicant for
a recreational or private pilot practical test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\120\ 14 CFR 61.403(c)
\121\ 81 FR at 29735.
\122\ See 14 CFR 61.99(a)(2) and 61.109(a)(4), (b)(4), (c)(3),
(d)(3), (g)(3).
\123\ 14 CFR 61.96(b)(5) and 61.103(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact that a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating does
not have an instrument rating on his or her pilot certificate is not
relevant because all the training that he or she provides must be
accomplished under visual flight rules. This fact is also true for the
majority of the flight training that a student receives in pursuit of a
recreational or private pilot certificate.\124\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\124\ The FAA also notes that, similar to a subpart H instructor
providing flight training to a recreational or private pilot
applicant, a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating is not
required to have an instrument rating on his or her flight
instructor certificate. As noted in several legal interpretations, a
flight instructor who provides flight training on the ``control and
maneuvering of an airplane solely by reference to the instruments''
is not required to hold an instrument rating on his or her flight
instructor certificate. Legal Interpretation, Letter to Scott
Rohlfing from Lorelei Peter, Acting Assistant Chief Counsel for
Regulations (Feb. 24, 2016); Legal Interpretation, Letter to Taylor
Grayson from Rebecca B. MacPherson, Assistant Chief Counsel for
Regulations (Jan. 4, 2010); Legal Interpretation, Letter to Taylor
Grayson from Rebecca B. MacPherson, Assistant Chief Counsel for
Regulations (July 6, 2010). Under Sec. 61.65(d)(2), ``the required
instrument time other than instrument training does not require the
presence of a CFI but only the presence of an individual qualified
to act as a safety pilot or as a pilot in command of an operation in
actual instrument conditions.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 30260]]
The FAA notes that the commenter's statement about persons seeking
sport pilot ratings due to the ability to fly without a medical
certificate is not relevant to the FAA's proposal because the proposal
was not specific to medical certification requirements. Furthermore,
BasicMed now allows certain pilots to operate without a medical
certificate, provided certain conditions and limitations are met.\125\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\125\ The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Extension,
Safety, and Security Act of 2016, Public Law 114-190, Section 2307
(2016); 14 CFR 61.3(c)(2)(xiii), 61.23(a)(3), 61.101, 61.113(i). See
also Final Rule, ``Alternative Pilot Physical Examination and
Education Requirements,'' 82 FR 3149 (Jan. 11, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Pilot School Use of Special Curricula Courses for Renewal of
Certificate
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to amend Sec. 141.5(d) to allow the
FAA to issue or renew a pilot school certificate to a part 141 pilot
school that holds a training course approval for special curricula
courses based on their students' successful completion of end-of-course
tests for these FAA approved courses.\126\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\126\ Prior to this final rule, under Sec. 141.5, the graduates
that completed special curricula courses could not be counted when
calculating the 80 percent pass rate required for issuance or
renewal of a pilot school certificate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AOPA supported this proposal noting that it could benefit the
flight training community by encouraging the development of more FAA-
approved courses by part 141 schools and by encouraging existing flight
schools to pursue part 141 certificates.
SAFE believed the proposed language would have significantly
changed the effect Sec. 141.5(d) has on pilot schools requesting
approval or renewal of their certificates. SAFE asked the FAA to
reconsider its use of the words ``all'', ``or'', and ``and,'' and to
reword the proposed rule to ensure that the 80 percent or higher pass
rate would be computed properly.
After reconsidering its use of the words ``all'' and ``and'' in the
proposed rule, the FAA finds that proposed Sec. 141.5(d), which would
have required an applicant for a pilot school certificate to establish
at least an 80 percent pass rate on the first attempt for all tests
administered, accurately reflects the FAA's intent. Prior to 2009,\127\
Sec. 141.5(d) required at least 80 percent of all tests administered
to be passed on the first attempt. In the 2009 final rule and
subsequent technical amendment, the FAA made changes to Sec. 141.5(d);
\128\ however, the FAA explained that the changes were intended to
clarify, not alter, the existing rule requirements.\129\ In a legal
interpretation dated July 1, 2011, the FAA stated that ``the quality of
training requirement under Sec. 141.5(d) is calculated based on the
percentage of successful first attempts on all knowledge tests,
practical tests, and end-of-course tests for appendix K courses.''
\130\ Because the FAA never intended to alter the requirement that ``at
least 80 percent of all tests administered be passed on the first
attempt,'' the FAA finds that proposed Sec. 141.5(d) was accurately
worded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\127\ ``Pilot, Flight Instructor, Ground Instructor, and Pilot
School Certification Rules; Final Rule,'' 62 FR 16220 (Apr. 4,
1997); 14 CFR 141.5(d) (1998).
\128\ After the 2009 final rule and subsequent technical
amendment, Sec. 141.5(d) stated: ``Has established a pass rate of
80 percent or higher on the first attempt for all knowledge tests
leading to a certificate or rating, practical tests leading to a
certificate or rating, or end-of-course tests for an approved
training course specified in appendix K of this part.'' ``Pilot,
Flight Instructor, and Pilot School Certification'' Technical
Amendment, 75 FR 56857 (Sep. 17, 2010); 14 CFR 141.5(d) (2011).
\129\ In 2009, the FAA sought to clarify the ``quantity of
training'' requirement in Sec. 141.5(d) by revising and relocating
it to new paragraph (e). ``Pilot, Flight Instructor, and Pilot
School Certification; Final Rule,'' 74 FR 42500 (Aug. 21, 2009). As
a result of the 2009 final rule, Sec. 141.5(d) contained the
``quality of training'' requirement and Sec. 141.5(e) contained the
``quantity of training'' requirement. The FAA explained in the
preamble that the requirement that ``at least 80 percent of those
persons passed their test on the first attempt is not a change from
the existing rule. The purpose of this change is clarifying the
intent of the rule.'' 74 FR 42500, 42538. The FAA issued a technical
amendment in 2010 to clarify Sec. 141.5(d) and to reinsert language
that was inadvertently removed as a result of the 2009 final rule.
75 FR 56857. In the technical amendment, the FAA explained that it
was revising the language of Sec. 141.5(d) to clarify that in order
to meet the quality of training standard for issuance or renewal of
a pilot school certificate, a pilot school must achieve a combined
80 percent pass rate on the first attempt for all: (1) Knowledge
tests and practical tests leading to a certificate or rating, and
(2) end-of-course tests for appendix K courses. 75 FR 56857. The FAA
adopted rule language, however, that appeared to be inconsistent
with its intent given its use of the term ``or'' instead of ``and''
in Sec. 141.5(d). 14 CFR 141.5(d) (2011).
\130\ Legal Interpretation to Jared Testa from the Assistant
Chief Counsel, Regulations Division (July 1, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 141.5(d) remains unchanged from the NPRM. The FAA expects
that a pilot school will utilize special curricula course graduations
when applying for or renewing a pilot school certificate on or after
the effective date of this provision, even if those special curricula
course graduations occurred before the effective date of this new rule
provision. Therefore, effective July 27, 2018, pilot schools will be
able to immediately utilize graduates from special curricula courses to
qualify for or renew their pilot school certificates as described in
Sec. 141.5(d).
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
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to amend Sec. Sec. 121.383(c) and
135.95 to allow part 119 certificate holders conducting operations
under part 121 or 135 to provide their flightcrew members a temporary
verification document (valid for 72 hours) without the need of an FAA
exemption.\131\ The FAA also proposed to amend Sec. Sec. 61.3(a) and
63.3(a) to permit the documents provided by certificate holders to be
carried as an airman certificate or medical certificate, as
appropriate.\132\ The FAA proposed that a certificate holder would be
required to obtain approval from the Principal Operations Inspector to
exercise this privilege. The FAA also proposed to establish a process
to facilitate approval of a Certificate Verification Plan via
Operations Specifications (A063).\133\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\131\ Prior to this final rule, regulations required a person
serving as a required flightcrew member of a United States civil
aircraft to have his or her airman certificate in his or her
physical possession or readily accessible in the aircraft when
exercising the privileges of that certificate. 14 CFR 61.3(a) and
63.3(a). The regulations also required a person serving as a
required flightcrew member to have an appropriate medical
certificate in his or her physical possession or readily accessible
in the aircraft. 14 CFR 61.3(c) and 63.3(a).
\132\ If the flightcrew member's airman or medical certificate
remains unavailable after 72 hours, the flightcrew member would be
required to comply with the requirements of Sec. 61.29 or Sec.
63.16, as applicable, and request a 60-day temporary confirmation
document from the Airman Certification Branch or the Aeromedical
Certification Branch until a replacement certificate is issued and
in the possession of that airman.
\133\ This would be in lieu of utilizing the FAA Airmen Online
Services website that can provide temporary authority in the form of
a fax or email. This also would apply to the temporary authority for
the medical certificate provided by fax from the Aeromedical Branch.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA received five comments from organizations and two comments
from individuals.
Airlines for America (A4A), National Air Transportation Association
(NATA), and Regional Air Cargo Carriers Association (RACCA) recommended
the FAA clarify what an acceptable form of media is for the temporary
validation document. A4A suggested revising proposed Sec. 121.383(c)
to clarify that the temporary document may be in either paper or
electronic form. A4A noted that this clarification would standardize
methods of documentation in the industry and, as more flight decks go
paperless, ensure that the airlines have the ability to transmit the
required
[[Page 30261]]
documentation to the pilot in a timely manner, thereby reducing stress
and delays without compromising safety. Similarly, NATA believed an
electronic document would be suitable.
The FAA finds it unnecessary to specify in Sec. Sec. 121.383(c)
and 135.95(b) that the temporary verification document may be in either
paper or electronic form. Sections 121.383(c) and 135.95(b) are
intended to provide flexibility and allow for advancements in
technology regarding the method, format or media by which the temporary
document must be provided. The operations specification authorizing an
approved certificate verification plan will include the specific method
or format for each air carrier/operator. Accordingly, the FAA is
adopting Sec. Sec. 121.383(c) and 135.95(b) as proposed. The FAA will
be issuing a new Advisory Circular (AC 00-70) to provide guidance to
air carriers/operators on obtaining approval of a certificate
verification plan, including the necessary components for various
methods and formats of issuing the temporary document.
A4A supported proposed Sec. Sec. 121.383(c) and 135.95(b), which
would have allowed the use of temporary validation documents for
flights conducted ``entirely within the United States.'' Unlike the
current exemptions that limit the relief to ``operations conducted
entirely within the District of Columbia and the 48 contiguous States
of the United States,'' the proposed rule language would have allowed
persons to use the temporary document on flights conducted entirely
within Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and other possessions.
The FAA is adopting Sec. Sec. 121.383(c) and 135.95(b) as
proposed.\134\ Article 29 of the Convention on International Civil
Aviation requires that every aircraft engaged in international
navigation shall carry ``the appropriate licenses for each member of
the crew.'' Thus, temporary verification documents provided by the
certificate holder from its records will not meet the requirements of
the Convention.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\134\ In accordance with Sec. 1.1 ``United States, in a
geographical sense, means (1) the States, the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico, and the possessions, including the territorial waters,
and (2) the airspace of those areas.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One individual suggested the FAA change ``domestic operations'' to
``operations within the United States'' to avoid confusion with the
term ``domestic operations'' contained in 14 CFR part 119, which
defines a particular type of part 119 operation.
The term ``domestic operations'' was not proposed in regulatory
text. It is therefore unnecessary to make any changes to the proposed
rule language in response to the individual's comment. The FAA notes,
however, that this term was used in Tables 1 and 3 of the NPRM,\135\
which summarized the proposed provisions. To avoid any confusion, the
FAA is not using the term ``domestic operations'' in this final rule
document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\135\ 81 FR at 29722 and 29748.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AOPA suggested a correction to proposed Sec. 63.3(a)(2), which
would have mistakenly referenced Sec. 63.16(d) instead of Sec.
63.16(f).
Section 63.3(a)(2) now references new Sec. 63.16(f), as AOPA
suggested because the requirements that were previously contained in
Sec. 63.16(d) have been relocated to new Sec. 63.16(f) and revised.
One individual asked several clarifying questions regarding
limitations on the use of temporary validation documents. This
individual asked how the program would keep track of the number of
times a flightcrew member loses, destroys, or otherwise fails to have
their certificates in their possession. This individual also asked if
there was a limit to the number of temporary verification documents
issued to an individual, and if so, how those limitations would be
enforced.
Keeping track of how many times a crewmember loses their pilot or
medical certificate, or any limitations regarding the number of times a
temporary verification document can be issued to any one individual,
can be managed appropriately with FAA air carrier oversight. In
addition, conditions and limitations can be specified in an air
carrier's certificate verification plan, within its operation
specifications.
RACCA and Bemidji Aviation Services, Inc. suggested incorporating
similar allowances for aircraft registration and airworthiness
certificates.
These comments are outside the scope of this rulemaking. The
proposal was specific to certificates that an airman must have in his
or her possession to exercise his or her privileges. Unlike airmen
certificates that are carried on a person outside of the aircraft, the
airworthiness and registration certificates are typically placed in a
permanent location within the aircraft (usually visible to the
operator) and are rarely removed from the aircraft.\136\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\136\ The FAA also notes that Article 29 of the Convention on
International Civil Aviation requires that every aircraft of a
contracting State, engaged in international navigation, shall carry
in the aircraft several documents, including its certificate of
registration, its certificate of airworthiness, and the appropriate
licenses for each member of the crew. Because temporary verification
documents would not meet the requirements of the Convention, the FAA
is only allowing the use of temporary verification documents on
flights conducted entirely within the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AOPA recommended the FAA implement an online method to allow all
pilots and airmen to request and obtain a temporary document confirming
medical certification. This comment is also outside the scope of this
rulemaking. The FAA notes, however, that it is addressing AOPA's
comment in a separate action.\137\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\137\ Aerospace Medicine Safety Information System (AMSIS) will
permit user(s) to print a valid medical certificate. AMSIS is still
in development and is anticipated to become available in 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA is amending Sec. Sec. 121.383(c) and 135.95 as proposed.
Furthermore, as a result of the FAA's own continued review of the
proposal, the FAA has decided to also allow part 91, subpart K, program
managers to issue temporary verification documents to flightcrew
members who do not have their airman or medical certificates in their
personal possession for a particular flight. The FAA did not originally
consider providing relief to part 91, subpart K, program managers only
because there were no current exemptions granted to these program
managers. However, upon further review, the FAA finds that it is
appropriate to include part 91, subpart K, program managers because of
the similarity of part 91, subpart K, operations compared to part 121
and 135 operations. Many similarities exist between part 91, subpart K,
program managers and part 135 operators providing public air
transportation, such as: Time, duty, and rest requirements, destination
airport analysis programs, minimum equipment lists, recordkeeping,
pilot training and checking, proving tests, approved inspection
programs, and drug and alcohol misuse and prevention programs. In some
instances, a part 91, subpart K, program manager is also certificated
under part 119 to conduct part 135 operations.
Specifically, part 91, subpart K, fractional ownership programs are
subject to FAA oversight similar to that provided to air carriers
(parts 135 and 121), with the exception of line checks and en-route
inspections. FAA aviation safety inspectors conduct scheduled and
unscheduled inspections, and surveillance of personnel, aircraft,
records, and other documents to ensure compliance with the regulations.
Given the similarities between parts 91, subpart K, 121 and 135, the
FAA finds it appropriate to also prevent cancelation of flights under
part 91, subpart K, in situations where a pilot certificate or medical
certificate is valid
[[Page 30262]]
but not physically available. Therefore, consistent with the amendments
to Sec. Sec. 121.383 and 135.95, the FAA is revising Sec. 91.1015 by
adding new paragraph (h), which will allow a program manager to obtain
approval to provide a temporary document verifying a flightcrew
member's airman certificate and medical certificate privileges under an
approved certificate verification plan set forth in the program
manager's management specifications. Consistent with the NPRM, the
temporary verification document will remain a short-term solution for a
period not to exceed 72 hours. The FAA is also revising Sec.
61.3(a)(1) by adding new paragraph (vi) to permit flightcrew members to
carry temporary documents provided by a program manager only on flights
conducted for the program manager under part 91, subpart K.\138\ This
is consistent with the NPRM, which proposed to add new Sec.
61.3(a)(1)(v) to allow flightcrew members to carry documents provided
by a certificate holder only on flights conducted for the part 119
certificate holder, including ferry flights to reposition aircraft. The
FAA notes that it is adopting Sec. 61.3(a)(1)(v) as proposed. The FAA
is also adopting the proposed revisions to current Sec.
61.3(a)(1)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\138\ The FAA proposed to redesignate current Sec.
61.3(a)(1)(v) as new Sec. 61.3(a)(1)(vi). Now that the FAA is
adding new Sec. 61.3(a)(1)(vi) to extend the relief to part 91,
subpart K operators, this final rule redesignates current Sec.
61.3(a)(1)(v) as new Sec. 61.3(a)(1)(vii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, as a result of the FAA's continued review of the
proposal, the FAA is making several clarifying changes to allow for
smooth implementation of the final rule. Because the final rule allows
a person to use a temporary verification document as an airman
certificate or medical certificate, if certain conditions are met, the
inspection requirements of Sec. Sec. 61.3(l), 63.3(e), and 121.383(b)
would have applied to the temporary document. However, to avoid any
confusion, the FAA is revising Sec. Sec. 61.3(l), 63.3(e), and
121.383(b) to expressly include the temporary verification document in
the list of documents that must be presented for inspection upon
request from the Administrator.
Additionally, the FAA is revising Sec. 121.383(a) to clarify that
an airman engaged in part 121 operations must have in his or her
possession any required appropriate current airman and medical
certificates or a temporary verification document issued in accordance
with an approved certificate verification plan under new Sec.
121.383(c).\139\ This change from what was proposed is consistent with
the FAA's proposal to add new Sec. 61.3(a)(1)(v) to allow a person
engaged in flight operations within the United States for a part 119
certificate holder authorized to conduct operations under part 121, to
hold a temporary verification document in place of an airman or medical
certificate. The FAA will be issuing a new Advisory Circular to provide
guidance to certificate holders/program managers on obtaining approval
of a certificate verification plan. The FAA will continue to provide
relief through exemptions until June 27, 2019 to allow sufficient time
for certificate holders to obtain authority under the regulation from
their Principal Operations Inspector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\139\ In this final rule, the FAA is adding Sec. 121.383(c) to
allow a certificate holder to obtain approval to provide a temporary
document verifying a flightcrew memberr's airman certificate and
medical certificate privileges under an approved certificate
verification plan set forth in the certificate holder's operations
specifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Military Competence for Flight Instructors
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed several changes to Sec. Sec. 61.197
and 61.199 to accommodate renewal and reinstatement of flight
instructor certificates by military instructors and examiners.\140\ In
Sec. 61.197(a)(2)(iv), the FAA proposed to expand the 12-calendar-
month timeframe to 24 calendar months. The FAA also proposed to clarify
in Sec. 61.197(a)(2)(iv) that a flight instructor would be able to
renew his or her certificate by providing a record demonstrating that,
within the previous 24 calendar months, the instructor passed a
military instructor pilot proficiency check for a rating that the
instructor already holds or for a new rating.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\140\ Prior to this final rule, a person renewing his or her
flight instructor certificate under Sec. 61.197(a)(2)(iv) was
required to submit a record showing that, within the preceding 12
calendar months, the flight instructor passed an official U.S. Armed
Forces military instructor pilot proficiency check. Section 61.199
required the holder of an expired flight instructor certificate to
reinstate that certificate by passing a practical test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Sec. 61.199, the FAA proposed to revise paragraph (a) to permit
a military instructor pilot to reinstate his or her expired flight
instructor certificate by providing a record showing that, within the
previous six calendar months, the instructor pilot passed a U.S. Armed
Forces instructor pilot or pilot examiner proficiency check for an
additional military rating.\141\ Additionally, the FAA proposed to add
a new Sec. 61.199(c) as a temporary provision, which would have
allowed military instructor pilots who obtained their initial flight
instructor certificate under subpart H to reinstate that instructor
certificate based on military competence rather than by completing a
practical test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\141\ As explained in the NPRM, the FAA has accepted a flight
instructor or examiner proficiency check conducted by the military
to be equivalent to an FAA practical test for the purposes of
issuing initial flight instructor certificates, adding ratings to
existing flight instructor certificates, and renewing flight
instructor certificates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA received six comments on these proposed amendments. Three
commenters supported the proposal. Two commenters recommended changes
to the proposed rule language. One commenter opposed the proposal.
The Society of Aviation and Flight Educators (SAFE) and Aircraft
Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) concurred with the proposed
amendments to Sec. 61.199. AOPA also supported the proposed changes to
Sec. 61.197. One individual, identifying himself as a retired U.S. Air
Force instructor, supported having military credentials recognized by
the FAA and providing civilian equivalent instructor ratings.
One individual, identifying as a military instructor with the
National Guard Bureau, agreed with changing the timeframe in Sec.
61.197(a)(2)(iv) from 12 calendar months to 24 calendar months.
However, the commenter suggested that the FAA revise the proposed rule
language to require a record showing that, within the preceding 24
months from the month of application, the flight instructor passed an
official U.S. Armed Forces military instructor pilot proficiency check
equivalent to renewal requirements as stated in the practical test
standards (PTS) for the rating sought. The commenter believed that this
would validate an equivalent level of flight proficiency. The commenter
explained that because some U.S. Armed Forces have instructors that
only train specific tasks such as formation flying or tactical
operations, this type of instruction is not an equivalent level of
flight proficiency as required for the renewal of a FAA flight
instructor certificate. The commenter also provided attachments
described as comparable military instructor pilot proficiency checks
accomplished on an annual basis in the U.S. Army. The commenter
asserted that these annual checks are equivalent to or better than what
would be necessary for the renewal of a flight instructor rating.
As stated in the NPRM, the FAA proposed to clarify in Sec.
61.197(a)(2)(iv) that a flight instructor may renew his or her
certificate by providing a record demonstrating that, within the
previous
[[Page 30263]]
24 calendar months, the instructor passed a ``U.S. Armed Forces
military instructor pilot proficiency check'' for a rating that the
instructor already holds or for a new rating. As explained in the NPRM,
the FAA has accepted a flight instructor or examiner proficiency check
conducted by the military to be equivalent to an FAA practical test for
the purposes of issuing initial flight instructor certificates and
adding ratings to existing flight instructor certificates.\142\ Upon
further reflection, the FAA finds that the renewal requirements of
Sec. 61.197(a)(2)(iv) should be consistent with Sec. 61.73(g), which
allows a person to apply for and be issued an initial flight instructor
certificate based on official U.S. military documentation of being a
U.S. military instructor pilot or U.S. military pilot examiner.
Therefore, the FAA is revising proposed Sec. 61.197(a)(2)(iv) to allow
renewal based on either ``an official U.S. Armed Forces military
instructor pilot or pilot examiner proficiency check.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\142\ 81 FR at 29740.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, the FAA disagrees with referencing the PTS within Sec.
61.197(a)(2)(iv) because it would be too prescriptive. The military
typically does not perform all the tasks from the PTS or Airman
Certification Standards (ACS), as appropriate, required for civil pilot
certification during their military instructor pilot proficiency
checks. Rather, the military typically performs tasks or maneuvers that
are not outlined in the PTS and/or ACS. The FAA believes that requiring
a record showing that, within the preceding 24 months from the month of
application, the flight instructor passed an official U.S. Armed Forces
military instructor pilot proficiency check in an aircraft for which
the military instructor already holds a rating or in an aircraft for an
additional rating, is sufficient to validate a flight instructor's
equivalent level of competency. The FAA has long recognized and
accepted military credit without further review.
The individual commenter further asserted that if a military
proficiency check meets the requirements for flight instructor renewal
or reinstatement as described in the PTS and/or ACS, the FAA should
modify Sec. 61.73(g)(3)(iv) to read: ``An official U.S. Armed Forces
record or order that shows the person passed a U.S. Armed Forces
instructor pilot or pilot examiner proficiency check in an aircraft as
a military instructor pilot or pilot examiner that is appropriate to
the flight instructor rating sought that meets equivalent requirements
of 14 CFR 61.185.''
Section 61.73(g)(3)(i) already requires the applicant to present a
knowledge test report that shows the person passed a knowledge test on
the aeronautical knowledge areas listed under Sec. 61.185(a).
Therefore, the FAA finds it unnecessary to revise Sec. 61.73(g)(3)(iv)
to require the U.S. Armed Forces proficiency check to meet requirements
of Sec. 61.185.
This commenter also recommended the FAA revise proposed Sec.
61.199(a)(3), which would have required a military instructor to show,
within the preceding 6 calendar months from the date of application for
reinstatement, the person passed a U.S. Armed Forces instructor pilot
or pilot examiner proficiency check for an additional military
instructor rating. The commenter noted that additional military ratings
are not acquired through a ``proficiency check.'' The commenter,
therefore, recommended the FAA revise paragraph (a)(3) to require a
record showing that, within the previous six calendar months, the
instructor passed a U.S. Armed Forces instructor pilot or pilot
examiner qualification program for an additional military rating that
results in an additional rating to be added to the airman certificate.
The individual also recommended the FAA add a new paragraph (a)(4) that
would allow for reinstatement of a flight instructor certificate if the
instructor can provide a record showing that, within the previous six
calendar months, the instructor passed a U.S. Armed Forces instructor
pilot or pilot examiner proficiency check equivalent to reinstatement
requirements as stated in the PTS and/or ACS for the rating sought. The
commenter explained this provision would facilitate reinstatement of an
expired flight instructor certificate through a U.S. Armed Forces
proficiency check that would be equivalent to the flight test described
in the PTS.
As the commenter pointed out, additional military ratings are not
acquired through a proficiency check. Therefore, the FAA is revising
proposed Sec. 61.199(a)(3) to more accurately reflect the process by
which a military instructor pilot acquires an additional aircraft
rating qualification. The FAA is also dividing proposed Sec.
61.199(a)(3) into two subparagraphs to make the reinstatement
requirements for a military instructor pilot more consistent with the
reinstatement requirements for a civilian holder of an expired flight
instructor certificate, which are found in Sec. 61.199(a)(1) and (2).
Accordingly, Sec. 61.199(a)(3)(i) now allows reinstatement of an
expired flight instructor certificate if the military instructor pilot
can provide a record showing that, within the preceding 6 calendar
months from the date of application for reinstatement, the pilot passed
a U.S. Armed Forces instructor pilot or pilot examiner proficiency
check. The FAA finds that a U.S. Armed Forces instructor pilot or pilot
examiner proficiency check is the military equivalent of a flight
instructor certification practical test. Therefore, this requirement is
consistent with Sec. 61.199(a)(1), which allows reinstatement of an
expired flight instructor certificate if the civilian pilot
satisfactorily completes a flight instructor practical test for one of
the ratings held on the expired flight instructor certificate.
Additionally, Sec. 61.199(a)(3)(ii) now allows reinstatement of an
expired flight instructor certificate if the military instructor pilot
can provide a record showing that, within the preceding 6 calendar
months from the date of application for reinstatement, the pilot
completed a U.S. Armed Forces instructor pilot or pilot examiner
training course and received an additional aircraft rating
qualification as a military instructor pilot or pilot examiner that is
appropriate to the flight instructor rating sought. The FAA finds that
this requirement accurately reflects the process by which a military
instructor pilot acquires an additional aircraft rating. The FAA is not
using the terminology ``qualification program,'' as the commenter
recommended, because it is subject to interpretation. Instead, the FAA
is using language that is consistent with the terminology of Sec.
61.73(g)(3)(iii).\143\ The FAA notes that new Sec. 61.199(a)(3)(ii) is
consistent with Sec. 61.199(a)(2), which allows a civilian holder of
an expired flight instructor certificate to reinstate that flight
instructor certificate by satisfactorily completing a flight instructor
certification practical test for an additional rating.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\143\ To be issued a flight instructor certificate with the
appropriate ratings, Sec. 61.73(g) requires, in part, that the
person present an official U.S. Armed Forces record or order that
shows the person completed a U.S. Armed Forces' instructor pilot or
pilot examiner training course and received an aircraft rating
qualification as a military instructor pilot or pilot examiner that
is appropriate to the flight instructor rating sought. 14 CFR
61.73(g)(3)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One individual asserted that military instructor pilots who allow
their FAA flight instructor rating to expire reflect a lack of
knowledge concerning 14 CFR part 61 that is pervasive in the military.
The FAA disagrees. There are many possible scenarios other than ``a
lack of knowledge'' that may lead to someone letting his or her flight
instructor
[[Page 30264]]
certificate expire. In some instances, it may be intentional or an
individual may be subject to events beyond his or her control. As such,
the commenter's assertion is speculative. The FAA has determined that
this provision will provide an equitable method of renewal or
reinstatement for a FAA flight instructor certificate similar to the
allowances currently described in Sec. 61.199(a)(1) and (2).\144\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\144\ (1) A flight instructor certification practical test, as
prescribed by Sec. 61.183(h), for one of the ratings held on the
expired flight instructor certificate.
(2) A flight instructor certification practical test for an
additional rating.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One individual recommended the FAA revise Sec. 61.73 to add
military navigators and naval flight officers who hold a FAA flight
instructor certificate and who are military flight instructors to the
list of persons eligible for an instrument flight instructor
certificate. This commenter further asserted that there are numerous
other military aeronautical specialties beyond pilots, navigators, and
naval flight officers who have a skill set that may be valuable to the
civilian aviation community. The commenter recommended that any
military member that can produce documentation of service instructing
any aviation crew position be exempted from the fundamentals of
instruction written examination for a flight instructor certificate in
Sec. 61.183(e) or for a ground instructor certificate in Sec.
61.213(b).
The FAA is not adopting these recommendations because they are
outside the scope of this rulemaking. Furthermore, the FAA disagrees
with providing flight instructor equivalency for non-pilot instructor
positions.
The FAA is adding new Sec. 61.199(c) as proposed. As previously
stated, Sec. 61.199(c) will allow military instructor pilots who
obtained their initial flight instructor certificate under subpart H to
reinstate that flight instructor certificate based on military
competence rather than by completing a practical test. The FAA notes
that Sec. 61.199(c) is a temporary provision that will expire on
August 26, 2019. The FAA will revise FAA Order 8900.1 to provide
guidance to designees and inspectors on how to facilitate instructor
military competency approvals.
J. Use of Aircraft Certificated in the Restricted Category for Pilot
Flight Training and Checking
Section 91.313(a) prohibits a person from operating a restricted
category aircraft for other than the special purpose for which it is
certificated or in any operation other than one necessary to accomplish
the work activity directly associated with the special purpose. Under
Sec. 91.313(b), operating a restricted category civil aircraft to
provide flight crewmember training in a special purpose operation for
which the aircraft is certificated is an operation for that special
purpose. The FAA recently clarified, however, that flight training and
testing for certification (e.g., for type ratings) in restricted
category aircraft is not a special purpose operation under Sec.
91.313.\145\ As such, these activities cannot be conducted in a
restricted category aircraft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\145\ Several operators hold exemptions that permit them to
conduct pilot training for certification, practical tests (for type
rating designations) in aircraft certificated in the restricted
category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Flights Necessary To Accomplish Work Activity Directly Associated
With the Special Purpose
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed in Sec. 91.313(b) to list the
following operations in restricted category aircraft as flights
necessary to accomplish the work activity directly associated with a
special purpose operation:
Flights conducted for flight crewmember training in a
special purpose operation for which the aircraft is certificated
provided the flight crewmember holds the appropriate category, class,
and type ratings and is employed by the operator to perform the
appropriate special purpose operation;
Flights conducted to satisfy proficiency check and recent
flight experience requirements under part 61 of this chapter provided
the flight crewmember holds the appropriate category, class, and type
ratings and is employed by the operator to perform the appropriate
special purpose operation; and
Flights conducted to relocate a restricted category
aircraft for maintenance.
A number of commenters, including Queen Bee Air Specialties, Inc.,
GAMA, Air Tractor, and the National Agricultural Aviation Association
(NAAA), noted that the proposed regulation would prohibit third-party
training providers from conducting flight crewmember training in a
special purpose operation. The commenters indicated that such a
provision would eliminate agricultural aviation schools and decrease
safety. The commenters noted that training by experienced instructors
based on an approved curriculum in restricted category aircraft under
the oversight of FAA inspectors enhances safety. The NAAA and the
Colorado Agricultural Aviation Association (CAAA) commented that they
interpreted the proposal to allow agricultural aviation operator
``sponsored'' pilots to be able to attend third party training
facilities.
GAMA, NAAA, AOPA, and CAAA suggested revisions to proposed Sec.
91.313(b) to ensure that training which is directly associated with the
special purpose operation is permitted without an employment
relationship existing between the trainee and the special purpose
operator.\146\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\146\ GAMA, Air Tractor, NAAA and Colorado Agricultural Aviation
Association all cited a recent survey conducted by the NAAA which
found that operators who conduct agricultural operations have an
average of 2.1 aircraft per operation, and that there was an average
of 2.0 pilots per operation. Texas State Technical College, GAMA,
NAAA, Farm Air, Curless Flying Service and Colorado Agricultural
Aviation Association all noted that many of these small operators do
not have capacity to dedicate an aircraft to training. NAAA, Farm
Air, Curless Flying Service, Colorado Agricultural Aviation
Association and Queen Bee Air Specialties specifically discussed the
difficulty of maintaining a turbine aircraft and commented that most
operators rely on third party training providers to provide
instruction in a dual cockpit aircraft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upon review of the extensive comments received, including a
conference call with Air Force representatives on December 13, 2016,
and a face-to-face meeting with representatives from the agricultural
aviation industry during the comment period, the FAA agrees that the
proposed rule language would have unnecessarily required all personnel
receiving flight crewmember training in a special purpose operation to
be employed by the operator providing the training.\147\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\147\ A record of conversation was placed in the docket for each
of these meetings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flight crewmember training in a special purpose operation has
historically been conducted by flight schools. Appendix K of part 141
for pilot schools contains allowances for special curriculum courses
for agricultural and external load operations. The FAA did not intend
to end the longstanding practice of pilot schools conducting flight
crewmember training in a special purpose operation. Flight crewmember
training in a special purpose operation for which the aircraft is
certificated is currently authorized in accordance with Sec. 91.313(b)
and was not intended to be affected by this provision. It was the FAA's
intent only to require pilot candidates to be an employee of the
operator when accomplishing training or practical tests specific to the
requisite type rating, a proficiency check, or recent flight experience
requirements specified under part 61. The FAA has revised the language
proposed in the NPRM to remove the employee requirement for
[[Page 30265]]
flight crewmember training in a special purpose operation.
The FAA is retaining the provision proposed in Sec. 91.313(b) that
allows pilots employed by operators performing special purpose
operations to accomplish Sec. 61.58 proficiency checks and recent
flight experience requirements set forth in Sec. 61.57 in the course
of their employment provided the pilots hold the appropriate category,
class, and type ratings. When a pilot is employed to perform a special
purpose operation, satisfying recent flight experience and proficiency
check requirements is necessary to accomplish the work activity
directly associated with a special purpose operation. When a pilot is
not employed to perform a special purpose operation, these operations
are neither a special purpose operation nor an operation directly
associated with a special purpose operation and, therefore, are not
permitted under Sec. 91.313(a).
The FAA is also retaining the provision from the NPRM that adds
relocation flights for maintenance to the list of operations considered
necessary to accomplish the work activity directly associated with the
special purpose operation.
GAMA, Air Tractor, NAAA, Thrush Aircraft, Inc. and CAAA all noted
that the FAA's proposal to add this provision could suggest that other
essential types of flights necessary to accomplish work directly
associated with the special purpose, such as positioning flights,
flights to deliver aircraft, and flights to trade shows, are excluded
from expressly listed operations. GAMA stated that these flights are
clearly within the scope of flights necessary to accomplish work
directly associated with the special purpose, but that the industry
could benefit from explicit recognition that Sec. 91.313(b) does not
contain an exhaustive list of flights.
The FAA has modified the final rule text to include flights to
relocate a restricted category aircraft for delivery, repositioning, or
maintenance to be considered as flights necessary to accomplish work
activity directly associated with a special purpose operation. This
change in the final rule permits many of the operations described by
the commenters, such as deliveries from an aircraft manufacturer,
change in ownership deliveries, relocation from one special purpose
operation to another, or repositioning for the special purpose
operation. The FAA notes that other types of flight events not
expressly allowed by the regulation may be permitted if they are
necessary to accomplish work activity directly associated with the
special purpose operation.\148\ Any operation that does not meet this
standard would require an exemption from the regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\148\ In the 1965 final rule, the FAA provided examples of
operations necessary to accomplish the work activity directly
associated with the special purpose operation which included
allowing a farmer to conduct a flight for the purpose of showing
which fields should be dusted or transportation of an insurance
agent, surveyor, or inspector to the site of a special purpose
operation. The FAA would also consider a flight conducted to
relocate an aircraft to an area of a special purpose operation to be
an operation necessary to accomplish the special purpose operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. LODAs for Training and Testing for Certification
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed in Sec. 91.313(h) to allow operators
of restricted category aircraft to apply for deviation authority for
the purpose of conducting the following operations in restricted
category aircraft:
Flight training and the practical test for issuance of a
type rating provided the pilot being trained and tested holds at least
a commercial pilot certificate with the appropriate category and class
ratings for the aircraft type and is employed by the operator to
perform a special purpose operation; and
Flights to designate an examiner or qualify an FAA
inspector in the aircraft type and flights necessary to provide
continuing oversight and evaluation of an examiner.
The FAA emphasized that the proposed provision was intended to
ensure that operators do not establish training schools for the sole
purpose of issuing type ratings using restricted category aircraft. As
proposed, operators would only be granted deviation authority under
proposed Sec. 91.313(h) to conduct this training and testing for
pilots who are employed by the operator and only when a type rating is
required to complete the special purpose operation for which the
aircraft was certificated and the operator is actively engaged in
performing.
A number of commenters opposed the proposed provision in Sec.
91.313(h) that limited the ability to obtain a LODA to an employer
providing flight training to its employees who perform a special
purpose operation for that employer. Texas State Technical College,
GAMA, L-3 Communications, and Queen Bee all suggested that such a
limitation would result in a reduction in safety.
More specifically, Thrush Aircraft, Inc. noted that the implication
of the phrase ``is employed by the operator'' in proposed Sec.
91.313(h)(1)(i) is that an employer/employee relationship must exist
before any training may commence. The interpretation of this phrase
could create the effect of ``restricting'' the aircraft from being used
in agricultural aviation flight schools to conduct training of students
planning to become agricultural pilots, by instructors employed by
manufacturers and their dealers, or flight schools to perform pilot
checkouts and transitional training, such as transitions from piston
powered to turbine powered aircraft and by third party training for
firefighting or other restricted category operations. The U.S. Air
Force commented that proposed Sec. 91.313(h) would prohibit commercial
vendors from providing the required USAF flight crewmember training;
therefore, USAF flightcrew would not be able to receive training in
restricted category aircraft. The USAF also indicated that removing the
employment requirement would allow training in aircraft where it is not
practical to obtain a type rating in an aircraft with a standard
airworthiness certificate. Queen Bee stated that the proposal limits
ability for dealers to provide training that is crucial to customers
for their safety, success and comfort.
As noted previously, the FAA has removed the proposed employment
requirement for flight crewmember training in a special purpose
operation. Third party training providers may continue to provide
training in special purpose operations (e.g. firefighting, agricultural
operations, and aerial advertising) absent an employment relationship
provided the operation is a special purpose operation for which the
aircraft is certificated.\149\ The LODA and employment requirements
described in Sec. 91.319(h)(1)(i) is specific to training and testing
to obtain a type rating and does not impede the special purpose flight
training identified by Thrush, the USAF, and Queen Bee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\149\ 14 CFR 21.25(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
GAMA, L-3 Communications, and AOPA all suggested that the FAA
revise the proposal to permit individuals or entities (instead of
operators) to apply for deviation authority and require that the
trainee is employed by ``an'' operator to perform a special purpose
operation instead of ``the'' operator applying to conduct the training
in proposed Sec. 91.313(h)(1). They noted that this would help to
ensure that the type rating training is required for the special
purpose operation in which the operator is actively engaged but allow
flexibility if the operator is unable to conduct the training itself.
GAMA noted, however, that this provision still would hinder training of
pilots trying to enter the
[[Page 30266]]
industry and not yet employed by a special purpose operator.
L-3 Communications noted that modifying the proposal so that other
entities could obtain a LODA would allow training of initial cadres of
pilots by an aircraft manufacturer or by a properly certified training
school with an authorization to conduct restricted category training.
L-3 Communications noted that such a change would still achieve the
FAA's goal of limiting the training in restricted category aircraft for
certification to only those pilots who are employed to perform a
special purpose operation.
GAMA, Air Tractor, Queen Bee, and one individual generally noted
that limiting the training and testing for the purpose of achieving a
type rating in a restricted category aircraft to a pilot's employer
will deny access to training for pilots that are not currently employed
in a special purpose operation. Additionally, Air Tractor noted the
possible burden on students, who must stay employed to finish flight
training. GAMA also noted that some insurance underwriters may require
pilots to obtain training that is only available through third party
training providers. Air Tractor, NAAA, CAAA, Queen Bee and one
individual all noted that these types of barriers to training will
affect the ability to replace an aging pilot community.
As noted in the NPRM, the FAA has historically placed operating
limitations on the use of restricted category aircraft because the
airworthiness certification standards for these aircraft are not
designed to provide the same level of safety that is required for
aircraft certificated in the standard category. The operating
limitations set forth in Sec. 91.313 are designed to compensate for
the different standards and provide the necessary level of safety for
special purpose operations. In the final rule, the FAA has retained the
employment requirement to prevent flight training and testing for the
purpose of obtaining a type rating in restricted category aircraft
without an explicit employment connection to special purpose
operations. The operation of restricted category aircraft has always
been limited to special purpose operations and those operations
necessary to accomplish the work activity directly associated with a
special purpose operation. Providing flight training and testing for
certification to a pilot who does not perform a special purpose
operation is not training in a special purpose operation and the hope
of eventual employment in a special purpose operation is too attenuated
to be necessary to accomplish the work activity associated with a
special purpose operation.
3. Economic Burden
L-3 Communications, Air Tractor, NAAA, CAAA, and Queen Bee
generally noted that the proposed rule would have a significant adverse
effect on businesses conducting operations with restricted category
aircraft since nearly all of these businesses are small businesses.
Texas State Technical College, L-3 Communications, Air Tractor, NAAA
and CAAA all noted that limiting the training and testing of pilots for
the purpose of achieving a type rating in a restricted category
aircraft to owners/operators will result in a major financial burden to
certain entities. GAMA, L-3 Communications, Air Tractor, Inc., and
Queen Bee Air Specialties generally noted that many agricultural
aviation operators lack the staff and aircraft to conduct training for
their employees. Texas State Technical College and GAMA both noted that
many of these small operators do not have in-house training staff.
Texas State specifically noted that the cost of providing its own
training would be a huge burden. Air Tractor commented that the FAA
should not place more burdens on these operators and reduce safety by
requiring training in restricted aircraft to be conducted by the
operator and requiring the student to be an employee of the operator.
Most of the commenters concerned with the employment requirement
have described training operations in which restricted category
aircraft are being used for flightcrew member training in a special
purpose operation rather than flight training to obtain a type rating.
The FAA has removed the proposed employment requirement for special
purpose training in the final rule which may continue to be conducted
without obtaining a LODA and without an employment relationship. As
such, the economic burden associated with this provision would only
affect operators who must obtain a LODA to conduct flight training for
certification. These are very limited training operations, and they are
currently conducted by operators using the exemption process. The FAA
has issued several exemptions to facilitate this training.\150\ In all
cases, the FAA has required the training to be accomplished by the
employer as a condition of the exemption. If anything the provision
will be relieving in nature to both operators and the FAA by
eliminating the need for the exemption process. As discussed in the
NPRM, the provision is not intended to allow operators to establish
training schools utilizing restricted category aircraft for the purpose
of issuing type ratings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\150\ Aero Contractors Ltd., Exemption No. 14396; Alaska Air
Fuel, Inc., Exemption No. 14205; Sky Aviation Corporation, Exemption
No. 12449; Columbia Helicopters, Exemption No. 11506; Airborne
Support, Inc., Exemption No. 11470; Withrotor Aviation, Inc.,
Exemption No. 11427; CHI Aviation, Exemption No. 11383; Aero-Flite,
Inc., Exemption No. 11276; Billings Flight Service, Exemption No.
11383.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Queen Bee specifically noted that this provision would limit its
ability to vet pilots for operators that do not have two-place, dual
control aircraft and/or the expertise in training. Queen Bee indicated
it currently provides this training, which would be prohibited under
the proposed requirements, for the U.S. company ARAMCO which responds
to oil spills in the Red Sea with U.S. citizens as pilots.
L-3 Communications, Air Tractor, NAAA, Farm Air, Curless Flying
Service and CAAA noted the effect on manufacturers developing and
selling new restricted category type designs. L-3 Communications, Farm
Air and Curless Flying Service asserted that the proposed rule would
limit the ability of manufacturers to develop and sell new restricted
category type design aircraft. According to the commenters, prospective
buyers of new restricted category aircraft would not be able to receive
training for their pilot employees. A manufacturer would have no
incentive to produce a new design aircraft providing safety benefits
and improvements based on new design features and technology insertion
because pilot employees of a prospective buyer could not receive
training.
Most restricted category aircraft do not require a type rating and
would be unaffected by this provision. Additionally, a manufacturer of
a new large or turbojet powered aircraft could seek approval as a
standard or transport category aircraft and, therefore, avoid any such
``type rating'' training limitations. The FAA notes that the level of
safety for restricted category aircraft may be lower than the level of
safety for standard category aircraft. However, the restricted category
level of certification does not eliminate any type certification
procedural requirements, such as the need to comply with continued
airworthiness requirements. To maintain an equivalent level of safety
for the public the FAA imposes certain operating restrictions for
restricted category aircraft. This provision is specific to facilitate
training in restricted category aircraft requiring a type rating
safely, not the promotion of restricted category aircraft production
for public use.
[[Page 30267]]
4. Operations for Compensation or Hire
The FAA also proposed a change to Sec. 91.313(c) to ensure that
instructors providing flight training and designees conducting
practical tests under a LODA may accept compensation for these
operations. Likewise, the FAA proposed to revise Sec. 91.313(d) to
permit persons to be carried on restricted category aircraft if
necessary to accomplish a flight authorized by LODA under paragraph
(h).
AOPA suggested revisions to Sec. 91.313(c) to eliminate confusion
by breaking each of the operations identified into three separate
subparagraphs and provided specific revised rule language. The FAA is
retaining the language in paragraph (c) as it was proposed in the NPRM.
The FAA merely proposed to add operations conducted under a LODA to the
existing list of operations involving the carriage of persons and
material that could be conducted without violating the general rule
prohibiting the carriage of persons or property on restricted category
aircraft for compensation or hire.
5. Exemptions
GAMA raised concerns about the relationship between Sec. 61.31 and
proposed Sec. 91.313(h). GAMA noted that, if applicants requesting
exemption from Sec. 61.31 type rating requirements also must request
exemption from Sec. 91.313 type rating training through this LODA
process, they will be subject to an employment requirement. GAMA
suggested that the FAA clarify that aircraft operators who hold
exemptions from a type rating requirement do not need to also request
exemption from Sec. 91.313(h) per the proposed LODA process or revise
the LODA process to permit third party training as discussed
previously.
GAMA also noted that while the LODA process seems to provide a path
for training in restricted category aircraft in pursuit of a type
rating, they believe that this process will be burdensome to obtain and
maintain. This process will be a barrier to a small business in that
manufacturers that plan on building larger restricted category
aircraft, that may not be exempted from the type rating requirement of
Sec. 61.31, will have a more difficult time getting training for
pilots. Air Tractor added that it and its competitor Thrush Aircraft,
Inc. manufacture airplanes that, by definition, are ``large'' (greater
than 12,500 lbs. gross weight). These airplanes are operated under
exemptions from Sec. 61.31. Air Tractor requested that the FAA
consider clarifying that large aircraft that are exempt from Sec.
61.31 are also exempt from the LODA process as proposed in the new
Sec. 91.313(h).
Section 91.313 requires an operator to obtain a LODA to conduct
training and testing for the purpose of obtaining a type rating in a
restricted category aircraft. To the extent that some operators may
hold exemptions that enable pilots to operate certain aircraft as PIC
without a type rating, then Sec. 91.313 would be inapplicable. We
note, however, that the general provision limiting the operation of
restricted category aircraft to special purpose operations and flights
necessary to accomplish the work activity directly associated with a
special purpose operation remains applicable to all operations
conducted--even operations conducted under these exemptions. No
operator should utilize a restricted category aircraft outside the
permitted operations in Sec. 91.313.
6. FAA Interpretation of Sec. 91.313
Finally, AOPA commented that, for the last 50 years, operators of
restricted category aircraft have been permitted to use such aircraft
for type rating training, type rating practical tests, and PIC
proficiency checks per Sec. Sec. 61.31 and 61.58. AOPA suggested that
the FAA reversed long-standing precedent in 2015 when it concluded that
this type rating training was not permissible under Sec. 91.313. AOPA
noted that new FAA guidance for conducting pilot training and/or
certification events in a restricted category aircraft was then
outlined in Notice N 8900.295 which stated that flights necessary for
PICs to obtain type rating designations in the restricted category
aircraft required under Sec. 61.31(a) are not permitted by the
operating limitations in Sec. 91.313.\151\ AOPA stated that none of
the FAA's documentation provides sufficient explanation as to the
reason for the recent change in interpretation of current Sec.
91.313(b). AOPA commented that the FAA is now proposing to codify this
new interpretation and implement a LODA process. AOPA added that
conducting type rating training and practical tests in restricted
category aircraft under certain circumstances and without a LODA has
been an accepted practice for at least several decades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\151\ N 8900.295 Pilot Training and/or Certification Events
Conducted in Restricted Category Aircraft became effective 05/05/
2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AOPA recommended that the FAA incorporate the operations from
proposed Sec. 91.313(h)(1) into proposed Sec. 91.313(b). This
approach would permit, without having to obtain a LODA, flight
operations in restricted category aircraft which are necessary for PICs
to obtain type rating designations in that aircraft, as required under
Sec. 61.31(a). AOPA did not believe that the LODA approach adds any
increased level of safety because the FAA has not articulated any
reason for the recent reinterpretation of current Sec. 91.313. AOPA
also believed that the FAA has not explained why the past accepted
practice should not be codified.
The FAA Office of the Chief Counsel was asked by the Director of
the Flight Standards Service to provide a legal interpretation on the
scope of Sec. 91.313 and whether the regulation permitted operators to
conduct training and testing for certification in restricted category
aircraft. The Office of the Chief Counsel concluded that the rule as
written does not expressly permit this training and testing. As
previously noted, the FAA has historically placed limitations on the
use of restricted category aircraft because they do not meet the same
standard as a standard category aircraft. When restricted category
aircraft are used solely for the purpose of providing a type rating to
a pilot who is not engaged in a special purpose operation, the
operation cannot meet the express requirements of Sec. 91.313(a). The
previous history relative to this type of training does not change the
identified training limitation. Additionally, the FAA believes that
this type rating training and testing needs FAA oversight and approval
to ensure safe operations. Restricted category aircraft were never
intended or designed to be used for FAA pilot training and
certification. The FAA will retain the requirement for an operator to
obtain an LODA specific to training and testing in restricted category
aircraft that require a type rating when a standard category aircraft
is not readily available or does not exist and only when a pilot will
be performing a special purpose operation.
AOPA noted that the FAA proposed to implement the changes to Sec.
91.313 within 180 days of the final rule. AOPA further noted that if
all of its recommendations are adopted, the implementation time frame
should be reduced to 30 days. AOPA suggested that the proposed changes
would be less complex to implement because the LODA process is
eliminated and less coordination within the FAA is required.
The FAA is not eliminating the LODA process and will retain the
180-day effective date after publication. This will allow the FAA and
operators time to become familiar with the guidance and process
documents associated with the LODA requirements. The FAA has
[[Page 30268]]
retained the provision as proposed in the NPRM.
K. Single Pilot Operations of Former Military Airplanes and Other
Airplanes With Special Airworthiness Certificates
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to revise Sec. 91.531 to allow large
airplanes, including former military aircraft and some experimental
aircraft, to operate without an SIC if they were originally designed
for single pilot operations.\152\ The FAA also proposed to reorganize
Sec. 91.531 by placing all affirmative requirements in paragraph (a)
and all exceptions thereto in paragraph (b).\153\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\152\ Prior to this final rule, certain former military aircraft
and some experimental aircraft that were designed to be flown by one
pilot were required under Sec. 91.531(a) to have a SIC because they
qualified as a large airplane. These airplanes were not eligible to
obtain an LOA under Sec. 91.531(b) because they were not type
certificated. Under Sec. 91.531(b), the Administrator was allowed
only to issue LOAs for the operation of an airplane without an SIC
``if that airplane is designed for and type certificated with only
one pilot station.''
\153\ As stated in the NPRM, the FAA also proposed to eliminate
inconsistencies, redundancies, and obsolete provisions in Sec.
91.531, including the language found in former paragraph (d). 81 FR
at 29744. The FAA notes that former Sec. 91.531(d), which applied
to part 91, subpart K aircraft, was redundant to Sec. 91.1049(d).
Section 91.1049(d) states, ``[u]nless otherwise authorized by the
Administrator, when any program aircraft is flown in program
operations with passengers onboard, the crew must consist of at
least two qualified pilots employed or contracted by the program
manager or the fractional owner.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) expressed concern
that, if read in isolation, proposed Sec. 91.531(b) could be
interpreted as providing an exhaustive list of airplanes that may be
operated without a SIC. AOPA stated that this would be a detrimental
unintended consequence because airplanes type certificated for one
required pilot are not listed in proposed Sec. 91.531(b). AOPA
recommended the FAA clarify that proposed Sec. 91.531(b) is not an
exhaustive list.
Section 91.531(b) should not be read in isolation from the
remainder of Sec. 91.531. Section 91.531 prescribes SIC requirements
under subpart F of part 91. Subpart F of part 91 applies to large and
turbine-powered multiengine airplanes and fractional ownership program
aircraft. Section 91.531(b) should be read in context with paragraph
(a), which expressly states that exceptions are provided in paragraph
(b). The FAA finds that reading Sec. 91.531 in its entirety alleviates
AOPA's concern. The FAA is adopting Sec. 91.531(b) as proposed.
AOPA also recommended revising proposed Sec. 91.531(b)(3) to state
``large airplane or turbojet-powered multiengine airplane,'' rather
than ``large or turbojet-powered multiengine airplane,'' to prevent any
confusion as to whether the paragraph applied to ``large airplanes'' or
``large multiengine airplanes.''
The FAA agrees that proposed Sec. 91.531(b)(3) may have caused
confusion specific to large airplanes. The FAA is adopting AOPA's
recommendation.
Additionally, the FAA recognizes that Sec. 91.531 has been amended
since the FAA published the NPRM on May 12, 2016.\154\ Effective August
30, 2017, the FAA amended its airworthiness standards for normal,
utility, acrobatic, and commuter category airplanes by replacing the
current prescriptive design requirements of part 23 with performance-
based airworthiness standards.\155\ As part of the part 23 final rule,
the FAA replaced the utility, acrobatic, and commuter categories in
part 23 with new airplane certification levels. As a result, the FAA
amended Sec. 91.531(a)(1) and (3) to incorporate the new airplane
certification levels to ensure airplanes certificated in the future
under new part 23 airworthiness standards would be addressed by Sec.
91.531. In this final rule, the FAA finds it unnecessary to expressly
incorporate the new airplane certification levels in the reorganized
rule language of Sec. 91.531(a) because levels 3 and 4 airplanes are
already covered by Sec. 91.531(a)(1), which requires a SIC for any
airplane that is type certificated for more than one required pilot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\154\ Regulatory Relief: Aviation Training Devices; Pilot
Certification, Training, and Pilot Schools; and Other Provisions,
proposed rule, 81 FR 29720 (May 12, 2016).
\155\ Revisions of Airworthiness Standards for Normal, Utility,
Acrobatic, and Commuter Category Airplanes, final rule, 81 FR 96572
(Dec. 30, 2016) (part 23 final rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, the FAA is relocating the exception in proposed Sec.
91.531(a)(2), which excepts from the SIC requirement any large airplane
that is type certificated for single-pilot operation, to Sec.
91.531(b)(1). This change from what was proposed is consistent with the
NPRM, which intended to place all affirmative requirements in paragraph
(a) and all exceptions in paragraph (b). The FAA notes that, rather
than providing an exception for any large airplane certificated under
SFAR 41 if that airplane is certificated for operation with one pilot,
paragraph (b)(1) excepts any airplane that is certificated for
operation with one pilot. It is therefore unnecessary to expressly
reference the new airplane certification levels in paragraph (b)
because Sec. 91.531(b)(1) will except from the SIC requirement any
airplane that is certificated for single-pilot operation, including any
airplanes certificated under new part 23 and any large airplanes
certificated under SFAR 41. The FAA notes that the remaining
requirements of Sec. 91.531 remain unchanged from the proposal.
L. Technical Corrections and Nomenclature Change
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed a technical correction in appendix I
to part 141, Additional Aircraft Category and/or Class Rating Course.
In paragraph 4.(k), course for an airplane additional multiengine class
rating, subparagraph (2) discussing the requirements for the commercial
pilot certificate, the FAA noted that two paragraphs were designated as
(k)(2)(iv). The FAA proposed to redesignate the second paragraph
(k)(2)(iv) as paragraph (k)(2)(v). The FAA received no comments on this
correction. The FAA is redesignating the second paragraph (k)(2)(iv) as
paragraph (k)(2)(v) as proposed.
Additionally, to reflect the change in nomenclature regarding
flight simulators, the FAA proposed to remove the words ``flight
simulator'' wherever they appear in the sections the FAA determined
needed to be revised and replace them with the words ``full flight
simulator.'' The Society of Aviation and Flight Educators agreed with
the proposed changes of wording to ``full flight simulator.'' The FAA
is adopting the changes as proposed. The following sections are amended
to reflect this nomenclature change: Sec. Sec. 61.31, 61.51, 61.57,
61.109, 61.129, 61.159, 61.161, and section 4 of Appendix D to part
141.
Finally, as discussed in section III.F.2. of this preamble, GAMA
recommended the FAA update its nomenclature to reflect the new Airmen
Certification Standards (ACS). The FAA began transitioning from the
practical test standards (PTS) to the airmen certification standards
(ACS) on June 15, 2016. The transition from the PTS to the ACS is an
ongoing process in which the FAA is enhancing the guidance it provides
to applicants, instructors, and evaluators to better prepare applicants
for knowledge and practical tests.\156\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\156\ The ACS offers a more comprehensive and integrated
presentation of standards for the knowledge and practical test for
an airman certificate or rating.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In light of GAMA's comment, the FAA recognized that the following
sections still referenced the practical test standards: Sec. Sec.
61.43, 61.57, 65.59, appendix A to part 65, and appendices A, B, C and
D to part 60. The FAA has
[[Page 30269]]
decided to revise these sections to reflect the transition to the ACS.
In Sec. 61.57(d), the FAA is removing the reference to the PTS.
The FAA recognizes that it was inappropriate for Sec. 61.57(d) to
state that the areas of operation and instrument tasks were required in
the instrument rating PTS. The PTS and ACS do not contain regulatory
requirements. Therefore, rather than referencing the instrument rating
ACS in Sec. 61.57(d), the FAA is codifying in Sec. 61.57(d) the areas
of operation for an IPC. The FAA finds that this revision is not a
substantive change because the areas of operation and instrument tasks
required for an IPC remain unchanged. Thus, an IPC is still driven by
the standards for the instrument rating practical test.\157\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\157\ The areas of operation and instrument tasks are contained
in new Sec. 61.57(d)(1). The FAA notes that it is redesignating
former Sec. 61.57(d)(1) as new Sec. 61.57(d)(2), and former Sec.
61.57(d)(2) as new Sec. 61.57(d)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Sec. 61.43(a)(1), the FAA is removing the reference to the PTS
as unnecessary. The FAA is also removing from Sec. 65.59 the reference
to the aircraft dispatcher PTS, to be consistent with editorial changes
made to other regulatory parts pertaining to certification of airmen.
In its place, the FAA is requiring an applicant to demonstrate skill in
applying the areas of knowledge and the topics outlined in appendix A
of part 65 to preflight and all phases of flight, which must include
abnormal and emergency procedures. The FAA emphasizes that this is not
a substantive change. The areas of operation in the aircraft dispatcher
PTS are currently based on an aircraft dispatcher's duties as they
relate to the various phases of flight, including preflight, en route,
and post-flight, and abnormal and emergency situations that could
occur. Therefore, the practical test will still be based on the
aircraft dispatcher PTS on the items outlined in appendix A of part 65.
Additionally, the aircraft dispatcher PTS will continue to provide
direction to examiners on how to administer a practical test.
Additionally, the FAA is removing the references to the practical
test standards for FAA Publication FAA-S-8081 series (Practical Test
Standards for Airline Transport Pilot Certificate, Type Ratings,
Commercial Pilot, and Instrument Ratings) in appendices A, B, C, and D
to part 60. These references are replaced with ``FAA Airman Testing
Standards for the Airline Transport Pilot Certificate, Type Ratings,
Commercial Pilot Certificate, and Instrument Ratings.''
IV. Discussion of Effective Dates for Rule Provisions
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed three different effective dates for
the various proposed amendments. The proposed amendments would have
been effective either 30, 60 or 180 days after the date of publication
of the final rule in the Federal Register, depending on the type and
scale of implementation needed for persons to begin complying with the
amended requirements.
The FAA received no comments on the proposed effective dates. The
following discussion summarizes when the various amendments included in
this final rule will become effective.
Provisions Effective 30 Days After Date of Publication of Final Rule
The following provisions will be effective 30 days after
publication of the final rule:
The revised definition of ``flight simulation training
device'' in Sec. 1.1
All definitions added to Sec. 61.1 and revisions to the
definition of ``pilot time'' in Sec. 61.1 regarding the reference to
FFSs rather than flight simulators and the allowance for training
received or given in an ATD
Substantive and clarifying amendments to Sec. 61.51(g)(4) and
(5) regarding instructor requirement when using an FFS, FTD, or ATD to
complete instrument recency experience
Amendment to Sec. 61.51(h) to include ATDs to accommodate the
logging of training time in an ATD
Amendments to Sec. 135.245 regarding instrument experience
requirements
Amendments to Sec. 61.195 regarding flight instructors with
instrument ratings only
Amendment to Sec. 61.99 and addition of Sec. 61.109(l)
regarding credit for training obtained as a sport pilot
Substantive amendment to Sec. 91.531 regarding single pilot
operations of former military airplanes and other airplanes with
special airworthiness certificates and clarifying amendments
Typographical correction to appendix I to part 141
Revisions related to the transition from the practical test
standards to the airman certification standards in Sec. Sec. 61.43,
61.57, 65.59, appendix A to part 65, and appendices A, B, C and D to
part 60
Provisions Effective 60 Days After Date of Publication of Final Rule
The following provisions will be effective 60 days after
publication of the final rule:
Substantive amendments to Sec. 61.129(a)(3)(ii) and (j) and
appendix D to part 141 regarding the completion of commercial pilot
training in technically advanced airplanes and clarifying amendments to
Sec. 61.129(b)(3)(ii)
Amendments to Sec. Sec. 61.412, 61.415(h) and 91.109(c)
regarding sport pilot flight instructor training privilege
Amendments to Sec. Sec. 61.197 and 61.199 regarding military
competence for Flight Instructors
Amendments to Sec. 61.31 regarding the allowance of a Sec.
135.293 pilot-in-command competency check in a complex or high-
performance airplane to meet the training requirements for a complex or
high-performance airplane, respectively
Provisions Effective 150 Days After Date of Publication of Final Rule
The following provisions will be effective 150 days after
publication of the final rule:
Revisions to the definition of ``pilot time'' in Sec. 61.1
regarding the allowance of SIC time obtained under the SIC PDP in
accordance with Sec. 135.99(c)
Amendments to Sec. 61.57(c) regarding instrument experience
requirements
Amendments to Sec. Sec. 61.39, 61.51(e) and (f), 61.159(a),
(c), and (d)-(f), 61.161, and 135.99(c) and (d) regarding logging
flight time as a second in command in part 135 operations
Amendment to Sec. 141.5(d) regarding pilot school use of
special curricula courses for renewal of certificate
Provisions Effective 180 Days After Date of Publication of Final Rule
The following provisions will be effective 180 days after
publication of the final rule:
Amendments to Sec. Sec. 61.3(a) and (l), 63.3, 63.16,
121.383(a) through (c), 91.1015 and 135.95 regarding temporary
validation of flightcrew members' certificates
Amendments to Sec. 91.313 regarding use of aircraft
certificated in the restricted category for pilot flight training,
checking, and testing.
V. Advisory Circulars and Other Guidance Materials
To further implement this final rule, the FAA is revising or
creating the following Advisory Circulars and FAA Orders.
FAA Order 8900.1, Flight Standards Information Management System,
Vol. 11, Chapter 10, Basic and Advanced Aviation Training Device, Sec.
1, Approval and Authorized Use under 14
[[Page 30270]]
CFR parts 61 and 141 guidance concerning ATD's will be revised.
FAA Order 8900.1, Flight Standards Information Management System,
Vol. 5 Airmen Certification, Chapter 1 Direction, Guidance, and
Procedures for Title 14 CFR parts 121/135 and General Aviation, Sec. 1,
General Information, will be revised adding a new paragraph to
facilitate application to the General Aviation and Commercial Division
for new technology TAA designation.
The Commercial Pilot--Airplane ACS will be revised to no longer
require a complex or turbine powered airplane to be provided for part
of the practical test, and the Flight Instructor PTS for Airplane will
be revised to no longer require a complex airplane to be provided for
part of the practical test.
AC 135-43: This document will be a new AC (Part 135 SIC
Professional Development Program) that will provide part 135 operators
guidance on receiving FAA approval for training and qualifying pilots
to act as an SIC and log that time for the ATP flight time
requirements.
AC 61-65, Certification: Pilots and Flight and Ground Instructors
will be revised to include endorsements and guidance pertaining to the
sport pilot provisions. This will include the recommended endorsement
for qualifying a sport pilot only instructor to give basic instrument
flight instruction to sport pilot candidates only. Additional guidance
will be provided concerning reference to the General Aviation and
Commercial Division, to qualify aircraft as TAA that otherwise do not
meet the criteria defined in the rule definition.
AC 141-1 Pilot School Certification will be revised to reflect the
allowance to use graduates from special curricula courses as a counter
for those pilot schools obtaining initial or renewal pilot school
certification.
AC 00-70: This document will be a new AC (Flightcrew Member
Certificate Verification Plan) that will provide part 121 air carriers,
part 135 air carriers/operators, and part 91, subpart K, program
managers guidance on receiving FAA approval of a certificate
verification plan to provide a temporary document verifying a
flightcrew member's airman certificate and medical certificate
privileges.
FAA Order 8900.1, Flight Standards Information Management System,
Vol. 5, Airman Certification, Chapter 1, Direction, Guidance and
Procedures for Parts 121/135 and General Aviation, Sec. 7, Amendments
to Certificates and Replacement of Lost Certificates will be revised to
provide guidance concerning temporary documents verifying a flightcrew
member's airman certificate and medical certificate privileges under an
approved certificate verification plan set forth in the certificate
holder's operations specifications/management specifications.
FAA Order 8900.1, Flight Standards Information Management System,
Vol. 5, Airman Certification, Chapter 2, Title 14 CFR part 61
Certification of Pilots and Flight Instructors, Sec. 15, Issue a Title
14 CFR part 61 Pilot Certificate Based on Military Competence; and FAA
Order 8900.2, General Aviation Airman Designee Handbook, Chapter 7,
Designated Pilot Examiner Program, Sec. 19, Accomplish Designation/
Issue Certificates as an ACR Employed Solely by a FIRC Sponsor,
Paragraph 121, Flight Instructor Certificate and Ratings Issued on the
Basis of Military Competence by an MCE and MC/FPE, and Paragraph 122,
Certification of Graduates; and Sec. 20, Accomplish Designation/Conduct
Functions as an MCE, FPE, MC/FPE, GIE, and FIRE, Paragraphs 123-127,
Background, General Information for MCE, FPE, and MC/FPE Designations,
Issuance of a U.S. Private Pilot Certificate and Ratings Based on
Foreign Pilot Licenses, Pilot Certificates and Ratings Issued on the
Basis of Military Competence by an MCE and MC/FPE, and Compliance with
Other Provisions, respectively, guidance concerning flight instructor
certificate renewal via military competence will be revised regarding
the military flight instructor provisions included in this final rule.
VI. Section-By-Section Discussion of the Final Rule
In part 1, definitions and abbreviations, in Sec. 1.1, the
definition of ``flight simulation training device'' is revised.
In part 60, flight simulation training device initial and
continuing qualification and use, appendices A, B, C, and D are revised
to remove the references to the FAA Publication FAA-S-8081 series
(Practical Test Standards for Airline Transport Pilot Certificate, Type
Ratings, Commercial Pilot, and Instrument Ratings) to reflect the
transition to the airman certification standards. These references are
replaced with ``FAA Airman Testing Standards for the Airline Transport
Pilot Certificate, Type Ratings, Commercial Pilot Certificate, and
Instrument Ratings.''
In part 61, certification: Pilots, flight instructors, and ground
instructors, in Sec. 61.1, the definition of ``pilot time'' is
revised. New definitions are added to Sec. 61.1(b) for ``aviation
training device'' and ``technically advanced airplane.''
Section 61.3(a) is revised to permit a pilot flightcrew member to
carry a temporary document as a required pilot certificate for
operating a civil aircraft of the United States. This document must be
provided under an approved certificate verification plan by a part 119
certificate holder conducting operations under part 121 or 135 or a
fractional ownership program manager conducting operations under part
91, subpart K. Section 61.3(l) is revised to require the temporary
document to be presented for inspection upon request of certain
persons.
Section 61.31 is revised to add an exception in Sec. 61.31(e) and
(f) to allow a Sec. 135.293 pilot-in-command competency check
completed in a complex or high performance airplane to meet the
training requirements for a complex or high performance airplane,
respectively.
Section 61.39 is revised to add a provision that requires a pilot
who has logged flight time under the SIC professional development
program requirements of Sec. 61.159(c) 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.
Section 61.43 is revised to remove the reference to the practical
test standards to reflect the transition to the airman certification
standards.
Section 61.51(e) is revised to allow a commercial pilot or ATP
acting as PIC of a part 135 operation to log all of the flight time as
PIC flight time even when the SIC is the sole manipulator of the
controls under an approved SIC PDP. Section 61.51(e) is also revised to
prohibit an SIC from logging PIC time when the SIC is the sole
manipulator of the controls under an approved SIC PDP. Section 61.51(f)
is revised 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 regulations. Section 61.51(g) is revised to
allow a pilot to accomplish instrument experience when using a FFS,
FTD, or ATD without an instructor present. Section 61.51(h) is revised
to include ATDs to accommodate the logging of training time in an ATD.
Section 61.57(c) is revised to allow pilots to accomplish
instrument experience in ATDs at the same 6-month interval allowed for
FFSs and FTDs. In addition, the section is revised to no longer require
pilots, who opt to use ATDs for accomplishing instrument experience, to
complete a specific number of additional instrument experience hours or
additional tasks. Finally, Sec. 61.57(d) is being revised to remove
the reference to the practical test
[[Page 30271]]
standards and codifying the areas of operation and instrument tasks
required for an IPC.
Section 61.99 is revised to allow flight training received from a
flight instructor with a sport pilot rating who does not also hold a
flight instructor certificate issued under the requirements in subpart
H of part 61 to be credited toward the flight training and aeronautical
experience requirements for a recreational pilot certificate with
airplane or rotorcraft categories.
Section 61.109 is revised by adding paragraph (l) to allow flight
training received from a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating
who does not also hold a flight instructor certificate issued under the
requirements in subpart H of part 61 to be credited toward the flight
training and aeronautical experience requirements for a private pilot
certificate with airplane, rotorcraft, or lighter-than-air categories.
Section 61.129(a)(3)(ii) is revised to allow a pilot seeking an
initial commercial pilot certificate with an airplane single engine
rating to complete 10 hours of training, currently required in a
complex or turbine-powered airplane, to also be completed in a TAA or
any combination thereof. Section 61.129(a)(3)(ii) is also revised to
include a reference to the requirements of paragraph (j) because the
FAA is relocating the proposed requirements regarding what a TAA must
contain to Sec. 61.129(j). Coordinated revisions are made in Sec.
61.129(b)(3)(ii) for clarity and consistency purposes only.
Section 61.159 is revised to permit flight time logged under an
approved SIC PDP to be used to meet certain flight time requirements
for an ATP certificate with an airplane category rating.
Section 61.161 is revised to permit flight time logged under an
approved SIC PDP to be used to meet certain flight time requirements
for an ATP certificate with a rotorcraft category and helicopter class
rating.
Section 61.195(b) and (c) are revised to permit a flight instructor
who holds only an instrument rating to provide instrument training
without being required to hold aircraft category and class ratings on
his or her flight instructor certificate if both the flight instructor
and the pilot receiving training hold a pilot certificate with the
appropriate category and class ratings. Flight instructors who wish to
provide instrument training in a multiengine airplane must still have
that additional category and class on their flight instructor
certificate.
Section 61.197(a)(2)(iv) is revised to allow a military instructor
who has passed a U.S. Armed Forces military instructor pilot
proficiency check within the 24 calendar months preceding the month of
application to be eligible to renew his or her FAA flight instructor
certificate based on that proficiency check. The section is clarified
to indicate that a flight instructor is able to renew his or her
certificate by providing a record demonstrating that, within the
previous 24 calendar months, the instructor passed a military
instructor pilot proficiency check for a rating that the instructor
already holds or for a new rating.
Section 61.199 is revised to permit a military instructor to
reinstate his or her flight instructor certificate by providing a
record showing that, within the previous six calendar months, the
instructor passed a U.S. Armed Forces instructor pilot or pilot
examiner proficiency check for an additional military rating or
completed a U.S. Armed Forces' instructor pilot or pilot examiner
training course and received an additional aircraft rating
qualification as a military instructor pilot or pilot examiner. Section
61.199(c) is added as a temporary provision to provide a reinstatement
method for military instructors and examiners who allowed their FAA
instructor certificates to expire before the regulations allowed them
to add a rating based on military instructor competence.
Section 61.412 is added to establish training and endorsement
requirements for those sport pilot flight instructors who want to
provide training for sport-pilot applicants on control and maneuvering
solely by reference to the flight instruments.
Section 61.415 is revised by adding new paragraph (h) to clarify
that a sport pilot instructor may not conduct flight training on
control and maneuvering an aircraft solely by reference to the
instruments in an airplane that has a Vh greater than 87
knots CAS without meeting the requirements in Sec. 61.412.
In part 63, certification: Flight crewmembers other than pilots,
Sec. 63.3(a) is revised to permit a flight engineer flightcrew member
to carry a temporary verification document as an airman certificate or
medical certificate, as appropriate. This document must be provided
under an approved certificate verification plan by a part 119
certificate holder conducting operations under part 121. Section
63.3(e) is revised to require the temporary document to be presented
for inspection upon request of certain persons.
Section 63.16 is revised to update the process for replacement of a
lost or destroyed airman certificate or medical certificate and to add
a process for replacement of a lost or destroyed knowledge test report.
In part 65, certification: Airmen other than flight crewmembers,
Sec. 65.59 and appendix A are revised to update the terminology to
reflect the transition to the airman certification standards.
In part 91, general operating and flight rules, Sec. 91.109(c) is
revised to permit a sport pilot instructor who has obtained the
endorsement in Sec. 61.412 to serve as a safety pilot only for the
purpose of providing flight training on control and maneuvering solely
by reference to the instruments to a sport pilot applicant seeking a
solo endorsement in an airplane with a Vh greater than 87
knots CAS.
Section 91.313 is revised to permit operators of aircraft
certificated in the restricted category to operate those aircraft for
the purpose of providing pilot training and testing, to pilots employed
by the operator to perform the special purpose operation, that leads to
a type rating designation required by Sec. 61.31(a) (and an ATP
certificate obtained concurrently with a type rating). The section is
amended to allow flights to be conducted in restricted category
aircraft for the purpose of designating examiners and qualifying FAA
inspectors in the aircraft type and conducting oversight and
observation of designated examiners.
Section 91.531 is revised to allow certain large airplanes that are
not type-certificated to be operated without a pilot who is designated
as SIC, provided that those airplanes: (1) Were originally designed
with only one pilot station; or (2) were originally designed with more
than one pilot station for purposes of flight training or for other
purposes, but were operated by a branch of the United States armed
forces or the armed forces of a foreign contracting State to the
Convention on International Civil Aviation with only one pilot. The
section is revised to eliminate redundancies and reorganized for
purposes of clarification by placing all affirmative requirements for a
SIC in paragraph (a) and all exceptions thereto in paragraph (b).
Section 91.1015 is revised to permit a fractional ownership program
manager to obtain approval to provide a temporary document verifying a
flightcrew member's airman certificate and medical certificate
privileges under an approved certificate verification plan set forth in
the program manager's management specifications.
In part 121, operating requirements: Domestic, flag, and
supplemental operations, Sec. 121.383(b) is revised to require the
temporary document to be
[[Page 30272]]
presented for inspection upon request of the Administrator. Section
121.383(c) is revised to permit a certificate holder to obtain approval
to provide a temporary document verifying a flightcrew member's airman
certificate and medical certificate privileges under an approved
certificate verification plan set forth in the certificate holder's
operations specifications.
In part 135, operating requirements: Commuter and on demand
operations and rules governing persons on board such aircraft, Sec.
135.95 is revised to permit a certificate holder to obtain approval to
provide a temporary document verifying a flightcrew member's airman
certificate and medical certificate privileges under an approved
certificate verification plan set forth in the certificate holder's
operations specifications.
Section 135.99 is revised to add paragraph (c) to permit a
certificate holder conducting part 135 operations to receive approval
of an SIC PDP via operations specifications (Ops Specs) in order to
allow their pilots to log time as SICs in an operation that does not
require an SIC by type certification of the aircraft or the regulations
under which the flight is being conducted. The paragraph includes
requirements related to the certificate holder, aircraft, and pilots
involved. Section 135.99(d) states that certificate holders who have
been approved to deviate from the requirements in Sec. 135.21(a),
Sec. 135.341(a), or Sec. 119.69(a) are not permitted to obtain
approval to conduct an SIC PDP.
Section 135.245 is revised to remove the reference to part 61 in
Sec. 135.245(a) and move the current instrument experience
requirements in Sec. 61.57(c) and (d) to new Sec. 135.245(c) and (d).
In part 141, pilot schools, Sec. 141.5(d) is revised to add an
end-of-course test for a special curricula course approved under Sec.
141.57 to the list of activities a pilot school may use for the FAA to
issue or renew a pilot school certificate.
Appendix D to part 141, commercial pilot certification course, is
revised to allow commercial pilot certification courses to reflect the
relief in Sec. 61.129(a)(3)(ii) that permits a pilot seeking a
commercial pilot certificate with an airplane single engine class
rating to complete the 10 hours of training in one, or a combination
of, a TAA, a complex airplane, or a turbine-powered airplane.
Appendix I to part 141, additional aircraft category and/or class
rating course, section 4, paragraph (k)(2) is revised by redesignating
the second paragraph (k)(2)(iv) as paragraph (k)(2)(v).
VII. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
A. Regulatory Evaluation
Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866, and Executive Order 13563,
direct that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation
only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended
regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of
1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact
of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements
Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that
create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. In developing U.S. standards, this Trade Act requires agencies
to consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they
be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written
assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or
final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the
expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted
for inflation with base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble
summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this rule. We
suggest readers seeking greater detail read the full regulatory
evaluation, a copy of which we have placed in the docket for this
rulemaking.
In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined that this final
rule: (1) Has benefits that justify its costs, (2) is not an
economically ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, (3) is not ``significant'' as defined in
DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) will not result in a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
because this rule provides modest cost savings without imposing
significant costs; (5) will not create unnecessary obstacles to the
foreign commerce of the United States; and (6) will not impose an
unfunded mandate on state, local, or tribal governments, or on the
private sector by exceeding the threshold identified above. These
analyses are summarized below, and a full discussion of the benefits
and costs is provided in the regulatory evaluation included in the
docket for this rulemaking.
Who is potentially affected by this rule?
This final rule will provide regulatory relief and benefits to
pilots, student pilots, flight instructors, military pilots seeking
civilian ratings, and pilot schools.
Assumptions
1. Analysis Time Period--5 Years
2. Discount Rates--3% and 7%
3. Analysis Base Dollar Year--2016
Summary of Cost Savings
The amendments in this final rule reduce or relieve existing
burdens on the general aviation community and part 135 operators.
Several of these changes result from comments from the general aviation
community through petitions for rulemaking, industry/agency meetings,
and requests for legal interpretation. The changes include: reduction
in time and flexibilities in the use of ATDs, FTDs, and FFSs; expanded
opportunities for pilots in part 135 operations to log flight time;
allowed alternatives to the complex airplane requirement for commercial
pilot training; and, an allowance for pilots to credit some of their
sport pilot training toward a higher certificate. This final rule does
not result in additional costs.
The present value total cost savings over the 5-year period of
analysis is about $93.1 million with an annualized cost savings of
about $22.7 million at a 7% discount rate. The following table
summarizes unquantified and monetized cost savings over the 5-year
period of analysis.
[[Page 30273]]
Table 2--Summary of Rule Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 5-year cost savings (millions of $2016
dollars) *
Provision/area of regulatory relief -----------------------------------------------
2016$ PV at 3% PV at 7%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allow a pilot to accomplish instrument recency experience in an $12.5 $11.4 $10.3
FFS, FTD, or ATD without an instructor present.................
Reduction in interval and time for pilots using ATDs............ 83.1 76.1 68.2
Allowance to use less expensive basic airplanes for tests 3.1 2.8 2.6
instead of more expensive complex airplanes....................
Credit for training obtained as a sport pilot *................. 14.0 13.3 12.3
-----------------------------------------------
5-Year Total................................................ 113.5 104.0 93.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Provisions With Unquantified Minimal Cost Savings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second in Command for part 135 operations.
Instrument recency experience for SICs serving in Part 135 operations.
Flight instructors with instrument ratings only.
Sport pilot flight instructor training privilege.
Include special curricula courses in renewal of pilot school certificate.
Temporary validation of flightcrew members' certificates.
Military competence for flight instructors.
Restricted category aircraft training and testing allowances.
Single pilot operations of former military airplanes and other airplanes with special airworthiness
certificates.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Totals may not sum due to rounding.
The following table summarizes annualized cost savings at a 7%
discount rate (annualized estaimtes at a 3% discount rate are almost
the same in this analysis). The reduction in interval and time for
pilots using ATDs comprises about 75% of the savings of this final
rule.
Table 3--Summary of Annualized Cost Savings *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized cost
Provision/area of regulatory relief savings at 7%
($M)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allow a pilot to accomplish instrument recency $2.5
experience in an FFS, FTD, or ATD without an
instructor present..................................
Reduction in interval and time for pilots using ATDs. 16.6
Allowance to use TAAs for training and less expensive .6
basic airplanes for tests instead of more expensive
complex airplanes...................................
Credit for training obtained as a sport pilot........ 3.0
------------------
Total............................................ 22.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Estimates may total due to rounding.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA)
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide range of small entities,
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the
agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required. The certification must include a statement providing the
factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be
clear.
Most of the parties affected by this final rule will be small
businesses such as flight instructors, aviation schools, fixed base
operators, and small part 135 air carriers. There are over 1,000 part
135 air carriers alone. The general lack of publicly available
financial information from these small businesses precludes a financial
analysis of these small businesses.
This final rule will affect a substantial number of small entities.
However, this final rule will not impose a significant impact on those
entities because this rule provides modest cost savings without
imposing significant costs.
Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), the head of the FAA
certifies that this final rule will not result in a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, as it
imposes no new costs.
C. International Trade Impact Assessment
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the
[[Page 30274]]
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic
objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a
manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also
requires consideration of international standards and, where
appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards.
The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this final rule and
determined that it will have only a domestic impact and therefore would
not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States.
D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $155.0 million in lieu of $100
million.
This final rule does not contain such a mandate. Therefore, the
requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. According to the 1995
amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act, (5 CFR 1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an
agency may not collect or sponsor the collection of information, nor
may it impose an information collection requirement unless it displays
a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
In the proposed rule the FAA identified three provisions with PRA
implications that will require amended OMB supporting statements:
Instrument recency experience requirements (information
collection 2120-0021),
Second in command for part 135 operations (information
collection 2120-0021, 2120-0593, 2120-0039),
Include special curricula courses in renewal of pilot
school certificate (information collection 2120-0009).
The FAA did not receive any comments regarding its proposed
revision to any of the listed information collections. However, as the
FAA was developing this final rule, it recognized that it had not
provided an opportunity for meaningful comment regarding the proposed
revisions to information collections 2120-0021, 2120-0039 and 2120-
0009.\158\ While the FAA had described the changes in burden it did not
provide estimates of the total number of respondents affected by some
of the changes. To ensure transparency and a meaningful opportunity for
comment, the FAA published three notices seeking specific comment
regarding the revisions being made to each of these information
collections as part of this final rule.\159\ The revisions to these
information collections will follow the notice and comment requirements
of the Paperwork Reduction Act and will be submitted to OMB for review
and approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\158\ The FAA notes that for one information collection, 2120-
0593: Certification: Air Carriers and Commercial Operators, the FAA
provided estimates of the number of respondents and the total
burden. Therefore, the FAA provided adequate notice and an
opportunity for comment regarding the revisions to information
collection 2120-0593 in the NPRM. 81 FR 29749-52. The FAA further
notes that this information collection was submitted to OMB during
the comment period for the NPRM. OMB filed comment and continued the
information collection on January 2, 2017.
\159\ Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for
Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection:
Pilot Schools-FAR 141, 83 FR 27820 (Jun. 14, 2018); Agency
Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance
of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Certification:
Pilots, Flight Instructors, and Ground Instructors, 83 FR 27821
(Jun. 14, 2018); Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests
for Comments; Clearance of a Revision to an Approval of an Existing
Information Collection: Operating Requirements: Commuter and On-
Demand Operation, 83 FR 27822 (Jun. 14, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA notes that the effective dates of the provisions of this
final rule with information collection revisions have been adjusted
from the effective dates that were proposed to address the Paperwork
Reduction Act requirements for notice and OMB approval.
F. International Compatibility and Cooperation
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to ICAO
Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable.
The FAA has reviewed the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended
Practices and has identified the following differences with these
proposed regulations.
The FAA notes that, under Sec. 61.159(c), pilots are permitted to
log second in command flight time in part 135 operations when a second
pilot is not required. ICAO standards do not recognize the crediting of
flight time when a pilot is not required by the aircraft certification
or the operation under which the flight is being conducted.
Accordingly, all pilots who log flight time under this provision and
apply for an ATP certificate would have a limitation on the certificate
indicating that the pilot does not meet the PIC aeronautical experience
requirements of ICAO. This limitation may be removed when the pilot
presents satisfactory evidence that he or she has met the ICAO
standards.
Additionally, the FAA is allowing part 119 certificate holders
conducting operations under parts 121 and 135 and program managers
conducting operations under part 91 subpart K to issue temporary
verification documents to flightcrew members who do not have their
airman certificates or medical certificates in their personal
possession for a particular flight. A temporary verification document
may be used for a period not to exceed 72 hours. Article 29 of the
Convention on International Civil Aviation requires that every aircraft
engaged in international navigation shall carry ``the appropriate
licenses for each member of the crew.'' Accordingly, the FAA is
limiting the use of temporary verification documents to flights
conducted entirely within the United States.
G. Environmental Analysis
FAA Order 1050.1F identifies FAA actions that are categorically
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has
determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical
exclusion identified in paragraph 5-6.6f and involves no extraordinary
circumstances.
VIII. Executive Order Determinations
A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency has
determined that this action would not have a substantial direct effect
on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and
[[Page 30275]]
the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among
the various levels of government, and, therefore, would not have
Federalism implications.
B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
The FAA analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it
would not be a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order
and would not be likely to have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.
C. Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation
Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation, (77 FR 26413, May 4, 2012) promotes international
regulatory cooperation to meet shared challenges involving health,
safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and to reduce,
eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory
requirements. The FAA has analyzed this action under the policies and
agency responsibilities of Executive Order 13609, and has determined
that this action would have no effect on international regulatory
cooperation.
D. Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
This final rule is considered an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action.
Details on the estimated cost savings of this final rule can be found
in the rule's economic analysis.
IX. Additional Information
A. Availability of Rulemaking Documents
An electronic copy of rulemaking documents may be obtained from the
internet by--
Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);
Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies web page at
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or
Accessing the Government Publishing Office's web page at
http://www.fdsys.gov.
Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9677.
Commenters must identify the docket or notice number of this
rulemaking.
All documents the FAA considered in developing this proposed rule,
including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from
the internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced above.
B. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
(SBREFA) requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for
information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations
within its jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this
document may contact its local FAA official, or the person listed under
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the beginning of the
preamble. To find out more about SBREFA on the internet, visit http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.
List of Subjects
14 CFR Part 1
Air transportation.
14 CFR Part 60
Airmen, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
14 CFR Part 61
Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, Teachers.
14 CFR Part 63
Aircraft, Airman, Aviation safety.
14 CFR Part 65
Air traffic controllers, Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
14 CFR Part 91
Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety.
14 CFR Part 121
Air carriers, Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety.
14 CFR Part 135
Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety.
14 CFR Part 141
Airmen, Educational facilities, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Schools.
The Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:
PART 1--DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS
0
1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701.
0
2. In Sec. 1.1, revise the definition of ``Flight simulation training
device'' to read as follows:
Sec. 1.1 General definitions.
* * * * *
Flight simulation training device (FSTD) means a full flight
simulator or a flight training device.
* * * * *
PART 60--FLIGHT SIMULATION TRAINING DEVICE INITIAL AND CONTINUING
QUALIFICATION AND USE
0
3. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, and 44701; Pub. L.
111-216, 124 Stat. 2348 (49 U.S.C. 44701 note).
0
4. In appendix A, revise paragraph 1.d.(27) to read as follows:
Appendix A to Part 60--Qualification Performance Standards for Airplane
Full Flight Simulators
* * * * *
1. * * *
d. * * *
(27) FAA Airman Testing Standards for the Airline Transport
Pilot Certificate, Type Ratings, Commercial Pilot Certificate, and
Instrument Ratings.
* * * * *
0
5. In appendix B, revise paragraph 1.d.(26) to read as follows:
Appendix B to Part 60--Qualification Performance Standards for Airplane
Flight Training Devices
* * * * *
1. * * *
d. * * *
(26) FAA Airman Testing Standards for the Airline Transport
Pilot Certificate, Type Ratings, Commercial Pilot Certificate, and
Instrument Ratings.
* * * * *
0
6. In appendix C, revise paragraph 1.d.(25) to read as follows:
Appendix C to Part 60--Qualification Performance Standards for
Helicopter Full Flight Simulators
* * * * *
1. * * *
d. * * *
(25) FAA Airman Testing Standards for the Airline Transport
Pilot Certificate, Type Ratings, Commercial Pilot Certificate, and
Instrument Ratings.
* * * * *
[[Page 30276]]
0
7. In appendix D, revise paragraph 1.d.(28) to read as follows:
Appendix D to Part 60--Qualification Performance Standards for
Helicopter Flight Training Devices
* * * * *
1. * * *
d. * * *
(28) FAA Airman Testing Standards for the Airline Transport
Pilot Certificate, Type Ratings, Commercial Pilot Certificate, and
Instrument Ratings.
* * * * *
PART 61--CERTIFICATION: PILOTS, FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS, AND GROUND
INSTRUCTORS
0
8. The authority citation for part 61 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701-44703, 44707,
44709-44711, 44729, 44903, 45102-45103, 45301-45302; Sec. 2307 Pub.
L. 114-190, 130 Stat. 615 (49 U.S.C. 44703 note).
0
9. Amend Sec. 61.1(b) as follows:
0
a. Add a definition of ``Aviation training device'' in alphabetical
order.
0
b. Revise the definition of ``Pilot time;'' and,
0
c. Add a definition of ``Technically advanced airplane'' in
alphabetical order.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 61.1 Applicability and definitions.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
Aviation training device means a training device, other than a full
flight simulator or flight training device, that has been evaluated,
qualified, and approved by the Administrator.
* * * * *
Pilot time means that time in which a person--
(i) Serves as a required pilot flight crewmember;
(ii) Receives training from an authorized instructor in an
aircraft, full flight simulator, flight training device, or aviation
training device; or
(iii) Gives training as an authorized instructor in an aircraft,
full flight simulator, flight training device, or aviation training
device.
* * * * *
Technically advanced airplane (TAA) means an airplane equipped with
an electronically advanced avionics system.
* * * * *
0
10. Effective November 26, 2018, in Sec. 61.1(b), amend the definition
of ``Pilot time'' by removing the word ``or'' at the end of paragraph
(ii), revising paragraph (iii), and adding paragraph (iv) to read as
follows:
Sec. 61.1 Applicability and definitions.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
Pilot time * * *
(iii) Gives training as an authorized instructor in an aircraft,
full flight simulator, flight training device, or aviation training
device; or
(iv) Serves as second in command in operations conducted in
accordance with Sec. 135.99(c) of this chapter when a second pilot is
not required under the type certification of the aircraft or the
regulations under which the flight is being conducted, provided the
requirements in Sec. 61.159(c) are satisfied.
* * * * *
0
11. Effective December 24, 2018, in Sec. 61.3, revise paragraph
(a)(1)(iv), redesignate paragraph (a)(1)(v) as paragraph (a)(1)(vii),
add paragraphs (a)(1)(v) and (vi), and revise paragraph (l)
introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 61.3 Requirement for certificates, ratings, and authorizations.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv) A document conveying temporary authority to exercise
certificate privileges issued by the Airmen Certification Branch under
Sec. 61.29(e);
(v) When engaged in a flight operation within the United States for
a part 119 certificate holder authorized to conduct operations under
part 121 or 135 of this chapter, a temporary document provided by that
certificate holder under an approved certificate verification plan;
(vi) When engaged in a flight operation within the United States
for a fractional ownership program manager authorized to conduct
operations under part 91, subpart K, of this chapter, a temporary
document provided by that program manager under an approved certificate
verification plan; or
* * * * *
(l) Inspection of certificate. Each person who holds an airman
certificate, temporary document in accordance with paragraph (a)(1)(v)
or (vi) of this section, medical certificate, documents establishing
alternative medical qualification under part 68 of this chapter,
authorization, or license required by this part must present it and
their photo identification as described in paragraph (a)(2) of this
section for inspection upon a request from:
* * * * *
0
12. Amend Sec. 61.31 as follows:
0
a. Effective July 27, 2018, in paragraphs (e)(1)(i), (f)(1)(i), (g)(2)
and (3), and (h)(1), remove the words ``flight simulator'' and add in
their place the words ``full flight simulator''; and
0
b. Effective August 27, 2018, revise paragraphs (e)(2) and (f)(2).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 61.31 Type rating requirements, additional training, and
authorization requirements.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) The training and endorsement required by paragraph (e)(1) of
this section is not required if--
(i) The person has logged flight time as pilot in command of a
complex airplane, or in a full flight simulator or flight training
device that is representative of a complex airplane prior to August 4,
1997; or
(ii) The person has received ground and flight training under an
approved training program and has satisfactorily completed a competency
check under Sec. 135.293 of this chapter in a complex airplane, or in
a full flight simulator or flight training device that is
representative of a complex airplane which must be documented in the
pilot's logbook or training record.
(f) * * *
(2) The training and endorsement required by paragraph (f)(1) of
this section is not required if--
(i) The person has logged flight time as pilot in command of a
high-performance airplane, or in a full flight simulator or flight
training device that is representative of a high-performance airplane
prior to August 4, 1997; or
(ii) The person has received ground and flight training under an
approved training program and has satisfactorily completed a competency
check under Sec. 135.293 of this chapter in a high performance
airplane, or in a full flight simulator or flight training device that
is representative of a high performance airplane which must be
documented in the pilot's logbook or training record.
* * * * *
0
13. Effective November 26, 2018, in Sec. 61.39, revise paragraph
(a)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 61.39 Prerequisites for practical tests.
(a) * * *
(3) Have satisfactorily accomplished the required training and
obtained the aeronautical experience prescribed by this part for the
certificate or rating sought, and if applying for the practical test
with flight time accomplished under Sec. 61.159(c), present a copy of
the records required by Sec. 135.63(a)(4)(vi) and (x) of this chapter;
* * * * *
0
14. In Sec. 61.43, revise paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
[[Page 30277]]
Sec. 61.43 Practical tests: General procedures.
(a) * * *
(1) Performing the tasks specified in the areas of operation for
the airman certificate or rating sought;
* * * * *
0
15. Amend Sec. 61.51 as follows:
0
a. Effective July 27, 2018, in paragraphs (b)(1)(iii) and (iv),
(b)(2)(v), (b)(3)(iii) and (iv), (k)(1)(ii), and (k)(2)(ii), remove the
words ``flight simulator'' and add in their place the words ``full
flight simulator'';
0
b. Effective November 26, 2018, revise paragraph (e)(1)(i);
0
c. Effective November 26, 2018, add paragraph (e)(5);
0
d. Effective November 26, 2018, revise paragraphs (f)(1) and (2);
0
e. Effective November 26, 2018, add paragraph (f)(3);
0
f. Effective July 27, 2018, revise paragraph (g)(4);
0
g. Effective July 27, 2018, add paragraph (g)(5); and
0
h. Effective July 27, 2018, revise paragraph (h)(1).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 61.51 Pilot logbooks.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Except when logging flight time under Sec. 61.159(c), when the
pilot is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which
the pilot is rated, or has sport pilot privileges for that category and
class of aircraft, if the aircraft class rating is appropriate;
* * * * *
(5) A commercial pilot or airline transport pilot may log all
flight time while acting as pilot in command of an operation in
accordance with Sec. 135.99(c) of this chapter if the flight is
conducted in accordance with an approved second-in-command professional
development program that meets the requirements of Sec. 135.99(c) of
this chapter.
(f) * * *
(1) Is qualified in accordance with the second-in-command
requirements of Sec. 61.55, and occupies a crewmember station in an
aircraft that requires more than one pilot by the aircraft's type
certificate;
(2) Holds the appropriate category, class, and instrument rating
(if an instrument rating is required for the flight) for the aircraft
being flown, and more than one pilot is required under the type
certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight
is being conducted; or
(3) Serves as second in command in operations conducted in
accordance with Sec. 135.99(c) of this chapter when a second pilot is
not required under the type certification of the aircraft or the
regulations under which the flight is being conducted, provided the
requirements in Sec. 61.159(c) are satisfied.
(g) * * *
(4) A person may use time in a full flight simulator, flight
training device, or aviation training device for acquiring instrument
aeronautical experience for a pilot certificate or rating provided an
authorized instructor is present to observe that time and signs the
person's logbook or training record to verify the time and the content
of the training session.
(5) A person may use time in a full flight simulator, flight
training device, or aviation training device for satisfying instrument
recency experience requirements provided a logbook or training record
is maintained to specify the training device, time, and the content.
(h) Logging training time. (1) A person may log training time when
that person receives training from an authorized instructor in an
aircraft, full flight simulator, flight training device, or aviation
training device.
* * * * *
0
16. Amend Sec. 61.57 as follows:
0
a. Effective July 27, 2018, in paragraphs (a)(3), (b)(2), (d)(1)(ii),
(e)(4)(ii)(D), and (g) introductory text, remove the words ``flight
simulator'' and add in their place the words ``full flight simulator'';
0
b. Effective July 27, 2018, in paragraph (e)(4)(ii)(D), remove the
words ``flight simulator's'' and add in their place the words ``full
flight simulator's'';
0
c. Effective November 26, 2018, revise paragraph (c)(2), remove
paragraphs (c)(3) through (5), and redesignate paragraph (c)(6) as
paragraph (c)(3);
0
d. Effective July 27, 2018, redesignate paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) as
paragraphs (d)(2) and (3), redesignate the introductory text of
paragraph (d) as paragraph (d)(1), and revise newly redesignated
paragraph (d)(1).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 61.57 Recent flight experience: Pilot in command.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) Use of a full flight simulator, flight training device, or
aviation training device for maintaining instrument experience. A pilot
may accomplish the requirements in paragraph (c)(1) of this section in
a full flight simulator, flight training device, or aviation training
device provided the device represents the category of aircraft for the
instrument rating privileges to be maintained and the pilot performs
the tasks and iterations in simulated instrument conditions. A person
may complete the instrument experience in any combination of an
aircraft, full flight simulator, flight training device, or aviation
training device.
* * * * *
(d) Instrument proficiency check. (1) Except as provided in
paragraph (e) of this section, a person who has failed to meet the
instrument experience requirements of paragraph (c) of this section for
more than six calendar months may reestablish instrument currency only
by completing an instrument proficiency check. The instrument
proficiency check must consist of at least the following areas of
operation:
(i) Air traffic control clearances and procedures;
(ii) Flight by reference to instruments;
(iii) Navigation systems;
(iv) Instrument approach procedures;
(v) Emergency operations; and
(vi) Postflight procedures.
* * * * *
0
17. Revise Sec. 61.99 to read as follows:
Sec. 61.99 Aeronautical experience.
(a) A person who applies for a recreational pilot certificate must
receive and log at least 30 hours of flight time that includes at
least--
(1) 15 hours of flight training from an authorized instructor on
the areas of operation listed in Sec. 61.98 that consists of at least:
(i) Except as provided in Sec. 61.100, 2 hours of flight training
en route to an airport that is located more than 25 nautical miles from
the airport where the applicant normally trains, which includes at
least three takeoffs and three landings at the airport located more
than 25 nautical miles from the airport where the applicant normally
trains; and
(ii) Three hours of flight training with an authorized instructor
in the aircraft for the rating sought in preparation for the practical
test within the preceding 2 calendar months from the month of the test.
(2) Three hours of solo flying in the aircraft for the rating
sought, on the areas of operation listed in Sec. 61.98 that apply to
the aircraft category and class rating sought.
(b) The holder of a sport pilot certificate may credit flight
training received from a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating
toward the aeronautical experience requirements of this section if the
following conditions are met:
(1) The flight training was accomplished in the same category and
[[Page 30278]]
class of aircraft for which the rating is sought;
(2) The flight instructor with a sport pilot rating was authorized
to provide the flight training; and
(3) The flight training included training on areas of operation
that are required for both a sport pilot certificate and a recreational
pilot certificate.
0
18. In Sec. 61.109, amend paragraph (k) by removing the words ``flight
simulator'' and adding in their place the words ``full flight
simulator'' and add paragraph (l) to read as follows:
Sec. 61.109 Aeronautical experience.
* * * * *
(l) Permitted credit for flight training received from a flight
instructor with a sport pilot rating. The holder of a sport pilot
certificate may credit flight training received from a flight
instructor with a sport pilot rating toward the aeronautical experience
requirements of this section if the following conditions are met:
(1) The flight training was accomplished in the same category and
class of aircraft for which the rating is sought;
(2) The flight instructor with a sport pilot rating was authorized
to provide the flight training; and
(3) The flight training included either--
(i) Training on areas of operation that are required for both a
sport pilot certificate and a private pilot certificate; or
(ii) For airplanes with a VH greater than 87 knots CAS,
training on the control and maneuvering of an airplane solely by
reference to the flight instruments, including straight and level
flight, turns, descents, climbs, use of radio aids, and ATC directives,
provided the training was received from a flight instructor with a
sport pilot rating who holds an endorsement required by Sec.
61.412(c).
0
19. In Sec. 61.129:
0
a. Effective August 27, 2018, revise paragraphs (a)(3)(ii) and
(b)(3)(ii);
0
b. Effective July 27, 2018, in paragraphs (c)(3)(i), (d) introductory
text, (d)(3)(i), and (i), remove the words ``flight simulator'' and add
in their place the words ``full flight simulator''; and
0
c. Effective August 27, 2018, add paragraph (j).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 61.129 Aeronautical experience.
(a) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) 10 hours of training in a complex airplane, a turbine-powered
airplane, or a technically advanced airplane (TAA) that meets the
requirements of paragraph (j) of this section, or any combination
thereof. The airplane must be appropriate to land or sea for the rating
sought;
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) 10 hours of training in a multiengine complex or turbine-
powered airplane; or for an applicant seeking a multiengine seaplane
rating, 10 hours of training in a multiengine seaplane that has flaps
and a controllable pitch propeller, including seaplanes equipped with
an engine control system consisting of a digital computer and
associated accessories for controlling the engine and propeller, such
as a full authority digital engine control;
* * * * *
(j) Technically advanced airplane. Unless otherwise authorized by
the Administrator, a technically advanced airplane must be equipped
with an electronically advanced avionics system that includes the
following installed components:
(1) An electronic Primary Flight Display (PFD) that includes, at a
minimum, an airspeed indicator, turn coordinator, attitude indicator,
heading indicator, altimeter, and vertical speed indicator;
(2) An electronic Multifunction Display (MFD) that includes, at a
minimum, a moving map using Global Positioning System (GPS) navigation
with the aircraft position displayed;
(3) A two axis autopilot integrated with the navigation and heading
guidance system; and
(4) The display elements described in paragraphs (j)(1) and (2) of
this section must be continuously visible.
0
20. In Sec. 61.159:
0
a. Effective July 27, 2018, amend paragraph (a)(4) by removing the
words ``flight simulator'' and adding in their place the words ``full
flight simulator''; and
0
b. Effective November 26, 2018, revise the introductory text of
paragraphs (a) and (a)(5), revise paragraph (c), redesignate paragraphs
(d) and (e) as paragraphs (e) and (f), add new paragraph (d), and
revise newly redesignated paragraphs (e) and (f).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 61.159 Aeronautical experience: Airplane category rating.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this
section, a person who is applying for an airline transport pilot
certificate with an airplane category and class rating must have at
least 1,500 hours of total time as a pilot that includes at least:
* * * * *
(5) 250 hours of flight time in an airplane as a pilot in command,
or when serving as a required second in command flightcrew member
performing the duties of pilot in command while under the supervision
of a pilot in command, or any combination thereof, which includes at
least--
* * * * *
(c) A commercial pilot may log second-in-command pilot time toward
the aeronautical experience requirements of paragraph (a) of this
section and the aeronautical experience requirements in Sec. 61.160,
provided the pilot is employed by a part 119 certificate holder
authorized to conduct operations under part 135 of this chapter and the
second-in-command pilot time is obtained in operations conducted for
the certificate holder under part 91 or 135 of this chapter when a
second pilot is not required under the type certification of the
aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is being conducted,
and the following requirements are met--
(1) The experience must be accomplished as part of a second-in-
command professional development program approved by the Administrator
under Sec. 135.99 of this chapter;
(2) The flight operation must be conducted in accordance with the
certificate holder's operations specification for the second-in-command
professional development program;
(3) The pilot in command of the operation must certify in the
pilot's logbook that the second-in-command pilot time was accomplished
under this section; and
(4) The pilot time may not be logged as pilot-in-command time even
when the pilot is the sole manipulator of the controls and may not be
used to meet the aeronautical experience requirements in paragraph
(a)(5) of this section.
(d) A commercial pilot may log the following flight engineer flight
time toward the 1,500 hours of total time as a pilot required by
paragraph (a) of this section and the total time as a pilot required by
Sec. 61.160:
(1) Flight-engineer time, provided the time--
(i) Is acquired in an airplane required to have a flight engineer
by the airplane's flight manual or type certificate;
(ii) Is acquired while engaged in operations under part 121 of this
[[Page 30279]]
chapter for which a flight engineer is required;
(iii) Is acquired while the person is participating in a pilot
training program approved under part 121 of this chapter; and
(iv) Does not exceed more than 1 hour for each 3 hours of flight
engineer flight time for a total credited time of no more than 500
hours.
(2) Flight-engineer time, provided the flight time--
(i) Is acquired as a U.S. Armed Forces' flight engineer crewmember
in an airplane that requires a flight engineer crewmember by the flight
manual;
(ii) Is acquired while the person is participating in a flight
engineer crewmember training program for the U.S. Armed Forces; and
(iii) Does not exceed 1 hour for each 3 hours of flight engineer
flight time for a total credited time of no more than 500 hours.
(e) An applicant who credits time under paragraphs (b), (c), and
(d) of this section is issued an airline transport pilot certificate
with the limitation, ``Holder does not meet the pilot in command
aeronautical experience requirements of ICAO,'' as prescribed under
Article 39 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation.
(f) An applicant is entitled to an airline transport pilot
certificate without the ICAO limitation specified under paragraph (e)
of this section when the applicant presents satisfactory evidence of
having met the ICAO requirements under paragraph (e) of this section
and otherwise meets the aeronautical experience requirements of this
section.
0
21. In Sec. 61.161:
0
a. Effective July 27, 2018, amend paragraph (b) by removing the words
``flight simulator'' and adding in their place the words ``full flight
simulator''; and
0
b. Effective November 26, 2018, add paragraphs (c), (d), and (e).
The additions read as follows:
Sec. 61.161 Aeronautical experience: Rotorcraft category and
helicopter class rating.
* * * * *
(c) Flight time logged under Sec. 61.159(c) may be counted toward
the 1,200 hours of total time as a pilot required by paragraph (a) of
this section and the flight time requirements of paragraphs (a)(1),
(2), and (4) of this section, except for the specific helicopter flight
time requirements.
(d) An applicant who credits time under paragraph (c) of this
section is issued an airline transport pilot certificate with the
limitation, ``Holder does not meet the pilot in command aeronautical
experience requirements of ICAO,'' as prescribed under Article 39 of
the Convention on International Civil Aviation.
(e) An applicant is entitled to an airline transport pilot
certificate without the ICAO limitation specified under paragraph (d)
of this section when the applicant presents satisfactory evidence of
having met the ICAO requirements under paragraph (d) of this section
and otherwise meets the aeronautical experience requirements of this
section.
0
22. In Sec. 61.195, revise paragraphs (b), (c), and (e) and add
paragraph (l) to read as follows:
Sec. 61.195 Flight instructor limitations and qualifications.
* * * * *
(b) Aircraft ratings. Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this
section, a flight instructor may not conduct flight training in any
aircraft unless the flight instructor:
(1) Holds a flight instructor certificate with the applicable
category and class rating;
(2) Holds a pilot certificate with the applicable category and
class rating; and
(3) Meets the requirements of paragraph (e) of this section, if
applicable.
(c) Instrument rating. A flight instructor may conduct instrument
training for the issuance of an instrument rating, a type rating not
limited to VFR, or the instrument training required for commercial
pilot and airline transport pilot certificates if the following
requirements are met:
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, the
flight instructor must hold an instrument rating appropriate to the
aircraft used for the instrument training on his or her flight
instructor certificate, and--
(i) Meet the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section; or
(ii) Hold a commercial pilot certificate or airline transport pilot
certificate with the appropriate category and class ratings for the
aircraft in which the instrument training is conducted provided the
pilot receiving instrument training holds a pilot certificate with
category and class ratings appropriate to the aircraft in which the
instrument training is being conducted.
(2) If the flight instructor is conducting the instrument training
in a multiengine airplane, the flight instructor must hold an
instrument rating appropriate to the aircraft used for the instrument
training on his or her flight instructor certificate and meet the
requirements of paragraph (b) of this section.
* * * * *
(e) Training in an aircraft that requires a type rating. A flight
instructor may not give flight instruction, including instrument
training, in an aircraft that requires the pilot in command to hold a
type rating unless the flight instructor holds a type rating for that
aircraft on his or her pilot certificate.
* * * * *
(l) Training on control and maneuvering an aircraft solely by
reference to the instruments. A flight instructor may conduct flight
training on control and maneuvering an airplane solely by reference to
the flight instruments, provided the flight instructor--
(1) Holds a flight instructor certificate with the applicable
category and class rating; or
(2) Holds an instrument rating appropriate to the aircraft used for
the training on his or her flight instructor certificate, and holds a
commercial pilot certificate or airline transport pilot certificate
with the appropriate category and class ratings for the aircraft in
which the training is conducted provided the pilot receiving the
training holds a pilot certificate with category and class ratings
appropriate to the aircraft in which the training is being conducted.
0
23. Effective August 27, 2018, in Sec. 61.197, revise paragraphs
(a)(2)(iv) and (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 61.197 Renewal requirements for flight instructor
certification.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(iv) A record showing that, within the preceding 24 months from the
month of application, the flight instructor passed an official U.S.
Armed Forces military instructor pilot or pilot examiner proficiency
check in an aircraft for which the military instructor already holds a
rating or in an aircraft for an additional rating.
* * * * *
(c) The practical test required by paragraph (a)(1) of this section
may be accomplished in a full flight simulator or flight training
device if the test is accomplished pursuant to an approved course
conducted by a training center certificated under part 142 of this
chapter.
0
24. Effective August 27, 2018, in Sec. 61.199, add paragraphs (a)(3),
(c) and (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 61.199 Reinstatement requirements of an expired flight
instructor certificate.
(a) * * *
(3) For military instructor pilots, provide a record showing that,
within
[[Page 30280]]
the preceding 6 calendar months from the date of application for
reinstatement, the person--
(i) Passed a U.S. Armed Forces instructor pilot or pilot examiner
proficiency check; or
(ii) Completed a U.S. Armed Forces' instructor pilot or pilot
examiner training course and received an additional aircraft rating
qualification as a military instructor pilot or pilot examiner that is
appropriate to the flight instructor rating sought.
* * * * *
(c) Certain military instructors and examiners. The holder of an
expired flight instructor certificate issued prior to October 20, 2009,
may apply for reinstatement of that certificate by presenting the
following:
(1) A record showing that, since the date the flight instructor
certificate was issued, the person passed a U.S. Armed Forces
instructor pilot or pilot examiner proficiency check for an additional
military rating; and
(2) A knowledge test report that shows the person passed a
knowledge test on the aeronautical knowledge areas listed under Sec.
61.185(a) appropriate to the flight instructor rating sought and the
knowledge test was passed within the preceding 24 calendar months prior
to the month of application.
(d) Expiration date. The requirements of paragraph (c) of this
section will expire on August 26, 2019.
0
25. Effective August 27, 2018, add Sec. 61.412 to read as follows:
Sec. 61.412 Do I need additional training to provide instruction on
control and maneuvering an airplane solely by reference to the
instruments in a light-sport aircraft based on VH?
To provide flight training under Sec. 61.93(e)(12) on control and
maneuvering an airplane solely by reference to the flight instruments
for the purpose of issuing a solo cross-country endorsement under Sec.
61.93(c)(1) to a student pilot seeking a sport pilot certificate, a
flight instructor with a sport pilot rating must:
(a) Hold an endorsement required by Sec. 61.327(b);
(b) Receive and log a minimum of 1 hour of ground training and 3
hours of flight training from an authorized instructor in an airplane
with a VH greater than 87 knots CAS or in a full flight
simulator, flight training device, or aviation training device that
replicates an airplane with a VH greater than 87 knots CAS;
and
(c) Receive a one-time endorsement in his or her logbook from an
instructor authorized under subpart H of this part who certifies that
the person is proficient in providing training on control and
maneuvering solely by reference to the flight instruments in an
airplane with a VH greater than 87 knots CAS. This flight
training must include straight and level flight, turns, descents,
climbs, use of radio navigation aids, and ATC directives.
0
26. Effective August 27, 2018, in Sec. 61.415, redesignate paragraphs
(h) and (i) as paragraphs (i) and (j) and add paragraph (h) to read as
follows:
Sec. 61.415 What are the limits of a flight instructor certificate
with a sport pilot rating?
* * * * *
(h) You may not provide training on the control and maneuvering of
an aircraft solely by reference to the instruments in a light sport
airplane with a Vh greater than 87 knots CAS unless you meet
the requirements in Sec. 61.412.
* * * * *
PART 63--CERTIFICATION: FLIGHT CREWMEMBERS OTHER THAN PILOTS
0
27. The authority citation for part 63 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701-44703, 44707,
44709-44711, 45102-45103, 45301-45302.
0
28. Effective December 24, 2018, revise Sec. 63.3 to read as follows:
Sec. 63.3 Certificates and ratings required.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person
may act as a flight engineer of a civil aircraft of U.S. registry
unless that person has in his or her physical possession or readily
accessible in the aircraft:
(1) A current flight engineer certificate with appropriate ratings
issued to that person under this part;
(2) A document conveying temporary authority to exercise
certificate privileges issued by the Airman Certification Branch under
Sec. 63.16(f); or
(3) When engaged in a flight operation within the United States for
a part 119 certificate holder authorized to conduct operations under
part 121 of this chapter, a temporary document provided by that
certificate holder under an approved certificate verification plan.
(b) A person may act as a flight engineer of an aircraft only if
that person holds a current second-class (or higher) medical
certificate issued to that person under part 67 of this chapter, or
other documentation acceptable to the FAA, that is in that person's
physical possession or readily accessible in the aircraft.
(c) When the aircraft is operated within a foreign country, a
current flight engineer certificate issued by the country in which the
aircraft is operated, with evidence of current medical qualification
for that certificate, may be used. Also, in the case of a flight
engineer certificate issued under Sec. 63.42, evidence of current
medical qualification accepted for the issue of that certificate is
used in place of a medical certificate.
(d) No person may act as a flight navigator of a civil aircraft of
U.S. registry unless that person has in his or her physical possession
a current flight navigator certificate issued to him or her under this
part and a second-class (or higher) medical certificate issued to him
or her under part 67 of this chapter within the preceding 12 months.
However, when the aircraft is operated within a foreign country, a
current flight navigator certificate issued by the country in which the
aircraft is operated, with evidence of current medical qualification
for that certificate, may be used.
(e) Each person who holds a flight engineer or flight navigator
certificate, medical certificate, or temporary document in accordance
with paragraph (a)(3) of this section shall present it for inspection
upon the request of the Administrator or an authorized representative
of the National Transportation Safety Board, or of any Federal, State,
or local law enforcement officer.
0
29. Effective December 24, 2018, revise Sec. 63.16 to read as follows:
Sec. 63.16 Change of name; replacement of lost or destroyed
certificate.
(a) An application for a change of name on a certificate issued
under this part must be accompanied by the applicant's current
certificate and the marriage license, court order, or other document
verifying the change. The documents are returned to the applicant after
inspection.
(b) A request for a replacement of a lost or destroyed airman
certificate issued under this part must be made:
(1) By letter to the Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation
Administration, Airman Certification Branch, Post Office Box 25082,
Oklahoma City, OK 73125 and must be accompanied by a check or money
order for the appropriate fee payable to the FAA; or
(2) In any other form and manner approved by the Administrator
including a request to Airman Services at http://www.faa.gov, and must
be accompanied by acceptable form of payment for the appropriate fee.
[[Page 30281]]
(c) A request for the replacement of a lost or destroyed medical
certificate must be made:
(1) By letter to the Department of Transportation, FAA, Aerospace
Medical Certification Division, P.O. Box 26200, Oklahoma City, OK
73125, and must be accompanied by a check or money order for the
appropriate fee payable to the FAA; or
(2) In any other manner and form approved by the Administrator and
must be accompanied by acceptable form of payment for the appropriate
fee.
(d) A request for the replacement of a lost or destroyed knowledge
test report must be made:
(1) By letter to the Department of Transportation, FAA, Airmen
Certification Branch, P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125, and must
be accompanied by a check or money order for the appropriate fee
payable to the FAA; or
(2) In any other manner and form approved by the Administrator and
must be accompanied by acceptable form of payment for the appropriate
fee.
(e) The letter requesting replacement of a lost or destroyed airman
certificate, medical certificate, or knowledge test report must state:
(1) The name of the person;
(2) The permanent mailing address (including ZIP code), or if the
permanent mailing address includes a post office box number, then the
person's current residential address;
(3) The certificate holder's date and place of birth; and
(4) Any information regarding the--
(i) Grade, number, and date of issuance of the airman certificate
and ratings, if appropriate;
(ii) Class of medical certificate, the place and date of the
medical exam, name of the Airman Medical Examiner (AME), and the
circumstances concerning the loss of the original medical certificate,
as appropriate; and
(iii) Date the knowledge test was taken, if appropriate.
(f) A person who has lost an airman certificate, medical
certificate, or knowledge test report may obtain in a form or manner
approved by the Administrator, a document conveying temporary authority
to exercise certificate privileges from the FAA Aeromedical
Certification Branch or the Airman Certification Branch, as
appropriate, and the--
(1) Document may be carried as an airman certificate, medical
certificate, or knowledge test report, as appropriate, for a period not
to exceed 60 days pending the person's receiving a duplicate under
paragraph (b), (c), or (d) of this section, unless the person has been
notified that the certificate has been suspended or revoked.
(2) Request for such a document must include the date on which a
duplicate certificate or knowledge test report was previously
requested.
PART 65--CERTIFICATION: AIRMEN OTHER THAN FLIGHT CREWMEMBERS
0
30. The authority citation for part 65 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701-44703, 44707,
44709-44711, 45102-45103, 45301-45302.
0
31. Revise Sec. 65.59 to read as follows:
Sec. 65.59 Skill requirements.
An applicant for an aircraft dispatcher certificate must pass a
practical test given by the Administrator, with respect to any one type
of large aircraft used in air carrier operations. To pass the practical
test for an aircraft dispatcher certificate, the applicant must
demonstrate skill in applying the areas of knowledge and topics
specified in appendix A of this part to preflight and all phases of
flight, including abnormal and emergency procedures.
0
32. Revise the introductory text of appendix A to read as follows:
Appendix A to Part 65--Aircraft Dispatcher Courses
Overview
This appendix sets forth the areas of knowledge necessary to
perform dispatcher functions. The items listed below indicate the
minimum set of topics that must be covered in a training course for
aircraft dispatcher certification. The order of coverage is at the
discretion of the approved school.
* * * * *
PART 91--GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES
0
33. The authority citation for part 91 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 1155, 40101, 40103, 40105,
40113, 40120, 44101, 44111, 44701, 44704, 44709, 44711, 44712,
44715, 44716, 44717, 44722, 46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506-46507,
47122, 47508, 47528-47531, 47534, Pub. L. 114-190, 130 Stat. 615 (49
U.S.C. 44703 note); articles 12 and 29 of the Convention on
International Civil Aviation (61 Stat. 1180), (126 Stat. 11).
0
34. Effective August 27, 2018, in Sec. 91.109, revise paragraph (c)(1)
to read as follows:
Sec. 91.109 Flight instruction; Simulated instrument flight and
certain flight tests.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) The other control seat is occupied by a safety pilot who
possesses at least:
(i) A private pilot certificate with category and class ratings
appropriate to the aircraft being flown; or
(ii) For purposes of providing training for a solo cross-country
endorsement under Sec. 61.93 of this chapter, a flight instructor
certificate with an appropriate sport pilot rating and meets the
requirements of Sec. 61.412 of this chapter.
* * * * *
0
35. Effective December 24, 2018, in Sec. 91.313, revise paragraphs
(b), (c), and (d)(3) and (4) and add paragraphs (d)(5) and (h) to read
as follows:
Sec. 91.313 Restricted category civil aircraft: Operating
limitations.
* * * * *
(b) For the purpose of paragraph (a) of this section, the following
operations are considered necessary to accomplish the work activity
directly associated with a special purpose operation:
(1) Flights conducted for flight crewmember training in a special
purpose operation for which the aircraft is certificated.
(2) Flights conducted to satisfy proficiency check and recent
flight experience requirements under part 61 of this chapter provided
the flight crewmember holds the appropriate category, class, and type
ratings and is employed by the operator to perform the appropriate
special purpose operation.
(3) Flights conducted to relocate the aircraft for delivery,
repositioning, or maintenance.
(c) No person may operate a restricted category civil aircraft
carrying persons or property for compensation or hire. For the purposes
of this paragraph (c), a special purpose operation involving the
carriage of persons or material necessary to accomplish that operation,
such as crop dusting, seeding, spraying, and banner towing (including
the carrying of required persons or material to the location of that
operation), an operation for the purpose of providing flight crewmember
training in a special purpose operation, and an operation conducted
under the authority provided in paragraph (h) of this section are not
considered to be the carriage of persons or property for compensation
or hire.
(d) * * *
(3) Performs an essential function in connection with a special
purpose operation for which the aircraft is certificated;
(4) Is necessary to accomplish the work activity directly
associated with that special purpose; or
[[Page 30282]]
(5) Is necessary to accomplish an operation under paragraph (h) of
this section.
* * * * *
(h)(1) An operator may apply for deviation authority from the
provisions of paragraph (a) of this section to conduct operations for
the following purposes:
(i) Flight training and the practical test for issuance of a type
rating provided--
(A) The pilot being trained and tested holds at least a commercial
pilot certificate with the appropriate category and class ratings for
the aircraft type;
(B) The pilot receiving flight training is employed by the operator
to perform a special purpose operation; and
(C) The flight training is conducted by the operator who employs
the pilot to perform a special purpose operation.
(ii) Flights to designate an examiner or qualify an FAA inspector
in the aircraft type and flights necessary to provide continuing
oversight and evaluation of an examiner.
(2) The FAA will issue this deviation authority as a letter of
deviation authority.
(3) The FAA may cancel or amend a letter of deviation authority at
any time.
(4) An applicant must submit a request for deviation authority in a
form and manner acceptable to the Administrator at least 60 days before
the date of intended operations. A request for deviation authority must
contain a complete description of the proposed operation and
justification that establishes a level of safety equivalent to that
provided under the regulations for the deviation requested.
0
36. Revise Sec. 91.531 to read as follows:
Sec. 91.531 Second in command requirements.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person
may operate the following airplanes without a pilot designated as
second in command:
(1) Any airplane that is type certificated for more than one
required pilot.
(2) Any large airplane.
(3) Any commuter category airplane.
(b) A person may operate the following airplanes without a pilot
designated as second in command:
(1) Any airplane certificated for operation with one pilot.
(2) A large airplane or turbojet-powered multiengine airplane that
holds a special airworthiness certificate, if:
(i) The airplane was originally designed with only one pilot
station; or
(ii) The airplane was originally designed with more than one pilot
station, but single pilot operations were permitted by the airplane
flight manual or were otherwise permitted by a branch of the United
States Armed Forces or the armed forces of a foreign contracting State
to the Convention on International Civil Aviation.
(c) No person may designate a pilot to serve as second in command,
nor may any pilot serve as second in command, of an airplane required
under this section to have two pilots unless that pilot meets the
qualifications for second in command prescribed in Sec. 61.55 of this
chapter.
0
37. Effective December 24, 2018, in Sec. 91.1015, add paragraph (h) to
read as follows:
Sec. 91.1015 Management specifications.
* * * * *
(h) A program manager may obtain approval to provide a temporary
document verifying a flightcrew member's airman certificate and medical
certificate privileges under an approved certificate verification plan
set forth in the program manager's management specifications. A
document provided by the program manager may be carried as an airman
certificate or medical certificate on flights within the United States
for up to 72 hours.
PART 121--OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, AND SUPPLEMENTAL
OPERATIONS
0
38. The authority citation for part 121 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40119,
41706, 42301 preceding note added by Pub. L. 112-95, sec. 412, 126
Stat. 89, 44101, 44701-44702, 44705, 44709-44711, 44713, 44716-
44717, 44722, 44729, 44732; 46105; Pub. L. 111-216, 124 Stat. 2348
(49 U.S.C. 44701 note); Pub. L. 112-95, 126 Stat. 62 (49 U.S.C.
44732 note).
0
39. Effective December 24, 2018, in Sec. 121.383, revise paragraphs
(a)(2) and (b) and add paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 121.383 Airman: Limitations on use of services.
(a) * * *
(2) Has in his or her possession while engaged in operations under
this part--
(i) Any required appropriate current airman and medical
certificates; or
(ii) A temporary document issued in accordance with paragraph (c)
of this section; and
* * * * *
(b) Each airman covered by paragraph (a)(2) of this section shall
present his or her certificates or temporary document for inspection
upon request of the Administrator.
(c) A certificate holder may obtain approval to provide a temporary
document verifying a flightcrew member's airman certificate and medical
certificate privileges under an approved certificate verification plan
set forth in the certificate holder's operations specifications. A
document provided by the certificate holder may be carried as an airman
certificate or medical certificate on flights within the United States
for up to 72 hours.
* * * * *
PART 135--OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: COMMUTER AND ON DEMAND OPERATIONS
AND RULES GOVERNING PERSONS ON BOARD SUCH AIRCRAFT
0
40. The authority citation for part 135 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 41706, 44701-44702,
44705, 44709, 44711-44713, 44715-44717, 44722, 44730, 45101-45105;
Pub. L. 112-95, 126 Stat. 58 (49 U.S.C. 44730).
0
41. Effective December 24, 2018, revise Sec. 135.95 to read as
follows:
Sec. 135.95 Airmen: Limitations on use of services.
(a) No certificate holder may use the services of any person as an
airman unless the person performing those services--
(1) Holds an appropriate and current airman certificate; and
(2) Is qualified, under this chapter, for the operation for which
the person is to be used.
(b) A certificate holder may obtain approval to provide a temporary
document verifying a flightcrew member's airman certificate and medical
certificate privileges under an approved certificate verification plan
set forth in the certificate holder's operations specifications. A
document provided by the certificate holder may be carried as an airman
certificate or medical certificate on flights within the United States
for up to 72 hours.
0
42. Effective November 26, 2018, in Sec. 135.99, add paragraphs (c)
and (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 135.99 Composition of flight crew.
* * * * *
(c) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, a
certificate holder authorized to conduct operations under instrument
flight rules may receive authorization from the Administrator through
its operations specifications to establish a second-in-command
professional development program. As part of that program, a pilot
employed by the certificate holder may log time as
[[Page 30283]]
second in command in operations conducted under this part and part 91
of this chapter that do not require a second pilot by type
certification of the aircraft or the regulation under which the flight
is being conducted, provided the flight operation is conducted in
accordance with the certificate holder's operations specifications for
second-in-command professional development program; and--
(1) The certificate holder:
(i) Maintains records for each assigned second in command
consistent with the requirements in Sec. 135.63;
(ii) Provides a copy of the records required by Sec.
135.63(a)(4)(vi) and (x) to the assigned second in command upon request
and within a reasonable time; and
(iii) Establishes and maintains a data collection and analysis
process that will enable the certificate holder and the FAA to
determine whether the second-in-command professional development
program is accomplishing its objectives.
(2) The aircraft is a multiengine airplane or a single-engine
turbine-powered airplane. The aircraft must have an independent set of
controls for a second pilot flightcrew member, which may not include a
throwover control wheel. The aircraft must also have the following
equipment and independent instrumentation for a second pilot:
(i) An airspeed indicator;
(ii) Sensitive altimeter adjustable for barometric pressure;
(iii) Gyroscopic bank and pitch indicator;
(iv) Gyroscopic rate-of-turn indicator combined with an integral
slip-skid indicator;
(v) Gyroscopic direction indicator;
(vi) For IFR operations, a vertical speed indicator;
(vii) For IFR operations, course guidance for en route navigation
and instrument approaches; and
(viii) A microphone, transmit switch, and headphone or speaker.
(3) The pilot assigned to serve as second in command satisfies the
following requirements:
(i) The second in command qualifications in Sec. 135.245;
(ii) The flight time and duty period limitations and rest
requirements in subpart F of this part;
(iii) The crewmember testing requirements for second in command in
subpart G of this part; and
(iv) The crewmember training requirements for second in command in
subpart H of this part.
(4) The pilot assigned to serve as pilot in command satisfies the
following requirements:
(i) Has been fully qualified to serve as a pilot in command for the
certificate holder for at least the previous 6 calendar months; and
(ii) Has completed mentoring training, including techniques for
reinforcing the highest standards of technical performance, airmanship
and professionalism within the preceding 36 calendar months.
(d) The following certificate holders are not eligible to receive
authorization for a second-in-command professional development program
under paragraph (c) of this section:
(1) A certificate holder that uses only one pilot in its
operations; and
(2) A certificate holder that has been approved to deviate from the
requirements in Sec. 135.21(a), Sec. 135.341(a), or Sec. 119.69(a)
of this chapter.
0
43. In Sec. 135.245, revise paragraph (a) and add paragraphs (c) and
(d) to read as follows.
Sec. 135.245 Second in command qualifications.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no
certificate holder may use any person, nor may any person serve, as
second in command of an aircraft unless that person holds at least a
commercial pilot certificate with appropriate category and class
ratings and an instrument rating.
* * * * *
(c) No certificate holder may use any person, nor may any person
serve, as second in command under IFR unless that person meets the
following instrument experience requirements:
(1) Use of an airplane or helicopter for maintaining instrument
experience. Within the 6 calendar months preceding the month of the
flight, that person performed and logged at least the following tasks
and iterations in-flight in an airplane or helicopter, as appropriate,
in actual weather conditions, or under simulated instrument conditions
using a view-limiting device:
(i) Six instrument approaches;
(ii) Holding procedures and tasks; and
(iii) Intercepting and tracking courses through the use of
navigational electronic systems.
(2) Use of an FSTD for maintaining instrument experience. A person
may accomplish the requirements in paragraph (c)(1) of this section in
an approved FSTD, or a combination of aircraft and FSTD, provided:
(i) The FSTD represents the category of aircraft for the instrument
rating privileges to be maintained;
(ii) The person performs the tasks and iterations in simulated
instrument conditions; and
(iii) A flight instructor qualified under Sec. 135.338 or a check
pilot qualified under Sec. 135.337 observes the tasks and iterations
and signs the person's logbook or training record to verify the time
and content of the session.
(d) A second in command who has failed to meet the instrument
experience requirements of paragraph (c) of this section for more than
six calendar months must reestablish instrument recency under the
supervision of a flight instructor qualified under Sec. 135.338 or a
check pilot qualified under Sec. 135.337. To reestablish instrument
recency, a second in command must complete at least the following areas
of operation required for the instrument rating practical test in an
aircraft or FSTD that represents the category of aircraft for the
instrument experience requirements to be reestablished:
(1) Air traffic control clearances and procedures;
(2) Flight by reference to instruments;
(3) Navigation systems;
(4) Instrument approach procedures;
(5) Emergency operations; and
(6) Postflight procedures.
PART 141--PILOT SCHOOLS
0
44. The authority citation for part 141 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701-44703, 44707,
44709, 44711, 45102-45103, 45301-45302.
0
45. Effective November 26, 2018, in Sec. 141.5, revise paragraph (d)
to read as follows:
Sec. 141.5 Requirements for a pilot school certificate.
* * * * *
(d) Has established a pass rate of 80 percent or higher on the
first attempt for all:
(1) Knowledge tests leading to a certificate or rating;
(2) Practical tests leading to a certificate or rating;
(3) End-of-course tests for an approved training course specified
in appendix K of this part; and
(4) End-of-course tests for special curricula courses approved
under Sec. 141.57.
* * * * *
0
46. Effective August 27, 2018, in appendix D to part 141, section 4:
0
a. Revise paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) and (b)(2)(ii); and
0
b. Amend paragraphs (b)(3)(i) and (b)(4)(i) by removing the words
``flight simulator'' and adding in their place the words ``full flight
simulator''.
[[Page 30284]]
The revisions read as follows:
Appendix D to Part 141--Commercial Pilot Certification Course
* * * * *
4. * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Ten hours of training in a complex airplane, a turbine-
powered airplane, or a technically advanced airplane that meets the
requirements of Sec. 61.129(j) of this chapter, or any combination
thereof. The airplane must be appropriate to land or sea for the
rating sought;
* * * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) 10 hours of training in a multiengine complex or turbine-
powered airplane, or any combination thereof;
* * * * *
Appendix I to Part 141--[Amended]
0
47. In appendix I to part 141, section 4, redesignate the second
paragraph (k)(2)(iv) as paragraph (k)(2)(v).
Issued in Washington, DC, under the authority of 49 U.S.C.
106(f), 44701(a)(5), and 44703(a), on June 6, 2018.
Daniel K. Elwell,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2018-12800 Filed 6-26-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P