[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 14, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8490-8494]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3132]
[[Page 8489]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part IV
Department of Transportation
_______________________________________________________________________
Federal Aviation Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
14 CFR Part 121
Advanced Simulation Plan Revisions; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 1995 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 8490]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 121
[Docket No. 28072; Notice No. 95-2]
RIN 2120-AF29
Advanced Simulation Plan Revisions
agency: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
action: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
summary: The FAA proposes to: Revise and clarify certain requirements
of the Advanced Simulation Plan for part 121 operators to authorize
more training and checking in simulators; clarify the operating
experience requirements for certain second-in-command pilots trained
and checked in simulators; and eliminate the requirement that the
minimum of 1 year of employment as an instructor or check airman be
with the operator of the simulator. This action is needed to respond to
concerns identified by certain affected certificate holders in
petitions for exemption. It is intended to alleviate unnecessary
training costs while maintaining an equivalent level of safety.
dates: Comments must be received by March 16, 1995.
addresses: Comments on this proposal may be mailed in triplicate or
delivered to: Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Chief Counsel,
Attention: Rules Docket (AGC-10), Docket No. 28072, 800 Independence
Avenue Washington, DC 20591.
for further information contact: Gary E. Davis, Project Development
Branch, AFS-240, Air Transportation Division, Office of Flight
Standards, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue
SW., Washington, DC 20591, Telephone (202) 267-3747.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the
proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as
they may desire. Comments relating to the environmental, energy,
federalism, or economic impact that might result from adopting the
proposals in this notice are also invited. Substantive comments should
be accompanied by cost estimates. Comments should identify the
regulatory docket or notice number and should be submitted in
triplicate to the Rules Docket address specified above. All comments
received on or before the closing date for comments specified will be
considered by the Administrator before taking action on this proposed
rulemaking. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in
light of comments received. All comments received will be available,
both before and after the closing date for comment, in the Rules Docket
for examination by interested persons. A report summarizing each
substantive public contact with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this notice must include a pre-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket No. 28072.'' The postcard will be date stamped and mailed to
the commenter.
Availability of NPRM's
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request
to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Public Affairs,
Attention: Public Inquiry Center, APA-430, 800 Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-3484. Communications
must identify the notice number of this NPRM.
Persons interested in being placed on the mailing list for future
NPRM's should request from the above office a copy of Advisory Circular
No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which
describes the application procedure.
Background
Terminology
Appendix H to 14 CFR part 121, ``Advanced Simulation Plan,''
provides guidelines and a means for achieving flightcrew training and
checking in advanced airplane simulators. The three-phase plan provides
standards for a progressive upgrade of airplane simulators so that the
total scope of flightcrew training can be enhanced.
Appendix H specifically describes the simulator and visual system
requirements that must be met to obtain approval to conduct certain
training and checking in the particular type of simulator (Phase I, II,
or III). The term ``phase'' was used because it was expected that
operators would be upgrading their simulator inventories in phases
while exercising simulator privileges commensurate with the phase of
the simulator. The upgrading of simulators in phases is now essentially
complete and the designation of ``phase'' for identification of
simulator complexity is no longer descriptive. Operators no longer
begin at a lower level of qualification and upgrade in phases. The
tendency is to acquire a given level simulator that best meets their
needs. The agency and the industry now commonly refer to the simulators
in terms of ``levels.'' The levels currently used to describe a
particular simulator compared with the older phase designations are:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New terminology Old terminology
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A............................ Visual.
Level B............................ Phase I.
Level C............................ Phase II.
Level D............................ Phase III.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is proposed to revise Appendix H to replace the old terminology
with the new throughout the appendix. The new terminology will be used
throughout this preamble in discussing other amendments proposed
herein.
Advanced Simulation
Appendix H was developed and adopted when there were no ``advanced
simulators.'' Currently, however, advanced simulators exist which have
permitted virtual duplication of many aircraft performance
characteristics and systems. As a result, the vast majority of U.S.
airline pilot training is now conducted in these advanced simulators.
According to industry members, however, certain limitations originally
incorporated into Appendix H still require a small, yet relatively
expensive, amount of training to be completed in the actual airplane.
In light of their highly satisfactory experience with these
simulators, some industry members believe that a Level C simulator
should be approved for those flightcrew training and checking maneuvers
that currently are permitted only in the aircraft or in Level D
simulators. In a petition for exemption dated October 12, 1992, the Air
Transport Association, on behalf of its affected member airlines and
other similarly situated airlines, petitioned for an exemption to
provide for initial training in a Level C simulator. Trans World
Airlines and Tower Airlines petitioned individually to use a Level C
simulator to conduct limited initial and upgrade training and checking
functions that would normally be conducted in a Level D simulator.
Agreeing in part with the petitioners' supportive information and,
based on its own experience, the FAA granted some limited relief for
training and checking.
More recently, United Airlines (UAL) has requested similar but
slightly more [[Page 8491]] extensive relief than previously granted.
UAL believes that its experience with advanced simulation, as well as
the FAA's own experience, more than adequately justifies expanding the
scope of flightcrew training and checking in a Level C simulator. In
support of its request, UAL points out that: (1) The same training
curricula and pilot proficiency standards would apply to a Level C or
Level D simulator; (2) these curricula can be implemented and
proficiency demonstrated effectively in a Level C simulator; and (3)
daily local FAA oversight of training and checking programs will assure
that these curricula and standards remain sufficient.
UAL further believes that its request would be in the public
interest since it is universally acknowledged that simulator training
is superior to training in an actual aircraft and the public is served
best when high quality training is conducted in the safest and most
cost-effective manner.
The FAA agrees with much of UAL's rationale in its petition;
however, after consideration of the supportive information, the FAA
believes that UAL is not alone or unique in its request. Therefore, the
FAA has determined that the appropriate response to the UAL petition
for exemption is to propose a change to the existing regulations.
Discussion of the Proposal
Authorizing Additional Training and Checking in a Level C Simulator
All simulators duplicate or simulate the functions of an airplane
to varying levels of accuracy. The FAA requires that, for each higher
level of simulator, the simulator duplicate the performance of the
airplane over larger and more critical portions of the airplane's
operating envelope. This performance must be shown by documented
evidence. Level D simulators must provide the highest level of flight
realism. They must perform as the airplane performs over the largest
portion of the airplane's operating envelope, while providing the most
complete and technically accurate environment possible. Evidence of
this performance must include certain sophisticated aerodynamic
modeling that allows more complete replication of the performance of
the airplane.
Level C simulators are designed to operate over the same portion of
the airplane's operating envelope as Level D simulators, and do so
under a relatively sophisticated performance verification process.
Level C simulators, however, are not required to have sophisticated
aerodynamic modeling factors. Nor do they undergo the degree of
performance verification that Level D simulators do. However, based on
13 years of experience using Level C simulators and on the rigorous
qualification process and performance standards required for Level C
simulators, the FAA has determined that they may now be used for
initial qualification and upgrade training and checking for SIC.
Because of performance differences between Level C and Level D
simulators, however, the pilots qualified using Level C simulators
should meet certain prerequisite levels of experience. They should also
be required to have supervised post qualification operational
experience.
Prior Aeronautical Experience
In Appendix H to part 121, the FAA proposes to add a new paragraph
to the section entitled ``Level C, Training and Checking Permitted.''
It would permit SIC applicants to obtain initial and upgrade training
and certification checks in Level C simulators if certain preconditions
are met. The rule would require that the applicant meet the prior
aeronautical experience requirements for an ATP certificate and
airplane rating under Sec. 61.155, before beginning training in a Level
C simulator and before being checked under Sec. 61.157 in a Level C
simulator for an ATP certificate or rating.
In addition, these SIC initial and upgrade applicants must fulfill
special operational experience requirements under proposed new
provisions in Sec. 121.434(c)(2). Under proposed
Sec. 121.434(c)(2)(ii), the SIC would have to obtain line operations
experience at the SIC duty position, supervised by a check pilot. These
pilots will not have the option, available to other pilots under
Sec. 121.434(c)(2)(i), to fulfill operating experience requirements by
simply observing another pilot perform SIC duties. In addition, as part
of this initial operating experience, these pilots would have to
perform a minimum of four takeoffs and four landings also under the
supervision of a check pilot.
The proposed amendment to Sec. 121.434(f) would not allow pilots
trained in a Level C simulator to substitute takeoffs or landings for
required operating experience. The proposed rule would continue to
allow other SIC pilots to reduce by 50 percent the hours of required
operating experience by the substitution of one additional takeoff and
landing for each hour of flight.
Revising Appendix H to authorize expanded use of Level C simulators
for additional training and checking would provide an equivalent or
higher level of safety. Additionally, by not doing this training and
checking in flight in the actual aircraft, these authorized programs
would provide benefits in safety, energy conservation, and efficiency.
Modifying Employment Requirement
The FAA is proposing to remove the requirement in Appendix H (in
paragraph 3 of the section entitled ``Advanced Simulation Training
Program'') that each instructor and check airman have been employed for
at least 1 year by the certificate holder applying for approval of the
program. The FAA's intention, in originally requiring a minimum period
of 1-year of employment with the operator, was to ensure suitable
experience levels for individuals selected to be instructors and check
airmen. The most sophisticated simulator can be of little value without
an experienced, well-trained instructor or check airman to operate it.
However, the agency has concluded that this goal can be achieved by 1
year of experience serving as an instructor or check airman with any
part 121 operator. The FAA believes that this amount of instructor
experience, in addition to the training prerequisites for these
individuals in Appendix H, is an adequate level of preparation for an
instructor or check airman in a Level C simulator. Modifying the
employment requirement in this way will not decrease safety. However,
it should be noted that, instructors and check airmen may participate
in more than one operator's approved training program; each operator
must provide training for each instructor and check airman in its
training program. Thus, an instructor or check airman who instructs for
more than one operator must receive training in each operator's
program.
Similarly, the FAA is proposing to revise the section entitled
``Phase II, Training and Checking Permitted'' in Appendix H to provide
that pilots seeking to upgrade to pilot in command (PIC) do not have to
have obtained the prerequisite SIC experience ``with the operator,''
nor have served or be serving as SIC ``with that operator.'' Again, the
FAA believes that the level of experience required by an approved
training program, in addition to the training prerequisites for these
individuals in Appendix H and elsewhere under the Federal Aviation
Regulations, establishes an adequate level of preparation regardless of
employment with any specific operator. [[Page 8492]]
Clarifying Training and Certification Check Requirements for Initial
and Upgrading Training for SIC's Upgrading to PIC
The FAA is also proposing to revise paragraph 2 of the section
entitled ``Level C, Training and Checking Permitted,'' to clearly
distinguish between the prerequisites for initial versus upgrade
training and checking. To do this, paragraph 2(a) would be redesignated
as paragraph 2 and paragraph 2(b) as paragraph 3. New paragraph 3 would
be stated so as to eliminate the need for the flush paragraph currently
at the end of the section.
Current paragraph 2(a) sets forth the prerequisites for training
and checking in a Level C simulator for SIC's upgrading to PIC in the
same equipment. For example, a pilot serving as SIC in a Boeing 727
upgrading to PIC in the same airplane would have to meet the
requirements of this paragraph. Under new paragraph 2, these
requirements would not change. The pilot would still have to have
previously qualified as SIC in the equipment, have at least 500 hours
of actual flight time as SIC in an airplane in the same group, and be
currently serving as SIC in an airplane in the same group. These
requirements are consistent with the definition of upgrade training
under Subpart N--Training program. Section 121.400(c)(3) defines
``Upgrade training'' as the training required for crewmembers who have
qualified and served as SIC or flight engineer on a particular airplane
type, before they serve as PIC or SIC, respectively, on that airplane.
The requirements of current paragraph 2(b) must be read in
conjunction with the final paragraph in the section to determine that
it applies to initial training and checking for SIC's upgrading to PIC
in an airplane type in which the pilot has never served as SIC. This
SIC has experience in the same group of airplanes, but not in the same
airplane to which the pilot wants to upgrade. For example, a pilot
serving as an SIC in a Boeing 737 initially upgrading to PIC in a
Boeing 727 must meet the requirements of this paragraph.
New paragraph 3 would not change this requirement, but would make
it easier for the reader to see that it applies to initial training and
checking. The pilot would still have to be employed by an operator, be
currently serving as SIC in an airplane in the same group, have a
minimum of 2500 flight hours as SIC in airplanes in the same group, and
have served as SIC on at least two airplanes of the same group. Because
proposed new paragraph 3 would refer to ``initial'' training, the
language in the current last paragraph is no longer needed to explain
that pilots meeting these requirements may upgrade to another airplane
in that group in which that pilot has not previously qualified. The
requirements in new paragraph 3 continue to be consistent with
Sec. 121.400(c)(1), which defines ``initial training'' as the training
required for crewmembers and dispatchers who have not qualified and
served in the same capacity on another airplane of the same group.
Modifying Minimum Flight Hour Requirements
The FAA also is considering whether to propose revising certain
flight hour experience requirements for initial and upgrade training
and checking in a Level C simulator. Currently, pilots upgrading from
SIC to PIC in equipment in which they have previously qualified as SIC
are required to have at least 500 hours of actual flight time while
serving as SIC in an airplane in the same group. Similarly, pilots who
are initially upgrading from SIC to PIC in other equipment in which the
pilot has not been previously qualified, must have a minimum of 2500
hours as SIC in airplanes of the same group as the equipment to which
they are upgrading.
The flight hour experience requirements ensure that a pilot has
adequate experience in order to upgrade to PIC. These values were
established, based on the collective opinions of the FAA and industry
members, when Appendix H was originally adopted. Since then, industry
members have argued that the required hours are excessive. Based on the
success of some industry members who have operated under exemptions
that provided certain relief of these flight-hour requirements and
other specific requirements for upgrade training under Subpart N, the
FAA may propose, for example, to eliminate the 500 flight-hour
requirement and reduce from 2500 to 500 the number of flight hours
required for initial upgrade training and checking.
The FAA seeks comments and additional information that may justify
proposing to modify these current flight hour requirements in a future
notice of proposed rulemaking.
Standardizing Language and Eliminating Obsolete References
As discussed above, the term ``phase'' is no longer used to
describe the various simulators referred to in Appendix H. Accordingly,
it is proposed to replace ``phase'' with ``level'' wherever it appears
and to use the current alphabetical designations for the various
levels.
In addition, it is proposed to remove the section entitled ``Phase
IIA Interim Simulator Upgrade Plan for Part 121 Operators'' as
obsolete. For the same reason, it is proposed to remove paragraph 7 of
the section entitled ``Advanced Simulation Training Program'' which
references Phase IIA. Under Phase IIA, any part 121 operator could
conduct Phase II training for 3 and \1/2\ years from the date it was
approved for Phase I in a simulator approved for the landing maneuver
under Phase I. The carrier's upgrade plan had to be submitted to the
FAA before July 30, 1981. Thus, these provisions are no longer
effective.
Regulatory Analysis
Executive Order 12866 established the requirement that, within the
extent permitted by law, a Federal regulatory action may be undertaken
only if the potential benefits to society for the regulation outweigh
the potential costs to society. In response to this requirement, and in
accordance with Department of Transportation policies and procedures,
the FAA has estimated the anticipated benefits and costs of this
rulemaking action. The FAA has determined that this proposed rule is
not a ``significant rulemaking action'', as defined by Executive Order
12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review). The anticipated costs and
benefits associated with this proposed rule are summarized below. (A
more detailed discussion of costs and benefits is contained in the full
regulatory evaluation placed in the docket for this proposed rule).
Costs
The proposed rule would not improve any additional costs on either
part 121 air carrier operators or the flying public. The proposed rule
would allow certain training practices that the FAA has determined to
be safe and efficient methods for training pilots, and it would clarify
other portions of Appendix H. Thus, the proposal would not impose any
additional costs because it would permit operators to use the least
costly methods of training while maintaining an equivalent level of
safety for the flying public. Since current training practices would be
maintained to current standards under the proposed rule, there would be
no reduction in aviation safety imposed on the flying public.
Potential Cost-Relief Benefits
The proposed rule would generate potential cost savings benefits
estimated [[Page 8493]] at $20 million, in 1992 dollars, over the next
10 years (or $12.4 million, discounted, using a 7.0 percent rate of
interest). These potential cost savings benefits would take the form of
increased operational efficiency (qualitative) and cost savings
(quantitative) to those part 121 operators engaged in initial simulator
training, in accordance with Appendix H.
The potential cost savings benefits of the proposed rule represent
the difference between the costs incurred currently by part 121 air
carriers for initial training and checking of SIC pilots and the costs
that would be incurred if the proposal were to become a rule.
Currently, certain requirements for initial training and checking of
SIC pilots that are not performed in a Level D simulator must be
performed in the aircraft. Under the proposed rule, those requirements
that are performed in the aircraft in lieu of a Level D simulator would
be performed in a Level C simulator. The costs of operating the
aircraft for those requirements above the costs of operating the less
expensive simulator for those same requirements is the estimated
benefit of this proposed rule.
In an effort to derive a cost-relief estimate associated with this
proposed rule, several part 121 air carriers were contacted. These air
carriers provided the agency with estimated aircraft operating costs
per hour, the time needed to train and check pilots for those
requirements that, under the present rule, cannot be performed in a
Level C simulator, and the number of pilots that it expects to train in
the next 10 years.
Potential Operational Efficiency Benefits
The potential benefits of the proposed rule would be generated in
the form of increased operational efficiency. In the full regulatory
evaluation placed in the docket, these potential efficiency benefits
are presented qualitatively. These benefits are difficult to estimate
quantitatively due, at present, to the lack of available cost
information.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) was enacted by
Congress to ensure that small entities are not unnecessarily and
disproportionately burdened by government regulations. The RFA requires
government agencies to determine whether rules will have ``a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities''
and, in cases where they will, conduct a Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis.
Accordingly to FAA Order 2100.14A (Regulatory Flexibility and
Guidance), a substantial number of small entities is defined as a
number which is not less than eleven and which is more than one-third
of the small entities subject to a proposed or existing rule. A
significant economic impact on a small entity is an annualized net
compliance cost which, when adjusted for inflation, equals or exceeds
the significant cost threshold for the entity type under review.
The entities that potentially would be affected by the proposed
rule are small part 121 operators that own, but do not necessarily
operate, nine or fewer aircraft. As discussed in the cost section of
this evaluation summary, the proposed rule would not impose any costs
on these operators because it is cost-relieving in nature. Therefore,
the proposed rule would not impose a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small aircraft operators.
International Trade Impact Assessment
The proposed rule would have little, if any, impact on the
competitive posture of either U.S. carriers doing business in foreign
countries or foreign carriers doing business in the United States. This
assessment is based on the fact that the proposed rule would not impose
any cost on part 121 operators because it is cost-relieving in nature.
These operators do not compete directly with air carriers engaged in
foreign operations (part 129).
Federalism Implications
The regulations proposed herein would not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12866, it is determined that this
proposal would not have federalism implications requiring the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
International Civil Aviation Organization and Joint Aviation
Regulations
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with ICAO
Standards and Recommended Practices (SARP) to the maximum extent
practicable. The FAA is not aware of any differences that this proposal
would present if adopted. Any differences that may be presented in
comments to this proposal, however, will be taken into consideration.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule contains no information collection requests
requiring approval of the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to
the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507 et seq.).
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, and based on the
findings in the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Determination and the
International Trade Impact Analysis, the FAA has determined that this
proposed regulation is not significant under Executive Order 12866. In
addition, it is certified that this proposal, if adopted, will not have
a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on an substantial
number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. This proposal is not considered significant under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979).
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 121
Air carriers, Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, Safety,
Transportation.
The Proposed Rule
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend part 121 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (14 CFR part 121) as follows:
PART 121--CERTIFICATION AND OPERATIONS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, AND
SUPPLEMENTAL AIR CARRIERS AND COMMERCIAL OPERATORS OF LARGE
AIRCRAFT
1. The authority citation for Part 121 continues to reads as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 1354(a), 1355, 1356, 1357, 1401, 1421-1430,
1472, 1485, and 1502; 49 U.S.C. 106(g) (Revised Pub. L. 97-449,
January 12, 1983).
2. Section 121.434 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(2) and (f)
to read as follows:
Sec. 121.434 Operating experience.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) A second-in-command pilot must perform the duties of a second
in command as follows:
(i) For a second-in-command pilot who received training for second-
in-command duties for the relevant type airplane pursuant to any
appropriate provision of this part other than paragraph 4 of ``Level C
Training and Checking Permitted'' in Appendix H of this part, he or she
must perform those duties under the supervision of a check
[[Page 8494]] pilot or observe the performance of those duties on the
flight deck.
(ii) For a second-in-command pilot who received training in a Level
C simulator in accordance with Appendix H of this part, he or she must
perform--
(A) Those duties under the supervision of a check pilot; and
(B) At least four takeoffs and four landings as sole manipulator of
the controls under the supervision of a check pilot.
* * * * *
(f) Except for second-in-command pilots who were trained for the
airplane type in a Level C simulator in accordance with Appendix H of
this part, the hours of operating experience for flight crewmembers may
be reduced to 50 percent of the hours required by this section by the
substitution of one additional takeoff and landing for each hour of
flight.
* * * * *
3. Appendix H is amended by replacing the words ``Phase I'',
``Phase II'', and ``Phase III'' with the words ``Level B'', ``Level
C'', and ``Level D'' respectively, wherever they appear; by replacing
the words ``Phase I, II, and III'' with the words ``Level B, C, and
D'', wherever they appear; by replacing the words ``Phase II or III''
with the words ``Level C or D'', wherever they appear; by replacing the
words ``Phase I, II, or III'' with the words ``Level B, C, or D'',
wherever they appear; by replacing the words ``Phase II, IIA, or III''
with the words ``Level C or D'', wherever they appear; by replacing the
word ``phase'' with the word ``level'', wherever it appears; and by
replacing the word ``phases'' with the word ``levels'' wherever it
appears.
4. The section entitled ``Advanced Simulation Training Program'' in
Appendix H is amended by removing paragraph 7 and revising paragraph 3
to read as follows:
Appendix H to Part 121--Advanced Simulation Plan
* * * * *
Advanced Simulation Training Program
* * * * *
3. Documentation that each instructor and check airman has served
for at least 1 year in that capacity in a certificate holder's approved
program or has served for at least 1 year as a pilot in command or
second in command in an airplane of the group in which that pilot is
instructing or checking.
* * * * *
5. Appendix H, ``Phase II, Training and Checking Permitted'' is
amended by revising paragraph 2. and adding paragraphs 3. and 4. to
read as follows:
* * * * *
Level C--Training and Checking Permitted
1. * * *
2. Upgrade to pilot-in-command training and the certification
check when the pilot--
a. Has previously qualified as second in command in the
equipment to which the pilot is upgrading;
b. Has at least 500 hours of actual flight time while serving as
second in command in an airplane of the same group; and
c. Is currently serving as second in command in an airplane in
this same group.
3. Initial pilot-in-command training and the certification check
when the pilot--
a. Is currently serving as second in command in an airplane of
the same group;
b. Has a minimum of 2,500 flight hours as second in command in
an airplane of the same group; and
c. Has served as second in command on at least two airplanes of
the same group.
4. For all second-in-command pilot applicants who meet the
aeronautical experience requirements of Sec. 61.155 of this chapter
in the airplane, the initial and upgrade training and checking
required by this part, and the certification check requirements of
Sec. 61.157 of this chapter.
* * * * *
6. Appendix H, ``Phase IIA, Interim Simulator Upgrade Plan for Part
121 Operators'' is removed in its entirety.
Issued in Washington, DC, on January 31, 1995.
William J. White,
Acting Director, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. 95-3132 Filed 2-13-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
