80 FR 34338 - Aviation Training Device Credit for Pilot Certification

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 115 (June 16, 2015)

Page Range		34338-34346
FR Document		2015-14836

This rulemaking proposes to relieve burdens on pilots seeking to obtain aeronautical experience, training, and certification by increasing the allowed use of aviation training devices. These actions are necessary to bring the regulations in line with current needs and activities of the general aviation training community and pilots.

Federal Register, Volume 80 Issue 115 (Tuesday, June 16, 2015)

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 115 (Tuesday, June 16, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34338-34346]
From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2015-14836]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 61 and 141

[Docket No.: FAA-2015-1846; Notice No. 15-03]
RIN 2120-AK71

Aviation Training Device Credit for Pilot Certification

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This rulemaking proposes to relieve burdens on pilots seeking
to obtain aeronautical experience, training, and certification by
increasing the allowed use of aviation training devices. These actions
are necessary to bring the regulations in line with current needs and
activities of the general aviation training community and pilots.

DATES: Send comments on or before July 16, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2015-1846
using any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202-493-2251.
Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this action, contact Marcel Bernard, Airmen Certification and Training
Branch, Flight Standards Service, AFS-810, Federal Aviation
Administration, 898 Airport Park Road, Suite 204, Glen Burnie, MD
21061; telephone: (410) 590-5364 x235 email marcel.bernard@faa.gov.
For legal questions concerning this action, contact Anne Moore,
Regulations Division, Office of the Chief Counsel, AGC-200, Federal
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC
20591; telephone (202) 267-3073; email anne.moore@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

[[Page 34339]]

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.

I. Background

Since the 1970s, the FAA has gradually expanded the permitted use
of flight simulation for training--first permitting simulation to be
used in air carrier training programs and eventually permitting pilots
to credit time in devices toward the aeronautical experience
requirements for airman certification and recency. Currently, Title 14
of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 60 governs the
qualification of flight simulation training devices (FSTDs), which
include full flight simulators (FFSs) level A through D and flight
training devices (FTDs) levels 4 through 7. The FAA has, however,
approved other devices, including aviation training devices (ATDs), for
use in pilot certification training, under the authority provided in 14
CFR 61.4(c).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Section 61.4(c) states that the ``Administrator may approve
a device other than a flight simulator or flight training device for
specific purposes.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For over 30 years, the FAA has issued letters of authorization
(LOAs) to manufacturers of ground trainers, personal computer-based
aviation training devices (PCATD), FTDs (levels 1 through 3), basic
aviation training devices (BATD), and advanced aviation training
devices (AATD). These LOAs were based on guidance provided in advisory
circulars (ACs) that set forth the qualifications and capabilities for
the devices. Prior to 2008, most LOAs were issued under the guidance
provided in AC 61-126, Qualification and Approval of Personal Computer-
Based Aviation Training Devices, and AC 120-45, Airplane Flight
Training Device Qualification. Starting in July of 2008, the FAA
approved devices in accordance with AC 61-136, FAA Approval of Basic
Aviation Training Devices (BATD) and Advanced Aviation Training Devices
(AATD). More recently, on December 3, 2014, the FAA published a
revision to AC 61-136A, Approval of Aviation Training Devices and Their
Use for Training and Experience.
In 2009, the FAA issued a final rule that for the first time
introduced the term ``aviation training device'' into the regulations
and placed express limits on the amount of instrument time in an ATD
that could be credited toward the aeronautical experience requirements
for an instrument rating.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ In a 2007 NPRM, the FAA proposed to limit the time in a
personal computer-based aviation training device that could be
credited toward the instrument rating. Pilot, Flight Instructor, and
Pilot School Certification NPRM, 72 FR 5806 (February 7, 2007).
Three commenters recommended that the FAA use the terms ``basic
aviation training device'' (BATD) and ``advanced aviation training
device'' (AATD). Pilot, Flight Instructor, and Pilot School
Certification Final Rule, 74 FR 42500 (August 21, 2009) (``2009
Final Rule''). In response to the commenters, the FAA changed the
regulatory text in the final rule to ``aviation training device,''
noting BATDs and AATDs ``as being aviation training devices (ATD)
are defined'' in an advisory circular.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since the 2009 final rule, Sec. 61.65(i) has provided that no more
than 10 hours of instrument time received in an ATD may be credited
toward the instrument time requirements of that section. In addition,
appendix C to part 141 permits an ATD to be used for no more than 10
percent of the total flight training hour requirements of an approved
course for an instrument rating.
Prior to the 2009 final rule, the FAA had issued hundreds of LOAs
to manufacturers of devices that permitted some ATDs (as well as ground
trainers, and FTDs (levels 1 through 3)) to be used to a greater extent
than was ultimately set forth in the regulations. The FAA continued to
issue LOAs for AATDs in excess of the express limitations in the
regulations after the publication of the 2009 final rule.
On January 2, 2014, the FAA published a notice of policy requiring
manufacturers of ATDs to obtain new LOAs reflecting the appropriate
regulatory allowances for ATD use. 79 FR 20.\3\ The notice stated the
FAA's conclusion that it could not use LOAs to exceed express
limitations that had been placed in the regulations through notice and
comment rulemaking. The FAA noted that, since August 2013, LOAs issued
for new devices reflect current regulatory requirements. However,
manufacturers and operators who held LOAs issued prior to August 2013
acted in reliance on FAA statements that were inconsistent with the
regulations. Therefore, the FAA granted a limited exemption from the
requirement in the regulations to provide manufacturers, operators, and
pilots currently training for an instrument rating time to adjust to
the reduction in creditable hours. This short-term exemption was
intended to provide an interim period to transition the LOAs for all
previously approved devices in accordance with the new policy. The FAA
found the exemption to be in the public interest in order to prevent
undue harm caused by reasonable reliance on the LOAs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ ``Notice of Policy Change for the Use of FAA Approved
Training Devices,'' January 2, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As stated in the notice, this short term exemption expired on
January 1, 2015. The FAA explained that after that date, no applicant
training for an instrument rating under part 61 may use more than 10
hours of instrument time in an ATD toward the minimum aeronautical
experience requirements required to take the practical test for an
instrument rating.\4\ In addition, no instrument rating course approved
under appendix C to part 141 may credit more than 10 percent of
training in ATDs toward the total flight training hour requirements of
the course (unless that program has been approved in accordance with
Sec. 141.55(d) or (e)).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ Under Sec. 61.65, a person who applies for an instrument
rating must have completed 40 hours of actual or simulated
instrument time of which 15 hours must have been with an authorized
instructor who holds the appropriate instrument rating.
\5\ Under appendix C, each approved course for an instrument
rating must include 35 hours of instrument training for an initial
instrument rating or 15 hours of instrument training for an
additional instrument rating.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

To address the discrepancy between the level of ATD credit allowed
historically by LOA and the lower allowances placed in the regulations,
the FAA published a direct final rule that would have amended the
regulations governing the use of ATDs.\6\ The direct final rule would
have increased the use of these devices for instrument training
requirements above the levels established in the 2009 final rule. In
developing this direct final rule, the FAA noted that ATD development
has advanced to an impressive level of capability. Many ATDs can
simulate weather conditions with variable winds, variable ceilings and
visibility, icing, turbulence, high definition (HD) visuals, hundreds
of different equipment failure scenarios, navigation specific to
current charts and topography, specific navigation and communication
equipment use, variable ``aircraft specific'' performance, and more.
The visual and motion component of some of these devices permit
maneuvers that require outside visual references in an aircraft to be
successfully taught in an AATD. Many of these simulation capabilities
were not possible in previously approved devices (such as PCATDs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ 79 FR 71634, December 3, 2014, withdrawn at 80 FR 2001,
January 15, 2015 (RIN 2120-AK62).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the direct final rule, the FAA stated its belief that permitting
pilots to log increased time in ATDs would encourage pilots to practice
maneuvers until they are performed to an acceptable level of
proficiency. In an

[[Page 34340]]

ATD, a pilot can replay the training scenario, identify any improper
action, practice abnormal/emergency procedures, and determine
corrective actions without undue hazard or risk to persons or property.
In this fashion, a pilot can continue to practice tasks and maneuvers
in a safe, effective, and cost efficient means of maintaining
proficiency.

II. The Direct Final Rule

As described in the previous section, to address the discrepancy
between FAA regulations and prior policy, on December 3, 2014, the FAA
published a direct final rule that would have increased the allowed use
of ATDs. The FAA received 20 comments to the direct final rule.\7\ The
provisions of the direct final rule, the comments received, and FAA's
responses to those comments are discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ The direct final rule and the comments received thereto may
be found in FAA Docket No. FAA-2014-0987 at http://www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Credit for Aeronautical Experience Requirements for an Instrument
Rating and Approved Instrument Rating Courses

Credit for aeronautical experience requirements for an instrument
rating: The direct final rule would have increased the maximum time
that may be credited in an ATD toward the aeronautical experience
requirements for an instrument rating under Sec. 61.65(i). The direct
final rule would have permitted a person to credit a maximum of 20
hours of aeronautical experience acquired in an approved ATD toward the
requirements for an instrument rating. Devices that qualify as AATDs
would have been authorized for up to 20 hours of experience to meet the
instrument time requirements. Devices that qualify as BATDs would have
been authorized for a maximum of 10 hours of experience to meet the
instrument time requirements.
Approved instrument rating courses: The direct final rule also
would have amended appendix C to part 141 to increase the limit on the
amount of training hours that may be accomplished in an ATD in an
approved course for an instrument rating. An ATD would have been
permitted to be used for no more than 40 percent of the total flight
training hour requirements in an approved instrument rating course.
Comments received: The FAA received 20 comments regarding these
provisions. Eighteen comments supported the provisions. However, two
commenters raised concerns. As those comments were adverse to the
direct final rule, the FAA was required to withdraw the direct final
rule, 80 FR 2001, (Jan. 15, 2015). 14 CFR 11.13. The comments and FAA's
responses are discussed below.
Comments supporting the direct final rule: Eighteen comments
supported the direct final rule provisions with 16 comments from
individuals, and two from the Society of Aviation and Flight Educators
(SAFE) and the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA).
Nine commenters simply stated their general support. Several other
commenters noted that use of ATDs would save pilots time and money. The
FAA notes that none of those commenters provided quantified estimates
regarding time or cost savings.
One commenter asserted that the ability to simulate a wide variety
of situations or to drill procedures through repetition in an ATD is
far greater than in the actual aircraft. The commenter believed that
the ATD learning environment is less stressful, less noisy, and less
unpredictable, thus making it a better classroom to learn detailed
instrument procedures.
Another commenter asserted that the rule provisions would enhance
safety by allowing more pilots to add instrument ratings to their
certificates. The commenter believed that the rule provisions would
potentially reduce controlled flight into terrain accidents because
pilots would be more likely to have a higher level of proficiency in
controlling solely by reference to the instruments.
One commenter expressed a desire that the same principles applied
to required instrument experience under 14 CFR 61.57. The FAA notes
that this comment is beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
Adverse comments: The FAA received two adverse comments regarding
these provisions. The first commenter, who indicated he is a
professional pilot, airline transport pilot, and flight instructor with
multiple ratings (airplane multiengine, airplane single-engine, and
instrument-airplane), believed that flight requires the use and
correlation of all senses in order to make a lasting impression. The
commenter believed the fundamentals of instructing agrees with this
position. More importantly, the commenter believed that acclimation to
instrument meteorological conditions helps pilots relate these various
inputs and strategies to deal with them. The commenter asserted that
ATDs are valuable as procedure trainers, but not as valuable as
``everyone seems to think. The rapid redeployment of a situation seems
like an advantage, yet it diminishes the learning because it seems so
easy to recover from a botched maneuver.'' The commenter also asserted
that resetting the situation diminishes the ``routine'' that a pilot
relies on to take him or her to a specific place, which interferes
greatly with the learning of each step.
The commenter also believed that no amount of graphic imagery or
display setup, even in full motion simulators, ever causes a pilot to
lose consciousness of the fact that it is a simulator. The commenter
asserted that flight simulators are wonderful, but very limited
devices. Instead of increasing a pilot's skill, however, they have come
between real-world flying and desktop flying. The commenter stated that
they have increased reliance on screens and autopilots and diminished
the pilot's sense of being in charge of the aircraft and the flight.
Stalls, thunderstorms, and icing are the greatest dangers, yet ATDs
cannot depict these accurately or realistically.
Finally, the commenter noted the belief that the industry at large
always diminishes the importance of safety and increases the importance
of costs whenever training requirements are considered. The commenter
believed one hour in any aircraft is worth ten in front of an ATD. The
commenter stated, ``The cost of a lost aircraft and all its crew is not
worth the imagined savings gained from flying imaginary aircraft in
imaginary environments.''
The second commenter, who is or was, a flight instructor with an
instrument rating and an air traffic controller, questioned whether
flight students should be trained and live in an unrealistic world. The
commenter believed that training in the classroom environment and in
labs was an excellent preparatory environment, but nothing like the
realities of real life. While the commenter ``highly recommend[ed]''
the use of such devices, the commenter cautioned the direct final rule
included too much of a reduction. The commenter advised: ``Proceed with
appropriate caution and understand the risk involved.''
Public comments responding to the adverse comments: SAFE submitted
a comment in response to the first adverse comment received. SAFE noted
that microprocessor developments over the past several years have
resulted in a new generation of increasingly affordable mid and upper
level devices which replicate sensory inputs with an incredible degree
of accuracy and which are becoming commonplace in the training market.
SAFE stated that ATDs can provide the student with excellent
opportunities to focus on learning the correct procedures for
situations such as

[[Page 34341]]

nighttime operations, narrow or sloping runways, glassy water, and
instrument meteorological conditions without interference from
conflicting or adverse sensory inputs before being exposed to them in
the live flight environment where confusion can occur between the body
and the brain until training and experience overcome the sensory input.
SAFE claimed that ``Peer reviewed research conclusively shows that
when properly utilized as part of a comprehensive training program
[training] devices actually speed up the learning process by allowing
students to bypass areas of successful understanding and to concentrate
on areas where more practice is required. . . . Specific research by
the military and major airlines show that these devices can
consistently enhance student retention of lesson material, increase
student confidence levels, and reduce accident and loss rates.'' The
FAA notes that SAFE did not provide sources for these claims.
SAFE further asserted that ATDs have proven very effective in
simulating certain emergencies too dangerous to practice in the air.
This practice builds pilot confidence in being prepared to handle such
situations should they occur. SAFE also asserted that current military
and civilian research shows a positive relationship between ATD use and
safer flying. SAFE did not provide research or source citations to
support these assertions.
Finally, SAFE noted that one of the key factors in today's extreme
dropout rate in flight training is the ``very high cost.'' SAFE stated
``[W]e must find a way to contain the training costs without
sacrificing safety or operation utility. ATDs, properly utilized, are a
modern component in achieving this.''
AOPA also supported the rule with the following statement and
stated that the FAA should ``continue to permit the flight training
industry to maximize the use of aviation training devices (ATDs) for
instrument flight training in order to certificate safe competent
pilots in a structured and economical way.'' AOPA also provided
discussion concerning the adverse comments received and suggested why
they should be considered without substance and not adverse within the
context of the direct final rulemaking process.
FAA Response: The FAA agrees with the commenters who support
increased training time in ATDs, including the comments related to the
dynamic training capability of these devices, cost savings, and recent
technical advancements that enhance the usability of ATDs.
To the extent that an adverse commenter asserted that flying must
involve a ``correlation of all senses'' and that ``sounds and feel are
vital to recognizing unusual attitudes'' when other senses fail, the
FAA disagrees concerning positive aircraft control skills and has
provided extensive guidance on this topic in the Instrument Flying
Handbook (FAA-H-8083-15B).\8\ In particular, the Handbook advises that
pilots should disregard sensory perceptions and ``[m]ost importantly,
become proficient in the use of the flight instruments and rely upon
them.'' The Handbook further states ``[t]hese undesirable sensations
cannot be completely prevented, but through training and awareness,
pilots can ignore or suppress them by developing absolute reliance on
the flight instruments.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/.
\9\ FAA-H-8083-15B Instrument Flying Handbook updated 7/2/2014
pg. 3-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The FAA believes that training in ATDs and FSTDs, when used in
conjunction with training in an aircraft, teach an instrument student
to trust the appropriate sense, vision, in order to successfully
operate an aircraft in low visibility conditions. Training in an ATD
reinforces this necessary skill and any reliance on ``sounds or feel''
may ultimately lead to loss of control when operating an aircraft in
instrument meteorological conditions. Because ignoring the postural
senses involves relying on visual clues, the ATD provides an excellent
platform for a pilot to develop this portion of his or her instrument
flying skills. The FAA recognizes that a device does not require motion
in order to be approved as an AATD; thus, these devices are limited in
that they cannot completely train the pilot to ignore outside sensory
perceptions. The FAA finds that a pilot can develop this ability during
the aeronautical experience that an applicant for an instrument rating
must obtain in an aircraft.
The same commenter also discussed the capability of an aviation
training device to ``[reset] the situation.'' The commenter suggested
that this capability makes it too easy to recover from an
unsatisfactory maneuver by simply returning to a previous location
during the simulated flight. The commenter explained that this
diminishes the routine that a pilot relies on during flight. The FAA
does not agree and finds significant value in the ability of the device
to be reconfigured to return to a point at which the pilot is having
difficulty with a particular procedure or maneuver. This will allow the
pilot to practice the corrective action until able to successfully
complete the procedure or maneuver. This feature allows repetitive
practice of a difficult procedure in a short period of time that could
potentially add hours of training if accomplished in an aircraft.
Additionally, simulation supports the long-endorsed teaching practice
of ``meaningful repetition.'' \10\ More practice in an aviation
training device until a pilot performs a particular segment of a
procedure or action correctly, before attempting the same in an
aircraft, is an acceptable and desirable practice. Because half of the
required instrument time under part 61 (20 hours), or 60 percent of the
total flight training hours under part 141 (21 hours), would be
accomplished in an aircraft, the necessary routine mentioned by the
commenter will be provided during those lessons performed while in
flight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ FAA-H-8083-9A Flight Instructors Handbook pg. 2-35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition, the commenter stated that ``[T]he consequences of
training pilots in ATDs is that they do not experience the fear that
accompanies real-life emergencies, or the sensory inputs that come with
icing and thunderstorm contact.'' The FAA does not support flight
training that involves intentional flight into dangerous weather
conditions. Rather, the FAA expects pilots to purposely avoid icing
\11\ and thunderstorm conditions \12\ and be taught to be proficient at
doing so. In contrast, ATDs allow training to simulate inadvertent
flight into these adverse conditions that cannot be accomplished safely
in an aircraft. In an ATD, students are afforded an opportunity to
practice recommended actions when encountering these undesirable
weather conditions without risk. There are many emergency procedures
that can be practiced in ATDs that cannot be safely accomplished in the
aircraft. This allows for training that students would not otherwise
receive and provides the appropriate mitigation of risk without
diminishing the quality or depth of training.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ AC 91-74A Pilot Guide: Flight in Icing Conditions, Pilot
Strategies pg. 42.
\12\ AIM Aeronautical Information Manual 7-1-29 Thunderstorm
Flying.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the commenter stated that ``[f]light simulators are
wonderful, but very limited devices,'' asserting that simulators have
increased reliance on screens and autopilots and diminish the pilot's
sense of being in charge. The commenter disapproved of instructors
relying less on real world experience

[[Page 34342]]

and that the industry at large puts costs before safety. The FAA
believes that these comments reflect the commenter's concern about
automation and advanced avionics versus concern about simulators.
Despite the commenter's concern over automation and advanced avionics,
the FAA recognizes that use of these systems has become commonplace in
general aviation aircraft. It is therefore beneficial to teach the use
of these advanced systems in ATDs to supplement training in the
aircraft.
The second commenter provided some support for the use of ATDs,
noting for example that the cockpit is not a suitable classroom in
which to teach. The commenter also expressed concerns that are not
specific to ATDs, such as communication skills, not directly pertinent
to the direct final rule or to this proposed rule. However, the
commenter discussed whether training flight students in an unrealistic
world is appropriate.
The FAA believes that ATDs are specifically designed to replicate
the real world and help pilots to develop their instrument skills in
advance of receiving training and experience in an aircraft.\13\ The
concerns raised by both commenters are mitigated by the fact that a
substantial portion of the required instrument time would still be
accomplished in an aircraft. Instrument rating applicants would need to
obtain a minimum of 20 hours of instrument time in an aircraft under
part 61 or complete a minimum of 60 percent of the training
requirements in an aircraft under part 141.\14\ Additional scrutiny of
the pilot's proficiency occurs before an FAA examiner during a
practical test which must be conducted in an aircraft in the national
airspace system. The FAA specifically notes that the airman instrument
practical test requires demonstration of a specific level of
proficiency and expertise in flight, and airman testing in ATDs is not
permitted.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ AC 61-136A, FAA Approval of Aviation Training Devices and
Their Use for Training and Experience.
\14\ An exception would still exist for those courses that are
approved under 14 CFR 141.55(d) and (e).
\15\ FAA-S-8081-4E, Instrument Rating Practical Test Standards,
Appendix 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recently documented research concerning training effectiveness in
simulation devices that reflect modern ATD systems is limited. The FAA
notes two studies related to ATDs that were done in the past 20 years.
The first paper published in May of 2005 titled ``Effectiveness of
Flight Training Devices Used for Instrument Training,'' \16\ referenced
the use of an Elite PCATD and a Frasca 141 Level 1 FTD. Students using
these two trainers generally completed their flight lessons (i.e.,
those accomplished in an aircraft) in less time. The overall findings
reported that flight training hours required to develop basic
instrument flying skills (the report referenced aircraft control,
instrument departures, en-route and approach procedures) was reduced.
Training hours required to develop advanced skills, such as NDB holds,
approaches, and partial panel procedures, were not necessarily reduced.
However, cross country flight training time was reduced by up to 50
percent for some of these same individuals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ Taylor, H.L., Talleur, D.A., Emanuel Jr., T.W., Rantaner,
E., ``Effectiveness of Flight Training Devices Used for Instrument
Training,'' Final Technical Report AHFD-05-9/FAA-05-4, Federal
Aviation Administration, May 2005. A copy of this document has been
placed in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The second research paper, ``Transfer of Training Effectiveness of
Personal Computer-Based Aviation Training Devices,'' \17\ published in
May 1997, discusses the use of a PCATD trainer for a two-semester
instrument course. Trainees that used the training device were able to
develop the proficiency to perform some exercises in the aircraft with
a flight time savings of 15 percent to 40 percent relative to those
that did not use the training device. However, for some other
exercises, a burden of an extra 25 percent in flight time resulted for
those students that used the training device.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ Taylor, H.L., Lintern, G., Hulin, C.L., Talleur, D.,
Emanuel, T., Phillips, S., ``Transfer of Training Effectiveness of
Personal Computer-Based Aviation Training Devices,'' DOT/FAA/AM-97/
11, Office of Aviation Medicine, Washington, DC, May 1997. A copy of
this document has been placed in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The FAA believes that these earlier studies are largely incomplete
because the training devices used in the aforementioned studies do not
reflect the current capabilities and standards \18\ required for AATDs
as the FAA approves them today. Most of these older devices utilized in
the available studies lack the sophistication now facilitated by more
readily available advanced computer system software and hardware,
including improved visuals/databases, and the increased system fidelity
and replication that these newer training systems take advantage of
today. The FAA also notes that with the increased implementation of
scenario-based training, ATDs are used more effectively than in the
past. Therefore, the FAA considers the results of these findings
somewhat inapplicable and, for the reasons described above, believes
that the proposed regulatory change is still in the best interest of
aviation safety. The FAA seeks comment regarding any additional
relevant data or institutional research that supports the training and
safety advantages when using ATDs, or establishes that such devices do
not enhance pilot training and flight safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\ AC 61-136 first published in July 2008 provided the
standards used today for the approval and use of ATD's. This was
recently revised in December 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As of January 1, 2015, all LOAs issued prior to August 23, 2013,
for training devices approved to meet requirements under parts 61 and
141 terminated.\19\ This means that experience obtained in these
devices may no longer be credited toward aeronautical experience or
currency requirements in parts 61 and 141 unless the FAA has issued an
updated LOA. Therefore, any FAA-approved ATDs being used to meet
current aeronautical experience requirements have been demonstrated to
meet the updated standards for AATDs set forth in AC 61-136 (as
amended). Devices that were approved beginning August 23, 2013, were
issued an LOA with a 5-year expiration date. This will ensure that the
type of device meets acceptable standards for use in crediting
aeronautical experience and currency. Devices that do not meet the
standard for an AATD will either be issued an LOA that approves the
device as a BATD (with lower time crediting allowances as described in
AC 61-136) or will simply not be issued an LOA in which case the device
can be used as a training aid, but not credited for aeronautical
experience.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ 79 FR 20, Notice of Policy Change for the Use of FAA
Approved Training Devices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition, current ATD approval and use involves substantial FAA
scrutiny and oversight as provided in the recently revised AC 61-136A,
FAA Approval of Aviation Training Devices and Their Use for Training
and Experience. As noted above, this includes a review for renewal of
approvals every five years, confirming that these training devices
continue to perform to the updated standards. This review is based on
standards and practices that combine over 30 years of experience
between the FAA and industry.

B. View-Limiting Devices

Under Sec. 61.51(g), a person may log instrument time only for
that flight time when the person operates an aircraft solely by
reference to the instruments under actual or simulated conditions. When
instrument time is logged in an

[[Page 34343]]

aircraft, a pilot wears a view-limiting device to simulate instrument
conditions and ensure that he or she is flying without utilizing
outside visual references. Currently, Sec. 61.65(i) requires a pilot
who is logging instrument time in an ATD to wear a view-limiting
device. The direct final rule would have revised Sec. 61.65(i)(4) to
eliminate the requirement that pilots accomplishing instrument time in
an ATD wear a view-limiting device.
The purpose of a view-limiting device is to prevent a pilot (while
training in an aircraft during flight) from having outside visual
references that would naturally be present otherwise. These references
are not available in a training device and a pilot has no opportunity
to look outside for any useful visual references pertaining to the
simulation. The FAA recognizes that the majority of these devices have
a simulated visual display that can be configured to be unavailable or
represent ``limited visibility'' conditions that preclude any need for
a view-limiting device to be worn by the student. This lack of visual
references requires the pilot to give his or her full attention to the
flight instruments which is the goal of any instrument training or
experience. The FAA believes that using a training device can be useful
because it trains the pilot to focus on, appropriately scan and
interpret the flight instruments. Since these devices incorporate a
visual system that can be configured to the desired visibility level,
use of a view-limiting device would have no longer been required by the
direct final rule.
When the FAA introduced Sec. 61.65(i)(4) requiring view-limiting
devices in the 2009 final rule, the preamble was silent as to why a
view-limiting device was necessary. 74 FR 42500, 42523. Based on
comments from industry, the FAA has determined that due to the
sophistication of the flight visual representation for ATDs and the
capability of presenting various weather conditions appropriate to the
training scenario, a view-limiting device is unnecessary. Because
persons operating an ATD can simulate both instrument and visual
conditions, FAA LOAs specifically reference Sec. 61.51 that stipulates
a pilot can only log instrument time when using the flight instruments
for reference and operation.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ AC 61-136A Appendix 4, Training Content and Logging
Provisions references limitations for logging instrument time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments received: The FAA received one comment in response to this
provision in the direct final rule. The commenter believed that
removing the requirement for a student to wear a view-limiting device
while using an ATD is a sensible decision. The commenter believed that
there is much more benefit to be gained by the view limiting features
of the ATD itself than by a view-limiting piece of headgear.
FAA Response: The FAA agrees that it is unnecessary for a student
to wear a view-limiting device when using an ATD. The FAA finds that
this requirement is not necessary because ATDs do not afford relevant
outside references.

III. The Proposed Rule

After consideration of the comments received to the direct final
rule, the FAA is proposing the following changes to 14 CFR parts 61 and
141. These changes are the same as in the direct final rule, 79 FR
71634, (Dec. 3, 2014), withdrawn at 80 FR 2001, (Jan. 15, 2015).

A. Credit for the Aeronautical Experience Requirements for an
Instrument Rating

The FAA is proposing to increase the maximum time that may be
credited in an ATD toward the instrument time requirements for an
instrument rating under Sec. 61.65(i). A person would be permitted to
credit a maximum of 20 hours of instrument time in an approved ATD
toward the requirements for an instrument rating.\21\ Devices that
qualify as AATDs would be authorized for up to 20 hours of instrument
time. Devices that qualify as BATDs would be authorized for a maximum
of 10 hours of instrument time. In light of this difference, pilots
must--as required by current regulations--include in their logbooks the
type and identification of any ATD that is used to accomplish
aeronautical experience requirements for a certificate, rating, or
recent flight experience. 14 CFR 61.51(b)(1)(iv). The FAA is retaining
the existing limit of 20 hours of combined time in FFSs, FTDs, and ATDs
that may be credited towards the aeronautical experience requirements
for an instrument rating.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ As required under Sec. 61.51(g)(4), to log instrument time
in an ATD for the purpose of a certificate or rating, an authorized
instructor must be present.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Approved Instrument Rating Courses

The FAA is also proposing to amend appendix C to part 141 to
increase the limit on the amount of training hours that may be
accomplished in an ATD in an approved course for an instrument rating.
An ATD could be used for no more than 40 percent of the total flight
training hour requirements in an instrument rating course. The FAA
notes that this rule would not change the current provisions in
appendix C which limit credit for training in FFSs, FTDs, and ATDs,
that if used in combination, cannot exceed 50 percent of the total
flight training hour requirements of an instrument rating course.
In addition, the FAA is proposing to amend Sec. 141.41 to clarify
the existing qualification and approval requirement for FSTDs and to
add the qualification and approval of ATDs by the FAA, which is
currently conducted pursuant to Sec. 61.4(c).

C. View-Limiting Device

The FAA is proposing to revise Sec. 61.65(i)(4) to eliminate the
requirement that pilots accomplishing instrument time in an ATD wear a
view-limiting device. The FAA emphasizes, however, that a pilot--
whether in an aircraft, FFS, FTD, or ATD--may log instrument time only
when the pilot is operating solely by reference to the instruments
under actual or simulated conditions. If a pilot is using an ATD and
the device is providing visual references upon which the pilot is
relying, this would not constitute instrument time under Sec.
61.51(g).

IV. Advisory Circulars and Other Guidance Materials

To further implement this rule, the FAA is proposing to revise the
following FAA Order:
FAA Order 8900.1, Flight Standards Information Management System,
Volume 11, Chapter 10, Section 1, (Basic and Advanced Aviation Training
Device) Approval and Authorized Use under 14 CFR parts 61 and 141.

V. 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
(Public Law 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of
regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act
(Public Law 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

[[Page 34344]]

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 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 notice of proposed rulemaking.
In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined that this proposed
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) would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities;
(5) would not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of
the United States; and (6) would 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.
Department of Transportation DOT Order 2100.5 prescribes policies
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations.
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement
to that effect and the basis for it be included in the preamble if a
full regulatory evaluation of the costs and benefits is not prepared.
Such a determination has been made for this notice of proposed
rulemaking. The reasoning for this determination follows:
The provisions included in this rule are either relieving or
voluntary. The elimination of the requirement to use a view-limiting
device is a relieving provision. The other two provisions are voluntary
and cost relieving--additional ATD credit for instrument time for an
instrument rating and additional ATD credit for approved instrument
courses, if acted upon, is cheaper than flight training time.
Persons who use the new provisions would do so only if the benefit
they would accrue from their use exceeded the costs they might incur to
comply. Given the hundreds of LOAs issued, industry's high usage of
ATDs, and SAFE and AOPA's endorsement of ATDs, the proposed change in
requirements is likely to be relieving. Benefits will exceed the costs
of a voluntary rule if just one person voluntarily complies.
Since this proposed rule would offer a lower cost alternative,
would provide regulatory relief for the use of view-limiting devices,
and would allow greater voluntary use of ATDs, the expected outcome
would be cost relieving to minimal impact with positive net benefits.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Public Law 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 rule would be small businesses
such as flight instructors, aviation schools, and fixed base operators.
The general lack of publicly available financial information from these
small businesses precludes a financial analysis of these small
businesses. While there is likely a substantial number of small
entities affected, the provisions of this proposed rule are either
relieving (directly provides cost relief) or voluntary (provides
benefits or costs only if a person voluntarily chooses to use the rule
provision). The FAA made the same determination as part of the direct
final rule and received no comments.
If an agency determines that a rulemaking will not result in a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
the head of the agency may so certify under section 605(b) of the RFA.
Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), the head of the FAA certifies
that this rulemaking would not result in a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities.

C. International Trade Impact Assessment

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Public Law 96-39), as amended by
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Public Law 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 proposed rule and
determined that it would 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 (Public Law
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 $151.0 million in lieu of $100
million.
This proposed 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. The FAA has determined that
there is no new requirement for information

[[Page 34345]]

collection associated with this proposed rule.

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
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has
reviewed the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices and
has identified no differences with these regulations.

G. Environmental Analysis

FAA Order 1050.1E 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 312f and involves no extraordinary
circumstances.

VI. Executive Order Determinations

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

The FAA has analyzed this 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 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 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.

VII. Additional Information

A. Comments Invited

The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The agency
also invites comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy,
or federalism impacts that might result from adopting this document.
The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the rule,
explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting
data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments,
commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if
comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit only one
time.
The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well
as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA
personnel concerning this rulemaking. Before acting on this proposed
rule, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before the
closing date for comments. The agency may change this rule in light of
the comments it receives.
Proprietary or Confidential Business Information: Commenters should
not file proprietary or confidential business information in the
docket. Such information must be sent or delivered directly to the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this document, and marked as proprietary or confidential. If submitting
information on a disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD
ROM, and identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific
information that is proprietary or confidential.
Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), if the FAA is aware of proprietary
information filed with a comment, the agency does not place it in the
docket. It is held in a separate file to which the public does not have
access, and the FAA places a note in the docket that it has received
it. If the FAA receives a request to examine or copy this information,
it treats it as any other request under the Freedom of Information Act
(5 U.S.C. 552). The FAA processes such a request under Department of
Transportation procedures found in 49 CFR part 7.

B. 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 Printing 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.

List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 61

Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, Teachers.

14 CFR Part 141

Airmen, Educational facilities, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Schools.

The Proposed Amendment

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:

PART 61--CERTIFICATION: PILOTS, FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS, AND GROUND
INSTRUCTORS

0
1. 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, 45102-45103, 45301-45302.

0
2. Amend Sec. 61.65 by revising paragraph (i) and adding paragraph (j)
to read as follows:

Sec. 61.65 Instrument rating requirements.

* * * * *
(i) Use of an aviation training device. A maximum of 20 hours of
instrument time received in an aviation training device may be credited
for the instrument time requirements of this section if--
(1) The device is approved and authorized by the FAA;
(2) An authorized instructor provides the instrument time in the
device; and

[[Page 34346]]

(3) The FAA approved the instrument training and instrument tasks
performed in the device.
(j) A person may not credit more than 20 total hours of instrument
time in a flight simulator, flight training device, aviation training
device, or combination toward the instrument time requirements of this
section.

PART 141--PILOT SCHOOLS

0
3. 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
4. Revise Sec. 141.41 to read as follows:

Sec. 141.41 Flight simulators, flight training devices, aviation
training devices, and training aids.

An applicant for a pilot school certificate or a provisional pilot
school certificate must show that its flight simulators, flight
training devices, aviation training devices, training aids, and
equipment meet the following requirements:
(a) Flight simulators and flight training devices. Each flight
simulator and flight training device used to obtain flight training
credit in an approved pilot training course curriculum must be:
(1) Qualified under part 60 of this chapter; and
(2) Approved by the Administrator for the tasks and maneuvers.
(b) Aviation training devices. Each aviation training device used
to obtain flight training credit in an approved pilot training course
curriculum must be evaluated, qualified, and approved by the
Administrator.
(c) Training aids and equipment. Each training aid, including any
audiovisual aid, projector, mockup, chart, or aircraft component listed
in the approved training course outline, must be accurate and relevant
to the course for which it is used.
0
5. Amend Appendix C to part 141 by revising paragraph (b) in section 4
to read as follows:

Appendix C to Part 141--Instrument Rating Course

* * * * *
4. Flight training. * * *
(b) For the use of flight simulators, flight training devices,
or aviation training devices--
(1) The course may include training in a flight simulator,
flight training device, or aviation training device, provided it is
representative of the aircraft for which the course is approved,
meets the requirements of this paragraph, and the training is given
by an authorized instructor.
(2) Credit for training in a flight simulator that meets the
requirements of Sec. 141.41(a) cannot exceed 50 percent of the
total flight training hour requirements of the course or of this
section, whichever is less.
(3) Credit for training in a flight training device that meets
the requirements of Sec. 141.41(a), an aviation training device
that meets the requirements of Sec. 141.41(b), or a combination of
these devices cannot exceed 40 percent of the total flight training
hour requirements of the course or of this section, whichever is
less.
(4) Credit for training in flight simulators, flight training
devices, and aviation training devices if used in combination,
cannot exceed 50 percent of the total flight training hour
requirements of the course or of this section, whichever is less.
However, credit for training in a flight training device or aviation
training device cannot exceed the limitation provided for in
paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
* * * * *

Issued in Washington, DC, under the authority of 49 U.S.C.
106(f), 44701(a)(5), and 44703(a), on June 10, 2015.
Michael J. Zenkovich,
Acting Director Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-14836 Filed 6-15-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

34338 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 115 / Tuesday, June 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules

(i) Remove from service the following may review a copy of the service information Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9
engine mount parts: at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
(A) Support arm, P/N C714A1107201; Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Friday, except Federal holidays.
(B) Swaged support arm, P/N Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.
C714A1106201;
• Fax: Fax comments to Docket
(2) The subject of this AD is addressed in
(C) Left-hand support bracket, P/N Direction Generale de L’Aviation Civile Operations at 202–493–2251.
C714A1101102; and (DGAC) AD No. F–2003–325 R1, Revision A, Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C.
(D) Right-hand support bracket, P/N dated May 12, 2004. You may view the 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
C714A1101103. DGAC AD on the Internet at http:// public to better inform its rulemaking
(ii) Measure the height of the engine www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FAA– process. DOT posts these comments,
mounting base as depicted in Figure 1 of 2014–0105. without edit, including any personal
Eurocopter Alert SB No. 04A005, Revision 0, information the commenter provides, to
dated July 16, 2003. If the height is more than (j) Subject
10.5 millimeters, replace the engine mount
http://www.regulations.gov, as
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC)
with an engine mount that does not have the Code: 6310 Engine/Transmission Coupling—
described in the system of records
parts identified in paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this Coupling Tube, Engine Mount, and Engine notice (DOT/ALL–14 FDMS), which can
AD. Mount Base. be reviewed at http://www.dot.gov/
(2) For helicopters with a serial number privacy.
1170 and larger or helicopters modified with Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 29,
2015.
Docket: Background documents or
an improvement of the engine mount in comments received may be read at
accordance with SB 71–003: Lance T. Gant,
http://www.regulations.gov at any time.
(i) Within 25 hours TIS, replace the spring- Acting Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft
type engine suspension system and perform
Follow the online instructions for
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
a dye-penetrant inspection of the flared accessing the docket or go to the Docket
[FR Doc. 2015–14282 Filed 6–15–15; 8:45 am] Operations in Room W12–140 of the
coupling for a crack by following the
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P West Building Ground Floor at 1200
Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs
2.B.2.a through 2.B.2.c of SB 71–005. New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
(ii) If there is a crack in the flared coupling, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
before further flight, replace the coupling DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION through Friday, except Federal holidays.
with an airworthy coupling.
(3) For helicopters with coupling tube, P/ Federal Aviation Administration FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
N C631A1002101, installed, before further technical questions concerning this
flight, remove coupling tube, P/N 14 CFR Parts 61 and 141 action, contact Marcel Bernard, Airmen
C631A1002101, from service. Do not install Certification and Training Branch,
coupling tube, P/N C631A1002101, on any [Docket No.: FAA–2015–1846; Notice No. Flight Standards Service, AFS–810,
helicopter. 15–03]
Federal Aviation Administration, 898
(g) Special Flight Permits RIN 2120–AK71 Airport Park Road, Suite 204, Glen
Special flight permits may be issued Burnie, MD 21061; telephone: (410)
Aviation Training Device Credit for 590–5364 x235 email marcel.bernard@
provided there are no cracks in the coupling
tube attachment fitting.
Pilot Certification faa.gov.
AGENCY: Federal Aviation For legal questions concerning this
(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance
Administration (FAA), DOT. action, contact Anne Moore, Regulations
(AMOCs)
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
Division, Office of the Chief Counsel,
(1) The Manager, Safety Management AGC–200, Federal Aviation
Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this
AD. Send your proposal to: James Blyn, SUMMARY: This rulemaking proposes to Administration, 800 Independence
Aviation Safety Engineer, Regulations and relieve burdens on pilots seeking to Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
Policy Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, obtain aeronautical experience, training, telephone (202) 267–3073; email
2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas and certification by increasing the anne.moore@faa.gov.
76137; telephone (817) 222–5110; email allowed use of aviation training devices. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
james.blyn@faa.gov. These actions are necessary to bring the
(2) For operations conducted under a 14 regulations in line with current needs Authority for This Rulemaking
CFR part 119 operating certificate or under and activities of the general aviation The FAA’s authority to issue rules on
14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that
you notify your principal inspector, or training community and pilots. aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of DATES: Send comments on or before July United States Code (49 U.S.C.). Subtitle
the local flight standards district office or 16, 2015. I, Section 106 describes the authority of
certificate holding district office before ADDRESSES: Send comments identified the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
operating any aircraft complying with this by docket number FAA–2015–1846 Aviation Programs, describes in more
AD through an AMOC. detail the scope of the agency’s
using any of the following methods:
(i) Additional Information • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to authority.
(1) Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) http://www.regulations.gov and follow This rulemaking is promulgated
No. 05A003, Revision 2, dated July 16, 2003, the online instructions for sending your under the authority described in 49
Eurocopter ASB No. 05A003, Revision 3, comments electronically. U.S.C. 106(f), which establishes the
dated May 11, 2004, and Eurocopter Service • Mail: Send comments to Docket authority of the Administrator to
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Bulletin No. 71–003, Revision 1, dated July Operations, M–30; U.S. Department of promulgate regulations and rules; 49
18, 2002, which are not incorporated by Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey U.S.C. 44701(a)(5), which requires the
reference, contain additional information Avenue SE., Room W12–140, West Administrator to promote safe flight of
about the subject of this AD. For service civil aircraft in air commerce by
information identified in this AD, contact
Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC
Airbus Helicopters, Inc., 2701 N. Forum 20590–0001. prescribing regulations and setting
Drive, Grand Prairie, Texas 75052, telephone • Hand Delivery or Courier: Take minimum standards for other practices,
(972) 641–0000 or (800) 232–0323; fax (972) comments to Docket Operations in methods, and procedures necessary for
641–3775; or at http:// Room W12–140 of the West Building safety in air commerce and national
www.airbushelicopters.com/techpub. You Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey security; and 49 U.S.C. 44703(a), which

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:44 Jun 15, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16JNP1.SGM 16JNP1

Document Created: 2018-02-22 10:22:38
Document Modified: 2018-02-22 10:22:38

Category		Regulatory Information
Collection		Federal Register
sudoc Class		AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106:
Publisher		Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
Section		Proposed Rules
Action		Notice of proposed rulemaking.
Dates		Send comments on or before July 16, 2015.
Contact		For technical questions concerning this action, contact Marcel Bernard, Airmen Certification and Training Branch, Flight Standards Service, AFS-810, Federal Aviation Administration, 898 Airport Park Road, Suite 204, Glen Burnie, MD 21061; telephone: (410) 590-5364 x235 email [email protected]
FR Citation		80 FR 34338
RIN Number		2120-AK71
CFR Citation		14 CFR 141 14 CFR 61

80 FR 34338 - Aviation Training Device Credit for Pilot Certification

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONFederal Aviation Administration

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 115 (June 16, 2015)

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration