April 28, 2012 Docket Operations, M‐30 U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Room W12‐140 West Building Ground Floor Washington, D.C. 20590‐0001 Subject: ALPA Comments to Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on Pilot Certification and Qualification Requirements for Air Carrier Operations, Docket No. FAA‐2010‐0100; Notice No. 12‐01 IN SUPPORT WITH COMMENTS To Whom it May Concern: The Air Line Pilots Association, Int’l (ALPA), representing more than 53,000 pilots who fly for 37 airlines in the U.S. and Canada, has reviewed the subject NPRM and offers the following comments. We are quite pleased with the NPRM, which is clearly the product of considerable time and effort spent by FAA working with ALPA and other industry organizations to fully develop and vet improved pilot certification and qualification standards. ALPA appreciated the opportunity to participate as a member of the First Officer Qualification Aviation Rulemaking Committee (FOQARC) which discussed the subject of air carrier pilot certification and qualifications at length, and which made numerous recommendations to the FAA. General As we said in our comments to the Advanced NPRM (ANPRM) on New Pilot Certification Requirements for Air Carrier Operations which was published February 8, 2010, the federal aviation regulations need to be updated to address the changes that have occurred in the airline industry over several decades. ALPA has stated many times that it is the quality of training that is the most important factor that influences airmanship ability of a pilot. This FAA proposal acknowledges and accounts for the quality of training in determining the suitability of the pilot. ALPA fully supports the
proposed requirement for second‐in‐command (SIC) pilots in FAR part 121 operations to hold an airline transport pilot (ATP) certificate, or a restricted ATP, and a type rating for the aircraft to be flown. In addition to enhancing safety, these requirements will also create compliance with ICAO Annex 1 standards, which call for the pilot‐in‐command (PIC) and SIC to hold a type rating on aircraft which are operated by at least two pilots. The FAA is proposing that SICs have at least 1,000 flight hours in air carrier operations to serve as PIC in part 121 air carrier operations and for ATP certificate applicants to have at least 50 hours of multi‐engine flight experience, and complete a new FAA‐ approved ATP certification training program. ALPA supports all of these provisions. Commercial‐Certificated SICs in Part 121 Operations Per our comments to the ANPRM, we recommend that pilots currently engaged in part 121 operations have an avenue to reach compliance with the new pilot certification rules without jeopardizing their status as current employees of an air carrier. We believe that this is both fair and reasonable for those who were hired by a part 121 operator under a different set of regulations than those hired after the new regulations are implemented. The proposed regulations do not provide a means of accommodating those pilots presently engaged in part 121 operations who are flying with a commercial certificate. To address this situation, provisions should be made in regulation that prescribe a path for ensuring that these pilots are brought into compliance with the new regulations without creating a break in employment, or an undue burden for them, or their employer. We believe that the FAA can, with the assistance of affected airlines, make obtaining the ATP certificate, or restricted ATP certificate, and type rating a relatively simple and inexpensive matter, per the following actions: 1. FAA should prohibit part 121 airlines from hiring flight crewmembers after a specific date in the future, perhaps December 31, 2012, who do not qualify for either a restricted or unrestricted ATP certificate. Establishing a deadline for this purpose is necessary to (1) provide time for a new‐hire pilot to accumulate the hours needed to obtain a restricted ATP before August 2, 2013, and (2) prevent
pilots from entering the workforce who will not be able to meet the new requirements by that date and thus create a potential interruption in their employment. 2. FAA should permit those airline pilots holding a commercial certificate, who were hired on or prior to a specific date in the future, e.g. December 31, 2012, to be given sufficient time to qualify for the restricted or unrestricted ATP certificates under the following conditions: The affected pilots will take the ATP knowledge exam. This is presently a requirement under federal aviation regulations for obtaining the ATP certification that they must ultimately meet to be promoted to captain, so it will not impose an unfair or unexpected condition. Affected pilots should not be required to take the NPRM’s proposed ATP certification training course. This is so because, at a minimum, they will have already completed FAA‐approved, airline‐provided, initial ground school and flight training, passed a check ride, and completed initial operating experience (IOE). In addition, they will have already flown hundreds of hours in FAR 121 airline operations for which the proposed training program is intended to replicate and prepare pilots. This combination of ground school, training and flight experience significantly exceeds the benefits of the ATP certification training course. FAA should grant affected airlines the authority, as needed, to provide ATP and type‐rating check rides as part of a pilot’s recurrent training. We are aware of at least one part 121 operator that is providing ATP check rides for its pilots during recurrent training and we believe that this could serve as a model for all affected airlines. The standards for the ATP and type rating practical test are identical, except for demonstrating rejected takeoffs and taxiing the aircraft from the left seat, so these qualification checks could be performed relatively easily and efficiently. FAA should assist in any possible way to help the airlines develop these programs and standardize them to the maximum practical extent. Questions Following are our responses to the 22 requests for comments contained in the NPRM.
(1) Is a minimum of 1,500 hours adequate in order to receive an unrestricted ATP certificate? Why or why not? With the addition of the proposed requirements for completion of an ATP certification training program in FAR 61.154, 50 flight hours in multi‐engine aircraft per FAR 61.159, and a type rating per FAR 61.436, we believe that 1,500 flight hours is adequate for those pilots who are trained outside of the military, accredited universities/colleges, or part 121 airline training programs. That number of hours has been a regulatory minimum for decades, it is consistent with ICAO standards, and we know of no valid reason to change it. (2) As a result of the new ATP requirement for pilots in part 121 operations, what will be the impact on pilot supply for part 121 operations? For part 135 operations? For part 141 pilot schools? For part 142 training centers? We are not certain what the short‐, medium‐ or long‐term impacts will be on these various organizations resulting from the new ATP, or restricted ATP, requirements. There are too many external variables involved to make such a determination. Perhaps a better barometer for such impacts is the health of the airline industry, as historically the availability of qualified pilot candidates rises and falls with the fortunes of the air carriers. ALPA does know that there are thousands of qualified pilots on furlough from FAR 121 air carriers. These pilots possess the qualifications necessary to meet the requirements for employment at FAR 121 air carriers outlined in this NPRM. Many of these furloughed pilots are opting to pursue other career paths for a number of reasons, most related to airline stability, pay and benefits. We expect that enrollment at accredited colleges and universities that have accredited professional pilot programs will increase. We also anticipate that this new rule could result in the creation of training partnerships between those accredited colleges and universities and flight training academies (e.g., CAE and FlightSafety International) that possess FAR 141/142 certificates to utilize the certified flight training simulators that these flight training academies may have.
We believe that the sources of pilots from those accredited colleges/universities, in addition to the US military, will provide adequate numbers of pilots that will keep up with demand in the short term and perhaps beyond. (3) Is 50 hours in class of airplane too high, too low, or adequate in order to receive an ATP certificate with airplane category multi‐engine class rating? Please provide evidence of your response. Requiring ATP candidates to accumulate 50 hours of experience of multi‐engine flight hours is an improvement over the current regulatory standard. In our comments to the ANPRM, we recommended 200 hours of multi‐engine and multi‐crew experience. While we would support increasing the number beyond 50 hours, 50 may be adequate based on the additional requirements outlined in the proposal. (4) Should SICs in part 121 air carrier operations be required to hold an aircraft type rating? Why or why not? SICs in part 121 operations should be required to hold an aircraft type rating for the aircraft which they operate as professional crewmembers. The type rating requirement will help ensure that both the PIC and SIC are fully qualified on the aircraft which they pilot in commercial operations and that they are capable of operating it to a very high level of proficiency. The FAA practical test standard for the ATP is nearly identical to that for type ratings, so an economy already exists in that regard. In addition, this proposed requirement is consistent with ICAO standards, as is stated above. (5) Should all SICs be required to hold an aircraft type rating if the aircraft currently requires a type rating for the PIC, regardless of the rule part the aircraft is operated under (e.g., part 91, 125, or 135)? Why or why not? Yes, if the part 91K, 125 and 135 time will count toward meeting the 1,000 hour air carrier experience requirement before an SIC can upgrade to PIC in part 121 operations. (6) Should pilots wanting to obtain an ATP certificate with airplane category multi‐engine class rating or type rating be required to take an additional training course prior to taking the knowledge test? Why or why not?
Yes. All applicants for the ATP should have a strong foundation of knowledge and flight training that is tailored to air carrier operations. Proposed part 61.154 will help ensure that applicants for the knowledge test are prepared to take it. We would expect that accredited university/college aviation curricula would cover the enumerated topics in greater detail and with more hours than would be required by this part. The proposed “authorized training provider” should be clearly defined in the regulations to assure the highest standards and quality of training for ATP applicants. The proposed regulation specifies at least 24 hours of classroom instruction and enumerates areas to be covered with minimum hours required. We question whether 3 hours of meteorology instruction is adequate given the serious impacts weather can have in air carrier operations; we would recommend 5 or more hours. Wind shear should be a specifically required training subject. The proposed regulation further specifies at least 12 hours of instruction in air carrier operations. Crew resource management (CRM) is required to be trained in a qualified flight simulation training device (FSTD); CRM should be a specific, classroom‐training requirement prior to flight simulation training. The proposed regulation also requires at least 16 hours of training in a qualified FSTD. At least 8 of the 16 hours of training is to be conducted in a Level C or higher full flight simulator. Adverse weather conditions are to be trained, but wind shear training should be specifically required. At least 8 hours of this 16 hours of training would be in a Level 4 or higher flight training device or full flight simulator. For the required automation training, training in the use of flight management systems (FMSs) and autopilots should be specifically required. We support the use of an FSTD for this training course with the caveat that it be of sufficient fidelity to replicate the aircraft as appropriate for the maneuvers to be trained. FAA should require that training providers adhere to the current edition of ICAO document 9625, Manual of Criteria for the Qualification of Flight Simulation Training Devices, in determining the type of device to be used for specific tasks and maneuvers. Regarding the specified 16 hours of FSTD training, we would suggest that this number could be decreased based on a pilot’s flight experience and proficiency in multi‐engine, turbine aircraft. A pilot with hundreds of hours in such an aircraft may demonstrate
considerable proficiency in the required maneuvers cited in this section without spending 16 hours to do so. Concerning the knowledge test, we recommend that FAA discontinue its current practice of making test questions for the private, instrument, commercial and ATP knowledge tests available to the public. This practice can result in pilots memorizing test questions instead of learning the material, particularly for pilots who obtain aeronautical knowledge from other than an accredited university or college. (7) If academic training is required in an ATP certification training course, what topics are appropriate? How many hours are appropriate for such a course? All of the subjects proposed in the new 61.154 are appropriate; other subjects would include those identified in the current edition of the ATP and Aircraft Type Rating Practical Test Standard, FAA S‐8081‐5. (8) Should an ATP certification training course include non‐type specific FSTD training on concepts that are generally universal to transport category aircraft? Why or why not? This type of training may be useful for certain topics; again, ICAO document 9625 should be used to determine the appropriate level of fidelity needed for such training. (9) If FSTD training is required, what level of FSTD is appropriate? How many hours are appropriate? Same answer as for (8). (10) Based on the proposed content of the ATP Certification Training Program, what changes or reductions could be made to a part 121 air carrier training program? That will depend on the content of each airline’s FAA‐approved training program. Regardless of the amount or nature of the changes, FAA should ensure that a uniform, high‐quality training program is used by each airline for this purpose.
(11) The FAA assumes parts 121, 135, 141, and 142 certificate holders will be able to provide the ATP Certification Training Program. What factors would these certificate holders principally consider in determining whether or not to offer the course? This question is more appropriately answered by airline certificate holder representatives, but it seems obvious that airlines will offer the training course if there is some economic advantage for them to do so. A legacy carrier may have no need to offer the course because it will not hire anyone that does not already hold an ATP, whereas a FAR 121 air carrier that operates small turbo jet or turbo prop aircraft may be willing to hire an individual holding just a commercial certificate and provide the training needed to earn the ATP certificate. (12) Should the FAA offer an ATP certificate with restricted privileges for pilots with fewer than 1,500 flight hours based on academic training and/or experience? Why or why not? If so, how many hours would be appropriate? Should anyone other than military pilots or graduates of 4‐year colleges and universities with aviation‐related degrees and commercial pilot certificates with instrument ratings obtained from an affiliated part 141 pilot school be eligible? Why or why not? ALPA supports the FAA’s proposal to permit pilots to be granted a restricted ATP on the basis of an individual’s academic and flight proficiency achievements demonstrated by earning a four‐year baccalaureate aviation degree from an accredited university or college. We also support FAA issuing a certificate for a restricted ATP on the basis of U.S. military flight training. As the NPRM states, both of these avenues of education and training are immersive in nature and require the individual to excel in both academics and flight proficiency. These are the two best, most demanding, and most time‐intensive means available today for a future pilot to be thoroughly educated and trained, so it is entirely appropriate to grant pilots who have graduated, or have been honorably discharged, from these organizations greater credit toward an ATP than those pilots who have not. In addition, both paths include a process to screen the pilot candidate for aptitude and ability before they enter the pilot training program. Structured military and academic flight training programs are tailored to high‐ performance and/or multi‐crew operations and prepare pilots well for part 121 operations.
We believe that 750 hours of flight time for military pilots and 1,000 hours of flight time for university/college aviation graduates is acceptable. We note, however, that the FAA’s proposed rule states an “accredited” college or university but does not state whether the academic and flight training program provided by that accredited college or university also needs to be accredited itself. We believe that it is the intent of the FAA to mean accredited college or university providing academic and flight training as part of an accredited academic and flight training program. The FAA needs to clarify. (13) Should military pilots be allowed to receive an ATP certificate with restricted privileges? Why or why not? If so, is the proposed 750 hours too high, too low, or adequate? Yes, military trained pilots should be allowed to receive a restricted ATP with as few as 750 hours for the reasons given in (12) above. For purposes of properly defining a qualified “military” pilot, we would recommend that FAA amend part 61.73 (a) to include the unrestricted and restricted ATP as a certificate that can be granted on the basis of military flight experience. Our support of military pilots being granted credit toward a restricted ATP is based on the presumption that such a pilot will have flown 750 or more hours in the military. However, it is entirely possible that a pilot could join the military and enter flight training, but not complete it for any number of reasons, and thereafter be honorably discharged. Our support for a military pilot being afforded a reduction in the amount of flight hours needed to earn a restricted ATP is predicated on the basis of that pilot earning 750 or more hours of military flying. According to proposed part 61.160, “a person who meets the evidentiary documents described in §61.73 (h)(1), (2), and (3), may apply for an airline transport pilot certificate with a minimum of 750 hours…” As the evidentiary process is specified in §61.73, we believe that a pilot could earn considerably fewer than 750 hours in the military, earn the remainder as a civilian in recreational flying, and still qualify for the reduction in flight time needed for an ATP. The definition of what constitutes a military pilot should be specified more accurately in this regard. We would propose that the regulations specify that a “military pilot” has flown 750 or more hours in the military to close this potential loophole.
We recommend clarifying language in the first paragraph of proposed FAR 61.160 as follows: “A person may apply for an airline transport pilot certificate…if they meet the following aeronautical experience requirements contained in subparagraph (a) or (b) and subparagraphs (c) and (d).” (14) Should graduates of 4‐year colleges and universities with aviation‐related majors and commercial pilot certificates with instrument ratings obtained from an affiliated part 141 pilot school be allowed to receive an ATP certificate with restricted privileges? Why or why not? If so, is the proposed 1,000 hours too high, too low, or adequate? Same answer as for (12) above. (15) Should military pilots and/or graduates of 4‐year colleges and universities with aviation‐ related majors and commercial pilot certificates with instrument ratings obtained from an affiliated part 141 pilot school be allowed to receive an ATP certificate without restrictions with fewer than 1,500 hours? Why or why not? If so, how many hours would be appropriate? We could support military trained and qualified pilots qualifying for the unrestricted ATP at less than the 1,500‐hour threshold but the type of military flying may be a determining factor. Military multi‐engine, multi‐pilot operations have direct applicability to the air carrier environment, perhaps more so than flight experience in other types of aircraft (e.g., single‐seat, high‐performance jet fighter aircraft). (16) Should a pilot who obtains a degree with an aviation‐related major from a 4‐year college or university and a commercial pilot certificate with instrument rating from a part 141 pilot school not affiliated with the college or university be eligible for a restricted privileges ATP certificate? Why or why not? If so, how many hours should they be required to have? And, should there be a time limit between the baccalaureate training and the flight training if they were not done concurrently? A pilot who attends a 4‐year accredited college or university and earns an aviation‐ related degree, but does not take flight training from that institution, should not be granted credit toward an unrestricted ATP. Our support for granting credit to university/college‐educated pilots is based on a comprehensive flight training curriculum which is integrated with the student’s education. Absent that, any pilot who
has earned an aviation‐related degree could at any time thereafter gain most of the flight hours needed for a restricted ATP through recreational flying in single‐engine aircraft, which would defeat the purpose behind the restricted ATP. Flight training and accompanying education should be conducted concurrently to qualify for an unrestricted ATP as written in this proposed rule. (17) Should the FAA consider an alternative licensing structure for pilots who desire only to fly for a part 121 air carrier (e.g. multicrew pilot license)? Why or why not? We are receptive to considering other licensing structures and flight‐hour requirements and would recommend that FAA consider establishing an ARC to review and discuss the subject more thoroughly. Some countries have implemented alternative licensing programs such as the Multi‐Pilot License (MPL), and an ARC would give government and industry an opportunity to review and consider applicability here in the US. Perhaps an MPL program which contains many of the provisions in this proposed rule may be feasible and appropriate. (18) If the FAA were to adopt a licensing structure for a multicrew pilot license, what would be the appropriate amount and type of ground and flight training? Same answer as for (17). (19) If all pilots in part 121 air carrier operations are required to hold an ATP certificate, should there be additional requirements prior to operating as a PIC in part 121 air carrier operations? If so, what should those requirements be? ALPA supports the FAA’s proposal to require that each SIC have not fewer than 1,000 flight hours in air carrier operations prior to serving as a PIC in part 121 operations. We believe that the mentoring and observation of operations by the SIC for this amount of time is needed to produce a competent captain. The NPRM says that the 1,000 flight hours would ensure that a pilot has obtained at least one full year of relevant operational experience. In fact, 1,000 hours for a new SIC actually equates to about 18 months of airline flying at most airlines due to scheduling practices.
(20) Is th too sh Same an (21) Shou the pa We prop 91 subpa PIC requ experien (22) Shou Why Yes, und We appr he proposed f hort, or adeq nswer as for uld the prop art 121 PIC pose that ho art K and/o uirement. T nce that wil uld SIC time or why not? der the sam reciate the o flight hour r quate? r (19). osed PIC tim requiremen ours of mul or operation This type of ll translate w e outside of p ? me condition opportunity requirement f me in part 91 t? Why or w lti‐engine tu ns under pa f flying is ve well to part part 121 ope ns and for t y to comme for serving a 1 subpart K why not? urbojet or t art 135 be al ery similar t 121 opera erations coun the same re ent on this Sincerely, Capt. Char Aviation S as SIC befor or part 135 turboprop a llowed to c to airline fl ations. nt towards t asons as giv important r rles S. Hoge Safety Chair e moving to operations c aircraft flow count towar lying and is the proposed ven for (21) rulemaking eman r PIC too lon count toward wn under p rd the part s relevant requiremen ). g. g, ds part 121 t?
