VI.A.10. Subparts N and O - Training Program and Crewmember


Subpart N, Training. As the discussion earlier in this preamble

points out, the issue of training has been the subject of separate

rulemaking. However, several comments were received on training


Comments: AIA states that Notice 95-5 is virtually silent on

training; however, this is an important part of the total picture.

AIA states that the separate initiative on training should be reviewed

in conjunction with this NPRM.

Raytheon echoes AIA's comments on training, and adds that

successful implementation of the training actions would be expected to

have a dramatic impact on future accident statistics. Training should

be the principal focus for safety improvement together with future

programs for safety system monitoring. Raytheon also states that

while NPRM 95-5 was not intended to cover training, Notice 95-5

probably would not have been proposed if training were more effective.

Air Vegas comments that all additional flight training would

have to be done in the aircraft because there is no Beech 99 simulator

in existence. This would increase the hours for initial and

transition training and nearly double training costs.

Fairchild Aircraft says that, under §§ 121.424 and 121.427 as

well as part 121 Appendix E, windshear training must be performed in a

simulator and that such simulators are not likely to be available to

many commuter airline operators. This commenter adds that there is no

evidence that the part 135 windshear program is inadequate.

Fairchild Aircraft recommends that §§ 121.424 and 121.427, as

well as Appendix E, be amended to provide relief from windshear

simulator training for certificate holders of turbopropeller airplanes

with 30 or fewer passenger seats. An individual commenter recommends

that low-altitude windshear training be made a part of both ground and

flight (simulator) training under part 135. This commenter says that,

currently, commuter aircraft are not equipped to receive advance

warning of low-level windshear and that training would help pilots to

better deal with such occurrences. ALPA proposes that § 121.400(b) be

amended by adding a group specific to propeller-driven aircraft with a

seating capacity between 10 and 30 seats. This will ensure that

personnel, particularly dispatchers and meteorologists, understand and

appreciate the working environment of these aircraft, including the

facilities and capabilities associated with weather, airports,

maintenance, and logistics, etc.

An individual commenter supports increased commuter training for

several reasons: Most accidents are related to human (not equipment)

error, there is a need for more simulator training among commuters,

and part 135 aircrews must deal with a high number of regional

landings and takeoffs as well as varied weather conditions.

Jetstream Aircraft Limited and American Eagle support the

proposed rulemaking to strengthen part 135 crewmember training.

FAA Response: The comments on appropriate training requirements,

while generally supportive of the FAA's goals in this rulemaking, are

actually more relevant to the separate rulemaking addressed in Section

III.E, Related FAA Action. The windshear simulator training

requirements only affect turbine powered airplanes (turbojets) on

which windshear equipment is required by § 121.358.

Subpart O, Crewmember Qualifications. Because of the separate

rulemaking previously discussed, the FAA did not propose any changes

to subpart O except for the removal of an obsolete section (§

121.435). Nonetheless, a number of comments were received.

Comments: RAA, ASA, Gulfstream, United Express, Big Sky

Airlines, and an individual oppose the requirement that currently

qualified first officers performing the duties of second in command

obtain initial operating experience (IOE) under § 121.434. However,

these commenters do support an IOE requirement for newly designated

first officers and new hires. United Express recommends that air

carrier proving runs be used for operations evaluation and that if,

during the proving runs, an airline does not meet performance

criteria, operations should terminate until a satisfactory fix is


American Eagle supports IOE requirements for all first officers

and believes that the additional costs associated with such a

requirement are worth it to ensure that these pilots are fully


RAA, ASA, and Gulfstream believe that a basis and criteria for

"grandfathering" these current and qualified seconds in command can be

the training records of each of these airmen as well as the flight

records documenting their experience as first officers.

An individual commenter says that a precedent for grandfathering

these pilots is the "N & O" exemptions held by certain 135 certificate

holders which allows training under part 121 but does not require

repetition of unique part 121 IOE for crews which have been conducting

scheduled operations under part 135.

Fairchild Aviation recommends that § 121.437(a) be amended to

recognize the fact that not all 10-19 passenger airplanes are large

airplanes. This commenter says that this section should be changed to

read, "...and, if required, an appropriate type rating for that


FAA Response: The comments on appropriate crewmember

qualification requirements are actually more relevant to the separate

rulemakings addressed in Section III.E, Recent FAA Actions. The

concerns raised by these commenters have been considered in those

rulemaking actions.