Derecho sustantivo y derecho instrumental

JetBlue and AAL requested a grandfather clause for existing SICs to enable additional compliance time and reduce the financial burden that would be incurred by requiring unplanned training and evaluation sessions. JetBlue estimated it would cost $6 million to provide a type rating to its current 1,120 SICs who do not hold a type rating for the aircraft they fly. This estimate is based on the cost provided in the FAA’s initial regulatory evaluation, which estimated the incremental per-pilot cost of a type rating for existing SICs at $5,389. AAL is concerned about the additional cost burden of providing a type rating to their 852 current SICs who do not have type ratings. AAL added that the FAA should consider allowing qualified simulator instructors or check airmen to validate

flying skills for those pilots with at least 1,000 hours in type during their next recurrent training cycle. Upon completion of the evaluation event, AAL suggested having a letter issued to the pilot to take to an FAA office to obtain their ATP certificate. Delta

estimated the short-term cost to provide the type rating to its more than 1,800 SICs who already have ATP certificates but not the type rating for the aircraft flown to be $11.6 million dollars.

AAI, A4A, Delta, FedEx, and UPS also requested that the proposed compliance deadline of August 1, 2013 be extended. They specifically proposed a compliance

deadline of 5 years or during transition or upgrade training. JetBlue proposed aligning the compliance time frame with initial, transition, or upgrade training. Some commenters indicated that, for current SICs, the compliance period for the type rating requirement should be five years or be aligned with upgrade training. UVU, SJSU, and four individual commenters discussed implementation of a grandfather clause for current students

currently enrolled in college to become a pilot.

The FAA estimates that even if an air carrier does not currently provide aircraft type ratings to its SICs, the impact of the proposed rule to its training program would be low.

Currently, all SICs in part 121 operations receive extensive training and a thorough evaluation at the end of the air carrier’s initial training program. During the evaluation, SICs must demonstrate that they can perform most of the maneuvers and tasks that would be required for an aircraft type rating. The FAA acknowledges that an SIC may need some additional hours of training on tasks and maneuvers required for an aircraft type rating that are not currently required during the SIC evaluation. The FAA believes, however, that the practical test for the aircraft type rating could be performed in the same simulator session currently used for the evaluation. The FAA

acknowledges that, unlike an evaluation, which is typically conducted by a check airman, the practical test for an aircraft type rating would have to be administered by an FAA inspector or FAA designee.

As a result of the statutory deadline requiring all part 121 SICs to hold ATP certificates by August 2, 2013, most current part 121 SICs that hold only a commercial pilot certificate will likely receive an aircraft type rating during an ATP certification event administered by the air carrier prior to the deadline. Many air carriers have already initiated a change to their approved training programs to provide ATP certificates and type ratings to SICs who hold only

commercial pilot certificates. The FAA assumes the proposed compliance date for the type rating will not be an issue because this population of SICs will receive a type rating simultaneously with an ATP certificate.

In the initial regulatory evaluation, the FAA assumed that air carriers would provide a type rating to their SICs who already hold ATP certificates during annual recurrent training. With the publication of the final rule so close to the proposed compliance date, it is likely that air carriers will have to schedule additional training and testing events for these SICs to obtain a type rating by August 2013 unless the FAA extends the compliance date. To the extent

commenters suggested aligning the type rating requirement and upgrade training, the FAA has determined that would result in an unnecessary delay given the assumptions in the initial regulatory evaluation. The time period for upgrade to PIC is approximately 5 years for regional carriers and 10 years for major air carriers.

To balance the cost and timing concerns raised by commenters with the benefits of requiring SICs to hold an aircraft type rating, the FAA has decided to extend the compliance date to January 1, 2016 for pilots who have been employed as part 121 SICs on or before July 31,

2013. This change is reflected in the new §121.436(c). The extended compliance period will allow air carriers to make the appropriate modifications to their approved training programs and incorporate the type rating requirement into their recurrent training and transition training. In addition, it will alleviate the burden placed on the aircrew program designees and FAA

employees who will need to administer the certification event for the large number of SICs who may require aircraft type ratings. The FAA notes that the extended compliance date will most benefit current SICs who hold ATP certificates and already have relevant experience operating the aircraft they are flying.

The FAA does not support a grandfather provision that would result in differing SIC certification requirements. Nor does it support certification by air carrier employees who are not designees of the Administrator. There is no precedent for an evaluation event that results in the issuance of an FAA certificate or rating being conducted by someone other than a designee of the Administrator. The commenters did not offer any persuasive arguments for why non-FAA

employees or designees should be allowed to administer these evaluation events.