Aviation Training Device Credit for Pilot Certification, 34338-34346 [2015-14836]

Agencies

• Federal Aviation Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 115 (Tuesday, June 16, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34338-34346]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[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 https://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 https://www.regulations.gov, as described in the 
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at 
https://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at 
https://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 https://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\ https://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 (https://www.regulations.gov);
     Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at 
https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies, or
     Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at 
https://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