Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
Safety Recommendation Details

Safety Recommendation A-96-120
Details
Synopsis: On March 3, 1991, at 0944 mountain standard time, United Airlines flight 585, a Boeing 737-291 airplane, crashed during an approach to the Colorado Springs, Colorado, airport. The crew of 5 and the 20 passengers were killed. The airplane was destroyed by the impact and a postcrash fire. The weather was clear with unlimited visibility. There were windshear reports during the day. At the time of the accident the surface winds were reported to be out of the northwest at 20 knots gusting to 28. The safety board has not determined the cause(s) of the accident and an investigation of airframe, operational and weather factors is continuing.
Recommendation: TO THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION: Require 14 CFR Part 121 and 135 operators to provide training to flightcrews in the recognition of and recovery from unusual attitudes and upset maneuvers, including upsets that occur while the aircraft is being controlled by automatic flight control systems, and unusual attitudes that result from flight control malfunctions and uncommanded flight control surface movements. (Supersedes Safety Recommendation A-96-066)
Original recommendation transmittal letter: PDF
Overall Status: Closed - Acceptable Alternate Action
Mode: Aviation
Location: COLORADO SPGS, CO, United States
Is Reiterated: No
Is Hazmat: No
Is NPRM: No
Accident #: DCA91MA023
Accident Reports: Uncontrolled Descent and Collision with Terrain, United Airlines Flight 585, Boeing 737-200, N999UA, 4 Miles South of Colorado Springs Municipal Airport
Report #: AAR-92-06
Accident Date: 3/3/1991
Issue Date: 10/18/1996
Date Closed: 6/13/2014
Addressee(s) and Addressee Status: FAA (Closed - Acceptable Alternate Action)
Keyword(s): Flightcrew

Safety Recommendation History
From: NTSB
To: FAA
Date: 10/2/2014
Response: We have reviewed the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled “Flight Simulation Training Device Qualification Standards for Extended Envelope and Adverse Weather Event Training Tasks,” published at Federal Register 39462-39753 on July 10, 2014. On June 13, 2014, Safety Recommendation A-96-120 was classified “Closed—Acceptable Alternate Action” on the basis of the November 12, 2013, crewmember and dispatcher training final rule. Because that final rule will require the use of an FSTD to train flightcrews on the recognition of and recovery from adverse attitudes, the revisions to FSTD standards proposed in the NPRM must be implemented in order to comply with the final rule. The revisions proposed in the NPRM will result in FSTDs with capabilities needed to satisfy Safety Recommendation A-96-120. Safety Recommendation A-09-113, discussed later, relates to adverse attitude training using FSTDs for Part 135 operations.

From: NTSB
To: FAA
Date: 6/13/2014
Response: On November 12, 2013, you published a final rule titled “Qualification, Service, and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers,” which satisfies this recommendation for Part 121 operators, but not for Part 135 operators. In your November 22, 2010, letter about this recommendation, you said that you were considering similar rulemaking for Part 135 operators. Safety Recommendation A-09-113 asks that Part 135 operators provide upset recovery training for their pilots. Because Safety Recommendation A-09-113 addresses this issue for Part 135 operators, and the final rule satisfies Safety Recommendation A 96 120 for Part 121 operators, Safety Recommendation A-96-120 is classified CLOSED—ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATE ACTION.

From: NTSB
To: FAA
Date: 5/12/2014
Response: The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has reviewed the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) draft Advisory Circular (AC) 120-UPRT, “Upset Prevention and Recovery Training,” which was posted for comment on the FAA’s website on March 12, 2014. Draft AC 120-UPRT describes the philosophy and recommended training for airplane upset prevention and recovery. The purpose of the AC is to provide recommended practices and guidance regarding academic and flight simulation device training for pilots to prevent the development of airplane upset conditions and ensure correct and consistent recovery responses to upsets. The AC was created from recommended practices developed by major airplane manufacturers, labor organizations, air carriers, training organizations, simulator manufacturers, and industry representative organizations. Although this AC is directed to air carriers in implementing 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 121 regulations, the FAA encourages all airplane operators, pilot schools, and training centers to implement upset prevention and recovery training and to use the guidance contained in the AC, as applicable to the type of airplane in which training is conducted. We generally support the draft AC (with specific suggestions below). On November 12, 2013, the FAA published a final rule titled “Qualification, Service, and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers.” Draft AC 120 UPRT and draft revised AC 120-109A provide the guidance necessary for operators and FAA inspectors to implement the requirements in the final rule. The FAA’s November 12, 2013, publication of the final rule addressed this recommendation for only Part 121 operations. On November 6, 2012, we classified Safety Recommendation A 96 120 as “Open—Acceptable Response” pending issuance of the final rule and a similar rule applicable to Part 135 operations. We are pleased that the draft AC provides the information necessary for operators to implement training in the recognition of and recovery from unusual attitudes and upset maneuvers. However, we remain concerned that it does not apply to Part 135 operators.

From: FAA
To: NTSB
Date: 5/6/2014
Response: -From Michael P. Huerta, Administrator: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposed to revise crewmember and aircraft dispatcher qualification, training, and evaluation requirements in the existing subparts N and 0 of part 121 through a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), titled Qualification, Service, and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers published on January 12, 2009 (74 FR 1280) and a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) published on May 20, 20 II (76 FR 29335). After reviewing the changes proposed in the NPRM and the SNPRM, the FAA determined it was necessary to move forward with a final rule to address certain safety-critical provisions proposed in the SNPRM that enhance pilot training for rare, but high-risk scenarios that provide the greatest safety benefit. The tina! rule was published on November 12, 20 13 (78 FR 67799). Safety Recommendations A-96-120 and A-1 0-22 and -23 are addressed in the final rule by § 121.423, Pilot: Extended Envelope Training and § 121.424, Pilots: Initial. transition, and upgrade flight training. In its comments to the SNPRM, the Board stated that the provisions in the SNPRM were responsive to these recommendations. Additionally. as discussed in our previous letters on these recommendations, the FAA reconvened the Stick Pusher Adverse Weather (SPAW) Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC). The FAA received the reconvened SPAW ARC's recommendations on February 13, 2013. These recommendations have been incorporated into a draft advisory circular (AC), which will be published for public comment in Spring 2014 and will provide best practices and guidance for academic and flight simulation training devices for pilots. This training will prevent developing upset conditions and ensure correct and consistent recovery responses. While this training is a requirement in the final rule, the AC is only meant to provide additional guidance on upset training. In previous letters to the FAA on A-96-120 and in response to the SNPRM the Board commented on whether the rule provisions would give principal operations inspectors (POIs) the authority to require changes to training programs that do not adequately address the topics in the new§ 121.423. If a training program does not adequately address the topics in.§ 121.423, the POI would be able to require changes to the program. Section 121.405 (b) and (d), which covers training program approval, includes the correction of deficiencies in training programs. FAA Order 8900.1, volume 3, chapter 19, section 2 contains guidance, direction, and in formation on the training program approval process. Additionally, paragraphs 3- 111 2, 3-11 14, and 3-1 11 5 of the Order address the process to withdraw approval due to an ineffective or noncompliant training curriculum. Order 8900.1 can be found at: htlp://fsims.faa.gov/. Due to other rulemaking priorities, an expressed commitment cannot be made at this time to pursue rulemaking to address recommendations A-96- I 20, A-1 0-22, and -23 for parts 135 and 91 K. I believe that the FAA has effectively addressed these safety recommendations as they pertain to part 121 operations. I consider our actions complete and plan no further action on these recommendations.

From: NTSB
To: FAA
Date: 11/6/2012
Response: On May 20, 2011, the FAA published a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM), titled “Qualification, Service, and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers,” for which the FAA expects to publish a final rule in the fall of 2013. On July 15, 2011, we submitted comments on the SNPRM in which we stated (with respect to Safety Recommendation A-96-120) that the SNPRM retained a requirement for training regarding recognizing and recovering from special hazards (sudden or unexpected aircraft upsets) that had originally been included in an FAA January 2009 notice of proposed rulemaking. In our comments, we reiterated our interpretation that the SNPRM proposed a requirement that gave FAA principal operations inspectors (POI) the authority to review and require changes to training programs that do not adequately address a special hazard, and we pointed out that the lack of such authority was a concern we had identified during our investigation of the November 12, 2001, American Airlines flight 587 accident. During that investigation, we learned that the POI had known that some aspects of American Airlines’ training program (such as encouraging the use of the rudder for roll control in responding to adverse attitudes) could place an airplane in an undesirable configuration during an upset recovery, but the POI lacked the authority to force American to change its program. In our comments on the SNPRM, we also stated that, although the SNPRM proposed requirements only for Part 121 operators, similar action for Part 135 operators was needed before Safety Recommendation A 96-120 could be closed in an acceptable manner. On November 22, 2010, the FAA informed us that future rulemaking to address upset recovery training for Part 135 operators was being considered. We look forward to this future rulemaking. This recommendation is now 16 years old, and the NTSB has long been concerned about the slow pace in the rulemaking associated with the recommended revision. The FAA has recently renewed action to complete this regulatory reform, and we urge the FAA to issue the needed final rule as soon as possible. Pending timely issuance of a final rule for Part 121 and Part 135 operators that satisfies Safety Recommendation A-96-120, the recommendation remains classified OPEN—ACCEPTABLE RESPONSE.

From: FAA
To: NTSB
Date: 8/29/2012
Response: -From Michael P. Huerta, Acting Administrator: On May 20, 20 11, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) published the Qualification, Service, and Use of Crew members and Aircraft Dispatchers Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM). The SNPRM includes training on "special hazards," that include recovery from loss of control and low altitude windshear encounters, the hazards of operating in turbulent air and other potentially hazardous conditions, and recovery from stalls in various configurations. In the Board's comments to the SNPRM it stated that this would likely be an acceptable response to the portion of this recommendation that covers part 121 operators. We expect to publish the final rule in the fall 2013. The FAA reconvened the Stick Pusher and Adverse Weather Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) in January 2012. The ARC began meeting in March and will continue through August 2012. Through the ARC, the FAA is seeking recommendations for on-aircraft upset prevention and recovery training and provides a forum for the U.S. aviation community to discuss recommendations that may serve as the basis to establish or modify programs that address pilot training in upset recovery. The invited organizations include: Avions de Transport Regional (ATR), Air Line Pilots Association, Airlines for America, The Boeing Company, Airbus, Bombardier Aerospace, Canadian Aviation Electronics Ltd. (CAE Simuflite), Coalition of Airline Pilots Associations, Embraer North America, Flight Safety Foundation, Flight Safety International, and Regional Airline Association. The ARC is currently being held at the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) headquarters in Montreal. Additionally ICAO invited other national aviation authorities to observe the ARC's deliberations in order to facilitate global harmonization on these important topics. I will keep the Board informed of the FAA's progress on this safety recommendation and will provide an update by December 2012.

From: NTSB
To: FAA
Date: 4/30/2012
Response: Notation 8406: The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has reviewed the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled “Pilot Certification and Qualification Requirements for Air Carrier Operations,” which was published at 77 Federal Register (FR) 12374 on February 29, 2012. The notice proposes to create new certification requirements for pilots in air carrier operations, including requiring that first officers in 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 121 operations hold an airline transport pilot (ATP) certificate and type rating for the aircraft to be flown; allowing pilots with an aviation degree or military pilot experience but fewer than 1,500 hours total time as a pilot to obtain an ATP certificate with restricted privileges; and requiring at least 1,000 flight hours in air carrier operations to serve as pilot in–command (PIC) in Part 121 air carrier operations. The notice also proposes to modify the requirements for obtaining an ATP certificate with an airplane category multiengine class rating or type rating to require 50 hours of multiengine flight experience and completion of a new FAA-approved ATP certificate training program that would include academic training and training in a flight simulation training device. According to the NPRM, these changes would help to ensure that pilots entering an air carrier environment have the training and aeronautical experience necessary to adapt to a complex, multicrew environment in a variety of operating conditions. The NPRM cites the 2009 Colgan Air accident near Buffalo, New York, as an event that focused public, congressional, and industry attention on flight crew experience requirements and training for conducting Part 121 air carrier operations. In February 2010, the FAA published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM), titled “New Pilot Certification Requirements for Air Carrier Operations” (75 FR 6164, February 8, 2010) that sought input on current Part 121 eligibility, training, and qualification requirements for seconds-in-command (SICs). The current NPRM is based on comments in response to the ANPRM, input received from an aviation rulemaking committee established in July 2010, and statutory requirements for modifying ATP certification outlined in the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-216). Adding to that foundation, the NPRM states that the FAA conducted a study of 61 NTSB investigation reports from fiscal year (FY) 2001 through FY 2010 (31 Part 121 accidents and 30 Part 135 air carrier accidents, with 107 fatalities, 28 serious injuries, and 44 minor injuries). The study showed that the accidents examined involved pilot deficiencies in aircraft handling, including stall and upset recognition and recovery, high altitude training, active pilot monitoring skills, effective crew resource management (CRM), stabilized approaches, operations in icing conditions, and hypoxia training. The NPRM asserts that the changes to air carrier pilot qualification would address, in part, 21 NTSB safety recommendations in the following areas: Safety Issue Recommendations Training flight crews to respond to sudden, unusual, or unexpected aircraft upsets: A-96-120, A-04-62, A-07-3, and A-09-113 Developing and conducting stall recovery training and providing stickpusher familiarization training for pilots of stickpusher-equipped aircraft: A-10-22 and -23 Training in high altitude operations: A-07-1 and -2 Training and guidance for rudder use in transport-category aircraft: A-02-2 Airport situational awareness: A-07-44 Stabilized approach concept: A 01 69 and A-08-18 Landing performance calculations: A-07-59 and A-08-41 CRM training: A-03-52 Pilot monitoring duties: A-10-10 Requirements for flight crewmember academic training regarding leadership and professionalism: A-10-15 Training in icing conditions: A-07-14 Hypoxia awareness training: A 00 110 Training in landing and taking off in crosswinds with gusts: A 10-110 and -111 The NTSB is generally supportive of the proposed rule as it relates to many of the issues previously identified in our safety recommendations. Specific comments on several areas of the NPRM follow. Academic Credit To Reduce Flight Experience Requirements Although the NTSB has not made recommendations for flight hour minimums for air carrier pilots (instead focusing its recommendations on specific procedures and training, needed regulations, and needed guidance to crews and operators), we stated in our comments on the ANPRM that: Ensuring a high level of knowledge, skills, and professionalism for flight crewmembers is essential, but total flight hours or an airline transport pilot certificate does not necessarily equate to the level of knowledge, skills, and professionalism required for consistently safe flight operations. The comments went on to state that, “the NTSB recognizes the value of academic training for air carrier pilots, but the NTSB also believes that academic training is not a substitute for practical experience.” An important tenet in the recent NPRM is the concept that, “in certain circumstances, the combination of focused academic training and structured flight training can substitute for actual flight experience” (p. 12379). The NTSB concurs with the FAA’s acknowledgement that there may be multiple pathways to becoming a qualified air carrier pilot. However, there remain unresolved issues for how academic credit should be applied, including student performance within an accredited academic program and the type of degree conferred. These issues are not addressed in the NPRM and require more evaluation before this proposal is implemented. It is essential that the content and rigor involved in academic training be clearly defined and, most importantly, appropriate resources allocated to conduct evaluation and oversight of these alternative methods of qualification. ATP Certification Training Program The NPRM discusses the establishment of an FAA-approved ATP certificate training program for a multiengine class ATP or type rating. The proposed training program outlined under section 61.154 would include 24 hours of classroom training and 16 hours of simulator training (8 in a full flight simulator of at least Level C standards) and is intended to provide pilots with the core knowledge and understanding in areas critical to operating high performance aircraft in a complex and high altitude environment. The training would be provided by an authorized training provider and would be required to be completed before a pilot would be eligible to take the ATP knowledge test. Issued as part of the NPRM, draft Advisory Circular (AC) 61-ATP, “Airline Transport Pilot Certification Training Program for Airplane Category Multiengine Class Rating or Type Rating,” contains an outline of the curriculum topics and objectives for both the classroom and simulator training making up this training program. The AC is intended for use by training providers when developing the program and by the FAA when reviewing and approving the programs. Many of the topics contained in the draft AC address issues from NTSB safety recommendations; in fact, the FAA notes that most of the 21 recommendations cited in the NPRM are addressed, in part, by the proposed amendments and advisory material. Although the NTSB concurs with the FAA’s assessment that, in most cases, the topics addressed will serve to partially satisfy the action requested in existing recommendations, the amount of specificity provided in the proposed rule and AC does not allow a comprehensive review of the degree to which the FAA’s proposed actions would satisfy the intent of the NTSB’s recommendations. In some instances, neither document provides evidence that a recommendation topic is addressed. The NTSB notes that recent safety recommendations in this area have focused on attempts to improve crew response to in-flight emergencies, including task prioritization and training. While AC 61-ATP does include a classroom training objective named “differences between emergency and non-normal checklist procedures and checklists,” the guidance on emergency procedures should be made more explicit to incorporate the issues identified in these NTSB recommendations. CRM is another topic relevant to previous NTSB recommendations and outlined in AC 61-ATP. However, the list of proposed topics in the AC does not explicitly refer to the importance of first officer assertiveness, which is an issue addressed in Safety Recommendation A-11-39. This recommendation is not cited in the NPRM, but the NTSB believes that it is within the scope of the draft advisory material and suggests amending the AC to include information consistent with Safety Recommendation A-11-39 to help support this important aspect of CRM. The NTSB is encouraged that the NPRM proposes to centralize the process for approving ATP certification training programs. Specifically, the NPRM states that only authorized training providers can administer the training required under section 61.154. These providers can be certificate holders providing training and operating under Parts 141, 142, 121, or 135, and each provider must receive approval of their ATP certification training program by the FAA Air Transportation Division (AFS-200). The NTSB notes that, theoretically, centralization should help to ensure standardization of these programs, but suggests that additional guidance documentation with more specific and robust detail about the content of the proposed training is necessary to provide a solid foundation on which the FAA can evaluate the program content (and to assist training providers to develop courses likely to receive FAA approval). For example, additional detail, such as cross-referencing material from draft AC 120-STALL, would be appropriate in the discussion of stall training in AC 61-ATP. In addition, the FAA will need to provide the appropriate oversight resources to these programs—not only in their initial approval but also to conduct ongoing oversight to demonstrate that the content delivered is consistent with the approved program. The rigor with which these programs are implemented and overseen will determine their ultimate influence on improving safety in air carrier operations. Pilot-in-Command Requirements for Air Carrier Operations The NPRM proposes primarily experience-based requirements for new PICs in air carrier operations. However, the NTSB has previously issued safety recommendations addressing the need for a specific leadership training course for upgrading captains. Although the NPRM cites Safety Recommendation A-10-15 and describes it as applicable to leadership and professionalism training, it addresses only the latter topic. The NPRM does not mention Safety Recommendations A-10-13 and -14, which were issued with -15, but the NTSB believes that a leadership training course for upgrading captains is within the scope of the proposed rulemaking and that section 121.436 should be amended to include a specific requirement for such a course. In addition to the requirements already outlined in section 121.434, the NTSB has recommended that Part 135 pilots who need a type rating for the aircraft they fly be required to have a minimum level of initial operating experience. Given the applicability of the NPRM to Part 135 pilots who are engaged in air carrier operations, the NTSB believes it would be appropriate to incorporate similar experience requirements for these pilots as exist for Part 121 pilots. The NTSB supports the use of simulators in training environments and notes that the training program outlined in the NPRM specifies that training on topics such as low energy states/stalls and upset recovery techniques will be conducted in a Level C or higher full-flight simulator. Simulators, regardless of their fidelity, are dependent on their physical limits of motion, as well as the efficacy of the available computer programs (which are often limited in issues of upset training because of the lack of flight test data at the extreme areas of the flight envelope). Simulators are not always adequate in portraying upsets and stalls and may inadvertently introduce negative training. Consistent with Safety Recommendation A-04-62, the FAA should allow flexibility in determining what level of simulation or automation is appropriate for specific training. Summary Observations This NPRM addresses many training issues applicable to becoming an air carrier pilot, including some critical issues demonstrated in recent accident history to be responsible for accidents. The NTSB is encouraged that its recommendations were considered in the development of this proposed rule, especially as the issue areas relate to the core content to be provided to new entrant pilots through the ATP certification training program. However, the intent of our recommendations in this area is for all pilots to receive training in these topics. Therefore, it is important that air carriers provide equally robust training in these topic areas for their current air carrier pilots on a recurrent basis. The NTSB appreciates the opportunity to comment on this NPRM.

From: NTSB
To: FAA
Date: 7/15/2011
Response: Notation 8106A: The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has reviewed the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) titled "Qualification, Service, and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers," published at 76 Federal Register 29336-29526 on May 20, 2011. The notice proposes to amend the regulations for flight and cabin crewmember and aircraft dispatcher training programs in domestic, flag, and supplemental operations. The proposed regulations are intended to contribute significantly to reducing aviation accidents by requiring the use of flight simulation training devices (FSTD) for flight crewmembers and including additional training and evaluation requirements for all crewmembers and aircraft dispatchers in areas that are critical to safety. The proposal also reorganizes and revises the qualification, training, and evaluation requirements. The SNPRM is based on the FAA's review of comments submitted in response to the January 12, 2009, notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on these issues and its determination that the NPRM did not adequately address or clarify some topics; it is also based on provisions of the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010. The SNPRM retains a requirement for training on recognizing and recovering from "special hazards," which are sudden or unexpected aircraft upsets, as recommended in Safety Recommendation A-96-120. The NTSB reiterates its interpretation that this proposal would also include a requirement that gives FAA principal operations inspectors (POI) the authority to review and require changes to training programs that do not adequately address a special hazard. Lack of such authority was a concern identified during the NTSB's investigation of the November 12, 2001, accident involving American Airlines flight 587, an Airbus Industries A300-605R. During this investigation, the NTSB learned that the POI knew that aspects of American Airlines' training program had undesirable effects but lacked the authority to force American to change its program. This recommendation is currently classified "Open-Acceptable Response." Although the SNPRM proposes requirements only for Part 121 operators, similar action for Part 135 operators will be needed before Safety Recommendation A-96-120 can be closed in an acceptable manner.

From: NTSB
To: FAA
Date: 2/15/2011
Response: On January 12, 2009, the FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), titled “Qualification, Service, and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers.” On May 7, 2009, the NTSB submitted comments to the docket, stating that the NPRM included requirements for training in recognizing and recovering from “special hazards” (sudden or unexpected aircraft upsets) that were responsive to Safety Recommendation A-96-120. The NTSB expected that the proposed rule would also authorize FAA principal operations inspectors to review and require changes to training programs that do not adequately address a special hazard. Lack of such authority was a concern identified during our investigation of the November 12, 2001, accident involving American Airlines flight 587, an Airbus Industrie A300 605R. In our comments on the NPRM, we noted that, although the document proposed requirements for Part 121 operators, similar action for Part 135 operators would be needed before Safety Recommendation A-96-120 could be closed. After the comment period for this NPRM had closed, the FAA determined that it needed to develop and issue a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM). The NTSB has learned that the FAA submitted this document to the Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST) for review on October 8, 2010. Although OST was scheduled to complete this review and forward the SNPRM to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on November 16, 2010, as of the date of this letter, OST has not yet finished its review. The NTSB is hopeful that OST, followed by OMB, will move quickly on this very important and long-overdue rulemaking project. If the SNPRM retains the provisions of the January 2009 NPRM regarding upset training, and the final rule can be issued on a timely basis, this action will fully satisfy Safety Recommendation A-96-120 for Part 121 operations. To complete the recommended action, the FAA will need to take similar action for Part 135 operators. In its current letter, the FAA stated it is considering similar rulemaking for Part 135 operators. Pending issuance of a final rule that includes the provisions for upset recognition and recovery training as proposed in the January 2009 NPRM, followed by a similar requirement for Part 135 operators, Safety Recommendation A-96-120 is classified OPEN – ACCEPTABLE RESPONSE.

From: FAA
To: NTSB
Date: 11/22/2010
Response: MC# 201000423: - From J. Randolph Babbitt, Administrator: On July 6, 2010, the Federal Aviation Administration published Information for Operators (InfO) 10010, Enhanced Upset Recovery Training (enclosure). The InFO was addressed to part 121, 125, 135, and 91K operators and part 142 training centers. InFO 10010 recommends operators consider incorporating applicable material contained in the upset recovery training aid (URTA) into flightcrew training. It also provides information on where the URTA can be found on the Internet. The FAA will continue to improve the URTA's exposure and promote training in this arena to the extent of current simulator capabilities. We recognize loss of control is a universal problem that applies to all types of operations. The FAA has decided to take measured steps in addressing upset recovery training for certificated operators. We anticipate publishing the Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM), Qualification, Service and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers, later this year. It contains language that addresses upset recovery training for part 121 operators. While this SNPRM only addresses part 121 operations, future rulemaking may address upset recovery training for part 135 operators as well. I will keep the Board informed of our progress on these recommendations and provide an updated response by November 2011.

From: FAA
To: NTSB
Date: 1/21/2010
Response: Letter Mail Controlled 1/25/2010 10:00:08 AM MC# 2100025 - From Tony Fazio, Deputy Director, Accident Investigation and Prevention: The NPRM for part 121 N & O was published in January 2009. Based on the comments received to the NPRM, the FAA is drafting an SNPRM for publication in 2010.

From: NTSB
To: FAA
Date: 5/7/2009
Response: Notation 8106: The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has reviewed the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled, "Qualification, Service, and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers," which was published in 74 Federal Register 1280 on January 12, 2009. The NTSB is pleased that, in response to Safety Recommendation A-96-120, the NPRM includes training on recognizing and recovering from "special hazards," which are sudden or unexpected aircraft upsets. The NTSB interprets that this proposal would also include a requirement that gives FAA POIs the authority to review and require changes to training programs that do not adequately address a special hazard. Lack of such authority was a concern identified during the NTSB's investigation of a November 12, 2001, accident involving American Airlines flight 587, an Airbus Industrie A300-605R. During this investigation, the NTSB learned that the POI knew that aspects of American Airlines' training program had undesirable effects; however, he lacked the authority to force American to change its program. In addition, a topic covered in the special hazards training section of the NPRM is recovery from loss of control due to airplane design, airplane malfunction, human performance, and atmospheric conditions. The "Upset Recognition and Recovery" section of the NPRM lists a number of items that should be covered, including catastrophic damage due to rapidly reversing controls and the use of light pedal forces and small pedal movements to obtain the maximum rudder deflection as speed increases. This recommendation is currently classified "Open-Unacceptable Response" because of the FAA's delayed response. Although the NPRM proposes requirements for Part 121 operators, similar action for Part 135 operators will be needed before Safety Recommendation A-96-120 can be closed.

From: NTSB
To: FAA
Date: 10/17/2005
Response: NMC# 102719: Because there has been no formal correspondence on these recommendations for a considerable period of time, the Board would appreciate an update on recent FAA activities in response to these safety recommendations, including when the FAA expects the recommended actions to be completed. These seven open safety recommendations are dependent, according to the FAA, on the proposed, but as yet unpublished, revisions to Part 121, subparts N and O. Through correspondence with the FAA on these recommendations, we have seen the proposed date for the FAA's publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) related to revisions to Part 121 subparts N and O, repeatedly delayed. The NPRM was first promised in July 1998, then December 2000, then February 2001; and an NPRM has yet to be published. All of these recommendations are more than 7 years old, and one is 12 years old. The Board anticipates that a considerable period of time will be taken to collect and analyze comments from the public following publication of the NPRM and that, consequently, a final rule will not be issued until several years after the NPRM is published. The Board urges the FAA to issue this NPRM soon. The Board also requests that the FAA advise us on the most current schedule for issuing this NPRM and for implementation of the final rule. We would appreciate receiving this information before we reevaluate the status of these recommendations.

From: NTSB
To: FAA
Date: 10/26/2004
Response: [The Board reclassified this recommendation as part of its report on the crash of AA587, Airbus A300-605, Belle Harbor, New York, 11/12/01. Relevant text follows] In October 1996, the Safety Board issued Safety Recommendation A-96-120, which recommended that the FAA "require 14 CFR Part 121 and 135 operators to provide training to flight crews in the recognition of and recovery from unusual attitudes and upset maneuvers, including upsets that occur while the aircraft is being controlled by automatic flight control systems, and unusual attitudes that result from flight control malfunctions and uncommanded flight control surface movements."209 More than 8 years have passed since the issuance of Safety Recommendation A-96-120. Although the FAA has expressed agreement with the intent of the recommendation, it has not yet taken the necessary regulatory action to require unusual attitude training for air carrier pilots. In contrast, the air carrier industry has recognized the need for such training by voluntarily developing programs, such as the American Airlines AAMP, and issuing the Airplane Upset Recovery Training Aid. There is widespread agreement among operations and training managers that unusual attitude training helps prepare flight crews for such unusual situations. However, without a regulatory requirement and published guidance from the FAA, the design and adoption of such programs has been voluntary, and approval of the POI assigned to the individual operators has been without the benefit of broader guidance from training experts within the FAA. As discussed in section 2.3.2.2, the Safety Board's investigation found deficiencies in the American Airlines AAMP, including the following: · ground school training that encouraged the use of rudder for roll control; o a simulator exercise in which pilots were encouraged to employ large rudder inputs without being fully trained in the operating properties of the specific rudder control system or fully understanding the structural loads that might be imposed on the airframe by certain inputs; · a simulator exercise that provided unrealistic portrayals of an airplane response to wake turbulence and significantly suppressed control input effectiveness to induce a large rolling potential that was unlikely to occur with an airplane as large as an A300-600; and · a simulator exercise that encouraged the use of rudder in a highly dynamic situation without portraying the large buildup in sideslip angle and sideload that would accompany such rudder inputs in an actual airplane. The Safety Board's review of other carriers' upset recovery programs indicated that the shortcomings in the AAMP are not unique and that inconsistencies exist among programs, especially regarding simulator use. The Safety Board concludes that FAA standards for unusual attitude training programs that take into account industry best practices and are designed to avoid inaccurate or negative training would lead to improvement and standardization of industry training programs. Accordingly, the Safety Board urges the FAA to take expeditious action to require such unusual attitude training, as recommended in Safety Recommendation A-96-120. Pending the completion of such regulatory action by the FAA, the Safety Board reclassifies Safety Recommendation A-96-120 OPEN -- UNACCEPTABLE RESPONSE. Further, the Safety Board believes that the FAA should adopt and disseminate written guidance for use in developing and accepting upset recovery programs; such guidance could take the form of an AC and should reflect the industry's best practices and be designed to avoid inaccurate or negative training.

From: FAA
To: NTSB
Date: 2/11/2003
Response: "FAA Staff advised via telephone that the NPRM package with changes to 14 CFR subparts N and O is in internal FAA coordination at this time. The document is 1000 pages and they expect to have it submitted to OST in May 2003."

From: NTSB
To: FAA
Date: 12/20/1999
Response: The FAA's planned actions indicate that it is responding as the Safety Board recommended. Pending revisions to 14 CFR Part 121, subparts N and O, A-96-120 is classified OPEN – ACCEPTABLE RESPONSE.

From: FAA
To: NTSB
Date: 8/11/1999
Response: Letter Mail Controlled 8/18/99 10:49:28 AM MC# 990908 - From Jane F. Garvey, Administrator: The FAA has initiated an NPRM proposing to revise 14 CFR Part 121, subparts N and O. The FAA will include training in recognition of and recovery from unusual attitudes and upset maneuvers in the NPRM. It is anticipated that the NPRM will be published in December 2000. I will provide the Board with a copy of the NPRM as soon as it is published.

From: NTSB
To: FAA
Date: 4/16/1999
Response: In October 1996, the Safety Board issued Safety Recommendation A-96-120, asking the FAA to Require 14 CFR Part 121 and 135 operators to provide training to flight crews in the recognition of and recovery from unusual attitudes and upset maneuvers, including upsets that occur while the aircraft is being controlled by automatic flight control systems, and unusual attitudes that result from flight control malfunctions and uncommanded flight control surface movements. The Safety Board's concerns about the role of automatic flight control systems in unusual attitude situations were validated when Comair flight 3272, an Embraer 120RT, crashed on January 9, 1997, near Monroe, Michigan. The investigation determined that an engaged autopilot masked the most salient cues to the flight crew of a developing uncommanded rolling moment.14 Similarly, the challenge posed to pilots by flight control malfunctions was demonstrated by the circumstances of the accidents involving USAir flight 427 and United flight 585, the incident involving Eastwind Airlines flight 517 (which involved uncommanded rudder movement), and the accident involving Simmons Airlines flight 4184 (which involved uncommanded aileron movement). The Safety Board recognizes the value of air carrier voluntary unusual attitude training programs. However, all air carriers may not be implementing such a program.15 Further, the FAA has not addressed flight control malfunctions (such as uncommanded rudder surface movements) in its guidance material for air carrier unusual attitude training programs. In addition, the unusual attitude training tool developed in 1998 by industry, labor unions, and the FAA does not include guidance on flight control malfunctions. In January 1997, the FAA informed the Safety Board that it was considering issuance of a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to require air carriers to conduct unusual attitude training. However, as of March 1999, the FAA had not issued the NPRM. The FAA indicated, in informal correspondence with the Safety Board, that it might include an unusual attitude training requirement as part of a planned general revision to the regulations governing air carrier pilot training (14 CFR Part 121, Subparts N and O). The Safety Board is concerned that the FAA has not yet taken the necessary regulatory action to require unusual attitude training for air carrier pilots. The Board is also concerned that the guidance and programs developed to date do not include scenarios involving flight control malfunctions. Accordingly, because of the lack of progress toward requiring for air carrier pilots unusual attitude training that addresses flight control malfunctions, such as uncommanded flight control surface movements, Safety Recommendation is classified A-96-120 OPEN -- UNACCEPTABLE RESPONSE. The Safety Board urges the FAA to take expeditious action to require such unusual attitude training.

From: NTSB
To: FAA
Date: 7/15/1997
Response: The Safety Board is not aware of any training in which the unusual attitude was the result of a control system failure or that some flight controls would not be available for, or would be counterproductive to, the recovery. The Safety Board trusts that the full intent of this recommendation will be addressed in the FAA's final action. Pending further correspondence, A-96-120 is classified OPEN – ACCEPTABLE ACTION.

From: FAA
To: NTSB
Date: 1/16/1997
Response: Many operators are providing training on the recognition, prevention, and recovery of aircraft attitudes normally not associated with air carrier flight operations.