The Double-edged Sword of the Pilot Records Database

The last deadline for a comprehensive rule to transition to a fully electronic pilot records database (PRD) passed recently, calling on commercial operators to report historical training and other key data going back to 2005 and for fractional providers to 2010. In addition, the September 9 deadline marked the end of the transition, sunsetting the nearly 30-year-old Pilot Records Improvement Act (PRIA) as an alternative to the electronic PRD.

For operators in general, the rule presented a double-edged sword: the promise of easier access to records in a much faster timeframe, which is important as the industry continues its hiring spree. At the same time, it represented new, recurring, and deceptively complex requirements, some of which extended to a much broader swath of industry.

Issued in June 2021, the final PRD rule phased in the transition from the information-sharing requirements under PRIA to the new Part 111 Pilot Records Database, implementing an electronic format as required by Congress.

Electronic Database Streamlines Hiring Process

The PRD contains records from a pilot’s current and former employers, along with the FAA, with the idea that the database will not only provide important information about a pilot’s history but also prompt conversations between applicants and hiring employers. The agency won’t release the records unless the pilot candidates approve and then they are released only on a time-limited basis.

Unlike PRIA, which applied to air carriers under Part 119, the new rule reaches into other segments of industry for the first time, including Part 91K fractional operations (although many already had their 135 certification); air tour operators; certain corporate operators; and public operators.

The final rule was published a little more than a year after a controversial notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) was released drawing some 800 comments, many from the business aviation community. Business aviation leaders in general protested the inclusion of corporate operators, the level of detail of records, and most importantly a new attempt to define a corporate flight department as one that operates two or more aircraft requiring a type rating.

After reviewing the comments, the agency made a series of changes from the NPRM.

One key change was a reversal on requiring the upload of all records from most operators without a Part 119 certificate. Instead, corporate flight departments, air tour operations, and public aircraft operations are not required to upload training, disciplinary, and separation from employment records to the PRD unless requested by a hiring operator. However, termination and certain disciplinary records are required. In addition, the level of detail for certain training and checking was revised as well as disciplinary action and separations from employment to reduce subjectivity.

Since operations without a 119 certificate do not have the same training and recordkeeping requirements, the FAA recognized that they would not be able to furnish the same level of detail. Further, the agency agreed that pilots in many of these operations do not typically jump to the air carriers, and as such, recognizing the same level of data upload would represent an unnecessary burden.

“NBAA stepped in and provided really detailed information to the FAA based on surveys and the response from industry, which actively participated in that process and indicated that the mandate was based on bad assumptions and it was going to cost a lot more than the FAA anticipated,” recalled Brian Koester, who recently joined Jetlaw after serving as director of flight operations and regulations for NBAA. (Koester spoke to AIN in his former capacity).

Based on the participation rates and the request rates from air carriers under PRIA, “it didn't justify all Part 91 operators contributing to the database.”

The exclusion of the smallest flight departments was good news, he added, as was the fact that business aircraft flight departments were only required to provide their detailed information when requested. “So that eliminated a lot of the need to proactively put information in this database,” he said.

Affected corporate flight departments are still those operating two or more aircraft requiring a type rating (either fixed-wing or rotorcraft, the latter added in the final rule). However, the agency’s attempt in the original NPRM to formally define 'corporate flight department' drew so much criticism that the definition was dropped in the final rule.

New Rule Eases Record Accessibility

For air carriers, the data required essentially remains the same. However, unlike PRIA, this rule is proactive, requiring carriers and fractional operators to update their records within 30 days of an event, such as training. Under PRIA, carriers simply furnished their records when requested. And if the operation is starting up with the PRD, those records still need to be uploaded within 30 days.

As far as obtaining those records, it is still required for air carriers, but also fractional and air tour operators. In a strange wrinkle in the rule, but one required by statute, affected hiring operators must obtain records going back five years. However, because Congress mandated this, air carriers must furnish historical records back to 2005 and fractional operations to 2010 (when Congress mandated the PRD).

Congress originally enacted PRIA in 1997 after a series of accidents attributed to pilot error. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) had discovered in some of these cases that the pilots involved had a history of poor training performance or other indicators of faulty judgment, but their employers had not fully investigated the pilots' backgrounds. Lawmakers wanted to ensure that air carriers were adequately conducting background checks on pilots and had access to key performance data. PRIA called for air carriers to access records from three sources—pilot employers, the FAA, and the National Driver’s Register—using standardized forms. Since the FAA’s role was limited, the agency didn’t issue regulations but provided guidance through an advisory circular (AC120-68G).

However, two accidents after PRIA was enacted prompted the NTSB to make further recommendations regarding pilot record-keeping, sharing, and reviewing.

One of these, in July 2003, involved Air Sunshine (d/b/a Tropical Aviation Services). An aircraft ditched into the Atlantic Ocean near the Bahamas after an in-flight failure of the right engine. Two of the nine passengers aboard the scheduled Part 135 perished after evacuating the aircraft.

While the NTSB identified the failure of the right engine as a primary factor, the probable cause also cited “the pilot's failure to adequately manage the airplane's performance after the engine failed.” The Safety Board further pointed to the pilot’s “history of below-average flight proficiency, including numerous failed flight tests, before the Bahamas accident, which contributed to his inability to maintain maximum flight performance and reach land after the right engine failed.”

The NTSB called for record background checks to include any notices of disapproval for flight checks, believing “a single notice of disapproval for a flight check, along with an otherwise successful record of performance, should not adversely affect a hiring decision…[but] multiple notices of disapproval for a flight check might be significant.”

The second accident, in February 2009, was the Colgan Air flight that spurred several changes in safety requirements. All 49 people aboard and one person on the ground died after the Part 121 flight crashed into a residence in Clarence Center, New York. The NTSB cited “the captain's inappropriate response to activation of the stick shaker, which led to an aerodynamic stall from which the airplane did not recover” as the probable cause and listed flight crew failures among the contributing factors.

In its investigation, the NTSB found deficient recordkeeping systems and analysis of flight crew qualifications at the airline. Notably, the check airman said the captain had failed his initial proficiency check on the Saab 340 on Oct. 15, 2007, received additional training, and passed his upgrade proficiency check the following day. However, the company’s electronic records suggested that a second check occurred 12 days later, and the NTSB noted that the captain had previous training difficulties while with Colgan Air, including other test failures and the need for additional training events. As a result of its investigation, the NTSB called for all Part 121, 135, and 91K operators to retain electronic copies and provide pilot training records.

Among other actions in the aftermath of the Colgan Air accident, Congress enacted the PRD Act, mandating that FAA establish an electronic pilot records database.

Ahead of the release of the PRD rulemaking, the FAA had already warned air carriers and fractional operators to retain their records in a 2011 Information for Operators. In addition, the agency began the transition to electronic format. As for the rest of the transition, the agency established a series of compliance deadlines that began shortly after the rule was released from registration requirements and the beginning mandate for air carriers to review records in 2021. Operators were required to submit new pilot records into the system beginning in June 2022, with the first tranche of historical information—dating to 2015—due in June 2023. The final milestone involved older records that were to be submitted by September 9.

“It has been a long and sometimes difficult process to switch over to the PRD, though we are encouraged that there have not been significant reports of problems from our membership [through] the final transition,” said NATA managing director of air charter Jenny Ann Urban.

This transition occurred as the pilot hiring process has become more efficient and continues on that trajectory, Urban added, noting that previous employer records are now readily available through one digital source. “From a pilot hiring standpoint, this transition should make everything smoother and allow for more reliable access to pilot records.”

Concerns over Historical Data Reporting

However, she noted that the historical data requirement is problematic, especially for smaller carriers. “Small carriers in particular have experienced significant time and financial commitments related to the mandate to enter historic data dating back far beyond what is available to hiring carriers conducting pilot background checks,” she said.

Ideally, she added, the records requirement would have only gone back five years from when the PRD was activated—not when the congressional PRD Act took effect. “Unfortunately, the law passed by Congress didn’t give that flexibility. Regardless of the ability to access them, the historical records must still be reported as required,” she said.

NATA notes that the PRD website provides assistance, but some third-party companies also help with the upload of historical documents.

In addition, Urban further said, the benefits of the rule are tempered by the 30-day continual reporting requirements of current pilot records. “The shift to the continuous PRD record updates imposed by the regulations presents an ongoing, new burden on the industry.”

Thomas Benvenuto, senior v-p of flight operations for Solairus Aviation, described the inefficiencies of the system under PRIA, having to reach out to all applicable former employers on each hire and the timely process of waiting for those records to arrive.

He explained that the PRD concept has significantly improved. “Instead of everybody sending this paperwork backward and forward via snail mail or fax or other means, [the PRD stated] let's have a government-sponsored database where the operator—with the pilot’s permission before they hire them—can get all these same records. Now, all these operators don't have to go to all the individual operators that the pilot came from and request these records.”

However, Benvenuto conceded that getting up and running was an undertaking, so much so that he hired someone dedicated to entering pilot records. “The process of how to get those records into the system has been a somewhat arduous journey,” he said. “It's taken us a few years now to get all our pilot records in because we have so many airplanes and so many pilots. We have a massive database of records that we had to essentially data entry into the PRD.” Solairus has more than 330 aircraft in its management fleet throughout the U.S. and employs nearly 2,300 flight crew and personnel, both full-time and on a per-diem basis.

Each record takes time to upload, he noted, but added that once the process is established, it is more manageable. “I had to hire somebody to put in all the records because we didn't have the bandwidth on staff to just spend hours and hours and days and days doing it.”

While Solairus has a Part 135 operation, it has a fair number of aircraft solely under management. However, regardless of what the pilots are flying under, Solairus uploads records for all of them since the training, records, and safety systems are seamless at the company.

Even so, managing a large pilot population and constantly hiring for growth, Benvenuto sees upside. “Now we don’t have to wait for records.” This could be a 90-day process under PRIA. Now, he said, “You get it almost instantaneously as soon as that pilot provides us the access to the records. So, the biggest issue is really managing the paperwork.”

Jennifer Pickerel, president of business aviation recruitment specialist Aviation Personnel International, noted that the topic has come up with clients. From their standpoint, she said, “the PRD is a positive change as it creates more accountability and transparency around a pilot’s technical performance. Instead of taking someone’s word on whether they’ve ever failed a check ride, we now have a way to verify.”

Pickerel expects clients to request records for only final candidates—similar to the way background checks are handled. However, setting expectations upfront will be key to avoiding surprises, she added.

“That’s why we’ll be educating our candidates on how to make their records accessible through the PRD, especially since Part 91 operators are required to comply,” she said. “As it relates to quantifiable information—documentation of training records or accidents, incidents, and flight logs—it’s a great resource. However, if subjective data gets into it then I think it could be problematic.”

“For Part 91 operators, the final rule came out well balanced and set in a way that required [those] operators to contribute when pilots were applying for commercial jobs,” Koester said. “However, for commercial air carriers, there are two sides of the coin here. The first was it provides better access, quicker access to information for them. That information will be available and provides transparency for the pilots. The pilots can go in and view their own records.”

However, the negative side was the historical information, he said. A lot of commercial departments may have had a system in place to discard anything older than five years.

“And so that one created a massive burden to input that information,” he said. It put some operators that didn’t have those records “in a bit of a bind,” Koester added. “They can't input records that they don't have. And so that was something we had to navigate.”

He noted that the FAA indicated it would not prioritize enforcement for operators making a good-faith effort to input the data. In fact, the rule mentions recognizing a “good-faith” effort.

Krister Genmark, chief commercial officer for Swedish-based aviation document manager Web Manuals, sees the PRD as another step into a more digital world in aviation.

“It’s encouraging to see the FAA recognize the efficiency of digitalization and data sharing when it comes to improving aviation administration processes,” Genmark said. “Working with an electronic PRD can significantly streamline the process of accessing and managing pilot records, which is crucial for compliance with FAA mandates.”

He pointed to potential safety improvements by having a central data repository and said this complements other electronic tools such as safety management systems.

“This alignment promotes not only regulatory compliance but also operational efficiency, as it allows for seamless integration across various facets of aviation management,” Genmark said. “The move towards an industry-wide digitalization, as evidenced by the adoption of the electronic PRD, highlights a broader trend towards digitalization and working with tools to enhance both safety and efficiency in aviation. Web Manuals sees this as a critical step forward, encouraging operators to embrace these innovations for better oversight and improved safety outcomes.”