NBAA Calls for FAA To Issue New Pilot Records Proposal

An FAA proposed rulemaking to an electronic Pilot Records Database (PRD) and extend record-keeping requirements beyond air carriers to corporate pilot operators has drawn opposition from commenters who say it is an example of “regulatory overreach” and lacks clarity on several issues.

Issued on March 30 with the comment period ending on June 30, the NPRM calls for air carriers, public aircraft operators, air tours, fractional providers, and corporate flight departments to enter pilot data into the PRD and for air carriers, fractional providers, and certain other operators to evaluate available data in the PRD before hiring a pilot candidate.

NBAA is so concerned that it issued a call to its members to weigh in on the proposal and asked the FAA to rewrite the proposal in a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), NBAA said the proposal goes “far beyond the intent of the legislative mandate with no identifiable safety benefits for Part 91 operators.”

NBAA is questioning the extension of pilot record-keeping requirements, which in past had centered on commercial and fractional operations, to corporate flight departments.

In the proposal, the FAA noted that Congress had mandated that the agency established an electronic database to compile data on air carrier pilots and “other persons.” However, the legislative body did not specify how other persons should be applied. The FAA interpreted that to mean individuals who might fly for a “gateway operation” as a means toward a career with a commercial carrier and defined corporate flight departments as such gateways. And the agency further narrowed the definition of a corporate flight department as one that typically flies with two or more aircraft and requires a type rating.

But NBAA said the agency’s “attempt to define a ‘corporate flight department’ lacks any congressional direction, is rooted in a false and baseless belief that ‘corporate flight departments’ are ‘gateway operators’ that are likely to provide pilots employment on their journey to a career with the scheduled airlines, and its codification would create significant confusion in the industry, discouraging compliance.” The association further questioned how such a definition would improve safety. “We would suggest that the FAA abandon finalizing this definition,” the association said.

Imposing the recordkeeping and reporting requirements on Part 91 exceeds the agency’s statutory authority in the first place, NBAA added. “The FAA offers no identifiable safety benefit and NBAA is unable to identify any positive safety outcome for Part 91 operators facing compliance with these measures,” the association said, recommending that the FAA support the existing record request processes for other operators.

Another key concern surrounds the agency’s proposal to include comments from check pilots during pilot training in the PDR. This, the association said, “will have a significant chilling effect on safety and on documenting opportunities for pilot improvement. Additionally, this requirement contradicts previous FAA positions on the value of protecting check pilot comments during training and is contrary to the FAA’s broader efforts to de-identify data in support of safety improvement.” NBAA asked the agency to scrap that requirement.

“The NPRM lacks a robust analysis of the effects of this proposal on Part 91 operations and ignores many consensus recommendations from the 2011 PRD ARC, resulting in a significant burden on numerous small entities with no clear nexus to Part 121 air carrier hiring,” said NBAA COO Steve Brown.

Joining the call for a supplemental NPRM was National Air Transportation Association (NATA), which told the agency that this “would provide an ideal framework to address the many gaps identified by commenters and present a more complete rulemaking package.”

NATA also expressed disappointment that the FAA rejected its request to extend the comment period to answer detailed questions the agency had asked within the NPRM. “The agency has grappled with the complexities involved in creating this new system for nearly a decade but offered only three months for comment,” the association noted.

NATA expressed concern that the proposal doesn’t adequately address a number of questions, such as the need to follow up on records from businesses that have closed or the handling of omissions, errors, and lost records.

“If a carrier’s representative makes an error in a pilot record entry that is not discovered, perhaps for several years (and the paper records upon which that entry was based are gone), how should a disputed record be managed?” the association asked as an example.

Further, the FAA is calling for carriers to formalize a dispute process but offers no guidance on how such a process could be structured, NATA said, asking, “How would a pilot dispute a PRD record if the air carrier no longer exists?”

NATA also pushed for extended time for carriers to comply with new electronic requirements. “The NPRM, citing reviews conducted by field inspectors, states that only 12 percent of carriers are using electronic pilot records,” NATA noted. “Given that the significant majority of official record-keeping systems do not offer the ability to create an XML program to sweep up the necessary data fields for transmission, the FAA is strongly urged to provide carriers with additional time to convert their records for entry into the PRD.”

The General Aviation Manufacturers Association, meanwhile, echoed concerns about the extension of the applicability to corporate operators and further questioned  FAA’s explanation deeming corporate operators as gateway operators for pilots seeking to build hours and work with carriers, but said, “The FAA erroneously assumes that Part 91 corporate aviation merely serves as a ‘pipeline’ or ‘gateway’ to employment with Part 121 and Part 135 air carriers. The reality is that many pilots choose to spend a career in business (corporate) aviation with no intention of ever pursuing a position with an air carrier.”

GAMA agreed with NBAA that the proposal offers no statistics or evidence that corporate flight departments are a career path to air carriers, and said, “to burden Part 91 operators with the same record-keeping requirements as air carriers is unreasonable.”

The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association also said the FAA went beyond the congressional mandate for an electronic PDR and its proposal failed to accept recommendations of the government/industry Aviation Rulemaking Committee on the issue. “This proposed rule casts a much wider non-mandated net of applicability than [the Pilot Records Improvement Act] and will unnecessarily create additional requirements that will negatively impact thousands of small and sole-practitioner Part 91 operators,” AOPA said. “These individuals and small entities will have to comply with a reporting system that is not only costly and complex, but also creates a disincentive to purchase more aircraft or hire additional pilots. The burden of compliance outweighs any potential benefit.”

AOPA conceded some Part 91 operators could serve as gateway operators, but added, “There are literally hundreds of pathways for individuals to become professional pilots amidst a diverse part 91 operational world. And all these Part 91 operations are just as likely to be terminal career aspirations for the same group of professional pilots.”

The PRD ARC contemplated the inclusion of Part 91 but ultimately rejected the idea, the association said.

AOPA also agreed with arguments about the lack of clarity in the NPRM, particularly around resolving disputes on information. “Without clear rules, guidance, and protections, inconsistent application of these regulations will create a hodgepodge of ‘documented processes’ between multiple operators,” the association said. “In addition, subjecting individuals to inconsistent investigations will raise fairness and due process concerns.”

AOPA also was concerned that the NPRM lacked any requirement for the removal of erroneous or false information.