Page:Civil Air Regulations - Part 40 (1953).pdf/3

3 With respect to the proposal that there be added to the non—transport category take-off performance limitations contained in § 40.91 [40.63] a requirement to take account of temperature, the Board concluded that, while temperature does have a marked effect on aircraft performance, the impact upon operating weights of such aircraft as the DC-3 would be correspondingly marked were temperature accountability to be required. The excellent safety record of such aircraft as the DC-3 and Lockheed 18 appears to dictate against such a requirement at this time.

With respect to the proposal to decrease the requirement for gradient accountability contained in § 40.91 [40.63], the Board concluded that although its proposal does constitute an increase in gradient accountability when compared with previous requirements applicable to non-transport category aircraft, this requirement will not create an undue burden in view of the fact that these rules also permit account to be taken of favorable wind components during the take-off. The inclusion of non-transport category performance limitations in Part 40 intended to insure operating weights approximately equivalent to those resulting from previous rules and the Board concludes that this rule is consistent with such an objective.

With respect to the proposal to decrease the landing distance requirements of § 40.93 [40.65], the Board concluded that the proposed requirement will effect operating weights of on-transport category airplanes adversely only in exceptional circumstances. The proposed landing distance requirements appear to be justified from the fact that overshooting accidents constitute a disproportionate percentage of all air carrier accidents. The Board also concluded that undue burden would not result from the application of this rule.

With respect to the proposal to amend §40.232 (c) [40.92 (c)] to require additional navigational receiving equipment during the period of transition from low frequency to very high frequency navigation systems, the Board concluded that no showing had been made that the rule proposed by the Board did not in fact require the same duality of airborne equipment as contemplated under existing regulations. The Board was concerned, however, with the charge made during oral argument that there exists a requirement in certain high density terminal areas for airborne equipment in addition to that specified in §40.232 [40.92]. This view, however, was not at issue during the oral argument and the Board intends, therefore, that a separate rule-making action be initiated in the near future to determine whether Part 40 should be further amended to require radio equipment in addition to that specified when necessary for air traffic control in particular terminal areas.

With respect to the proposal to amend §40.280 (b) [40.120 (b)] to require that check airmen be "actively engaged in the same occupation as the airmen being checked" the Board concluded that no justification was presented for so restrictive a limitation upon managerial discretion. The Board was concerned, however, with an expressed view that "a holder of an airline transport pilot license who is trained and qualified on the equipment meets the requirements of the last sentence of §40.280 (in) [40.120 (b)]". Since this construction is not consistent with the Board's intent in proposing the requirement, an amendment of this section has been made to clarify the Board's intent that check airmen shall possess the certificates and ratings required to be held by the airmen being checked.

With respect to the proposal that §40.289 (b) [40.126 (b)] be amended to include a maximum interval for checking the competence of each crew member, the Board has concluded that an interval of twelve months should be established in order to insure against excessive intervals between such checks.

With respect to the proposals to amend § 40.302 [40.132] concerning proficiency and line checks, the Board is of the opinion that a misunderstanding as to the Board's intent may have been responsible in large measure for the expressed apprehension concerning this requirement. It is not intended that more than two proficiency checks a year be required. It is intended,, however, that at least one of the two required proficiency checks shall be accomplished in the larger aircraft type in which a pilot is to serve as pilot in command. This section has been amended to simplify and clarify this requirement. The Board has also concluded that retention of the remainder of the section in substantially the form proposed by the Board will not create an undue burden upon air carriers.

With respect to the proposal to amend §40.303 (c) [40.135 (c)], the Board has concluded that this requirement should be simplified so as to require only a landing and a take-off at each airport into which the pilot is scheduled to fly. The requirement to "fly through the approach procedure for which the lowest minimums are authorized" has been deleted. The Board is of the opinion that this amendment will simplify the administration of the rule without jeopardizing the objective sought.

With respect to the proposal to amend §40.303 [40.135| to permit route familiarization by means of two one-way flights over the routes and to eliminate the requirement for night familiarization, the Board has concluded that such an amendment would simplify route qualification procedures without seriously compromising the resulting degree of pilot familiarization.

With respect to the proposal to amend §40.304 [40.136] to enable a pilot to be scheduled into an airport at which he has not landed during the preceding twelve months, by reason of flying over such airport during that period, the Board has concluded that flight over an airport in operations commonly conducted today do not provide a pilot with sufficient opportunity to remain familiar with the airport and its facilities and physical environs. The Board recognized on the other hand that some relaxation can be made in this requirement by permitting such a pilot to serve as pilot-in-command and land at such airports if the reported weather conditions are at least three miles visibility and the ceiling at or above the lowest initial approach altitude for that airport.

With respect to the proposal to amend §40.307 [40.138] to require the recent experience requirements for flight engineer to be made applicable each six months instead of each twelve months as prescribed, the Board concluded that such an amendment is desirable and would serve to insure that night engineers possess adequate recent experience for the proper execution of their duties and that such an amendment will not constitute an undue burden upon the air carriers.

With respect to the proposal to amend § 40.351 [40.151] to require that the aircraft dispatcher and pilot in command be jointly responsible for delay of a flight, the Board concluded that this amendment was desirable in that it stated more clearly the Board's intent with respect to the relationships of the pilots and dispatchers. The Board did not agree, however, with the proposal that a new paragraph (c) be added to defone certain functions of the dispatcher not related to safety because it considered such matters irrelevant to Part 40.

With respect to the proposal to amend § 40.391 [40.82] by deleting the words "en route". the Board concluded that such an amendment would appear to authorize operation of an airplane with required equipment unserviceable for an indefinite period of time. It is acknowledged, however, that certain operations may exist wherein the strict observance of this requirement would constitute an undue burden upon an air carrier. The Board has provided for such an eventuality by permitting the Administrator to exempt a carrier from strict compliance with the prohibition against re-scheduling a light with required equipment inoperative in any particular circumstance in which the Administrator finds that undue hardship will result and that strict compliance with the requirement is not necessary in the interest of safety.

With respect to the proposal to amend § 40.408 [40.193] to substitute a, 500-foot minimum altitude for the prescribed 1,000 feet under VFR conditions, the Board concluded that the higher minimum altitude is the more desirable as the general requirement. The Board concluded, moreover, that proper administration of this rule, will enable the carrier under conditions acceptable to the Administrator to avoid undue hardship without compromising safety.

With respect to the proposal to amend § 40.408 [40.193] to permit over—the-top operations below the minimum on route IFR altitude under conditions less restrictive than those currently contained in §61.261, the Board concluded that adequate consideration of the matters pertinent thereto had been made when promulgating Civil Air Regulation Amendment 61—8, effective September 10,