Rule2024-15924
Robinson Helicopter R-22 and R-44 Special Training and Experience Requirements
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
July 23, 2024
Effective
August 22, 2024
Issuing agencies
Transportation DepartmentFederal Aviation Administration
Abstract
In this final rule, the FAA revises the Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 73--Robinson R 22/R-44 Special Training and Experience Requirements to provide consistency with other FAA regulatory requirements, training, and Airman Certification Standards and Practical Test Standards. This final rule removes the low gravity flight instruction requirement to align this Special Federal Aviation Regulation with current aircraft placard requirements and the limitations section of the Robinson Helicopter Company Rotorcraft Flight Manual/Pilot Operating Handbook set forth by Airworthiness Directives. The FAA amends certain terminology in this Special Federal Aviation Regulation to mirror the Helicopter Flying Handbook, Airman Certification Standards, and Practical Test Standards. This final rule also clarifies the awareness training endorsement and flight review requirements for less experienced pilots, removes legacy dates, and updates the applicability section to include ground and flight training, including flight reviews provided by flight instructors. Finally, the FAA adds an expiration date to the Special Federal Aviation Regulation to allow the FAA time to review and refine the R-22 and R-44 requirements for ground training, aeronautical experience, including flight training, and flight reviews, before permanently adopting them into an independent separate subchapter.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 141 (Tuesday, July 23, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 141 (Tuesday, July 23, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59602-59610]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-15924]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 61
[Docket No. FAA-2023-2083; Amdt. No. 61-154]
RIN 2120-AL89
Robinson Helicopter R-22 and R-44 Special Training and Experience
Requirements
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this final rule, the FAA revises the Special Federal
Aviation Regulation No. 73--Robinson R 22/R-44 Special Training and
Experience Requirements to provide consistency with other FAA
regulatory requirements, training, and Airman Certification Standards
and Practical Test Standards. This final rule removes the low gravity
flight instruction requirement to align this Special Federal Aviation
Regulation with current aircraft placard requirements and the
limitations section of the Robinson Helicopter Company Rotorcraft
Flight Manual/Pilot Operating Handbook set forth by Airworthiness
Directives. The FAA amends certain terminology in this Special Federal
Aviation Regulation to mirror the Helicopter Flying Handbook, Airman
Certification Standards, and Practical Test Standards. This final rule
also clarifies the awareness training endorsement and flight review
requirements for less experienced pilots, removes legacy dates, and
updates the applicability section to include ground and flight
training, including flight reviews provided by flight instructors.
Finally, the FAA adds an expiration date to the Special Federal
Aviation Regulation to allow the FAA time to review and refine the R-22
and R-44 requirements for ground training, aeronautical experience,
including flight training, and flight reviews, before permanently
adopting them into an independent separate subchapter.
DATES: Effective August 22, 2024.
ADDRESSES: For information on where to obtain copies of rulemaking
documents and other information related to this final rule, see ``How
to Obtain Additional Information'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cara M. Barbera, Training and
Certification Group, General Aviation and Commercial Division, Federal
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20591; telephone (202) 267-1100; email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a4e7c5d6c58ae6c5d6c6c1d6c5e4c2c5c58ac3cbd2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="83c0e2f1e2adc1e2f1e1e6f1e2c3e5e2e2ade4ecf5">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
A. Overview of Regulatory Action
C. Summary of the Costs and Benefits
II. Authority for This Rulemaking
III. Background
A. History
D. AD 95-11-09 (R-22) and AD 95-11-10 (R-44) Low G Cyclic
Pushover Prohibition Background
C. Summary of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
D. General Overview of Comments
IV. Discussion of Comments and the Final Rule
A. Support for the Rule
B. Suggested Changes to the Rule
V. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
A. Regulatory Impact Analysis
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. International Trade Impact Assessment
D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
F. International Compatibility
G. Environmental Analysis
VI. Executive Order Determinations
A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
B. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
C. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
D. Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation
VII. Additional Information
A. Electronic Access and Filing
B. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
I. Executive Summary
A. Overview of Regulatory Action
Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) No. 73, found in part 61
of title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, addresses Robinson
Helicopter Company R-22 and R-44 special training and experience
requirements. SFAR No. 73 currently requires flight training on the
effects of low gravity (low G) maneuvers and proper recovery
procedures. However, because of the inherent danger in performing low
gravity maneuvers, Airworthiness Directives 95-11-09 \1\ and 95-11-10
\2\ prohibit intentionally inducing low gravity flight in Robinson
Helicopter Company model R-22 and R-44 helicopters, contrary to certain
requirements in the current SFAR requiring dual instruction (flight
instruction) on the effects of low G maneuvers and proper recovery
procedures. Therefore, this final rule removes the requirement in the
SFAR to perform low gravity maneuvers during flight training due to
safety concerns. However, low gravity hazards will continue to be
addressed in ground training. Additionally, this final rule replaces
the term ``awareness training'' with ``ground training.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See AD 95-11-09, Robinson Helicopter Company Model R22
Helicopters (Jul. 14, 1995), <a href="https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/AB0E6D73A5A548F186256A4D006126BD.0001">https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/AB0E6D73A5A548F186256A4D006126BD.0001</a>.
\2\ See AD 95-11-10, Robinson Helicopter Company Model R44
Helicopters (Jul. 14, 1995), <a href="https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/FED1D31B434F466E86256A4D00613579.0001">https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/FED1D31B434F466E86256A4D00613579.0001</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, this final rule updates SFAR No. 73 to align its
terminology with other regulations and publications. Certain
terminology used in the current SFAR is neither defined nor used in the
same context as found in the Helicopter Flying Handbook (HFH),\3\
Airman Certification Standards, Practical Test Standards,\4\ and part
61. Specifically, updating the terms ``awareness,'' ``certified/
certificated flight instructor,'' and ``blade stall'' provides
consistency with part 61 terms and definitions without impacting
preexisting requirements. In addition, the final rule replaces the term
``enhanced'' with more specific language detailing how to satisfy
autorotation training in an R-22 and/or R-44 helicopter. The
terminology changes do not require updates to endorsements, websites,
or other publications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Helicopter Flying Handbook, FAA-H-8083-21B (2019)
<a href="https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/helicopter_flying_handbook/helicopter_flying_handbook.pdf">https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/helicopter_flying_handbook/helicopter_flying_handbook.pdf</a>.
\4\ See Airman Certification Standards and Practical Test
Standards <a href="https://www.faa.gov/training_testing/testing/acs">https://www.faa.gov/training_testing/testing/acs</a>. The FAA
notes that the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (88 FR 71509,
October 17, 2023) to this final rule only referred to alignment with
the Practical Test Standards (PTSs), as no helicopter PTSs had
transitioned to Airman Certification Standards (ACSs) yet. However,
on April 1, 2024, the FAA issued a final rule incorporating the ACSs
and PTSs, which included four newly published helicopter ACSs for:
commercial pilot certificate, private pilot certificate, instrument
rating, and flight instructor certificate. See 89 FR 22482.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, this final rule aligns certain provisions pertaining to
applicability, ground training, and flight reviews. First, this
rulemaking revises the applicability section in SFAR No. 73 by
including applicability to flight
[[Page 59603]]
instructors who conduct ground training, flight training, or a flight
review. Second, the final rule clarifies the current model
applicability endorsement within the ground training requirements.
Third, this final rule refines the formatting of the aeronautical
experience flight review requirements for less experienced pilots.
Finally, this final rule adds a five-year expiration date to SFAR
No. 73. This allows the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) time to
review and refine the requirements for R-22 and R-44 helicopters for
eventual movement into a permanent location in title 14 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, chapter I.
To note, this final rule does not impose any additional
requirements to the current regulations and practice, nor does it
render current requirements less restrictive. Rather, the changes more
clearly identify the current requirements for persons seeking to
manipulate the flight controls, act as pilot in command, provide ground
training or flight training, or conduct a flight review in a Robinson
Helicopter Company model R-22 or R-44 helicopter that are unique to
SFAR No. 73, and are not otherwise included in part 61.
After reviewing the comments received on the NPRM, the FAA did not
make any changes to the final rule.
C. Summary of the Costs and Benefits
The final rule promotes safety without imposing costs by clarifying
existing requirements, eliminating inconsistencies, and updating
language. Thus, the FAA has determined that this final rule will have
minimal economic effects.
II. Authority for This Rulemaking
The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in
title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, section 106 describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes the scope of the FAA's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
subtitle VII, part A, subpart iii, section 44701, General Requirements.
Under these sections, the FAA prescribes regulations and minimum
standards for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This rulemaking is within
the scope of that authority.
III. Background
A. History
The regulation at 14 CFR part 61 provides certification
requirements for pilots, flight instructors, and ground instructors.
Subparts C through G of part 61 contain training requirements for
applicants seeking rotorcraft category and helicopter class ratings.
These requirements do not address specific types or models of
rotorcraft. However, in 1995, the FAA determined that specific training
and experience requirements were necessary for the safe operation of
Robinson Helicopter Company (Robinson) model R-22 and R-44
helicopters.\5\ \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Robinson R-22/R-44 Special Training and Experience
Requirements, 60 FR 11254 (Mar. 27, 1995).
\6\ The FAA notes that such an action to address additional
training and experience for a type of aircraft is not unique. For
example, the FAA initially created an SFAR and later codified
regulations specific to the Mitsubishi MU-2B to ensure safe
operation. See 81 FR 61584.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The R-22 helicopter is a two-seat, reciprocating engine-powered
helicopter frequently used in initial student pilot training. The R-22
is one of the smallest helicopters in its class and incorporates a
unique cyclic control and teetering rotor system. The R-44 is a four-
seat helicopter with operating characteristics and design features that
are similar to the R-22. Certain aerodynamic and design features of
these aircraft result in specific flight characteristics that require
particular pilot knowledge and responsiveness to operate these models
safely.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See 60 FR 11254.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA issued a type certificate to Robinson in 1979. However, as
explained in the 1995 final rule, the R-22 had a high number of fatal
accidents due to main rotor/airframe contact when compared to other
piston powered helicopters. In its analysis of accident data, the FAA
found that many of those accidents were attributed to pilot performance
or inexperience, where low rotor revolutions per minute (RPM) or low G
conditions caused mast bumping or main rotor-airframe contact
accidents.
Therefore, the FAA determined additional specific pilot training
was necessary for the safe operation of these helicopters as part of a
comprehensive program that responded to a high number of accidents.\8\
Furthermore, the R-44 had also been recently certified, and the FAA was
concerned that the R-44 would experience the same frequency of
accidents because of its similar design to the R-22. Accordingly, the
FAA issued SFAR No. 73, which addressed pilot training and requirements
for flight instructors and continued flight reviews in the specific
model to be flown.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Other elements of this program included addressing design
and operational issues, cited by the National Transportation Safety
Board (NTSB) as possible contributing factors in some of the
accidents.
\9\ See 60 FR 11254.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While accidents in the R-22 and R-44 helicopters have declined
markedly since SFAR No. 73 was issued, the NTSB recommended the FAA
ensure that SFAR No. 73, the Flight Standards Board specifications, and
the Airworthiness Directives (ADs) applicable to the operation of the
R-22 and R-44 be made permanent.\10\ According to a special
investigation report the NTSB issued on April 2, 1996, the special
operating rules for flight instructors and students and low-experience
and non-proficient pilots must continue to ensure the safe operation of
these helicopter models.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See National Transportation Safety Board, Special
Investigation Report, Robinson Helicopter Company R22 Loss of Main
Rotor Control Accidents, Adopted April 2, 1996, <a href="https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SIR9603.pdf">https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SIR9603.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in the NPRM,\11\ in 2021, the FAA formed a Safety Risk
Management (SRM) Team to perform an assessment of SFAR No. 73 to,
first, analyze hazards associated with operating and training pursuant
to SFAR No. 73 and, second, to determine whether the SFAR effectively
controls risk or is no longer needed. The SRM Team's analysis resulted
in six proposed modifications of the Robinson Helicopter R-22 and R-44
Special Training and Experience Requirements, which may be found in the
docket to this rulemaking.\12\ The SRM recommended the FAA: determine
which elements of SFAR No. 73 currently mitigate hazards and should be
retained or are no longer required; develop permanent regulatory
requirements; determine actions required for SFAR 73 requirements that
are not captured in rulemaking; ensure implementation of the SRM
recommendations consider limitation in AD 95-26-04; \13\ add an
expiration date to the SFAR (should it remain in place); and, perform a
gap analysis of the SFAR and the SRM recommendations. The SRM
recommendation regarding the development of permanent regulatory
requirements specifies that changes made to experience and endorsements
be driven by the evaluation of data related to the instructor
requirements,
[[Page 59604]]
solo experience, and pilot-in-command (PIC) requirements for the
Robinson R-44 model.\14\ Although the SRM process is separate, some of
the SRM Team's assessment has supported this rulemaking effort, which
is reflected in this final rule. Items that would impact substantive
requirements for special training or experience established by this
SFAR do not fall under the scope of this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 88 FR 71510.
\12\ See Final Report for the SFAR 73, Robinson R-22/R-44
Special Training and Experience Requirements Safety Risk Assessment
(May 13, 2022), <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document/FAA-2023-2083-0002">https://www.regulations.gov/document/FAA-2023-2083-0002</a>.
\13\ See AD 95-26-04, Robinson Helicopter Company Model R22
Helicopters (January 1, 1996), <a href="https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/91BE0874983FB92686256A4D0061449D.0001">https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/91BE0874983FB92686256A4D0061449D.0001</a>.
\14\ As discussed in this preamble, this final rule adds an
expiration date to the SFAR as a first step in facilitating a
permanent rulemaking of R-22 and R-44 training requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since SFAR No. 73 was published, Robinson model R-22 and R-44
helicopters have continued to operate throughout the world. Although
other international civil aviation authorities have taken different
approaches to implementing pilot certification standards, Robinson
makes advisory material and safety alerts available to all operators
worldwide.\15\ Additionally, safety notices, available both in the
Pilot's Operating Handbook/Rotorcraft Flight Manual (POH/RFM) \16\ and
on the Robinson website, emphasize subject matter found in SFAR No. 73.
Although these notices are not regulatory in nature, they provide
guidance and recommended practices to operators for all Robinson
helicopters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Robinson Helicopter Company Safety Notices, <a href="https://robinsonheli.com/robinson-safety-notices/">https://robinsonheli.com/robinson-safety-notices/</a>.
\16\ See Robinson Helicopter Company POH/FRM <a href="https://robinsonheli.com/current-status/">https://robinsonheli.com/current-status/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. AD 95-11-09 (R-22) and AD 95-11-10 (R-44) Low G Cyclic Pushover
Prohibition Background
SFAR No. 73 consists of ground and flight training requirements,
including low G flight training.\17\ However, shortly after the initial
adoption of the SFAR in 1995, the FAA prohibited intentionally inducing
low G flight in R-22 and R-44 helicopters due to the inherent risk in
performing those maneuvers through ADs 95-11-09 (R-22) \18\ and 95-11-
10 (R-44).\19\ That action was prompted by FAA analysis of the
manufacturer's data that indicated a low G cyclic pushover maneuver may
result in mast-bumping on the Robinson model R-22 helicopters. If
uncorrected, this condition could result in an in-flight main rotor
separation or contact between the main rotor blades and the airframe of
the helicopter and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. The
FAA found this condition could also occur in a Robinson model R-44
helicopter due to the similar operating characteristics and design
features. The ADs require the installation of placards in the
helicopter and the insertion of a prohibition against low G cyclic
pushover maneuvers into the limitations section of the RFM/POH.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See 14 CFR part 61, Special Federal Aviation Regulation No.
73--Robinson R-22/R-44 Special Training and Experience Requirements.
\18\ See AD 95-11-09, Robinson Helicopter Company Model R22
Helicopters (Jul. 14, 1995), <a href="https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/AB0E6D73A5A548F186256A4D006126BD.0001">https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/AB0E6D73A5A548F186256A4D006126BD.0001</a>.
\19\ See AD 95-11-10, Robinson Helicopter Company Model R44
Helicopters (Jul. 14, 1995), <a href="https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/FED1D31B434F466E86256A4D00613579.0001">https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/FED1D31B434F466E86256A4D00613579.0001</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Summary of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
On October 17, 2023, the FAA published an NPRM that proposed to
update SFAR No. 73, Robinson R-22/R-44 Special Training and Experience
Requirements, to provide consistency with other FAA regulatory
requirements, training, and testing publications.\20\ Specifically, the
NPRM proposed to remove the low G dual flight instruction requirement
to align the SFAR with current aircraft placard requirements and the
limitations section of the RFM/POH set forth by ADs. Although the FAA
proposed to remove the requirement for flight training on the effects
of low G maneuvers and proper recovery procedures under paragraph 2(b)
of SFAR No. 73 (aeronautical experience), the FAA proposed to continue
to require low G maneuvers and proper recovery procedures as a ground
training (currently referred to as ``awareness training'') subject area
under paragraph 2(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See Robinson Helicopter R-22 and R-44 Special Training and
Experience Requirements, 88 FR 71509 (Oct. 17, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NPRM also proposed to update the SFAR to mirror the terminology
currently used in part 61, the Helicopter Flying Handbook, Airman
Certification Standards, and Practical Test Standards. First, paragraph
2(a) of SFAR No. 73 currently uses the term ``awareness training'' to
distinguish ground training requirements from aeronautical experience
requirements, which does not have a part 61 definition. Conversely,
ground training is defined in Sec. 61.1(b) as ``training, other than
flight training, received from an authorized instructor.'' Therefore,
the FAA proposed to replace the term ``awareness training'' in
paragraph 2(a) with ``ground training.'' \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ As discussed in the NPRM, upon effectivity of this final
rule, the FAA will interpret endorsements, websites, or other
publications and documents that use the term ``awareness training''
as synonymous with the term ``ground training'' as defined in 14 CFR
61.1(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, part 61 does not define the term ``enhanced.'' In the
context of the SFAR, the FAA intends ``enhanced'' to mean different
autorotation iterations. However, the term lacks sufficient specificity
to adequately inform the regulated community what autorotation
maneuvers are expected to be performed.\22\ Therefore, the FAA proposed
to remove the term ``enhanced'' from paragraphs 2(b)(1)(ii),
2(b)(2)(ii), 2(b)(3) and (4), and 2(b)(5)(iii) of the SFAR and clarify
it with language specifying that the training must include autorotation
procedures and energy management, including utilizing a combination of
flight control inputs and maneuvering to prevent overshooting or
undershooting the selected landing area from an entry altitude that
permits safe recovery. As discussed in the NPRM, the R-22 training
differs slightly from the R-44 training because the RFM/POH does not
provide information for airspeed and main rotor revolutions per minute
to perform an autorotation minimum rate of descent configuration,
whereas the R-44 flight manual establishes those flight parameters.\23\
The FAA proposed that the new sections will require flight training to
include autorotations at an entry altitude that permits safe
maneuvering and recovery utilizing maximum glide configuration for the
Robinson model R-22 and R-44 helicopter and minimum rate of descent
configuration for the Robinson model R-44 helicopter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See 88 FR 71512.
\23\ See 88 FR 71513.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, the terminology ``low rotor RPM (blade stall)'' is currently
identified as a ground training topic in paragraph 2(a)(3)(iii). This
ground training topic places blade stall in parentheticals, which could
suggest that low rotor RPM and blade stall are synonymous. However,
they are different topics; low RPM is the onset of the emergency, and
stall is the state at which the aircraft becomes unrecoverable.
Therefore, the NPRM proposed to remove the parentheticals and label
this ground topic as ``low rotor RPM and rotor stall'' to better align
SFAR No. 73 terminology with the HFH.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See Helicopter Flying Handbook, FAA-H-8083-21B (2019)
<a href="https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/helicopter_flying_handbook/helicopter_flying_handbook.pdf">https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/helicopter_flying_handbook/helicopter_flying_handbook.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the NPRM proposed to remove the terms ``certified'' and
``certificated'' from SFAR No. 73 when used to describe flight
instructors. The FAA proposed using flight instructor authorization
requirements specific to SFAR No. 73, paragraph 2(b)(5)(iv),
[[Page 59605]]
throughout the SFAR, where appropriate.
The NPRM also proposed to clarify the annual flight review
requirements for less experienced pilots (i.e., those pilots who have
not had at least 200 flight hours in helicopters, at least 50 of which
were in the Robinson model R-22 or R-44, as applicable).\25\ Such
flight review requirements are currently identified in paragraphs
2(b)(1)(ii) and 2(b)(2)(ii) of the SFAR and are grouped together in the
same paragraph that describes the general pilot-in-command flight
training. The annual flight review conditions for less experienced
pilots in this grouping are not clearly stated or easily discernable
from the general pilot-in-command flight training. Furthermore, these
flight review requirements do not specify which subjects less
experienced pilots must accomplish to satisfy the ground training
portion of the flight review. To resolve these issues, the FAA proposed
to move the annual flight review requirements located in paragraphs
2(b)(1)(ii) and 2(b)(2)(ii) for that specified group of pilots to
separate paragraphs 2(b)(1)(iii) and 2(b)(2)(iii) and identify the
general subject areas (from current awareness training, now required
ground training) and the associated abnormal and emergency procedures.
The FAA noted in the NRPM that the change would not impact the flight
review requirements outlined in paragraph 2(c) (other than conforming
editorial revisions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ As established in the first publication of the final rule
for SFAR No. 73 in 1995, pilots who do not meet a threshold
experience level in the R-22 or R-44 (i.e., those with less than 200
flight hours in helicopters and at least 50 hours in the model of
Robinson helicopters) are required to complete an annual flight
review to continue to act as PIC in the R-22 or R-44, as
appropriate. This requirement is in addition to the flight review
requirements outlined in 2(c) of the respective model of helicopter
and consist of the ground and flight as proposed in paragraphs
2(b)(1)(iii) and 2(b)(2)(iii) of the NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the NPRM proposed three revisions largely editorial
in nature. First, the FAA proposed to remove the long-expired
compliance dates in paragraphs 2(a)(1), (2), and (4). Next, the FAA
proposed to update the applicability section in paragraph 1 to include
persons who provide ground and flight training and who conduct a flight
review in a Robinson R-22 or R-44 helicopter. Finally, the FAA proposed
to add an expiration date to the SFAR to allow the FAA time to review
and refine the R-22 and R-44 requirements set forth in this SFAR before
permanent codification.
In response to public comments received on or before the comment
period closed on December 18, 2023, the FAA finds the proposed
revisions to the regulations sufficient to achieve the goal of the
rulemaking, which is to update and clarify the SFAR. This preamble
subsequently responds to comments, and this final rule adopts the
NPRM's proposal without changes.
D. General Overview of Comments
The FAA received and considered five comments on the NPRM,
consisting of comments from Robinson, Helicopter Association
International (HAI),\26\ and three individuals. A majority of the
commenters supported the rule, which included three commenters
expressing support in addition to proposing changes. Two individual
commenters neither supported nor opposed the rule, however, one of
these commenters provided a suggestion. None of the commenters opposed
the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ The FAA notes that on February 26, 2024, the commenter
announced the renaming of Helicopter Association International (HAI)
to Vertical Aviation International (VAI).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Discussion of Comments and the Final Rule
A. Support for the Rule
The majority of commenters expressed support for the NPRM's
proposed changes to SFAR No. 73. HAI agreed with the modifications as
proposed and reiterated that the proposal would eliminate the conflict
between the low G flight requirements in SFAR No. 73 and ADs 95-11-09
and 95-11-10. HAI also supported the proposed five-year expiration date
for SFAR No. 73 with the understanding that its content will eventually
be moved to a permanent location in Title 14. HAI provided
recommendations pertaining to analyses and reviews to inform the FAA's
future permanent rulemaking, which is subsequently discussed in section
IV.B of this preamble.
Robinson stated that the NPRM provides a number of necessary
revisions to clarify requirements and opined on the SRM Team
assessment, which is subsequently discussed in section IV.B of this
preamble. An individual commenter also agreed with the proposal but
stated that the training requirement for the R22 and R44 as promulgated
by the original SFAR should only have required low G avoidance rather
than requiring low G maneuvers to be conducted on purpose. While this
recommendation neither supports nor opposes the proposed rule, the FAA
finds that the revisions as set forth in this rulemaking align with the
commenter's statement (i.e., not conducting low G maneuvers
purposefully in flight). Additionally, another individual commenter
specifically agreed with the proposed removal of effects of low G
maneuvers and proper recovery procedures from flight training
requirements. This commenter further suggested those concepts be added
to the ground training topics set forth in paragraph 2(a) (currently
termed ``awareness training''); the FAA notes such changes were already
proposed in the NPRM.
B. Suggested Changes to the Rule
Three commenters suggested changes to the proposed regulatory text,
asked specific questions, or made related recommendations.
An individual commenter stated that a flight instructor authorized
to provide training outlined in SFAR No. 73 should not be required to
complete two flight reviews in the R-22 and R-44 every two years. The
commenter further commented that this issue should be addressed after
the SFAR expires, if not sooner. The FAA interprets the commenter as
disagreeing with the current model-specific flight review requirements
for those who are eligible to function as PIC in the R-22 and/or R-44,
found in paragraph 2(c) of the SFAR. To operate as PIC in either the R-
22 or R-44, paragraph 2(c) requires a model-specific flight review,
which includes satisfying applicable requirements in Sec. 61.56,
ground training outlined in paragraph 2(a)(3), and flight training in
abnormal and emergency procedures required by paragraph 2(b) for the
appropriate model aircraft. Flight instructor experience conducting
training in an R-22 or R-44 helicopter does not replace the flight
review requirements as described in paragraph 2(c) that provide for
regular assessment of pilot skills and aeronautical knowledge to act as
PIC.
As discussed in the NPRM to this rule and original rulemaking for
the SFAR, all pilots, regardless of their level of experience, must
have a greater awareness of the flight conditions that have led to main
rotor/airframe contact accidents in Robinson model R-22 and R-44
helicopters and have the capability to respond appropriately when those
conditions are encountered.\27\ Supplemental analysis, including by the
FAA Flight Standardization Board (FSB) <SUP>28 29</SUP> and by
[[Page 59606]]
the NTSB,\30\ supports model-specific flight reviews as necessary for
the Robinson model R-22 and R-44 helicopters to ensure pilots maintain
proficiency and competency over time. A flight instructor who is also
acting as PIC of a Robinson model R-22 and/or R-44 helicopter must
comply with the model-specific flight review requirements established
in paragraph 2(c). Given the accident history of the R-22 and R-44 and
the lack of any changed information to support the elimination of
model-specific flight reviews (i.e., two separate flight reviews for
those persons who seek to instruct and may act as PIC in both the R-22
and R-44 helicopter), the FAA will not adopt the recommendation to
remove model-specific flight review requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See Robinson R-22/R-44 Special Training and Experience
Requirements, 60 FR 11254 (Mar. 27, 1995).
\28\ Robinson R-22 Flight Standardization Report, Published
February 15, 1995, <a href="https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/DRSDOCID162186082420240430181938.0001">https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/DRSDOCID162186082420240430181938.0001</a>;
Robinson R-22 Flight Standardization Report, Published December
17, 2018,<a href="https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/12EA7A537A55143F86258394006281DB.0001">https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/12EA7A537A55143F86258394006281DB.0001</a>;
Robinson R-44 Flight Standardization Report, Published February
15, 1995, <a href="https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/DRSDOCID186317524120240430200522.0001">https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/DRSDOCID186317524120240430200522.0001</a>;
Robinson R-44 Flight Standardization Report, Published December
17, 2018,<a href="https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/17AE3EE7274CD67E86258394006301A2.0001">https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/17AE3EE7274CD67E86258394006301A2.0001</a>.
\29\ The first published SFAR No. 73, with an effective date of
March 27, 1995, adopted specific training and experience
recommendations put forth by a Flight Standardization Board (FSB)
and recorded in FSB Reports Robinson model R-22 and R-44 dated
February 15, 1995. This FSB Report was later revised on December 17,
2018, which references training requirements as outlined in SFAR No.
73. The NTSB Special Investigation Report published on April 12,1996
further recommended that FSB specifications are made permanent.
\30\ See National Transportation Safety Board, Special
Investigation Report, Robinson Helicopter Company R22 Loss of Main
Rotor Control Accidents, Adopted April 2, 1996, <a href="https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SIR9603.pdf">https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SIR9603.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to generally agreeing with the NPRM, Robinson's comment
also noted general concerns with their lack of involvement in the SFAR
No. 73 rulemaking process and the rationale of proposing to integrate
only some of the SRM Team's recommendations.\31\ Specifically, Robinson
noted a lack of explanation as to why, first, certain recommendations
from the safety risk assessment were included in the NPRM while others
were not and, second, why Robinson's request to remove the R-44 from
SFAR No. 73 requirements, as noted in the SRM report, was not
incorporated into the rulemaking. This rulemaking was not intended to
implement all recommendations set forth by the SRM Team. The SRM Team's
recommendations that would change required specialized training and
experience (i.e., substantive revisions to the SFAR), including
modifications to the requirements for the Robinson model R-44
helicopter, are identified in the SRM report as items to assess during
the development of permanent requirements. Conversely, the FAA
undertook this rulemaking to adopt recommendations that would not
substantively change the current training and experience regime as the
first step in a tiered, long-term revision to the SFAR. Specifically,
as previously stated, the FAA intends the five-year time period (as
promulgated by the expiration date added to the SFAR in this final
rule) to allow the FAA time to review and refine the R-22 and R-44
requirements for ground training, aeronautical experience, including
flight training, and flight reviews. Therefore, the FAA will not make
any changes to the final rule resulting from Robinson's recommendation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ As noted in the SRM report found in this docket (FAA-2023-
2083), subject matter experts (SMEs) from the FAA and industry were
invited to provide their input. Tables 1, 2, and 3 in the report
list the members, observers, and facilitation team of the SRM Team,
respectively. While in many cases there are multiple SRM Team
members from a single organization, each organization on the SRM
Team received one vote when it came time to identify hazards,
determine risk levels, and develop safety recommendations. The
organizations included members from Robinson Helicopter Company and
HAI. The FAA notes that the public, including stakeholders such as
Robinson, does not partake in the process of drafting and issuing an
NPRM, but had the opportunity to provide input for due consideration
during the comment period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly, HAI recommended that the FAA immediately establish an
appropriate government or industry body tasked with providing research
and recommendations informing the FAA's plan to review or revise
current R-22 and R-44 requirements, to sunset SFAR No. 73, and to move
the applicable requirements to a permanent location in title 14.
Specifically, HAI recommended the FAA either charter a Robinson Model
R-22 and R-44 helicopter training and experience Aviation Rulemaking
Committee \32\ or task the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee \33\
with establishing an industry working group. The FAA acknowledges that
these are possible options to evaluate requirements for Robinson model
R-22 and R-44 helicopters for future rulemaking. The scope of this
final rule is solely to clarify and update current requirements in SFAR
No. 73. The FAA will not make any changes to the final rule based on
this recommendation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC)--A rulemaking committee
that provides information, advice and recommendations to the FAA.
The FAA has the sole authority to establish and task ARCs, which are
not subject to Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and therefore
somewhat more flexible. ARCs are formed on an ad hoc basis, for a
specific purpose, and are typically of limited duration. <a href="https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/committees/documents/index.cfm/committee/definitions">https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/committees/documents/index.cfm/committee/definitions</a>.
\33\ Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC)--A formal
standing advisory committee that is subject to FACA and provides the
FAA with information, advice, and recommendations, concerning
rulemaking activity for topics such as aircraft owners and
operators, airman and flight crewmembers, airports, maintenance
providers, manufactures, public citizens and passenger groups, and
training providers. <a href="https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/committees/documents/index.cfm/committee/definitions">https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/committees/documents/index.cfm/committee/definitions</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
Federal agencies consider impacts of regulatory actions under a
variety of executive orders and other requirements. First, Executive
Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563, as amended by Executive Order
14094 (``Modernizing Regulatory Review''), direct that each Federal
agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned
determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify the
costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354)
requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes
on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39)
prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Fourth, the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 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 that
may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments,
in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more
(adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. The current
threshold after adjustment for inflation is $183 million using the most
current (2023) Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product.
This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of the
economic impacts of this rule.
In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that this
rule: will result in benefits that justify costs; is not a
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866, as amended; will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities; will not create
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States; and
will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal
governments, or on the private sector.
[[Page 59607]]
A. Regulatory Impact Analysis
This final rule removes a flight training requirement from SFAR No.
73 that cannot be currently performed in the aircraft because it is
inconsistent with Airworthiness Directives (ADs) related to Robinson
model R-22 and R-44 helicopters. It is current practice not to perform
the flight training maneuver notwithstanding the regulatory requirement
in the SFAR; therefore, the change imposes no new cost. The FAA expects
the final rule to promote safety without imposing costs by clarifying
requirements, eliminating inconsistencies, and updating language.
The rule is needed to resolve a contradiction between SFAR No. 73,
which requires low G maneuvers during flight training for Robinson R-22
and R-44 helicopters, and subsequent ADs that prohibit low G cyclic
pushover maneuvers in these aircraft. The FAA originally promulgated
SFAR No. 73 in 1995 in response to a series of fatal accidents
attributed to pilot inexperience resulting in main rotor and airframe
contact. To address these safety concerns, SFAR No. 73 established
special awareness training, aeronautical experience, endorsement, and
flight review requirements for pilots operating Robinson R-22 and R-44
helicopters. However, within months, the FAA issued ADs requiring the
insertion of limitations in the rotorcraft flight manual and aircraft
placards prohibiting low G cyclic pushover maneuvers. The final rule
removes the requirement for low G maneuvers during in-flight training
from SFAR No. 73 while continuing ground training related to low G
conditions and proper recovery procedures. The final rule makes other
conforming changes to improve clarity and consistency without creating
new information collections or requiring immediate changes to current
industry or FAA publications and documents.
Based on this information, the FAA has determined that the final
rule will have minimal economic effects.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601-612), as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (Pub. L. 104-121) and the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (Pub. L.
111-240), requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of the
regulatory action on small business and other small entities and to
minimize any significant economic impact. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, and not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
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 with a reasoned explanation.
The final rule applies most directly to providers of training for
Robinson model R-22 and R-44 helicopters. Some of these training
providers are small entities. However, the final rule does not impose
new burdens. The final rule aligns SFAR No. 73 with current practice
and Airworthiness Directives (ADs) related to Robinson model R-22 and
R-44 helicopter training requirements. Total training hours remain the
same. The final rule also updates language and makes other conforming
changes to improve clarity and consistency regarding training for
Robinson model R-22 and R-44 helicopters without imposing new
recordkeeping or other requirements.
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, the FAA certifies that the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
C. International Trade Impact Assessment
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 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 final rule and
determined that the rule responds to a domestic safety objective. The
FAA has determined that this rule is not considered an unnecessary
obstacle to trade.
D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
governs the issuance of Federal regulations that require unfunded
mandates. An unfunded mandate is a regulation that requires a State,
local, or tribal government or the private sector to incur direct costs
without the Federal Government having first provided the funds to pay
those costs. The FAA determined that the rule will not result in the
expenditure of $183 million or more by State, local, or tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector, in any one year.
This 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 collection associated with
this final rule.
F. International Compatibility
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
determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices
that correspond to these regulations.
G. Environmental Analysis
FAA Order 1050.1F identifies FAA actions that are categorically
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has
determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical
exclusion identified in paragraph 5-6.6f for regulations and involves
no extraordinary circumstances.
[[Page 59608]]
VI. Executive Order Determinations
A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order (E.O.) 13132, Federalism. The FAA has
determined that this action will 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, will not have
federalism implications.
B. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Consistent with Executive Order 13175, Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,\34\ and FAA Order 1210.20,
American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Consultation Policy and
Procedures,\35\ the FAA ensures that Federally Recognized Tribes
(Tribes) are given the opportunity to provide meaningful and timely
input regarding proposed Federal actions that have the potential to
have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes; or to affect uniquely or significantly
their respective Tribes. At this point, the FAA has not identified any
unique or significant effects, environmental or otherwise, on tribes
resulting from this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 6, 2000).
\35\ FAA Order No. 1210.20 (Jan. 28, 2004), available at <a href="https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/1210.pdf">https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/1210.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
The FAA analyzed this final rule under E.O. 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The FAA has determined that it
will 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.
D. Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation
Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation, 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 will have no
effect on international regulatory cooperation.
VII. Additional Information
A. Electronic Access and Filing
A copy of the NPRM, all comments received, this final rule, and all
background material may be viewed online at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>
using the docket number listed above. A copy of this final rule will be
placed in the docket. Electronic retrieval help and guidelines are
available on the website. It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days
each year. An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded
from the Office of the Federal Register's website at <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov">https://www.federalregister.gov</a> and the Government Publishing Office's website
at <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov">https://www.govinfo.gov</a>. A copy may also be found on the FAA's
Regulations and Policies website at <a href="https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies">https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies</a>.
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 final rule,
including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed in
the electronic docket for this rulemaking.
B. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996 requires the FAA to comply with small entity requests for
information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations
within its jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this
document may contact its local FAA official or the person listed under
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the beginning of the
preamble. To find out more about SBREFA on the internet, visit <a href="https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/">https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/</a>.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 61
Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
The Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 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, 44729, 44903, 45102-45103, 45301-45302; Sec. 2307 Pub.
L. 114-190, 130 Stat. 615 (49 U.S.C. 44703 note); and sec. 318, Pub.
L. 115-254, 132 Stat. 3186 (49 U.S.C. 44703 note).
0
2. Revise Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 73 to read as
follows:
Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 73--Robinson Helicopter
Company, Robinson R-22/R-44 Special Training and Experience
Requirements
Sections
1. Applicability.
2. Required training, aeronautical experience, endorsements, and
flight review.
3. Expiration date.
1. Applicability. Under the procedures prescribed in this section,
this Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) applies to all persons
who seek to manipulate the controls, act as pilot in command, provide
ground training or flight training, or conduct a flight review in a
Robinson model R-22 or R-44 helicopter. The requirements stated in this
SFAR are in addition to the current requirements of this part.
2. Required training, aeronautical experience, endorsements, and
flight review.
(a) Ground Training.
(1) Except as provided in paragraph 2(a)(2) of this SFAR, no person
may manipulate the controls of a Robinson model R-22 or R-44
helicopter-for the purpose of flight unless the ground training
specified in paragraph 2(a)(3) of this SFAR is completed and the
person's logbook has been endorsed by a flight instructor authorized
under paragraph 2(b)(5)(iv) of this SFAR.
(2) A person who holds a rotorcraft category and helicopter class
rating on that person's pilot certificate and meets the experience
requirements of paragraph 2(b)(1) or paragraph 2(b)(2) of this SFAR may
not manipulate the controls of a Robinson model R-22 or R-44 helicopter
for the purpose of flight unless the ground training specified in
paragraph 2(a)(3) of this SFAR is completed and the person's logbook
has
[[Page 59609]]
been endorsed by a flight instructor authorized under paragraph
2(b)(5)(iv) of this SFAR.
(3) Ground training must be conducted by a flight instructor who
has been authorized under paragraph 2(b)(5)(iv) of this SFAR and
consists of the following general subject areas:
(i) Energy management;
(ii) Mast bumping;
(iii) Low rotor revolutions per minute (RPM) and rotor stall;
(iv) Low G conditions, effects, and proper recovery procedures; and
(v) Rotor RPM decay.
(4) The general subject areas identified in paragraph 2(a)(3) of
this SFAR are intended to cover both Robinson model R-22 and R-44
helicopters.
(5) A person who can show satisfactory completion of the
manufacturer's safety course may obtain an endorsement from an FAA
aviation safety inspector in lieu of completing the ground training
required by paragraphs 2(a)(1) and (2) of this SFAR.
(b) Aeronautical Experience.
(1) No person may act as pilot in command of a Robinson model R-22
unless that person:
(i) Has logged at least 200 flight hours in helicopters, at least
50 flight hours of which were in the Robinson model R-22 helicopter; or
(ii) Has logged at least 10 hours of flight training in the
Robinson model R-22 helicopter and has received an endorsement from a
flight instructor authorized under paragraph 2(b)(5)(iv) of this SFAR
that the individual has been given the training required by this
paragraph 2(b)(1)(ii) and is proficient to act as pilot in command of
an R-22. The flight training must include at least the following
abnormal and emergency procedures:
(A) Training in autorotation procedures and energy management,
including utilizing a combination of flight control inputs and
maneuvering to prevent overshooting or undershooting the selected
landing area from an entry altitude that permits safe recovery;
(B) Autorotations at an entry altitude that permits safe
maneuvering and recovery utilizing maximum glide configuration;
(C) Engine rotor RPM control without the use of the governor; and
(D) Low rotor RPM recognition and recovery.
(iii) Pilots who do not meet the experience requirement of
paragraph 2(b)(1)(i) of this SFAR may not act as pilot in command of a
Robinson model R-22 helicopter beginning 12 calendar months after the
date of the endorsement identified in paragraph 2(b)(1)(ii) of this
SFAR until those pilots have:
(A) Completed a flight review of the ground training subject areas
identified by paragraph 2(a)(3) of this SFAR and the flight training
identified in paragraph 2(b)(1)(ii) of this SFAR in an R-22; and
(B) Obtained an endorsement for that flight review from a flight
instructor authorized under paragraph 2(b)(5)(iv) of this SFAR.
(2) No person may act as pilot in command of a Robinson model R-44
helicopter unless that person--
(i) Has logged at least 200 flight hours in helicopters, at least
50 flight hours of which were in the Robinson model R-44 helicopter.
The pilot in command may credit up to 25 flight hours in the Robinson
model R-22 helicopter toward the 50-hour requirement in the Robinson
model R-44 helicopter; or
(ii) Has logged at least 10 hours of flight training in a Robinson
helicopter, at least 5 hours of which must have been accomplished in
the Robinson model R-44 helicopter, and has received an endorsement
from a flight instructor authorized under paragraph 2(b)(5)(iv) of this
SFAR that the individual has been given the training required by this
paragraph 2(b)(2)(ii) and is proficient to act as pilot in command of
an R-44. The flight training must include at least the following
abnormal and emergency procedures--
(A) Training in autorotation procedures and energy management,
including utilizing a combination of flight control inputs and
maneuvering to prevent overshooting or undershooting the selected
landing area from an entry altitude that permits safe recovery;
(B) Autorotations at an entry altitude that permits safe
maneuvering and recovery utilizing minimum rate of descent
configuration and maximum glide configuration;
(C) Engine rotor RPM control without the use of the governor; and
(D) Low rotor RPM recognition and recovery.
(iii) Pilots who do not meet the experience requirement of
paragraph 2(b)(2)(i) of this SFAR may not act as pilot in command of a
Robinson model R-44 helicopter beginning 12 calendar months after the
date of the endorsement identified in paragraph 2(b)(2)(ii) of this
SFAR until those pilots have:
(A) Completed a flight review of the ground training subject areas
identified by paragraph 2(a)(3) and the flight training identified in
paragraph 2(b)(2)(ii) of this SFAR in an R-44; and
(B) Obtained an endorsement for that flight review from a flight
instructor authorized under paragraph 2(b)(5)(iv) of this SFAR.
(3) A person who does not hold a rotorcraft category and helicopter
class rating must have logged at least 20 hours of flight training in a
Robinson model R-22 helicopter from a flight instructor authorized
under paragraph 2(b)(5)(iv) of this SFAR prior to operating it in solo
flight. In addition, the person must obtain an endorsement from a
flight instructor authorized under paragraph 2(b)(5)(iv) of this SFAR
that training has been given in those maneuvers and procedures, and the
instructor has found the applicant proficient to solo a Robinson model
R-22 helicopter. This endorsement is valid for a period of 90 days. The
flight training must include at least the following abnormal and
emergency procedures:
(i) Training in autorotation procedures and energy management,
including utilizing a combination of flight control inputs and
maneuvering to prevent overshooting or undershooting the selected
landing area from an entry altitude that permits safe recovery;
(ii) Autorotations at an entry altitude that permits safe
maneuvering and recovery utilizing maximum glide configuration;
(iii) Engine rotor RPM control without the use of the governor; and
(iv) Low rotor RPM recognition and recovery.
(4) A person who does not hold a rotorcraft category and helicopter
class rating must have logged at least 20 hours of flight training in a
Robinson model R-44 helicopter from a flight instructor authorized
under paragraph 2(b)(5)(iv) of this SFAR prior to operating it in solo
flight. In addition, the person must obtain an endorsement from a
flight instructor authorized under paragraph 2(b)(5)(iv) of this SFAR
that training has been given in those maneuvers and procedures and the
instructor has found the applicant proficient to solo a Robinson model
R-44 helicopter. This endorsement is valid for a period of 90 days. The
flight training must include at least the following abnormal and
emergency procedures:
(i) Training in autorotation procedures and energy management,
including utilizing a combination of flight control inputs and
maneuvering to prevent overshooting or undershooting the selected
landing area from an entry altitude that permits safe recovery;
(ii) Autorotations at an entry altitude that permits safe
maneuvering and recovery utilizing minimum rate of descent
configuration and maximum glide configuration;
[[Page 59610]]
(iii) Engine rotor RPM control without the use of the governor, and
(iv) Low rotor RPM recognition and recovery.
(5) No flight instructor may provide training or conduct a flight
review in a Robinson R-22 or R-44 unless that instructor--
(i) Completes the ground training in paragraph 2(a) of this SFAR.
(ii) For the Robinson model R-22 helicopter, has logged at least
200 flight hours in helicopters, at least 50 flight hours of which were
in the Robinson model R-22 helicopter, or for the Robinson model R-44
helicopter, logged at least 200 flight hours in helicopters, 50 flight
hours of which were in Robinson helicopters. Up to 25 flight hours of
Robinson model R-22 helicopter flight time may be credited toward the
50-hour requirement.
(iii) Has completed flight training in a Robinson model R-22 or R-
44 helicopter, or both, on the following abnormal and emergency
procedures--
(A) Training in autorotation procedures and energy management,
including utilizing a combination of flight control inputs and
maneuvering to prevent overshooting or undershooting the selected
landing area from an entry altitude that permits safe recovery;
(B) For the Robinson model R-22 helicopter, autorotations at an
entry altitude that permits safe maneuvering and recovery utilizing
maximum glide configuration. For the Robinson model R-44 helicopter,
autorotations at an entry altitude that permits safe maneuvering and
recovery utilizing maximum glide configuration and minimum rate of
descent configuration;
(C) Engine rotor RPM control without the use of the governor; and
(D) Low rotor RPM recognition and recovery.
(iv) Has been authorized by endorsement from an FAA aviation safety
inspector or authorized designated examiner that the instructor has
completed the appropriate training, meets the experience requirements,
and has satisfactorily demonstrated an ability to provide training on
the general subject areas of paragraph 2(a)(3) of this SFAR, and the
flight training identified in paragraph 2(b)(5)(iii) of this SFAR.
(c) Flight Review.
(1) No flight review completed to satisfy Sec. 61.56 by an
individual after becoming eligible to function as pilot in command in a
Robinson model R-22 helicopter shall be valid for the operation of an
R-22 unless that flight review was taken in an R-22.
(2) No flight review completed to satisfy Sec. 61.56 by an
individual after becoming eligible to function as pilot in command in a
Robinson model R-44 helicopter shall be valid for the operation of an
R-44 unless that flight review was taken in the R-44.
(3) The flight review will include a review of the ground training
subject areas of paragraph 2(a)(3) of this SFAR and flight training in
abnormal and emergency procedures in the Robinson model R-22 or R-44
helicopter, as appropriate, identified in paragraph 2(b) of this SFAR.
(d) Currency Requirements. No person may act as pilot in command of
a Robinson model R-22 or R-44 helicopter carrying passengers unless the
pilot in command has met the recency of flight experience requirements
of Sec. 61.57 in an R-22 or R-44, as appropriate.
3. Expiration date. This SFAR expires August 22, 2029, unless
sooner revised or rescinded.
Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a),
and 44703 in Washington, DC.
Michael Gordon Whitaker,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2024-15924 Filed 7-22-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on July 23, 2024.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.