Rule2024-24886
Integration of Powered-Lift: Pilot Certification and Operations; Miscellaneous Amendments Related to Rotorcraft and Airplanes
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
November 21, 2024
Effective
January 21, 2025
Issuing agencies
Transportation DepartmentFederal Aviation Administration
Abstract
This final rule adopts permanent amendments and a Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) for a period of ten years to: facilitate the certification of powered-lift pilots, clarify operating rules applicable to operations involving a powered-lift, and finalize other amendments which are necessary to integrate powered-lift into the National Airspace System (NAS). In this final action, the FAA finalizes its alternate framework to stand-up initial groups of powered-lift pilots and flight instructors. Most notably, the FAA adopts alternate frameworks to facilitate the certification of pilots seeking qualifications in a powered-lift with single functioning flight controls and a single pilot station. In response to commenters, the FAA provides clarification for certain operating rules and adopts a performance-based approach to certain operating rules to enable powered-lift operations. In addition to finalizing provisions for powered-lift, this action also makes changes to practical tests in aircraft that require type ratings, including airplanes and helicopters, training center rotorcraft instructor eligibility, training and testing requirements, and training center use of rotorcraft in flight training.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 225 (Thursday, November 21, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 225 (Thursday, November 21, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 92296-92522]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-24886]
[[Page 92295]]
Vol. 89
Thursday,
No. 225
November 21, 2024
Part II
Department of Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Aviation Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14 CFR Parts 1, 11, 43, et al.
Integration of Powered-Lift: Pilot Certification and Operations;
Miscellaneous Amendments Related to Rotorcraft and Airplanes; Final
Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 89 , No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 92296]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 1, 11, 43, 60, 61, 91, 97, 111, 135, 136, 141, 142,
and 194
[Docket No. FAA-2023-1275; Amdt. Nos. 1-78, 11-69, 43-62, 60-8, 61-157,
91-379, 97-1340, 111-2, 135-147, 136-4, 141-26, 142-11, and 194-1]
RIN 2120-AL72
Integration of Powered-Lift: Pilot Certification and Operations;
Miscellaneous Amendments Related to Rotorcraft and Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule adopts permanent amendments and a Special
Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) for a period of ten years to:
facilitate the certification of powered-lift pilots, clarify operating
rules applicable to operations involving a powered-lift, and finalize
other amendments which are necessary to integrate powered-lift into the
National Airspace System (NAS). In this final action, the FAA finalizes
its alternate framework to stand-up initial groups of powered-lift
pilots and flight instructors. Most notably, the FAA adopts alternate
frameworks to facilitate the certification of pilots seeking
qualifications in a powered-lift with single functioning flight
controls and a single pilot station. In response to commenters, the FAA
provides clarification for certain operating rules and adopts a
performance-based approach to certain operating rules to enable
powered-lift operations. In addition to finalizing provisions for
powered-lift, this action also makes changes to practical tests in
aircraft that require type ratings, including airplanes and
helicopters, training center rotorcraft instructor eligibility,
training and testing requirements, and training center use of
rotorcraft in flight training.
DATES: This final rule is effective January 21, 2025, except for
amendatory instruction 52 which is effective July 21, 2025.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
this final rule are approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of January 21, 2025.
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: For technical questions concerning
this action, contact Christina Grabill, AFS-810, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20591;
telephone (202) 267-1100; email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b1889cf7f0f09ce1dec6d4c3d4d59cfdd8d7c5f1d7d0d09fd6dec7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="754c5833343458251a021007101158391c1301351314145b121a03">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
B. Aircraft Certification
C. Airman Certification
D. Operational Requirements
E. International Operation of Powered-Lift
F. Summary of the Costs and Benefits
G. SFAR Framework and Duration
II. Authority for This Rulemaking
III. Background
A. General
B. Summary of the NPRM
C. General Overview of Comments
D. Differences Between the NPRM and the Final Rule
IV. Powered-Lift Type Certification and FSTD Qualification
A. Type Certification
B. Noise Certification
C. Qualification of Powered-Lift Flight Simulation Training
Devices (FSTDs)
V. Certification of Powered-Lift Pilots
A. Establish a Type Rating Requirement for Persons Seeking To
Act as PIC of Powered-Lift
B. Applicability of the Type Rating Requirement to Military
Pilots
C. Applicability of the SIC Qualification Requirements of Sec.
61.55 to Powered-Lift
D. Dual Controls Considerations Related to Flight Training and
Supervised Operating Experience
E. Supervised Operating Experience of Sec. 61.64
F. Establishment of an Alternate Pathway for Pilot Certification
G. Training in an Approved Program Under Parts 135, 141, and 142
H. Practical Tests
I. Miscellaneous Amendments
J. Part 135 Pilot Qualifications
K. Part 142 Training Centers
L. Subpart K of Part 91 Pilot Qualifications
VI. Operational Rules for Powered-Lift
A. Introduction
B. Part 91 Rules for Powered-Lift
C. Part 97 Rules for Powered-Lift
D. Part 135 Rules for Powered-Lift
E. Part 136 Rules for Powered-Lift
F. Part 43 Applicability to Powered-Lift
G. Pilot Records Database
VII. Air Traffic Operations
VIII. International Operations for Powered-Lift
A. Personnel Licensing
B. Operations of Aircraft
C. Airworthiness of Aircraft
IX. Advanced Air Mobility
X. SFAR Framework and Duration
XI. Autonomous Powered-Lift
XII. Comments to Regulatory Impact Analysis
XIII. FAA Readiness
XIV. Definitions
A. Definition of Powered-Lift
B. Definition of Flight Modes
C. Definition of Heliport
D. Definition of Autorotation
XV. Other Comments Related to Powered-Lift
A. Other Comments Related to Language or Definitions in the
Powered-Lift NPRM
B. Safety Systems or Procedures Not Addressed in the NPRM
C. Other Comments Related to Powered-Lift Design
D. Congressional Comments
XVI. Related Rulemakings
XVII. Severability
XVIII. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
A. Summary of the 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
H. Regulations Affecting Intrastate Aviation in Alaska
I. Congressional Review Act
XIX. Executive Order Determinations
A. Executive Order 14036, Promoting Competition in the United
States Economy
B. Executive Order 13985, Advancing Racial Equity and Support
for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government
C. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
D. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
E. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
F. Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation
XX. Additional Information
A. Electronic Access and Filing
B. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms Frequently Used in This Document
Abbreviations and Acronyms Used in This Document
ACO--Aircraft Certification Office
ACS--Airman Certification Standards
APD--Aircrew Program Designee
AIH--Aviation Instructor's Handbook
AQP--Advanced Qualification Program
ATC--Air Traffic Control
ATP--Airline Transport Pilot
ATO--Air Traffic Organization
CAMP--Continuous Airworthiness Maintenance Program
CFIT--Controlled Flight Into Terrain
CFR--Code of Federal Regulations
CLOA--Certificate and Letter of Authority
CVR--Cockpit Voice Recorder
DPE--Designated Pilot Examiner
GPS--Global Positioning System
GPWS--Ground Proximity Warning Systems
ELT--Emergency Locator Transmitter
ERT--Extended Review Team
FDR--Flight Data Recorder
FFS--Full Flight Simulator
FSB--Flight Standardization Board
FSBR--Flight Standardization Board Report
FSTD--Flight Simulation Training Device
[[Page 92297]]
FTD--Flight Training Device
HAA--Helicopter Air Ambulance
HTAWS--Helicopter Terrain Awareness Warning System
ICAO--International Civil Aviation Organization
IFR--Instrument Flight Rules
IMC--Instrument Meteorological Conditions
IOE--Initial Operating Experience
IPC--Instrument Proficiency Check
LOA--Letter of Authorization
LOFT--Line Oriented Flight Training
MDA--Minimum Descent Altitude
MCTW--Maximum Certificated Takeoff Weight
MEL--Minimum Equipment List
MFD--Multifunction Display
MGTOW--Maximum Gross Takeoff Weight
MMEL--Master Minimum Equipment List
NAS--National Airspace System
NPRM--Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
NM--Nautical Mile
NSP--National Simulator Program
NTSB--National Transportation Safety Board
OEM--Original Equipment Manufacturer
PA--Public Address System
PDP--Professional Development Program
PIC--Pilot in Command
PFD--Primary Flight Display
POI--Principal Operations Inspector
PTS--Practical Test Standards
QPS--Qualification Performance Standards
RPA--Rules of Particular Applicability
SARPs--Standards and Recommended Practices
SFAR--Special Federal Aviation Regulation
SIC--Second in Command
SLF--Supervised Line Flying
SOE--Supervised Operating Experience
SVO--Simplified Vehicle Operations
TAPL--Technically Advanced Powered-Lift
TAWS--Terrain Awareness and Warning System
TC--Type Certificate
TCE--Training Center Evaluator
TCDS--Type Certificate Data Sheet
VFR--Visual Flight Rules
VMC--Visual Meteorological Conditions
VTOL--Vertical Takeoff and Landing
I. Executive Summary
This final rule establishes the requirements for pilot
certification and operation of powered-lift. Powered-lift are defined
in title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 1 as
heavier-than-air aircraft capable of vertical takeoff, vertical
landing, and low speed flight that depends principally on engine-driven
lift devices or engine thrust for lift during these flight regimes and
on nonrotating airfoil(s) for lift during horizontal flight. Powered-
lift are capable of vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) while being
able to fly like an airplane during cruise flight. Currently, there are
no type-certificated powered-lift in civil operations; however, there
are several applicants seeking type certificates for such aircraft.
Several of the powered-lift that the FAA expects to enter the
civilian market have complex and unique design, flight, and handling
characteristics with varying degrees of automation. The FAA anticipates
that these aircraft will conduct an array of different operations, such
as transporting crew and material to offshore oil rigs, transporting
passengers from point-to-point as an air ambulance, and transporting
passengers in concentrated urban environments.
To safely integrate powered-lift in the national airspace system
(NAS), the FAA is making permanent changes to parts 61, 135, and 142 to
train and certificate powered-lift pilots and instructors, as well as
issuing a temporary Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) that
supplements existing rules, creates temporary alternatives for airman
certification, removes operational barriers, and mitigates safety risks
for powered-lift. As discussed in section X of this preamble, the
duration of the SFAR is 10 years.
Powered-lift will also be utilized to support the deployment of
advanced air mobility (AAM) operations. AAM is an umbrella term for an
air transportation system that moves people and cargo using
revolutionary new aircraft. The AAM Coordination and Leadership Act
defines AAM as ``a transportation system that transports people and
property by air between two points in the United States using aircraft
with advanced technologies, including electric aircraft or electric
vertical take-off and landing aircraft, in both controlled and
uncontrolled airspace.'' The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 updated
the definition to mean ``a transportation system that is comprised of
urban air mobility and regional air mobility using manned or unmanned
aircraft.'' \1\ Congress directed the Department of Transportation to
establish an advanced air mobility working group to plan for and
coordinate efforts necessary for maturation of the AAM ecosystem in the
United States through the Advanced Air Mobility Coordination and
Leadership Act. This rulemaking is an important step in facilitating
the integration of powered-lift and AAM into the NAS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024, Pub. L. 118-63 (May 16,
2024). The media often refer to these operations as ``air taxis'';
however, this term is used only in the context of 14 CFR chapter II
(pertaining to DOT-specific regulations). Consequently, throughout
this preamble, the FAA refers to these operations as passenger-
carrying operations or air carrier operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
This final rule addresses regulatory barriers to introducing
powered-lift as a new category of aircraft into operations in the NAS.
The final rule creates an alternate pathway for pilot certification and
enables operations under parts 91 (General Operating and Flight Rules),
97 (Standard Instrument Procedures), 135 (Commuter and On-Demand
Operations), and 136 (Commercial Air Tours).
The existing regulations in part 61 for training and certificating
powered-lift flight instructors and pilots do not adequately address
the unique challenges of introducing a new category of aircraft to
civil operations. First, the existing regulations did not anticipate
the diversity in design of the powered-lift that are working through
the aircraft certification process. Second, there are challenges with
applying existing aeronautical experience requirements to train and
certificate the initial cadre \2\ of powered-lift flight instructors
and pilots. In addition, part 135 regulations for certain commercial
operations do not contain specific requirements addressing the
qualifications for powered-lift pilots. Therefore, current part 135
pilot qualification requirements that apply to pilots of airplanes and
helicopters need to be amended to include powered-lift pilots to close
the safety gap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The FAA uses the term ``initial cadre'' throughout this
preamble. In some instances, initial cadre refers to a sufficient
number of instructors and evaluators to train and qualify pilots for
powered-lift ratings under an approved training program under part
135, 141, or 142. In other instances, the term refers to a
sufficient number of pilots who are rated in powered-lift to meet
the demands of the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, to address an operational safety risk that exists
because the current regulatory framework governing operations does not
contemplate powered-lift, changes had to be made to certain operational
rules. There are myriad operational rules under parts 91, 97, 135, and
136 that currently apply to ``airplanes,'' ``helicopters,'' and/or
``rotorcraft'' that should also apply to powered-lift.
Industry has expressed its intent to introduce these aircraft
immediately into passenger-carrying commercial operations under part
135, making the need to reconsider the existing airman certification
standards and operating regulations for powered-lift and address the
absence of specific regulations for pilots in part 135 more urgent. The
FAA requires and the public expects that commercial operations be
conducted with the highest regard for safety and by pilots who have the
requisite experience flying the particular category of aircraft in
which paying passengers will be transported. As a result, this
rulemaking is necessary to ensure that pilots for these aircraft are
properly trained and
[[Page 92298]]
that these rapidly developing aircraft can safely integrate and operate
within the NAS.
The following sections discuss the provisions being adopted in this
final rule.
B. Aircraft Certification
The FAA did not establish any new requirements for the type
certification of powered-lift, nor did it revise existing type
certification requirements. The FAA determined that existing aircraft
certification requirements are sufficient to type certificate powered-
lift as a special class under Sec. 21.17(b). The special class process
allows the FAA to address the novel features of unique and
nonconventional aircraft without the need for additional processes such
as special conditions or exemptions that would be required if the FAA
used the airworthiness standards already in place. The aircraft
certification requirements and comments the FAA received are discussed
in more detail in section IV.A. of this preamble.
C. Airman Certification
To maintain a level of safety commensurate with that expected for
airplanes and helicopters, the FAA adopts new requirements for pilots
to hold type ratings for each powered-lift they fly and qualification
requirements for powered-lift pilots serving in part 135 operations. To
address the obstacles to airman certification, the FAA provides
alternatives to certain requirements in part 61 through the
establishment of a new part 194, Special Federal Aviation Regulation
No. 120--Powered-Lift: Pilot Certification and Training; Operations
Requirements, to facilitate the training and certification of the
initial cadre of powered-lift instructors and pilots. In addition to
this alternate framework, the FAA adopts several pathways to
certificate powered-lift pilots utilizing aircraft with a single flight
control and single pilot station. The FAA is facilitating this through
three options: (1) recognition of a single flight control that is
accessible by both the student and flight instructor and allows for the
instructor to immediately intervene if necessary; (2) expanded use of
simulators to allow an applicant to train in a simulator and gain
necessary experience solo in the aircraft; and (3) deviation authority
for consideration of future advancements in technology that is not
currently validated at this time.
1. Type Rating
The FAA did not establish classes within the powered-lift category
because each powered-lift can have different configurations, unique
inceptors, diversified flight controls, and distinctive operating
characteristics. Further, the FAA lacks sufficient operational data to
identify commonality to establish classes within the powered-lift
category because powered-lift are still in the development phase. The
FAA finds that reasons for not establishing class ratings persist, and
the final rule adopts the proposal for all powered-lift pilot in
commands (PICs) to hold a type rating.
2. Flight Instructors
The FAA recognizes that, once the first powered-lift achieve type
certification, there will be an insufficient number of qualified flight
instructors to provide training to the pilots who will need to obtain
certificates and ratings necessary to serve in powered-lift operations.
For this reason, the FAA is allowing certain pilots employed by the
manufacturer to obtain the necessary training and experience for
powered-lift through the test flights and crew training activities
necessary for aircraft certification. Once the manufacturer's personnel
obtain the necessary ratings, they would form the initial cadre of
instructors who could conduct certification training in the
manufacturer's aircraft for certain instructor personnel at part 141
pilot schools, part 142 training centers, and part 135 operators. These
instructors under parts 141, 142, and 135 would then develop the
curricula for the initial powered-lift training at their respective
organizations and conduct certification training at their respective
certificate holders. The FAA finalizes this alternate framework for
test pilots and instructor pilots to facilitate certification training
as proposed.
3. Alternate Framework for Pilot Certification
Even with sufficient qualified flight instructors, the existing
airman certification rules for powered-lift present barriers for
persons seeking to accomplish the training and experience necessary to
obtain the certificates and ratings for commercial operations. In
response to industry concerns, the FAA adopts alternate requirements
for meeting PIC flight time and cross-country flight time requirements
in part 61 and expanding the opportunity for pilots to obtain powered-
lift ratings at the commercial pilot certificate level through part 135
training programs. Most of the alternative requirements would be
available only to pilots who already hold a commercial pilot
certificate and an instrument rating for another category of aircraft.
In addition, although no flight simulation training devices (FSTDs)
representing powered-lift are currently qualified, the FAA anticipates
near-term qualification of such devices and proposed allowing increased
flight training opportunities through simulation. This final rule
adopts the alternate aeronautical experience and cross-country
requirements, as proposed, with some minor alterations.
In addition, as explained more fully in section V.F., this final
rule reduces the PIC flight time in a powered-lift at the commercial
pilot certificate level from 50 hours to 35 hours, of which 15 hours
may still be in a Level C or higher full flight simulator (FFS).
4. Part 135 Qualifications
The FAA adopts permanent changes to training and qualification
requirements for pilots to align with the requirements for powered-lift
with those established for pilots of airplanes and rotorcraft in part
135. The proposals included Airline Transport Pilot (ATP) certification
and operating experience in the make and model of powered-lift for PICs
in commuter operations, part 121 Advanced Qualification Program (AQP)
training requirements for pilots who serve in commuter operations in
certain powered-lift, and instrument ratings for all powered-lift
pilots in part 135 operations. In addition to allowing a part 135
operator to develop and provide training for powered-lift pilot
certification at the commercial pilot level, the FAA is permitting
successful completion of part 135 pilot checks to be used to meet the
practical test requirements for powered-lift ratings subject to certain
conditions.
Overall, the FAA finalizes the proposed requirements regarding
integration of powered-lift pertaining to part 135 qualifications
without substantial changes from what was proposed in the NPRM. In
response to commenters, the FAA made certain editorial changes to add
clarification and better enable powered-lift training and testing that
would have otherwise created obstacles.
5. Dual Controls
The FAA noted in its proposal that it was retaining the powered-
lift category and proposed alternate aeronautical experience and
logging requirements to allow certain groups of pilots to attain the
necessary aeronautical experience. In accordance with flight training
requirements under Sec. 91.109 and the requirements for supervised
operating experience (SOE) in Sec. 61.64, the powered-lift would be
required to have a dual set of controls to accomplish the
[[Page 92299]]
aeronautical experience required in an aircraft and SOE.
After consideration of the comments received, the FAA is adopting
several pathways to enable the use of a powered-lift without dual
controls. The first pathway permits flight training in a powered-lift
with a single set of flight controls accessible by both student and
instructor (e.g., a throwover control). The second pathway allows all
flight training to be conducted in an approved simulator, culminating
in solo aeronautical experience in a powered-lift with a single set of
flight controls subject to certain conditions and limitations set forth
in a new appendix to part 194. This pathway allows an Original
Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) to utilize a Level C or higher FFS to
conduct the required flight training in accordance with part 61 and
part 194. The pilot can gain the necessary experience through a series
of demonstration flights and solo experience, complete a practical test
in a Level C FFS, and then conduct abbreviated operating experience in
the powered-lift to become fully qualified and fly in the NAS. Finally,
the third pathway permits the FAA to issue deviation authority to
facilitate flight training in a powered-lift with a single set of
flight controls in the NAS based on future demonstrated and validated
advancements in technology.
The FAA makes conforming amendments in light of these alternate
pathways to the supervised operating experience requirements and in
part 135. Specifically, this final rule adopts certain alternate
provisions to facilitate supervised operating experience in a powered-
lift with a single set of controls and a single pilot seat.
Additionally, this final rule revises current requirements for
instructor training that is accomplished from either pilot station to
provide a feasible pathway for approved part 135 training programs,
pilots, instructors, and check airman operating only with one pilot
station and/or set of flight controls.
6. Impacts to Rotorcraft Training at Part 142 Training Centers
The FAA adopts permanent changes that, in addition to establishing
requirements for powered-lift, would affect certain part 142 training
in FSTDs for rotorcraft. These proposed changes would harmonize
requirements for airplanes, powered-lift, and rotorcraft in part 142,
specifically for pilot training in an FSTD that represents an aircraft
requiring a type rating. This final rule applies the ATP aeronautical
experience requirements to FSTD instructors in airplanes and
helicopters requiring a type rating, powered-lift weighing over 12,500
pounds, and turbojet powered powered-lift rather than all aircraft
requiring a type rating. In some instances, these adopted changes
provide additional flexibility to training and qualification for
rotorcraft instructors consistent with allowances for airplane
instructors and provide training and testing for rotorcraft instructors
that is more specifically focused on rotorcraft, instead of airplanes.
D. Operational Requirements
To mitigate the safety gaps that exist due to the absence of
operational regulations specifically applicable to powered-lift, the
FAA proposed, through the SFAR, to apply specific airplane, rotorcraft,
and helicopter rules contained in parts 43, 91, 97, 135, and 136 to
powered-lift as appropriate. In the proposal, the FAA determined that
applying the airplane rules in most instances was a safer, more
conservative approach, especially given the lack of powered-lift
operational data. Notwithstanding, in some instances, for example under
part 136, the FAA determined that applying the helicopter or rotorcraft
rules were appropriate and provided an equivalent level of safety.
Specifically, the FAA initially proposed using the visual flight
rules (VFR) fuel requirements specified for airplanes for both
operations conducted under parts 91 and 135. After considering comments
received, the FAA is adopting different requirements than proposed
related to fuel reserves when conducting VFR operations. The SFAR now
stipulates helicopter minimums for powered-lift capable of conducting a
landing in the vertical-lift flight mode along the entire route of
flight. Powered-lift that are not capable of conducting a landing in
the vertical-lift flight mode along the entire route of flight must
meet airplane minimums.
In addition, the FAA initially proposed using the instrument flight
rules (IFR) fuel requirements specified for airplanes for operations
conducted under parts 91 and 135. The SFAR now permits the use of
helicopter minimums stipulated for powered-lift that are authorized to
conduct Copter Procedures and that have the performance capability, as
provided in the Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM), to conduct a landing in
the vertical-lift flight mode for the entire flight. Powered-lift that
do not meet these criteria will be required to meet the airplane
minimums.
The FAA also proposed using the VFR visibility requirements
prescribed for airplanes. The final rule states that helicopter
minimums are applicable if the powered-lift is operated in the
vertical-lift flight mode and is operated at a speed that allows the
pilot adequate opportunity to see any other traffic or obstructions in
time to avoid a collision. If either of those requirements are not met,
then the airplane minimums apply.
Finally, the FAA proposed using the general aircraft minimum safe
altitudes for operations conducted under parts 91 and 135, rather than
allowing powered-lift to utilize helicopter exclusions. The final rule
provides that powered-lift operating in vertical-lift flight mode that
have demonstrated a capability to autorotate or conduct an approved
equivalent maneuver are allowed the same minimum safe altitudes as
those afforded to helicopters. However, for part 135 operations, it is
important to note that the minimum altitude cannot be lower than 300
feet above the surface. When a powered-lift is operating in the
vertical-lift flight mode and is certificated to conduct an
autorotation or an approved equivalent maneuver to a landing, then
helicopter minimum safe altitudes or lowest altitude published in the
AFM apply.
Under part 136, the FAA proposed applying the operational
requirements specific to helicopter operations within part 136 to
powered-lift operations because the FAA anticipated powered-lift will
hover and operate similarly to helicopters when conducting air tours,
except when relying on wing-borne flight. In the final rule, as
addressed in section VI.E. of this preamble, ``Part 136 Rules for
Powered-Lift,'' the FAA applies some provisions in part 136 to powered-
lift regardless of the flight mode in which the aircraft is operating
because the FAA determined those provisions--such as requiring
flotation equipment--should apply to powered-lift regardless of whether
they are operating in the vertical-lift or wing-borne flight mode.
The FAA will allow powered-lift operators to use Copter Procedures
as defined in part 97 if the aircraft has been type-certificated and
equipped to utilize those procedures. That capability will be
identified in the limitations section of the AFM along with any other
specific limitations and procedures necessary for safe operation of the
aircraft.
The FAA has made a permanent change to the regulatory requirements
for the Pilot Records Database contained in part 111 to include
powered-lift as a qualifying aircraft to meet the threshold requirement
of whether a person operating in furtherance of a business needs to
report pilot records to the Pilot Records Database.
[[Page 92300]]
For purposes of maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding,
and alteration, the FAA proposed to apply the current requirements
under part 43, with only two modifications. First, the FAA proposed to
apply the preventive maintenance requirements available to certificate
holders operating rotorcraft under part 135 in remote areas to
certificate holders similarly operating powered-lift. Second, the FAA
proposed that in lieu of complying with Sec. 43.15(b), each person
performing an inspection required by part 91 on a powered-lift, must
inspect ``critical parts'' (as defined under Sec. Sec. 27.602 and
29.602) in accordance with the maintenance manual or Instruction for
Continuous Airworthiness, or as otherwise approved by the
Administrator. The FAA is adopting these requirements as proposed.
The operational requirements and comments the FAA received are
discussed in more detail in section VI.F. of this preamble.
E. International Operation of Powered-Lift
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 (SARPs) to the maximum extent practicable. In
this final rule, the FAA amends part 61 to require powered-lift pilots
to have a type rating, which meets the standards outlined in ICAO Annex
1, Personnel Licensing. Under parts 91 and 135, the FAA requires U.S.
operators to comply with ICAO Annex 2, Rules of the Air, when operating
over the high seas or when operating within a foreign country.\3\ ICAO
Annex 8, Airworthiness of Aircraft, is silent on powered-lift; however,
the FAA designates powered-lift as special class aircraft for type
certification in accordance with Sec. 21.17(b) and applies
airworthiness criteria that meet an equivalent level of safety to the
FAA's existing airworthiness standards and are consistent with the
intent of ICAO Annex 8 to the Chicago Convention. Accordingly, U.S.
operators of powered-lift that are type-certificated with a standard
airworthiness certificate and conduct their operations in accordance
with the standards outlined in Annex 2 would be eligible to operate
over the high seas. The requirements for the international operation of
powered-lift and comments the FAA received are discussed in more detail
in section VIII.B. of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See 14 CFR 91.703. To note, Sec. 91.703(a)(2) requires each
person operating a civil aircraft of U.S. registry outside the U.S.
when within a foreign country to comply with the regulations
relating to the flight and maneuver of aircraft there in force and,
with narrow exceptions, comply with 14 CFR part 91 so far as it is
not inconsistent with the applicable regulations of the foreign
country where the aircraft is operating or Annex 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Summary of the Costs and Benefits
Operations with powered-lift are anticipated to offer benefits over
traditional airplanes and rotorcraft. A report published by the U.S.
Government Accountability Office (GAO) stated that many of these newer
kinds of aircraft could be easier to design, simpler to construct, less
complicated to maneuver, quieter to fly, and more economical to operate
compared to traditional aircraft.\4\ Many use cases for these aircraft
are envisioned, and this rulemaking is a step toward those use cases
coming to realization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Transforming Aviation: Stakeholders Identified Issues to
Address for `Advanced Air Mobility' [verbar] U.S. GAO, <a href="http://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-105020.pdf">www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-105020.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several problems exist absent this rulemaking. The first is that
only operating rules applicable to powered-lift are those specific to
``aircraft,'' which introduces a substantial safety gap in part 91 and
part 135 operations. This safety gap does not exist for parts 91 and
135 operations conducted with airplanes, helicopters, and rotorcraft
because decades of FAA rulemaking has resulted in a continuum of rules
establishing minimum safety standards for operations conducted with
these aircraft. A similar suite of category-specific rules simply does
not exist for powered-lift because these are new and novel aircraft
that have yet to be type-certificated for operations in the NAS.
Consequently, powered-lift would not be required to operate at the
level of safety required of operations conducted with airplanes,
helicopters, or rotorcraft.
The second problem is challenges presented by the existing airmen
certification regulations. Unlike the extensive infrastructure in place
for the training and certification of airplane and rotorcraft pilots
and instructors, the resources to scale powered-lift training and
certification of pilots and instructors is scant due to the lack of
powered-lift flight instructors and FAA-certificated aircraft available
for airman training and testing (and operations). Without this
rulemaking, civilian pilots will be unable to obtain powered-lift
ratings necessary for industry to scale operations intended for these
new and novel aircraft.
The third problem absent this SFAR are the requirements for acting
as PIC of a powered-lift operation. Should type-certificated powered-
lift become available before this rule is finalized, individuals
holding an airman certificate with a powered-lift category rating would
be permitted to act as PIC of powered-lift operations. Taking into
consideration the variation in operating characteristics for each
powered-lift coming to the civilian market, a powered-lift category
rating would not adequately prepare an individual to act as PIC of a
powered-lift operation.
While operators choosing to conduct operations with powered-lift
will incur costs to comply with regulations in this SFAR, these costs
are on a scale equivalent to those incurred by operators choosing to
conduct operations with airplanes or rotorcraft under similar
regulations. Likewise, costs imposed on individuals that choose to
accomplish the training and testing required to hold an airman
certificate with a type rating in the powered-lift category are on a
scale equivalent to those incurred by individuals accomplishing
training and testing to hold an airman certificate with a type rating
in the airplane or rotorcraft category. In other words, the costs
imposed on operators and individuals that choose to comply with
regulations finalized by this rule will be no more burdensome than the
costs incurred by entities and individuals complying with corresponding
airplane and rotorcraft regulations that are already in effect.
Additionally, the FAA has provided some performance-based options in
certain rules that could reduce the burden on industry as compared to
the comparable prescriptive requirements of the proposed rule.
The provisions in this SFAR can generally be grouped by those rules
affecting airman certification and those rules enabling powered-lift to
conduct operations under parts 91, 97, 135, and 136. For certification
of airmen with a type rating in powered-lift, the FAA allows
alternative aeronautical experience and logging requirements. For the
operational rules, the FAA applies specific airplane, rotorcraft, or
helicopter rules to powered-lift, as appropriate. The FAA has
considered each finalized regulation in the SFAR to determine its
economic impact. An overview of this analysis is included in the
Regulatory Evaluation portion of this preamble. A regulatory impact
analysis has also been prepared for the finalized SFAR and can be found
in the docket for this rule.
The following table presents a summary of the primary estimate for
which data was available to monetize
[[Page 92301]]
the costs of this rule, as well as estimates for a pessimistic and
optimistic scenario. The monetized costs include incremental costs for
individuals to hold an airman's certificate with a type rating for the
powered-lift flown, costs for the minimum fuel reserve requirement, and
costs for the provision of dual-control aircraft and full flight
simulators for training. For the primary estimate, over a 10-year
period of analysis, this rule would result in present value costs of
about $914.2 million at a two percent discount rate with annualized
costs of about $101.8 million.\5\ Additional details are provided in
the Regulatory Evaluation section of this SFAR and in the regulatory
impact analysis available in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Monetized costs for the rule stem from the cadence of
aircraft deliveries. In the optimistic scenario, aircraft deliveries
are forecast to begin in year 1 and continue through year 10.
Aircraft deliveries for the base scenario are forecast to occur
during years 2-10, and in the pessimistic scenario during years 3-
10. As a result, costs for the optimistic scenario accumulate over a
period of 10 years versus the base and pessimistic scenarios, over
which costs accumulate for a period of 9 years and 8 years,
respectively.
Table 1--Monetized Costs of SFAR
[Millions $]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10-Year
Forecast scenario present value Annualized
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base--Primary Estimate.................. $914.2 $101.8
Pessimistic............................. 865.5 96.4
Optimistic.............................. 966.1 107.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. SFAR Framework and Duration
This final rule enables powered-lift operations for a limited
duration and provides the FAA an opportunity to assess the operations
and establish a comprehensive regulatory scheme. This final rule adopts
both limited permanent changes and a time-limited SFAR to facilitate
powered-lift operations. The SFAR permits the FAA to gather data--via
established approved information collections, regulatory requirements,
and informal anecdotal information and observations--and better
understand what a comprehensive permanent regulatory framework should
look like.
Further, the FAA notes that section 955(c) of the FAA
Reauthorization Act of 2024 (Pub. L. 118-63) mandates that the FAA
establish an aviation rulemaking committee (ARC) no later than three
years after the FAA issues the first commercial operating certificate
to a powered-lift, to provide the Administrator with specific findings
and recommendations for, at a minimum, the creation of a standard
pathway for the performance-based certification of powered-lift
aircraft; the certification of airmen capable of serving as pilot-in-
command of a powered-lift; and operation of powered-lift in commercial
service and air transportation. Section 955(d) requires the FAA to
initiate a rulemaking no later than 270 days after the ARC submits its
report. Not only does this language impose a timeline for establishing
the ARC and subsequent rulemaking, it acknowledges that an ARC will
first need real-world operational data from commercial powered-lift
operations before it can provide informed recommendations for a
permanent rulemaking.
Because the SFAR will affect several parts of 14 CFR, the FAA has
determined that the most clear and comprehensive regulatory approach is
through the creation of a new part to wholly contain the SFAR.
Specifically, the FAA is adding a new part 194, titled ``Special
Federal Aviation Regulation No. 120--Powered-Lift: Pilot Certification
and Training; Operations Requirements,'' to 14 CFR under new subchapter
L, titled ``Other Special Federal Aviation Regulations.'' New part 194
utilizes the traditional regulatory structure to supplement existing
rules, creates temporary alternatives for airman certification, removes
operational barriers, and mitigates safety risks for powered-lift. As a
result, requisite applicability revisions are made to parts 43, 60, 61,
91, 97, 111, 135, 136, 141, and 142 to clearly communicate that current
regulations are intended to operate in tandem with part 194, as
subsequently discussed in this preamble.
This SFAR will remain in effect for ten years after this final rule
becomes effective. In selecting ten years as the appropriate duration
for this SFAR, the FAA considered a number of factors including the
time it will take to initiate operations after this final rule becomes
effective and the type certification status of the powered-lift that
are commercially viable. As discussed in section I.G. of this preamble
(``SFAR Framework and Duration''), the FAA has determined that a ten-
year period is an appropriate length of time to collect operational
data from powered-lift operations. This data will inform a subsequent
rulemaking to implement permanent amendments.
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 in more detail the scope of the FAA's authority.
The FAA is issuing this final rule under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart i, Section 40113, Administrative, and
Subpart iii, Section 44701, General Requirements; Section 44702,
Issuance of Certificates; Section 44703, Airman Certificates; Section
44704, Type Certificates, Production Certificates, Airworthiness
Certificates, and Design and Production Organization Certificates;
Section 44705, Air Carrier Operating Certificates; and Section 44707,
Examination and Rating Air Agencies. Under these sections, the FAA
prescribes regulations and minimum standards for practices, methods,
and procedures necessary for safety in air commerce, including the
authority to examine and rate civil schools and prescribe regulations
to ensure the competency of instructors. The FAA is also authorized
under these sections to issue certificates, including airman
certificates, type certificates, and air carrier operating
certificates, in the interest of safety.
This rulemaking is also issued under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart iii, Section 44712, Emergency Locator
Transmitters; Section 44713, Inspection and Maintenance; Section 44715,
Noise and Sonic Boom; Section 44716, Collision
[[Page 92302]]
Avoidance Systems; and Section 44722, Winter conditions. These sections
direct the Administrator to prescribe regulations to govern the use of
emergency locator transmitters and collision avoidance systems, the
standards for inspecting and performing maintenance on aircraft, and
regulations to control aircraft noise and safety risks related to
winter conditions, respectively.
Section 955 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 (Pub. L. 118-63)
requires that, within seven months of the date of enactment of the Act,
the FAA publish a final rule finalizing the notice of proposed
rulemaking entitled ``Integration of Powered-Lift: Pilot Certification
and Operations; Miscellaneous Amendments Related to Rotorcraft and
Airplanes.'' Section 955 requires that, with respect to any powered-
lift aircraft type certificated by the FAA, the regulations must
provide a practical pathway for pilot qualification and operations;
establish performance-based requirements for energy reserves and other
range- and endurance-related requirements that reflect the capabilities
and intended operations of the aircraft; provide for a combination of
pilot training requirements, including simulators, to ensure the safe
operation of powered-lift; and to the maximum extent practicable, align
powered-lift pilot qualifications with section 2.1.1.4 of Annex 1 to
the Chicago Convention. Additionally, as required by section
955(a)(3)(B), the FAA must ensure coordination with the Department of
Defense (DoD).
In this rule, the FAA provides practical pathways for pilots to
qualify to operate powered-lift, establishing pathways for pilots with
military experience, airline transport pilot and commercial experience,
and flight instruction experience to gain experience in the operation
of these aircraft, providing them with sufficient foundations to safely
conduct passenger-carrying operations. These multiple pathways will
give pilots of diverse backgrounds and prior experience opportunities
to enter this emerging aviation sector. For further information on
pilot pathways see section V. of this preamble.
Also, in recognition of the comments received, the FAA has revised
requirements related to fuel and energy reserves to provide greater
flexibility for operations conducted under certain parameters.
Specifically, the SFAR outlines performance-based requirements that
allow powered-lift operators to use certain helicopter operating rules
as long as the operator complies with the appropriate risk mitigations
that are detailed in the rule. For example, an operator may use the
helicopter fuel requirements under Sec. 91.151 if the powered-lift is
continuously capable of conducting a landing in the vertical-lift
flight mode along the entire route of flight. For further information,
see section VI. of this preamble.
Further, based on comments received to the NPRM, the FAA has
significantly expanded the ability of manufacturers and operators to
use flight simulation training devices in the training and
qualification of pilots, recognizing the significant advancements in
flight simulation technology and pilot training. This includes
providing an opportunity for a pilot applicant to credit certain
experience in a simulator in addition to outlining a pathway for pilot
certification greatly expanding the use of simulation when a powered-
lift has a single functioning flight control. For further information
on these provisions, see sections IV. and V. of this preamble.
The FAA has considered the provisions of section 2.1.1.4 of Annex 1
to the Chicago Convention and ensured that the requirements in this
rule related to pilot certification and operations are responsive to
the intent of that section of the Annex. The FAA carefully considered
implementation of section 2.1.1.4 and found it impracticable to disrupt
the FAA's traditional airman certification framework by the addition of
a type rating within a wholly different aircraft category to an
existing certificate with a different category rating. However, through
this SFAR, the FAA chose to facilitate alternative measures for a pilot
to directly receive a powered-lift category rating and a powered-lift
type rating. Similar to the conditions set forth in ICAO's transitional
recommendation, these alternative measures to receive a powered-lift
category and type rating would be completed during training provided
under an approved or proposed training curriculum and would take
previous experience of an applicant in an airplane or helicopter into
account. Considering the flexibilities extended in the final rule, FAA
believes it has aligned with section 2.1.1.4 to the maximum extent
practicable while maintaining safety and consistency with its existing
regulatory structure. For further discussion, see section V.A. of this
preamble.
Based on the foregoing authorities, the FAA makes amendments to
clarify the rule and corrects inadvertent errors contained in the NPRM.
These are explained in more detail throughout this final rule.
Amendments correcting for clarity, correctness, and grammar are not
substantive in nature and are a logical outgrowth of the NPRM.
The FAA also makes minor technical amendments to its regulations
that are discussed throughout this preamble. The FAA finds that notice
and comment is unnecessary for these technical changes.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Further, technical amendments are ``a routine determination,
insignificant in nature and impact, and inconsequential to the
industry and to the public.'' See Mack Trucks, Inc. v. EPA, 682 F.3d
87, 94 (D.C. Cir. 2012) [verbar] (quotation marks and citation
omitted); See also United States v. Mullins, 2012 WL 3777067, at *4
(D. Vt. Aug. 29, 2012) (explaining that public comment is
unnecessary if minor or merely technical amendments in which the
public is not particularly interested were involved).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, in this final rule, the FAA revised certain sections
of the proposed rule to account for FAA Test Pilots and Aviation Safety
Inspectors (ASIs). Providing notice and seeking comment on these
changes is not required as they are rules of agency organization,
practice, or procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A).
Finally, in accordance with Sec. 955(a)(3)(B), the FAA has
consulted with the DoD on a host of issues regarding powered-lift,
including the United States Air Force Agility Prime program; powered-
lift that are used for military purposes; and commonalities,
differences, and handling qualities of various types of powered-lift.
In addition to direct consultation, the FAA notes that because this
final rule was designated significant under Executive Order 12866, it
was coordinated with the DoD as well as other agencies during
interagency coordination.\7\ This coordination serves as another
opportunity for the FAA to consult with the DoD on this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, issued on Sept. 30,
1993 (58 FR 51735).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Background
A. General
Powered-lift are unique in their ability to take off and land
vertically like helicopters and fly like an airplane during cruise
flight. They can operate in different flight regimes utilizing features
of helicopters or airplanes or both. The flight controls for such
aircraft are also often unique to the individual aircraft design and
can incorporate both traditional helicopter and airplane controls, or
control systems that are dissimilar to either helicopters or airplanes.
Likewise, the flight characteristics for powered-lift vary depending on
the aircraft design and the different modes in which they operate.
[[Page 92303]]
Currently, the FAA has several powered-lift in the type
certification process. The powered-lift coming to the civilian market
have varied greatly in design, flight, and handling characteristics
with varying degrees of automation.
While none of the powered-lift for which type certification is
being sought have yet been approved for civilian use, the powered-lift
industry has identified many potential uses for these aircraft. The FAA
anticipates the introduction of aircraft that vary in size and
passenger seating configuration and employ both new and traditional
kinds of propulsion systems into the civilian market.
Manufacturers and initial operators of powered-lift indicate
operations with powered-lift could offer many benefits over rotorcraft.
For example, some powered-lift may be capable of transporting heavier
loads at higher altitudes and faster cruise speeds than rotorcraft.
Such capability may increase efficiency in transporting crew and
material to remote locations such as offshore oil rigs and add
diversity when considering landing points that are currently available
to helicopters and not airplanes. Certificate holders seeking to take
advantage of these capabilities may also seek to use powered-lift for
transporting passengers from point-to-point; for example, such
transportation could occur from a heliport and proceed at airplane
airspeeds and ranges. Other opportunities may also exist in
concentrated urban environments, where short point-to-point distances
coupled with VTOL capability may allow for more efficient
transportation of passengers than existing ground transportation
methods.
B. Summary of the NPRM
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed permanent changes to the Code of
Federal Regulations and a temporary SFAR to facilitate the safe
integration of powered-lift operations into the NAS. Under this
comprehensive approach, the FAA proposed to incorporate changes to
pilot certification rules, operating rules, air agency rules, as well
as other conforming proposals to maintenance requirements, pilot
records database requirements, and FSTD qualification requirements.
This section provides a broad summary of the NPRM.
Although the FAA did not propose any new type certification
requirements or noise standards applicable to powered-lift, the FAA
clarified that it would follow its existing aircraft certification
process under Sec. 21.17(b) to type certificate powered-lift. The FAA
proposed a new process for an OEM to attain qualification of an FSTD in
accordance with part 60. Because the existing deviation authority in
part 60 cannot be used to qualify an FSTD that represents a category of
aircraft for which there is no standard under part 60, the FAA proposed
to mirror the aircraft certification process under Sec. 21.17(b) to
similarly allow an applicant seeking to qualify a powered-lift FSTD to
use a combination of requirements in appendices A through D to part 60
to form a basis to qualify an FSTD under that part.
Part 61 sets forth the aeronautical experience requirements to
attain a pilot certificate, as well as a flight instructor certificate,
with powered-lift ratings. The FAA noted in the NPRM that the broader
powered-lift category requirement, without an established class rating
or type rating, would not adequately prepare a pilot to fly the
specific powered-lift moving through FAA aircraft certification, thus
potentially creating a safety gap. To address this concern, the FAA
proposed to require pilots in command hold a type rating for the
powered-lift they seek to fly. Most significantly, the FAA proposed
alternate aeronautical experience and logging requirements from the
existing powered-lift requirements in part 61. These alternate
requirements would be applicable to certain pilot groups that the FAA
deemed have the most relevant experience to establish a base of
powered-lift pilots and instructors. As proposed, the experience and
logging provisions would create an alternative pathway to powered-lift
certification for (1) OEM instructor pilots and test pilots; (2)
initial cadres of flight instructors from certificate holders under
parts 135, 141, and 142 receiving training at an OEM; and (3) pilots
receiving training from the initial cadres of flight instructors under
approved training programs under part 135, 141, or 142. Alternate
aeronautical experience proposed by the FAA focused on giving
allowances for flight training, including allowing the logging of PIC
time when an applicant is the sole manipulator of the flight controls,
and reduced distances to meet cross-country aeronautical experience.
This experience, combined with meeting the alternate experience and
logging provisions set forth in the FAA's proposed SFAR, would result
in pilots attaining the required experience necessary to hold a
commercial pilot certificate.
The FAA sought comment on existing requirements that dictate an
aircraft used for flight instruction must have dual controls. The FAA
outlined expectations regarding these rules as they are currently
applicable to all aircraft (except manned free balloons) and,
therefore, are applicable to powered-lift. The FAA also discussed how
the dual control requirement would affect a pilot's ability to act as
PIC when the PIC has no access to flight controls (i.e., supervised
operating experience). The FAA acknowledged that manufacturers were in
the midst of developing single flight control powered-lift and sought
comment from the public on facilitating flight training and supervised
operating experience in those aircraft.
In addition to the proposed revisions to part 61 and the temporary
alternatives proposed in part 194, the FAA proposed changes to part
135, which does not currently stipulate which training requirements and
experience requirements are applicable to powered-lift.\8\
Additionally, to further facilitate the certification of powered-lift
pilots for the expected commercial operations, the NPRM proposed to
allow part 135 operators to conduct training for their pilots seeking
to obtain powered-lift category and type ratings for a commercial pilot
certificate.\9\ The FAA also incorporated permanent and temporary
amendments to pilot experience requirements, curriculum content, and
part 135 instructor requirements to address the absence of powered-lift
specific regulations in part 135. Finally, the NPRM proposed changes to
parts 141 and 142 to facilitate the training of powered-lift pilots in
accordance with those parts as well as the amendments set forth in the
SFAR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The FAA recently published a final rule amending the
regulatory definitions of certain air carrier and commercial
operations to enable powered-lift operations under part 135. See 88
FR 48072 (July 26, 2023).
\9\ After an initial cadre of instructors have completed
training at the OEM, the FAA proposed that operators use their
instructors to train and test additional pilots according to their
approved part 135 training program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA proposed in the SFAR which operating rules apply to
powered-lift on a temporary basis under parts 91 (``General Operating
and Flight Rules''), 135 (``Operating Requirements: Commuter and On
Demand Operations''), and 136 (``Commercial Air Tours''). The FAA noted
that this would enable the FAA to gather additional information and
determine the most appropriate permanent rulemaking path for these
aircraft. The FAA proposed the requirements that should be applicable
to powered-lift based on its phase of operation, current requirements
for
[[Page 92304]]
airplanes and helicopters, and safety intent of the current rule.
Under parts 91 and 135, generally the FAA proposed applying the
operating rules pertaining to airplanes; however, in some instances,
the FAA proposed applying certain helicopter rules based on whether a
powered-lift is anticipated to operate similar to a helicopter and
subject to some performance-based standards. The FAA proposed
exceptions, however, to account for the different modes of flight and
applicable operational requirements. Under part 91, the FAA proposed
applying helicopter rules during some instances of vertical flight.
Under part 135, the FAA proposed applying helicopter rules related to
overwater equipment and briefing, specified IFR and VFR requirements,
operations in icing conditions, airport requirements, and operations in
remote areas.
The FAA proposed to permanently amend part 111 (``Pilot Records
Database'') to apply to operators and pilots of large powered-lift.
Pilots of large powered-lift may go on to work for an air carrier in
the future. Reporting these pilot records would be relevant to a future
hiring air carrier.
The FAA determined that part 43 (``Maintenance, Preventive
Maintenance, Rebuilding, and Alteration'') was applicable to powered-
lift but proposed other amendments to clarify preventative maintenance
requirements considering that powered-lift can operate outside of the
airport environment.
Part 97 (``Standard Instrument Procedures'') outlines the current
requirements for standard instrument approach procedures, obstacle
departure procedures, and weather minimums for IFR takeoffs and
landings at U.S. civil airports. Copter procedures are also outlined in
this part. The FAA proposed that, as with airplanes and helicopters,
powered-lift could also utilize these standard procedures during IFR
operations if the powered-lift was capable in accordance with its type
certification.
C. General Overview of Comments
The FAA received 81 comments in response to the NPRM from a variety
of commenters, including aircraft manufacturers and operators, aviation
training companies, other aviation companies, trade associations, civil
aviation authorities, and individuals. Powered-lift manufacturers and
operators commenting on the NPRM included: AIR VEV; Archer Aviation
(Archer); Augusta-Westland Philadelphia Corporation (AWPC), a
subsidiary of Leonardo Helicopters ; BETA Technologies, Inc. (BETA);
Bristow Group Inc. (Bristow); a joint comment from Eve Air Mobility and
Embraer S.A. (Eve); Joby Aviation (Joby); Lilium GmbH (Lilium);
Supernal LLC (Supernal); Vertical Aerospace Group LTD (Vertical
Aerospace Group); Wisk Aero (Wisk); and XTI Aircraft Company (XTI).
Other aviation companies commenting on the NPRM included: Airbus
Helicopters, Alakai Technologies Corporation, ASR-Pioneer, CAE,
Electra.aero, Ferrovial Vertiports, L3Harris Commercial Aviation
Solutions--Advanced Air Mobility (L3Harris), Sabrewing Aircraft Company
(SACO), and UPS Flight Forward (UPS FF). Trade association commenters
included: Advanced Air Mobility Institute, Air Line Pilots Association
International (ALPA), Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA),
Airlines for America (A4A), Association for Uncrewed Vehicle Systems
International (AUVSI), FlightSafety International Inc., General
Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA), Helicopter Association
International (HAI),\10\ National Air Transportation Association
(NATA), National Business Aviation Association (NBAA), and Vertical
Flight Society (VFS). SAE International, a consensus standards-setting
organization, commented on the NPRM. Civil aviation authorities,
governmental agencies, and industry associations located outside the
United States commenting on the NPRM included: ADS Group (ADS);
European Aerospace, Security and Defence Industries (ASD); the European
Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); and the National Civil Aviation
Agency of Brazil (ANAC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The FAA notes that on February 26, 2024, the commenter
announced the renaming of Helicopter Association International (HAI)
to Vertical Aviation International (VAI).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the FAA received only 81 comments, each comment detailed a
wide array of discrete issues and recommendations. Some commenters
provided general, high-level comments on the NPRM. Archer applauded the
FAA's progress in its proposed powered-lift regulations, while Bristow
said the proposed rules are a good start and will have a positive
impact. An individual supported the proposed regulatory framework,
which they said would enhance safety, efficiency, and innovation.
Electra.aero stated the FAA should be proactive in powered-lift
standards development to ``help[] preclude unrealistic expectations of
commercial market introduction of these technologies.''
Overall, the majority of commenters expressed general support for
the FAA's approach to integrating powered-lift into the NAS through
expeditious rulemaking. However, they also recommended a number of
revisions to the FAA's proposal that they believed would provide
greater ability to quickly and safely integrate powered-lift into the
NAS. The following provides a high-level overview of key issues raised
by commenters. Detailed discussions of comments received and FAA
responses are found throughout this preamble.
Alignment With ICAO Requirements for Powered-Lift Airman Certification
Category
The FAA received numerous comments on the proposal to retain the
category requirement for powered-lift pilots. Commenters requested the
FAA align its requirements with ICAO Annex 1 recommendations by
requiring only a powered-lift type rating on an existing commercial
pilot certificate with an airplane category or helicopter class rating
(i.e., no powered-lift category rating).
Aircraft Dual Controls Requirement
The FAA received many comments in response to the request for
information on the existing requirement for dual controls to be
installed on training aircraft and those used for supervised operating
experience (SOE). Commenters requested: (1) no requirement for dual
controls regardless of how the powered-lift will be used; (2) 100
percent simulator training, which would relieve any requirement for
dual controls/aircraft training; and (3) non-traditional methods to
accomplish SOE. However, EASA's comment supported a requirement for
dual controls/access as currently required by Sec. Sec. 61.195 and
91.109.
Other Pilot Certification Comments of Note
Commenters broadly suggested aligning pilot certification
requirements for powered-lift with those of helicopters.
Amount of FSTD Time Allowed for a Powered-Lift Rating
Commenters requested the use of a flight training device (FTD)
instead of an FFS and requested to utilize the FTD to perform all 50
hours of PIC flight time required for a powered-lift category rating at
the commercial pilot level. Several commenters expressed the need for
FSTDs that are not Level C or higher FFS, stating the need for more
avenues by which an equivalent level of training may be accomplished.
Commenters
[[Page 92305]]
noted additional burdens of both time and resources to meet the
proposed FSTD requirements. Other comments suggested using preexisting
deviation authority mechanisms to achieve an equivalent level of
safety.
VFR and IFR Fuel Requirements
The FAA received comments on parts 91 and 135 VFR and IFR fuel
requirements. Commenters requested different variations of two comment
themes: (1) performance-based fuel reserves, and (2) use of fuel
requirements specified for helicopters. Several commenters noted that
powered-lift incorporating innovative power sources could offer greater
operational capability if they were able to use energy reserves lower
than those currently prescribed for airplanes or helicopters. They
asserted that by enforcing the requirements proposed in the NPRM, the
FAA would limit the capability and scope of operations. Other
commenters suggested applying helicopter fuel requirements to powered-
lift, asserting that powered-lift, like helicopters, have the
maneuverability and operational flexibility to land in more varied
locations.
Visibility Requirements
The FAA received comments on visibility requirements. Commenters
requested to utilize the helicopter provisions existing in the
regulations, as well as the adoption of a performance-based approach.
Several commenters suggested applying helicopter weather minima rather
than the airplane requirements. Several commenters also noted that
technological advancements could enable powered-lift to safely operate
in visibilities lower than currently prescribed for airplanes or
helicopters. Furthermore, several commenters contended that since
powered-lift could operate at speeds and maneuverability comparable to
helicopters, they should be permitted to use the visibility
requirements prescribed for helicopters or a performance-based
visibility requirement.
Minimum Safe Altitudes for Operations Conducted Under Parts 91 and 135
The FAA received comments on parts 91 and 135 minimum safe
altitudes. Commenters requested: (1) the use of VFR minimum altitudes
specified for helicopters (one variation proposed), and (2)
performance-based minimum safe altitudes. Commenters suggested the FAA
consider the operational capabilities of powered-lift, which are able
to operate at low speeds and have the maneuverability similar to
helicopters, and therefore apply the VFR minimum altitudes prescribed
for helicopters. Commenters also suggested the FAA permit a
performance-based approach when applying VFR minimum altitude
requirements to powered-lift.
SFAR Duration (10 Years)
Commenters supported the temporary adaptability of the SFAR but
stated that an approach with 2 to 3-year reviews within the 10-year
period would ensure dynamic rather than static regulations.
D. Differences Between the NPRM and the Final Rule
The following table summarizes key changes from the NPRM made in
this final rule.
Table 2--Summary of Key Changes From NPRM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adopted by this Final Regulatory citation (14 Additional discussion
Proposed action in the NPRM Rule CFR) in section of preamble
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NPRM did not propose to revise This final rule adds Sec. 1.1............. XIV.D.
the definition of autorotation. powered-lift to the
definition of
autorotation.
The NPRM proposed to revise Sec. This final rule does Sec. 61.64(a)(1)..... V.I.5.
61.64(a)(1) to specify the ratings not adopt the proposed
that must be sought when using an revision.
FSTD representing an aircraft
requiring a type rating.
The NPRM proposed revising Sec. The final rule adopts Sec. 91.113(d)(2)-(4) VI.B.1.
91.113 as a temporary change under the proposed Sec.
part 194 and grouped powered-lift in 91.113 temporary
the same right-of-way category with change as a permanent
airplanes and rotorcraft. change.
The NPRM proposed amending the note The regulation now Sec. 135.100(d)...... VI.D.2.
in Sec. 135.100 to replace the clarifies the
word ``airplane'' with ``aircraft''. definition of taxi to
include VTOL aircraft
and specifies the
airspeed and height
above ground level.
The NPRM did not address Sec. The final rule corrects Sec. 135.165(d)...... VI.D.3.
135.165, which contains an incorrect the cross-reference in
cross-reference to part 119. Sec. 135.165(d) to
reference part 110
rather than part 119.
The NPRM did not propose revisions to This final rule revises Sec. 135.339(e)(3) V.J.11.
Sec. 135.339. certain training and (4).
regulations for check
airmen to account for
flight training in
powered-lift with a
single set of controls.
The NPRM did not propose revisions to This final rule revises Sec. 135.340(e)(3) V.G.1.iv. & V.J.11.
Sec. 135.340. certain training and (4).
regulations for
instructors to account
for flight training in
powered-lift with a
single set of controls.
The NPRM did not propose changing The final rule corrects Sec. 136.75(a)....... VI.E.5.ii.
Sec. 136.75(a) to reference Sec. 136.75(a) by
``single-engine'' rotorcraft. adding ``single-
engine'' before
``rotorcraft'' as a
permanent change.
[[Page 92306]]
The NPRM did not propose revisions to This final rule Sec. 141.37(a)(3)(ii) V.F.2.ii., V.G.2., &
Sec. 141.37. corrects the ratings V.I.5.
that may be held on a
ground instructor
certificate.
The NPRM proposed to replace This final rule applies Sec. 142.47(a)(5).... V.F.2.ii.
``airplane'' requiring a type rating the ATP aeronautical
with ``aircraft'' requiring a type experience
rating, thereby including all requirements to FSTD
powered-lift, in regard to certain instructors in
instructor qualifications under part airplanes and
142. helicopters requiring
a type rating, powered-
lift over 12,500
pounds, and turbojet
powered powered-lift
rather than all
aircraft requiring a
type rating.
The NPRM did not propose any changes This final rule adds a Sec. 142.47(a)(5)(ii) V.G.3.
to the minimum aeronautical qualification option and (ii).
experience requirements in Sec. of holding a
142.47(a)(5). commercial pilot
certificate with the
appropriate ratings or
an unrestricted ATP
with the appropriate
ratings rather than
meeting certain
aeronautical
experience
requirements.
The NPRM did not include FAA test This final rule adds Sec. Sec. 194.103, V.F.2.i.d., V.F.2.ii.,
pilots or ASIs in the population of FAA test pilots and 194.203(a)(3), V.F.7., V.D.3.ii.,
pilots able to utilize the alternate ASIs to the alternate 194.213(a)(1)(iii), V.F.2.i.a.-d., V.F.7.,
requirements set forth by part 194. requirements for test 194.217, V.F.3.i.a.-c., &
pilots, accounts for 194.219(b)(1)(i), V.F.3.i.
both groups of pilots 194.219(b)(3)(iii),
as it pertains to 194.225,
instructor pilots, and 194.227(b)(1)(i).
adds definitions for
both groups of pilots.
The NPRM did not account for persons This final rule excepts Sec. 194.209(c)...... V.C.
receiving flight training in powered- applicants receiving
lift type certificated for more than flight training from
one pilot. Sec. 61.55(a)(1),
(a)(2), and (b)(2) in
order to serve as
Second in Command
(SIC) in a powered-
lift type certificated
for more than one
required pilot flight
crewmember.
The NPRM did not propose any relief This final rule reduces Sec. 194.216(a)...... V.F.2., V.F.2.iii.a., &
to Sec. 61.129(e)(2)(i), which the amount of required V.G.3.
requires 50 hours of PIC time in a PIC time in a powered-
powered-lift. lift to 35 hours for
pilots under the SFAR.
The NPRM proposed to only permit This final rule permits Sec. 194.216(b)...... V.F.2. & V.F.2.iii.b.
pilots at approved training programs any applicant under
to credit a maximum of 15 hours in the SFAR to credit a
an FSTD toward the PIC flight time maximum of 15 hours
requirement of Sec. towards the 35-hour
61.129(e)(2)(i). PIC flight time
requirement of Sec.
194.216(a).
The NPRM proposed to permit certain This final rule reduces Sec. Sec. V.F.2.ii.b.
pilots to log up to 40 hours of PIC the number of hours 194.221(c), 194.223(c).
flight time as sole manipulator of that may be logged
the controls when the person is not from 40 hours to 25
rated. hours to account for
the reduction in
required PIC flight
time in a powered-lift
(see Sec.
194.216(a)).
The NPRM proposed to mirror a part This final rule Sec. 194.241(b)...... V.I.5.
141 section prescribing certain corrects the ratings
ratings that may be held on a ground that may be held on a
instructor certificate. ground instructor
certificate, mirroring
the correction to Sec.
141.37(a)(3)(ii).
The NPRM did not contemplate This final rule adopts Sec. 194.243(b)(4)... V.G.1.v.
retraining requirements for training and
unsatisfactory performance on part endorsement
135 checks in lieu of a practical requirements mirroring
test. Sec. 61.49 for
certain unsatisfactory
part 135 checks under
the SFAR.
The NPRM referenced the Aircraft This final rule Sec. 194.247(b)...... V.J.3.
Flight Manual as determining when corrects the reference
two pilots are required. to the type
certificate as
dictating when two
pilots are required.
[[Page 92307]]
The NPRM proposed to require a This final rule Sec. 194.247(b)(1)... V.J.3.
certificate holder conducting specifies Sec. Sec.
commuter operations with powered- 121.903(c) and
lift in which two pilots are 121.921(a) in subpart
required to comply with subpart Y to Y will apply to
part 121. powered-lift,
notwithstanding use of
the term ``airplane''
in the regulations.
The NPRM did not propose any relief This final rule adopts Sec. 194.253, V.D.3.ii. & V.D.3.iii.
to the requirement that a powered- three options for Appendix A to part 194.
lift must have dual controls for flight training in
flight training. powered-lift with a
single set of controls.
The NPRM proposed not allowing The final rule allows <bullet> Sec. VI.B.1., VI.B.2.,
powered-lift to use the helicopter/ some powered-lift to 194.302(d) (pertaining VI.B.4., & VI.B.5.
rotorcraft criteria stipulated in use the helicopter/ to Sec. 91.119).
the following part 91 sections: Sec. rotorcraft provisions
91.119 (minimum safe altitudes), as long as they meet
Sec. 91.151 (VFR fuel the performance-based
requirements), Sec. Sec. 91.155 criteria outlined in
and 91.157 (VFR weather minimums), part 194.
Sec. 91.167 (IFR fuel
requirements), Sec. 91.169 (IFR
flight plan), and Sec. 91.175 (IFR
takeoff and landing).
<bullet> Sec. .......................
194.302(l) (pertaining
to Sec. 91.151).
<bullet> Sec. .......................
194.302(m) and (n)
(pertaining to Sec.
91.155).
<bullet> Sec. .......................
194.302(p) (pertaining
to Sec. 91.157).
<bullet> Sec. .......................
194.302(q) (pertaining
to Sec. 91.167).
<bullet> Sec. .......................
194.302(r) (pertaining
to Sec. 91.169).
<bullet> Sec. .......................
194.302(s) (pertaining
to Sec. 91.175).
The NPRM proposed not allowing The final rule allows <bullet> Sec. VI.D.2., VI.D.4., &
powered-lift to use the helicopter/ some powered-lift to 194.306(c) (pertaining VI.D.8.
rotorcraft criteria stipulated in use the helicopter/ to Sec. 135.93).
the following part 135 sections: rotorcraft provisions
Sec. 135.93 (Autopilot minimum as long as they meet
altitudes), 135.203 (VFR minimum the performance-based
altitudes), 135.205 (VFR visibility criteria outlined in
requirements), 135.209 (VFR fuel part 194.
supply), 135.221 (IFR alternate
airport weather minimums), 135.223
(IFR alternate airport
requirements), 135.609 (VFR
visibility requirements for Class G
airspace), 135.613 (approach/
departure IFR transitions), and
135.615 (VFR flight planning).
<bullet> Sec. .......................
194.306(nn)
(pertaining to Sec.
135.203).
<bullet> Sec. .......................
194.306(pp)
(pertaining to
135.205).
.......................
<bullet> Sec.
194.306(ss)
(pertaining to Sec.
135.209).
<bullet> Sec. .......................
194.306(tt)
(pertaining to Sec.
135.221).
<bullet> Sec. .......................
194.306(uu)
(pertaining to Sec.
135.223).
<bullet> Sec. .......................
194.306(qqq)
(pertaining to Sec.
135.609).
<bullet> Sec. .......................
194.306(sss) and (ttt)
(pertaining to Sec.
135.613).
<bullet> Sec. .......................
194.306(uuu)
(pertaining to Sec.
135.615).
[[Page 92308]]
The NPRM proposed applying the The final rule applies Sec. 194.306(t)...... VI.D.3.
requirements of Sec. 135.158 Sec. 135.158 to
(pitot heat indication systems) to powered-lift but
powered-lift. allows the indication
light to be other than
an amber light.
The NPRM did not address powered-lift The final rule revises <bullet> Sec. VI.D.3., VI.E.2.,
that experience a ``critical change some language in part 194.306(z) (pertaining VI.E.3., & VI.E.5.i.
of thrust.'' 194, pertaining to to Sec. 135.168).
parts 135 and 136, to
reference powered-lift
that experience a
``critical change of
thrust'' and adopts a
definition for this
term.
<bullet> Sec.
194.306(ii) and (jj)
(pertaining to Sec.
135.181).
<bullet> Sec. .......................
194.306(kk)
(pertaining to Sec.
135.183).
<bullet> Sec. .......................
194.308(d)(1)
(pertaining to Sec.
136.9).
<bullet> Sec. .......................
194.308(d)(2)(ii)
(pertaining to Sec.
136.11(a)(2)).
<bullet> Sec. .......................
194.308(d)(6)
(pertaining to Sec.
136.75(c)).
The NPRM did not clarify the The final rule outlines Sec. 194.306(nnn) VI.D.8.
instrument and ATP certificate the instrument and ATP (pertaining to Sec.
requirements under Sec. 135.603. certificate 135.603).
requirements for
powered-lift
conducting air
ambulance operations.
The NPRM did not apply the flotation The final rule applies Sec. 194.308(d)(2) VI.E.3.
requirements under Sec. 136.11 to Sec. 136.11(a)(1) to (pertaining to Sec.
single-engine powered-lift and single-engine powered- 136.11).
applied the requirements only to lift. It also applies
powered-lift operating in vertical- Sec. 136.11 to
lift flight mode while conducting powered-lift operating
operations beyond the auto- in both vertical-lift
rotational or gliding distance from and wing-borne flight
the shoreline. modes. Finally, the
final rule removes the
redundant and
unnecessary language
pertaining to auto-
rotational and gliding
distances.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Powered-Lift Type Certification and FSTD Qualification
A. Type Certification
In the NPRM, the FAA did not propose any new requirements for the
type certification of powered-lift. The FAA determined it will use its
existing regulatory process to type certificate powered-lift as a
special class under Sec. 21.17(b).
The FAA uses a tiered safety approach for minimum certification
standards, with different levels for airplanes and rotorcraft. For
certain unique aircraft for which the FAA has not established
airworthiness standards in its regulations (e.g., gliders, airships,
powered-lift), the FAA uses the special class aircraft process. For
powered-lift, the FAA will designate airworthiness requirements and
other criteria that match the safety levels of existing standards by
considering factors like aircraft size, seating, and performance. The
FAA will publish the proposed airworthiness criteria, along with an
explanation of its equivalency determination, in the Federal Register
for public notice and comment for each powered-lift project.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ E.g., see: Airworthiness Criteria: Special Class
Airworthiness Criteria for the Joby Aero, Inc. Model JAS4-1 Powered-
Lift, 87 FR 67399 (Nov. 8, 2022); 89 FR 17230 (March 8, 2024).
Alternatively, the FAA may designate acceptable airworthiness
criteria as the certification basis for powered-lift by publishing a
future advisory circular (AC), as the agency has done for airships
(AC 21.17-1A, Type Certification--Airships, dated Sept. 25, 1992),
gliders (AC 21.17-2A, Type Certification--Fixed Wing Gliders
(Sailplanes), Including Powered Gliders, dated Feb. 10. 1993), and
very light airplanes (AC 21.17-3, Type Certification of Very Light
Airplanes Under FAR 21.17(b), dated Dec. 21, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In some cases, specific airworthiness requirements for issuance of
type certificates might not fulfill the requirements of operational
rules. Applicants seeking powered-lift type design approval should
identify areas needing additional approvals to meet anticipated
operational needs. Operational rules often reference airworthiness
standards in part 23, 25, 27, or 29, but adaptations might be necessary
for unique designs.
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed that powered-lift weighing more than
12,500 pounds would be required to meet certain operating regulations
that currently apply to large transport category airplanes. The FAA
also stated that this specific weight point would be an appropriate
weight at which to apply certain transport category certification
standards when type certificating powered-lift under Sec. 21.17(b).
The FAA further requested comments on whether the public believes there
is a more appropriate weight at which to apply transport category
regulations to powered-lift.
Two commenters generally supported the FAA's proposed approach for
type certification. HAI commented that older powered-lift designs are
significantly different from those proposed by recent applicants and
supported the FAA's intended use of Sec. 21.17(b) for the type
certification of unique and novel designs. The commenter also
recommended collecting information during the certification process of
novel AAM aircraft before requiring type ratings for each make and
model. SAE International generally supported the FAA's intended use of
performance-based regulations for powered-lift type certification
airworthiness criteria.
[[Page 92309]]
An individual commenter highlighted specific concerns regarding
powered-lift type certification and recommended that the FAA consider
the unique aspects of each design when developing the type
certification requirements. The commenter highlighted the need to
consider all the various flight-mode unique aspects and that the
regulations should focus on control law development instead of
prescribing specific regulations based on specific design
configurations. The commenter also identified technical areas that the
FAA should consider when developing powered-lift airworthiness
criteria. The FAA agrees that the novel aspects of powered-lift require
an alternate approach to existing prescriptive airworthiness standards
for airplanes and rotorcraft, which is why the FAA expects to largely
employ performance-based airworthiness criteria. The FAA also agrees
that the novel features identified by the commenter require evaluation
during powered-lift type certification; however, this is beyond the
scope of this SFAR and will instead be covered in each powered-lift
airworthiness criteria publication.
An individual commenter requested clarification as to how the FAA
would determine which airworthiness standards would be appropriate for
use in the type certification of powered-lift and what criteria would
be used to make this decision.
As described in the NPRM, when conducting the evaluation for
determining an equivalent level of safety to existing standards, the
FAA will consider the powered-lift's specific type design features
(aircraft's size, passenger seating configuration, performance, etc.)
and evaluate them against the applicable airworthiness requirements
contained in parts 23, 25, 27, 29, 33, and 35. In addition, certain
transport category (i.e., 14 CFR parts 25 and 29) certification
standards will be appropriate for powered-lift weighing more than
12,500 pounds.
EASA noted discrepancies in the type certification section of the
NPRM. EASA stated that while the NPRM stated that no changes to type
certification requirements were proposed, the FAA has separately
published airworthiness criteria for two companies that propose changes
to part 23 requirements and establish new requirements.
To clarify the FAA's statement in the NPRM regarding no new/changed
type certification requirements, the FAA noted that the existing
regulatory structure in 14 CFR part 21 already provides the means by
which powered-lift can receive a type certificate. Specifically, Sec.
21.17(b) provides for the ability to type certificate powered-lift as a
special class aircraft. As stated in the NPRM, under Sec. 21.17(b),
the FAA designates the applicable airworthiness requirements, which may
include requirements from the existing airworthiness standards
applicable to normal category and transport category airplanes, normal
category and transport category rotorcraft, aircraft engines and
propellers (parts 23, 25, 27, 29, 33, and 35), and it may also include
unique airworthiness criteria developed specifically for the individual
product.
Alakai Technologies Corporation stated the proposed entrants into
the AAM industry include ``special class rotorcraft'' \12\ and powered-
lift, both of which would be type certificated under Sec. 21.17(b).
However, the commenter noted the proposed rule provides a framework for
airman certification and operation only for powered-lift, and not for
special class rotorcraft. The commenter contended that without
providing a framework for airman certification and operation for
special class rotorcraft, special class rotorcraft will be prohibited
from operating in the NAS, thereby limiting the market to powered-lift
special class aircraft AAM technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ ``Special class rotorcraft'' are rotorcraft, as defined in
Sec. 1.1, that meet three or more of the following criteria: (1)
for its support in flight, the rotorcraft depends principally on the
lift generated by three or more rotors and creates directional
control by varying the power at each rotor; (2) the rotorcraft
utilizes electric or hybrid-electric propulsion; (3) the
rotorcraft's design includes an advanced flight control system
(e.g., a fly-by-wire flight control system) that uses electronically
operated controls such that the pilot has no direct mechanical link
to the control surfaces or swashplate; and (4) the rotorcraft is not
capable of traditional autorotation, but instead provides an
alternate method of safe landing following loss of engine power. See
definition of rotorcraft in 1.1 and FAA Policy Statement PS-AIR
21.17-02.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The commenter referred to a developing policy the FAA has not yet
finalized that would designate certain rotorcraft as ``special class
rotorcraft.'' Although special class rotorcraft would be type
certificated under the special class process in Sec. 21.17(b), they
still meet the regulatory definition of a rotorcraft in Sec. 1.1. As
such, special class rotorcraft would fall under the operating and
airmen rules for rotorcraft (helicopter) in parts 61, 91, 135, etc. and
would not need the same accommodations that were necessary for powered-
lift. The FAA determined that the inclusion of special class rotorcraft
in this SFAR was not needed for enabling those aircraft and that
including special class rotorcraft is beyond the scope of this
rulemaking to enable powered-lift.
EASA asked how the FAA would consider operational alleviations for
these type-certificated aircraft in the context of AAM. The FAA
reviewed the SFAR language to determine where operational alleviations
could be provided for powered-lift that meet certain performance
criteria and made changes to the minimum safe altitude, visibility, and
fuel reserves requirements. These accommodations are addressed within
the respective sections of this preamble for each rule as applicable
for powered-lift.
Vertical Aerospace Group commented that powered-lift should be
built to the highest safety standards and that the combination of
complex aircraft systems and complex commercial operating environment
require a design safety target of 10<SUP>-9</SUP> and Design Assurance
Level (DAL) A for systems, software, and complex hardware, with respect
to failure conditions classified as catastrophic. Additionally, the
commenter requested the FAA provide details on what transport category
airworthiness criteria would be used for powered-lift, including
crashworthiness, gust loads, wind speeds, and performance criteria.
Currently, airplanes and rotorcraft type certificated in the normal
category are permitted to perform commercial operations transporting
passengers without meeting the more stringent transport category design
requirements. As stated in the NPRM, for powered-lift, which are type
certificated under Sec. 21.17(b), the safety targets for each product
are based on meeting an equivalent level of safety to the existing
airworthiness standards. Rather than establishing a rigid ``one size
fits all'' safety target or DAL for all powered-lift, which will be
used in varied types of operations, the FAA separately considers each
aircraft's unique design characteristics to ensure the selected
airworthiness criteria are appropriate to the design, intended
operations, and safety. The FAA will publish the proposed airworthiness
criteria for each powered-lift, including an explanation of its
equivalency determination, in the Federal Register for public notice
and comment before issuing final airworthiness criteria.
ALPA responded to the FAA's request for comments on applying
transport category regulations to large powered-lift, those weighing
more than 12,500 pounds. ALPA disagreed with the FAA's proposal to use
12,500 pounds as the weight threshold for large powered-lift because
ALPA asserted this cutoff is arbitrarily based on historical aircraft
safety records that are not relevant to new aircraft being proposed in
the
[[Page 92310]]
powered-lift industry. ALPA recommended that 7,500 pounds would be more
appropriate for first-generation powered-lift, noting that this would
allow the FAA to apply more appropriate sections of existing parts 135
and 136 to the majority of the first-generation powered-lift.
The FAA disagrees with the ALPA recommendation that 7,500 pounds
should be used instead of 12,500 pounds as the weight at which
transport category airworthiness standards would be appropriate. The
FAA has determined that 12,500 pounds provides the appropriate level of
safety and places the weight threshold between the weight limits for
transport category airplanes and transport category rotorcraft.\13\
Imposing part 25/29 airworthiness requirements on powered-lift weighing
12,500 pounds or less would decrease the useful payload of the powered-
lift and increase the cost of type certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The NPRM included a typographical error that identified the
normal category weight limits for rotorcraft and airplanes as 7,500
lbs. and 19,500 lbs., respectively. The correct weight limits for
those airworthiness standards are 7,000 lbs. and 19,000 lbs.,
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
XTI said that, in addition to wing-borne flight and vertical lift,
some powered-lift will also operate in an intermediate configuration
utilizing vectored thrust and wing-borne flight during takeoff and
landing. This short takeoff and landing (STOL) mode, the commenter
said, provides significant performance benefits and improves ranges.
XTI requested clarification whether required runway distances would be
calculated differently for powered-lift operating in STOL mode than the
required distances for fully wing-borne flight.
The method by which the required runway distance is calculated
would be the same for powered-lift and conventional takeoff and landing
aircraft; however, the distance for powered-lift would be shorter. The
specific configuration for takeoff and landing would need to be defined
in the flight manual along with the respective takeoff and landing
performance for those configurations. However, the particular details
in calculating runway distances for a certain powered-lift are beyond
the scope of this SFAR.
A helicopter pilot recommended that the FAA review its bird strike
certification procedures when certificating powered-lift. The commenter
cited concerns that powered-lift will be more prone to bird strikes
than helicopters given they operate at lower altitudes and environments
prone to more bird activity, generate less noise and rotor downwash
that would normally keep birds away, and may travel at faster speeds.
The commenter suggested powered-lift test pilots should use their
experience to recommend methods of bird strike avoidance through
training, emergency procedures, and system designs like detect-and-
avoid systems.
The commenter's recommendations are beyond the scope of this SFAR.
However, the agency notes that, to date, the FAA has included bird
strike protection requirements in the proposed airworthiness criteria
for the first three powered-lift applicants the agency has published
for notice and comment under Sec. 21.17(b).\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Airworthiness Criteria: Special Class Airworthiness
Criteria for the Joby Aero, Inc. Model JAS4-1 Powered-Lift, 87 FR
67399 (Nov. 8, 2022); Airworthiness Criteria: Special Class
Airworthiness Criteria for the Archer Aviation Inc. Model M001
Powered-Lift, 87 FR 77749 (Dec. 20, 2022); Airworthiness Criteria:
Special Class Airworthiness Criteria for the AgustaWestland
Philadelphia Corporation Model AW609 Powered-Lift, 88 FR 37805 (June
9, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The remaining comments on type certification requested
clarification on language used in the NPRM preamble or specific
information on the type certification process or specific safety
objectives required during type certification. These comments are
beyond the scope of this rulemaking. As stated previously, the specific
airworthiness criteria for each powered-lift project will be published
in the Federal Register for public notice and comment.
B. Noise Certification
The FAA did not propose any new requirements for the noise
certification of powered-lift. The FAA is mandated to establish noise
standards and regulations that ensure public safety regarding aircraft
noise. Recent advancements in electric motors and control systems have
led manufacturers to develop novel aircraft that differ significantly
from conventional ones covered by existing noise certification
standards. The FAA will examine each application and determine whether
the existing part 36 requirements are appropriate as a noise
certification basis, as it does for all noise certification applicants.
If the FAA determines that the part 36 rules are not sufficient for a
particular powered-lift, the FAA may create rules of particular
applicability for that powered-lift. Due to potentially diverse designs
of these aircraft and limited data on their noise signatures, the FAA
has not yet established broad noise standards for all powered-lift.
However, powered-lift that are tilt-rotors are currently subject to the
noise regulations of appendix K of part 36.
If a manufacturer seeks certification for a powered-lift which
could not be certificated using appendix K of part 36, the FAA would
propose amending the SFAR to include operating noise limits in subpart
I of part 91, which would be applicable to that powered-lift.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Appendix K to part 36 outlines noise requirements for
tiltrotors utilized by a powered-lift. The FAA notes that these
would be applicable to powered-lift if it is determined during the
aircraft certification process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HAI said that the certification process could reveal that AAM
vehicles emit less noise than traditional aircraft, referencing the GAO
report cited in the NPRM.\16\ HAI said that current standards may need
adjustment but that the certification process should reveal any
requirements and inform future rulemaking in this area. The FAA
contemplated the need for future rulemaking in the NPRM. Rather than
use the existing requirements for small propeller airplanes, jet
transport airplanes, helicopters, or tiltrotors in part 36, such
diverse conceptual designs and new aircraft types may require tailored
noise certification requirements. As stated in the NPRM, the FAA will
examine each application and determine whether existing part 36
requirements are appropriate as a noise certification basis, as it does
for all noise certification applicants. If the current regulations
cannot be applied appropriately, the FAA may promulgate a rule of
particular applicability to establish a noise certification basis for
these new aircraft designs. The noise sources from these aircraft have
been shown to be complex, and the FAA does not yet have sufficient data
on the aircraft types and noise signatures expected from these new
entrants. Accordingly, until sufficient data are collected, the FAA
would not be able to promulgate standards of general applicability for
these aircraft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO-22-105020,
Transforming Aviation: Stakeholders Identified Issues to Address for
``Advanced Air Mobility'', published, May 9, 2022. Publicly
released, May 9, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Qualification of Powered-Lift Flight Simulation Training Devices
(FSTDs)
Part 60 prescribes the rules governing the initial and continuing
qualification of all aircraft FSTDs, which includes full flight
simulators (FFS) and flight training devices (FTDs) \17\ used to meet
the training, evaluation, or flight experience requirements for
flightcrew member certification or qualification. In accordance with
Sec. 60.15, the FAA qualifies each FSTD at a specific level
[[Page 92311]]
if that FSTD meets the applicable Qualification Performance Standards
(QPS). The QPS are published in the following appendices to part 60:
appendix A for airplane FFSs, appendix B for airplane FTDs, appendix C
for helicopter FFSs, appendix D for helicopter FTDs, appendix E for the
quality management system for all FSTDs, and appendix F for definitions
and abbreviations applicable to part 60. While appendices E and F will
apply to powered-lift FSTDs, as discussed in the NPRM, part 60 does not
set forth a powered-lift QPS similar to what exists for airplanes and
helicopters. As discussed later in this section, the FAA maintains that
creation and adoption of a new appendix as a permanent fixture in part
60 is premature given the wide variation of powered-lift and rapid pace
of development. Additionally, as discussed in this preamble, one intent
of the SFAR is to equip the FAA with operational data to implement
future permanent regulations, to include that data necessary to develop
a powered-lift QPS in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See 14 CFR 1.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In general, FSTDs qualified under part 60 are typically used to
replace an aircraft for required air carrier or pilot certification
training and proficiency checking. Because FSTDs are used for
applications such as air carrier training and type rating training,
detailed validation requirements are defined in the part 60 QPS to
ensure that the FSTD performs equivalently to a specific make, model,
and series of aircraft. Depending upon the qualification level of the
FSTD, it may completely replace an aircraft for all training and
proficiency checking events. As mentioned by one commenter who
recommended caution on the use of simulators to replace an aircraft due
to the ability to replicate complex aerodynamic environments, the FAA
notes that rigorous objective validation requirements are applied to
ensure the FSTDs perform equivalently to the aircraft in similar
training and proficiency checking events. These validation requirements
cover a wide range of training tasks, including takeoff, landing,
hovering/low speed operations, and various other flight maneuvers that
are required for pilot training and qualification. As described in the
NPRM, the qualification of powered-lift FSTDs would be validated
similarly in an objective manner to ensure the FSTD performs
equivalently to the aircraft in required training and checking events.
Therefore, the FAA proposed the addition of new requirements in
Sec. 194.105 of the SFAR to enable the qualification of powered-lift
FSTDs. The FAA contended that Sec. 194.105 would function to add
flexibility to part 60 in proposed Sec. 194.105 to permit
qualification of FSTDs of powered-lift using components of existing
standards for airplanes and helicopters in appendices A through D to
part 60, where applicable and as determined by the FAA, that would
provide an equivalent level of safety to existing QPS components. As
written in the NPRM, the proposal was intended to follow the
established process in Sec. 21.17(b) for the certification of special
classes of aircraft. This addition facilitates the FSTD qualification
process by enabling FSTD sponsors to propose FSTD qualification
standards where the current standards do not apply to new and novel
aircraft designs. Particularly with objective validation testing, the
ability to propose alternate testing methods is necessary to fully
evaluate the FSTD's capability to provide pilot training for powered-
lift.
The FAA received several comments on the proposed FSTD
qualification process, to which it responds in the subsequent sections,
and FAA adopts the rule text as proposed.
1. Publication of Proposed FSTD Standards
Several commenters noted the urgency to enable a means to ensure
safety and efficiency of FSTDs. Specifically, several commenters
disagreed with publication of the proposed powered-lift standards to
the Federal Register for notice and comment. The primary concern was
that adding a notice and comment process would introduce an unnecessary
delay in approving such standards and qualifying FSTDs. Commenters
suggested alternatives such as: expediting an independent SFAR
consisting only of a powered-lift QPS for part 60; creating an
alternate means of compliance for interim certification; allowing FAA
principal operations inspectors (POIs) to approve FSTDs for use within
the training organization they oversee; developing an expert panel with
approving authority who would conduct a technical review; and providing
notice and an opportunity to comment only for the first QPS, then
utilizing it as a baseline for future QPSs absent Federal Register
publication.
As discussed in the NPRM, the requirements proposed in Sec.
194.105 will follow similar processes that are used to certify special
classes of aircraft. The FAA understands commenters' concerns regarding
the potential for delays; FAA is not required to, and does not plan to,
adhere to all of the requirements for issuing generally applicable
rules. The notice and comment process for a project of this nature, a
rule of particular applicability, does not necessitate a full
regulatory impact analysis or going through the same level of review as
a rule of general applicability. Rather, the FAA anticipates working
closely and directly with the FSTD sponsor and manufacturer to develop
the QPS, after which the FAA would announce the availability of, and
request comment on, the proposed QPS. FAA would solicit comment for a
shorter timeframe than it typically does for a generally applicable
rule, consistent with the time required to complete the comment
consideration and adjudication process for the certification of special
classes of aircraft. Additionally, the FAA does not intend to publish
every proposed QPS for those FSTDs/QPS that have already been
published. In other words, the FAA intends to leverage precedent for
similarly situated FSTDs. For example, if Sponsor A qualified FSTD A
under Sec. 194.105 (after notice, comment, and comment adjudication),
and FSTD A was identical to FSTD B that Sponsor B wished to qualify,
the FAA would apply FSTD A's QPS without public notice and comment, but
after providing Sponsor B notice of the QPS and an opportunity to
comment.
To effectuate this process, while also recognizing there are
instances (like the previously described scenario) where the FAA will
find it unnecessary to provide public notice and seek comment, the FAA
adopts a new paragraph in Sec. 194.105. Specifically, Sec. 194.105 as
it was proposed will be designated as paragraph (a), and new paragraph
(b) will set forth the FAA's intent to publish proposed QPSs in the
Federal Register for comment. Additionally, paragraphs (b)(1) and (2)
will acknowledge that the FAA may find public notice and comment to be
unnecessary in certain circumstances. The FAA finds this regulatory
approach will address commenters concerns with timeliness in
publication where extenuating circumstances exist and when similar
simulators seek to enter into service.
The FAA anticipates that much of the existing FSTD standards in
appendix A through appendix D to part 60 are applicable to powered-lift
FSTDs with minor changes, including current general requirements,
functions and subjective requirements, and certain cueing requirements
for airplane and helicopter FSTDs. Additionally, portions of existing
validation testing requirements may potentially be applied to powered-
lift with adjustments of testing maneuvers, modification of applicable
parameters, and the addition
[[Page 92312]]
of testing conditions to cover unique aircraft characteristics and
associated training requirements. The FAA already maintains a framework
for adjudication of special class airworthiness comments and intends to
leverage that existing framework in the adjudication of comments after
QPS notice.
While the FAA acknowledges that the notice and comment process may
introduce some administrative burden and time delays, the transparent
process and public participation benefits both the industry and the
FAA. First, as previously mentioned, the FAA intends to use the SFAR to
inform a permanent rulemaking to part 60 (i.e., likely the addition of
appendices to part 60 for powered-lift FFS and FTD QPSs). By treating
QPSs under the same framework as special classes of aircraft, the FAA
foresees the accumulation of requisite information to propose the most
appropriate permanent amendment to part 60. This information may stem
from industry, sponsors, FAA inspectors and subject matter experts, and
the general public; public notice provides an efficient and familiar
platform for such input. The FAA recognizes that public commenters may
have limited technical and proprietary information on the design of
these new and novel aircraft designs but maintains the benefit of
improving efficiency over time for new aircraft entry into the NAS.
Additionally, the nature of public notice, adjudication of comments,
and issuance of final QPS will establish precedent whereby interested
stakeholders will be able to view past approved proposals and base
future proposals upon them. Rather than addressing multiple individual
proposals in a non-transparent manner through a deviation process, the
FAA anticipates that the public notice and comment process could have a
converging effect on the powered-lift FSTD standards over time.
The FAA considered the various alternatives suggested by
commenters. First, the creation of fixed QPS standards to part 60
through a permanent generally applicable rulemaking or through an
expedited SFAR is premature given the lack of any certificated powered-
lift and presentation of any powered-lift FSTD to the FAA. Primarily,
the FAA lacks requisite information to develop a universal FSTD QPS
applicable to the array of unique configurations of powered-lift. The
SFAR approach facilitates a flexible and transparent process tailored
to the specific powered-lift FSTD. The information and expertise
accumulated during the pendency of the SFAR will position the FAA and
its industry counterparts in a more conducive position to future
permanent regulations. Furthermore, under the SFAR public comment
process, feedback from the well-established airplane and helicopter
simulation and training industry and other interested parties can be
leveraged in proposed powered-lift FSTD standards to incorporate past
lessons learned in utilizing simulation to improve simulator fidelity,
pilot training, and, ultimately, aviation safety.
Next, while POIs already approve the use of FSTDs for training,\18\
their responsibilities do not extend to the base qualification of the
simulator. Rather, the Training and Simulation Group within the FAA's
Office of Safety Standards is the office of primary responsibility for
FSTD qualification and certification. The FAA Training and Simulation
Group is comprised of aeronautical engineers, aviation safety
inspectors, and analysts who specialize in the highly technical
qualification activities for FSTDs. This existing branch and process
resembles one commenter's suggestion to convene an expert panel with
approving authority. Conversely, POIs and training center program
managers (TCPM) maintain expertise in ensuring certificate holders
apply appropriate regulations, policies, and procedures pertaining to
use of the FSTD for training rather than the evaluation, approval, and
oversight of QPS specifications. Where the Training and Simulation
Group qualifies and assigns a specific level of qualification to the
FSTD, the POI approves the FSTD for use by a certificate holder for a
specific maneuver, procedure, or crewmember function. Due to the
differing functions, training, and experience of the persons performing
these separate job responsibilities, the FAA declines to expand POI
responsibilities to include FSTD qualification as they do not have the
specialized expertise required for such a duty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ FAA Order 8900.1, Vol 3, Ch. 54, Sec. 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA comprehensively addresses alternate means of compliance and
interim certification in subsequent sections.
2. Use of Deviation Authority
Several commenters stated that the FAA could incorporate powered-
lift into part 60 through the already-existing mechanism of deviation
authority set forth in Sec. 60.15(c)(5). These commenters explained
that the FAA erroneously excluded deviation authority as an option,
indicating that Sec. 60.1 gives the Administrator authority to
designate an appendix as applicable to a powered-lift and then to
utilize deviation authority to amend that designation. Other
commenters, such as GAMA, expressed concern that the FAA had previously
approved part 60 deviations for FSTD projects, and the new proposed
process could result in regulatory risk and might delay these projects.
The FAA acknowledges that some commenters believe there already
exists a path to powered-lift FSTD qualification through part 60
deviation authority. However, the NPRM preamble explained why Sec.
60.15(c)(5) deviation authority is inapplicable; the FAA maintains this
position. Section 60.15(c)(5) states that an FSTD sponsor or
manufacturer may submit a request for approval of a deviation from the
QPS requirements as defined in appendices A through D to part 60. Thus,
the deviation authority is explicitly applicable to the already
existing appendices for airplanes and helicopters only. To further
support this narrowly scoped authority, as explained in the preamble to
the final rule adopting Sec. 60.15(c)(5), the FAA added deviation
authority to allow for FSTD sponsors to deviate from technical
requirements in the part 60 QPS.\19\ Deviation may only be considered
from minimum requirements tables, objective testing tables, the
functions and subjecting testing tables, and other supporting tables
and requirements in the part 60 QPS.\20\ Therefore, the deviation
authority was never intended to be utilized to create a brand new QPS
for a new class of aircraft, nor does the plain language of the
regulation support such a use. Rather, deviation authority in Sec.
60.15(c)(5) is utilized for those unique instances where novel airplane
or rotorcraft characteristics do not precisely fit within the common
and technical criteria set forth in the respective appendices or where
a published FSTD standard, such as ICAO Document 9625,\21\ may be
substituted for the part 60 QPS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Flight Simulation Training Device Qualification Standards
for Extended Envelope and Adverse Weather Event Training Tasks final
rule, 81 FR 18178 (Mar. 30, 2016); corrected at 81 FR 32016 (May 20,
2016).
\20\ Sec. 60.15(c)(5)(ii).
\21\ Manual of Criteria for the Qualification of Flight
Simulation Training Devices--Volume I--Aeroplanes (9625-1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters are correct in noting that the FAA previously issued a
deviation in accordance with Sec. 60.15(c)(5) for a powered-lift FSTD.
Specifically, the FAA approved one deviation for a set of powered-lift
FSTD standards under Sec. 60.15(c)(5) in 2018; however, an FSTD has
not yet been qualified under this
[[Page 92313]]
approved deviation. While the FAA has since determined that the
deviation authority is not the appropriate mechanism to approve FSTD
standards for powered-lift, the FAA intends to work directly with that
operator to facilitate FSTD qualification under this adopted
process.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ The FAA notes that commenters' concerns regarding
regulatory risk did not include the specific regulations where risk
would exist. As stated, the FAA intends to work directly with the
operator issued a deviation in light of this final rule to avoid any
noncompliance issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA acknowledges that the adopted SFAR process may result in
less timely decision-making by the FAA as compared to using a deviation
process without public notice and comment. However, what commenters are
proposing would essentially be establishing new standards, because the
existing appendices are not appropriate for these new FSTDs. The
establishment of new standards must comply with the informal rulemaking
requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. In addition, the FAA
believes that public input will provide value in helping to ensure the
safe and efficient integration of powered-lift into the NAS and that
this regulatory approach is designed to be as broad and open to
innovation as possible without sacrificing safety and effectiveness.
3. Interim FSTD Qualification
Lilium, CAE, NBAA, and others commented on the need for an interim
FSTD qualification process for powered-lift FSTDs and advocated for the
use of engineering/predicted data to support FSTD qualification. Some
commenters urged the FAA to accept the engineering simulations and
predicted engineering data from aircraft OEMs to expedite an interim
qualification process.
Part 60 supports interim FSTD qualifications, which would be
equally applicable in the case of a powered-lift FSTD. Specifically,
Sec. 60.21 sets forth the requirements for the interim qualification
of FSTDs for new aircraft types or models and requires the sponsor to
provide: (1) the aircraft manufacturer's data consisting of at least
predicted data validated by a limited set of flight test data, (2) the
aircraft manufacturer's description of the prediction methodology used
to develop the predicted data, and (3) the Qualification Test Guide
test results.\23\ Because this regulation applies to all aircraft,
interim qualification is an available option to powered-lift FSTDs even
within the alternate qualification framework set forth in the SFAR. As
discussed in the NPRM preamble that adopted Sec. 60.21, the intent of
interim qualification is to facilitate training before final flight
test data is available so the operator can put the aircraft into
service swiftly, while maintaining necessary safety standards.\24\ The
regulation enables the use of the aforementioned predictive and/or
engineering data that meets the reliability parameters set forth in
Sec. 60.21(a) to support interim FSTD qualification and properly
trained flightcrew in accordance with FAA pilot training and
qualification standards. The FAA notes that engineering simulation and
predicted engineering data may be accepted for airplanes and
helicopters as an alternative to flight test data in accordance with
appendices A and C to part 60; however, this concept is not succinctly
applicable to powered-lift interim qualification because powered-lift
and their corresponding FSTDs are new and novel entrants into the
aviation market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Appendix F to part 60 defines the following terms: flight
test data, predicted data, and qualified test guide.
\24\ Flight Simulation Device Initial and Continuing
Qualification NPRM, 67 FR 60284 (Sept. 25, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Established practice and additional regulatory requirements in
airplane and helicopter QPS clearly require the applicant to
demonstrate past success by providing such data to support FSTD
qualification.\25\ While the SFAR utilizes a non-traditional mechanism
of QPS formation, establishing past success at providing predictive
data that will support FSTD qualification continues to be a necessary
deliverable for interim qualification so pilots will be adequately
trained and checked in an interim qualified FSTD. Particularly with new
and emerging aircraft designs, the FAA anticipates significant
challenges with establishing past success in predicting the behavior of
these aircraft for the purposes of developing real-time simulation
models for pilot training.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ E.g., ``. . . based on acceptable aeronautical principles
with proven success history and valid outcomes for aerodynamics,
engine operations, avionics operations, flight control applications,
or ground handling,'' appendix A to part 60, Attachment 2,
paragraphs 8 (Additional information about flight simulator
qualification for new or derivative airplanes) and 9 (Engineering
Simulator--Validation Data). See similar language in appendix C,
Attachment 2, Paragraph 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In sum, new Sec. 194.105 does not prohibit a sponsor or
manufacturer from pursuing interim qualification of an FSTD. The
interim qualification requirements of Sec. 60.21 apply to all
aircraft, including powered-lift. While the FAA predicts challenges in
the accumulation of powered-lift FSTD flight test data sufficient to
meet the requirements for interim qualification, if a sponsor or
manufacturer could meet the standard as set forth in Sec. 60.21(a),
the SFAR does not foreclose interim qualification.
4. Emerging Technological Advances in FSTDs
Several commenters, including AWPC, CAE, Vertical Flight Society,
Advanced Air Mobility Institute, and GAMA, stated that the FAA must
consider new and innovative simulation technologies, such as virtual
reality (VR), extended reality (XR), and mixed reality (MR) systems.
The commenters emphasized that these technologies provide opportunities
for safe, immersive training, as well as offer the potential to
significantly reduce the hardware footprint of an FSTD flightdeck and
visual system. Additionally, the commenters stated that integrating new
and novel technology would reduce associated material cost to the
operator. These commenters urged the FAA to update part 60 to account
for novel technology, use ``acceptability'' standards to account for
novel technology, or use Sec. 61.4(c) to approve the novel devices
that provide comparable fidelity and representation. The Advanced Air
Mobility Institute recommended collaborating with the U.S. Armed Forces
to understand their training regime, which includes desktop avionics
trainers, mixed reality part-task trainer, and common software flight
training devices. ALPA further commented that virtual reality and mixed
reality technologies should only be used after qualification standards
have been established and should not replace the in-aircraft training
or minimum FFS used.
The FAA acknowledges the potential benefit of immersive simulation
technologies like virtual reality, extended reality, and mixed reality
in improving FSTD quality and reducing the overall cost of simulation
for pilot training. In addition to powered-lift FSTDs, the use of
immersive simulation technologies is an issue currently being addressed
by the FAA under existing airplane and helicopter standards. The FAA is
actively working toward encompassing these tools into the qualification
regime for all aircraft, not just powered-lift. Because the current
part 60 standards do not specifically address immersive technologies,
such as virtual reality systems, the FAA recognizes the need to
facilitate these technologies. Additionally, while the current part 60
standards do not yet address the use of such immersive technologies for
FSTDs, this does not necessarily prevent an operator or training
provider from using such
[[Page 92314]]
technologies for training that does not require the use of an FSTD,
such as for classroom instruction or providing flightdeck
familiarization training to prepare students for formal flight
training.
The FAA notes, however, a survey of past research work on virtual
reality systems as applied to pilot training simulators has shown
instances of significant degradation of pilot performance and increased
simulation sickness in virtual reality-equipped simulators.\26\ The FAA
must understand the effectiveness, benefits, and shortcomings of these
systems in conducting pilot training and evaluation before
memorializing FSTD qualification with such systems in part 60, not just
for powered-lift, but for any aircraft. The FAA recognizes that the
aforementioned study likely does not represent the state of the art in
virtual reality systems and that additional study on the latest
advancements is needed. To inform future policy decisions and potential
rulemaking, the FAA recently initiated an immersive simulation research
study \27\ to examine, for example, human factors, potential use cases,
and technical standards for virtual reality and other systems.
Currently, the FAA is engaging with sponsors and manufacturers to work
toward qualification of lower-level helicopter FSTDs with virtual
reality systems, as well as maintaining awareness of EASA's recent FSTD
qualification with a virtual reality system.\28\ In sum, the FAA
remains committed to staying apprised of new and novel technology that
serves as a benefit in pilot training and preparation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ E.g., Oberhauser, M., Dreyer, D., Braunstingl, R., &
Koglbauer, I. (2018). ``What's real about virtual reality flight
simulation? Comparing the fidelity of a virtual reality with a
conventional flight simulation environment.'' Aviation Psychology
and Applied Human Factors, 8(1), 22-34.
\27\ The FAA's Tech Center Acquisition & Grants Division in the
Office of Finance and Management published an RFI to complete a
feasibility assessment and to develop the requirements for Immersive
Flight Simulation CRADA(s) on December 14, 2022, See Government RFI
for Immersive Flight Simulation Cooperative Research and Development
Agreement, available at <a href="http://SAM.gov">SAM.gov</a>.
\28\ www.easa.europa.eu/en/downloads/137723/en.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, the QPS process adopted by this final rule will not
prohibit a manufacturer or sponsor from proposing a QPS that includes
new and novel technologies. For powered-lift FSTDs, applicants may
propose the use of virtual reality systems under the SFAR process,
similar to how airplane and helicopter FSTD manufacturers may propose,
use, or require a deviation to facilitate these systems within their
airplane or helicopter FSTD. Because the FAA has well-established
standards for conventional simulation in appendices A through D to part
60, the applicant must include sufficient supporting data and
justification that the virtual reality-equipped FSTD can satisfactorily
provide relevant fidelity to an equivalent level or better than that of
a conventional FSTD at the same qualification level to facilitate
satisfactory pilot training and checking. In developing this
justification, piloted experiments comparing performance, workload,
simulation sickness, and transfer of training between a virtual reality
FSTD and a conventional FSTD acceptable to the FAA should be
considered.
5. Use of Consensus Standards
SAE International and CAE both urged the FAA to recognize consensus
standards for powered-lift FSTDs when published. As discussed in the
NPRM, the FAA intends to consider consensus standards during the
qualification of powered-lift FSTDs under part 60. The FAA is aware of,
and participates in, certain consensus standards subcommittees tasked
with examining FSTD qualification standards for powered-lift. At the
time of the publication of the NPRM, no publicly available consensus
standards existed to reference; therefore, the FAA declined to include
them as a compulsory basis for qualification. However, under the SFAR
process, an applicant may propose the use of an industry consensus
standard to support the qualification of a powered-lift FSTD.
While the FAA intends to leverage consensus standards as
efficiently as possible for both industry and the FAA, the broad array
of powered-lift features and inability to identify similar operating
characteristics \29\ render a universal approval akin to part 23
consensus standards challenging. However, the FAA intends to review
proposed consensus standards for approval and determine the application
of any necessary conditions or limitations upon availability. Because
the FAA does not currently have a proposed consensus standard to
review, consideration on the applicability of a future consensus
standard will likely initially be made on a project-by-project basis.
If a proprietary consensus standard is submitted for consideration, the
FAA would not publish this standard in full to the Federal Register but
would publish a summary of the proposed action and any applicable
differences or conditions and limitations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See section V.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Levels of FSTD Qualification
Archer, CAE, VFS, and others commented that there will be a need
for FSTDs other than a Level C or higher FFS. The FAA agrees that many
levels of FSTDs are currently necessary and available for both airplane
and helicopter pilot training, and there will likely be a similar need
for additional FSTD levels for powered-lift pilot training. For FSTD
qualification purposes, Sec. 194.105 will not limit FSTD qualification
to only Level C FFS and above.\30\ Under the FSTD qualification process
in the SFAR, an applicant may propose standards for any FSTD
qualification level in part 60 using the standards in appendices A
through D to part 60 as a baseline. Where an applicant proposes unique
FSTD configurations that are not consistent with established part 60
FSTD appendices, such as with virtual reality-equipped FSTDs or
alternative motion platform, the sponsor or manufacturer must provide
justification and supporting data demonstrating the capability of the
FSTD to conduct approved pilot training and evaluation at the requisite
level of qualification sought.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See Section IV.C.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Certification of Powered-Lift Pilots
As outlined in the Executive Summary, the introduction of powered-
lift as a new category of civil aircraft creates unique challenges for
pilot training and certification, particularly when considering the
lack of available certificated powered-lift in which a flight
instructor would conduct flight training and the difficulty in
obtaining flight training itself due to a lack of qualified flight
instructors.
To address these barriers, the FAA finalizes alternate aeronautical
experience requirements and expanded logging provisions, in section
V.F. of this preamble. Additionally, section V.F.6. of this preamble
provides tables summarizing the requirements for pilot certification to
facilitate readability of the alternate experience and logging
provisions.
A. Establish a Type Rating Requirement for Persons Seeking To Act as
PIC of Powered-Lift
Part 61 prescribes the requirements for issuing pilot and flight
instructor certificates and ratings, the conditions under which those
certificates and ratings are necessary, and the privileges and
limitations of those certificates and
[[Page 92315]]
ratings.\31\ The FAA issues six levels of pilot certificates (student,
sport, recreational, private, commercial, and ATP) and assigns
category, class, and type ratings on each pilot certificate.\32\ To act
as PIC of any aircraft, a person must hold the category, class, and
type rating (if class and type are applicable) on their pilot
certificate.\33\ Part 61 sets forth the requirements (e.g.,
aeronautical experience, practical test) to obtain such certificates
and ratings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Sec. 61.1(a)(1).
\32\ Sec. 61.5.
\33\ Sec. 61.31(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 1 of 14 CFR, which provides definitions and abbreviations for
Title 14, defines category and class for the purposes of airmen
ratings. Specifically, ``category'' is defined as a broad
classification of aircraft (e.g., airplane, rotorcraft, powered-lift),
while ``class'' is defined as a group of aircraft within a category
having similar operating characteristics (e.g., single engine,
multiengine, helicopter).\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Sec. 1.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1997, when the FAA established the powered-lift category in part
61, the FAA declined to create powered-lift classes or require type
ratings for powered-lift beyond those established in Sec. 61.31(a)
(i.e., large aircraft or as specified by the Administrator under
aircraft type certificate procedures).\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Flight Instructor, Ground Instructor, and Pilot School
Certification Rules; NPRM, 60 FR 41160 at 41165 (Aug. 11, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the development of the NPRM, the FAA reconsidered whether
(1) classes of powered-lift could be established and (2) type ratings
should be required. In this final rule, the FAA maintains its position
on the infeasibility of establishing powered-lift classes at this time
and adopts the requirement for the PIC of a powered-lift to hold a type
rating on their pilot certificate. This section briefly discusses the
amendment and responds to comments.
Currently, pursuant to Sec. 61.31(a), a person must hold a type
rating to act as PIC of (1) a large aircraft \36\ (except lighter-than-
air), (2) a turbojet-powered airplane, and (3) other aircraft as
specified by the Administrator through aircraft type certificate
procedures.\37\ To obtain a type rating, a person must receive
aircraft-specific training and pass a practical test in the aircraft
for the type rating sought.\38\ Currently, the FAA's regulatory
framework in part 61 allows for the issuance of a powered-lift category
rating on a pilot certificate and does not specifically require a type
rating to act as PIC of a powered-lift operation (unless a powered-lift
specifically meets one of the parameters in Sec. 61.31(a)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Section 1.1 defines ``large aircraft'' as ``aircraft of
more than 12,500 pounds, maximum certificated takeoff weight.''
\37\ As discussed in the NPRM, FSBs are normally established
when the responsible FAA Aircraft Certification Office issues a Type
Certificate for large aircraft, turbojet powered airplanes, and
other aircraft specified by the Administrator through the aircraft
certification process (see Sec. 61.31(a)). Powered-lift will be
evaluated under the existing FSB process by the Aircraft Evaluation
Division, which will determine the requirements for a pilot type
rating and develop training objectives for the type rating.
\38\ Sec. 61.63(d), 61.157(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the NPRM, the FAA extensively discussed the lack of commonality
between each design of powered-lift.\39\ For example, powered-lift
types are expected to vary in configuration from tilt-wing, tilt-
propeller, lift plus cruise, and tilt plus cruise designs, as well as
varying degrees of automation. Further, powered-lift have unique flight
and handling qualities managed with indirect flight controls, meaning
movement of the inceptor does not directly correlate to the movement of
a specific flight control surface.\40\ The divergence of
characteristics between powered-lift drives, first, the infeasibility
to create classes because there is not a discernable group of similar
operating characteristics with which the FAA can create classes at this
time. Secondly, it drives the need for specific training and testing in
the powered-lift that a PIC intends to operate. Generalized training
requirements based on a broad categorization of powered-lift alone
would not adequately address the unique characteristics and operating
requirements of each individual aircraft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ 88 FR 38946 at 38956 (June 14, 2023).
\40\ For purposes of this preamble, the term ``inceptor'' refers
to a wide variety of non-traditional pilot controls through which
pilot inputs are managed for the purpose of operating the powered-
lift.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, to establish an appropriate level of safety by ensuring
persons receive adequate training and are tested on the unique design
and operating characteristics of each powered-lift, the FAA proposed to
require a person who acts as PIC of a powered-lift to hold a type
rating \41\ in new Sec. 61.31(a)(3).\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ The FSB will evaluate each powered-lift on a case-by-case
basis to determine whether the training recommended by the
manufacturer will enable the pilot to safely operate the aircraft in
the NAS. Additionally, the FSB will identify the unique
characteristics of each powered-lift that require special training,
which will be documented in the Flight Standardization Board Report
(FSBR). Subsequently, these findings are utilized to determine the
applicability of tasks within the appropriate powered-lift Airman
Certification Standards for training, testing, and checking.
\42\ The FAA also proposed to redesignate current Sec.
61.31(a)(3), which requires a type rating for other aircraft
specified by the Administrator through aircraft type certificate
procedures, as new Sec. 61.31(a)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These proposals necessitated conforming amendments within part 61.
Section 61.5(b)(7) sets forth the aircraft type ratings that may be
placed on a pilot certificate when the applicant satisfactorily
accomplishes the training and certification requirements for the rating
sought. These type ratings include the aircraft currently identified in
Sec. 61.31(a), as well as the SIC pilot type rating for aircraft that
are type-certificated for operations with a minimum crew of at least
two pilots. The FAA proposed to revise paragraph (b)(7)(iii) to reflect
the proposed aircraft type rating for a powered-lift and to redesignate
current Sec. 61.5(b)(7)(iii) as new Sec. 61.5(b)(7)(iv). The FAA also
determined current Sec. 61.5(b)(7)(iv), which allows for the issuance
of a SIC pilot type rating, does not belong under Sec. 61.5(b)(7).
Section 61.5(b)(7) contains aircraft type ratings; however, a pilot
type rating subject to ``SIC Privileges Only'' is not an ``aircraft''
type rating. To more accurately capture the SIC pilot type rating as a
pilot rating independent of ``aircraft,'' the FAA proposed to relocate
this provision to stand independently in new Sec. 61.5(b)(9).
Comments in Support of a Type Rating
Several commenters expressed support for the FAA's proposal to
require a type rating for each powered-lift a PIC seeks to operate.
AgustaWestland Philadelphia Corporation (AWPC),\43\ BETA, Lilium, and
Joby agreed with the proposed type rating requirement, citing the lack
of commonality between powered-lift designs and their diverse
capabilities. Likewise, ALPA and A4A endorsed the FAA's proposed
approach to require a type rating to recognize the uniqueness of
powered-lift, diversity of aircraft handling characteristics, and
operations relative to evolving aircraft designs. ALPA added that some
reports list over 500 different designs of powered-lift under
manufacturer development and stated that pilots cannot rely on the
transferability of skills between powered-lift types. An individual
commenter noted that, because powered-lift systems are complex and
quite different from one another, pilots should be qualified similarly
to jet type ratings, specifically emergency recovery procedures. HAI
expressed general support for the type rating requirement at this time
but urged a cautious
[[Page 92316]]
approach, as subsequently discussed in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ AgustaWestland Philadelphia Corporation is a subsidiary of
Leonardo S.p.A Helicopter Division.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICAO Recommendation: Powered-Lift Type Rating on Existing Airplane or
Rotorcraft Certificate
While these commenters supported a type rating, many supported the
type rating framework specifically as recommended by ICAO Annex 1,
section 2.1.1.4,\44\ which permits a Licensing Authority to endorse a
type rating for aircraft of the powered-lift category on an airplane or
helicopter pilot license. Commenters supporting this position included:
NATA, CAE, Eve, AWPC, Lilium, BETA, Supernal, the Vertical Flight
Society, ADS Group, Vertical Aerospace Group, FlightSafety
International, AUVSI, Ferrovial Airports, GAMA,\45\ Joby, NBAA,
Aerospace Industries Association, Helicopter Association International,
L3Harris, and EASA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ ICAO Annex 1, 14th Ed. (July 2022). ICAO sets forth Section
2.1.1.4 until March 5, 2025.
\45\ GAMA suggested amending part 194 (and revising SFAR
references as appropriate) to say that the appropriate category and
class for powered-lift is that found by the Administrator to be
appropriate, as designated by the type certificate data sheet and
FSB report. GAMA noted there was precedent for this approach when
the FAA provided relief to Wing from Sec. 135.243 rules with
respect to ``appropriate category and class ratings'' for the
operation of its powered-lift unmanned aircraft. See, Exemption No.
18163 issued to Wing Aviation, LLC (Mar. 28, 2019). Since the
issuance of Exemption No. 18163 in 2019, the FAA has determined that
it erroneously tied having a type certificate to the ability to
define the appropriate category, class and type of aircraft. In
actuality, the FAA has the ability to determine definitionally under
14 CFR 1.1 what category and class of aircraft it is. Additionally,
the FAA notes that unmanned aircraft were not contemplated in the
FAA regulations when they were conceived, and that unmanned
operations are unique--autonomy, airspace, capability, people on
board, etc.--and do not fit into the traditional category and class
framework.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many commenters supported Sec. 2.1.1.4 on two premises. First,
commenters agreed with the premise that all powered-lift are unique
enough to require a type rating which renders a category rating
unnecessary. Therefore, given the similarity to airplanes and
helicopters, commenters stated that removing the powered-lift category
rating requirement and fully aligning with Sec. 2.1.1.4 in the simple
addition of the powered-lift type rating to an existing airplane or
helicopter certificate would maintain an equivalent level of safety to
the traditional certification framework. Second, commenters stated that
alignment with Sec. 2.1.1.4 would facilitate training and checking in
Level C or higher simulators,\46\ which commenters emphasized would
standardize training and data collection to support continuous training
improvement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ Sec. 61.63(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICAO Annex 1 contains a recommended transitional measure in section
2.1.1.4 that permits a licensing authority to endorse a type rating for
a powered-lift category on an existing airplane or helicopter category
pilot license (i.e., certificate). Application of this optional
transitional measure would require the endorsement of the rating on the
license to indicate that the aircraft is part of the powered-lift
category and the training for the type rating must have been completed
during an approved training course incorporating all relevant aspects
of operating an aircraft of the powered-lift category, taking previous
experience of the applicant into account as appropriate.
Joby stated the FSB operational evaluation process is adaptable
within the type rating framework by providing appropriate consideration
of new technologies or unique training needs, including special
emphasis areas (training requirements) and specific flight
characteristics (checking requirements) unique to a type. Supernal said
ICAO would add category and class ratings at a later date when such
additions could be supported by data. L3Harris posited that once
sufficient experience is gathered, the FAA could reevaluate the
category requirement and implement permanent rules as needed.
GAMA resubmitted the ``GAMA Manufacturer Consensus Recommendations
for the FAA's Powered-Lift Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR)''
providing insights from the powered-lift industry to the FAA regarding
SFAR regulation.\47\ Participants in the letter highly encouraged the
FAA to reconsider the GAMA member consensus initiative aligned with
ICAO,\48\ as it promotes adaptability, harmonization with international
standards, and collaboration with other aviation authorities. The
commenters supported the ICAO guidance as recognizing that pilot
qualification and training shall be based on an aircraft's
capabilities. GAMA further commented that the type rating for powered-
lift should be defined in accordance with FAA's existing Operational
Evaluation Board Process in a manner appropriate for each aircraft. In
sum, given the global nature of the eVTOL industry, GAMA stated
adopting an approach that reflects the ICAO framework is imperative.
The Advanced Air Mobility Institute suggested that harmonization and
coordination with EASA would reduce bureaucratic hurdles and minimize
duplication of efforts. Additionally, the Advanced Air Mobility
Institute asserted that through a joint approach, seamless training and
certification procedures can be facilitated, leading to enhanced
efficiency and benefits for all stakeholders involved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ As noted in the NPRM, on July 21, 2022, GAMA submitted a
letter to the FAA providing its recommendations regarding consensus
standards for powered-lift. The FAA has placed a copy of this letter
in the docket for this rulemaking. On August 17, 2022, the FAA met
with GAMA to discuss eVTOL Entry Into Service. The FAA did not take
the recommendations contained in the letter or the contents of the
meeting into consideration while developing the NPRM. GAMA
resubmitted the letter and information related to the listening
session to the docket in response to the NPRM. The FAA has
incorporated responses throughout this preamble appropriate to the
respective subject matter. FAA-2023-1275-0086.
\48\ The FAA interprets GAMA's broad reference to ``ICAO
guidance'' in their comments, subsequently referenced throughout
this preamble, as a reference to ICAO Doc. 10103 and recommendations
in the applicable ICAO Annex.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA first notes that the transitional measure is a
recommendation \49\ and not a standard. Under Articles 37 and 38 of the
Chicago Convention, the U.S. is required to comply with ICAO standards
or notify ICAO of differences. However, because section 2.1.1.4 is a
permissive recommendation, the FAA is neither required to comply with
the transitional measure nor file a difference with ICAO when deviating
from recommended practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ Annex 1 defines Recommended Practices, in pertinent part,
as any specification of which the uniform application is recognized
as desirable in the interest of safety, regularity, or efficiency of
international air navigation, and to which Contracting States will
endeavor to conform in accordance with the Convention.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in the NPRM, the FAA duly considered implementation of
section 2.1.1.4 and declined to disrupt FAA's traditional airman
certification framework by the addition of a type rating within a
wholly different aircraft category to an existing certificate with a
different category rating. Since 1997, part 61 has included regulations
for powered-lift pilot and flight instructor certification. The FAA
concedes that those regulations do not adequately address the unique
challenges of introducing a new category of aircraft to civil
operations; therefore, through this SFAR, the FAA chose to facilitate
alternative measures for a pilot to directly receive a powered-lift
category rating and a powered-lift type rating. Similar to the
conditions set forth in ICAO's transitional recommendation, these
alternative measures to receive a powered-lift category and type rating
would be completed during training
[[Page 92317]]
provided under an approved or proposed training curriculum \50\ and
would take previous experience of an applicant in an airplane or
helicopter into account, as appropriate.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ See Sec. Sec. 194.217, 194.219, 194.221, 194.223, 194.225,
194.227, 194.229, 194.231.
\51\ I.e., by virtue of the proposed eligibility prerequisites
for pilots to utilize the relieving alternate framework that will be
set forth in part 194.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA acknowledges commenters' suggestions to more strictly align
with ICAO's recommended transitional measure in section 2.1.1.4,
reiterated in section 955 of the 2024 FAA Reauthorization. The FAA
notes that commenters generally disagreed with the FAA's proposal to
keep the powered-lift as a separate category of aircraft. These
commenters stated that ICAO's standard provides an equivalent or higher
level of safety but failed to provide supporting rationale as to why
the FAA should deviate from its generalized airman certification
framework in existence or how the transitional measure would provide an
equivalent or higher level of safety to meeting the longstanding
aeronautical experience requirements specific to a category of
aircraft. Additionally, the FAA notes that ICAO Annex 1 does not forego
the powered-lift category completely but gives the temporary option of
an alternate means for a member state to implement the powered-lift
category.
The FAA maintains that while powered-lift vary widely within the
respective category, they are essentially a hybrid between an airplane
and a helicopter with a distinct foundational set of
characteristics.\52\ Therefore, assurance of proficiency in those
characteristics is an essential element of airman training that may be
lost if a type rating, with no minimum flight hour or flight training
requirement before testing for such rating,\53\ is simply added to an
existing airplane or helicopter rating, thereby rendering it
impracticable for the FAA to wholly align with ICAO Recommendation
2.1.1.4, as explained throughout this section. While these pilots have
significant prior experience operating in the NAS by virtue of holding
a certificate with an airplane category rating or rotorcraft category,
helicopter class rating, the experience is not tailored to powered-lift
operations (the subsequent section of this preamble explains the FAA's
finding on the value of the category rating).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ See 14 CFR 1.1, Powered-lift definition: a heavier-than-air
aircraft capable of vertical takeoff, vertical landing, and low
speed flight that depends principally on engine-driven lift devices
or engine thrust for lift during these flight regimes and on
nonrotating airfoil(s) for lift during horizontal flight.
\53\ Sec. 61.63(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA recognizes there is a fine line between a powered-lift
being so unique that none resemble each other, thereby eliminating the
similarities associated with a category of aircraft, and all powered-
lift possessing similar fundamental characteristics such that a
category rating remains essential. The subsequent section discusses
additional comments received on the FAA's proposal to retain the
powered-lift category and the safety benefit of doing so. This preamble
also provides discussion of simulator time in section V.D. of this
preamble.
Value of the Powered-Lift Category
Several commenters discussed the powered-lift category. As
previously stated, the predominant position identified a perceived
inconsistency between the FAA's statements about the uniqueness of
powered-lift to support a universal type rating requirement and those
statements supporting the powered-lift category rating as foundational.
Additionally, commenters discussed the burden and barriers that a
powered-lift category rating requirement would bestow on operators.
CAE, NBAA, and Eve stated that a powered-lift category rating would
create challenges in developing an initial cadre because it would
require an FSB team to spend several months with the manufacturer to
receive training compared to a type rating, which would only require a
few weeks, according to the commenters. Joby and NBAA stated the
category-based approach is potentially unsafe because it could lead to
a negative transfer of skills between aircraft.\54\ Similarly, an
individual commenter noted that pilots of aircraft that operate
primarily in wing-borne flight mode (e.g., F-35, AV-8) may not be
properly trained to fly aircraft that possess the unique aerodynamic
and handling qualities-related effects of aircraft that generate thrust
via proprotors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ The FAA acknowledges difficulties with entry into service
for aircraft with single controls. Section V.D. of this preamble
addresses these challenges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lilium suggested that, should the FAA maintain the requirement for
a powered-lift category rating, the FAA should credit commercial pilot
and ATP flying experience toward the powered-lift category rating.
Specifically, Lilium stated an approach should focus on powered-lift
type rating specifics with a combined check at the end of training.
Finally, HAI generally expressed that the FAA should credit time logged
in both airplanes and helicopters in the qualification framework.
The FAA considers the aircraft category rating to be a key element
of airman certification for ensuring persons exercising the privileges
of their pilot certificate possess a common level of competency. To be
eligible to obtain a category rating, a person must complete set hours
of flight time and flight training in the category of aircraft.
Moreover, unlike class ratings within a category, a pilot who holds a
category rating and seeks to add a new category to their pilot
certificate must meet all of the flight time and flight training as
would be required for an initial category rating.\55\ Nearly 30 years
ago, the FAA identified the need to establish a new powered-lift
category for emerging technology.\56\ At that time, the FAA explained
that these regulations were necessary to respond to the future needs of
aviation because industry was developing powered-lift and the pilot
certification standards did not adequately reflect the certification
requirements for powered-lift.\57\ Like airplanes and rotorcraft,
modern powered-lift vary significantly in terms of operational
capabilities and complexity. However, like airplanes and rotorcraft,
the FAA has determined that the wide range of current powered-lift in
development share enough design attributes to establish a common
aircraft category and ensure that a new powered-lift pilot has the
necessary aeronautical experience to safely operate that category of
aircraft in the NAS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ Under Sec. 61.63(c)(3), a person who seeks to add a class
rating in the same category of aircraft is not required to complete
the prescriptive flight training requirements for an initial class
rating but rather must only have a logbook or training record
endorsement from an authorized instructor attesting that the person
was found proficient in the appropriate areas of operation. Under
Sec. 61.63(b)(1), a person adding a category rating must complete
all of the aeronautical experience requirements for the certificate
level.
\56\ Pilot, Flight Instructor, Ground Instructor, and Pilot
School Certification Rules, NPRM, 60 FR 41160 (Aug. 11, 1995); final
rule, 62 FR 16220 (Apr. 4, 1997).
\57\ 62 FR 16220 at 16230 (Apr. 4, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA notes that, for purposes of airman certification, an
aircraft category groups similar aircraft that are designed to produce
lift in a certain way. The characteristics of each category and how it
produces lift lends itself to unique conditions a pilot would
experience exclusive to the category of aircraft being operated.
Powered-lift pilots operating a powered-lift may conduct operations
that are similar to airplanes and helicopters, but the pilot's
experience in either category is unique to that category and would not
(1)
[[Page 92318]]
completely prepare the pilot for what may be encountered in a totally
unique category of aircraft and (2) would not have the same unique
conditions as a result of the production of lift by just wings or
engine or just a rotor system.
Pilots maintain proficiency on specific flight characteristics
based on these differing categories of aircraft (e.g., their unique
production of lift), such that category flight experience is not a
comprehensive fit to another category. For example, unique conditions
specific to only an airplane or only a helicopter include engine
failures and vortex ring state. During a loss of power in a multiengine
airplane, a pilot must be cognizant of the speeds at which they are
flying because a pilot of a multiengine airplane could encounter a loss
of directional control attributed to operations below the airplanes
published V<INF>MC.</INF>\58\ In a multiengine airplane, operations
below V<INF>MC</INF> result in a loss of directional control because
the thrust is provided directly by the multiple engines. In a
helicopter, the engines power a drive train that provides thrust
through a rotor system. Since the thrust is not being directly provided
by the engines in a helicopter there is no published V<INF>MC</INF>.
Therefore, a helicopter would not experience loss of directional
control because of operations below V<INF>MC</INF> as outlined for a
multiengine airplane. Likewise, a pilot of a helicopter must be
proficient in recovering from a vortex ring state, which is a transient
condition of downward flight in which an aircraft descends through the
air after previously ingested by the rotor system causing portions of
the rotor blade to stall. If not corrected, the pilot experiences
significant descent rates that require immediate intervention unique to
a helicopter.\59\ This condition is the result of the operation of a
helicopter's rotor system producing downwash. As an airplane does not
have a rotor system, this condition would not occur in an airplane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ V<INF>MC</INF> is a calibrated airspeed at which following
the sudden critical loss of thrust the pilot would still be able to
maintain directional control of the multiengine airplane. See
Airplane Flying Handbook, FAA-H-8083-3C (2021), page 13-2.
\59\ FAA Helicopter Flying Handbook FAA-H-8083-21B at 11-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These examples are specific to the category of aircraft in which
they are encountered, of which, a powered-lift may or may not ever
experience. Moreover, powered-lift are operationally capable of both
vertical takeoffs and landings as well as horizontal flight. This
increased transitional complexity means an aircraft, while perhaps
having some similar characteristics as an airplane or helicopter, has
very unique and more novel conditions that may arise that would
preclude crediting airplane or rotorcraft hours to count as comparable
experience.
Given these characteristics, a pilot operating a powered-lift must
be proficient in adverse conditions related to both horizontal flight
and vertical take-off and landings (i.e., certain airplane and
helicopter characteristics), as all powered-lift have these
capabilities regardless of the size, and any other powered-lift
specific condition that may arise. A pilot who holds only a pilot
certificate with an airplane category rating would lack proficiency in
vertical takeoffs or landings and wouldn't be familiar with unique
characteristics of flight that may be similar to a helicopter.
Likewise, a pilot who holds a pilot certificate with only a rotorcraft
category with helicopter class rating could lack proficiency in
conditions related to horizontal flight similar to that of an airplane.
Proficiency in both is required for any powered-lift, regardless of
size, that may not be sufficiently covered in type rating training
focused on a specific aircraft rather than universal category-shared
characteristics. Therefore, the FAA disagrees with the notion that
requiring a powered-lift category introduces safety risks into the NAS
and maintains that the foundational characteristics necessitate a
generalized powered-lift category rating.
In making this determination, the FAA also examined the areas of
operation and tasks required to be performed to obtain a powered-lift
category rating versus those required for a powered-lift type rating.
The FAA found that the areas of operation covered when an applicant
takes a practical test for a commercial pilot certificate with a
powered-lift category rating are more expansive and include
foundational concepts and skills necessary to operate any powered-lift
in the NAS. In comparison, the areas of operation that are covered for
a powered-lift type rating tend to be more narrowly tailored to a
particular powered-lift, assuming the applicant would have the
foundational category skills (or be concurrently attaining such
proficiency). For example, broader Areas of Operation (AOO) such as
airport and heliport operations (III), rapid deceleration/quick stop
(AOO VI, Task A), slow flight and stalls (AOO VIII); high altitude
operations (AOO X); and special operations (AOO XI) appear on the
powered-lift category rating test as foundational category
elements,\60\ but are not covered on the powered-lift type rating test,
nor would some of these foundational elements be covered on an airplane
category or rotorcraft category, helicopter class practical test.\61\
Comprehensive proficiency to facilitate safe operations in the NAS must
include these foundational elements, among others set forth in the
applicable ACS, that may be overlooked given a type-rating only
training and practical test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ Commercial Pilot for Powered-lift Category ACS (FAA-S-ACS-
2).
\61\ The FAA notes that the Commercial Pilot for Powered-Lift
Category ACS sets forth a table indicating the required tasks for
each area of operation tested in accordance with the ACS for the
addition of a powered-lift category rating to an existing commercial
pilot certificate, which results in an abbreviated test for SFAR
pilots where there is overlap in foundational elements between
categories. For example, pilots who possess a commercial pilot
certificate with an airplane category rating (and any airplane class
rating) are not required to test again on high altitude operations
(AOO X).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the FAA also notes the practical complexities of
subjective assignment of an aircraft category as suggested by GAMA.
Without a clearly communicated standard under which powered-lift would
be certificated, the regulated community would be at a disadvantage in
(1) lack of advanced notice of certification requirements (e.g., if a
powered-lift was assigned in the airplane category during the type
certification process, but the manufacturer only employed helicopter
pilots), (2) arbitrary determination frameworks (e.g., how close a
powered-lift would be required to align with the helicopters or
rotorcraft to be in that category, whether it was a key system
determination driver, etc.), and (3) potential absence of consistency
in operational requirements (e.g., minimum safe altitude requirements
\62\ and emergency equipment for overwater operations \63\ differ for
helicopters and airplanes).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ Section 91.119(d) permits a helicopter to operate at less
than the minimums prescribed in Sec. 91.119(b) or (c) provided the
operation is conducted without hazards to persons or property on the
surface and that each person operating the helicopter complies with
any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed by the FAA for
helicopters.
\63\ Sec. Sec. 135.167 and 135.168.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joby provided two examples of how the FAA's proposal to maintain a
powered-lift category rating would introduce unanticipated safety
risks. In Joby's first example, a person intends to operate a large,
turbine-engine powered-lift. The individual seeks to meet the
requirements of Sec. 61.129(e)(1) \64\ by
[[Page 92319]]
operating a small powered-lift with a significantly dissimilar pilot
interface, for economic considerations. Joby posits there is a negative
transfer of piloting skills from the operation of the dissimilar
aircraft. In Joby's second example, a person has obtained a powered-
lift instrument rating in a powered-lift with airplane-like controls.
The person then seeks to operate a powered-lift with helicopter-like
controls. When the pilot encounters instrument meteorological
conditions (IMC), they do not have the piloting skills or experience to
operate the aircraft safely or experience negative transfer of pilot
skills from operation of the dissimilar aircraft. Joby stated that the
powered-lift instrument rating may give a pilot the confidence to fly
in IMC when they are not prepared for the piloting task.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ Section 61.129(e)(1) requires an applicant for a powered-
lift rating at the commercial pilot certificate level to obtain 100
hours of flight time in powered aircraft of which 50 hours must be
in powered-lift.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The central safety risk at issue in these two examples is cured by
virtue of a type rating. If a person utilized a small powered-lift to
build time for a powered-lift category rating to eventually fly a
large, turbine-engine powered-lift, they will still be required under
adopted Sec. 61.31(a)(3) to obtain a type rating for the large
powered-lift. The required type rating training and testing for a type
rating intends to cover any operational proficiency gap between
powered-lift types. Similarly, in Joby's second example, the person
will be required to obtain a type rating both in a powered-lift with
airplane-like controls and in a powered-lift with helicopter-like
controls. While the instrument-powered-lift rating is not type-specific
within the powered-lift category,\65\ the type rating, which requires
training and testing, will establish the pilot's proficiency in the
specific aircraft which thereby addresses any possible safety gap.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ The FAA notes that the instrument rating is, likewise, not
type specific within the airplane category or rotorcraft category,
helicopter class.
\66\ For example, AOO V in the ATP and Type Rating for Powered-
Lift Category ACS requires the applicant to demonstrate certain
instrument procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In developing the NPRM, the FAA reconsidered whether to utilize the
long-established powered-lift category as a means to integrate pilot
certification of powered-lift pilots. The FAA determined that enabling
the existing powered-lift category was the most logical means of
establishing an existing cadre of powered-lift pilots without relying
solely on pilots who received certification through existing military
competency provisions. Therefore, the FAA will retain the requirement
to obtain a powered-lift category rating as proposed.
Relatedly, as discussed in the NPRM, the FAA notes that some
powered-lift have been issued special airworthiness certificates for
experimental purposes in accordance with Sec. 21.191 and foresees a
need to continue this kind of certification in the future. In general,
experimental aircraft are not subject to the same airworthiness
standards as those aircraft holding standard airworthiness certificates
(e.g., regulatory design, build, maintenance, and inspection
requirements). In accordance with Sec. 91.319(i), the Administrator
may prescribe additional operating limitations for experimental
aircraft where necessary for safety and risk mitigation with various
hazards inherently introduced by experimental aircraft. The FAA has
employed the operating limitations issued with an experimental
airworthiness certificate to require pilots to hold category and class
ratings for all experimental aircraft and additional authorizations for
certain experimental aircraft even when no passengers are carried on
board.\67\ As with experimental airplanes and experimental rotorcraft,
the FAA will apply category ratings and other authorizations (e.g., the
authorization to act as PIC) through operating limitations for
experimental powered-lift, as warranted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ See FAA Order 8130.2J, Appendix D, Table D-1, Operating
Limitations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Establishment of Powered-Lift Classes
Some commenters disagreed with the FAA's conclusion that the
creation of powered-lift classes is infeasible at this time. One
individual stated there is potential for different classes within
powered-lift, expressing concern that restricting powered-lift and
pilot designations to only a type within the category could impede
progressive growth. The commenter suggested a basic class structure,
such as a tiltrotor class. Another individual commenter added that it
would be useful to have the option to delineate classes because
powered-lift can have broadly similar characteristics (e.g., utilizing
proprotors for thrust, fly by wire, and similar operating
characteristics and performance).
The FAA contemplated establishment of powered-lift classes both in
the 1997 rulemaking and in this rulemaking. Specifically, similar to
the commenters' suggestions, the FAA considered tilt-rotor, tilt-wing,
ducted fan, and vectored thrust classes. However, the FAA maintains
that, given the lack of certificated powered-lift in the civilian
market, establishing classes of powered-lift is infeasible because the
powered-lift anticipated to enter the civilian market vary in unique
configurations, or possibly a combination of configurations (e.g.,
tilt-wing, tilt-propeller, lift plus cruise, tilt plus cruise). The
purpose of a class is to establish enough commonality of operating
characteristics \68\ and flight controls to allow for pilot skills to
transfer from one aircraft of that class to another.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ See 14 CFR 1.1, Class (1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, a multiengine airplane possesses ailerons, rudder, and
elevator, all of which are controlled by flight controls in the
flightdeck. Regardless of the make and model of the multiengine
airplane being flown, these lifting surfaces will react similarly to
flight control inputs by the pilot. This commonality of operating
characteristics specific to airplanes allows for the transfer of pilot
skills from one multiengine airplane to another. Additionally, many
multiengine airplanes have feather propellers, propeller
synchronization, fuel crossfeed, and other similar systems that pilots
would recognize when operating a multiengine airplane from a broad
perspective. Moreover, a pilot with proficiency in certain conditions
arising from piloting an airplane with two engines would be similarly
situated across this all-multiengine class of airplanes. For example, a
pilot with a multiengine class rating would understand a published
V<INF>MC</INF>, which is a calibrated airspeed that is marked on an
airspeed indicator with a blue line, to indicate a critical airspeed a
pilot must avoid if encountering an engine failure regardless of the
multiengine airplane the pilot operates within the class (i.e., a
transfer of skills and knowledge within the common set of
characteristics).\69\ Unlike the multiengine airplane class example,
the FAA is unable to identify commonalities, outside of those category-
based characteristics, that will allow for transfer of pilot skills
from one powered-lift to another within that group with certainty at
this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ For additional information on V<INF>MC</INF> see the FAA
Airplane Flying Handbook, FAA-H-8083-3C (2021), page 13-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA acknowledges the suggestions of classes by commenters
(e.g., tilt-wing, tilt-propeller, etc.). However, the FAA maintains
that the lack of civilian powered-lift at this time impedes the FAA
determining that common characteristics of two powered-lift overcome
drastically different characteristics in another area. For example,
under the commenter's suggestion, the Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey
[[Page 92320]]
and the AW609 would be of a common tiltrotor class; yet differences in
inceptor arrangement, motion and effect of flight controls, and
envelope protection strategies would result in substantially deviated
operating characteristics such that a pilot's knowledge, skills, and
proficiency may not transfer.
Therefore, because each powered-lift can have different
configurations, unique inceptors, diversified flight controls, and
complicated and distinctive operating characteristics, which are not
traditionally present in overarching classes of aircraft to such a
degree, the FAA maintains that type ratings best address the
distinctive characteristics. A type rating will ensure the PIC
possesses the requisite training and proficiency on each unique and
central element of the powered-lift, regardless of broad
characteristics that may be shared amongst certain powered-lift
category. The FAA notes that this does not foreclose the possibility
that classes could emerge at a later time.
Type Rating Determination
CAE stated that airman certification through the type rating, as
determined by ICAO, should be tailored to the flight characteristics
for each powered-lift as the aircraft may vary considerably depending
on the aircraft design and the different modes in which they operate.
Additionally, an individual requested that the FAA provide additional
information as to the factors or standards that would be considered for
type rating determinations. Specifically, the commenter asked how
similarities or differences will be evaluated between two powered-lift,
and what criteria will be used to deny or grant a type rating. The
commenter provided a hypothetical, asking whether two powered-lift with
different propulsion systems, control systems, or performance
characteristics would require separate type ratings or whether they
could be covered by a common type rating with differences training.
As discussed in the NPRM, the FAA initiates a Flight
Standardization Board (FSB) during the aircraft certification process
for aircraft that require a type rating. Since each powered-lift will
require a type rating, as set forth by adopted Sec. 61.31(a)(3), an
FSB will be formed to evaluate each powered-lift to make
recommendations for the pilot type rating training (i.e., whether the
training recommended by the manufacturer will enable the pilot to
safely operate the aircraft in the NAS). Should a manufacturer later
introduce a derivative or variant (e.g., model, series) of a type-
certificated aircraft, the FAA will conduct another FSB of the new
aircraft and make recommendations to determine whether certain aircraft
warrant the same type rating and for any differences training and
checking or special training necessary to operate the aircraft in the
NAS. Difference levels specify FAA requirements proportionate to, and
corresponding with, increasing differences between related
aircraft.\70\ These processes apply equally to all aircraft, including
powered-lift. Therefore, in sum, the FAA notes that it is possible that
a common type rating could emerge in the future if a single
manufacturer produced multiple powered-lift sharing similar designs and
operating characteristics; the FAA will procedurally apply the same
steps to powered-lift as is currently implemented for the establishment
of a common type rating.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ Specifically, the FAA's differences training framework
constitutes five levels, in order of the increasing training and
checking requirements necessary to address the necessary knowledge,
skills, and abilities a pilot must demonstrate as applicable to an
aircraft for which a pilot is already qualified and current during
the initial transition or upgrade training for other related
aircraft at a commercial operator. See AC 120-53, as revised, for
additional information on difference levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As previously discussed, the FAA proposed that all PICs seeking to
operate a powered-lift would be required to receive a type rating. A
type rating is a one-time, permanent endorsement on a pilot certificate
indicating that the holder of the certificate has completed the
appropriate training and testing as required by the applicable section
of the Code of Federal Regulations.\71\ Section 1.1 of 14 CFR provides
the definition of ``type,'' as it pertains to a rating, as a specific
make and basic model of aircraft, including modifications thereto that
do not change its handling or flight characteristics. Therefore, in
some cases, a type rating includes the series of aircraft (e.g., Boeing
747-400), if applicable, and in other cases the type ratings only apply
to one aircraft. The Sec. 1.1 definition of type will apply to
powered-lift as it applies to any other type of aircraft in the
establishment of a type rating. Therefore, if during the type
certification process the FAA determined that a make and basic model of
powered-lift was modified, but to a degree so as not to change its
handling or flight characteristics, that type rating might include the
series of powered-lift. In addition, the FAA has procedures to
establish a common type rating. A ``common type rating'' is a term used
in FSB reports to describe a relationship between type ratings for
aircraft with different type certificates that have no greater than
Level D training differences. For example, the B-757 and the B-767 are
separate type ratings determined to have commonality and, therefore,
have a common type rating.\72\ The type rating for a certificated
aircraft can be determined to be related to another type rating of
another certificated aircraft of the same make provided the aircraft
meet the criteria of the T1 (equivalence) or the T2 (handling
characteristics) and T3 (core pilot skills with no greater than Level D
differences).\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ ``Rating'' is defined in 14 CFR 1.1 as a statement that, as
a part of a certificate, sets forth special conditions, privileges,
or limitations.
\72\ See Flight Standardization Board Report, Revision 11 (12/
07/2020).
\73\ See, Advisory Circular, 120-53, as revised, Guidance for
Conducting and Use of Flight Standardization Board Evaluations
Appendix 1, Definitions and References.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opposition to Removal of Sec. 61.5(b)(7)(iii)
Airbus Helicopters expressed concern regarding the proposed
replacement of current Sec. 61.5(b)(7)(iii), which sets forth the
ratings that may be placed on a pilot certificate when an applicant
satisfactorily accomplishes the training and certification requirements
for other aircraft type ratings specified by the Administrator through
the aircraft type certification procedures. Airbus Helicopters stated
that replacing current Sec. 61.5(b)(7)(iii) with ``Powered-lift''
could impact the normal category helicopter requiring a type rating and
is not consistent with the proposal in ``Chapter V.'' \74\ The
commenter proposed replacing the current content of Sec.
61.5(b)(7)(iv) (SIC pilot type rating) with ``powered-lift'' instead.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ Given the context of the comment, the FAA believes that
commenter intended to refer to the FAA's proposal in the NPRM
preamble (88 FR 38946, June 14, 2023), specifically section V.
Certification of Powered-lift Pilots.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the commenter did not clearly describe what consequences may
result from the proposed changes, the FAA disagrees with the commenter
that the proposed language will have consequences on normal category
aircraft. The provisions are simply re-ordered; current Sec.
61.5(b)(7)(iii) will move to paragraph (b)(7)(iv) and current Sec.
61.5(b)(7)(iv) will move to paragraph (b)(9).
Simplified Flight Controls and Advanced Air Mobility
Several commenters raised the topic of AAM \75\ aircraft and
powered-lift with
[[Page 92321]]
simplified flight controls \76\ as it relates to type ratings. HAI
stated that many AAM aircraft will not need type ratings to be operated
safely and that many aircraft used in air taxi \77\ operations today
generally do not require type ratings. HAI recommended a cautious
approach to type ratings when considering aircraft under development to
serve the AAM market, specifically comparing aircraft used in air taxi
operations flying in low altitude, dense urban environments,
[…truncated; see source link]Indexed from Federal Register on November 21, 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.