[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 126 (Thursday, July 1, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35902-35908]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-16794]
[[Page 35901]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part VI
Department of Transportation
_______________________________________________________________________
Federal Aviation Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
14 CFR Parts 21, 27, 29, and 91
Flight Plan Requirements for Helicopter Operations Under Instrument
Flight Rules; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 35902]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 21, 27, 29, and 91
[Docket No. FAA 98-4390; Notice No. 99-10]
RIN 2120-AG53
Flight Plan Requirements for Helicopter Operations Under
Instrument Flight Rules
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On September 2, 1998, the FAA proposed to change instrument
flight rules (IFR) for helicopters by revising alternate airport
weather planning requirements, weather minima necessary to designate an
airport as an alternate on an IFR flight plan, and fuel requirements
for helicopter flight into IFR conditions. The comment period closed on
October 2, 1998. In response to concerns raised by commenters regarding
discrepancies in the original proposal between flight plan information
required for helicopters and airplanes, the use of weather minima
necessary to designate an airport as an alternate on an IFR flight
plan, and the inconsistent use of meteorological terminology, the FAA
is revising the original proposal to include commenters' suggestions
and correct inadvertent omissions.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 2, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Comments on this document should be delivered or mailed, in
duplicate, to: U.S. Department of Transportation Dockets, Docket No.
FAA-98-4390, 400 Seventh St., SW, Rm. Plaza 401, Washington, DC 20590.
Comments may also be sent electronically to the following internet
address: [email protected]. Comments may be filed and examined in
Room Plaza 401 between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays, except Federal
holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William H. Wallace, General Aviation
Commercial Division (AFS-804), Flight Standards Service, Federal
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave., SW, Washington, DC
20591; telephone (202) 267-3771.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the
proposed action by submitting written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments relating to the environmental, energy,
economic, or federalism impact that might result from adopting the
proposals in this notice are also invited. Substantive comments should
be accompanied by cost estimates. Comments must identify the regulatory
docket or notice number and be submitted in duplicate to the DOT Rules
Docket address specified above.
All comments received, as well as a report summarizing each
substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed
rulemaking, will be filed in the docket. The docket is available for
public inspection both before and after the comment closing date.
All comments received on or before the closing date will be
considered by the Administrator before taking action on this proposed
rulemaking. Comments filed late will be considered as far as possible
without incurring expense or delay. The proposals contained in this
document may be changed in light of the comments received.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this document must include a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket No. FAA-98-4390.'' The postcard will be date-stamped and
mailed to the commenter.
Availability of the SNPRM
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded using a modem
and suitable communications software from the FAA regulations section
of the Fedworld electronic bulletin board service (telephone: 703-321-
3339), the Government Printing Office (GPO)'s electronic bulletin board
service (telephone: 202-512-1661), or the FAA's Aviation Rulemaking
Advisory Committee bulletin board service (telephone: (800) 322-2722 or
(202) 267-5948).
Internet users may reach the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/
avr/arm/nprm/nprm.htm or the GPO's web page at http://
www.access.gpo.gov/nara for access to recently published rulemaking
documents.
Any person may obtain a copy of this document by submitting a
request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking,
ARM-1, 800 Independence Ave., SW, Washington DC 20591, or by calling
(202) 267-9680. Communications must identify the notice number or
docket number of this SNPRM.
Persons interested in being placed in the mailing list for future
rulemaking documents should request from the FAA's Office of Rulemaking
a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Distribution System, that describes the application procedure.
Background
On August 28, 1998, the FAA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) which proposed to amend the general operating rules for
helicopters by revising alternate airport weather planning
requirements, weather minima necessary to designate an airport as an
alternate on an IFR flight plan, and the fuel requirements for
helicopter flight into IFR conditions (63 FR 46834; September 2, 1998).
The NPRM also proposed to withdraw Special Federal Aviation Regulation
(SFAR) No. 29-4, Limited IFR Operations of Rotorcraft. This SFAR
provides operators with a means to conduct approved limited IFR
operations in rotorcraft that are not otherwise certificated for IFR
operations.
The FAA issued the proposal because flight planning requirements
(including alternate airport weather minima) for helicopters and other
aircraft are virtually identical even though their operating
characteristics are substantially different. The only distinction
between the flight planning requirements for helicopters and other
aircraft is addressed in 14 CFR 91.167. That section specifies
different requirements for the amount of fuel helicopters and other
aircraft must carry after completing a flight to the first airport of
intended landing.
Helicopters, however, fly shorter distances at slower airspeeds
than most other aircraft, and they generally remain in the air for
shorter periods between landings; therefore, a helicopter is less
likely to fly into unanticipated, unknown, or unforecast weather. The
relatively short duration of the typical helicopter flight means that
the departure weather and the destination weather are likely to be
within the same weather system. The original notice therefore proposed
to revise the flight planning requirements for helicopter IFR
operations to take into account the unique operating characteristics of
these aircraft.
In general, commenters supported the provisions contained in the
notice because the proposal not only recognized the unique operating
characteristics of helicopters but also provided operators with an
additional margin of safety by easing access of helicopters to the IFR
system. Commenters also agreed that the proposal would provide
qualitative
[[Page 35903]]
benefits by reducing noise on the ground and by increasing the ability
of operators to more efficiently use helicopters. Some of the
commenters, however, raised technical issues that were not addressed in
the original notice. The FAA has therefore modified the original
proposal in response to these comments and is issuing this SNPRM with a
30-day comment period.
Discussion of Comments and Changes to the Original Proposal
General
Thirty-nine comments were received on the NPRM, all of which were
generally supportive of the proposal. Commenters praised the NPRM for
its potential to enhance safety by facilitating the expansion of
helicopter operations under IFR in marginal weather conditions, thereby
reducing weather-related accidents. Commenters also stated that
adoption of the proposal would enable operators to better utilize their
IFR-equipped helicopters, transport clients more efficiently, and
reduce noise on the ground. Seven commenters however stated that
certain technical issues were not adequately addressed by the FAA in
the proposal. These concerns are addressed in detail in the following
discussion. In addition, since the FAA's economic analysis did not
anticipate any cost of compliance or need for additional equipment or
training, comments on both the quantitative and qualitative benefits of
the proposal were favorable also.
Removal of SFAR No. 29-4
A number of commenters addressed the proposed removal of SFAR No.
29-4, Limited IFR Operations of Rotorcraft. One commenter stated that
in the past, his company used the provisions of the SFAR to ``prove IFR
capabilities in a then non-IFR certified helicopter,'' and the company
``does not want to lose this capability.'' Two other commenters stated
that the FAA should retain the provisions of the SFAR for a period of
time (for either a year or a ``reasonable time'') after the other
provisions of the NPRM are implemented as a final rule. The commenters
believe that this course of action would enable the FAA and industry to
determine whether the SFAR is needed or has outlived its usefulness and
then reconsider its removal. The FAA does not believe this action is
necessary and is again proposing to remove the SFAR.
The SFAR was originally adopted to permit the FAA to collect
operational data to study the feasibility of limited rotorcraft
operations in IFR conditions. Since the adoption of the SFAR, the FAA
has addressed the issue of helicopter IFR operations and issued
regulations that govern both the certification and operation of
helicopters under IFR. These regulations are found in Appendix B--
Airworthiness Criteria for Helicopter Instrument Flight, contained in
both 14 CFR parts 27 and 29. Operational regulations permitting
helicopters to engage in IFR operations are found in 14 CFR parts 91
and 135.
Paragraph 5 of SFAR 29-4 states that ``new applications for limited
IFR rotorcraft operations under SFAR No. 29 may be submitted for
approval until, but not including the effective date of Amendment No. 1
of the Rotorcraft Regulatory Review Program. On and after the effective
date of Amendment No. 1, all applicants for certification of IFR
rotorcraft operations must comply with the applicable provisions of the
Federal Aviation Regulations.'' The effective date of Amendment No. 1
was March 2, 1983. Concurrent with the effective date of Amendment No.
1, regulations establishing airworthiness criteria for helicopter
instrument flight became effective. All new applicants for
certification of helicopter IFR operations must now comply with the
provisions of Appendix B of parts 27 or 29, as applicable, and part 91.
Because the FAA has established certification criteria and operational
limitations for helicopters engaged in IFR operations, the need to
prove IFR capabilities in a non-IFR certified helicopter is no longer
warranted. The changes made to the regulations since the promulgation
of SFAR No. 29 therefore no longer make its provisions necessary.
Alternate Airport Weather Minima
Commenters stated that the notice did not provide alternate airport
weather minima reductions for helicopters when airports that have non-
standard alternate airport weather minima are used as alternate
airports. Standard alternate airport weather minima are stated in
current 14 CFR 91.169(c)(1)(i) and (ii), (i.e., for a precision
approach procedure a ceiling of 600 feet and a visibility of 2 statute
miles; for a nonprecision approach procedure, a ceiling of 800 feet and
a visibility of 2 statute miles).
The commenters stated that helicopter operators should not be
subject to the same restrictions imposed on operators of other types of
aircraft by the use of nonstandard alternate minimums. The commenters
noted that these restrictions are generally imposed to facilitate the
conduct of circle-to-land operations. Due to the ability of helicopters
to fly any available instrument approach, regardless of wind direction,
and to land at the approach threshold regardless of runway length by
pivoting into the wind, if necessary, just before touchdown, the
commenters asserted that helicopter operators should not be restricted
by these non-standard alternate minimums. They further stated that
helicopter operators therefore should be allowed to use lower-than-
standard alternate weather minima, regardless of whether standard or
nonstandard alternate airport weather minima are specified on part 97
approach plates.
The FAA agrees with these comments. Historically, the FAA has
permitted helicopter operators to use procedures different from those
permitted to be used by other aircraft. 14 CFR part 97 for example,
allows helicopters to utilize ``copter procedures'' or other procedures
prescribed in subpart C of that part, and to use the Category A minimum
descent altitude (MDA) or decision height (DH). Part 97 also authorizes
helicopter operators to reduce the required visibility minimum to one-
half the published visibility minimum for Category A aircraft, but in
no case may it be reduced to less than one-quarter mile or 1,200 feet
runway visibility range (RVR).
Alternate airport weather minima are established using the ceiling
and visibility requirements for circling approaches as a minimum. The
United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS) (FAA
Order 8260.3B), Chapter 11. Helicopter Procedures, paragraph 1100.a,
``Identification of Inapplicable Criteria'', states in part, ``circling
approach and high altitude penetration criteria do not apply to
helicopter procedures.'' The FAA in fact does not evaluate pilots in
the performance of circling approaches during evaluation for any rating
or check involving the piloting of a helicopter. Additionally, the
Instrument Rating Practical Test Standards (PTS) (FAA-S-8081-4C),
published by the FAA to establish the standards for instrument rating
certification practical tests for airplane, helicopter, and powered
lift category and classes of aircraft indicates that the circling
approach task is appropriate only to airplane and airship instrument
proficiency checks and ratings.
Therefore, the FAA is proposing to change the language of
Sec. 91.169(c) to permit a helicopter operator to use an airport as an
alternate airport provided the ceiling is at least 200 feet above, and
the visibility is at least 1 mile above, the approach minima for the
approach to be flown. This change would allow helicopters to use lower-
than-standard
[[Page 35904]]
alternate airport minima regardless of the approach to be flown while
eliminating the need to alter current approach plates.
Certain commenters proposed that the FAA specify separate alternate
airport weather minima for precision and nonprecision approaches used
by a helicopter operator. Specifically, a 400-foot ceiling and one mile
visibility was proposed for precision approach procedures and a 600-
foot ceiling and one mile visibility was proposed for nonprecision
approach procedures.
The FAA, however, adopted the language specified in the proposal to
ensure that alternate airport approach minima are above actual approach
minima in those situations where actual approach minima may be above
values commonly associated with precision and nonprecision approaches.
The proposed changes would recognize the unique operating
characteristics of helicopters and would remove the operational
restrictions that occur by requiring helicopters to use alternate
approach minima specified in current instrument approach procedures.
Special Instrument Approach Procedures
Current 14 CFR 91.167(b) states in part that, ``paragraph (a)(2) of
this section does not apply if--(1) Part 97 of this chapter prescribes
a standard instrument approach procedure for the first airport of
intended landing.'' Additionally, current 14 CFR 91.169(b) states in
part that ``Paragraph (a)(2) of this section does not apply if part 97
of this chapter prescribes a standard instrument approach procedure for
the first airport of intended landing.'' Current regulatory language
does not provide for the use of special instrument approach procedures
in determining an aircraft operator's ability to meet alternate airport
requirements. The proposal would permit all aircraft operators to use
special instrument approach procedures in determining compliance with
alternate airport requirements.
Special instrument approach procedures are not issued pursuant to
14 CFR part 97 but may be issued to an operator through inclusion in
the operator's Operations Specifications or through a letter of
authorization issued by the Administrator to a specific operator. These
approach procedures are not published in part 97, but are developed
under the authority of 14 CFR 91.175(a). The FAA has developed over 120
new helicopter non-precision Global Positioning System (GPS) instrument
approaches to heliports since 1995, over 75% of them since October
1997. The FAA has determined that these approaches are not standard
instrument approach procedures but ``special instrument approach
procedures'' which require additional aircrew training prior to their
use. Therefore, to permit aircraft operators to use special instrument
approach procedures to comply with alternate airport requirements, the
FAA has revised the language contained in Secs. 91.167(b)(1) and
91.169(b)(1), (c)(1), and (c)(2) of the original notice to permit the
use of these special approaches when issued to an operator by the
Administrator.
Weather Reports and Forecasts
Certain commenters noted the FAA's inaccurate use of the terms
``weather forecasts'' and ``weather reports,'' and the inconsistency
between the way the terms ``weather reports and forecasts and weather
conditions'' and ``weather reports and/or prevailing weather
forecast''' were used in the proposed narrative format and tabular
format, respectively. The FAA agrees that the phrases were used
inconsistently in the proposal and is therefore proposing use of the
phrase ``appropriate weather reports or weather forecasts, or a
combination of them'' in those instances where weather reports and
weather forecasts are to be considered by an operator.
The proposed language reflects current usage of the terms ``weather
forecasts'' and ``weather reports'' by meteorologists and aviation
industry personnel. It also includes the term ``appropriate'' when
referring to weather reports and weather forecasts to indicate that an
operator should consider current weather reports and current and valid
weather forecasts when determining if a flight requires an alternate
airport. Use of the term ``appropriate'' is consistent with references
to weather reports and forecasts in other operating rules. Its
inclusion should eliminate any ambiguity and ensure conformity in
determining those reports and forecasts that should be considered by an
operator when designating an alternate airport. Use of the term
``appropriate'' is also consistent with the provisions of 14 CFR 91.103
which requires each pilot in command, before beginning a flight, to
become familiar with all available information concerning that flight.
With regard to the use of weather forecasts, the FAA notes that
although a weather forecast may be valid for a period as long as 24
hours, only the most current and valid weather forecast would be
considered ``appropriate.'' In some instances a current weather
forecast may be issued, however it may not be valid for the time period
required to be considered by an operator when choosing an alternate
airport. Such a report would not be considered ``appropriate.'' Any
superseded weather report is not considered current and its use in
determining an alternate airport would not be considered appropriate.
The proposal also does not include the descriptive term
``prevailing'' with the phrase ``weather forecasts'' because
``prevailing'' is used to refer to actual weather conditions observed
at a station and not to weather forecasts. Its use in the context of
the original proposal was therefore improper and has been deleted.
Format of the Proposed Rule
In response to the FAA's request for specific comments on the
comparative merits of displaying portions of Secs. 91.167(b) and
91.169(b) and (c) in tabular or narrative format, seven commenters
addressed this issue. Three commenters preferred the tabular format;
two preferred the narrative; and two stated that either format was
acceptable. Originally the FAA believed that the tabular format could
be a method to make the regulations clearer, pursuant to a
recommendation by the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and
Security and the June 1, 1998 Presidential Memorandum, ``Plain Language
in Government Writing.'' Upon further consideration of the advantages
and disadvantages of narrative and tabular formats, the FAA believes
that the narrative format is preferable. Use of a narrative format is
consistent with the format of other regulations in part 91 and does not
cause a visual break in the flow of type on a page. This revised
proposal is therefore in the all-narrative format.
Technical Corrections
In the original notice the FAA proposed distinct alternate airport
weather minima for airplanes and helicopters. Aircraft other than
airplanes and helicopters (e.g. airships) however may require access to
the IFR system and require the need for an alternate airport. The FAA
therefore has revised the original proposal to provide different
alternate airport requirements for helicopters and for aircraft other
than helicopters, as opposed to airplanes.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3507(d)), the FAA has determined that there are no requirements for
information collection associated with this proposed rule.
[[Page 35905]]
Compatibility With ICAO Standards
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices (SARP's) to the maximum extent practicable. The
FAA has reviewed corresponding ICAO SARP's and has identified the
following differences with these proposed regulations.
The proposal would not prescribe that the weather at the airport of
intended landing be at or above the operating minima at the estimated
time of arrival. Paragraph 2.6.2.1 of ICAO Annex 6, Part III,
International Operations-Helicopters, Section III, International
General Aviation, Chapter 2. Flight Operations, requires that the
heliport of intended landing meet operating minima at the estimated
time of arrival. Current Sec. 91.169 also does not specify minimum
weather requirements for the airport of intended landing at the
estimated time of arrival.
The proposal would require helicopter operators to evaluate weather
conditions at the airport of intended landing from the estimated time
of arrival until one hour after the estimated time of arrival when
determining whether an alternate airport is required. Paragraph 2.6.2.2
of ICAO Annex 6, Part III, Section III, requires an operator to
evaluate weather conditions at the heliport of intended landing from
two hours before to two hours after the estimated time of arrival or
from the actual time of departure to two hours after the estimated time
of arrival. Current Sec. 91.169 (b) requires an operator to evaluate
weather conditions at the airport of intended landing from 1 hour
before the estimated time of arrival until 1 hour after the estimated
time of arrival. Proposed Sec. 91.169 (b) would require an operator of
a helicopter to evaluate weather conditions at the airport of intended
landing from the estimated time of arrival until one hour after the
estimated time of arrival.
Paragraph 2.7.1 of ICAO Annex 6, Part III, Section III, states that
an alternate shall be required in an operator's flight plan unless the
weather conditions specified in paragraph 2.6.2.2 of that section
prevail or other specific conditions related to isolated heliports are
met and a point of no return (PNR) determination is made, if
applicable. The proposed weather conditions for the selection of an
alternate differ from those specified in paragraph 2.6.2.2. and the
proposal does not address isolated heliports and PNR determinations.
The FAA recognizes that certain provisions of the notice differ
from ICAO SARPs, however the agency has set forth the proposal to
recognize the unique operational characteristics of helicopters and to
facilitate their entry into the IFR system. If the proposal is adopted
the FAA intends to file these differences with ICAO.
Economic Evaluation Summary
Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency
shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second,
the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies to analyze the
economic effect of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, OMB
directs agencies to assess the effect of regulatory changes on
international trade. In conducting these analyses, the FAA has
determined this proposal is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. This proposed
rule is not considered significant under the regulatory policies and
procedures of the Department of Transportation (44 FR 11034, February
26, 1979). This proposed rule would not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities and would not constitute a barrier
to international trade. The FAA invites the public to provide comments
and supporting data on the assumptions made in this evaluation. All
comments received will be considered in the final regulatory
evaluation.
This section summarizes the FAA's economic and trade analyses,
findings, and determinations in response to these requirements. The
complete economic and trade analyses are contained in the docket (see
ADDRESSES above).
Benefits
There are both quantifiable and non-quantifiable benefits that can
be attributed to this SPNRM. Non-quantifiable benefits include the
reduction in the level of aircraft noise experienced by individuals on
the ground when helicopters fly at higher altitudes and cost savings
associated with enhanced corporate flight operations. These benefits
are difficult to accurately measure, and are discussed below under ``A.
Qualitative Benefits.'' Other benefits would be any reduction in the
number of fatal and serious accidents that occur in marginal weather
conditions. These benefits can be estimated more readily, and are
discussed below under ``B. Quantitative Benefits.''
A. Qualitative Benefits
During periods of marginal or inclement weather conditions,
helicopter operators are often unable to utilize the IFR system because
they are unable to meet the IFR flight plan requirements and criteria
for specifying an alternate airport. When this occurs, helicopter
operators often will fly under either VFR or Special VFR at lower
altitudes. By flying at lower altitudes, third party costs (increased
level of aircraft noise), are experienced by individuals on the ground.
All noise has the potential to annoy because of interference with
speech, sleep, work, or other activities. However, aircraft noise is a
function of aircraft altitude, and noise or sound energy can be reduced
by increasing the flight altitude. Therefore, by providing helicopter
operators with the opportunity to increase the altitude of a helicopter
flight through increased access to the IFR system, the proposed rule
will help to reduce the sound energy on the ground generated by that
helicopter. For example, if a helicopter flying VFR at 250 ft above
ground level (AGL) in marginal weather conditions is able to fly IFR at
4,000 ft AGL in the same marginal weather conditions, the sound energy
is reduced by 24 dB, which represents a decrease to less than one-
hundredth the level of sound intensity experienced by third parties on
the ground.
Another benefit of this rule that is difficult to quantify is the
reduction of the opportunity cost of idle executive and other
management time. Due to the high level of concern many companies have
regarding the safety of their senior executives, the safe operation of
their corporate helicopters receives a high priority. As such, during
periods of marginal or adverse weather conditions, many corporate
helicopter operations are canceled rather than flown VFR under those
conditions. Because helicopters provide prompt and effective
transportation, a portion of the opportunity cost resulting from
canceled operations can be measured by the lost productivity associated
with the extra time involved by executives and other personnel using
alternate forms of transportation, such as automobiles. By enabling
more helicopter pilots to operate under IFR in marginal weather
conditions, these opportunity costs could be avoided.
[[Page 35906]]
B. Quantitative Benefits
The quantitative benefits of this rulemaking are derived from a
potential reduction in weather related accidents associated with
helicopters operating under VFR or special VFR. The FAA believes that
many weather related accidents of the type that in the past occurred
under VFR can be prevented in the future by enhanced helicopter
operator access into the IFR system. The FAA further believes that this
proposed rule will result in increased safety and offer greater
operational flexibility for helicopter operators. The FAA bases this
belief largely on the U.S. Army's experience of no mishaps over the
past 16 years associated with flight planning criteria similar to the
FAA's proposed rule.
To estimate potential safety benefits, the FAA analyzed National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) helicopter accident data, where
weather was a cause or factor, for the 10-year period from 1988 to
1997. The most recent accidents that occurred in 1998 are still under
review; therefore, because the data record is not complete, no data
from 1998 is used in this analysis.
During the 10-year period studied, there were a total of 258
helicopter accidents where weather was a cause or factor of the
accident. The total includes 182 accidents involving VFR flight without
a flight plan filed, 73 accidents where a VFR flight plan was filed,
and three accidents where an IFR flight plan was filed. The 182
accidents involving VFR flights is approximately 60 times greater than
the three accidents that occurred under an IFR flight. In addition, the
73 accidents where VFR flight plans were filed is approximately 24
times greater than the three in IFR operation. When the 182 accidents
are added to the 73 accidents, the result is a total of 255 accidents,
which represents approximately 99 percent of all the accidents that
occurred when weather was a cause or factor.
According to informal industry surveys, approximately 10 percent of
all helicopter flights flown are performed under an IFR flight plan. To
corroborate the results of the industry surveys, the FAA conducted a
simple random sample of helicopter flight plans. The sample consisted
of 104 randomly selected helicopter flight plans from the Southern
Region. The results showed 33 helicopter flight plans were IFR and 71
were VFR. To approximate the proportion of VFR flights that occurred
without a flight plan compared to the sample number of VFR flights, the
FAA calculated the ratio of VFR flights without a flight plan to VFR
flight plans from the observed accident history. The FAA then
multiplied that ratio by the number of VFR flight plans from the
sample. The computation produced an estimate of 178 helicopter flights
flown VFR without a flight plan during the time period to compare with
the 33 flight plans of the sample.
Once an estimate of the number of VFR flights without a flight plan
was determined (178), the FAA then added that to the number of sample
VFR flight plans filed (71) and the sample IFR flight plans filed (33).
That total (282) was divided into the number of IFR flight plans (33).
This produced the estimated percentage of all helicopter flights flown
IFR (11.7%), which is only 1.7 percent greater than the industry survey
results of 10 percent.
The percent of IFR flights from the sample approximately equals the
industry survey results. These comparable ratios provide some
corroborative evidence that 10 percent of all helicopter operations are
conducted under an IFR flight plan. As such, the number of accidents
flying IFR would be expected to be approximately 10 percent of the
total accidents, or 26 accidents. However, instead of 26 accidents only
three accidents occurred under an IFR flight plan. Because the actual
number of accidents (3) is approximately 12 percent of the expected
number of accidents (26), this information suggests that IFR flight is
safer than VFR flight when marginal weather conditions are present.
When the fatalities sustained during the study period flying with
no flight plan (67) are added to the fatalities sustained flying with a
VFR flight plan (64) the result is 131 fatal injuries. There were 10
fatal injuries sustained under an IFR flight plan. Similarly, when
serious injuries sustained flying with no flight plan (46) are added to
the serious injuries sustained flying with a VFR flight plan (41), the
result is 87. There was one serious injury sustained in IFR flight.
In aggregate, the number of fatalities and serious injuries that
occurred under VFR flight is significantly greater than those that
occurred under an IFR flight plan. The FAA is aware that even though
weather was a cause or contributing factor in all of these accidents,
this rulemaking would not have prevented all of these accidents or
injuries. However, the accident and injury data discussed previously
suggest IFR flight is safer than VFR flight when marginal weather
conditions are present.
Further research revealed that in 19 of the 255 accidents involving
VFR flight, the pilot-in-command had instrument ratings for
helicopters, or for a combination of helicopters and airplanes. The FAA
believes that with the revised weather minimums and the revised
standard/nonstandard approach minima provided by the proposal, the
pilots with instrument ratings could have taken advantage of positive
air traffic control services (such as obstacle avoidance) and flown
IFR. However, due to the uncertainty regarding the weather at the
destination airports, the FAA recognizes that not all of these 19
accidents may have been avoided. Therefore, the FAA applied the same
percentage described above regarding the expected and actual accidents
under IFR (3/26 12%) where weather was a cause or factor of
the accident and determined that 3 of the 19 accidents (19 x 12%
3) would not have been avoided due to this rulemaking.
There were a total of 16 serious injuries and 18 fatalities that
were sustained in the 19 accidents involving VFR flight where the
pilot-in-command had instrument ratings for helicopters, or for a
combination of helicopters and airplanes. To determine the potential
benefits that will result from this SNPRM, the FAA estimated the
average costs associated with all the injuries and fatalities. A
economic value of $2.7 million and $518,000 was applied to each human
fatality and serious injury, respectively in accordance with current
guidance provided by the Department of Transportation. This computation
resulted in an estimate of approximately $57 million in casualty costs.
Also, the value of all of the destroyed aircraft was estimated to be $8
million. If this rulemaking (the NPRM plus the SNPRM) helps prevent 88
percent of these injuries and fatalities that resulted from 19
accidents, the expected potential safety benefits evenly distributed
over the next ten years will be approximately $57 million ($40 million,
discounted).
Costs
As was the case with the preceding NPRM, this SNPRM would not
impose any additional equipment, training, or other cost to the
aviation industry. Therefore, the FAA believes there is no apparent
compliance cost associated with this SNPRM. However, the FAA solicits
comments regarding the plausibility and extent of the adverse impacts
on operators from implementation of the proposed rule.
Comparison of Costs and Benefits
The proposed rule would not place any additional requirements on
the aviation industry. Therefore, there are no compliance costs
associated with the
[[Page 35907]]
proposed rule. Qualitative benefits from the proposed rule would come
from reducing the level of aircraft noise experienced by individuals on
the ground and from cost savings associated with reducing
transportation time for corporate executives and other personnel.
The quantitative benefits come from a potential reduction in
accidents by enabling more helicopter pilots to operate under IFR in
marginal weather conditions. The regulatory evaluation for the original
NPRM found that there were potential safety benefits of $48 million
($34 million, present value) in addition to the non-quantified benefits
discussed above. In this regulatory evaluation of the original NPRM
plus the SNPRM, the potential safety benefits over the next 10 years
could be $57 million or $40 million, present value. Therefore, the FAA
has determined both the original NPRM and this SNPRM are cost
beneficial.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) establishes as a
principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor,
consistent with the objective of the rule and of applicable statutes,
to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the
businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to
regulation. To achieve that principle, the RFA requires agencies to
solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the
rationale for their actions. The RFA covers a wide range of small
entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations and
small governmental jurisdictions.
Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a proposal or
final rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of entities. If the determination is that it would, the agency
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
However, if an agency determines that a proposed or final rule is not
expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities, section 605 (b) of the RFA provides that the head of
the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required. The certification must include a statement providing the
factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be
clear.
This rule would impact entities regulated by part 91. The FAA has
determined that there would be no compliance costs associated with this
SNPRM, but in the NPRM published September 2, 1998, the agency
solicited comments from operators who felt they would be negatively
impacted from implementation of the proposed rule. Only positive
comments were received supporting the FAA's position that this proposed
rulemaking would not place any additional requirements on the aviation
industry. Therefore, the FAA believes that there are no compliance
costs associated with the proposed rule. Accordingly, the Federal
Aviation Administration certifies that this rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
International Trade Impact Statement
The provisions of this proposed rule would have little or no impact
on trade for U.S. firms doing business in foreign countries and foreign
firms doing business in the United States.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act),
codified in 2 U.S.C 1501-1571, requires each Federal agency, to the
extent permitted by law, to prepare a written assessment of the effects
of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may
result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more
(adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. Section 204(a) of
the Act, 2 U.S.C. 1534(a), requires the Federal agency to develop an
effective process to permit timely input by elected officers (or their
designees) of State, local, and tribal governments on a proposed
``significant intergovernmental mandate.'' A ``significant
intergovernmental mandate'' under the Act is any provision in a Federal
agency regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State,
local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, of $100 million
(adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. Section 203 of the
Act (2 U.S.C. 1533), which supplements section 204(a), provides that
before establishing any regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, the agency shall
have developed a plan that, among other things, provides for notice to
potentially affected small governments, if any, and for a meaningful
and timely opportunity to provide input in the development of
regulatory proposals.
This proposed rule does not contain any Federal intergovernmental
or private sector mandate exceeds $100 million in any one year.
Federalism Implications
The proposed regulations would not have substantial direct effects
on the States, on the relationship between national Government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among
various levels of government. Thus, in accordance with Executive Order
12612, it is determined that such a regulation would not have
federalism implications warranting the preparation of a Federalism
Assessment.
Environmental Analysis
FAA Order 1050.1D defines FAA actions that may be categorically
excluded from preparation of a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. In
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1D, appendix 4, paragraph 4(j), this
rulemaking action qualifies for a categorical exclusion
List of Subjects
14 CFR Part 21
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
14 CFR Part 27
Aircraft, Aviation safety.
14 CFR Part 29
Aircraft, Aviation safety.
14 CFR Part 91
Aircraft, Airports, Aviation safety.
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend parts 21, 27, 29, and 91 of Chapter I,
title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
PART 21--CERTIFICATION PROCEDURES FOR PRODUCTS AND PARTS
1. The authority citation for part 21 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7572; 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40105, 40113,
44701-44702, 44707, 44709, 44711, 44713, 44715, 45303.
SFAR No. 29-4 [Removed]
2. Remove Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) No. 29-4--
Limited IFR Operations of Rotorcraft from part 21.
PART 27--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: NORMAL CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT
3. The authority citation for part 27 continues to read as follows:
[[Page 35908]]
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44704.
4. Remove the reference to SFAR No. 29-4.
PART 29--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT
5. The authority citation for part 29 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44704.
6. Remove the reference to SFAR No. 29-4.
PART 91--GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES
7. The authority citation for part 91 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 1155, 40103, 40113, 40120, 44101,
44111, 44701, 44709, 44711, 44712, 44715, 44716, 44717, 44722,
46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506-46507, 47122, 47508, 47528-47531,
articles 12 and 29 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation
(61 stat. 1180).
SFAR No. 29-4 [Removed]
8. Remove Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) No. 29-4,
Limited IFR Operations of Rotorcraft, from part 91.
9. Revise Sec. 91.167 to read as follows:
Sec. 91.167 Fuel requirements for flight into IFR conditions.
(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft in IFR conditions unless
it carries enough fuel (considering appropriate weather reports or
weather forecasts, or a combination of them) to--
(1) Complete the flight to the first airport of intended landing;
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, fly from
that airport to the alternate airport; and
(3) Fly after that for 45 minutes at normal cruising speed or, for
helicopters, fly after that for 30 minutes at normal cruising speed.
(b) Paragraph (a)(2) of this section does not apply if:
(1) Part 97 of this chapter prescribes a standard instrument
approach procedure to, or a special instrument approach procedure has
been issued by the Administrator to the operator for, the first airport
of intended landing; and
(2) Appropriate weather reports or weather forecasts, or a
combination of them, indicate the following:
(i) For aircraft other than helicopters. For at least 1 hour before
and for 1 hour after the estimated time of arrival, the ceiling will be
at least 2,000 feet above the airport elevation and the visibility will
be at least 3 statute miles.
(ii) For helicopters. At the estimated time of arrival and for 1
hour after the estimated time of arrival, the ceiling will be at least
1,000 feet above the airport elevation, or at least 400 feet above the
lowest applicable approach minima, whichever is higher, and the
visibility will be at least 2 statute miles.
10. Revise Sec. 91.169 (a), (b), and (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 91.169 IFR flight plan: Information required.
(a) Information required. Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, each
person filing an IFR flight plan must include in it the following
information:
(1) Information required under Sec. 91.153 (a) of this part;
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, an
alternate airport.
(b) Paragraph (a)(2) of this section does not apply if :
(1) Part 97 of this chapter prescribes a standard instrument
approach procedure to, or a special instrument approach procedure has
been issued by the Administrator to the operator for, the first airport
of intended landing; and
(2) Appropriate weather reports or weather forecasts, or a
combination of them, indicate the following:
(i) For aircraft other than helicopters. For at least 1 hour before
and for 1 hour after the estimated time of arrival, the ceiling will be
at least 2,000 feet above the airport elevation and the visibility will
be at least 3 statute miles.
(ii) For helicopters. At the estimated time of arrival and for 1
hour after the estimated time of arrival, the ceiling will be at least
1,000 feet above the airport elevation, or at least 400 feet above the
lowest applicable approach minima, whichever is higher, and the
visibility will be at least 2 statute miles.
(c) IFR alternate airport weather minima. Unless otherwise
authorized by the Administrator, no person may include an alternate
airport in an IFR flight plan unless appropriate weather reports or
weather forecasts, or a combination of them, indicate that, at the
estimated time of arrival at the alternate airport, the ceiling and
visibility at that airport will be at or above the following weather
minima:
(1) If an instrument approach procedure has been published in part
97 of this chapter, or a special instrument approach procedure has been
issued by the Administrator to the operator, for that airport, the
following minima:
(i) For aircraft other than helicopters: The alternate airport
minima specified in that procedure, or if none are specified the
following standard approach minima:
(A) For a precision approach procedure. Ceiling 600 feet and
visibility 2 statute miles.
(B) For a nonprecision approach procedure. Ceiling 800 feet and
visibility 2 statute miles.
(ii) For helicopters: Ceiling 200 feet above and visibility 1
statute mile above the approach minima for the approach to be flown,
and
(2) If no instrument approach procedure has been published in part
97 of this chapter or no special instrument approach procedure has been
issued by the Administrator to the operator, for the alternate airport,
the ceiling and visibility minima are those allowing descent from the
MEA, approach, and landing under basic VFR.
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, DC, on June 25, 1999.
Ava L. Mims,
Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. 99-16794 Filed 6-28-99; 2:54 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P