[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 1 (Thursday, January 2, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39-43]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-33143]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 61

[Docket No. FAA-2002-13744; SFAR No. 73-1]
RIN: 2120-AH94


Robinson R-22/R-44 Special Training And Experience Requirements

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This final rule extends the expiration date of Special Federal 
Aviation Regulation (SFAR) 73. SFAR 73 requires special training and 
experience for pilots operating the Robinson model R-22 or R-44 
helicopters in order to maintain the safe operation of Robinson 
helicopters. It also requires special training and experience for 
certified flight instructors conducting student instruction or flight 
reviews in R-22 or R-44 helicopters.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 31, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert J. O'Haver, Operations Branch, 
AFS-820, General Aviation and Commercial Division, 800

[[Page 40]]

Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591; Telephone: (202) 267-7031.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by taking the 
following steps:
    (1) Go to the search function of the Department of Transportation's 
electronic Docket Management System (DMS) Web page (http://dms.dot.gov/search).
    (2) On the search page type in the last five digits (13744) of the 
Docket number shown at the beginning of this notice. Click on 
``search.''
    (3) On the next page, which contains the Docket summary information 
for the Docket you selected, click on the document number of the item 
you wish to view. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all 
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit 
http://dms.dot.gov.
    You can also get an electronic copy using the Internet through the 
Office of Rulemaking's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/avr/armhome.htm 
or the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html.
    You can also get a copy by submitting a request to the Federal 
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence 
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Make 
sure to identify the docket number, notice number, or amendment number 
of this rulemaking.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 
(SBREFA) requires the FAA to comply with small entity requests for 
information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations 
within its jurisdiction. Therefore, any entity that has a question 
regarding this document may contact a local FAA office, or the person 
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. You can find out more 
about SBREFA on the Internet at our Web page, www.gov/avr/arm/sbrefa.htm. If you have questions, send us an e-mail at [email protected].

Background

    Part 61 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR part 
61) details the certification requirements for pilots and flight 
instructors. Particular requirements for pilots and flight instructors 
in rotorcraft are found in Subparts C through G, and Appendix B of part 
61. These requirements do not address any specific type or model of 
rotorcraft. However, in 1995 the Federal Aviation Administration 
(referred to as ``we'') determined that specific training and 
experience requirements are necessary for the safe operation of 
Robinson R-22 and R-44 model helicopters.
    The R-22 is a 2-seat, reciprocating engine powered helicopter that 
is frequently used as a low-cost initial student training aircraft. The 
R-44 is a 4-seat helicopter with operating characteristics and design 
features that are similar to the R-22. The R-22 is the smallest 
helicopter in its class and incorporates a unique cyclic control and 
rotor system. Certain aerodynamic and design features of the aircraft 
cause specific flight characteristics that require particular pilot 
awareness and responsiveness.
    We found that the R-22 met 14 CFR part 27 certification 
requirements and issued a type certificate in 1979. The small size and 
relatively low operating costs of this helicopter made it popular as a 
training or small utility aircraft. Thus, a significant number of the 
pilots operating R-22 helicopters were relatively inexperienced. Prior 
to issuance of SFAR 73, the Robinson R-22 experienced a higher number 
of fatal accidents due to main rotor/airframe contact than other 
piston-powered helicopters. Many of these accidents were caused by low 
rotor revolutions per minute (RPM) or low ``G'' conditions that 
resulted in mast bumping or main rotor-airframe contact accidents. 
Aviation safety authorities attributed this to pilot error by 
inexperienced pilots.
    In our analysis of accident data, we found that apparently 
qualified pilots may not be properly prepared to safely operate the R-
22 and R-44 helicopters in certain flight conditions. We determined 
that additional pilot training, originally established by SFAR 73, as 
modified in SFAR 73-1, continues to be needed for the safe operation of 
these helicopters.

Previous Regulatory Action

    To address the safety issues, on March 1, 1995, we published SFAR 
73 (60 FR 11256). This SFAR required certain experience and training to 
perform pilot-in-command (PIC) and/or certified flight instructor (CFI) 
duties. SFAR 73 was issued on an emergency basis, with an expiration 
date of December 31, 1997. On November 21, 1997 (62 FR 62486), we 
published an NPRM to extend SFAR 73 to December 31, 2002, with a minor 
amendment. The final rule extending SFAR 73 to December 31, 2002 was 
published on January 7, 1998 (63 FR 660). On November 14, 2002, we 
published an NPRM proposing to extend SFAR 73 an additional 5 years to 
December 31, 2007 (67 FR 69106). This final rule responds to the 
comments received on the most recent NPRM and extends SFAR 73 to March 
31, 2008.

FAA response to comments on the NPRM that proposed extension of SFAR 73

    We received six comments in response to the NPRM that was published 
in the Federal Register on November 14, 2002. Two of the comments were 
from the Robinson Helicopter Company. The other four comments were from 
three individuals. Several of the commenters addressed similar issues. 
Our response to the comments follows.

1. Should We Exclude the Robinson R44 Helicopter From the Requirements 
of SFAR 73?

    Mr. Frank Robinson, President of the Robinson Helicopter Company; 
Mr. Sherwood A. Bresler, Chief Accident Investigator for the Robinson 
Helicopter Company; Mr. Timothy C. Tucker, an FAA Designated Pilot 
Examiner for helicopters; and Mr. Martin E. Weaver requested the FAA to 
remove the R44 helicopter from SFAR 73. The principal arguments in 
favor of removing the R44 helicopter are:
    [sbull] The Robinson Helicopter Company has made significant 
changes to the R44 helicopter since 1995 that reduce its vulnerability 
to low-G mast bumping and low-RPM rotor stall.
    [sbull] The flight and handling characteristics of the R44 are 
closer to the Bell 206 Jetranger helicopter than the smaller R22.
    [sbull] The FAA revised the Helicopter Practical Test Standards for 
private, commercial and flight instructor certificates to include ``Low 
RPM Recovery'' and ``Low G'' conditions.
    Response: Since the issuance of SFAR 73, there has been a drop in 
the accident rate of Robinson helicopters associated with low ``G'' 
maneuvers (low rotor RPM) resulting in main rotor/tailboom contact. 
Between the publication of SFAR 73 in 1995 and the first extension of 
the SFAR in 1997 no accidents occurred in the R-22 or R-44 that were

[[Page 41]]

related to low rotor RPM and tailboom/main rotor contact. There have 
been two accidents since the first extension in 1997. Design changes in 
the R-44 have improved the aircraft performance and handling 
characteristics of recently manufactured R-44 helicopters but these 
changes were not applied to older R-44s. The Robinson R-44 helicopter 
is generally of the same design as the R-22, and although larger uses a 
teetering rotor system with a high mounted tail rotor. These design 
characteristics make the rotorcraft susceptible to mast bumping and 
fuselage rolling tendencies under low-G conditions. Since the design 
characteristics of the R-44 are similar to the R-22, we believe that 
SFAR 73 should apply to both models. We further believe that SFAR 73 
has been effective in improving the safe operation of these 
helicopters. SFAR 73 will continue to apply to the R-22 and the R-44.

2. Should We Modify SFAR 73 To Allow Flight Training for Student Pilots 
in the R-22 and R-44 Before Requiring the Specific Training Called for 
in SFAR 73?

    Mr. Martin E. Weaver asked us to change the wording in Section 2, 
paragraph (a)(1) from ``* * * no person may manipulate the controls of 
a Robinson * * *'' to ``* * * no person may solo or perform duties as 
pilot-in-command of a Robinson * * *'' and paragraph (a)(2) from ``* * 
* may not manipulate the controls of a Robinson * * *'' to `` * * * may 
not solo or perform duties as pilot-in-command of a Robinson * * *''. 
Mr. Weaver states that the current rule does not consider the 
effectiveness of providing the special training to someone with no 
experience in helicopters. He believes it would be better to wait until 
the student pilot has some flight experience with helicopter flight 
controls and basic understanding of aerodynamic principles before 
learning the specific limitations established in SFAR 73.
    Response: We reviewed this issue after the initial release of SFAR 
73 and found that continuous awareness training was preferable to 
changing the fundamental requirement of the rule. Flight instructors 
who routinely provide initial flight training in the R-22 begin 
discussing mast bumping preventive procedures and hazards of low-G 
maneuvers early in the training program. Qualified instructors have 
found that continuing education throughout the training program 
reinforces the precautions that need to be learned. Early training on 
these skills and knowledge can begin on a very basic level and increase 
in detail and difficulty as the student develops the appropriate 
knowledge, skill, and experience. We will therefore continue to require 
continuous awareness training on mast bumping preventive procedures and 
hazards of low-G maneuvers.

3. Should We Extend the Flight Review Requirements From 12 to 24 Months 
for the R22 and the R44?

    Mr. Weaver believes that extending the flight review required by 
paragraphs 2(b)(1)(ii) and 2(b)(2)(ii) of the SFAR to 24 months would 
not increase the accident rate.
    Response: We believe requiring an annual flight review improves the 
safe operation of these helicopters. The requirements for the flight 
review in the R-22 helicopter were established by the R-22 Flight 
Standardization Board (FSB) Report dated February 15, 1995. This report 
states in paragraph 8.2, ``All pilots who wish to act as pilot in 
command of a Robinson R-22 aircraft should complete a flight review as 
required by FAR part 61.56 in a Robinson R-22 model helicopter.'' We 
believe that an annual review of the areas addressed by SFAR 73 is 
necessary.

4. Should We Reduce the Required Hours in Helicopters From 200 to 150?

    Mr. Martin Thysell believes that 200 hours of helicopter experience 
required by paragraph 2(b)(1)(i) of the SFAR may not be required if a 
substantial part of the flying has been in the Robinson R-22. He 
recommends changing the language that states ``* * * has had at least 
200 flight hours in helicopters, at least 50 flight hours of which were 
in the Robinson R-22 * * *'' to `` * * * has had at least 200 flight 
hours in helicopters, at least 50 flight hours of which were in the 
Robinson R-22 or at least 150 hours in helicopters, at least 100 flight 
hours of which were in the Robinson R-22 * * *''
    Response: The recommended change, if adopted, would reduce the 
total number of required flight hours for a qualified R-22 flight 
instructor from 200 flight hours to 150 flight hours if 100 hours were 
acquired in a Robinson R-22. The commenter does not state any safety 
benefit that would result from the proposed change. We believe a clear 
relationship exists between pilot inexperience in helicopters and main 
rotor to airframe contact accidents. In 23 of the 30 fatal accidents 
originally investigated that led to the implementation of SFAR 73, the 
pilots apparently manipulating the controls had less than 200 flight 
hours in helicopters. We have determined that 200 flight hours are 
needed for the safe operation of either helicopter.

5. Should We Reduce the Extension of SFAR 73 From 5 years to 2 years?

    Mr. Sherwood A. Bresler of the Robinson Helicopter Company believes 
that 2 years is sufficient time to permanently address regulations and 
policies about helicopter pilot and flight instructor training and 
experience requirements.
    Response: We are working on regulations and policies to govern 
pilot and certified flight instructor training and experience, based on 
experience gained from SFAR 73. We intend to implement these in 2007 or 
before. Considering the time needed to complete the public rulemaking 
process, other agency priorities and available resources, we believe 
the 5-year extension to coincide with new rules is appropriate. Also, 
we are adding 3 months so the expiration of the SFAR does not coincide 
with the end of the year.

6. Should Helicopter Pilots and Flight Instructors Be Allowed to Use 
Fixed Wing Time in Meeting Requirements for Helicopter Ratings?

    Mr. Bresler believes we should harmonize our rules with 
international standards that do not allow fixed wing time in meeting 
requirements for helicopter ratings. He believes this change would 
eliminate the need for SFAR 73.
    Response: Mr. Bresler's suggestion would require a substantial 
change to FAA qualification standards for all helicopter training. Such 
a suggestion is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. As discussed 
above, we are working on a separate project dealing with the 
regulations and policies governing pilot and certified flight 
instructor training and experience. We will evaluate Mr. Bresler's 
comment in that project.

Regulatory Evaluation Summary

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic 
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that a Federal agency 
may 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 impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the 
Trade Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 2531-2533) prohibits agencies from 
setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 
commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, this Trade 
Act requires

[[Page 42]]

agencies to consider international standards and, where appropriate, 
that they be the basis for U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to 
prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects 
of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to 
result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more 
annually (adjusted for inflation).
    In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined this final rule: 
(1) Will generate benefits that exceed costs, is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 
12866, and is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's Regulatory 
Policies and Procedures; (2) will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities; (3) will not 
constitute a barrier to international trade; and does not impose an 
unfunded mandate on state, local, or tribal governments, or on the 
private sector.
    This final rule will extend the requirements of SFAR 73-1, which 
will expire on December 31, 2002, for an additional 5 years. It will 
impose costs on those receiving instruction in Robinson model R-22 and 
R-44 helicopters. Affected individuals will be required to receive 
additional model-specific training and experience for each model of 
Robinson helicopter before they can be certificated. The individuals 
affected include flight instructors and students seeking to be 
certified to operate Robinson model helicopters. These individuals can 
avoid the costs of this final rule by receiving their instruction in a 
helicopter other than a Robinson model. However, they will not be 
certificated for Robinson model helicopters.
    Regarding benefits, this final rule will continue the observed 
reduction in the number of fatal accidents that occur in Robinson 
helicopters associated with low ``G'' maneuvers that can result in main 
rotor contact with the airframe. Prior to the issuance of SFAR 73 there 
were 15 accidents and 24 fatalities due to main rotor contact with the 
airframe. Since the SFAR was issued in 1995, however, there have been 
only two accidents and only one fatality involving R-22 or R-44 
aircraft associated with low ``G'' operations and main rotor contact 
with the airframe.
    Even though two accidents involving low ``G'' operations have 
occurred since SFAR 73 was extended in 1997, we find that the potential 
safety benefits still exceed costs and justify the adoption of this 
final rule.

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 
business, 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 proposed or 
final rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. If the agency determines that it will, the 
agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in 
the RFA.
    However, if an agency determines that a 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 final rule will require students and rated pilots seeking to 
conduct student instructions or flight reviews in a Robinson helicopter 
to incur added costs. Thus, the requirements of the SFAR impact 
individuals rather than entities. For these reasons, the FAA certifies 
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small operators.

Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from 
establishing any standards or engaging in related activities that 
create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United 
States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are not 
considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires 
consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that 
they be the basis for U.S. standards.
    The final rule imposes costs on those receiving instruction on 
Robinson helicopters. These costs have been in effect for almost 7 
years and apparently have not affected sales of the aircraft. The FAA 
has assessed the potential effect of the final rule and determined that 
it will have a neutral impact on foreign trade and, therefore, create 
no obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States.

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act) is intended, 
among other things, to curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal 
mandates on State, local, and tribal governments. Title II of the Act 
requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing 
the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule 
that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (adjusted 
annually for inflation) in any one year by State, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate 
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.''
    This final rule does not contain such a mandate. The requirements 
of Title II do not apply.

Federalism Implications

    This final rule will not have substantial direct effects on the 
states, on the relationship between the Federal government and the 
states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive 
Order 12866, it is determined that this final rule does not have 
sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a 
Federalism Assessment.

International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and Joint Aviation 
Regulations

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on 
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with ICAO 
Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. 
The FAA has determined that this final rule does not conflict with any 
international agreement of the United States.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The OMB control number assigned to the collection of information 
for this final rule is 2120-0021.

Conclusion

    For the reasons previously discussed in the preamble, the FAA has 
determined that this SFAR is not significant under Executive Order 
12866. Based on the findings in the Regulatory Flexibility 
Determination and the International Trade Impact Analysis, the FAA 
certifies that this final rule will not have a significant

[[Page 43]]

economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small 
entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. This 
SFAR is not considered significant under DOT Regulatory Policies and 
Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979).

Plain Language

    In response to the June 1, 1998 Presidential Memorandum regarding 
the use of plain language, the FAA re-examined the writing style 
currently used in the development of regulations. The memorandum 
requires federal agencies to communicate clearly with the public. We 
are interested in your comments on whether the style of this document 
is clear, and in any other suggestions you might have to improve the 
clarity of FAA communications that affect you. You can get more 
information about the Presidential memorandum and the plain language 
initiative at http:www.plainlanguage.gov.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 61

    Aircraft, Aircraft pilots, Airmen, Airplanes, Air safety, Air 
transportation, Aviation safety, Balloons, Helicopters, Rotorcraft, 
Students.

The Final Rule

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation 
Administration amends part 61 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (14 CFR part 61) as follows:

PART 61--CERTIFICATION: PILOTS, FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS, AND GROUND 
INSTRUCTORS

    1. The authority citation for part 61 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44703, 44707, 44709-
44711, 45102-45103, 45301-45302.

    2. Revise section 3 of SFAR No. 73 to read as follows:

Special Federal Aviation Regulations

* * * * *

Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 73--Robinson R-22/R-44 Special 
Training and Experience Requirements

* * * * *

    3. Expiration date. This SFAR terminates on March 31, 2008, unless 
sooner superceded or rescinded.


    Issued in Washington, DC on December 27, 2002.
Marion C. Blakey,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 02-33143 Filed 12-30-02; 1:47 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P