[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 140 (Monday, July 24, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47650-47739]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-14425]
[[Page 47649]]
Vol. 88
Monday,
No. 140
July 24, 2023
Part III
Department of Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Aviation Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14 CFR Parts 1, 21, 22, et al.
Modernization of Special Airworthiness Certification; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 140 / Monday, July 24, 2023 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 47650]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 1, 21, 22, 36, 43, 45, 61, 65, 91, and 119
[Docket No.: FAA-2023-1377; Notice No. 23-10]
RIN 2120-AL50
Modernization of Special Airworthiness Certification
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to amend rules for the manufacture,
certification, operation, maintenance, and alteration of light-sport
aircraft. The proposed amendments would enable enhancements in safety
and performance and would increase privileges under a number of sport
pilot and light-sport aircraft rules. These enhancements include
increasing suitability for flight training, limited aerial work, and
personal travel. This proposed rule would expand what aircraft sport
pilots may operate. This NPRM also includes proposals to amend the
special purpose operations for restricted category aircraft; amend the
duration, eligible purposes, and operating limitations for experimental
aircraft; and add operating limitations applicable to experimental
aircraft engaged in space support vehicle flights to codify statutory
language.
DATES: Send comments on or before October 23, 2023.
ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2023-1377
using any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to regulations.gov and
follow the online instructions for sending your comments
electronically.
Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001 between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at (202) 493-2251.
Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions for
accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of
the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this action, contact James Newberger, Aircraft Certification Service
(AIR-632), Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave. SW,
Washington, DC 20591, telephone (202) 267-1636; email
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
A. Overview of the Proposed Rule
B. Summary of Costs and Benefits
II. Background
A. History
B. Related Actions
III. Authority for This Rulemaking
IV. Discussion of the Proposal
A. General
B. Revision of Definitions Applicable to the Certification and
Operation of Light-Sport Category Aircraft
C. Expansion of Eligibility for Light-Sport Category Aircraft
and Sport Pilots
D. Certification of Light-Sport Category Aircraft
E. Sport Pilot Certification and Privileges
F. Repairman (Light-Sport) Certificates
G. Maintenance
H. Operations
I. Experimental Airworthiness Certificates
J. Restricted Category
K. Noise Certification of Aircraft That Do Not Conform to a Type
Certificate
L. Proposed Effective and Compliance Dates
M. Amendments Concerning Import and Export of Aircraft
N. Conforming Amendments
V. Regulatory Notices
A. Regulatory Impact Analysis
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. International Trade Impact Assessment
D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
F. International Compatibility
G. Environmental Analysis
VI. Executive Order Determinations
A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
B. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
C. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
D. Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperarion
VII. Additional Information
A. Comments Invited
B. Confidential Business Information
C. Electronic Access and Filing
D. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
List of Acronyms Frequently Used in This Document
ASTM--ASTM International
ATD--Aviation Training Device
CAS--Calibrated Airspeed
CFR--Code of Federal Regulations
DOD--Department of Defense
DOT--Department of Transportation
FAA--Federal Aviation Administration
FADEC--Full Authority Digital Electric Control
FR--Federal Register
FSTD--Flight Simulation Training Device
IBR--Incorporation by reference
LSAMA--Light-Sport Aircraft Manufacturers Assessment
MOSAIC--Modernization of Special Airworthiness Certification
MSL--Mean Sea Level (altitude)
NAICS--North American Industry Classification System
NPRM--Notice of proposed rulemaking
NTSB--National Transportation Safety Board
OMB--Office of Management and Budget
PIC--Pilot in Command
PTS--Practical Test Standards
RFA--Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIA--Regulatory Impact Analysis
U.S.C.--United States Code
VFR--Visual Flight Rules
VH--Maximum airspeed in level flight with maximum continuous power
VNE--Maximum never exceed speed
VS1--Maximum Stalling Speed (in clean configuration)
I. Executive Summary
A. Overview of the Proposed Rule
The FAA proposes to amend rules related to the certification and
operation of light-sport category aircraft. This rule would modernize
the regulatory approach to light-sport aircraft, incorporating
performance-based requirements that reflect advances in technology and
use cases for this type of aircraft. The proposal is designed to
respond to the evolving needs of this sector and provide for future
growth and innovation without compromising safety.
In 2004, the FAA published the final rule titled ``Certification of
Aircraft and Airmen for the Operation of Light-Sport Aircraft,'' which
established rules for the manufacture, certification, operation, and
maintenance of light-sport aircraft (69 FR 44771; July 27, 2004)
(hereafter ``the 2004 final rule''). That rule provided for the
operation and manufacture of aircraft weighing less than 1,320 pounds
(or 1,430 pounds for aircraft intended for operation on water). These
``light-sport'' aircraft included airplanes, gliders, balloons, powered
parachutes, weight-shift-control aircraft, and gyroplanes. The FAA
bases the rigor of certification requirements and operational
limitations on a safety continuum that assesses the exposure of the
public to
[[Page 47651]]
risk for each aircraft and operation; as the risk increases due to
increased operating privileges and aircraft capability, the
requirements and corresponding rigor of requirements and procedures for
certification increase.
In establishing the 2004 final rule, the FAA intentionally
established a rigor of certification for light-sport category aircraft
between normal category aircraft and aircraft holding experimental
certificates in view of intended operating privileges and aircraft
capability. This preamble uses experimental amateur-built aircraft for
the safety continuum discussions since they are similar to light-sport
category aircraft in this proposal. Amateur-built aircraft are largely
used for recreational purposes, are flown by sport pilots and pilots
with higher grade certificates, and generally have the same flight
envelope and occupancy limits. Amateur-built aircraft are below light-
sport category aircraft on the safety continuum because of their lower
safety assurance for aircraft design and being subject to stringent
operating limitations. Amateur-built aircraft have no regulatory design
requirements for suitability of materials used, structural integrity,
or instruments, equipment, and systems. This proposed rule would
prescribe design requirements for light-sport category aircraft for
these items. This proposed rule would also allow light-sport aircraft
to conduct aerial work operations that have been authorized by the
manufacturer for compensation or hire. Amateur-built aircraft are
limited to non-commercial operations for the purpose of education and
recreation.
Since the 2004 rule, light-sport category aircraft have shown a
lower accident rate than experimental amateur-built airplanes. The FAA
considers that the successful safety record of light-sport category
aircraft validates certification requirements established in the 2004
final rule and provides support for expanding the scope of
certification for light-sport category aircraft and operations. As a
result, the FAA identified this proposed rule as an opportunity to
expand the 2004 final rule to include a wider variety of aircraft,
increase performance, and increase operating privileges to extend these
safety benefits to more aircraft. The FAA intends for these expansions
to increase safety by encouraging aircraft owners, who may be deciding
between an experimental aircraft or a light-sport category aircraft, to
choose aircraft higher on the safety continuum and, therefore, meet
higher aircraft certification requirements.
This proposed rule also addresses other aircraft that hold special
airworthiness certificates. Specifically, the FAA proposes to codify
additional special purpose operations for restricted category aircraft
that the FAA has previously approved under discretion provided in Sec.
21.25(b)(7). In addition, this rule would amend the duration, eligible
purposes, and operating limitations for special airworthiness
certificates issued for experimental purposes.
The FAA has identified proposals to improve both the safety and
functionality of light-sport category aircraft and light-sport category
kit-built aircraft. This rule would amend aircraft, pilot, maintenance,
and operational requirements to increase both the safety and
performance of these aircraft while mitigating risk. The FAA recognizes
that this is a balancing act--where the risk is increased due to
greater capability in one area, mitigations may be required from the
other areas.
This proposal would establish performance-based requirements
related to light-sport certificated aircraft. As a fundamental matter,
the proposal would restructure how certification requirements for
light-sport category aircraft are presented in the FAA's regulations.
Currently, issuance of special airworthiness certificates under Sec.
21.190 for light-sport category aircraft, sport pilot certificates
under part 61, subpart J, and repairman (light-sport) certificates
under part 65 are limited by a number of aircraft design limitations
included in the definition of light-sport aircraft in Sec. 1.1. This
proposal would remove that definition and, in its place, write
performance-based standards for aircraft and airman certification into
14 CFR parts 21, 61, and 65, where these requirements for other types
of aircraft and airman certification reside. This would make the FAA's
regulatory approach to light-sport category aircraft more consistent
with its approach to other types of aircraft.
Another important change proposed under this rule would eliminate
the weight limits for light-sport category aircraft. To enable the
design and manufacture of light-sport category aircraft that are safe
to fly with increased capacity and ability, this proposal would apply
new design and manufacturing requirements. This would allow growth and
innovation within performance-based safety parameters. This proposal
also expands aircraft that sport pilots can operate. Under this
proposal, sport pilots could operate airplanes designed with up to four
seats, even though they would remain limited to operating with only one
passenger. Finally, the proposal would change the name of the repairman
certificate (light-sport aircraft) to repairman certificate (light-
sport). This certificate would apply to existing and new types of
aircraft certificated in the light-sport category, such as rotorcraft
and powered-lift. Related provisions would update the requirements for
maintenance.
The FAA is also proposing regulations related to noise for light-
sport aircraft, expanding applicability of part 36 noise limits. To
provide flexibility and reduce burdens of compliance with these noise
limits, the FAA is proposing options for compliance: conventional noise
testing per part 36 or means of compliance via FAA-approved, industry
consensus standards. The FAA expects that any consensus standards would
not be limited to physical measurements of noise taken during test
flights. They might instead to be based on empirical data, analytical
modeling, or generally accepted noise prediction methods if the
underlying noise prediction methods are found to be robust.
In addition to maintenance and manufacturing requirements, the FAA
also proposes to expand the kinds of operations that can be performed
by light-sport category aircraft. Specifically, this proposal would
permit light-sport category aircraft to be used in certain aerial work
operations for aircraft that meet the applicable consensus standard for
that operation.
Additionally, the FAA is proposing amendments to experimental
aircraft regulations. The proposed regulations create new operating
purposes for former military and kit-built aircraft and amend the
operating purpose for market survey. The proposed regulations also
include new operating limitations, an increased certificate duration,
and new noise requirements. The FAA is further proposing amendments
related to restricted category aircraft, including a codification of
special operating purposes for restricted category aircraft. This NPRM
also includes proposed changes to right of way and operations around
airports in Class G airspace.
B. Summary of Costs and Benefits
The proposed rule largely expands opportunities for light-sport
category aircraft. These expansions may result in safety and
recreational benefits; there may also be associated design and
production costs. The FAA expects requirements to comply with noise
standards would be minimal using industry consensus standards. The FAA
also does not anticipate more than minimal incremental costs for other
provisions of the proposed rule, such as
[[Page 47652]]
training, and does not have data to estimate any cost savings, such as
those that could result from operating certain light-sport category
aircraft in aerial work for compensation.
II. Background
A. History
In the 2004 final rule, the FAA reasoned that new rules for light-
sport category aircraft were necessary to address advancing sport and
recreational aviation technology, the lack of regulations for existing
aircraft, and several petitions for exemptions and rulemaking. The 2004
final rule provided for the manufacture of safe and economical
certificated aircraft beyond the weight limit permitted by part 103;
established the sport pilot certificate; and allowed certificated
pilots to operate light-sport category aircraft for sport and
recreation, carry one passenger, and conduct flight training and towing
in a safe manner. The resulting regulations also placed restrictions on
light-sport category aircraft design and performance requirements
including an aircraft weight limit of less than 1,320 pounds (1,430
pounds for aircraft intended for operation on water). Light-sport
aircraft include airplanes, gliders, balloons, powered parachutes,
weight-shift-control aircraft, and gyroplanes.
The FAA has granted multiple exemptions for light-sport aircraft
based on safety considerations that include:
Retractable landing gear to enable takeoffs and landings
from land and water;
Various weight increases, with the largest allowing up to
1,850 pounds; and
A VS1 stalling speed increase to 54 knots
calibrated airspeed (CAS). Discussion of the specific grants of
exemption follow in section II.B.1.
The FAA also amended rules on two occasions for light-sport
aircraft and airmen. In 2007, the FAA amended the definition of light-
sport aircraft to permit development of lighter-than-air light-sport
aircraft and allow retractable landing gear for light-sport aircraft
intended for operation on water. In 2010, the FAA also amended rules
for persons holding a sport pilot certificate and flight instructors
with a sport pilot rating to address airman certification and
operational issues that arose since the 2004 final rule. Detailed
discussion of these amendments is included in section II.B.2.
In 2010, the FAA completed a Light-Sport Aircraft Manufacturers
Assessment (LSAMA) Final Report, dated May 17, 2010 (the LSAMA Final
Report), following its assessment of 14 light-sport category aircraft
manufacturers to evaluate compliance with the 2004 final rule. On June
28, 2012, the FAA published a notification in the Federal Register (77
FR 38463) (the ``LSAMA Notification'') describing its concerns
identified in the LSAMA Final Report. Specific concerns included:
Most manufacturing facilities evaluated could not fully
substantiate that the aircraft for which they had issued a statement of
compliance did, in fact, meet the consensus standards identified in
those documents.
The accuracy of declarations made in a statement of
compliance.
That more FAA involvement is warranted than originally
intended under the 2004 final rule.
Considering these concerns, the FAA established an audit program
under FAA Order 8130.36, Special Light-Sport Aircraft Audit Program,
for conducting regular audits of light-sport category aircraft
manufacturers and their associate facilities. Proposed safety
enhancements under this NPRM for new training requirements for
manufacturer's employees who are responsible for compliance findings
and compliance statements are based on concerns described in the LSAMA
Notification and are discussed in sections IV.D.17 and IV.D.19.
The 2004 final rule was successful in encouraging innovation in
light-sport aircraft. According to FAA Registry data as of January
2023, over 200 models and 5,321 aircraft have been designed and
manufactured under the 2004 final rule, distributed among the various
classes of aircraft as follows:
4,459 airplanes.
456 powered parachutes.
336 weight-shift controlled aircraft.
70 gliders.
In addition, FAA airman certification databases show that
approximately 7,000 sport pilots, 1,000 sport pilot instructors, 1,500
repairman (light-sport aircraft) with a maintenance rating, and 10,000
repairman (light-sport aircraft) with an inspection rating are
currently certificated under provisions of the 2004 final rule.
The FAA views the safety record of light-sport category aircraft
operations as validation of the original certification requirements and
as support for expanding eligibility for aircraft certification, airmen
certifications, and related operating privileges. From working with
applicants for certification of aircraft, pilots, and repairman of
light-sport aircraft since the 2004 final rule took effect, the FAA has
identified many proposals for amending those rules to enhance safety,
performance, and privileges for operating light-sport category
aircraft. The FAA is also proposing amendments concerning certification
and operations of other aircraft that hold special airworthiness
certificates. Detailed discussion of the safety record of light-sport
category aircraft and these proposals are included in section IV of
this NPRM.
B. Related Actions
1. Exemptions to the 2004 Final Rule
As previously stated, the FAA granted multiple exemptions to the
2004 final rule based on safety considerations. Together, these actions
permitted exempted aircraft to vary from the rule in the following
ways:
Retractable landing gear to enable takeoffs and landings
from land and water.
Various weight increases, with the largest allowed weight
of up to 1,850 pounds.
Data, arguments, and findings that enabled the FAA to grant these
exemptions are used as applicable to support proposals herein to codify
these and similar provisions.
2. Amendments to the 2004 Final Rule
On April 19, 2007, the FAA published the final rule ``Changes to
the Definition of Certain Light-Sport Aircraft'' (72 FR 19661) to amend
the definition of light-sport aircraft to permit development of
lighter-than-air light-sport aircraft and allow retractable landing
gear for light-sport aircraft intended for operation on water. To date,
the FAA has issued no special airworthiness certificates for lighter-
than-air light-sport aircraft. This NPRM proposes to permit retractable
landing gear for all operations to enhance safety more broadly within
the light aircraft community by making light-sport category aircraft
more attractive alternatives to experimental amateur-built aircraft.
On February 1, 2010, the FAA published the final rule
``Certification of Aircraft and Airmen for the Operation of Light-Sport
Aircraft; Modifications to Rules for Sport Pilots and Flight
Instructors with a Sport Pilot Rating'' (75 FR 5204; Correction
published on March 30, 2010, 75 FR 15609) (hereinafter the 2010 final
rule). The purpose of the 2010 final rule was to amend rules for sport
pilots and flight instructors with a sport pilot rating to address
airman certification and operational issues that arose since
regulations for the certification of aircraft and airmen for the
operation of light-sport aircraft were implemented in 2004.
[[Page 47653]]
3. FAA-Industry Listening Session
On December 12, 2022, the FAA hosted a listening session with
representatives of the light-sport aircraft industry. A record of that
meeting, including participants and their feedback, is included on the
docket for this proposed rule, which is available at FAA-2023-1377.
Importantly, that feedback replicated what the FAA has learned about
the 2004 final rule as discussed previously in this NPRM.
III. Authority for This Rulemaking
The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in
title 49 of the United States Code (U.S.C.). Subtitle I, section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in 49 U.S.C. 106(f) and (g), which establishes the authority of the
Administrator to promulgate and revise regulations and rules related to
aviation safety. This rulemaking is also promulgated under 49 U.S.C.
44701(a)(2)(A) and (a)(5), which provides that the FAA Administrator
shall promote safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by
prescribing regulations and minimum standards: (1) in the interest of
safety for inspecting, servicing, and overhauling aircraft, aircraft
engines, propellers, and appliances, and (2) that the FAA finds
necessary for safety in air commerce and national security; 49 U.S.C.
44703, which provides the general authority of the Administrator to
prescribe regulations for the issuance of airman certificates when the
Administrator finds, after investigation, that an individual is
qualified for, and physically able to perform the duties related to,
the position authorized by the certificate; 49 U.S.C. 40103(b)(1) and
(2), which directs the FAA to issue regulations: (1) To ensure the
safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace; and (2) to govern
the flight of aircraft for purposes of navigating, protecting and
identifying aircraft, and protecting individuals and property on the
ground; and 49 U.S.C. 44715, which provides the Administrator the
authority to prescribe regulations to control and abate aircraft noise
and sonic boom. These proposed regulations are within the scope of
those authorities because they are proposing to amend rules for the
manufacture, certification, operation, maintenance, and alteration of
light-sport category aircraft, to amend rules related to restricted
category aircraft and experimental airworthiness certification, and to
amend rules related to sport pilot and repairman certification.
Additionally, this rulemaking implements the Congressional mandate
set forth in section 581 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 (Pub.
L. 115-254), which authorizes certain aircraft holding experimental
certificates to conduct space support vehicle flights. Section 581
amends 49 U.S.C. 44737 to allow the operator of an aircraft with a
special airworthiness certification in the experimental category to
operate the aircraft for the purpose of conducting a space support
vehicle flight and conduct such flight under such certificate carrying
persons or property for compensation or hire.
IV. Discussion of the Proposal
A. General
The FAA is proposing to amend rules for the manufacture,
certification, operation, maintenance, and alteration of light-sport
category aircraft. The proposed changes would enhance the safety,
performance, and operating privileges of light-sport category aircraft.
This proposal would also expand the types and characteristics of
aircraft that sport pilots may operate. The proposed changes would
increase the suitability of light-sport category aircraft for flight
training, limited aerial work, and personal travel. Additionally, the
proposal would further enable the manufacture of safe and economical
light-sport category aircraft. The FAA also proposes to update the list
of approved operations for restricted category aircraft; amend the
duration, eligible purposes, and operating limitations for special
airworthiness certificates issued for experimental purposes; and add
operating limitations applicable to experimental aircraft engaged in
space support vehicle flights to codify a statutory provision.
1. The Evolution of Light-Sport Aircraft
The FAA acknowledged in the 2004 final rule that ``there are areas
where only time and experience will determine whether these regulatory
provisions meet the FAA's expectations or require modification.'' In
the approximately 20 years since the FAA published that rule, the FAA
has increased its understanding of these aircraft. The 2004 final rule
was successful in encouraging innovation in light-sport aircraft; over
200 models and 5,300 aircraft have been designed and manufactured under
the 2004 final rule. The FAA has also considered several requests for
exemption from the light-sport aircraft rules, granting eleven of them.
This proposal would amend the rules for these aircraft to improve
safety and performance and increase the scope of operations that may be
performed with light-sport category aircraft.
2. A Safety Continuum
The FAA bases the rigor of certification requirements and
operational limitations on a safety continuum that looks at the
exposure of the public to risk for each aircraft and operation; as the
risk increases due to increased operating privileges and aircraft
capability, the requirements and corresponding rigor of requirements
and procedures for aircraft and airman certification increase. In
establishing the 2004 final rule, the FAA intentionally established a
rigor of aircraft certification for light-sport category aircraft
between normal category aircraft and aircraft holding experimental
certificates in view of intended operating privileges and aircraft
capability. Normal category airplanes can weigh up to 19,000 lbs. and
carry 19 persons. Accordingly, their certification rigor is going to be
greater than an aircraft that has two to four seats because an accident
would result in greater fatalities. However, to mitigate this risk, the
part 23 airplane must be designed and manufactured to more stringent
airworthiness standards. By meeting the more stringent airworthiness
standards, the FAA grants greater operating privileges. Therefore,
since light-sport category aircraft subject fewer people to risk and
have fewer operating privileges when compared to part 23 airplanes, the
2004 final rule and this proposal includes less stringent certification
standards.
Based on the rigor of aircraft certification established for light-
sport category aircraft in the 2004 final rule, the FAA expected that
light-sport category aircraft fatal accident rates would fall between
experimental and normal category aircraft. To validate this expectation
against fatal accident data, the FAA compared data for light-sport
category airplanes and other aircraft categories or types that were
most similar to light-sport category airplanes: experimental amateur-
built airplanes with single, reciprocating engines, and fixed landing
gear; and small normal category airplanes with single, reciprocating
engines, and fixed landing gear. The fatal accident rate data compiled
since 2011 for these aircraft \1\
[[Page 47654]]
show that light-sport category aircraft fatal accident rates fall
between experimental and normal category aircraft, validating that the
rigor of certification requirements and procedures of the 2004 final
rule falls, as intended, between experimental and normal category
aircraft. This validation also supports proposals described in this
NPRM for modest expansions of eligibility for certification of light-
sport category aircraft, performance limitations for sport pilots,
eligibility for certification of repairman (light-sport), and
corresponding operating privileges for additional but similar operating
privileges and risks. As described in section IV.C, the FAA has also
identified other opportunities to improve the safety of light-sport
category aircraft and experimental light-sport category kit-built
aircraft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Light aircraft fatal accident trends are included on the
docket at FAA-2023-1377. These trends are shown beginning in 2011
because of limitations on available data and since ten-year trends
seem sufficient for this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the lower accident rate of light-sport category
aircraft as compared to experimental amateur-built airplanes has led
the FAA to examine opportunities for expanding the 2004 final rule to
include a wider variety of aircraft, increase performance, and increase
operating privileges. The FAA intends for these expansions to increase
safety by encouraging manufacturers to design and construct, and
prospective aircraft owners to choose, aircraft higher on the safety
continuum and, therefore, meet higher aircraft certification
requirements.
The FAA used the safety continuum to analyze other aircraft as
well; in addition to modifying the requirements for light-sport
category aircraft and experimental light-sport category kit-built
aircraft, this rule would also address the operation of other aircraft
that hold special airworthiness certificates. Specifically, the FAA
proposes to codify additional special purpose operations for restricted
category aircraft that the FAA has previously approved under the
discretion provided in part 21. In addition, this rule would amend the
duration, eligible purposes, and operating limitations for special
airworthiness certificates issued for experimental purposes, including
an administrative change to add a new experimental purpose for former
military aircraft, and codifying a statutory provision for space
support vehicle flights. The FAA has referred to this combined set of
proposals as the Modernization of Special Airworthiness Certification
(MOSAIC) since these proposals primarily concern the regulation of
aircraft that operate under special airworthiness certificates.
3. Expanding Light-Sport Category Aircraft and Related Provisions for
Airman, Maintenance, and Operations
a. Eliminating the Definition of Light-Sport Aircraft
Currently, light-sport aircraft is defined in Sec. 1.1, General
definitions. Uniquely, the definition affects the scope of
certification for light-sport category aircraft, sport pilots, and
repairman (light-sport aircraft). Section 21.190 applies this
definition to limit the scope of aircraft that may be issued a special
airworthiness certificate for light-sport category aircraft. Part 61
uses this definition to specify which aircraft a sport pilot may
operate. The FAA notes that, per part 61, a sport pilot may operate any
aircraft that meets the definition of light-sport aircraft, including
certain normal category, primary category, light-sport category, and
experimental aircraft. This proposal would eliminate this definition of
light-sport aircraft in Sec. 1.1 and would instead specify separate
requirements for aircraft, pilot, and repairman certification in 14 CFR
part 21, 61, or 65, respectively. Although the FAA considered retaining
and expanding this definition, deleting the definition and establishing
separate certification requirements in part 21, 61, or 65 would better
align with the location of such requirements for other categories of
aircraft and for other airmen.
b. Changes to Aircraft Certification Requirements for Light-Sport
Category Aircraft
The FAA has granted eleven exemptions to enable airworthiness
certification of light-sport category aircraft with weights that exceed
those in the definition of light-sport aircraft. These grants of
exemption were based on FAA findings that relieving weight limits would
enable significant safety enhancements not contemplated in the original
regulations, reduce the likelihood of fatal accidents, and foster
innovation in light-sport category aircraft. Consistent with the FAA's
analysis of the safe operations accomplished under those exemptions,
this proposal would eliminate the weight limits for light-sport
category aircraft. As discussed in section IV.C.2, eliminating weight
limits for light-sport category aircraft would provide manufacturers
opportunities to:
Incorporate additional safety-enhancing designs and
equipment,
Design airframes that are more rugged for the flight-
training environment,
Increase fuel load and aircraft range,
Allow for greater cabin size to enable greater occupant
heights and weights,
Improve aircraft handling in gusts, turbulence, and
crosswinds, and
Increase the suitability of light-sport category aircraft
for other intended operating purposes, including recreation, personal
travel, and certain aerial work.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The FAA does not explicitly define aerial work; however, the
FAA broadly interprets the term to mean work done from the air for
compensation that does not involve the carriage of persons or
property.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposal would apply new design and manufacturing requirements
for light-sport category aircraft so that light-sport category aircraft
are able to fly safely with increased capacity and ability. The FAA is
further proposing to increase airplane stalling speed to enable
increased aircraft weights to enable more robust airframes,
installation of safety enhancing equipage, higher fuel capacity, and
more seating capacity. The FAA proposes to eliminate limitations on
classes of eligible aircraft, propellers, and landing gear; allow
airplanes with up to 4 seats for increased utility and improved flight
training opportunities; and increase the maximum airspeed for more
practical personal travel. This proposal would require training for
manufacturer employees who are responsible for safety findings and for
signing a statement of compliance. This NPRM does not propose to amend
requirements that limit manufacture of kits for light-sport category
aircraft for make and model aircraft that were previously certificated
as light-sport category aircraft. Accordingly, most of the proposals
for expanding the eligibility for certification of light-sport category
aircraft would carry over to light-sport category kit-built aircraft.
This proposal would remove the requirement to display the mark ``Light-
Sport'' on light-sport category aircraft. These proposed changes are
discussed in greater detail in section IV.D.20.
c. Changes to the Aircraft That Sport Pilots May Operate
This proposal would also expand what aircraft sport pilots can
operate. Under this proposal, sport pilots could operate heavier
aircraft than currently allowed under the Sec. 1.1 definition and
airplanes with up to four seats, even though they would remain limited
to carrying only one passenger. This one passenger limitation would
also apply to a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating conducting
flight training in a four-seat airplane. Additionally, this proposal
includes expansions to certain
[[Page 47655]]
proposed sport pilot privileges through training and endorsements for
airplanes that hat have a controllable pitch propeller, for aircraft
with a retractable landing gear, and to conduct night operations. This
proposal would also make corresponding changes to regulations affecting
the privileges and limitations of a flight instructor certificate with
a sport pilot rating. These proposed changes are discussed in greater
detail in section IV.E.
d. Changes to Requirements for Repairman (Light-Sport) Certificates
This proposal would revise the name of the ``repairman certificate
(light-sport aircraft)'' to ``repairman certificate (light-sport)'' and
would allow for issuance of a repairman certificate (light-sport) for
the new, proposed classes of aircraft that could be certificated in the
light-sport category (i.e., helicopter and powered-lift). Additionally,
the proposal would remove the hours-based training requirements for a
light-sport repairman maintenance rating and instead require that
applicants complete a training course, accepted by the FAA, that aligns
with the Aviation Mechanic General, Airframe, and Powerplant Airman
Certification Standards (Mechanic ACS). The training course would be
required to include only those subject areas and knowledge, risk
management, and skill elements of the Mechanic ACS that are appropriate
to the category of aircraft the training course covers. The proposal
would also codify existing policy for repairman certificate (light-
sport) training course providers to administer an examination, provide
students with a certificate of completion, and require facilities,
equipment, materials, and instructors that are appropriate to the
training course content being taught. These proposed changes are
discussed in greater detail in section IV.F.
e. Changes to Requirements for Maintenance of Light-Sport Category
Aircraft
This proposal would require all repairs performed on light-sport
category aircraft to meet applicable consensus standards, allow minor
alterations to be accepted under the provisions of 14 CFR part 43, and
remove the restriction that the Administrator approve aircraft-towing
devices installed on these aircraft. These proposed changes are
discussed in greater detail in section IV.G.
f. Changes to Requirements for Operating Light-Sport Category Aircraft
In addition to expanding eligibilities for issuance of special
airworthiness certificates for light-sport category aircraft and
experimental light-sport aircraft and aircraft that sport pilots may
operate, the FAA proposes to expand the kinds of operations that can be
performed by light-sport category aircraft. Specifically, this proposal
would permit light-sport category aircraft to be used in certain aerial
work operations for aircraft that meet the applicable FAA-accepted
consensus standard for that operation. This proposal would also remove
the requirement for owners/operators of light-sport category aircraft
to comply with safety directives issued by the aircraft manufacturer;
mandatory compliance with FAA Airworthiness Directives would remain
unchanged. These proposed changes are discussed in greater detail in
section IV.H.1.
4. Changes to Certain Experimental Certificates
a. Duration
This proposal would increase the duration of certain experimental
certificates from one to three years. These proposed changes are
discussed in greater detail in section IV.I.1.
b. Changes for Former Military Aircraft
This proposal would add operating former-military aircraft as an
additional purpose for which experimental certificates may be issued.
Operations of former-military aircraft are currently authorized under
other experimental certificates. These proposed changes are discussed
in greater detail in section IV.I.5.
c. Codifying the Authorization for Space Support Vehicles
This proposal would codify the statutory language in 49 U.S.C.
44740 permitting the operator of an aircraft with a special
airworthiness certification in the experimental category to operate the
aircraft for the purpose of conducting a space support vehicle flight
while carrying persons or property for compensation or hire. These
proposed changes are discussed in greater detail in section IV.H.3.
Such operations would be limited to aircraft that takeoff and land at a
single launch or reentry site that is operated by an entity licensed to
operate the launch or reentry site under 51 U.S.C. chapter 509; are
owned or operated by or on behalf of a launch or reentry vehicle
operator licensed under 51 U.S.C. chapter 509; and is either a launch
vehicle, reentry vehicle, or a component thereof. These operations
would only be allowed to simulate space flight conditions in support of
training for potential space flight participants, government
astronauts, or crew; testing hardware to be used in space flight; or
conducting research and development tasks, which require the unique
capabilities of the aircraft conducting the flight.
5. Changes for Restricted Category Aircraft
This proposal would enhance the requirements for the certification
of former-military aircraft in the restricted category by requiring the
aircraft to have a service history with the U.S. Armed Forces. Under
the provision in Sec. 21.25(b)(7), the FAA has approved additional
special purpose operations for which restricted category aircraft may
be certificated. Currently, those additional purposes are only listed
in FAA policy documents for type and airworthiness certification of
these aircraft. This proposal would amend Sec. 21.25 to expand the
list of special purpose operations for which restricted category
aircraft may be certificated to include these additional purposes.
6. Changes for Noise
This proposal would apply 14 CFR part 36 noise standards to light-
sport category aircraft and experimental light-sport category aircraft
certificated after the effective date of the rule, or that are altered
in a manner that changes the noise profile of light-sport category
aircraft and certain experimental light-sport category aircraft. This
proposal would require light-sport category aircraft and certain
experimental light-sport category aircraft to demonstrate compliance to
the part 36 noise limits using an FAA-approved consensus standard or a
combination of current part 36 procedures that are appropriate for the
aircraft seeking an airworthiness certificate for a light-sport
category aircraft or an experimental light-sport category aircraft. The
FAA anticipates the industry developing acceptable and appropriate
consensus standards for noise that would provide simple, low-cost
methods of compliance with part 36. For example, a modeling-based
consensus standard would be expected to significantly reduce the cost
of noise compliance. Not only would there not be a need to physically
test every model (or aircraft) but the proposal would also allow
manufacturers to use predictive analysis to guide and support aircraft
design decisions in earlier phases, avoiding costly future redesign or
modifications. The proposed noise requirements are discussed in greater
detail in section V.K.
[[Page 47656]]
B. Revision of Definitions Applicable to the Certification and
Operation of Light-Sport Category Aircraft
1. Revision of the Definition of Consensus Standard
OMB Circular A-119 establishes policy for the Federal use and
development of voluntary consensus standards and conformity assessment
activities. Federal goals for using consensus standards include
providing incentives and opportunities to establish standards that
serve national needs, encouraging long-term growth for U.S.
enterprises, and promoting efficiency and economic competition through
harmonization of standards. Voluntary consensus standards are developed
or adopted by consensus standards bodies with broad participation of
interested stakeholders, including manufacturers and the FAA.
Because of the general acceptance and use of consensus standards
throughout the aviation community, this rule proposes a broader
definition for consensus standards than that currently found in Sec.
1.1. The current definition was adopted as part of the 2004 final rule.
As such, the definition for consensus standards currently is only
applicable for certificating light-sport aircraft. The proposed
definition would apply to a wider variety of certification functions
applicable under 14 CFR.
The proposed definition would adopt a description of a consensus
standard that better aligns with the provisions of OMB Circular A-119.
The proposed rule would establish the characteristics that a consensus
standard must have to meet the definition of a consensus standard.
Accordingly, to be considered a consensus standard under this proposed
rule, a consensus standard would need to have been adopted under
procedures which provide an opportunity for input by persons interested
and affected by the scope or provisions of the standard. These persons
would also have had to reach substantial agreement on its adoption.
Additionally, to be used as a means of compliance for aircraft design,
operation, production, maintenance, or airworthiness, a consensus
standard would have to be accepted by the FAA. For the purposes of this
proposed definition, the FAA considers ``airworthiness'' to include
noise and continued operational safety requirements.
After a consensus standard has been adopted by a consensus
standards body, the FAA would review the standard for acceptance. The
FAA typically advises the public of the agency's acceptance of these
consensus standards through a notice of acceptance which is published
in the Federal Register. This review and acceptance process is not
intended to restrict industry's ability to develop consensus standards,
but rather to enable the FAA to advise the public when an industry-
developed consensus standard for aircraft design, operation,
production, maintenance, or airworthiness complies with the proposed
performance-based regulatory requirements.
Currently, consensus standards for the airworthiness certification
of light-sport category aircraft that have been developed by ASTM
International (ASTM) and accepted for use by the FAA would meet the
proposed definition.\3\ The current process for developing consensus
standards by ASTM for the certification of light-sport category
aircraft would be consistent with the provisions of the proposed
definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ For example, the FAA published a notice titled ``Consensus
Standards, Light-Sport Aircraft, Notice No. NOA-21-01'' (87 FR
10275; February 23, 2022) in which the FAA designated ASTM
Designation F2245-20, ``Standard Specification for Design and
Performance of a Light Sport Airplane'' (F2245-20) as a consensus
standard that is available and acceptable for use. F2245-20 applies
to aircraft design and, as described in ASTM's ``The Handbook for
Standardization,'' has been developed with input by a broad array of
interested stakeholders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA notes that consensus standards have also been developed to
comply with the performance-based airworthiness standards for the
certification of airplanes found in amendment 64 of 14 CFR part 23.
They serve as a means of compliance to the regulatory requirements
contained in part 23 and have been accepted by the FAA.\4\ Consensus
standards have also been used as a means of compliance for operation of
small unmanned aircraft systems (small UAS) over people under part 107
and remote identification of unmanned aircraft under part 89.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See 71 FR 12771, 75 FR 58016, 79 FR 78553 concerning
electric wiring systems before part 23, amendment 61. For part 23,
amendment 64, see 87 FR 13911.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA anticipates an increased use of consensus standards to
comply with new performance-based regulations and has also proposed
their use as part of the special airworthiness certification process to
comply with the noise requirements in part 36. Accordingly, the agency
determined that it would be appropriate to broaden the current
applicability of this definition to a potentially wider range of
aircraft certification activities than light-sport category aircraft
only.
The revised definition would require that the consensus standards
process include participants that are impacted by the consensus
standards. For the development of these consensus standards,
organizations and participants in the consensus standards development
process could consist of, but not be limited to, aircraft
manufacturers, pilots, maintainers, aviation associations, and
government regulators. The FAA contends that the use of a consensus
standards process to develop means of compliance to performance-based
regulations should provide both the FAA and industry with a means to
rapidly adapt to changing technology and better respond to market
conditions while continuing to enable safe operations within the
national airspace system.
Alternatively, the FAA is considering removing the definition of
consensus standard from Sec. 1.1. Consensus standard is a commonly
accepted term used by industry and across \5\ the Federal Government
and may not require a definition in Sec. 1.1 to be understood in the
context of 14 CFR. Additionally, as stated previously, the current
definition of consensus standard is limited to the context of light
sport aircraft and does not recognize the breadth of using consensus
standards in aviation today. The FAA requests comment on whether the
FAA should remove the definition of consensus standard from Sec. 1.1
altogether or revise the definition as proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Such as pursuant to the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995, and OMB Circular A-119, Federal
Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus
Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Removal of Definition of Light-Sport Aircraft From 14 CFR 1.1
Section 1.1 currently defines ``light-sport aircraft'' as an
aircraft other than a helicopter or powered-lift that, since its
original certification, has continued to meet several designated
parameters (for example, aircraft weight, seating, stalling speed,
maximum speed, engine type, propeller type, etc.). Uniquely, the
definition affects the scope of certification for light-sport category
aircraft, sport pilots, and repairman (light-sport aircraft). Section
21.190 applies this definition to limit the scope of aircraft that may
be issued a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport
category. Part 61 uses this definition to specify which aircraft a
sport pilot may operate. Because of the common definition, all aircraft
certificated under Sec. 21.190 are light-sport aircraft and thus can
be flown by sport pilots. However, a sport pilot is not limited to only
Sec. 21.190 aircraft and may operate any aircraft that meets the
definition of light-sport aircraft, including certain normal category,
[[Page 47657]]
primary category, light-sport category, and experimental aircraft.
The FAA is proposing to remove the definition of light-sport
aircraft from Sec. 1.1 because the regulatory definition contains
substantive requirements. A regulatory definition should define a term
used in a particular title, chapter, or part of the CFR. Accordingly,
the substantive aircraft certification requirements for light-sport
category aircraft would be relocated with modifications into proposed
Sec. 21.190 and part 22, while requirements establishing the
parameters for the aircraft in which a sport pilot may act as pilot in
command (PIC) would be incorporated into part 61.
The current Sec. 1.1 definition of light-sport aircraft was
created to establish parameters for the airworthiness certification of
light-sport category aircraft using consensus standards, as well as to
identify aircraft that can be safely operated by pilots exercising the
privileges of a sport pilot certificate. Currently, under Sec. 61.315,
sport pilots are only permitted to operate aircraft that meet the
definition of a light-sport aircraft as defined in Sec. 1.1. Replacing
the Sec. 1.1 definition with separate certification requirements for
aircraft, pilots, and repairman would allow more flexibility using the
proposed certification procedures in Sec. 21.190 and intended
operations. In other words, this proposed rule would decouple
certification requirements for light-sport category aircraft
certification and sport pilot certification. One effect of placing the
proposed requirements in separate parts and the expansion of light-
sport category aircraft certification requirements is that an aircraft
certificated in the light-sport category under Sec. 21.190 may exceed
the parameters of an aircraft that a sport pilot may act as PIC of
under the separate requirements in part 61.
Persons exercising the privileges of a sport pilot certificate or a
flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating would no longer
be restricted to operating light-sport aircraft as defined in Sec.
1.1. In this proposed rule, these airmen would be able to exercise the
privileges of their certificate in any aircraft that does not exceed
the aircraft performance limitations derived from the current Sec. 1.1
definition and set forth in the proposed new Sec. 61.316. The FAA's
proposal concerning airmen certification is discussed in section IV.E.
C. Expansion of Eligibility for Light-Sport Category Aircraft and Sport
Pilots
1. Certification of Additional Aircraft Classes
The current Sec. 1.1 definition of light-sport aircraft excludes
helicopters and powered-lift from being considered as light-sport
aircraft. The FAA proposes to allow the airworthiness certification of
rotorcraft and powered-lift as light-sport category aircraft under
Sec. 21.190, provided these aircraft are certificated in accordance
with the proposed performance-based requirements in part 22 using an
FAA-accepted consensus standard as a means of compliance. This proposed
rule would allow any class of aircraft \6\ to be eligible for
certification in the light-sport category, so long as the aircraft
meets the proposed performance-based requirements of part 22 and the
eligibility criteria in proposed Sec. Sec. 21.190 and 22.100. The FAA
anticipates that industry would develop acceptable and appropriate
consensus standards to comply with the performance-based requirements
in part 22. The FAA contends that such action would maintain a level of
safety appropriate to the certification of these aircraft while
fostering innovation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See 14 CFR 1.1, which defines class, for purposes of the
certification of aircraft, as a broad grouping of aircraft having
similar characteristic of propulsion, flight, or landing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unmanned aircraft are precluded from certification as light-sport
category aircraft. The FAA considered expanding the scope of the
proposed eligibility requirements to evaluate the potential
certification of unmanned aircraft; however, due to the novelty,
technical complexity, and significant operational differences between
unmanned and manned aircraft, the FAA chose not to address unmanned
aircraft certification as a part of this rulemaking. Accordingly, as
proposed in Sec. 21.190(a), this proposal does not apply to the
certification of unmanned aircraft in the light-sport category.
The FAA also chose not to consider powered lift privileges for
sport pilots, given the complexity and ongoing development of those
aircraft designs and associated pilot certification and operational
rules that the FAA is considering. However, the FAA expects that future
rulemaking may consider these aircraft and associated operations if
they can fit within the constraints of sport pilot operations and
aircraft certification requirements.
As discussed later in the preamble, the FAA is also proposing to
expand sport pilot privileges to include helicopter privileges.
2. Maximum Takeoff Weight
Section 1.1 currently limits the maximum takeoff weight for light-
sport category aircraft to 1,320 lbs., or 1,430 lbs. for aircraft
intended for operation on water. This proposal would eliminate the
maximum takeoff weight limitations for light-sport category aircraft.
Although this proposal removes the specific weight limits for light-
sport category aircraft, this proposed rule would indirectly limit
aircraft weight via stalling speed limitations, as discussed in
sections IV.C.2 and IV.C.4. As noted in those sections, the stalling
speed limit would indirectly limit the weight at around 3,000 pounds.
Although still limiting aircraft weight, the proposed VS1
stalling speed would enable aircraft with heavier weights than the
definition permits for light-sport aircraft. Enabling heavier weights
would enable manufacturers to include safety-enhancing designs and
equipment such as advanced stall resistant airframes, increased load
factor resilience, improved passenger cabin crash safety mechanisms,
ballistic safety parachutes, passenger airbags, stronger and more
durable landing gear, and greater fuel capacity.
From its work with manufacturers, flight schools, and individual
aircraft owners since the 2004 final rule took effect, the FAA
anticipates that allowing heavier aircraft would result in more robust
airframe designs to meet the needs of aircraft owners. A ``robust
airframe design'' is more reliable, resilient, and does not fail as
easily under a given load as a less robust airframe would. In addition,
an aircraft in motion with more mass requires more force to disrupt its
current flight path. Accordingly, heavier aircraft tend to be more
stable during turbulent or windy conditions and, in turn, reduce the
workload on the pilot attempting to maintain control and a desired
course. Specifically, lighter aircraft get jostled around more in
turbulence, which causes the pilot to work harder to maintain aircraft
control.
The weight limitations in the definition of light-sport aircraft
preclude many of these design and safety features and is representative
of why the FAA has granted 11 exemptions to the weight limit for
certain light-sport category aircraft with safety features installed.
These exemptions allowed airworthiness certification of certain,
heavier light-sport category aircraft to enable improved airframe
designs and the installation of various safety enhancing devices.
In summary, the current weight limitation precludes the design and
[[Page 47658]]
installation of many safety enhancements. Therefore, this NPRM proposes
to remove weight as an eligibility requirement for certification of
light-sport category aircraft and as a limitation on what aircraft
sport pilots may fly. Sport pilots would be permitted to operate these
heavier aircraft if the aircraft satisfy the performance limitations in
the proposed Sec. 61.316 including the Vs1 limitation that
will indirectly limit the weight to around 3,000 pounds. The FAA does
not find that this increased weight would appreciably alter a sport
pilot's ability to fly the aircraft, provided the aircraft satisfies
the design and performance limitations proposed in Sec. 61.316.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See section IV.E of this preamble for a discussion of the
design and performance limitations proposed in Sec. 61.316, which
would limit the aircraft that a sport pilot could fly to an aircraft
that requires skill comparable to the skill required to fly an LSA
today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Maximum VH Airspeed in Level Flight
The Sec. 1.1 definition of light-sport aircraft limits light-sport
aircraft to a VH of not more than 120 knots CAS under
standard atmospheric conditions at sea level. A VH speed
limit would not be retained for the airplanes or gliders in the
proposed Sec. 61.316 performance and design limitations for aircraft
that a sport pilot could operate. Although an airplane or glider's
maximum airspeed is typically limited to approximately three to four
times the aircraft's VS1 under ideal conditions, proposed
Sec. 22.100(a)(4) would include a VH limit of 250 knots CAS
for light-sport category aircraft to account for potential advances in
technology and manufacturing practices that could enable higher speeds.
Furthermore, after approximately 20 years of experience with the
operation of light-sport category aircraft, the FAA has not noted any
definitive data that links cruise speed as a contributing factor in
accidents involving light-sport category aircraft. This experience
informs the FAA's current rulemaking proposal, including its proposal
to increase the airspeed limitation.
Analysis of performance data for 117 type-certificated, light-sport
category, and amateur-built airplanes with stalling speeds less than or
equal to the proposed 54 knots CAS stalling speed limit shows a maximum
speed of 220 knots CAS, with the majority below 190 knots CAS. Allowing
a maximum speed of 250 knots CAS is intended to provide an upper limit
appropriate for a category of aircraft intended for recreation, flight
training, and limited aerial work while providing sufficient margin to
avoid practical constraints of new airplane designs by this limit.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Given that the vast majority of light-sport category
aircraft operations would occur below 10,000 feet mean sea level
(MSL), where part 91 limits airspeed below 250 knots indicated
airspeed, the maximum 250 knot CAS limitation is appropriate for the
light-sport category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For pilot certification purposes, the FAA does not propose to
retain or include a VH airspeed limitation in the proposed
Sec. 61.316 aircraft performance limitations because the FAA
determined that, the proposed maximum stalling speed VS1 of
54 knots (as explained in section IV.C.4) for airplanes and the
existing maximum stalling speed VS1 of 45 knots for gliders,
will indirectly limit the cruise airspeeds \9\ for the aircraft that
sport pilots may fly under the proposed performance limitations in part
61. The FAA recognizes helicopter design and aerodynamic flight
limitations inherently limit the VH speed. The existing
fleet of two seat helicopters do not exceed 150 knots in cruise flight.
Therefore, the FAA does not propose or need a prescriptive speed limit
for two seat helicopters that a sport pilot can operate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ As previously stated, an airplane's maximum airspeed is
generally limited to three to four times the aircrafts
Vs1 under ideal conditions. If the maximum stalling speed
is 54 knots, then the airplane's maximum airspeed would be limited
to a maximum airspeed of 216 knots (54 multiplied by 4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2018, the FAA codified additional training and endorsement
privileges for flight instructors with a sport pilot rating.\10\ This
provision authorized these flight instructors to provide additional
training and endorsements for sport pilot applicants who wish to
conduct cross-country flights in light-sport airplanes with a
VH greater than 87 knots CAS.\11\ These amendments reinforce
that additional training and a subsequent flight instructor endorsement
can properly qualify sport pilots to operate various aircraft safely in
the national airspace system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Regulatory Relief: Aviation Training Devices; Pilot
Certification, Training, and Pilot Schools; and Other Provisions, 83
FR 30232 (June 27, 2018).
\11\ 83 FR 30254-57.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the FAA notes that student pilots, who receive
training and a validating flight instructor endorsement, can operate
aircraft at speeds greater than 120 knots as pilot-in-command. The FAA
contends that, since the implementation of the training and instructor
endorsement requirements permitting sport pilots to operate airplanes
up to the current VH speed limitation of 120 knots,
instructor training and endorsements have been demonstrated to be a
proven, effective method for validating that sport pilots can safely
operate faster aircraft in the national airspace system, just as is
allowed for student pilots with a lower grade of pilot certificate.
This reflects the incongruities between the allowed operations for
student pilots and sport pilots. For example, student pilots can
operate aircraft at faster speeds than individuals that hold a sport
pilot certificate, even though a sport pilot certificate is a higher
grade of pilot certificate than a student pilot certificate. Thus, the
FAA reasons that sport pilots can be permitted to operate faster
aircraft safely in the national airspace system using instructor
training and endorsements for validating pilot proficiency.
4. Maximum Stalling Speed (VS1)
The light-sport aircraft definition in Sec. 1.1 limits the maximum
VS1 for light-sport aircraft to 45 knots CAS at the
aircraft's maximum certificated takeoff weight and most critical center
of gravity. The proposal would retain the 45 knots CAS maximum
VS1 for gliders and weight-shift-control aircraft. The FAA
is proposing to increase the maximum VS1 to 54 knots CAS for
airplanes. Regulatory provisions addressing VS1 would remain
inapplicable to rotorcraft and lighter-than-air aircraft (e.g.,
balloons and airships), and would be removed for powered parachutes.
The 45-knot limitation indirectly prohibits the use of heavier
airplanes due to the correlation between stalling speed and aircraft
weight. Because the FAA is seeking to accommodate greater airplane
weights to enable more robust airframe designs and availability of
safety enhancements, the FAA selected this proposed VS1
speed limit at nine knots above the current limitation for light-sport
aircraft. The FAA determined that an airplane with a maximum
VS1 limitation of 54 knots would permit airplane designs up
to approximately 3,000 pounds. As proposed in Sec. Sec. 22.100(a)(3)
and 61.316(a), the new stalling speed limitation would apply to
airplanes at the maximum certificated takeoff weight.
In the absence of a specific weight limitation in the proposed
rule, the new VS1 limit would provide flexibility for
aircraft manufacturers to build more robust airframes and include
desirable safety enhancements. This proposed change would expand
aircraft that sport pilots may operate to include any existing aircraft
that meets the sport pilot performance limitations as specified in
proposed Sec. 61.316. For airplanes, the proposed VS1 limit
is not more than 54 knots CAS for sport pilots.
[[Page 47659]]
The FAA has monitored the accident history of light-sport category
aircraft since 2004. As of 2021, there have been 984 accidents or
incidents involving light-sport category aircraft, with approximately
half of those accidents or incidents occurring during the landing
phase. Of the 501 landing accidents, seven resulted in a fatality. The
second highest number of accidents or incidents, 164, occurred during
an emergency descent. The FAA chose a VS1 of 54 knots CAS to
strike a balance between allowing heavier aircraft to accommodate
increased safety features, while increasing the stalling speed no more
than necessary to retain low speeds during approach and landing. While
the FAA recognizes that low stalling speeds will reduce kinetic energy
levels and serve to improve occupant survivability in the event of an
aircraft accident, enabling the addition of safety enhancing designs
commensurate with increased weight could also improve occupant
survivability.
The FAA has determined that retaining the current VS1
restriction of 45 knots CAS for light-sport category airplanes would
overly restrict the ability of aircraft manufacturers to produce
heavier airplanes with additional safety features that this rule is
intending to enable. A maximum VS1 of 54 knots CAS for
airplanes would facilitate the production of heavier, more robust
airplanes without unduly compromising the ability of these airplanes to
be safely operated. Although the FAA considered increasing the proposed
maximum stalling speed of airplanes above 54 knots CAS, the agency's
review of current aircraft performance data showed that this proposal
would be sufficient to produce four-seat airplanes.
Although the FAA proposes to permit the certification of rotorcraft
under the proposal, stall speed restrictions, such as a maximum
VS1, are inapplicable for aircraft that depend principally
for their support in flight by the lift generated by one or more
rotors. Rotorcraft have the ability to hover or remain in place in the
air with no horizontal movement. In the event of engine failure, they
can autorotate in a controlled descent to the ground. Accordingly,
rotorcraft are not subject to a maximum stall speed in this proposed
rule.
Stalling speed restrictions are also not being proposed for
powered-lift due to their ability to operate in various flight mode
configurations, including thrust-borne or hover, similar to a
rotorcraft. The designs of lighter powered-lift typically do not have
large wing surface areas and therefore have higher stalling speeds
during wing-borne (airplane) flight mode. However, these aircraft also
can transition to semi-thrust borne mode where the powerplant shares
the responsibility of producing lift as airspeed transitions between
enroute airspeeds and hover. Therefore, as discussed under proposed
Sec. 22.115 and consistent with the airworthiness criteria from
Federal Register notifications for the Joby Aero Inc., Model JAS4-1 and
Archer Aviation Inc., Model M001 powered-lift, this NPRM proposes to
require the determination of minimum safe speeds for various flight
configurations for powered-lift rather than a maximum stalling
speed.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Airworthiness Criteria: Special Class Airworthiness
Criteria for the Joby Aero, Inc. Model JAS4-1 Powered-Lift (87 FR
67399; November 8, 2022), and Airworthiness Criteria: Special Class
Airworthiness Criteria for the Archer Aviation Inc. Model M001
Powered-Lift (87 FR 77749; December 20, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed, the proposed stalling speed would generally limit the
weight of airplanes. However, similar proposed limits would not have
the same effect for other classes of aircraft. The FAA recognizes that
while restrictions on maximum seating capacity and limitations on
aerial work may effectively limit a manufacturer's interest in building
larger aircraft, the absence of any aerodynamic or other prescriptive
design restriction would not otherwise limit the potential weight of
these aircraft. The FAA specifically requests comments on appropriate
parameters to limit the weight of light-sport category rotorcraft and
powered-lift.
5. Maximum Seating Capacity
The current Sec. 1.1 light-sport aircraft definition limits light-
sport aircraft to a maximum seating capacity of no more than two
persons, including the pilot. This requirement from the 2004 rule
provided for a low-risk design that would be appropriate for operation
by a sport pilot. With the performance expansions proposed in this rule
for the design of light-sport category aircraft and the intention to
decouple these aircraft from sport pilot restrictions, there is no
longer a need to restrict all light-sport category aircraft to two
seats. This proposed rule, in Sec. 22.100, would keep the maximum
seating capacity of not more than two persons, including the pilot, for
all classes of light-sport aircraft except airplanes. This proposal
would allow airplanes to have a maximum seating capacity of not more
than four persons, including the pilot.
When the 2004 final rule published, the FAA was focused on allowing
a flight instructor in the aircraft to provide flight instruction and,
eventually, allowing sport pilots to carry a single passenger.\13\ At
that time, the FAA did not foresee an expanded market for light-sport
category aircraft that could be operated by pilots with a higher grade
of certificate who can exercise the privilege of carrying more
passengers. For example, an individual with a private pilot certificate
may operate an aircraft that has more than two seats and can carry more
than one passenger. In this proposed rule, the performance limits of
Sec. 61.316 would allow four-seat airplanes but maintain the
restriction for sport pilots to carry one passenger, keeping the intent
of the 2004 final rule restriction for sport pilots. For this proposal,
the holder of a higher grade of pilot certificate at the private pilot
level or above could operate a four-seat light-sport category airplane
and carry up to three passengers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See 69 FR 44820.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allowing four seats for light-sport category airplanes would
increase the utility of these aircraft for recreational and personal
use. With the increased utility because of four-seat designs, light-
sport category airplane operations by pilots holding higher levels of
certification would likely increase. The FAA anticipates an increase to
the overall experience level of pilots that operate light-sport
category airplanes, and this generally would have a positive safety
benefit.
The increased utility of light-sport category airplanes may also
improve safety by providing aircraft owners with an attractive
alternative to experimental amateur-built aircraft. In this proposed
rule, all light-sport category aircraft would be built to FAA-accepted
consensus standards that meet performance-based requirements in part 22
for design, production, and airworthiness, unlike amateur-built
aircraft, which do not have any similar regulatory requirements. As
previously discussed, amateur-built aircraft are lower on the FAA's
safety continuum than light-sport category aircraft.
The four-seat design for light-sport category airplanes in this
proposal would match the seating limit of primary category airplanes
certificated under Sec. 21.24. Primary category rules and the
proposals for light-sport category airplanes would result in these
categories sharing similar weight and seating limitations for aircraft
built for the purpose of personal use.
Although 14 CFR does not impose a seating limitation on amateur-
built aircraft, nearly all such aircraft have four or fewer seats. Of
the 27,486
[[Page 47660]]
amateur-built aircraft in the FAA Registry, only 131 have more than
four seats.\14\ Accordingly, the light aircraft community has shown
overwhelming support for recreational and personal use aircraft being
designed with four or fewer seats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Data from FAA Registry dated December 1, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increasing the allowed number of seats above four for light-sport
category aircraft would require a significantly heavier aircraft,
challenging aircraft designers to comply with the proposed stalling
speed limit and adding increased complexity to the aircraft and
powerplant. In establishing a prescriptive limit for the number of
seats, four seats strikes a balance between risk and utility that is
appropriate for a category of aircraft intended for recreation and
personal use.
Additionally, proposed Sec. 91.327(f) would limit the number of
occupants in light-sport category aircraft to not exceed the aircraft's
seating capacity.
The proposed rule would retain the current maximum seating capacity
of not more than two persons for other classes of light-sport aircraft,
including, gyroplanes, gliders, weight-shift control aircraft, powered
parachutes, balloons, and airships. These classes of light-sport
category aircraft are operated strictly for recreation. With weight and
balance challenges due to unusual seating configurations, additional
passengers on these classes of aircraft would increase risk and not be
appropriate for certification as light-sport category aircraft.
Although this proposal would enable certification of new types of
light-sport category aircraft such as rotorcraft and powered lift, this
proposal would limit these aircraft to two seats. The FAA has little
experience on the safety metrics associated with these classes of
light-sport category aircraft, as such, the FAA finds that the maximum
seating capacity of two is appropriate. The FAA may consider future
rulemaking to increase the proposed two seat limitation for these
classes of aircraft as experience increases and consensus standards are
developed.
Regarding pilot certification, the FAA is proposing to allow sport
pilots to operate airplanes that have a maximum seating capacity of
four persons under Sec. 61.316(c). However, sport pilots will continue
to be limited to carrying only one passenger under Sec.
61.315(c)(4).\15\ The FAA contends that the piloting skills necessary
to operate a four-seat airplane do not differ from those skills
required to operate a two-seat airplane if the airplane satisfies the
sport pilot design and performance limitations listed in proposed Sec.
61.316. The number of seats (two versus four) does not affect the skill
necessary to control an airplane. The FAA proposes to increase the
seating capacity for airplanes that sport pilots may operate because
the revised maximum stalling speed, as previously described, would
permit sport pilots to operate additional existing and future
certificated single-engine production airplanes with four seats.\16\
Per the safety continuum concept, increasing the number of persons
aboard should require an increased rigor of certification including a
higher grade of pilot certificate. Allowing sport pilots to operate
four-seat airplanes (even with only two persons aboard) would ease
barriers in flight training for sport pilots given the availability of
legacy, four-seat airplanes in flight schools. This proposed amendment
is like that imposed on recreational pilots that can operate four-seat
airplanes but can only carry one passenger,\17\ equating the risk
associated with these operations to the appropriate level of pilot
privileges, consistent with the FAA's safety continuum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ ``You may not act as pilot in command of a light-sport
aircraft . . . [w]hile carrying more than one passenger.'' See: 14
CFR 61.315(c)(4).
\16\ For example, this proposed amendment would permit sport
pilots to operate existing certificated single-engine production
aircraft.
\17\ See 14 CFR 61.101(a)(1) and (e)(1)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA contends that the proposed maximum seating capacity
requirements would provide appropriate utility for recreation,
training, personal travel, and certain aerial work while maintaining an
appropriate level of safety.
6. Engine and Motors (If Powered)
The current Sec. 1.1 light-sport aircraft definition limits light-
sport aircraft to those with a single reciprocating engine if the
aircraft is powered. This requirement from the 2004 rule provided for a
simple engine design that would be appropriate for operation by a sport
pilot. With the performance expansions proposed in this rule for the
design of light-sport category aircraft and the intention to decouple
from sport pilot limitations, there is no longer a need to restrict
light-sport category aircraft to a single reciprocating engine. This
proposed rule would omit the single reciprocating engine limitation as
an eligibility requirement in Sec. 22.100. Accordingly, this proposed
rule would allow light-sport category aircraft to be built with any
number and type of engines or motors. The performance limitations for
aircraft that a sport pilot may act as pilot in command of would not
include the limitation on a single reciprocating engine if the aircraft
is powered.
Since this powerplant limitation was established in 2004, full
authority digital engine control (FADEC) technology has evolved
significantly. FADEC \18\ automates and simplifies the operation of a
turbine powerplant. Today, many turbine-powered aircraft use FADEC
automation to manage powerplant performance and simplify aircraft
powerplant operations, reducing pilot workload. As a result, many
turbine-powered aircraft are no longer directly associated with
excessive speed or complexity. Advancements in simplified designs of
turbine-engine technology have led to the use of small turbine engines
in a variety of aircraft, including self-launching gliders. The FAA
recognizes that because of automation, many modern turbine powerplants
are now easier to operate than many existing piston-powered aircraft.
Modern automated powerplants reduce the complexity previously
associated with piloting aircraft that use powerplants other than non-
turbine engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ FADEC combines throttle, prop, and mixture controls into a
single control. With a FADEC system, there is no direct pilot
control over the engine or manual control mode. FADEC systems are
autonomous, self-monitoring, self-operating, and redundant. These
systems can decrease pilot workload and provide engine monitoring
capability that can alert operators of certain mechanical problems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA also reasons that removal of a specific engine requirement
will encourage ongoing development, innovation, and increased
efficiency of various types of powerplants for aircraft. The FAA seeks
to encourage flexibility for aircraft manufacturers to include simple-
to-operate powerplants of any design that will provide benefits to
include reduced cost, ease of operation, and reduced emissions--
especially for electric-powered aircraft. In summary, limiting the
number and type of powerplants for light-sport category aircraft is no
longer necessary and any risk associated with their use would be
appropriately mitigated by aircraft and pilot certification processes.
7. Use of a Controllable Pitch Propeller
The Sec. 1.1 definition of a light-sport aircraft currently
requires a fixed or ground adjustable propeller if the aircraft is a
powered aircraft other than a powered glider. The light-sport aircraft
definition also requires that powered gliders have a fixed or
feathering propeller system. These requirements from the 2004 rule
provided for simple
[[Page 47661]]
designs that would be appropriate for a sport pilot to operate.
With the performance expansions proposed in this rule for the
design and certification of light-sport category aircraft, as well as
the decoupling from sport pilot aircraft limitations tied to the light-
sport aircraft Sec. 1.1 definition, there would no longer be a need to
restrict propeller designs for light-sport category aircraft. This
proposed rule would omit propeller limitations from the light-sport
category eligibility requirements in Sec. 22.100. Accordingly, this
proposed rule would allow light-sport category aircraft to be built
with any type of propeller design that meets an FAA-accepted consensus
standard.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ ASTM standard F2506--Standard Specification for Design and
Testing of Light Sport Aircraft Propellers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the operation of controllable-pitch propellers and their
associated systems can impose some additional workload on pilots, the
FAA considers these propeller designs to be safe and reliable, as they
have been used in general aviation aircraft for decades. While
controllable-pitch propeller designs can increase workload because they
require attention and adjustment by the pilot, the FAA considers the
overall design of these systems to be relatively simple to operate and
appropriate for inclusion in light-sport category aircraft.
However, proposed Sec. 61.316, which would provide the performance
and design limitations for aircraft that may be flown by sport pilots,
would retain some propeller limitations and training requirements for
sport pilots. Specifically, for powered aircraft other than powered
gliders, proposed Sec. 61.316 would permit sport pilots to fly
aircraft with a fixed or ground-adjustable propeller, but also allow
those with an automated controllable-pitch propeller. Aircraft with an
automated controllable-pitch propeller would enable pilots to take
advantage of the improved performance associated with these aircraft
without imposing additional workload. The current requirement for
powered gliders would be relocated to proposed Sec. 61.316.
Due to the significant increase in climb and cruise performance,
the FAA is also proposing to permit sport pilots who receive additional
training and an instructor endorsement to operate airplanes designed
with controllable-pitch propellers that are not automated. The FAA
contends that permitting the design and use of a controllable-pitch
propeller on airplanes increases safety by taking advantage of the
improved climb performance associated with that propeller system design
to avoid and clear obstacles during the climb and departure phase of a
flight.
The FAA proposes two allowances to this requirement in the proposed
Sec. 61.316(e). First, the FAA proposes that, for powered aircraft
other than powered gliders, the airplane may also be equipped with an
automated controllable-pitch propeller. These propellers are easy to
use and increase airplane performance and efficiency. Specifically,
allowing use of an automated controllable-pitch propeller, in addition
to fixed or ground-adjustable propellers, increases safety because of
increased climb and cruise performance associated with a controllable
pitch propeller design.
Second, under the proposed Sec. 61.331, sport pilots would be
required to obtain additional flight training and a flight instructor
endorsement validating sport pilot proficiency to operate an airplane
with a controllable-pitch propeller that is not automated. The FAA
contends that additional training and instructor endorsements would
appropriately validate that sport pilots can safely operate airplanes
with a manually operated controllable-pitch propeller.
8. Fixed-Pitch, Semi-Rigid, Teetering-Two Blade Rotor System (if a
Gyroplane)
The current Sec. 1.1 definition of light-sport aircraft requires
gyroplanes to have fixed-pitch, semi-rigid, teetering two blade rotor
systems. This proposal would omit this as an eligibility requirement in
Sec. 22.100 to enable industry to develop new designs for gyroplane
rotor systems. However, under proposed Sec. 61.316(a)(6), the FAA
would continue to limit sport pilots to operate gyroplanes that have a
fixed-pitch, semi-rigid, teetering-two blade rotor system.
9. Retractable Landing Gear
Per the current light-sport aircraft definition in Sec. 1.1, a
light-sport aircraft, except for an aircraft intended for operation on
water or a glider, must have a fixed landing gear. The proposed rule
would remove this limitation as an eligibility requirement in Sec.
22.100. Accordingly, this rule would allow light-sport category
aircraft to be designed with fixed or retractable landing gear, or with
floats for aircraft intended for operation on water.
In the 2004 rule, the requirement for fixed landing gear was
intended to enable aircraft designs that would be simple to operate by
persons exercising the privileges of a sport pilot certificate. With
the performance expansions proposed in this rule for the design of
light-sport category aircraft and the decoupling from sport pilot
restrictions, there is no longer a need to restrict light-sport
category aircraft to fixed landing gear. This rule would provide for
more robust structures and greater weight allowances that would
accommodate necessary enhancements needed for retractable landing gear.
The FAA recognizes that additional training and instructor
endorsements can validate that sport pilots can operate aircraft with
retractable landing gear safely. The FAA is proposing to permit sport
pilots to operate aircraft with a retractable landing gear by requiring
additional training and obtaining a flight instructor endorsement
validating proficiency, as discussed later in section IV.E. By
proposing to establish separate airman and aircraft certification
requirements, manufacturers would be provided with the ability to
create a wider range of aircraft designs that may be operated by any
appropriately rated pilot. Pilots could then pursue the appropriate
level of pilot certification necessary to operate light-sport category
aircraft and any other aircraft. This would enable greater flexibility
for both aircraft manufacturers and pilots.
D. Certification of Light-Sport Category Aircraft
1. Compliance With Design, Production, and Airworthiness Requirements
As a condition for eligibility for certification in the light-sport
category, the proposal would require an aircraft to meet performance-
based aircraft design, production, and airworthiness requirements using
a means of compliance consisting of consensus standards accepted by the
FAA. The proposal would provide the regulatory authority to deny
airworthiness certification for a light-sport category aircraft if any
applicable requirements in Sec. 21.190(c) or part 22 have not been
met. The proposed performance-based requirements are discussed further
in section IV.D.
2. Establishment of Performance-Based Requirements
This proposal would include performance-based requirements for the
certification of aircraft in the light-sport category. The FAA would
evaluate any proposed consensus standard against the regulatory
requirement to determine whether the consensus standard would
constitute an acceptable means of compliance. By proposing these
performance-based requirements, the FAA would be providing clear
direction to standards-setting organizations regarding the content of
consensus
[[Page 47662]]
standards that would be proposed as a means of compliance to meet
regulatory requirements. The FAA expects that this proposal should not
only facilitate the more rapid development of these consensus
standards, but also result in more comprehensive consensus standards
that are better able to address the design, production, and
airworthiness of aircraft intended for certification in the light-sport
category.
The design, production, and airworthiness requirements proposed in
part 22 would represent the minimum requirements a consensus standard
would be required to address to be an acceptable means of compliance
for certification of light-sport category aircraft. The proposed
requirements would enable the implementation of new technologies and
encourage innovation. This proposed rule would allow manufacturers to
incorporate new technologies in their aircraft due to the removal of a
prescriptive weight limit that previously limited the installation of
safety equipment. This proposed rule would also encourage innovation,
such as aircraft designed with simplified flight controls discussed in
proposed Sec. 22.180. The requirements proposed in this section would
provide safety requirements appropriate for the light-sport category
within the context of the FAA's safety continuum. A discussion of each
proposed performance-based requirement follows.
3. Performance-Based Requirements for the Certification of Light-Sport
Category Aircraft
a. General
The proposed expansion of the classes of aircraft eligible for
certification under the proposal and the increase in the size and
performance of these aircraft requires the adoption and use of more
detailed performance-based requirements. These new requirements would
serve to guide consensus standards bodies in developing appropriate
consensus standards that would be acceptable to the FAA for the
expanded certification of aircraft in the light-sport category.
Manufacturer compliance with the performance-based design,
production, and airworthiness requirements proposed in this NPRM is
necessary for the safety of the wide range of light-sport category
aircraft to be certificated under this proposal. The FAA expects that
compliance with these requirements would reduce the occurrence of
design and production defects, resulting in aircraft that are safe for
their intended operations.
In accordance with their place in the safety continuum, light-sport
category aircraft would be subject to a certification process more
stringent than that applicable to experimental amateur-built aircraft,
but less rigorous than that used for the certification of normal
category aircraft. When comparing current certification requirements
for light-sport category aircraft to the certification requirements
applicable to other aircraft, amateur-built aircraft issued
experimental airworthiness certificates are not required to the meet
performance-based design, production, and airworthiness requirements
that light-sport category aircraft would be required to meet. As
experimental aircraft occupy a level on the safety continuum with a
lesser demand for safety assurance than light-sport category aircraft,
amateur-built aircraft are subject to more stringent operating
limitations. In contrast, aircraft issued standard airworthiness
certificates are required to meet airworthiness standards contained in
part 23, 25, 27, 29, or 31 and must be produced pursuant to an FAA
design and production approval. Accordingly, normal category aircraft
are subject to fewer operating restrictions than light-sport category
aircraft. As light-sport category aircraft would not be designed or
manufactured pursuant to an FAA design or production approval, these
aircraft would be subject to the eligibility requirements in proposed
Sec. 22.100 and the more restrictive operating limitations in proposed
Sec. 91.327.
The FAA retains oversight authority of light-sport category
aircraft manufacturers. Like certification rigor, the rigor of FAA
oversight of light-sport category aircraft manufacturers would be
consistent with the safety continuum. Policies and procedures for that
oversight are included in FAA Order 8130.36.\20\ To support this
proposed rule, the FAA would expand its oversight to verify successful
accomplishment of training by the manufacturer's compliance staff per
proposed Sec. 22.190, as well as the training and certification of
manufacturer's staff who sign its statements of compliance in proposed
Sec. 21.190(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ FAA Order 8130.36, Special Light Sport Aircraft Audit
Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA does not believe it would be appropriate to include the
proposed performance-based design, production, and airworthiness
requirements within current part 21 as that part is largely limited to
prescribing certification procedures, not certification requirements.
Accordingly, the FAA is proposing to include these requirements within
subpart B of part 22. By placing these new design, production, and
airworthiness requirements within separate sections of part 22, each
functional requirement would be more readily discernable to users, be
better able to be individually addressed, and result in the development
of a clearer and more understandable manufacturer's statement of
compliance.
With certain exceptions, part 22 would apply to non-type
certificated aircraft. As aircraft with experimental airworthiness
certificates are not certificated using performance-based requirements,
proposed part 22 would not be applicable to those aircraft.
Additionally, the proposed part would not be applicable to aircraft
operating under a special flight permit. Although those permits are
issued to aircraft that are safe for flight, aircraft operating under a
special flight permit do not have to meet applicable airworthiness
requirements. Part 22 would also not be applicable to unmanned
aircraft, as the proposed requirements would address the design,
production, and airworthiness of aircraft used to carry passengers and
would not be appropriate to address the design of an aircraft that
could be remotely operated. Requirements for manned aircraft, for
example, would need to address occupant protection and egress while
proposed requirements for unmanned aircraft would need to address
certain flight control system requirements that would be inapplicable
to manned aircraft. The FAA notes, however, that requirements for non-
type certificated unmanned aircraft could be proposed at a later date.
The FAA has accepted a variety of ASTM consensus standards for the
certification of light-sport category aircraft. The FAA has found these
consensus standards to be sufficient for the certification of aircraft
that meet current eligibility requirements. The FAA has also reviewed
currently accepted ASTM consensus standards and evaluated them against
the proposed performance expansions and new aircraft designs that would
be eligible for certification as light-sport category aircraft.
Currently accepted consensus standards would not be sufficient for the
certification of the wide range of aircraft with enhanced performance
capabilities that could be certificated under this proposal. The FAA
anticipates that industry would develop acceptable and appropriate
consensus standards to comply with the proposed performance-based
requirements in part 22. These proposed
[[Page 47663]]
performance-based requirements would serve as the underlying regulatory
requirements for the development of new or revised consensus standards.
The FAA currently uses performance-based requirements for the
certification of other aircraft, most notably normal category airplanes
certificated under the requirements of part 23. The FAA recognizes that
the performance-based requirements it is proposing for certificating
light-sport category aircraft are not of the same scope and detail as
those standards. The FAA contends, however, that the greater
specificity contained in the part 23 standards reflects the increased
rigor of the type certification process and resultant need to develop
more detailed consensus standards to comply with those more detailed
requirements. The performance-based requirements proposed in this NPRM
respond to the need to apply a set of broad-based requirements to a
wider range of aircraft that would not be required to meet the more
exacting design requirements of type certification. They also provide
industry with the flexibility to develop consensus standards applicable
to the certification of a wide range of dissimilar aircraft.
Under the proposed rule, a consensus standard would have to meet
the following performance-based requirements before the FAA would
accept that standard as a means of compliance. A manufacturer would
need to meet the appropriate FAA-accepted consensus standards to obtain
an airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category.
b. Control and Maneuverability
Proposed Sec. 22.105 would require aircraft to be consistently and
predictably controllable and maneuverable through the normal use of
primary flight controls at all loading conditions, during all phases of
flight. Additionally, the aircraft would not have a tendency to
inadvertently depart controlled flight or require exceptional piloting
skill, alertness, or strength.
The proposed rule is necessary because if the aircraft's design
prevents the pilot from inadvertently departing controlled flight,
instances of unintentional unusual attitudes, loss of control of the
aircraft, or aircraft structural damage would be reduced. A requirement
for control and maneuverability would assist with the consistency and
predictability of an aircraft's maneuvering flight characteristics
throughout the aircraft's entire flight envelope. The aircraft would
not have a tendency to depart controlled flight, meaning that it should
be inherently stable. Additionally, the FAA considers that this
requirement would result in aircraft that operate in repeatable, smooth
transitions between turns, climbs, descents, and level flight.
Accordingly, flight controls would need to operate easily,
smoothly, and positively enough to allow proper performance of their
functions. Configuration changes, such as flap extension and
retraction, or landing gear extension and retraction would also have to
result in safe, controllable, and predictable handling characteristics.
The proposed performance requirement would also enable stability, ease
of flight, and consistent outcomes of control inputs for light-sport
category aircraft throughout their center of gravity limits and flight
envelope. The FAA considers that if an aircraft meets these parameters,
exceptional piloting skill, alertness, or strength would not be
required to operate the aircraft.
The FAA has accepted consensus standards for current light-sport
category aircraft that address the controllability and maneuverability
of aircraft intended for certification as light-sport category
aircraft.\21\ Although the controllability and maneuverability
standards vary across the consensus standards for the different classes
of light-sport category aircraft, the general provisions of these
standards align closely with the elements of proposed Sec. 22.105. The
consensus standards currently address controllability and
maneuverability, applicable phases of flight, pilot strength and skill,
and normal use of flight controls. Proposed Sec. 22.105 would meet the
level of rigor the FAA considers appropriate for light-sport category
aircraft and its place on the safety continuum between experimental
aircraft and normal category airplanes. Proposed Sec. 22.105 would
require light-sport category aircraft to be controllable and
maneuverable with no adverse handling characteristics. In this context,
no adverse handling characteristics would mean the aircraft would be
consistently and predictably controllable and maneuverable and would
not have a tendency to inadvertently depart controlled flight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ ASTM F2245 Standard Specification for Design and
Performance of a Light Sport Airplane; ASTM F2564 Standard
Specification for Design and Performance of a Light Sport Glider;
ASTM F2317/F2317M Standard Specification for Design of Weight-Shift-
Control Aircraft, ASTM F2244 Standard Specification for Design and
Performance Requirements for Powered Parachute Aircraft, and ASTM
F2355 Standard Specification for Design and Performance Requirements
for Lighter-Than-Air Light Sport Aircraft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA expects that some existing consensus standards would need
to be updated to account for the proposed expansion of eligibility for
aircraft to be certified as light-sport category aircraft.
Additionally, those portions of currently accepted consensus standards
addressing aircraft controllability and maneuverability would need to
be updated to address the specific requirement that aircraft control
and maneuverability be consistent and predictable.
The proposed rule would facilitate the manufacture of simple
designs that result in the stable, predictable, and controllable
operation of the aircraft through the use of primary flight controls.
Primary flight controls consist of ``traditional'' flight controls,
such as an aircraft yoke, stick, control column, collective, throttle,
or rudder pedals. Flight controls intended to improve aircraft
performance characteristics or relieve excessive control loading, such
as high lift devices, slats, flaps, flight spoilers, and aircraft trim
systems, would not be considered primary flight controls. The proposed
rule would also contain specific provisions for the certification of
aircraft that may be designed and constructed without primary flight
controls, but rather with ``simplified flight controls.'' Specific
requirements for aircraft with simplified flight controls are addressed
in proposed Sec. 22.180 in the preamble.
The proposed rule would require that existing consensus standards
be revised to account for the requirement that operation of the
aircraft not require exceptional piloting skill, alertness, or
strength. Aircraft meeting this performance requirement would be stable
enough to be easily flown by pilots with a minimum of flight experience
and would not have handling characteristics that would cause undue
pilot fatigue or distraction. Accordingly, these aircraft would provide
a more stable platform than other currently available non-type
certificated aircraft, thereby aiding in preventing inadvertent loss of
control accidents. Although some consensus standards specifically
address the forces necessary to pilot the aircraft, not all existing
consensus standards meet this requirement. The proposed rule would
require that aircraft certificated in the light-sport category have
aerodynamic and handling qualities that would not result in unstable
flight characteristics or require exceptional pilot skill to keep the
aircraft within its flight envelope.
Additionally, the handling characteristics of these aircraft would
make light-sport category aircraft a viable alternative for use in the
flight training environment and provide both student pilots and flights
schools with
[[Page 47664]]
a potentially lower cost, alternate fight training platform. Although
the proposed rule would permit the use of technology to enhance the
flying qualities of the aircraft, the technology should also not
increase the pilot's workload to the detriment of the goal to have
simple and easy to fly aircraft. The pilot should not be task-saturated
in maintaining control of these aircraft.
Proposed Sec. 22.105 would help prevent inadvertent unusual
attitudes and loss of control accidents. Per National Transportation
Safety Board (NTSB) accident statistics, the largest number of fatal
accidents for general aviation aircraft result from inflight loss of
control; the proposed standard would result in the development of
consensus standards for light-sport category aircraft that would assist
in mitigating this risk.
Powered-lift or certain rotorcraft that could experience failures
resulting in asymmetric thrust would need to be designed with safe,
controllable, and predictable characteristics that permit a pilot with
limited flight experience from becoming task-saturated while
maintaining control of the aircraft. The aircraft could also be
designed and constructed to include an automated system or provide for
some combination of pilot action and automation that would enable the
pilot to maintain effective aircraft control. The provisions of this
proposed requirement would be consistent with proposed Sec. 22.145,
which would require that any propulsion system thrust asymmetry be
automatically compensated for, or be capable of being readily
compensated for, with no adverse effect on the aircraft's handling
qualities.
c. Structural Integrity
Proposed Sec. 22.110 would require that the design and
construction of the aircraft provide sufficient structural integrity to
enable safe operations within the aircraft's flight envelope and
intended lifecycle. It would also require that the aircraft be able to
withstand all anticipated flight and ground loads when operated within
its operational limits.
The proposed performance requirements are necessary to ensure that
light-sport category aircraft are designed and constructed to withstand
any foreseeable flight and ground loads that may be experienced
throughout the aircraft's flight envelope and intended lifecycle.
Failure to establish and validate adequate strength, stiffness, and
durability to accommodate anticipated loads encountered during flight
or ground operations could result in structural failure of the
aircraft.
When comparing the proposed requirements for the certification of
light-sport category aircraft to the certification of amateur-built
aircraft, the FAA notes that amateur-built aircraft have no regulatory
requirement to incorporate design features or be constructed to provide
sufficient structural integrity for their intended operations. Amateur
builders may experiment with different materials and construction
techniques in the design and construction of their aircraft. In
contrast, type-certificated aircraft must meet the extensive
airworthiness standards for structures in parts 23, 25, 27, 29, and 31
that address areas such as strength, durability, design envelope,
loads, aeroelasticity, materials, protection, fabrication processes,
and performance. The level of rigor proposed for the structural
integrity of light-sport category aircraft would not be as extensive as
that required for aircraft intended for type-certification yet would
establish minimum requirements for structural integrity that are not
applicable to the certification of amateur-built aircraft.
FAA-accepted consensus standards currently used for the
certification of light-sport category aircraft have provisions
addressing structures that generally include provisions for items such
as loads, factors of safety, strength and deformation, proof of
structure, flight loads, design airspeeds, specialized structures, and
emergency landing conditions.\22\ As a result of the expansion in the
performance and capabilities of aircraft that would be certificated as
light-sport category aircraft under the proposal, the proposed
requirements would require consensus standards for light-sport category
aircraft designs to address aircraft structural integrity under a wider
range of environmental conditions and operational parameters.
Additionally, the prevention of material and structural failures due to
foreseeable causes of strength degradation and protection against
deterioration or loss of structural strength due to any cause likely to
occur throughout the aircraft's lifecycle would also need to be
addressed by consensus standards organizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ ASTM F2245, F2564, F2317/F2317M, F2244, and F2355.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed rule would require the aircraft to have the ability to
withstand all anticipated flight and ground loads without detrimental
permanent deformation or interference with the safe operation of the
aircraft. The inclusion of a requirement to address structural
integrity in light-sport category aircraft designs would improve the
ability of these aircraft to be consistently dependable, structurally
reliable, and fully capable of safely conducting intended operations
throughout the aircraft's lifecycle. The proposed requirements would
enable aircraft design and manufacturing processes used in construction
to attain structural integrity of aircraft with the use of adequate
material strength and properties that can accommodate anticipated loads
when operated within specified flight envelopes.
d. Powered-Lift Aircraft: Minimum Safe Speed
Proposed Sec. 22.115 would require manufacturers of powered-lift
aircraft to establish the minimum safe speed for each flight condition
encountered in normal operation, including applicable sources of lift
and phases of flight, to maintain controlled safe flight. The minimum
safe speed determination would be required to account for the most
adverse conditions for each configuration.
Because powered-lift aircraft would be newly eligible for
certification as light-sport category aircraft, the FAA has proposed
this specific requirement for powered-lift aircraft. The proposed rule
is necessary for pilots of these aircraft to be aware of the specific
minimum safe speeds at which their specific model of powered-lift
aircraft can be operated in each of the aircraft's various
configurations. Requiring these speeds to be determined would provide
pilots with the essential knowledge to avoid operating these aircraft
below minimum safe speeds, thereby reducing the potential for aircraft
loss of control.
The proposed requirement to determine minimum safe speeds for
powered-lift aircraft addresses all modes of flight (wing-borne,
thrust-borne, and semi-thrust borne) in which these aircraft may be
operated and the various modes in which lift supporting the aircraft is
produced. In the wing-borne flight mode, the wing produces the
aircraft's lift. In thrust-borne flight, commonly called hover mode,
the powerplant produces the aircraft's lift. In the semi-thrust borne
mode, the aircraft is in a transition stage between thrust-borne and
wing-borne modes of flight with both the wings and powerplant providing
aircraft lift. Although most powered-lift aircraft are designed with
the ability to automatically transition from high-speed wing-borne
flight to slow-speed thrust-borne flight or hover, the proposed
requirement would further the pilot's understanding of the handling
qualities of the aircraft and facilitate
[[Page 47665]]
their ability to make a smooth change from one configuration to another
without exceeding the limitations of the aircraft's flight envelope.
The FAA does not consider the imposition of a limiting stalling
speed or minimum steady flight speed such as VS1 to be
practical for application to the design of powered-lift aircraft that
would be eligible for certification as light-sport category aircraft.
Many of the designs for these smaller powered-lift aircraft have wing
sizes that do not provide significant lift in wing-borne flight. As a
result of this small wing area and other design features, these
aircraft may have stalling or minimum steady flight speeds that are
much higher than comparably sized aircraft of other classes that rely
primarily on wings to produce lift. Accordingly, the FAA considers the
use of a maximum stalling speed as a limitation for these aircraft to
be unnecessary.
As powered-lift aircraft can be operated in a variety of flight
configurations, the FAA considers the determination of a minimum safe
flight speed for each flight condition to be essential. Similar
requirements for the determination of minimum flight speeds have also
been proposed in two Federal Register notices of proposed airworthiness
criteria for powered-lift aircraft designs currently involved in the
type-certification process.\23\ The more extensive requirements set
forth in the airworthiness criteria for these powered-lift aircraft
designs currently undergoing type-certification would not be required
since aircraft subject to this proposal would be certificated as light-
sport category aircraft and subject to the operating limitations
contained in proposed Sec. 91.327.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Airworthiness Criteria: Special Class Airworthiness
Criteria for the Joby Aero, Inc. Model JAS4-1 Powered-Lift (87 FR
67399; November 8, 2022), and Airworthiness Criteria: Special Class
Airworthiness Criteria for the Archer Aviation Inc. Model M001
Powered-Lift (87 FR 77749; December 20, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed requirement is necessary so that the aircraft has
controllable minimum safe speed flight characteristics in all flight
conditions with a clear and distinctive minimum safe speed warning that
provides sufficient margin to prevent inadvertent deceleration below
minimum safe speed. Production acceptance flight testing would verify
that the minimum safe speeds account for the most adverse conditions,
such as operating at maximum gross weight, in the determination of the
minimum safe speeds for each flight condition.
4. Special Requirements for Light-Sport Category Aircraft Used for
Aerial Work Operations
Proposed Sec. 22.120 would require that if an aircraft is
designated by the manufacturer as suitable for the performance of any
aerial work operation, the design and construction of the aircraft must
provide sufficient structural integrity to enable safe operation of the
aircraft during the performance of that operation and ensure that the
aircraft is able to withstand foreseeable flight and ground loads.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ The FAA does not define construction or manufacture in
Sec. 1.1. The terms are used interchangeably in this section and
mean the same.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA broadly interprets the term aerial work to mean work done
from the air for compensation that does not involve the carriage of
persons or property.\25\ Aerial work could include operations such as
those performed in support of agriculture or construction activities,
aerial photography, surveying, observation and patrol, search and
rescue, and aerial advertisement. Patrolling of powerlines or railroad
tracks, for example is a task that could be readily accomplished by a
light-sport category aircraft that meets the proposed requirements.
However, patrolling over long distances and at low altitudes can put
increased stresses on aircraft structures due to the greater prevalence
of turbulence at low altitude. The proposal would require manufacturers
to design and construct aircraft to be able to withstand potentially
greater stresses when engaged in designated aerial work operations than
would potentially be experienced during recreational flights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ FAA Order 8900.1, Volume 2, Chapter 2, Section 2, Paragraph
2-127C Aerial Work Operations. While 14 CFR does not define ``aerial
work,'' the FAA has consistently interpreted the term to mean work
done from the air where: the aircraft must depart and arrive at the
same point; no property of another may be carried on the aircraft;
and only persons essential to the operation may be carried on board.
See Legal Interpretation to Jeffrey Hill, from Rebecca B.
MacPherson, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations, (March 10,
2011). See 14 CFR 119.1(e)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposed performance requirement is necessary so that aircraft
designated to conduct aerial work operations are designed and
constructed to withstand foreseeable flight and ground loads that may
be experienced during those operations. Failure to establish and
validate adequate material strength and design properties to
accommodate a designated aerial work operation could cause structural
failure resulting in loss of aircraft control.
The proposed requirement would only apply to those light-sport
category aircraft designated by a manufacturer to conduct specific
aerial work operations. In accordance with the principles of the FAA's
safety continuum, the proposed requirement is intended to apply a level
of certification rigor appropriate to provide for the airworthiness of
light-sport category aircraft during the conduct of these designated
operations.
Amateur-built aircraft issued experimental airworthiness
certificates have no regulatory requirement to incorporate design
features necessary to provide sufficient structural integrity of the
aircraft to enable safe aerial work operations. These aircraft are
built solely for the purpose of education or recreation and are issued
operating limitations which limit their use to education or recreation.
Accordingly, aircraft issued these operating limitations are prohibited
from aerial work operations by Sec. 91.9, which prohibits the
operation of a civil aircraft contrary to its operating limitations. In
contrast, type-certificated aircraft meeting the airworthiness
standards for structures in part 23, 25, 27, 29, or 31 may be used to
conduct aerial work operations since these aircraft are issued standard
airworthiness certificate and are not restricted by operating
limitations that restrict their use to recreation or education or by
regulatory provisions limiting their ability to carry persons or
property for compensation or hire as set forth in Sec. 91.319(a)(2).
Light-sport category aircraft are currently precluded by Sec.
91.327 from conducting operations for compensation or hire, except to
tow a glider or an unpowered ultralight vehicle or to conduct flight
training. As the proposal would enable aerial work operations, the
proposal would revise Sec. 91.327 to permit the conduct of any aerial
work operation specified in the aircraft's pilot operating handbook or
operating limitations, as applicable, and specified in the
manufacturer's statement of compliance for that aircraft.
The aircraft's design and construction would need to be sufficient
to protect against deterioration or loss of strength and prevent
structural failures due to foreseeable causes of strength degradation
that would be likely to occur throughout the aircraft's flight envelope
during aerial work operations. Additionally, the aircraft would need to
be able to withstand all anticipated flight and ground loads during
these operations without incurring detrimental permanent deformation or
jeopardizing the safe operation of the aircraft. Failure to adhere to
proper design and manufacturing processes in the development and
production of parts or using materials not suitable or
[[Page 47666]]
lacking durability for in-service environmental conditions in aerial
work operations could result in loss of aircraft performance or
critical functionality, thereby resulting in loss of aircraft control.
Accordingly, these concerns would be appropriately addressed in the
aircraft's design and manufacture under this proposal.
5. Environmental Conditions
Proposed Sec. 22.125 would require the aircraft to have design
characteristics to safely accommodate all environmental conditions
likely to be encountered during its intended operations.
The proposed requirement is necessary to enable aircraft to be
properly designed and constructed to conduct safe ground and flight
operations in the specific operating environments for which the
aircraft is designated to operate in. Manufacturers would need to
account for weather extremes encountered within the United States and
the designed maximum altitude of the aircraft to comply with this
requirement. Aircraft systems and structures may not function as
intended if all operating conditions are not accounted for in an
aircraft's design. Improperly functioning systems or structures may
lead to loss of aircraft control and an aircraft accident or incident.
There are no regulatory requirements for amateur-built aircraft to
be designed with characteristics necessary to safely accommodate
environmental conditions. If an amateur-built aircraft has been
designed for flight at night or instrument meteorological conditions
(IMC) as specified in its operating manual, the aircraft would be
issued an operating limitation under the regulatory authority of Sec.
91.319(i) specifying that it must meet the instrument and equipment
requirements of Sec. 91.205.
In contrast, aircraft manufactured in accordance with the
airworthiness standards set forth in part 23, 25, 27, or 29 are subject
to specific design and installation requirements for systems and
equipment. Installed systems and equipment must perform their intended
function throughout the operating and environmental limits for which
the aircraft is certificated. Based on the performance level of the
aircraft, other environmental airworthiness requirements are required
to be met such as for flight in icing conditions, cockpit and external
lighting for night operations, and flight in turbulent or gusty wind
conditions. Additionally, balloons manufactured in accordance with the
airworthiness requirements of part 31 must be suitably protected, as
set forth in Sec. 31.39, against deterioration or loss of strength in
service due to weathering, corrosion, or other causes.
Proposed Sec. 22.105 would meet the level of rigor the FAA
considers appropriate for light-sport category aircraft and its place
on the safety continuum between amateur-built aircraft and normal
category aircraft. Currently accepted consensus standards for light-
sport category aircraft generally do not address design characteristics
to accommodate environmental conditions. This is largely the result of
these aircraft being limited to operating in day, visual meteorological
conditions (VMC). The single major exception can be found in ASTM
standard F2245, ``Standard Specification for Design and Performance of
a Light Sport Airplane,'' for light-sport category airplanes, which
provides for the installation of internal and external lights for the
conduct of night operations in VMC.
As a result of the expansion in the performance and capabilities of
aircraft that would be certificated as light-sport category aircraft
under the proposal, the FAA would require light-sport category aircraft
designs, structures, and systems to account for the effects of any
environmental conditions expected to be encountered while in operation.
Examples of environmental conditions that should be accommodated in the
aircraft design include heat, cold, precipitation, sunlight, darkness,
gusty winds, and turbulence. In this proposal, performance expansions
would enable light-sport category aircraft to be equipped with engines
and systems capable of flight under instrument flight rules (IFR) in
IMC. Additionally, state-of-the-art avionics systems could be installed
in these aircraft which would require aircraft designs to provide for
the necessary heating and cooling of this electronic equipment.
Aircraft designs that fail to accommodate extreme temperature limits of
systems may lead to operations outside the environmental limits of
critical components, which could adversely affect control of the
aircraft.
Aircraft designs must also protect occupants from experiencing
inappropriate environmental conditions within the aircraft that could
significantly affect their well-being or adversely affect pilot
performance. While the effects of heat and cold are well known, designs
should also consider other factors such as reducing the effects of
windshield glare that could impair pilot vision both inside and outside
the aircraft.
The recommended operating instructions and limitations to safely
accommodate all environmental conditions and abnormal procedures likely
to be encountered in the aircraft's intended operations, such as gusty
winds, contaminated runways, turbulence, icing conditions, or excessive
temperatures, would be required to be specified in the pilot's
operating handbook, as proposed in Sec. 21.190(c)(2)(i) of this
proposal. These requirements are proposed for the safe operation of the
aircraft within the environmental parameters for which it is designed
to operate.
6. Suitability and Durability of Materials
Proposed Sec. 22.130 would require that the suitability and
durability of materials used for products and articles account for
likely environmental conditions expected in service, the failure of
which could prevent continued safe flight and landing.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ As defined in part 21, product means an aircraft, aircraft
engine, or propeller. Article means a material, part, component,
process, or appliance. Appliance is defined in Sec. 1.1 and means
any instrument, mechanism, equipment, part, apparatus, appurtenance,
or accessory, including communications equipment, that is used or
intended to be used in operating or controlling an aircraft in
flight, is installed in or attached to the aircraft, and is not part
of an airframe, engine, or propeller.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Materials used for aircraft components and structures would need to
meet the rigors of all operations within the aircraft's flight envelope
for the life of the aircraft, or for the specified life limit of the
product or article in which the material is used. Pursuant to proposed
Sec. 22.130, aircraft would be designed and manufactured with
materials that permit its structure and components to withstand those
stresses likely to be encountered within the aircraft's flight
envelope. Such stresses could include high load factors resulting from
gusts or temperature and humidity extremes. Compliance with material
suitability and durability requirements is especially important for
critical structures and components whose failure could prevent
continued safe flight and landing.
Manufacturer design data defines the configuration of each product
or article, its design features, and any materials and processes used
in its manufacture. In the selection of materials used for the
aircraft's manufacture, manufacturers would have to account for the
full range of conditions likely to be encountered within aircraft's
design flight envelope for compliance with the proposed Sec. 22.130.
Design data would include a determination of the suitability and
durability of materials used for the production of each product or
article for the full range of the aircraft's authorized operations.
Additionally, materials
[[Page 47667]]
selected for the manufacture of the aircraft's structure and components
would need to be sufficient to protect those items against
deterioration or loss of strength due to any condition likely to be
encountered in the aircraft's expected operational environment.
Amateur-built aircraft issued experimental airworthiness
certificates have no regulatory requirement to address the suitability
and durability of materials to account for the environmental conditions
expected to be encountered within the aircraft's operational flight
envelope. In contrast, type-certificated aircraft must comply with
material suitability and durability requirements specified in the
airworthiness standards of parts 23, 25, 27, 29, and 31. In accordance
with the principles set forth in the FAA's safety continuum, the
proposed requirements have been designed to meet the level of rigor the
agency considers appropriate to address the suitability and durability
of materials used in the manufacture of aircraft intended for
certification as light-sport category aircraft.
Currently accepted consensus standards for all classes of light-
sport category aircraft include a design and construction performance
requirement, which generally states that materials shall be suitable
and durable for the intended use.\27\ Those consensus standards specify
that design values for strength must be chosen so that no structural
part is understrength because of either material variations or load
concentration. Consensus standards for all classes of aircraft eligible
for certification as light-sport category aircraft also include
protection of the aircraft's structure.\28\ These consensus standards
generally address the protection of the structure against weathering,
corrosion, and wear, as well as provisions for suitable ventilation and
drainage. As the suitability and durability of materials used for
products and articles would be required to account for likely
environmental conditions expected in service, the FAA expects that
revisions to these consensus standards would need to be made to account
for the significant increase in the performance, capabilities, and
classes of aircraft that could be certificated under the proposal.
Accordingly, revised consensus standards would need to address aircraft
with significantly larger flight envelopes. This would result in
materials being used in the aircraft possessing the suitability and
durability to permit the safe operation of the aircraft throughout the
wider range of environmental conditions likely to be encountered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ ASTM 2245, F2564, F2317/F2317M, F2244, and F2355.
\28\ ASTM F2245, F2564, F2317/F2317M, F2244, and F2355.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Instruments and Equipment
Proposed Sec. 22.135 would require that the aircraft have all
instruments and equipment necessary for safe flight, including those
instruments necessary for systems control and management. It would also
require that the aircraft include all instruments and equipment
required for the kinds of operations for which it is authorized. All
instruments, equipment, and systems would be required to perform their
intended functions under all operating conditions specified in the
pilot's operating handbook. The proposal would also require that a
failure or malfunction of a system or component that is likely to occur
would not cause loss of control of the aircraft. All systems and
components would be required to be considered separately and in
relation to each other.
Aircraft certificated as light-sport category aircraft are
currently required to use a consensus standard for all required
equipment, pursuant to the definition of consensus standard in Sec.
1.1. This proposal would remove reference to equipment from the
definition of consensus standard and place that requirement in Sec.
22.135. The proposed equipment requirements are necessary so that
light-sport category aircraft would have installed equipment that
enables the pilot to accomplish tasks such as monitoring, managing,
controlling, or responding to the aircraft and its systems under all
operating conditions.
For amateur-built aircraft issued experimental airworthiness
certificates, no regulatory requirement exists for the aircraft's
installed instruments and equipment to meet specific design
requirements. However, amateur-built aircraft must comply with
regulatory instrument and equipment requirements for operations in
certain environmental conditions and airspace as specified in their
operating limitations or as required by the applicable operating rules.
For example, amateur-built aircraft designed and equipped for flight at
night or under IFR may be issued an operating limitation stating that
the aircraft must comply with the applicable instrument and equipment
requirements of Sec. 91.205. Operating in certain airspace requires
that the aircraft meet the transponder equipage requirements specified
in Sec. 91.215 and the Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast
(ADS-B) Out requirements specified in Sec. 91.225.
Type-certificated aircraft must meet the instrument and equipment
airworthiness standards in parts 23, 25, 27, 29, and 31 for the types
of operations for which certification is requested. Type-certificated
aircraft must also comply with the instrument and equipment
requirements in Sec. Sec. 91.205, 91.215, and 91.225 for operations at
night, in IMC, or certain airspace, as applicable.
The level of rigor specified for the design of the instrumentation
and equipment installed in light-sport category aircraft would not be
as extensive as that required for aircraft intended for type-
certification, yet more extensive than that specified for amateur-built
aircraft. Proposed Sec. 22.135 would account for the fact that
necessary instrumentation and equipage for light-sport category
aircraft will vary by the class of aircraft and type of operation.
Specifically, Sec. 22.135, as proposed, states that aircraft must
include all instruments and equipment required for the kinds of
operations for which it is authorized. Minimum equipment generally
includes flight and navigation instruments, powerplant instruments, and
other miscellaneous equipment necessary for the operation of the
aircraft's systems. Miscellaneous equipment is usually specific to the
class of aircraft. Such equipment associated with the aircraft's
electrical system, for example, could include master switches, wiring,
and vented battery containers.
The FAA expects that light-sport category aircraft possessing
significantly more capabilities than current designs would need to be
appropriately equipped in accordance with these increased operational
capabilities. Aircraft would be able to conduct IFR flight in IMC and
be more likely to be exposed to adverse weather conditions and
operations at night. The FAA does note, however, that flight in IMC
would have to be authorized by the manufacturer in the pilot's
operating handbook and the aircraft would be subject to an operating
limitation requiring the aircraft to be equipped to meet the equipment
and instrumentation requirements in Sec. 91.205. Additionally, light-
sport category aircraft would also be more prone to fly in airspace
requiring transponders and ADS-B equipment as aircraft designers may be
more willing to install this equipment. This equipment enhances safety
of the national airspace system by making an aircraft visible to air
traffic control and to other appropriately equipped aircraft,
[[Page 47668]]
promoting the separation of aircraft, and decreasing the risk of mid-
air collision.
All classes of light-sport category aircraft would need to be
properly equipped for operations they are authorized to conduct. For
example, if an aircraft is authorized to operate at night, the
requirement to have all instruments and equipment necessary for safe
flight would necessitate the aircraft be equipped with internal cockpit
lighting that would provide the pilot with unrestricted visibility of
all required instruments. It would also be required to have external
lighting to make the aircraft visible to both operators of other
aircraft and to personnel on the ground while operating on or within
the vicinity of the airfield.
The FAA encourages aircraft designers to incorporate new instrument
and equipment technology into their aircraft designs. The proposed rule
is intended to address both the functionality of instruments and
equipment, as well as their interface with the other instruments and
equipment installed in the aircraft. The FAA particularly encourages
the installation of advanced electronic avionics systems that can be
used by pilots to meet the aeronautical experience requirements in a
technologically advanced aircraft as specified in Sec. 61.129. As
aircraft designers would no longer be bound by the parameters contained
in the current definition of light-sport aircraft, designers would be
better able to include safety-enhancing equipment in their designs,
such as angle-of-attack indicators, envelope-protection equipment, and
moving-map displays which could assist the pilot in avoiding hazardous
conditions and enhance situational awareness. Accordingly, this
proposal would facilitate the design and production of technologically
advanced aircraft with instruments and equipment that could be used to
support both safe and more cost-effective flight training.
The proposed requirement would also require that the equipment,
instruments, and systems function properly under all operating
conditions and that the failure or malfunction of a single equipment
item or an instrument, or the failure of a system would not cause loss
of aircraft control. Manufacturers could comply with this requirement
by identifying critical single-point failure items or systems and build
in redundancy to provide alternatives or back-up options. A specific
example of how this requirement could be met would be the installation
of a back-up attitude indicator, using a power source other than that
used for the primary attitude indicator, in an aircraft that is
authorized to fly in IMC. Attitude indicators are the primary
instrument pilots use to maintain proper aircraft attitude and bank
angles when ground references are no longer visible. A secondary
attitude indicator would prevent a loss of control situation in the
event the primary attitude indicator or its power system failed while
the aircraft was flying in IMC or without visual reference to the
ground.
The FAA anticipates that compliance with the proposed requirements
would require analysis of the aircraft's instruments and equipment to
consider each separately and in relation to each other as failures
resulting from equipment incompatibility may result in an accident.
Manufacturers could use various methods to comply with this requirement
such as the installation of back-up systems or through testing
techniques. The integrity of the aircraft design, equipage, and
systems, and the quality of aircraft manufacturing processes is
essential for safe flight.
8. Accessibility of Controls and Displays
Proposed Sec. 22.140 would require that the aircraft be designed
and constructed so that the pilot can reach all controls and displays
in a manner that provides for smooth and positive operation of the
aircraft.
This proposed performance requirement is necessary to enable
ergonomic and human factors designs in light-sport category aircraft
that result in these aircraft being simple to operate. A flightdeck or
pilot station not designed to account for ergonomic and human factors
may result in controls and displays located in locations that do not
allow for their efficient and timely operation by the pilot. Aircraft
designs that do not provide the pilot with the ability to effectively
activate, operate, or otherwise interface with the aircraft's controls
and display information could significantly affect the pilot's ability
to safely operate the aircraft resulting in loss of control. The
proposal would support ergonomic designs where the activation or
operation of a control, switch, or display would not unduly distract a
pilot from maintaining proper control of the aircraft. The FAA
encourages aircraft designers to use the flexibility of this proposal
to prioritize the placement of controls and displays based on their
criticality to maintaining safe ground and flight operations.
Amateur-built aircraft issued experimental airworthiness
certificates have no regulatory requirement to incorporate design and
construction features where the pilot must reach all controls and
displays in a manner that provides for smooth and positive operation of
the aircraft. Type-certificated, normal category airplanes must comply
with the airworthiness standards found in subpart G of part 23 that
specify flightcrew interface requirements with installed instruments
and equipment. Type-certificated, normal category rotorcraft must
comply with part 27 airworthiness standards that require cockpit
controls be located to provide convenient operation and to prevent
confusion and inadvertent operation.
The level of rigor for the accessibility of controls and displays
in light-sport category aircraft would not be as extensive as the Sec.
25.777 cockpit control requirements for type-certificated aircraft.
Although Sec. 25.777 requires that each cockpit control be located to
provide convenient operation and to prevent confusion and inadvertent
operation, it contains further requirements for the turning direction
and effectivity of controls, prevention of interference from structures
and pilot clothing, specific locations for the controls of lifting
devices (e.g., flaps) and landing gear, and shapes and color contrast
of control knobs. The extent of requirements in Sec. 25.777 far exceed
the simpler requirement for light-sport category aircraft that its
controls and displays be reached by the pilot without disrupting smooth
and positive operation of the aircraft.
The proposal, consistent with the FAA's safety continuum, would
establish requirements for the accessibility of controls and displays
in light-sport category aircraft that are not necessary for amateur-
built aircraft. Amateur-built aircraft have no regulatory requirements
for the pilot to reach all controls and displays so builders can design
their own instrument panel and locate controls and displays wherever
they prefer. Because light-sport category aircraft have fewer
operational restrictions and may conduct aerial work, the certification
rigor for light-sport category aircraft would be greater. Accordingly,
light-sport category aircraft would have to have controls and displays
where the pilot can reach in a manner that provides for smooth and
positive operation of the aircraft. This requirement would help prevent
distractions and loss of control accidents. Manufacturers would be able
to comply with these requirements through FAA-accepted consensus
standards.
For light-sport category airplanes, powered parachutes, and
lighter-than-air aircraft (balloons and airships) certificated under
current rules, ASTM
[[Page 47669]]
standards F2245, for light-sport airplanes, F2244, ``Standard
Specification for Design and Performance Requirements for Powered
Parachute Aircraft,'' and F2355, ``Standard Specification for Design
and Performance Requirements for Lighter-Than-Air Light Sport
Aircraft,'' state that for the pilot compartment, accessibility and the
ability to reach all controls for smooth and positive operation shall
be provided. For weight-shift-control aircraft and gliders, ASTM
standards F2317/F2317M, ``Standard Specification for Design of Weight-
Shift-Control Aircraft,'' and F2564, ``Standard Specification for
Design and Performance of a Light Sport Glider,'' state that there must
be a control or means accessible to the pilot while wearing a seat belt
by which the pilot can effectively shut off the flow of fuel.
As the proposal would expand the scope of aircraft that may be
certificated as light-sport category aircraft, revised consensus
standards submitted to the FAA for acceptance would need to address the
pilot's ability to reach all controls and displays in a manner that
provides for smooth and positive operation in a much wider range of
aircraft. Activation or manipulation of aircraft controls and displays
could not require a level of attention significant enough to cause the
pilot to shift focus, create a distraction, or otherwise interfere with
the operation of the aircraft. Such loss of attention or focus could
result in an incident or accident.
To comply with the provisions of the proposed rule, a manufacturer
would design and install controls and displays that would permit the
pilot to readily monitor and perform defined tasks associated with the
intended functions of systems and equipment. These provisions would
reduce the potential for pilot error and minimize the risk of resulting
hazards. Accordingly, the proposed requirement would serve to prevent
inadvertent unusual attitudes and loss of control accidents due to poor
ergonomics and cockpit design. The proposed requirement would also have
the benefit of reducing pilot workload and fatigue since controls and
displays would be reached in a manner that provides for smooth and
positive operation of the aircraft. These design features would further
the conduct of safe operations by minimizing pilot distraction when a
control or display is operated.
9. Propulsion System
Proposed Sec. 22.145 would establish requirements for light-sport
category aircraft propulsion systems. Propulsion systems would be
required to have controls that are intuitive, simple, and not confusing
and be designed so that the failure of any product or article would not
prevent continued safe flight and landing or, if continued safe flight
and landing cannot be ensured, the hazard would be minimized.
Additionally, propulsion systems would not be permitted to exceed safe
operating limits under normal operating conditions and would be
required to have the necessary reliability, durability, and endurance
for safe flight without failure, malfunction, excessive wear, or other
anomalies.
Under this proposed requirement, light-sport category aircraft
would be equipped with propulsion systems that do not require excessive
pilot skill or training to operate. The proposal would enhance safety
in the event of any failure of the propulsion system such that safe
control of the aircraft could be readily maintained by the pilot,
aircraft automation, or their combined action. The ability to maintain
safe control of the aircraft in the event of a partial or complete
failure of the propulsion system would significantly assist in reducing
the probability of an accident or loss of aircraft control.
The FAA considers that continued safe flight and landing means an
aircraft is capable of continued controlled flight and landing,
possibly using emergency procedures, without requiring exceptional
pilot skill or strength. For aircraft designed with simplified flight
controls, this may be accomplished through automation. Upon landing,
some aircraft damage may occur because of a failure condition.
The proposed requirements, while intended to result in the
airworthiness of light-sport category aircraft, have also been
specifically designed to meet the level of rigor the agency considers
appropriate for the certification of these aircraft in accordance with
the FAA's safety continuum concept. When comparing the proposed
requirements for the certification of light-sport category aircraft to
the certification requirements of amateur-built aircraft, the FAA notes
that amateur-built aircraft have no regulatory requirements applicable
to the design or functionality of their propulsion systems. Amateur
builders may experiment with a wide range of propulsion system designs
and may incorporate a variety of design features for the control,
operation, reliability, durability, or endurance of their propulsion
systems into their aircraft. Comparatively, light-sport category
aircraft propulsion systems would be required to meet the Sec. 22.145
requirements because they could conduct aerial work and have fewer
operational restrictions than amateur-built aircraft. Therefore, light-
sport category aircraft would require a higher level of certification
rigor for the propulsion system. The requirements for the design of the
propulsion system would allow for easy, reliable, and consistent
operations. These qualities would allow for safe operations and
minimize hazards associated with engine failures. Compliance to the
requirements in Sec. 22.145 would be with FAA-accepted consensus
standards.
In contrast, type-certificated aircraft must comply with the
airworthiness standards for propulsion system in parts 23, 25, 27, and
29. Type-certificated engines installed in these aircraft must comply
with the airworthiness standards for engines found in part 33, and the
fuel venting and exhaust emission requirements found in part 34, if
applicable. If propellers are installed on type-certificated aircraft,
then the airworthiness standards of part 35 must also be complied with.
The level of rigor of the standards proposed for the propulsion systems
of light-sport category aircraft would not be as extensive as that
required for aircraft intended for type-certification yet would provide
basic certification requirements currently inapplicable to amateur-
built aircraft.
For light-sport category aircraft, specialized consensus standards
for propellers and reciprocating spark and compression ignition engines
exist in current FAA-accepted ASTM consensus standards.\29\ These
standards address data, designs, testing and manufacturing of these
products. ASTM Standard 2245 for light-sport category airplanes
specifies that powerplant installations must be shown to have
satisfactory endurance without failure, malfunction, excessive wear, or
other anomalies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ ASTM standard F2339, ``Practice for Design and Manufacture
of Reciprocating Spark Ignition Engines for Light Sport Aircraft;''
ASTM standard F2538, ``Practice for Design and Manufacture of
Reciprocating Compression Ignition Engines for Light Sport
Aircraft;'' ASTM standard F2840, ``Practice for Design and
Manufacture of Electric Propulsion Units for Light Sport Aircraft;''
and ASTM standard F2506, ``Specification for Design and Testing of
Light Sport Aircraft Propellers.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the FAA notes that ASTM Standard F2840, ``Standard
Practice for Design and Manufacture of Electric Propulsion Units for
Light Sport Aircraft,'' provides a basis for the development of
electric propulsion units for electric-powered aircraft that currently
cannot be certificated as light-sport category aircraft. While this
proposal would allow for the use of electric propulsion in light-sport
category aircraft, this standard would need to be evaluated and revised
to
[[Page 47670]]
account for electric propulsion units that could be installed on
additional classes of aircraft and those aircraft with increased
performance capabilities that would be permitted to be certificated
under the proposal.
The proposed propulsion system requirements would permit aircraft
designs to be certificated that enable the application of power to be
accomplished through simple, intuitive, and non-confusing means. Moving
a bi-directional lever forward to increase speed and backward to reduce
speed in level flight, similar to the instinctive use of a legacy power
control (throttle), is one way to achieve this. This control, as well
as all other propulsion system controls, should be ergonomically
located so that movement is achieved without considerable effort for
the pilot throughout the aircraft's flight envelope in all flight
conditions. While the FAA encourages the automation of propulsion
system controls, the continued use of non-confusing legacy propulsion
system controls, such as the blue lever for propeller control and red
lever for mixture control, would still meet the proposed requirements
and assist in maintaining standardization throughout the light-sport
category fleet.
The proposal would also require that the propulsion system be
designed so that the failure of any product or article does not prevent
continued safe flight and landing or, if continued safe flight and
landing cannot be ensured, the hazard has been minimized. The results
of this proposed requirement would not permit a partial or complete
loss of power to adversely affect the handling qualities of an
aircraft. For single-engine aircraft, this requirement would ensure the
aircraft is controllable after the loss of engine power so that an
engine-out descent and landing could be readily accomplished. For
multi-engine or multi-motor aircraft, the proposal would enable any
power asymmetry to be compensated automatically by the aircraft or by
the pilot with no resulting adverse effect on the aircraft's handling
qualities. Power asymmetry on a multi-engine or multi-motor aircraft,
if not handled properly, can result in loss of control. Propulsion
system failures could be addressed by actions such as the aircraft
establishing a controlled descent to a landing surface, diverting to an
alternate location, or returning to the initial point of departure.
The FAA encourages a hazard assessment, similar to that required by
Sec. 23.2410 for the certification of normal category airplanes, be
conducted. This assessment would address the likely failure of any
product or article so that it would not prevent continued safe flight
and landing or, if continued safe flight and landing cannot be ensured,
the hazard has been minimized. For example, if manufacturers install
propellers on twin engine airplanes that can be feathered in the event
of an inflight engine shutdown, this would help to minimize the hazard
of drag. In this instance, decreased drag would benefit aircraft
performance by increasing range and decreasing flight asymmetry.
The proposal would require that the propulsion system be designed
to preclude operation outside safe operating limits under normal
operating conditions and that the system be consistently dependable for
all intended operations. Accordingly, the propulsion system would be
required to be designed with safety features to prevent the occurrence
of operations such as the operation of propellers or rotors outside
design RPM limits.
The propulsion system would also be required to have the necessary
reliability, durability, and endurance for safe flight without failure,
malfunction, excessive wear, or other anomalies. Defects, such as
cracks or leaks that could result in the loss or malfunction of an
engine, propeller, or rotor system, would be mitigated under this
proposal. These proposed requirements for durability and endurance
address the safety of system designs and construction methods, as well
as the use of materials suited for the operational life of the
propulsion system. The proposal would permit light-sport category
aircraft designs to address these requirements using conventional,
simple propulsion system designs or advanced technologies.
10. Fuel Systems
Proposed Sec. 22.150 would establish requirements for aircraft
fuel systems. Fuel systems would be required to provide a means to
safely remove or isolate the fuel stored in the system from the
aircraft and be designed to retain fuel under all likely operating
conditions.
The FAA is proposing this performance requirement because aviation
fuel removal or isolation is necessary in the event fuel contamination
is known or suspected. Fuel would include both liquid aviation fuel
(e.g., avgas) and electrical energy, whether stored in batteries,
produced by electric motors, or produced by other power generation
devices. Removal or isolation of aviation fuel under such circumstances
would prevent damage to the aircraft's engine and fuel system
components used to transport fuel from the aircraft's fuel storage tank
or other storage means to the aircraft's propulsion system. The
inability to isolate or remove contaminated aviation fuel from the
aircraft's fuel system could lead to engine failure and an emergency
landing. Additionally, the ability to remove or drain aviation fuel
from fuel tanks may be necessary for aircraft maintenance or repairs.
For aircraft with electrical energy stored in batteries or produced
by electric motors or other power generation devices, having the
ability to remove or isolate electrical current in an aircraft may help
prevent damage to electrical components or systems in the event of an
electrical malfunction. Electrical components must be able to be
isolated or removed from the electrical system to prevent overheating
and subsequent fire which could result in significant structural damage
or loss of aircraft control.
In this proposal, fuel systems would be required to be designed and
constructed to retain fuel under all likely operating conditions, such
as during all authorized maneuvers, turbulence encounters, and aircraft
accelerations and decelerations and an emergency descent and landing.
The FAA considers that this requirement would be necessary for the safe
and continuous operation of the aircraft's propulsion system. The
proposed requirement for the aircraft to retain fuel under all likely
operating conditions is necessary for a variety of purposes. For
example, these purposes could include preventing fuel from being a
source of ignition or feeding an existing fire, maintaining the
aircraft's center of gravity within prescribed limits, providing
structural support, preventing loss of aircraft range and endurance,
preventing corrosion and equipment damage, and preventing toxic fumes
from entering occupied compartments.
The proposed fuel retention requirement would also apply to the
storage of electrical energy. Failure to secure or retain a battery or
other electrical components powering the aircraft could result in
emergency situations that could lead to structural damage or the loss
of aircraft control. Examples include electrical or electrical-sourced
fires, corrosion that results in structural damage, loss of essential
electrical equipment such as avionics equipment providing altitude,
heading, and attitude reference information, or toxic fumes entering
occupied compartments.
The level of rigor of the proposed requirements for the removal,
isolation, and retention of fuel for light-sport category aircraft
would not be as extensive as that required for aircraft
[[Page 47671]]
intended for type-certification. Type-certificated aircraft are
required to comply with extensive airworthiness standards in parts 23,
25, 27, and 29 for the removal, isolation, and retention of fuel.
However, the FAA is proposing requirements for light-sport category
aircraft that, in accordance with the safety continuum, would not be
imposed on amateur-built aircraft. Amateur-built aircraft fuel system
design is not regulated which allows amateur-builders to experiment
with how they retain and distribute fuel from their fuel tanks to their
engine, or for electric powered aircraft, from their electric power
source to a motor. Amateur-builders may install fuel isolation and
shut-off valves, filters, pumps, drains, and fuel lines as they deem
necessary for the normal and emergency operation of their aircraft.
However, because light-sport category aircraft operate with fewer
restrictions than amateur-built aircraft, this rule would require
light-sport category aircraft fuel systems to provide a means to safely
remove or isolate the fuel stored in the system from the aircraft and
be designed to retain fuel under all likely operating conditions. These
requirements would provide for fuel removal or isolation of
contaminated fuel, irregular electrical current, or malfunctioning
equipment, which may enable continued operation of an engine or motor.
Light-sport category aircraft fuel systems would also have to retain
fuel throughout the system which would allow for the mitigation of
hazards and safe operations. Compliance with the requirements in Sec.
22.150 would be accomplished through FAA-accepted consensus standards.
For light-sport category aircraft, the current fuel removal,
isolation, and retention provisions specified in the applicable
consensus standards vary based on the class of aircraft. For instance,
current FAA accepted consensus standards for light-sport category
airplanes, gliders, and weight-shift-control aircraft, specify that
these aircraft have at least one drain or other available method to
allow safe drainage of fuel from tanks.\30\ Consensus standards for all
light-sport category aircraft except balloons and powered parachutes
specify that the aircraft have a control to shut-off fuel as a means of
isolation.\31\ For light-sport category airplanes, gliders, and weight-
shift-control aircraft, the standards specify that the battery
installation must withstand all applicable inertia loads.\32\ Consensus
standards for light-sport category airplanes, gliders, powered
parachutes, airships, and weight-shift control aircraft specify that
their fuel tanks be able to withstand all applicable inertia loads or
prescribed load factors.\33\ The FAA anticipates that industry would
develop acceptable and appropriate consensus standards for all classes
of light-sport category aircraft to comply with the proposed
requirement for the removal, isolation, and retention of fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ ASTM F2245, F2564, and F2317/F2317M.
\31\ ASTM F2245, F2564, and F2317/F2317M.
\32\ ASTM F2245, F2564, and F2317/F2317M.
\33\ ASTM F2245, F2564, F2317/F2317M, F2244, and F2355.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Fire Protection
Proposed Sec. 22.155 would require that the hazards of fuel or
electrical fires following a survivable emergency landing be minimized
by incorporating design features to sustain static and dynamic
deceleration loads without structural damage to fuel or electrical
system components or their attachments that could leak fuel to an
ignition source or allow electrical power to become an ignition source.
Fuel and electrical system components need to maintain their
connectivity and structural integrity to prevent leakage, fumes, and
electrical wiring from igniting a flammable source in the event of a
survivable emergency landing. Proposed Sec. 22.155 is necessary to
minimize the risk of additional injuries due to fire and create
sufficient time for aircraft occupants to safely escape an aircraft
immediately after an accident or incident.
Amateur-built aircraft issued experimental airworthiness
certificates have no regulatory requirement to incorporate design
features to sustain static and dynamic deceleration loads without
structural damage to fuel or electrical system components or their
attachments. The ability of an amateur-built aircraft to minimize the
hazards of fuel or electrical fires is largely dependent upon the
manufacturer's design, although amateur builders can assist by using
recommended methods, techniques, and practices when installing fuel and
electrical components and attachments. Light-sport category aircraft,
however, may be more complex and could engage in work for compensation
or hire; therefore, the FAA is proposing a heightened requirement that
fire sources be minimized. Requiring fire sources be minimized
following an impact is consistent with the location of light-sport
category aircraft on the safety continuum. Therefore, this proposed
rule would direct this through the requirements of Sec. 22.155.
Compliance with these requirements would be accomplished through FAA-
accepted consensus standards.
Type-certificated aircraft have airworthiness standards in parts
23, 25, 27, 29, and 31 where fuel tanks, fuel lines, electrical wires,
and electrical devices must be designed, constructed, and installed, as
far as practicable, to be crash resistant. Type-certificated aircraft
must retain fuel to minimize hazards to the occupants during any
survivable emergency landing. There are multiple ways for manufacturers
to minimize the ignition of fluids and vapors. Retention methods to
minimize the probability of ignition of the fluids and vapors include,
but are not limited to, stopping the flow of fluids, shutting down
equipment, fireproof containment, or the use of extinguishing agents.
Type-certificated aircraft also undergo drop testing to demonstrate
their ability to withstand deceleration loads without structural damage
to fuel system components or their attachments.
The FAA considers that drop testing and the more prescriptive
elements of the fire safety rules applicable to type-certificated
aircraft would not be preferable because of the lower risk and
certification rigor, and fewer operating privileges of light-sport
category aircraft. Since light-sport category aircraft subject fewer
people to risk per flight, and have fewer operating privileges when
compared to part 23 airplanes, this rule would not impose the
prescriptive elements of the fire safety rules for type-certificated
aircraft subject to part 23, 25, 27, 29, or 31. Although the FAA does
not consider it currently necessary to require light-sport category
aircraft to undergo drop testing, these aircraft would likely undergo
either drop testing or some alternate testing procedure to comply with
the fire protection requirements in this proposed rule.
For light-sport category aircraft, the current fuel retention
methods in the FAA-accepted consensus standards vary based on the class
of aircraft. For instance, during emergency landing scenarios for
light-sport category airplanes, powered parachutes, and gliders, the
aircraft design must be strong enough to protect occupants from fuel
concentrated above or behind their seating location.\34\ Light-sport
category airplanes and gliders may mitigate the risks of fires with the
use of heat shielding, electrical isolation, or
[[Page 47672]]
ventilation.\35\ Likewise, light-sport category airplanes, gliders, and
weight-shift-control aircraft designs protect fuel lines by using fire
resistant lines or a fire-resistant covering on the lines.\36\ For
these three aircraft classes, battery installations must be able to
withstand all applicable inertia loads. All light-sport category
aircraft except balloons and powered parachutes have a control to shut-
off fuel as a means of isolation under the current FAA-accepted
consensus standards.\37\ Finally, for light-sport category gliders, the
FAA-accepted consensus standards specify that fuel leaking from any
system lines or fittings must not either directly hit hot surfaces or
equipment causing a fire risk, or directly contact occupants.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ ASTM F2245, F2564, and F2244.
\35\ ASTM F2245 and F2564.
\36\ ASTM F2245, F2564, and F2317/F2317M.
\37\ ASTM F2245, F2564, F2317/F2317M, and F2355.
\38\ ASTM F2564.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result of the expansion in the performance and capabilities of
aircraft that would be certificated as light-sport category aircraft
under the proposal, the FAA anticipates that industry would develop
acceptable and appropriate consensus standards for all classes of
light-sport category aircraft to comply with the proposed requirements
of Sec. 22.155. The design features must be capable of preventing the
ignition of fuel or allowing electrical power to become an ignition
source for a fire. The integrity of the fuel or electrical systems and
their storage elements, to include structures, tanks, lines, pumps,
valves, wirings, and electrical components must be accounted for in
this proposed requirement. The design must be capable of stopping or
isolating fuel, electrical power, and associated fumes to prevent
ignition and spread of fire.
12. Visibility
Proposed Sec. 22.160 would require that the aircraft be designed
and constructed so that the pilot has sufficient visibility of
controls, instruments, equipment, and placards. Additionally, the
proposal would require that the aircraft provide the pilot with
sufficient vision outside the aircraft necessary to conduct safe
aircraft operations.
Poorly designed pilot compartments and aircraft designs that fail
to optimize the pilot's ability to see controls, instruments, and
equipment could lead to inadvertent unusual attitudes, stalls, or loss
of control of the aircraft. Likewise, structures that block the pilot's
ability to see their surroundings, both inside and outside the
aircraft, can be a hazard for the pilot and other personnel on the
ground and in the air. Pilots need to be able to visually clear areas
around their aircraft during aircraft start-up and while conducting
ground movements, just as they need to visually assess that the
airspace in which they operate is clear of aircraft and other hazards
when operating in visual meteorological conditions. Additionally,
restrictions on the ability of pilots to see other controls, or on the
ability of both the pilot and other occupants to see required aircraft
placards, could affect the safety of the flight, as aircraft warnings
and operational limits might not be heeded and the pilot's ability to
respond to adverse flight conditions could also be significantly
impaired.
The proposed requirement for the pilot to have sufficient
visibility of controls, instruments, equipment, and placards within the
aircraft and of the aircraft's exterior environment would meet the
level of rigor the FAA considers appropriate for light-sport category
aircraft and its place on the safety continuum between amateur-built
aircraft and normal category aircraft. For amateur-built aircraft,
there are no specific regulatory requirements addressing visibility of
controls, instruments, and equipment. As stated earlier, amateur
builders may design their own instrument panels and locate controls,
instruments, and equipment wherever they prefer. Because light-sport
category aircraft could be used for aerial work, have fewer operational
restrictions, and require a higher level of certification rigor, the
FAA is proposing the requirements in Sec. 22.160. These requirements
would include interior and exterior visibility requirements to
eliminate hazards that could lead to loss of control or loss of the
aircraft due to collision with aircraft, wildlife, or structures in the
air or on the ground. The requirement would also allow system warning
and caution lights and annunciators to be easily seen by the pilot for
a timely response to an abnormal indication or emergency. Manufacturers
would comply with the Sec. 22.160 requirements by using an FAA-
accepted consensus standard.
However, normal category aircraft must comply with even more
stringent airworthiness standards in part 23, 25, 27, or 29 for the
pilot compartment view. In parts 25, 27, and 29, these standards
require the pilot compartment view to provide a sufficiently extensive,
clear, and undistorted view for safe operation that is free of glare
and reflection that could interfere with the pilot's view. For
airplanes certificated in accordance with part 23 requirements, the
pilot compartment, its equipment, and its arrangement, to include pilot
view, must allow the pilot to readily perform their duties and aircraft
maneuvers.
Proposed Sec. 22.160 imposes a more stringent requirement than the
currently accepted consensus standards. Current consensus standards in
ASTM Standard F2245 for light-sport airplanes, ASTM Standard F2244 for
powered parachutes, and ASTM Standard F2355 for lighter-than-air light-
sport aircraft state that the pilot compartment needs to provide
appropriate visibility of instruments, placards, and the area outside
the aircraft. The consensus standards in ASTM Standard F2564 for a
light-sport glider state that the cockpit view must be designed so that
the pilot's vision is sufficiently extensive, clear, and undistorted
for safe operation and that rain shall not unduly impair the pilot's
view. For weight-shift control aircraft, there are no consensus
standards for the pilot compartment's internal and external views due
to the open-air design of these aircraft. The FAA anticipates that
industry would develop acceptable and appropriate consensus standards
for applicable classes of light-sport category aircraft to comply with
the proposed requirements of Sec. 22.160.
The proposed rule would require the pilot to be able to easily see
all aircraft controls and instruments necessary to safely operate the
aircraft and its equipment and systems under all conditions and would
be applicable to all aircraft that would be eligible for certification
as light-sport category aircraft under the proposal. Pilots and other
occupants of all classes of light-sport category aircraft must be able
to readily see warning placards that would aid in identifying hazards,
prevent damage to the aircraft, and provide other relevant safety
critical information.
The aircraft must provide pilots with sufficient visibility to
readily identify other aircraft or potential hazards such as structures
and icing conditions and aid the pilot in complying with other
regulatory requirements including Sec. 91.113, ``Right-of-way rules:
Except water operations,'' and Sec. 91.155, ``Basic VFR weather
minimums,'' while in flight. For example, aircraft that are not
designed to enable the pilot to visually detect ice accumulations on
the aircraft could result in a stall and loss of control. Improper
placement of structural supports could also result in an accident or
incident if the pilot's visibility is blocked or impeded. A pilot
should not have to make unnecessary or unusual head movements inflight
to clear for traffic and other hazards as this could lead to spatial
disorientation and unusual attitudes. Additionally, the
[[Page 47673]]
pilot compartment must also provide the pilot with sufficient
visibility to safely conduct ground operations by enabling the aircraft
to remain clear of other aircraft, structures, vehicles, and ground
personnel while simultaneously providing adequate visibility for the
pilot to read applicable airfield signs and markings. Sufficient
visibility is necessary to prevent situations such as runway incursions
where an aircraft enters a runway without clearance or authorization.
Additionally, the design of the aircraft should provide the pilot
with sufficient forward, aft, and side visibility to allow the pilot to
avoid hazards both in the air and on the ground. The proposed
requirements would enable the placement of items essential to safe
aircraft operations to be visible to the pilot, provide for the
avoidance of obstacles, and allow compliance with regulatory
requirements while in flight and conducting ground operations.
13. Emergency Evacuation
Proposed Sec. 22.165 would require that aircraft be designed and
constructed so that all occupants can rapidly conduct an emergency
evacuation. The aircraft's design would be required to account for all
conditions likely to occur following an emergency landing, excluding
ditching for aircraft not intended for operation on water.
The proposed requirement for emergency evacuation is necessary
because aircraft designs that do not consider the ability of the pilot
and passengers to rapidly evacuate the aircraft during an emergency can
significantly increase the likelihood of serious risk of injuries or
fatalities if exiting the aircraft is impeded by a poor design. The
proposed requirement would reduce injuries and save lives by requiring
aircraft design and construction to account for, and accordingly
facilitate, rapid aircraft egress.
The proposed requirement for emergency evacuation would be
appropriately scoped for the position of light-sport category aircraft
on the FAA's safety continuum. For amateur-built aircraft, there are no
specific regulatory requirements for emergency egress, whereas for
type-certificated aircraft, parts 23, 25, 27, and 29 contain
requirements for emergency evacuation. For example, for the type
certification of normal category rotorcraft under part 27, there are
requirements in Sec. Sec. 27.805 and 27.807 for the location and size
of emergency exits for the flight crew as well as provisions for the
exits to be unobstructed when an emergency landing occurs on water.
Requirements for the cabin emergency exits include items such as
location, number available, type, operation, and marking.
For aircraft certificated as light-sport category aircraft,
emergency evacuation standards are currently included in certain
consensus standards and vary according to the design of the aircraft.
For some classes of light-sport category aircraft, such as weight-shift
control aircraft and powered parachutes, emergency evacuation standards
do not exist since the pilot and passenger are not situated in a fully
enclosed compartment. For light-sport airplanes, ASTM Standard F2245
contains a standard for emergency evacuation that states the pilot
compartment shall provide the ability to conduct an emergency escape.
For light-sport gliders, ASTM Standard F2564 provides standards for
emergency exit that state the cockpit must be designed so that
unimpeded and rapid escape in emergency situations is possible, and, on
closed canopies, the opening system must be designed for simple and
easy operation. The opening system must function rapidly and be
designed so that it can be operated by each occupant strapped in his
seat and from outside the cockpit.
Proposed Sec. 22.165 could be complied with by having multiple
escape exits (doors, windows, hatches) or easily accessible mechanisms
both inside and outside the aircraft to open escape exits (which should
be marked for easy identification and use in compliance with proposed
Sec. 22.170). Multiple escape doors or hatches could also be used to
enable egress in situations where the aircraft may not be upright.
Aircraft intended for operation on water would be required to address
emergency water landings. Although the FAA would encourage consensus
standards to address ditching, the FAA would not require ditching to be
addressed in the certification of light-sport category aircraft as
imposing such a requirement would be a more extensive requirement than
that currently imposed for smaller type-certificated aircraft. For
example, Sec. 23.2315 specifically excludes a consideration of
ditching for level 1, level 2, and single engine level 3 airplanes.
The ability to rapidly conduct an emergency evacuation is directly
related to the crashworthiness of an aircraft. Accordingly, the FAA is
not proposing to directly link or limit crashworthiness and associated
emergency evacuation requirements to aircraft stalling speed or another
fixed airspeed. Instead, the proposal would permit applicants to take
varied approaches to address aircraft crashworthiness. For example, the
FAA encourages the incorporation of advanced technology, such as
ballistic recovery systems, and innovations from other industries, such
as the automotive industry, to provide increased airframe occupant
protection.
The FAA encourages consensus standards bodies to strive for the
highest level of occupant crash protection feasible. Comprehensive
consensus standards could facilitate the evaluation of the entirety of
a crashworthiness system, namely, the interaction of all
crashworthiness features, rather than requiring an evaluation of
discrete, individual parameters for occupant safety. An aircraft's
ability to protect occupants and facilitate an emergency exit can be
better understood by evaluating the aircraft as a complete system. The
understanding gained from a systems evaluation can be used to develop
and implement new technologies and methods to enable more rapid and
safer aircraft emergency evacuations with fewer occupant injuries. Such
an evaluation could include analysis of important survivability factors
identified by the NTSB, including occupant restraints, survivable
volume, energy absorbing seats, and seat retention. Consideration given
to these crashworthiness requirements may not necessarily prevent
accidents, but should improve occupant safety, which would lead to
decreased occupant injuries in the event of a crash and increase
survivability of accidents.
The FAA is proposing few specific crashworthiness requirements
within part 22. The proposed performance requirement for emergency
evacuation and other proposed airworthiness requirements would allow
for the use of many varied technologies and methods for occupant safety
in the event of an emergency landing or other situations where rapid
aircraft egress is required. The proposed requirement would promote
innovation and encourage the introduction of new occupant protection
technologies such as those that have been introduced by the automotive
industry. The FAA encourages consensus standards bodies to develop
consensus standards that will promote the introduction and rapid
integration of these and other solutions into light-sport category
aircraft designs.
14. Placards and Markings
Proposed Sec. 22.170 would require that the aircraft display all
placards and instrument markings necessary for safe operation and
occupant warning. Markings or graphics would be required to clearly
indicate the function of each
[[Page 47674]]
control, other than primary flight controls.
Placards provide warnings and identify hazards to crewmembers,
occupants, aircraft maintenance and servicing personnel, and first
responders. Instrument markings provide safe operating parameters for
aircraft equipment and systems. Moreover, compliance with placards and
markings is currently required by Sec. 91.9. Not conducting aircraft
operations in accordance with installed placards and markings could
lead to equipment or system failures that could negatively impact other
systems, leading to an emergency that could put both the aircraft and
occupants at significant risk.
The FAA contends that the proposed requirement for aircraft
certificated as light-sport category aircraft to display all placards
and instrument markings necessary for safe operation and occupant
warning would establish a clear performance-based requirement that is
in accord with the position of these aircraft within the FAA's safety
continuum. For most experimental aircraft, there are no specific
regulatory requirements for placards and instrument markings. However,
some have operating limitations requiring display of placards. Type-
certificated aircraft, which occupy the opposite end of the FAA's
safety continuum, are subject to a variety of detailed placard and
instrument marking requirements that are contained in the airworthiness
standards found in parts 23, 25, 27, 29, and 31. Placards provide
information for the safe operation of the aircraft while instrument
markings indicate operating parameters as determined by the
airworthiness standards.
For aircraft currently certificated as light-sport category
aircraft, placarding and instrument markings are addressed in FAA-
accepted consensus standards for each class of aircraft. Because of the
various classes of light-sport category aircraft, the placarding and
instrument marking consensus standards vary according to the complexity
of the aircraft. Some of those standards apply generally, while others
address specific situations that may apply only to more complex
aircraft, such as placards for unusual design, operating, or handling
characteristics, authorized operations, and passenger warnings. ASTM
Standard F2245 contains standards for instrument markings on the
aircraft's airspeed indicator.
The proposed placarding and instrument marking requirement would be
applicable to all classes of aircraft that could be certificated as
light-sport category aircraft under this proposal. Proposed Sec.
22.170 is necessary so that the pilot and other aircraft occupants can
clearly see any placards or instrument markings that provide necessary
warnings for their safety or for the safe operation of equipment or
systems. Markings or graphics provide a clear indication of the
function of the marked control to the pilot and aircraft occupants. The
FAA notes that primary flight controls would not be required to be
specifically marked, as their function should be intuitive to operation
of the aircraft and readily ascertainable by the pilot.
Markings and graphics indicating the function of each control
prevent confusion and inadvertent operation of equipment and systems by
the pilot or other occupants. Improper or confusing placards, often due
to poor wording, poor contrast, or poor location, can also prevent the
timely actuation of systems or equipment necessary for safe flight or
emergency evacuation, while inadvertent operation of equipment and
systems can result in an unsafe aircraft attitude or flight condition
leading to an emergency.
Accordingly, the proposed marking and placarding requirement is
designed to provide appropriate warnings to help prevent errors that
could lead to a loss of control or a serious accident or injury. The
proposal would ensure that these potentially hazardous situations are
properly accounted for and addressed. The FAA also notes that, for
aircraft with simplified flight controls, an FAA-accepted consensus
standard would be required to address the placarding of an aircraft
certificated in the light-sport category with simplified flight
controls as proposed in Sec. 22.180.
15. Noise
Proposed Sec. 22.175 would require that aircraft meet the
applicable noise standards of part 36 of this chapter. The proposed
noise requirements are discussed in section IV.K.
16. Aircraft Having Simplified Flight Controls
Proposed Sec. 22.180 would permit an aircraft that meets certain
criteria to be designated by the manufacturer as having simplified
flight controls. For an aircraft to be designated as having simplified
flight controls, it would be required to meet three criteria. First,
the pilot could only control the flight path of the aircraft or
intervene in its operation without direct manipulation of individual
aircraft control surfaces or adjustment of the available power. Second,
the aircraft would be required to be designed to prevent loss of
control, regardless of pilot input. Finally, the aircraft would need to
have a means to enable the pilot to discontinue the flight quickly and
safely. This feature would also have to be designed to prevent
inadvertent activation.
Proposed Sec. 22.180 for aircraft designed with simplified flight
controls would only apply to those aircraft specifically designated by
the manufacturer in its statement of compliance as having simplified
flight controls.
The FAA recognizes that rapid advances are occurring in aircraft
automation and flight control technology. Aircraft are being designed
and constructed with pilot interfaces and flight controls that no
longer resemble those found in traditional aircraft cockpits. These
aircraft have highly automated systems for controlling the flight path,
speed, and configuration of the aircraft while simultaneously providing
protection from aerodynamic hazards such as asymmetric thrust and
excessive structural loading. These aircraft also have cockpits or
pilot compartments where primary flight controls such as sticks,
control columns, throttles, and rudder pedals may have been replaced by
simpler non-traditional methods of aircraft control such as
touchscreens, switches, or other displays with push-button controls. A
joystick controller that directly manipulates individual aircraft
control surfaces would not qualify an aircraft as being designed with
simplified flight controls. However, a joystick controller that is used
to select flight commands or move a cursor on a display would be
appropriate for a simplified flight control design.
Proposed Sec. 22.180 would facilitate the development of these
highly automated aircraft by providing a certification path that would
enable light-sport category aircraft to be specifically designated as
having simplified flight controls. As discussed later in this proposal
for Sec. 61.31, these aircraft would be permitted to be operated by
certificated pilots who may not have received the flight training or
possess the aeronautical experience necessary to operate more
traditional forms of aircraft, but nonetheless meet the specific
requirements proposed for the operation of these highly automated
aircraft.
For aircraft having simplified flight controls, the aircraft design
would be required to inherently prevent loss of control regardless of
pilot input. The FAA considers that a design inherently prevents loss
of control if the design includes built-in features such as automation
which prevent the pilot
[[Page 47675]]
from inputting a flight command that would be hazardous to the aircraft
or its occupants. Additionally, the aircraft design would need to
include features so that the aircraft could only be operated within its
designated flight envelope and within its prescribed operational
limitations. These parameters would be preprogrammed and would include
boundaries such as airspeed, altitude, vertical speeds, and lateral
displacements. For aircraft equipped with multiple engines or rotor
systems, the aircraft would need to be able to safely respond, using
the aircraft's automation, to asymmetric power situations due to loss
of engine power. If used in the design, automation would have to
prevent loss of control of the aircraft under all circumstances, even
to the point of overriding erroneous or hazardous pilot inputs or only
permitting the input of certain commands in specific flight conditions.
The aircraft design would, however, be required to include a means
to permit the pilot to discontinue or suspend the flight quickly and
safely and prevent inadvertent activation of this feature. A pilot
could choose to discontinue or suspend a flight for a variety of
reasons such as unexpected weather conditions, physiological needs, a
system malfunction, or the presence of other hazards such as a flock of
birds or an aircraft near, or intersecting, the route of flight.
Discontinuing or suspending a flight could include options such as an
immediate landing, a return flight to the aircraft's point of
departure, a diversion to an alternate landing site, a course change,
or initiation of a low altitude orbit or in-place hover until any
hazards have passed. The aircraft design must include a means to
prevent inadvertent or accidental activation of the control mechanism
for the discontinuance or suspension of flight. This would prevent the
aircraft from entering an unplanned or hazardous flight trajectory.
17. Quality Assurance System
Proposed Sec. 22.185 would require aircraft to have been designed,
produced, and tested under a documented quality assurance system to
ensure each product and article conforms to its design and is in a
condition for safe operation.
The 2004 final rule specifically recognized the necessity for
aircraft certificated as light-sport category aircraft to be
manufactured in accordance with a quality assurance system. The current
definition of consensus standards in Sec. 1.1 states that consensus
standards used for the certification of light-sport aircraft may
include ``manufacturer quality assurance systems.'' Proposed Sec.
22.185 would establish a clear regulatory requirement so that the
aircraft is manufactured in accordance with documented processes and
manufactured under a documented quality assurance system.
Establishing and documenting a quality assurance system is critical
to assuring that aircraft and aircraft kits meet applicable design,
production, and airworthiness requirements and are manufactured and
tested in accordance with identified consensus standards. Meeting the
proposed quality assurance requirements using applicable FAA-accepted
consensus standards would reduce the use of obsolete design drawings or
procedures, improper materials or manufacturing techniques, and
inadequate testing procedures that could jeopardize the safe operation
of an aircraft. A quality assurance system would allow manufacturer or
third-party auditors to verify that a manufacturer is producing
aircraft in accordance with its established procedures and is
continuing to produce safe aircraft.
Under the safety continuum, primary category kit-built aircraft
intended for certification as experimental aircraft are the only
experimental aircraft that have a regulatory requirement to be produced
under a quality assurance system. Those aircraft are based on type-
certificated designs and are required by Sec. 21.191(h) to be
manufactured by the holder of a production certificate for that kit.
Production certificate holders must establish and maintain a quality
assurance system as specified in Sec. 21.137.
Persons currently seeking certification of experimental aircraft
built from kits that were designed in accordance with the requirements
applicable to aircraft certificated as light-sport category aircraft
must be able to provide the information required by Sec. 21.193(e).
These aircraft are certificated under the provisions of Sec.
21.191(i)(2) and the information provided will reference consensus
standards addressing the manufacturer's quality assurance system.
Additionally, aircraft built from those kits must have been assembled
in accordance with manufacturer's assembly instructions that meet an
applicable consensus standard. These aircraft are built under a quality
assurance system as specified in ASTM Standard F2972, ``Standard
Specification for Light Sport Aircraft Manufacturer's Quality Assurance
System.''
A manufacturer of a type-certificated aircraft must establish and
describe in writing a quality system that includes the 15 elements
specified in Sec. 21.137, obtain FAA approval of its quality manual
under Sec. 21.138, and show compliance with quality system
requirements to the satisfaction of the FAA as part of applying for and
obtaining a production certificate. For light-sport category aircraft,
ASTM Standard F2972 currently addresses quality assurance systems for
light-sport category aircraft. The FAA anticipates that industry would
develop acceptable and appropriate consensus standards for light-sport
category aircraft to comply with the proposed requirement in Sec.
22.185
The FAA would rely on a manufacturer's statement of compliance as
evidence of compliance to the requirements of Sec. 22.185 for a
production quality assurance system. The FAA retains its ability to
inspect the manufacturer's facility and quality system.
18. Finding of Compliance by Trained Compliance Staff
Proposed Sec. 22.190 would require the aircraft to have been found
compliant with the provisions of the applicable consensus standards by
individuals who have been trained on determining compliance with those
consensus standards.
Determining compliance with consensus standards is essential in
enabling the airworthiness of an aircraft intended for certification as
light-sport category aircraft. Accordingly, the FAA considers inclusion
of a requirement that the aircraft be found compliant by individuals
who have been appropriately trained in making those determinations to
be of critical importance.
The FAA notes that experimental aircraft are generally not required
to meet specific design or production requirements. Accordingly, there
is no current requirement for the training of individuals who assess
the suitability of the design or production of those aircraft for their
intended operations.
Manufacturers of aircraft produced in accordance with the
airworthiness standards set forth in part 23, 25, 27, 29, or 31,
however, are required to show compliance with each requirement
following a highly detailed and comprehensive certification plan.
Assurance of compliance is attained via extensive FAA engagement with
the manufacturer in which the manufacturer shows, and the FAA finds,
compliance with applicable airworthiness standards. A type certificate
is not issued for an aircraft design until the FAA finds compliance
with all applicable airworthiness
[[Page 47676]]
standards through a rigorous type-certification process involving
extensive FAA involvement and oversight. Serial production of these
aircraft is accomplished in accordance with the requirements for
production certificate holders specified in subpart G of part 21. That
subpart includes specific requirements for the certificate holder's
organization and quality system.
Given the FAA's reliance on the manufacturer's statement of
compliance as the primary evidence of compliance with applicable
requirements, the FAA considers it critical that individuals making
these compliance findings would be trained in finding compliance to the
broad array of applicable FAA-accepted consensus standards. This would
require, for example, engineers, pilots, and maintenance experts who
make compliance findings for manufacturers to receive training on the
specific provisions of the applicable consensus standards and training
on determining compliance to those standards.
The proposed requirement would implement a recommendation from the
previously mentioned LSAMA Final Report. The LSAMA Final Report noted
that a significant number of aircraft manufacturers could not fully
demonstrate their ability to meet certain consensus standards. As a
result, the report recommended that industry develop training so that
manufacturers fully understand FAA regulatory requirements and policies
applicable to the certification of light-sport category aircraft and
the means necessary to meet applicable requirements. In view of the
criticality of this need and the FAA's significant reliance on the
manufacturer's statement of compliance, the FAA is proposing this
requirement so that all individuals with responsibility for making
compliance findings are trained to understand how to make complete and
correct findings of compliance.
19. Ground and Flight Testing
Proposed Sec. 22.195 would require that an aircraft intended for
certification as a light-sport category aircraft has been ground and
flight tested under documented production acceptance test procedures.
This testing would be required to validate aircraft performance data;
ensure the aircraft has no hazardous operating characteristics or
design features; ensure the aircraft is in a condition for safe
operation; and ensure the aircraft can safely conduct any aerial work
operation designated by the manufacturer. The manufacturer will ensure
each aircraft can safely conduct any aerial work operation by
conducting flight testing of the that aerial work operation. If
successful, the manufacturer would be able to provide a statement of
compliance to the FAA-accepted consensus standards that would be the
means of compliance for this proposed requirement.
Ground and flight testing of an aircraft is critical when
establishing airworthiness. Accordingly, the FAA considers inclusion of
a ground and flight-testing requirement especially important for the
certification of light-sport category aircraft.
Aircraft with certain experimental airworthiness certificates, such
as those issued for air racing, operating amateur-built aircraft,
operating primary kit-built aircraft, and operating light-sport
aircraft have flight testing requirements imposed by their operating
limitations, yet no specific ground testing requirements. For these
experimental aircraft, the flight testing is typically conducted for a
set time (e.g., 40 hours) to show compliance with Sec. 91.319(b). The
FAA notes that amateur-built aircraft may instead use an FAA-sourced
task-based flight test plan as a substitute for the flight hour
requirement. Aircraft issued experimental airworthiness certificates
for the purpose of research and development or showing compliance with
regulations must also undergo flight testing to determine the
suitability of the design for the issuance of a design or airworthiness
approval, as applicable.
All aircraft manufactured in accordance with the airworthiness
standards set forth in part 23, 25, 27, 29, or 31 are subject to ground
and flight-testing requirements as part of the type-certification
process. The flight testing of aircraft intended for type certification
is much more rigorous than that of other aircraft, as the flight
testing is conducted for the aircraft to show compliance to the
airworthiness standards used in the development of the aircraft's
design. Regulatory flight-testing requirements for type-certificated
aircraft are specified in Sec. 21.35. A highly detailed and
comprehensive test plan is used to conduct ground and flight testing in
the development of a type-certificated aircraft.
The level of rigor for the ground and flight testing of light-sport
category aircraft would not be as extensive as that required for
aircraft intended for type certification, yet more extensive than that
specified for experimental aircraft. Ground and flight testing of
light-sport category aircraft would not require that the aircraft only
be flown for a specified number of hours, as is done for certain
experimental aircraft. It would also not require the flight testing
necessary to achieve a showing of compliance with extensive
airworthiness requirements, as is required for aircraft being flown as
part of a type-certification program. It would, however, require an
evaluation of the aircraft to ensure that it meets the requirements
specified in Sec. 22.195.
Current flight and ground testing of light-sport category aircraft
centers on verifying that the initial production aircraft meets certain
operational performance requirements that have been specified by the
manufacturer in the pilot's operating handbook (POH). ASTM Standard
F3035, ``Standard Practice for Production Acceptance in the Manufacture
of a Fixed Wing Light Sport Aircraft,'' contains standards for ground
and flight testing fixed-wing aircraft. ASTM standard F3035 addresses
several requirements in proposed Sec. 22.195 such as validating
aircraft performance data, ensuring the aircraft has no hazardous
operating characteristics, and ensuring the aircraft is in a condition
for safe operation. The FAA notes that FAA-accepted production
acceptance testing consensus standards exist for all classes of light-
sport category aircraft.\39\ Since this proposal would expand the
classes of aircraft that could be certificated as light-sport category
aircraft and include a provision to allow aerial work as designated by
the manufacturer, the FAA anticipates that industry would develop
acceptable and appropriate consensus standards to comply with the
performance-based requirements in Sec. 22.195.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ ASTM F2356, Standard Specification for Production
Acceptance Testing System for Lighter-Than-Air Light Sport Aircraft;
ASTM F2242, Standard Specification for Production Acceptance
Testing System for Powered Parachute Aircraft; and ASTM F2447,
Standard Practice for Production Acceptance Test Procedures for
Weight-Shift-Control Aircraft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer ground and flight testing of each aircraft intended
for certification as light-sport category aircraft would be necessary
to verify the aircraft meet the proposed regulatory requirements. Such
testing would validate expected aircraft performance data (e.g.,
airspeeds, fuel flow, fuel burn rate, range, endurance, load factors
(g-limits), engine-out (if applicable), etc.) and validate that the
design and material used in the construction of the aircraft provides
sufficient strength and durability for the conduct of all authorized
operations. Ground and flight testing using production acceptance test
procedures also would verify that each aircraft does not have any
unforeseen hazardous flight
[[Page 47677]]
characteristics and that the aircraft was properly constructed. This
testing ensures that the aircraft's structure is of sufficient strength
for its intended operations and that aircraft controls are not binding,
rubbing, or showing unexpected wear. Aircraft designed with simplified
flight controls must be ground and flight tested to validate compliance
with the requirements of Sec. 22.180. Aircraft that have not undergone
adequate environmental testing in a ground and flight test program may
experience unpredicted behaviors or malfunctions caused by
environmental factors, which may lead to an aircraft accident or
incident. Production acceptance test procedures allows a buyer to
receive a complete aircraft that conforms to the manufacturer's design
data and provides the manufacturer with an opportunity to detect and
fix any missing, broken, misaligned, or improperly installed components
or systems.
The FAA also notes that if the aircraft has been authorized for the
performance of specific aerial work operations by the manufacturer,
production acceptance test procedures would verify that the aircraft
has been designed and constructed to validate that the aircraft can be
used to safely conduct those designated aerial work operations. Ground
and flight testing of the aircraft would be required to ensure that
those aerial work operations could be safely conducted. The FAA notes
that if the manufacturer's statement of compliance indicated that an
aircraft was authorized to conduct aerial work that included patrolling
operations, for example, the aircraft could be used for the patrolling
of any structure or area such as pipelines, transmission lines,
harbors, railroad tracks, farmland, forests, etc. Specific testing of
the aircraft's ability to safely patrol these structures or areas would
accordingly be required. As some patrolling using visual observation
occurs at low altitudes, a manufacturer would be required to conduct
patrolling flight testing at low altitude to verify the aircraft can
safely conduct that aerial work operation. The FAA anticipates that
industry will develop appropriate consensus standards to document
specific ground and flight testing used to validate aerial work
operations in the manufacturer's quality assurance records for each
aircraft.
The FAA notes that some aerial work operations may place additional
stresses and loads on an aircraft if operated outside normal flight
profiles. Flight testing would validate any specific limitations
necessary to conduct those designated aerial work operations.
Additionally, it would confirm that other applicable requirements can
still be met during the conduct of those operations, such as validating
that the pilot has proper visibility from the flight compartment. The
proposed requirement would validate that the aircraft has been
demonstrated to be capable of safely performing those aerial work
operations specifically designated in the manufacturer's statement of
compliance.
20. Revision of Documentation Submission Requirements for the Issuance
of Special Airworthiness Certificates in the Light-Sport Category
Proposed Sec. 21.190(c) would revise the list of documents that an
applicant would be required to provide to the FAA at the time of
application for an airworthiness certificate for a light-sport category
aircraft. In addition to the currently required manufacturer's
statement of compliance, the proposal would require submission of a
pilot's operating handbook, currently referred to as the aircraft's
operating instructions. The proposed rule would require that additional
information be contained in that document. The pilot's operating
handbook would be required to include recommended operating
instructions and limitations, a flight training supplement, a listing
of any authorized aerial work operations, and a statement regarding
compliance with part 36 requirements. Additionally, the current
requirement that an applicant submit maintenance and inspection
procedures would be revised to require the submission of a maintenance
and inspection program. Similar to the existing airworthiness
certification processes for light-sport category aircraft, the FAA
would not approve or accept any of the documents submitted. The
approach is aligned with the FAA's safety continuum where aircraft
higher on the safety continuum have greater privileges but also go
through more rigorous certification processes and have greater FAA
oversight.
The proposal would provide applicants with clarification regarding
the contents of the pilot's operating handbook by specifying that it
include operating instructions and limitations to safely accommodate
all environmental conditions and abnormal procedures likely to be
encountered during the aircraft's intended operations. The operating
instructions should address normal, abnormal, and emergency operating
procedures as well as operations under all foreseeable environmental
conditions. Examples of material that should be included in these
instructions and limitations include guidance for operations in, or the
avoidance of, certain weather phenomenon such as freezing
precipitation, moderate or severe turbulence, takeoff or landing
crosswinds, and hot and cold weather conditions.
By specifying in the proposal that the flight training supplement
enable safe operation of the aircraft within the intended flight
envelope under all foreseeable conditions, the FAA would codify its
expectation that the flight training supplement provide enhanced
guidance to pilots regarding those methods and procedures necessary to
safely operate the aircraft within its intended flight envelope under
all foreseeable conditions. The flight training supplement should also
provide aircraft operators with appropriate information to understand
the operation of the aircraft and its systems.
Additionally, the pilot's operating handbook would be required to
contain a listing of any aerial work operations for which the
manufacturer designated the aircraft as capable of performing. This
requirement would enable information regarding those designated aerial
work operations to be readily available to the pilot. In accordance
with the proposal, the manufacturer would be required to provide any
aircraft instructions and limitations that effect the safe conduct of
any manufacturer-designated aerial work operations. Instructions and
limitations that apply to all operations would not need to be repeated
for aerial work operations.
The pilot's operating handbook would also be required to include a
statement that the aircraft has demonstrated compliance with part 36 to
include the tested noise levels and a statement regarding the
acceptability of those noise levels for aircraft operations. Per
proposed per Sec. 21.190(c)(2)(iv), the statement would assert that,
``No determination has been made by the Federal Aviation Administration
that the noise levels of this aircraft are or should be acceptable or
unacceptable for operation in any location.'' This statement would
provide operators with awareness that they are solely responsible for
compliance with any operational noise abatement procedures and
requirements for the locations where the aircraft is operated. An
explanation of noise testing requirements and their applicability to
aircraft certificated as light-sport category aircraft is contained
section IV.K.
Currently, an applicant must provide the FAA with the aircraft's
maintenance and inspection procedures as part of the
[[Page 47678]]
process for an airworthiness certificate for a light-sport category
aircraft. This proposal would require the applicant to instead provide
a maintenance and inspection program. Maintenance and inspection
procedures detail the steps involved in performing a maintenance task,
such as changing a tire, or performing an inspection, such as an annual
inspection. A maintenance and inspection program is more comprehensive.
It contains maintenance tasks as well as instructions and procedures
for the conduct of inspections, tests, and checks that includes the
airframe, engine, propeller, rotor, and appliances. It also includes a
schedule for performing the inspections that must be accomplished under
the inspection program expressed in time in service, calendar time,
number of system operations, or any combination thereof, as well as
qualifications of the person responsible for the inspections.
Proposed Sec. 21.190(c)(4) would require an applicant for a
special airworthiness certificate under this section to provide the FAA
with evidence that its aircraft has demonstrated compliance with the
applicable requirements of part 36. Such evidence may include a
statement from the manufacturer concerning compliance with part 36, the
means of compliance used, and the resultant noise levels. Section IV.K
provides a detailed discussion of proposed noise requirements for
aircraft that do not conform to a type certificate.
a. Enhancements to the Manufacturer's Statement of Compliance
Proposed Sec. 21.190(d) would revise the contents of the
manufacturer's statement of compliance required to be submitted by an
applicant for the issuance of an airworthiness certificate under this
section. In addition to the requirements currently specified in Sec.
21.190(c), the manufacturer's statement of compliance would be required
to include additional declarations by the aircraft's manufacturer which
would be used to better assist the FAA in determining the airworthiness
of the aircraft.
The FAA considers the manufacturer's statement of compliance to be
a critical element in the certification of light-sport category
aircraft as it provides a definitive statement by the aircraft's
manufacturer that an aircraft complies with the applicable performance-
based regulatory standards using applicable consensus standards as a
means of compliance. It also would provide assurance that the
manufacturer would undertake certain specific actions to support the
continuing airworthiness of the aircraft.
Because of the significant expansion in the types and performance
of aircraft that would be permitted to be certificated as light-sport
category aircraft, the FAA contends that the manufacturer's statement
of compliance would take on an even greater level of importance in
supporting the certification of light-sport category aircraft.
Accordingly, the proposal would make significant enhancements to the
statement of compliance to further strengthen its effect by requiring
the manufacturer to provide greater detail regarding the aircraft and
the processes and procedures used in its design and production. Those
proposed changes are discussed in the paragraphs that follow. The
proposed enhancements to the manufacturer's statement of compliance
would serve to improve the validity and reliability of the statement.
The proposed requirements would serve to further implement the
recommendations made in the previously discussed LSAMA Final Report.
The FAA notes that light-sport category aircraft are not produced
pursuant to an FAA type or production certificate. The information and
data typically provided for type-certificated aircraft is not provided
to the FAA during the certification process for light-sport category
aircraft. Accordingly, the manufacturer's statement of compliance and
inspection of the aircraft assist the FAA in assessing compliance to
applicable performance requirements and determining airworthiness of
the aircraft.
The proposed requirements of Sec. 21.191(d)(1) for training of
individuals with responsibility for making compliance statements would
adopt a recommendation from the LSAMA Final Report. The LSAMA Final
Report noted that the statement of compliance for certain aircraft may
have been made that did not meet applicable consensus standards. As a
result, the report recommended that industry develop training to enable
manufacturers to fully understand FAA regulatory requirements and
policies applicable to the certification of light-sport category
aircraft and the means necessary to meet applicable requirements. In
view of the criticality of this need and the FAA's primary reliance on
the manufacturer's statement of compliance (SOC), the FAA is proposing
this requirement to help assure that all individuals with
responsibility for making compliance statements are trained and
certified to understand how to make complete and correct statements.
Proposed Sec. 21.190(d)(3) would require a statement as to whether
the aircraft meets the design and performance requirements specified in
proposed Sec. 61.316 for the aircraft that a sport pilot would be
permitted to operate. This proposal would significantly expand the
types of aircraft that could be certificated as light-sport category
aircraft beyond those aircraft that a sport pilot would be permitted to
operate under proposed Sec. 61.316. Accordingly, the proposed
requirement would provide persons exercising sport pilot privileges
with a readily available means to determine whether a particular
aircraft certificated as light-sport category aircraft qualifies for
operation by a sport pilot.
Additionally, since the proposal would permit the manufacturer to
designate those types of aerial work that may be conducted using the
aircraft, the statement of compliance would be required by proposed
Sec. 21.190(d)(4) to specify any aerial work operations which the
manufacturer has designated as being able to be safely conducted using
the aircraft. Inclusion of this information in the statement of
compliance provides the owner with a readily available source to
determine which aerial work operations are authorized to be conducted
in the aircraft. The list of aerial work operations that may be safely
conducted using the aircraft should match those listed in the POH.
Proposed Sec. 21.190(d)(4) would also assist in validating that the
appropriate ground and flight testing of the aircraft has been
conducted in accordance with proposed Sec. 22.195(d) to determine that
the aircraft can safely conduct those authorized aerial work operations
in accordance with the instructions and limitations provided.
Proposed Sec. 21.190(d)(5) would require the statement of
compliance to indicate whether the aircraft meets the requirements for
aircraft having simplified flight controls (see preamble for proposed
Sec. 22.180). This proposal would permit manufacturers to designate
aircraft certificated as light-sport category aircraft as having
simplified flight controls if the applicable requirements are met. The
proposed requirement would provide pilots with a readily available
means to determine whether a particular aircraft can be operated by a
pilot authorized to exercise privileges in an aircraft having such
controls.
Proposed Sec. 21.190(d)(6) would retain the current requirement
that the statement of compliance specify the consensus standards used
by the manufacturer; however, it would include a reference to proposed
subpart B of part 22, which would contain the
[[Page 47679]]
applicable design, production, and airworthiness requirements for which
the consensus standards would serve as a means of compliance.
A manufacturer would need to identify each consensus standard used
for the certification of the aircraft on FAA Form 8130-15, Light-Sport
Aircraft Statement of Compliance. The FAA notes that consensus
standards organizations typically publish a first issue or specific
revision to a consensus standard before acceptance by the FAA. A
consensus standard must be accepted by the FAA before it may be used
for the certification of a light-sport category aircraft. Additionally,
only those FAA-accepted consensus standards effective on the aircraft's
date of manufacture are acceptable for use in its original
airworthiness certification.
Current Sec. 21.190(c)(4) requires the manufacturer to make
available to any interested person the following documents that meet
the identified consensus standard: the aircraft's operating
instructions, the aircraft's maintenance and inspection procedures, and
the aircraft's flight training supplement. Proposed Sec. 21.190(d)(8)
would require that the statement of compliance include a statement that
the manufacturer will make available to any interested person the
documents specified in Sec. 21.190(c) which consist of those documents
required to be provided to the FAA for certification of the aircraft.
In addition to the currently required documents, this proposal would
require the manufacturers statement of compliance, a listing of any
aerial work operations, and a statement that the aircraft has
demonstrated compliance with noise requirements in part 36.
By proposing to revise the scope of documents that would be
provided to the FAA, the proposal would also make a wider range of
documents available to interested persons. The FAA contends that
broadening the scope of information required to be made available would
better assist current and prospective owners, operators, and
maintenance personnel in safely operating and maintaining the aircraft.
Additionally, it would be particularly beneficial to prospective
purchasers of these aircraft by enhancing their understanding of the
aircraft's operation, limitations, and maintenance and inspection
procedures before purchase.
Proposed Sec. 21.190(d)(10) would revise the requirements found in
current Sec. 21.190(c)(5), which requires a statement that the
manufacturer will monitor and correct safety-of-flight issues through
the issuance of safety directives and a continued airworthiness system
that meets the identified consensus standard. The proposed Sec.
21.190(d)(9) would specifically require the statement of compliance to
include a statement that the manufacturer will support the aircraft by
implementing and maintaining a documented continued operational safety
program that monitors and resolves in-service safety of flight issues,
includes provisions for the issuance of safety directives, and includes
a process for notifying the FAA and all owners before discontinuance of
its continued operational safety program or any transfer to another
responsible party for that continued operational safety program.
The FAA considers the implementation of strong continued
operational safety programs by aircraft manufacturers essential to
maintaining the safety of light-sport category aircraft. The proposed
revisions to the statement of compliance per proposed Sec.
21.190(d)(9) would serve to demonstrate the commitment of manufacturers
to establish and maintain a comprehensive continued operational safety
programs for their products. Well-documented continued operational
safety programs would permit manufacturers to effectively monitor and
resolve in-service safety of flight issues. When such issues arise,
manufacturers may take appropriate action to resolve those issues. Such
action could include, but not be limited to, the issuance of safety
directives to address unsafe conditions for their products. As
discussed later in this preamble, the FAA anticipates that
manufacturers would still issue safety directives when necessary to
resolve a safety of flight condition per Sec. 21.190(d)(9).\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ ASTM F3198, ``Standard Specification for Light Sport
Aircraft Manufacturer's Continued Operational Safety (COS)
Program,'' directs the aircraft manufacturer to issue safety
directives to correct safety of flight conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Sec. 21.190(d)(9)(iii) would require a manufacturer to
promptly notify owners of aircraft it manufactured of any safety issues
so that safety-critical information can be rapidly disseminated. The
proposal would require the statement of compliance to include a
statement from the manufacturer that its continued operational safety
program would include a process for notifying the FAA and all owners of
all safety of flight issues associated with the aircraft. Notification
to both the FAA and owners would increase awareness of potential safety
issues and better enable the FAA to carry out its oversight
responsibilities, including the issuance of airworthiness directives,
of this emerging segment of the aviation industry. The proposal would
facilitate increased communication of safety of flight issues to the
community, and better enable subsequent owners and operators to become
aware of, and take appropriate corrective actions to address, safety of
flight issues.
Similarly, this proposal would require a manufacturer to provide
notice, in advance, to the FAA and all aircraft owners of continued
operational safety program service provider changes or discontinuance.
Such changes could result from a merger, purchase, an agreement to
allow a third-party to manage the program, or the discontinuance of
manufacturing operations. Advanced notification of these changes would
provide notice to the FAA and to the owners and operators of affected
models. In the event of program cessation, this advanced notification
would alert the FAA to the increased chance for potential unsafe
conditions on the affected aircraft and the need to take prompt action
to mitigate risks should the need arise. The FAA seeks comment
regarding whether manufacturers who are discontinuing their continued
operational safety program due to discontinuance of manufacturing
operations should be required to send the design information regarding
the affected aircraft to the FAA prior to discontinuing their continued
operational safety program, so that the FAA can better issue
airworthiness directives if an unsafe condition is discovered later.
Under proposed Sec. 21.190(d)(10), the statement of compliance
would continue to require a statement from the manufacturer that it
will monitor and correct safety of flight issues with one important
difference. The proposal would require the manufacturer to monitor and
correct safety of flight issues through safety directives and a
continued operational safety program that meets the specified consensus
standard. This would replace the current requirement that the
manufacturer monitor and correct through a continued airworthiness
system. This proposed revision of ``continued airworthiness system'' to
``continued operational safety program'' is intended to better align
regulatory terminology with the terminology used in existing FAA-
accepted consensus standards. Continued operational safety programs
established and maintained by manufacturers are designed to provide
support throughout the service lives of their products. The program
would
[[Page 47680]]
include, but not be limited to, processes and procedures to monitor the
airworthiness of the fleet and prevent the occurrence of safety of
flight issues, and the management and use of feedback processes to
improve a product's design and production.
Current Sec. 21.190(c)(6) requires a statement that, at the
request of the FAA, the manufacturer will provide unrestricted access
to its facilities. The FAA might require access to conduct oversight,
audit compliance with applicable standards, take those actions
necessary to verify unsafe conditions have been properly addressed, or
respond to an aircraft accident or incident. Proposed Sec.
21.190(d)(11) would revise this requirement to include a statement by
the manufacturer that it will provide unrestricted access to all data
necessary to determine compliance with the provisions of this section
and other applicable requirements. By only specifying that a
manufacturer will provide the FAA with access to its facilities, the
current rule does not provide assurance that the FAA will be able to
obtain access to the technical data. The proposal recognizes that
obtaining access to only a manufacturer's facility may not be
sufficient for the FAA to carry out its regulatory responsibilities and
that access to data may be necessary to conduct oversight.
Proposed Sec. 21.190(d)(12) would require the manufacturer's
statement of compliance to include a statement that the manufacturer
has established and maintains a quality assurance system that meets the
requirements of Sec. 22.185. The specific requirements that a quality
assurance system must meet and the need for aircraft certificated as
light-sport category aircraft to be produced under a production quality
assurance system are discussed in the section IV.D.16 of this proposed
rule addressing proposed Sec. 22.185. By proposing that the
manufacturer's statement of compliance contain a statement that the
manufacturer has established and maintains such a system, the proposal
further emphasizes the specific importance that the FAA attaches to
producing light-sport category aircraft under a quality assurance
system. Establishing and documenting a quality assurance system is
critical in assuring that aircraft and aircraft kits meet applicable
design, production, and airworthiness requirements and are manufactured
and tested in accordance with identified consensus standards.
b. Creation of an Amended Statement of Compliance
A light-sport category aircraft certificated before the effective
date of this proposed rule would be able to continue to operate under
the provisions of its airworthiness certificate. However, these
aircraft would not be able to take advantage of the expanded
capabilities in this proposed rule, to include conducting aerial work.
Proposed Sec. 21.190(e) would contain special provisions for aircraft
certificated as light-sport category aircraft before the effective date
of the final rule that would enable these aircraft to conduct aerial
work operations. The proposed Sec. 21.190(e) would permit the owner of
an aircraft issued an airworthiness certificate in the light-sport
category before the effective date of the final rule to submit an
amended manufacturer's statement of compliance which would permit the
conduct of certain aerial work operations designated by the
manufacturer on the amended statement of compliance.
To show the aircraft is eligible for an amended statement of
compliance, the statement would need to identify the aircraft by make,
model, serial number, and date of manufacture. The statement would also
be required to be made by the original aircraft manufacturer, as the
original manufacturer is the source of the design and compliance data
used to make the original statement and determine whether the
aircraft's design and construction can withstand the expected or known
loads associated with the designated aerial work operation. Unlike
type-certificated aircraft designs, the FAA does not engage in showing
and finding activities using the aircraft manufacturer's design and
compliance data for light-sport category aircraft and therefore cannot
make any determinations on the appropriateness of specific aerial work
operations, even those that may be benign in nature. If a manufacturer
is unwilling or unable to submit an amended statement of compliance or
provide the data to a third party, the aircraft will not be authorized
to conduct aerial work operations. For an amended statement of
compliance, the original manufacturer would be responsible for creating
the document and listing those authorized aerial work operations.
A light-sport category aircraft certificated before the effective
date of this rule would not have to meet the proposed part 22
requirements to obtain an amended statement of compliance. Instead, the
statement would need to reference and reaffirm the statements made in
the original manufacturer's statement of compliance and specify the
particular consensus standards used to determine compliance. In doing
so, the manufacturer would be reaffirming that the aircraft
configuration still conforms to the manufacturer's design data and
still complies with the original consensus standards, unless the
aircraft was modified by the manufacturer or under the manufacturer's
authorization. ASTM Standard F2972 requires the manufacturer to keep a
permanent record of the documentation used to show compliance of each
approved aircraft configuration produced to all applicable consensus
standards and regulatory requirements in effect at the time of
manufacture. The manufacturer would also be reaffirming that any safety
of flight issues identified through the issuance of safety directives
or a continued airworthiness system have been corrected by the
manufacturer or in accordance with a manufacturer approved procedure.
To make these reaffirmations, the aircraft and its maintenance records
would need to be reviewed by the manufacturer so that it could
determine that the aircraft continues to meet the consensus standards
referenced in the original statement of compliance. The FAA notes that
such action may be cost prohibitive: however, without the
manufacturer's involvement in this process, any validation that the
aircraft continues to meet the standards identified in the original
manufacturer's statement of compliance would effectively not be
possible. Validation could not occur without the manufacturer's data
since the data supports compliance with the applicable consensus
standards.
Additionally, the statement of compliance would be required to
state that the design and construction of the aircraft provides
sufficient structural integrity to enable safe operation of the
aircraft during the performance of the specified aerial work operations
and that the aircraft is able to withstand any foreseeable flight and
ground loads. The manufacturer could accomplish this task while
simultaneously evaluating the aircraft to reaffirm compliance with the
manufacturer's original statement of compliance. The FAA notes that to
comply with this provision, manufacturers would use consensus standards
for performing aerial work. The proposal would require the amended
statement of compliance to identify the consensus standards the
aircraft complies with. The FAA anticipates that industry members will
[[Page 47681]]
begin developing those standards after this proposal is published.
The proposal would also require that the amended statement of
compliance be accompanied by revisions to the aircraft's operating
instructions to indicate those aerial work operations that may be
safely conducted. It would also require applicable revisions be made to
the aircraft's maintenance and inspection program and flight training
supplement necessary to accomplish any aerial work operations. These
revisions could include, for example, any necessary maintenance tasks
or inspections in preparation for, or because of, aerial work
operations. If an aerial work operation could be accomplished using
standard operational procedures, the aircraft's operating instructions
should state this for each aerial work operation for which use of those
procedures is appropriate.
21. Removal of Light-Sport Marking Requirements
Proposed revisions to part 45 would eliminate the requirement in
Sec. 45.23(b) to mark light-sport category aircraft with ``light-
sport.'' This rule would not require owners to remove existing marks.
However, aircraft owners would be allowed to remove the marks any time
after the effective date of the final rule.
The FAA originally imposed the ``light-sport'' marking requirement
in the 2004 final rule to clearly identify aircraft certificated in the
light-sport category. As the proposal would significantly expand the
parameters of those aircraft that could be certificated in the light-
sport category, the proposal would eliminate the ``light-sport''
marking requirement. Previously, all aircraft certificated in the
light-sport category could be operated by sport pilots and the marking
readily identified those aircraft. As certain aircraft certificated in
the light-sport category under the proposal may no longer meet the
proposed eligibility requirements for operations by persons exercising
sport pilot privileges, retaining the ``light-sport'' marking
requirement would no longer serve the purpose of identifying those
light-sport category aircraft that persons exercising sport pilot
privileges could operate. As such, the FAA is concerned that retaining
the ``light-sport'' marking requirement would be a source of confusion
for persons exercising sport pilot privileges. As with other aircraft,
a person exercising sport pilot privileges would need to evaluate an
aircraft to determine whether the aircraft meets the parameters of
those aircraft they are authorized to operate. In addition, information
related to the aircraft certification category is included on the
airworthiness certificate for each aircraft and is required per Sec.
91.203(b) to be displayed at the cabin or cockpit entrance so that it
is legible to passengers or crew.
E. Sport Pilot Certification and Privileges
Part 61 of title 14 prescribes the requirements for pilot and
flight instructor certificates and ratings.\41\ Pursuant to part 61,
the FAA issues six grades of pilot certificates: student, sport,
recreational, private, commercial, and airline transport pilot
(ATP).\42\ These grades of pilot certificates require increasing levels
of pilot experience, testing, and associated privileges. Additionally,
the FAA issues flight instructor certificates under subpart H of part
61 and flight instructor certificates with a sport pilot rating under
subpart K of part 61.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ 14 CFR 61.1(a)(1).
\42\ 14 CFR 61.5(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The sport pilot certificate differs from higher grades of pilot
certificates because the FAA does not issue category and class ratings
on a sport pilot certificate. Upon the successful completion of the
practical test for a sport pilot certificate, the FAA issues the
applicant a sport pilot certificate without any category and class
ratings and provides the pilot with a logbook endorsement for the
category and class of aircraft for which the pilot is authorized to act
as PIC (i.e., the category and class of aircraft in which the practical
test was conducted).\43\ To obtain privileges to operate an additional
category or class of light-sport aircraft, the sport pilot must receive
training and an endorsement from an authorized instructor for the
additional privilege, pass a proficiency check from an authorized
instructor (other than the instructor who trained them), and receive a
logbook endorsement from the instructor who conducted the proficiency
check.\44\ The logbook endorsement from the authorized instructor who
conducted the proficiency check certifies that the sport pilot is
authorized for the additional category and class light-sport aircraft
privilege.\45\An airmen application, known as FAA Form 8710-11, is also
submitted to the FAA to document the addition of that new
privilege.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ 14 CFR 61.317.
\44\ 14 CFR 61.321.
\45\ 14 CFR 61.321(d).
\46\ FAA Form 8710-11, Airman Certificate and/or Rating
Application Supplemental Information and Instructions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating under
subpart K differs from the flight instructor certificate issued under
subpart H because it has limited privileges compared to a subpart H
flight instructor. For example, a flight instructor with a sport pilot
rating may only provide training and endorsements that qualify
applicants for sport pilot certificates and privileges.\47\ A flight
instructor qualified under subpart H may provide training and
endorsements to persons seeking a higher-grade of pilot certificate
such as a recreational, private, or commercial pilot certificate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ 14 CFR 61.413, 61.415.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, a sport pilot may only operate an aircraft that meets
the definition of light-sport aircraft in Sec. 1.1. As previously
discussed, the FAA is proposing to remove the definition of light-sport
aircraft from Sec. 1.1 and relocate the substantive requirements, with
modifications, to Sec. 21.190. As a result, the FAA is proposing to
establish a new regulation, in Sec. 61.316, that would prescribe
performance and design limitations for the aircraft sport pilots can
operate. Additionally, the FAA is proposing amendments that would
modernize the sport pilot and sport pilot instructor regulations. These
amendments would expand the types of aircraft a sport pilot may
operate, expand sport pilot operational privileges, revise some testing
requirements, and permit the use of FAA-qualified aviation training
devices (ATD) and flight simulation training devices (FSTD) for sport
pilot training credit. Additionally, the FAA proposes training and
instructor endorsement requirements for persons seeking to operate
aircraft with simplified flight control designations to ensure the safe
operation of these new aircraft. These proposals are discussed in
greater detail in the following subsections.
1. Sport Pilot Seating Limitation
Currently, by definition in Sec. 1.1, a light-sport aircraft has a
maximum seating capacity of no more than two persons, including the
pilot. Thus, sport pilots are limited to operating aircraft with two
seats. Sport pilots are also limited under Sec. 61.315(c)(4) to
carrying one passenger. The FAA is proposing to increase the maximum
seat capacity for airplanes that a sport pilot can operate to four
seats but would retain the operational limitation for sport pilots that
limits them to carrying a single passenger.
In considering whether to expand this two-seat limitation, the FAA
reviewed the privileges and limitations that apply to recreational
pilots, which are
[[Page 47682]]
contained in Sec. 61.101, because a recreational pilot certificate is
the next higher grade of pilot certificate and has very similar
operating limitations to sport pilots. Currently, Sec. 61.101(e)(1)(i)
contains a general limitation that prohibits a recreational pilot from
acting as PIC of an aircraft that is certificated for more than four
occupants. The FAA adopted this requirement in 1989.\48\ In the final
rule that adopted the four-seat limitation for recreational pilots, the
FAA determined that limiting recreational pilots to two-seat aircraft
was unnecessarily restrictive notwithstanding that a recreational
pilot, like a sport pilot, is limited to carrying a single
passenger.\49\ The FAA explained that the two-seat limitation was based
on the premise that a recreational pilot certificate is intended for
recreational purposes rather than transportation.\50\ However, there
are many basic aircraft with seating capacities of four seats and these
general aviation aircraft are often used for student training or
recreational flying.\51\ At the time of the 1989 final rule, the FAA
received overwhelming support for the four-seat occupancy limitation
for recreational pilots.\52\ Since then the NTSB has only recorded 49
accidents with a recreational pilot acting as PIC and only six of those
accidents involved a fatality over a 30-year period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ Certification of Recreational Pilots and Annual Flight
Review Requirements for Recreational Pilots and Non-Instrument-Rated
Private Pilots with Fewer than 400 Flight Hours, Final Rule, 54 FR
13028 (Mar. 29, 1989).
\49\ 14 CFR 61.101(a)(1).
\50\ Id.
\51\ The FAA also recognizes that primary category aircraft
certificated under Sec. 21.24(a)(1) have a maximum seating capacity
of not more than four persons, including the pilot. These aircraft
are also purposed for personal use and recreation and use for flight
training. The aircraft certification regulations and the associated
operating limitations for primary category aircraft are similar but
more restrictive (i.e., have higher standards) than the Sec. 21.190
consensus standards certification process for light-sport aircraft.
\52\ As stated in the 1989 final rule, approximately 100
commenters supported the proposal to expand occupancy limitations
from two-seats to four-seats. 54 FR 13031.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, like recreational pilot certificates, the two-seat
limitation for sport pilots is consistent with the premise that a sport
pilot certificate is used for recreational purposes and not for
carrying persons or property for compensation or hire. However,
airplanes with seating capacities of four seats are often used for
flight training and recreational flying while carrying only one
passenger.
The FAA contends that the skill necessary to operate two seat
airplanes versus four seat airplanes does not appreciably differ due to
the similarity in design, weight and operational capabilities. Also, to
determine whether expanding the two-seat limitation to four seats would
adversely affect the safety of sport pilot operations, the FAA
evaluated the training and testing requirements for recreational pilot
certificates and compared those with the requirements for sport pilot
certificates. In this comparison, the FAA determined that sport pilots
are largely trained and tested to the same standards as recreational
pilots.\53\ Specifically, based on the Practical Test Standards (PTS)
for sport pilots and for recreational pilots, the FAA finds that the
knowledge and skills that a sport pilot must demonstrate on a practical
test are virtually identical to the knowledge and skills that a
recreational pilot must demonstrate on a practical test. Considering
these testing similarities and that recreational pilots have been
safely operating four-seat airplanes with only one passenger since
1989, the FAA finds that permitting sport pilots to operate airplanes
with four seats would not adversely affect safety. Furthermore, based
on an evaluation of the tasks a person must demonstrate to obtain a
sport pilot certificate and the similar aircraft characteristics of a
two-seat airplane and a four-seat airplane (e.g., design, weight, and
operational capabilities), the FAA finds that the minimum pilot skills
that are currently required for sport pilots to operate an airplane
with two seats are commensurate with the skills required to operate a
four-seat airplane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ See Sport Pilot PTS for Airplane, Gyroplane, Glider, and
Flight Instructor (FAA-S-8081-29 with Change 3) and Recreational
Pilot PTS for Airplane, Rotorcraft/Helicopter, and Rotorcraft/
Gyroplane (FAA-S-8081-3A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA recognizes that there may be airplanes that meet all
elements of proposed light-sport category aircraft certification (e.g.,
those characteristics set forth by proposed Sec. 22.100, except
proposed paragraph (a)(2)) that have a maximum seating capacity of more
than four seats. In this proposal, the FAA declines to expand sport
pilot privileges as applicable to those airplanes with more than four
seats. First, the FAA notes that part 61 provides different grades of
pilot certificate. With each higher grade of pilot certificate comes
expanded privileges. Considering this regulatory framework and the
privileges provided to recreational pilots and private pilots, the FAA
finds that it would be inappropriate to permit a sport pilot to operate
an airplane with more than four seats. Doing so would provide a sport
pilot with a greater operational privilege than a recreational pilot,
which is a higher grade of pilot certificate than the sport pilot
certificate. In other words, doing so would permit a sport pilot to be
afforded a privilege that is reserved for a private pilot certificate
holder without requiring the sport pilot to receive the additional
training and experience that a private pilot applicant must receive and
without requiring the sport pilot to be tested to same standards as a
private pilot applicant.
The FAA expects that, without a maximum seating capacity set forth
in the proposed regulation, the other proposed aircraft limitations in
Sec. 61.316 would indirectly prevent aircraft that sport pilots may
fly from having more than four seats. The FAA recognizes; however, that
it might be possible that some airplanes to have more than four seats
and still meet the proposed aircraft limitations. As a general matter,
airplanes with more than four seats become larger and more complex and
require increasing pilot skills to operate safely. The FAA finds that
permitting sport pilots to operate an airplane with more than four
seats would introduce an unacceptable increase in risk to operations in
the national airspace system (NAS). An airplane with 5, 6, or 7 seats
would have a longer fuselage, a significant increase in weight, and
need for a more powerful powerplant compared to a two- or four-seat
airplane. As a result, the control pressures to operate the airplane
would be greater and increase workload on the pilot. Additionally, the
larger powerplants would create significantly more torque and affect
directional control of the airplane. For example, increased torque
would impose increased demand on the pilot to maintain directional
control during the takeoff and climb. Upon evaluating the
characteristics of larger airplanes that have more than four seats, the
FAA finds that those larger airplanes have significantly different
handling characteristics than an airplane with just two- or four-seats.
Those different handling characteristics require more demanding
operational skills than those skills required to operate a two- or
four-seat airplane. The FAA finds that the skills required to safely
operate an airplane that has more than four seats require a higher
grade of pilot certificate that includes additional experience,
training, and testing that is greater than what a sport pilot is
required to accomplish. For these reasons, the FAA is proposing a four-
seat limitation for the airplanes that a sport pilot seeks to operate.
Accordingly, the FAA is proposing a limitation in Sec. 61.316(c) that
would permit sport pilots to operate
[[Page 47683]]
airplanes with a maximum seating capacity of four persons. However, the
FAA proposes to retain the current operational limitation for sport
pilots to carry no more than one passenger in any aircraft that a sport
pilot can operate. The FAA finds that this limitation is consistent
with sport pilot operations today and with the use of the FAA's safety
continuum, which the FAA uses to assess risk.
2. Directional Control and Controlled Descent of Powered Aircraft
Currently, the light-sport aircraft definition does not expressly
require an aircraft to have the capability to maintain directional
control and a controlled descent in the event of a powerplant failure.
The omission of this requirement in the regulations does not present a
safety concern at this time because this control requirement is
inherent in airplane manufacture and design and the light-sport
aircraft definition excludes helicopters and powered-lift. For example,
airplanes have the ability to maintain directional control and a
controlled descent in the event of a partial or total powerplant
failure. Given the aerodynamics, a pilot can normally glide the
airplane to a safe landing if the powerplant stops functioning.
As discussed in section IV.E.8 of this preamble, the FAA is
proposing to permit sport pilots to operate certain kinds of
helicopters. However, the ability to maintain directional control and a
controlled descent in the event of a powerplant failure is not inherent
in all new helicopter designs (specifically multicopters). Some new
helicopters may not possess the ability to autorotate to a safe landing
in the event of a powerplant failure.
To fit the construct of the FAA safety continuum, as well as the
expectation for the use of new aircraft that can be safely operated by
sport pilots, the FAA has determined that any aircraft (except balloons
and airships) that a sport pilot operates must have the capability to
establish a controlled descent and directional control in the event of
a partial or complete power plant failure. Therefore, the FAA proposes
in Sec. 61.316(h) that a person with a sport pilot certificate may
only act as PIC for those powered aircraft (which could include
multicopters) whereby the loss of partial power would not adversely
affect the directional control of the aircraft. Specifically, Sec.
61.316 describes the sport pilot aircraft performance limitations and
would require in proposed paragraph (h) that powered aircraft must
provide the pilot an ability to maintain directional control and
controlled descent in the event of a powerplant failure. As proposed,
if the aircraft does not possess these capabilities (excluding balloons
and airships), a sport pilot would not be able to act as PIC of the
aircraft. This requirement would ensure that any aircraft a sport pilot
operates is simple to control in the event of a powerplant failure,
consistent with the aircraft that sport pilots are currently permitted
to operate. Therefore, while the FAA proposes to expand the types of
aircraft that sport pilots may operate, the FAA intends to permit sport
pilots to operate only those aircraft that would require skills
commensurate with the skills of a sport pilot today.
Notably, despite the implicit inclusion of this feature for
airplanes, the FAA is not proposing to limit this requirement to
helicopters. The FAA reasons that manufacturers may contemplate future
airplane or other aircraft designs that do not include an inherent
aerodynamic ability for the pilot to maintain directional control and a
controlled descent in the event of a powerplant failure. The FAA
proposes to impose this requirement for all powered aircraft that a
sport pilot may seek to operate as PIC so advancements in airplane
technology would include this feature. This requirement would
appropriately mitigate the risk to persons both on board the aircraft
and on the ground that may be impacted by a powerplant failure
emergency.
3. Sport Pilot Operational Privileges
Section 61.315 currently specifies the privileges and limitations
of a sport pilot certificate. Currently, under Sec. 61.315(c)(5),
sport pilots are prohibited from conducting night operations. Also, the
Sec. 1.1 light-sport aircraft definition currently prohibits sport
pilots from operating aircraft equipped with retractable landing gear
(except for amphibious aircraft and gliders) and aircraft with a
controllable pitch propeller. However, the FAA contends that, with the
completion of additional training and obtaining a flight instructor
qualifying endorsement, sport pilots can safely conduct these types of
flight operations. Therefore, the FAA is proposing to add an exception
to Sec. 61.315(c)(5) that would permit a sport pilot to conduct night
operations if the sport pilot meets certain training, endorsement, and
experience requirements, which the FAA is proposing in new Sec.
61.329. These provisions are discussed in greater detail in the next
section. Likewise, the FAA is proposing to add a new provision, in
Sec. 61.315(c)(20), that would prohibit sport pilots from acting as
PIC of an airplane with a retractable landing gear or a controllable
pitch propeller unless a sport pilot meets the training and endorsement
requirements proposed in Sec. 61.331.
Specifically, the FAA currently uses additional training and
instructor endorsements to enable certain flight operations, including
the operation of complex, high altitude, and tailwheel airplanes.\54\
These instructor endorsements are used today and are a proven method to
validate pilot proficiency and qualifications. The following sections
discuss these proposals in greater detail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ See Sec. 61.31(e), (f), (g), and (i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Night Operations
As previously discussed, sport pilots are currently prohibited from
conducting night operations. Section 1.1 defines ``night'' as the time
between the end of evening civil twilight and the beginning of morning
civil twilight, as published in the Air Almanac, converted to local
time. In support of the proposal to permit sport pilots to conduct
night operations, the FAA acknowledges that many states in the U.S.
have reduced daylight hours during the winter months. During those days
with reduced daylight, sport pilots may be under pressure to complete a
flight even after sunset due to weather or delays from unexpected
events. A sport pilot who conducts an operation at night, as defined in
Sec. 1.1, is in non-compliance with the current prohibition in Sec.
61.315(c)(5). The FAA emphasizes that non-compliance with the FAA's
regulations is unacceptable and subject to compliance or enforcement
action. The FAA recognizes, however, that the reduced daylight hours in
many northern states may result in sport pilots experiencing pressure
to conduct flights before night. Due to unforeseen circumstances, these
flights may become marginally non-compliant as they near the end of
evening civil twilight. Because a sport pilot is not currently required
to receive training for operating at night, any sport pilot operations
that occur after the end of evening civil twilight create a safety
risk. To mitigate that risk, the FAA proposes to permit sport pilots to
qualify to operate at night by meeting certain training and experience
requirements and by obtaining an endorsement from an authorized
instructor. The FAA finds that, with this added training, the window of
time during which sport pilots may conduct operations would be expanded
thereby promoting better aeronautical decision-making by reducing the
pressure on sport pilots to
[[Page 47684]]
conduct flights within a certain period of time.
Specifically, to validate that sport pilots possess the necessary
skill to safely navigate at night, the FAA proposes the following risk-
mitigation training requirements in new Sec. 61.329. Under proposed
Sec. 61.329(a) a sport pilot must receive at least three hours of
flight training at night from an authorized instructor and receive a
logbook endorsement certifying that they are proficient in the
operation of the aircraft at night. In addition, proposed Sec.
61.329(b) requires that the sport pilot conduct at least one cross-
country night flight, with a landing at an airport of at least 25
nautical miles from the departure airport, except for powered
parachutes. Proposed Sec. 61.329(c) would require the sport pilot to
accomplish at least ten takeoffs and landings at night with an
authorized instructor. Proposed Sec. 61.329(d) would also set forth
certain medical requirements: the PIC must either hold a medical
certificate issued under part 67, subpart D, Third-Class Airman Medical
Certificate, or meet the requirements of Sec. 61.23(c)(3) as long as
the person holds a valid U.S. driver's license. Additionally, the
operation would be required to be conducted consistent with Sec.
61.113(i). If there is any conflict between Sec. 61.113(i) and
proposed Sec. 61.315(d)(4), then proposed Sec. 61.315(d)(4) would
take precedence.
A sport pilot may receive the night training and endorsement
specified in Sec. 61.329 from a person who holds either a flight
instructor certificate issued under subpart H of part 61 or a flight
instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating. However, before a
flight instructor with a sport pilot rating may provide the night
training and endorsement to a sport pilot seeking night privileges, the
flight instructor must first receive the training and endorsement
themselves. The FAA is, therefore, proposing to amend Sec. 61.415,
which prescribes the limits of a flight instructor certificate with a
sport pilot rating, by adding new paragraph (n) to state that a flight
instructor with a sport pilot rating may not provide training in an
aircraft at night unless they have completed the night training and
endorsement requirements specified in proposed Sec. 61.329. The FAA
notes that, upon publication of the final rule, there would be no sport
pilot instructors who satisfy the new night training and endorsement
requirements of Sec. 61.329. Thus, as an initial matter, sport pilot
instructors would receive the night training and endorsement from a
subpart H flight instructor.
The FAA notes that the requirements in proposed Sec. 61.329
largely mirror those required of private pilots who conduct operations
at night as set forth by Sec. 61.109, as well as current sport pilot
experience requirements under Sec. 61.313. The FAA recognizes that
these training requirements are appropriate for private pilots to
obtain the knowledge and skills necessary to conduct night operations
safely and reasons that a sport pilot should conduct the same night
training requirements before acting as PIC at night. After this
training has been completed, the sport pilot would receive the
endorsement from the authorized instructor, at which point they would
be able to conduct night operations.
Currently, Sec. 61.315(c)(5) explicitly restricts a sport pilot
from acting as PIC at night. Therefore, as previously stated, the FAA
proposes to amend Sec. 61.315(c)(5) by adding an exception for sport
pilots who seek privileges to operate an aircraft at night. Amended
Sec. 61.315(c)(5) would restrict night operations, except as provided
in proposed Sec. 61.329, which would contain the night operation
training, experience and endorsement requirements. The FAA notes that a
sport pilot seeking to act as PIC of an aircraft carrying a passenger
at night would be required to satisfy the recent flight experience
requirements in current Sec. 61.57(b).\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ Section 61.57(b)(1) states that, except as provided in
Sec. 61.57(e), no person may act as PIC of an aircraft carrying
passengers during the period beginning 1 hour after sunset and
ending 1 hour before sunrise, unless within the preceding 90 days
that person has made at least three takeoffs and three landings to a
full stop during the period beginning 1 hour after sunset and ending
1 hour before sunrise, and (i) that person acted as sole manipulator
of the flight controls, and (ii) the required takeoffs and landings
were performed in an aircraft of the same category, class, and type
(if a type rating is required).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Airplanes With a Controllable Pitch Propeller or Aircraft With a
Retractable Landing Gear
The FAA proposes to allow sport pilots to operate an airplane with
a controllable pitch propeller or an aircraft equipped with retractable
landing gear. The FAA contends that, similar to obtaining the
privileges to conduct night operations, additional training and flight
instructor endorsements would adequately qualify sport pilots to
operate these aircraft safely. Assumptions made in the 2004 final rule
suggesting that allowing a retractable landing gear would add
unnecessary complexity and would not provide a safety benefit
conflicted with other allowable privileges.\56\ Subsequent amendments
were made to the light-sport aircraft definition to permit retractable
landing gear for amphibious light-sport airplanes and gliders.\57\ The
FAA contends that additional training and endorsements would allow
sport pilots to operate airplanes with a controllable pitch propeller
or aircraft with retractable landing gear even when not intended for
water operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ See e.g., 69 FR 44800 (``The FAA reiterates its original
position that for aircraft other than gliders, retractable landing
gear is inconsistent with the simplicity of the light-sport
aircraft, and the training requirements for the sport pilot.'').
\57\ 72 FR 19661.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, there is a population of sport pilot certificate holders
who have never been permitted to operate an airplane with a
controllable pitch propeller or an aircraft with retractable landing
gear. The FAA finds that permitting these sport pilots to operate
aircraft with these new capabilities without first receiving training
would introduce an unacceptable safety risk to the NAS. To mitigate
this risk, the FAA proposes to require the sport pilot to receive
training and an endorsement from an authorized instructor validating
proficiency. The FAA finds that requiring training in the operation of
an airplane with a controllable pitch propeller or an aircraft with
retractable landing gear would allow the sport pilot to become
proficient with the use of these specific designs and capabilities
before acting as PIC in the aircraft. Additionally, requiring the sport
pilot to receive an endorsement from an authorized instructor
certifying that the sport pilot is proficient in the operation of the
aircraft that contains either a controllable pitch propeller or
retractable landing gear would provide assurance that the pilot has
acquired the skills necessary to operate those aircraft safely.
To enable sport pilots to operate airplanes with a controllable
pitch propeller or aircraft with a retractable landing gear safely, the
FAA finds it necessary to propose several new provisions. First, the
FAA is proposing to amend current Sec. 61.315, which contains the
operational limitations of a sport pilot certificate, by adding new
paragraph (c)(20). Proposed Sec. 61.315(c)(20) would prohibit a sport
pilot from operating an airplane with a controllable pitch propeller or
an aircraft with retractable landing gear unless the sport pilot meets
the requirements specified in proposed Sec. 61.331. The FAA proposes
to place the aforementioned training and endorsement requirements in
new Sec. 61.331. Additionally, because
[[Page 47685]]
controllable pitch propellers and retractable landing gear are design
characteristics of an aircraft and the FAA would permit sport pilots to
operate aircraft with those characteristics only if certain conditions
are met, the FAA finds it necessary to carry those characteristics over
to newly proposed Sec. 61.316. Specifically, the FAA proposes in Sec.
61.316(b) to permit a sport pilot to act as PIC of an aircraft that,
since its original certification, has retractable landing gear or a
controllable pitch propeller if the sport pilot meets the training and
endorsement requirements specified in proposed Sec. 61.331.
With respect to the training and endorsement requirements in
proposed Sec. 61.331, the FAA recognizes that a controllable pitch
propeller and retractable landing gear are features of a complex
airplane. Section 61.1 defines complex airplane to mean an airplane
that has retractable landing gear, flaps, and a controllable pitch
propeller. Notably, however, airplanes may contain only one of these
three features (e.g., only a controllable pitch propeller or only
retractable landing gear). For the reasons explained above, the FAA
finds it necessary to require sport pilots to receive training and an
endorsement from an authorized instructor for the operation of an
airplane that has only one of these features. It is possible, however,
for a sport pilot to receive training and an endorsement from an
authorized instructor in a complex airplane pursuant to Sec. 61.31(e).
In this event, the FAA finds that the endorsement certifying that the
pilot is proficient in the operation of a complex airplane should also
count towards the endorsement that is proposed in Sec. 61.331 for an
airplane that has only a controllable pitch propeller or an aircraft
that has only retractable landing gear. Therefore, the FAA proposes
rule language in Sec. 61.331(a)(1) and (b)(1) to ensure that a sport
pilot who has received the endorsement required under Sec. 61.31(e)
would not be required to receive a duplicative endorsement under
proposed Sec. 61.331.
The FAA notes that it is not proposing a minimum number of hours of
training, similar to the lack of mandated training hours required in
Sec. 61.31(e) for the operation of a complex airplane.\58\ Rather, the
authorized instructor is tasked with determining the appropriate amount
of training required, to culminate in the authorized instructor
attesting to proficiency with an endorsement. The FAA has permitted
training and instructor endorsements for all other grades of pilot
certificate for these same privileges, including student pilots, and
contends that this is also appropriate for sport pilots.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ Section 61.1 defines complex airplanes. Section 61.31(e)
specifies the training and endorsement requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, consistent with the FAA's proposed amendment to
current Sec. 61.415 to address the night training and endorsement for
sport pilot instructors, the FAA finds it necessary to amend Sec.
61.415 by adding proposed (l), which would require a sport pilot
instructor to receive training and an endorsement in an airplane with a
controllable pitch propeller or an aircraft with retractable landing
gear, as appropriate, before providing flight training to a sport pilot
in an aircraft with one of those features.
6. Model-Specific Endorsement for Aircraft Certificated With a
Simplified Flight Controls Designation (Sec. Sec. 61.9, 61.31, 61.415,
and 61.429)
As discussed in section IV.E.6 of this preamble, the FAA is
proposing to establish a simplified flight controls designation in
proposed Sec. 22.180. Aircraft with a simplified flight controls
design and designation would not have traditional flight controls
available to the pilot. Currently, the FAA does not have a regulatory
mechanism to require flight training and an instructor endorsement to
validate proficiency for pilots seeking to operate aircraft
certificated with a simplified flight controls designation.
The FAA recognizes that simplified flight control designs will vary
from one aircraft to another (i.e., model to model). As such, piloting
would not involve the commonality of experience that exists in aircraft
with traditional flight controls.\59\ Therefore, it is important that a
pilot be qualified and validate competency for each simplified flight
control make and model \60\ of aircraft to validate competency in that
unique design.\61\ Furthermore, aircraft with simplified flight control
designations may be operated by pilots other than sport pilots,
resulting in the same safety concerns for pilots with higher grades of
pilot certificates. Therefore, any qualification requirements to
address the simplified flight control systems must apply broadly to
persons who hold pilot certificates issued under part 61. Thus, the FAA
proposes this qualification for simplified flight controls be attained
by a training and endorsement and, in some cases, a practical test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ Unlike aircraft with simplified flight controls
designation, there is commonality with traditional flight control
systems. For example, airplanes have a control yoke, rudder pedals,
trim, and a throttle. Helicopters have a cyclic, collective,
throttle and anti-torque pedals.
\60\ The FAA proposes to use the terms ``make and model'' in
Sec. 61.31(l) consistent with the manner in which they are used
throughout part 61. Therefore, as a general matter, ``make'' refers
to the manufacturer of the aircraft (e.g., Cessna, Piper, Cirrus,
etc.). ``Model'' refers to the specific aircraft model (e.g., C152,
C172, PA28-112, SR20, etc.).
\61\ This is similar to the current requirement for student
pilots to receive a model-specific endorsement under Sec. 61.87(n)
before conducting PIC operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This section describes the requirements for pilots to act as PIC of
an aircraft with a simplified flight controls designation. Section
IV.E.7 further describes scenarios pertaining to practical tests where
(1) a person seeks a pilot certificate in an aircraft with simplified
flight controls, (2) a person has a pilot certificate with a simplified
flight controls model-specific limitation and seeks to operate another
model of aircraft category and class with a simplified flight controls
designation, and (3) a person has a pilot certificate not limited to
simplified flight controls (i.e., the person can act as PIC of an
aircraft with traditional flight controls) but seeks to obtain
privileges to act as PIC of a make and model with a simplified flight
controls designation.
Due to the differing characteristics, as previously discussed, the
FAA finds that additional training specific to the particular make and
model of aircraft with a simplified flight controls designation is
necessary to ensure a pilot is sufficiently proficient in the operation
of that aircraft. Therefore, the FAA proposes to amend Sec. 61.31 by
adding new paragraph (l) to contain the qualification requirements for
persons seeking to act as PIC of any aircraft with a simplified flight
control designation. Specifically, proposed Sec. 61.31(l)(1) would
require pilots seeking to act as PIC of aircraft certificated with a
simplified flight controls designation to obtain model-specific
training in that aircraft from an authorized instructor. Additionally,
proposed Sec. 61.31(l)(2) would require the pilot to receive a logbook
endorsement from an authorized instructor who has found the pilot
proficient in the safe operation of that model-specific aircraft and
the associated simplified flight control system. The FAA's proposal
would permit any certificated pilot, regardless of certificate level,
who holds the appropriate category and class to operate a simplified
flight control-designated aircraft only after receiving the model-
specific training and endorsement from an authorized flight instructor
specific to the safe operation of each simplified flight control
designated aircraft.
[[Page 47686]]
The authorized instructor in proposed Sec. 61.31(l) may be a
subpart H instructor or a sport pilot instructor. Before an instructor
may provide flight training in an aircraft with a simplified flight
controls designation, the instructor would be required to first receive
the model-specific training and the accompanying endorsement to
validate that the instructor is proficient in the safe operation of the
aircraft. Because this would be a limitation in the sport pilot
instructor logbook until the sport pilot instructor meets certain
conditions, the FAA is proposing to amend current Sec. 61.415 by
adding new paragraph (m). Proposed Sec. 61.415(m) would expressly
limit the sport pilot instructor from providing training in an aircraft
with simplified flight controls design and designation unless the sport
pilot has received the model-specific training and endorsement required
under proposed Sec. 61.31(l). Additionally, the FAA is proposing an
amendment to current Sec. 61.429, which contains the requirements for
a subpart H instructor seeking to exercise the privileges of a flight
instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating. Specifically, the FAA
is proposing to add new paragraph (d) to current Sec. 61.429 to state
that a subpart H instructor seeking to exercise the privileges of their
flight instructor certificate in a model-specific aircraft that has a
simplified flight controls designation must meet the training and
endorsement requirements specified in proposed Sec. 61.31(l) before
providing any flight training in the aircraft.
Initially, there would be no flight instructors who are qualified
to provide flight training in an aircraft that has a simplified flight
controls designation because the training and endorsement requirements
in proposed Sec. 61.31(l) are new. Thus, no one has yet received the
training or endorsement necessary to act as PIC. The FAA is proposing
to add new paragraph (m) to current Sec. 61.195 to address this issue.
The FAA intends for proposed Sec. 61.195(m) to provide the initial
cadre of flight instructors with an alternative to the training and
endorsement requirements in proposed Sec. 61.31(l) to enable industry
to build the initial cadre of flight instructors who could provide the
training and endorsement for aircraft with simplified flight control
designations.
Specifically, proposed Sec. 61.195(m) would permit instructor
pilots that work with the manufacturer of aircraft with the simplified
flight controls designation to provide training and endorsements to the
initial cadre of authorized instructors and pilot examiners. This
proposed provision would allow for the initial operation of aircraft
with the simplified flight controls designation during and after the
aircraft certification process for these new aircraft. An instructor
pilot at the manufacturer for the aircraft would be one of the only
individuals with significant experience operating the model-specific
aircraft with simplified flight controls. Additionally, the instructor
pilots are generally tasked with developing and validating training for
the aircraft for the manufacturer. The FAA finds that the duties of an
instructor pilot establish intricate knowledge of the aircraft's
systems and components. The FAA has determined that it would be
beneficial to leverage the experience these instructor pilots have to
create the initial cadre of authorized instructors who may provide
training under proposed Sec. 61.31(l).
To mitigate any safety risk that may result from allowing an
instructor pilot to provide training in a model-specific aircraft, the
FAA has decided to narrowly confine the training population to include
only subpart H instructors. Thus, the FAA is proposing the provisions
as a limitation to the flight instructor certificate pursuant to Sec.
61.195 and not to sport pilot instructors. Because an instructor pilot
would have significant experience in the model-specific aircraft and
the training population would be narrowly confined, the FAA finds that
proposed Sec. 61.195(m) would not adversely affect safety.
In developing this proposal, the FAA recognized that any
aeronautical experience obtained in an aircraft with a simplified
flight controls designation would not be equal to the aeronautical
experience obtained piloting aircraft with traditional flight controls.
However, because aircraft with simplified flight controls designation
would fall within the same category and class of aircraft as aircraft
with traditional flight controls, pilots could seek to build flight
time for higher certificates and ratings in much more simplistic
aircraft. The FAA finds that aeronautical experience in aircraft with
simplified flight controls designations would diminish the aeronautical
experience in aircraft with traditional flight controls that is
necessary to reinforce piloting skills in traditionally equipped
aircraft. With that understanding, the FAA is proposing that any pilot
time acquired while operating an airplane or helicopter with a
simplified flight controls design and designation may not be used to
satisfy certain pilot-in-command flight time requirements for a higher-
grade certificate. Those pilot time experience limitations can be found
in newly proposed Sec. 61.9. For example, under proposed Sec.
61.9(b), a person seeking a commercial pilot certificate with a
rotorcraft category helicopter class rating may not use pilot time
acquired in a helicopter with simplified flight control designation to
meet the PIC flight time experience requirement in Sec.
61.129(c)(2)(i), which requires 35 hours of PIC flight time in a
helicopter. PIC experience in a helicopter with a simplified flight
controls does not provide the same skills and experience a commercial
pilot needs to conduct commercial operations in a helicopter with
traditional flight controls that include unique skills like the conduct
of an autorotation. Once a pilot obtains a helicopter class rating on
their commercial pilot certificate, that pilot has commercial pilot
privileges in many legacy helicopters as a general matter. It is
therefore important for an applicant seeking a helicopter class rating
on a commercial pilot certificate to continue to obtain the class-
specific PIC flight time in a helicopter that has traditional flight
controls.
7. Conducting Practical Tests in an Aircraft Certificated With a
Simplified Flight Controls Designation (Sec. 61.45)
Section 61.43 provides the general procedures for conducting a
practical test. The completion of a practical test for a certificate or
rating consists of performing the tasks specified in the areas of
operation applicable to the airman certificate or rating sought. These
tasks and maneuvers are contained in the ACS or the PTS, as
appropriate. Current production aircraft, as well as those that obtain
a simplified flight control designation in the future, may not be able
to accomplish all the tasks required during the conduct of a practical
test. For example, these aircraft may be unable to perform an
aerodynamic stall or steep turns during a practical test, which are
typically tested as an area of operation in the practical test. To
account for these operational limitations, current Sec. 61.45(b)(2)
permits an applicant to use an aircraft with operating characteristics
that preclude the applicant from performing all of the tasks required
for the practical test; however, the applicant's pilot certificate is
issued with an appropriate limitation.
The FAA recognizes that those aircraft having simplified flight
controls may not be able to perform all of the tasks required by the
ACS or PTS, as applicable. Applicants would be able to use the
provision of Sec. 61.45(b)(2) to complete the practical test in such
an aircraft; however, they would receive a limitation on their
certificate specific to
[[Page 47687]]
the make and model of aircraft with simplified flight controls that
they tested in. Because the current rule language in Sec. 61.45(b)(2)
already provides for the issuance of a limitation in this instance, the
FAA finds it unnecessary to propose an amendment to the provision. The
FAA would, however, develop guidance to explain that, in the event an
applicant uses an aircraft with simplified flight controls designation
that is not capable of performing all the required tasks for a
practical test, the aircraft limitation would be issued pursuant to
Sec. 61.45(b)(2). The limitation would likely be a model-specific
limitation to effectively identify the aircraft the test was
accomplished in and limit the pilot from operating another aircraft
that may be able to perform tasks and maneuvers that the pilot was not
trained or tested on.
Further, because simplified flight control characteristics may vary
among aircraft due to rapid advances in aircraft automation and flight
control technology, the FAA believes that additional safeguards are
necessary for those practical tests taken in aircraft with simplified
flight controls. Specifically, the FAA proposes new paragraph (g),
which would set forth the requirements for an applicant taking a
practical test for an initial pilot certificate, rating, or privilege
in an aircraft with a simplified flight control designation. First, the
examiner would have to agree to conduct the test in proposed Sec.
61.45(g)(1). Additionally, the FAA proposes in Sec. 61.45(g)(2) that
the examiner also hold the appropriate category and class rating or
privilege, the appropriate simplified flight controls training and
model-specific endorsement, and an FAA authorization to conduct the
test. It is important that the examiner is familiar with the make and
model of the simplified flight control-designated aircraft before
issuing a practical test to conduct the test safely and is familiar
with the standards that an applicant must meet so as to demonstrate
competency. The FAA finds that examiners must become familiar with the
make and model through the training and endorsement requirements
themselves before conducting a practical test in the same aircraft.
Proposed Sec. 61.45(g)(3) would require the examiner to have the
ability to assume control of the aircraft at any time to enable the
safe conduct of the test, should the applicant perform poorly during
the test and possibly put the aircraft in an unsafe flight condition.
Pilot applicants that successfully complete a practical test in one
of these aircraft would then be issued a pilot certificate with a
model-specific limitation \62\ per Sec. 61.45(b)(2) and proposed Sec.
61.45(g)(4). Pursuant to Sec. 61.45(g)(4), the model-specific
limitation would be issued subject to the requirements of proposed
Sec. 61.45(h), which would explicitly limit a pilot who receives a
category and class rating or privilege with a simplified flight
controls limitation to operation of only that make and model of
aircraft. Proposed Sec. 61.45(h) would also detail the requirements
under which a pilot could operate a different aircraft. First, if the
pilot seeks to operate another make and model of aircraft with a
simplified flight controls designation in the same category and class,
then the person would be required to only receive training and an
endorsement in accordance with proposed Sec. 61.31(l). The person
would not be required to take another practical test because the
similarities between classes of aircraft are such that a training and
endorsement would be sufficient to address operational differences with
the simplified flight controls designs. However, should the pilot seek
to operate a different category and class of aircraft with a simplified
flight controls designation, the person would be required to
successfully complete a practical test for that category and class of
aircraft under proposed Sec. 61.45(h)(2). This proposal is no
different to the current status quo whereby a person holds a
certificate with a category and class rating and seeks to operate an
aircraft in a different category and class rating. Additionally, should
a pilot who holds category and class ratings and is limited to acting
as PIC of aircraft with simplified flight controls (i.e., has taken a
practical test for those category and class ratings in only an aircraft
with simplified flight controls) seek to act as PIC of an aircraft
without a simplified flight controls designation, the person would also
be required to successfully complete a practical test for that category
and class of aircraft with traditional flight controls under proposed
Sec. 61.45(h)(2).\63\ A practical test would be required to address
the more significant operational differences between, first, different
categories and classes of aircraft and, second, aircraft with a
simplified flight controls designation and those with traditional
flight controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ Model-specific refers to the make and model of light-sport
category aircraft that the applicant uses to test to receive a sport
pilot certificate.
\63\ Because sport pilots are limited already to acting as PIC
of rotorcraft-helicopters with simplified flight controls, a sport
pilot seeking to act as PIC of another make and model of rotorcraft-
helicopter with simplified flight controls would need only complete
the training and endorsement in proposed Sec. 61.31(l). By
contrast, a sport pilot who holds airplane-single engine ratings
limited to a make and model of airplane with simplified flight
controls would be required to take a practical test if seeking to
operate a single engine airplane with traditional flight controls.
Likewise, a private pilot who took the private pilot practical test
for single engine airplane ratings in a Sec. 21.190 airplane with a
simplified flight controls designation would be required to complete
another practical test in an aircraft with traditional flight
controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For instructional purposes, the following table presents a sampling
of scenarios pertaining to when a pilot is authorized or is seeking to
operate an aircraft with simplified flight controls and the proposed
requirements.
Table 1--Airman Certification Simplified Flight Controls Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then you must complete--
If you hold a-- And you are seeking-- Regulatory reference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sport Pilot Certificate with To operate another The training and Proposed Sec.
Rotorcraft-Helicopter Simplified model of rotorcraft- endorsement required 61.45(h)(1).
Flight Controls Privilege with Model helicopter with by proposed Sec.
Specific Limitation. simplified flight 61.31(l).
controls.
Sport Pilot Certificate with A private pilot The requirements to Part 61, subpart E,
Rotorcraft-Helicopter Simplified certificate with receive a private subject to proposed
Flight Controls Privilege with Model rotorcraft-helicopter pilot certificate, to Sec. 61.9.
Specific Limitation. rating (regardless of include a practical
a simplified flight test.
controls designation).
[[Page 47688]]
Private Pilot Certificate with a To operate another The training and Proposed Sec.
Rotorcraft Category and Helicopter model of rotorcraft- endorsement required 61.45(h)(1).
Class Rating, Simplified Flight helicopter with by proposed Sec.
Controls Model Specific Limitation. simplified flight 61.31(l).
controls.
Private Pilot Certificate with a To operate a Rotorcraft- A practical test....... Proposed Sec.
Rotorcraft Category and Helicopter Helicopter without 61.45(h)(2).
Class Rating, Simplified Flight Simplified Flight
Controls Limitation. Controls.
Private Pilot Certificate with a To operate an airplane The requirements to add Proposed Sec.
Rotorcraft Category and Helicopter with simplified flight another category and 61.45(2) & part 61,
Class Rating, Simplified Flight controls. class rating on a subpart E.
Controls Limitation. private pilot
certificate, to
include a practical
test.
Private Pilot Certificate with a To operate a Rotorcraft The training and Proposed Sec.
Rotorcraft Category and Helicopter Helicopter with endorsement required 61.31(l).
Class Rating (no simplified flight Simplified Flight by proposed Sec.
controls model limitation). Controls. 61.31(l).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. New Rotorcraft-Helicopter Privilege for Sport Pilots and Sport Pilot
Instructors
Sport pilots and flight instructors with a sport pilot rating are
currently unable to obtain a rotorcraft-helicopter (also referred in to
in this preamble simply as helicopter) privilege because helicopters
are excluded from the definition of light-sport aircraft.\64\ The FAA
did not include helicopters within the light-sport aircraft definition
in 2004 because of helicopters' complexity in design, maintenance,
manufacture, and operation.\65\ At the time, the FAA did not anticipate
that manufacturers would design simple-to-operate, low-performance
helicopters that fit within the scope of the privileges afforded to the
holder of a sport pilot certificate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ See Sec. 1.1, Light-sport aircraft.
\65\ 69 FR 44869, 44793 (July 27, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA recognizes that manufacturers now have access to new
technology enabling simple-to-fly helicopter designs not envisioned in
2004. For example, manufacturers have developed multicopters \66\ with
flight controls that would satisfy the simplified flight controls
criteria during the aircraft certification process, as previously
discussed. Aircraft with simplified flight controls may lack a typical
helicopter cyclic or collective control and instead could use a
joystick or steering wheel and push button controls (subject to certain
requirements) \67\ or a touchscreen interface that greatly reduce the
piloting skills necessary to fly the aircraft. As discussed more fully
in the discussion of proposed Sec. 22.180, the aircraft certification
process would establish the criteria for the simplified flight controls
designation, which would include standards for the pilot interface, the
loss of control prevention, and the ability for the pilot to safely
discontinue flight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ A multicopter is a rotorcraft that can have more than one
rotor providing lift. Although multicopters are helicopters by
definition, multicopters differ from the conventional helicopter
models originally considered during the 2004 rulemaking because the
takeoff and landing are intended to be automated and not require
extensive pilot training and skill.
\67\ For example, as previously discussed, a joystick controller
that is used to select flight commands or move a cursor on a display
could qualify as a simplified flight control design.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA proposes to amend part 61, subpart J, to allow sport pilots
to operate certain simple-to-fly helicopters. Specifically, the FAA
proposes to permit sport pilots to operate new helicopters certificated
under the proposed Sec. 21.190 that include the simplified flight
control designation. First, the FAA is proposing a limitation in Sec.
61.316(a)(9) that would limit the kinds of helicopters that sport
pilots may operate to those helicopters that have been certificated
with a simplified flight controls design and designation. To facilitate
integration of new simplified flight control helicopter operations
under this subpart, the FAA also proposes amendments to Sec. Sec.
61.311 and 61.313, which are discussed below. The FAA's current
proposal aligns with the original intent of the 2004 final rule
promulgating the sport pilot certificate and light-sport aircraft
definition, which was to allow sport pilots to operate simple-to-fly
aircraft.
To facilitate helicopter operations for sport pilots, the FAA
proposes in Sec. 61.311 to include ``helicopter'' in the list of
aircraft to which flight proficiency requirements apply and to add
helicopter-specific areas of operation and tasks that would apply to
sport pilot certificate applicants seeking a rotorcraft-helicopter
privilege. These areas of operation are key to attaining competency in
the operation of helicopters and are not otherwise covered by existing
areas of operation. Sport pilots seeking a helicopter simplified flight
controls privilege will still need to accomplish the other areas of
operation listed in current Sec. 61.311, as appropriate. Therefore,
the FAA would require that a sport pilot applicant log ground and
flight training from an authorized instructor on heliport operations in
proposed Sec. 61.311(c) and hovering maneuvers in proposed Sec.
61.311(d) in addition to the existing areas of operation and tasks
applicable to helicopters (e.g., takeoffs, landings, performance
maneuvers). While these proposed areas of operation and their
applicable tasks would be applicable specifically to helicopters,
conversely, the FAA recognizes that there are areas of operation that
are inherently inapplicable to helicopters: specifically, ground
reference maneuvers, slow flight, and stalls. Therefore, the FAA
proposes to except helicopters from these areas of operation in the
flight proficiency requirements of Sec. 61.311.\68\ As discussed in
the following section, because the practical test for a sport pilot
certificate for a rotorcraft-helicopter rating would include these
areas of operation, training should involve proficiency for the tasks
listed under the applicable areas of operation in the regulation, which
are reflected in the Sport Pilot Helicopter ACS (see section IV.E.9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ The FAA notes that the paragraph designations of the areas
of operation in Sec. 61.311 would change based on the addition of
helicopter-specific areas of operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of the unique operations and tasks associated with
helicopter
[[Page 47689]]
operations in the national airspace system, applicants must obtain
certain and specialized training and experience, as with any person
seeking a certificate, rating, or privilege. These unique operating
characteristics include the ability to hover over specific locations,
operate in confined spaces and land in unique locations such as sloped
terrain, buildings, or other man-made structures. As a result, the FAA
contends that helicopter operations impose an unacceptable risk to the
general public and other aircraft operating in the national airspace
system unless an applicant accomplishes these minimum helicopter flight
experience and training requirements.
First, with the proposed addition of flight simulation training
device and aviation training device credit paragraphs in Sec. 61.313,
as discussed in section IV.E.11 of this preamble, the FAA proposes to
renumber Sec. 61.313. Specifically, current Sec. 61.313(a) through
(h) would become Sec. 61.313(a)(1) through (8). As subsequently
discussed, the FAA proposes to establish the aeronautical experience
requirements for the newly proposed rotorcraft-helicopter privileges,
which would be Sec. 61.313(a)(9). As proposed, an applicant for a
sport pilot certificate who seeks to obtain a helicopter rating would
be required to log at least 30 hours of helicopter flight time, 15
hours of flight training, and 5 hours of solo flight. The FAA proposes
these minimum experience requirements because the minimum recreational
pilot grade of pilot certificate seeking a helicopter rating requires
comparable minimum experience requirements.
The FAA contends that the minimum experience requirements for a
recreational pilot to obtain a helicopter rating would also be
appropriate for a sport pilot certificate because the operational
limitations for sport pilots are virtually identical to those for
recreational pilots. For example, both sport pilots and recreational
pilots are limited to carrying only one passenger, operations below
10,000 feet MSL, a minimum of 3 miles of visibility, prohibition to
operate in class A/B/C/D airspace, and a prohibition for night
operations. One substantive difference is that recreational pilot
applicants are required to obtain 10 more total hours of experience.
Another difference is that recreational pilots have more restrictive
cross-country operational limitations. However, because helicopters
have unique operating capabilities and limitations and additional risks
to mitigate including those associated low altitude operations, the FAA
contends that the minimum training and experience requirements for
recreational pilots seeking an initial helicopter rating is also
appropriate for sport pilot applicants.
Proposed Sec. 61.313(a)(9) would also require applicants to
complete at least:
two hours of flight training enroute to an airport more
than 25 nautical miles from where the applicant normally trains;
three takeoffs and landings at the airport located more
than 25 nautical miles from where the applicant normally trains;
three hours of solo flying in the aircraft for the rating
sought on the applicable areas listed in Sec. 61.98; and
three hours of flight training with an authorized
instructor on the areas specified in Sec. 61.311 in preparation for
the practical test within the preceding two calendar months from the
month of the test.
For the reasons explained in the preceding paragraphs, the FAA
proposes these aeronautical experience requirements for sport pilots
seeking to add rotorcraft-helicopter privileges because of the unique
operational capability of helicopters and the experience requirements
listed for a recreational pilot with almost identical operating
privileges.
In addition to proposing to allow sport pilots to hold privileges
for helicopters, the FAA is likewise proposing to allow sport pilot
instructors to obtain or add helicopter privileges to their instructor
privileges. Upon reviewing the current flight proficiency requirements
in Sec. 61.409 and the current aeronautical experience requirements in
Sec. 61.411, the FAA finds that a sport pilot instructor seeking a
helicopter privilege should meet similar flight proficiency and
experience requirements as a sport pilot instructor seeking an airplane
category single-engine class privilege. As explained in section
IV.E.10, a person seeking to add a helicopter privilege to a sport
pilot instructor certificate would be required to successfully complete
a knowledge and practical test, consistent with the FAA's proposal to
require a person seeking a sport pilot instructor certificate with an
airplane single-engine class privilege to complete a knowledge and
practical test.
Under proposed Sec. 61.409, flight instructors would be required
to log ground and flight training on the areas of operation that apply
to other categories of aircraft, as appropriate, and on the newly
proposed areas of operation that are applicable only to helicopters.
Specifically, the FAA proposes to add areas of operation that would
require a person seeking a sport pilot instructor certificate with a
helicopter privilege to receive training on heliport operations and
hovering maneuvers. The FAA notes that these two additional areas of
operation are consistent with the areas of operation that the FAA
proposes to add to the areas of operation in the flight proficiency
requirements of Sec. 61.311 for a person seeking a sport pilot
certificate with a helicopter privilege. Finally, the FAA also proposes
to add a ``special operations'' area of operation for helicopters. The
base tasks under ``special operations'' are contained with the Sport
Pilot Helicopter ACS under the area of operation labeled ``takeoffs,
landings, and go-arounds''; therefore, there is no discrepancy between
the foundational flight proficiency expectations from a sport pilot to
a sport pilot flight instructor pertaining to these special operation
tasks. Rather, the FAA is simply aligning the formatting and
organization of the Sport Pilot Flight Instructor Helicopter ACS (as it
pertains to special operations) with that of the Flight Instructor
Helicopter ACS.
While these proposed areas of operation and their applicable tasks
would be applicable specifically to helicopters, conversely, the FAA
recognizes that there are areas of operation that are inherently
inapplicable to helicopters: specifically, ground reference maneuvers,
slow flight, and stalls. Therefore, the FAA proposes to except
helicopters from these areas of operation in the flight proficiency
requirements of Sec. 61.409.\69\ As discussed in the following
section, because the practical test for a sport pilot certificate for a
rotorcraft-helicopter rating would include these areas of operation,
training should involve proficiency for the tasks listed under the
applicable areas of operation in the regulation, which are reflected in
the Sport Pilot Flight Instructor Helicopter ACS (see section IV.E.9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ The FAA notes that the paragraph designations of the areas
of operation in Sec. 61.409 would change based on the addition of
helicopter-specific areas of operation. Additionally, during the
pendency of this rulemaking, the FAA noted a technical omission in
the area of operation ``soaring techniques.'' Specifically, soaring
techniques are only applicable to gliders, yet this specificity is
not present in the regulatory text. Therefore, the FAA proposes to
add applicability language indicating this area of operation is only
for gliders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the FAA proposes to add new aeronautical experience
requirements to current Sec. 61.411 for applicants seeking a sport
pilot instructor certificate with a helicopter privilege. The FAA has
determined that the aeronautical experience required for instructional
privileges in a helicopter
[[Page 47690]]
should mirror the aeronautical experience required for instructional
privileges in an airplane. Specifically, proposed Sec. 61.411(h)(1)
would require an applicant for a flight instructor certificate with a
sport pilot rating seeking a rotorcraft-helicopter privilege to
complete at least 150 hours of flight time as a pilot. Under proposed
Sec. 61.411(h), this flight time must include at least:
100 hours of flight time as PIC in powered aircraft;
50 hours of flight time in a rotorcraft-helicopter;
25 hours of cross-country flight time;
10 hours of cross-country flight time in a rotorcraft-
helicopter; and
15 hours of flight time as PIC in a helicopter.
The FAA reasons that helicopter experience requirements for a sport
pilot instructor should be consistent with the airplane experience
requirements for a sport pilot instructor for the following reasons.
Helicopters and airplanes are the predominant aircraft that operate in
the NAS. With the helicopter privilege being a new privilege to be
added to the sport pilot instructor certificate, the FAA finds it
reasonable to take a conservative approach and mirror the aeronautical
experience requirements that apply to a sport pilot instructor seeking
an airplane single-engine privilege. Those aeronautical experience
requirements in Sec. 61.411 that apply to a person seeking
instructional privileges in a single-engine airplane have been deemed a
reasonable level of minimum aeronautical experience since 2004. The FAA
does not find any reason to adopt lesser experience requirements for a
helicopter privilege at this time given that both airplanes and
helicopters have broad access to the NAS, extensive operational
capabilities, and are likely the greatest volume of privileges sought
by flight instructors.
The FAA recognizes that, initially, there would be no sport pilot
instructors who are qualified to provide training for a sport pilot
helicopter privilege. To provide flight training to a sport pilot
seeking a helicopter privilege, the sport pilot instructor must first
obtain the helicopter privilege on their sport pilot certificate before
being eligible to obtain the necessary privileges on their sport pilot
instructor certificate. In addition, because sport pilots would be
limited to operating helicopters with simplified flight control
designations, a sport pilot instructor would also be required to obtain
the training and endorsement for aircraft with a simplified flight
controls designation required by proposed Sec. 61.31(l).
To address the initial lack of qualified sport pilot instructors,
the FAA is proposing to rely on subpart H instructors who already hold
rotorcraft category helicopter class ratings on their flight instructor
certificates. As discussed in the previous section, the FAA is
proposing an amendment to Sec. 61.195(m) that would enable these
subpart H flight instructors to receive training and an endorsement at
a manufacturer for helicopters with simplified flight controls. Upon
obtaining the training and endorsement from an instructor pilot at the
manufacturer, the subpart H instructor would be qualified to provide
flight training to a sport pilot instructor or a sport pilot who seeks
to obtain a helicopter privilege and the Sec. 61.31(l) training and
endorsement. This initial reliance on subpart H flight instructors
would establish the initial groups of sport pilots and sport pilot
instructors with helicopter privileges.
In summary, the FAA seeks to facilitate the operation of certain
simple to fly helicopter (i.e., those with simplified flight controls
design and designation) for sport pilots and sport pilot flight
instructors. The FAA's proposed amendments to Sec. Sec. 61.311,
61.313, 61.409, and 61.411 would validate that sport pilots seeking to
operate simplified flight control rotorcraft-helicopters and flight
instructors who instruct in these aircraft are sufficiently trained and
tested. As a result, the FAA's proposals balance the demand to enable
these helicopter operations while maintaining a rigorous level of
training and checking to enable safe operations in the NAS. Sport
pilots or flight instructors with a sport pilot rating will not be
permitted to operate helicopters without the simplified flight controls
design and designation.
9. Sport Pilot and Sport Pilot Flight Instructor for Rotorcraft-
Helicopter; Incorporation by Reference
Currently, the required tasks, criteria, and standards for
successful completion of a practical test are outlined for sport pilots
in three published PTS.\70\ However, because helicopters cannot be
certificated under the current Sec. 21.190 and a rotorcraft-helicopter
privilege is not available to sport pilots because by definition a
helicopter cannot be a light-sport aircraft, a PTS does not currently
exist for sport pilots seeking a rotorcraft category, helicopter class
privilege.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ Sport Pilot and Sport Pilot Flight Instructor Rating
Practical Test Standards for Airplane Category, Rotorcraft Category,
and Glider Category; Sport Pilot and Sport Pilot Flight Instructor
Rating Practical Test Standards for Lighter-Than-Air Category; Sport
Pilot and Sport Pilot Flight Instructor Rating Practical Test
Standards for Powered Parachute Category and Weight-Shift-Control
Category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In collaboration with the aviation industry and the FAA's routine
review processes, the FAA previously identified the need for a new,
systematic approach to testing that would (1) provide clearer
standards, (2) consolidate redundant tasks, and (3) connect the
standards for knowledge, risk management, and skills to the knowledge
and practical tests. Therefore, the FAA began to establish the ACSs in
2011 to enhance the testing standard for the knowledge and practical
tests. The goal in creating the ACS was to drive a systematic approach
to the airman certification process, including knowledge test question
development and the conduct of the practical test. In cooperation with
the ACS Working Group, established through the Aviation Rulemaking
Advisory Committee (ARAC),\71\ the FAA integrated ``aeronautical
knowledge'' and ``risk management'' elements into the existing areas of
operations and tasks set forth in the PTS. Therefore, the ACS is a
comprehensive presentation integrating the standards for what an
applicant must know, consider, and do to demonstrate proficiency to
pass the tests required for issuance of the applicable airman
certificate or rating.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ The ARAC is a body established under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act. 5 U.S.C. app. 2. The ARAC ACS Working Group is
comprised of the FAA, advocacy groups, instructor groups, training
providers, academic institutions, and labor organizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the FAA is actively converting all PTSs to ACSs in
collaboration with the ACS Working Group, the FAA does not find it
appropriate to draft a Sport Pilot PTS for Rotorcraft-Helicopter, as
the other Sport Pilot testing standards are situated. Rather, the FAA
has drafted two new ACSs for helicopters with simplified flight
controls: (1) Sport Pilot for Helicopter--Simplified Flight Controls
ACS, FAA-S-ACS-26 (Sport Pilot Helicopter ACS) and (2) Sport Flight
Instructor for Helicopter--Simplified Flight Controls ACS (Sport Flight
Instructor Helicopter ACS). Each ACS establishes the aeronautical
knowledge, risk management, and flight proficiency standards for sport
pilot practical tests and flight instructor proficiency checks for
light-sport category aircraft in the rotorcraft-helicopter class for
sport pilots and for sport pilots with a flight instructor rating. The
Sport Pilot Helicopter ACS contains the following areas of operation:
preflight preparation;
[[Page 47691]]
preflight procedures; airport and heliport operations; hovering
maneuvers; takeoffs, landings, and go-arounds; performance maneuvers;
navigation; emergency operations; and post-flight procedures.
Similarly, the Sport Flight Instructor for Helicopter contains the
following areas of operation: fundamentals of instructing; technical
subject areas; preflight preparation; preflight lesson on a maneuver to
be performed in flight; preflight procedures; airport and heliport
operations; hovering maneuvers; takeoffs, landings, and go-arounds;
fundamentals of flight; performance maneuvers; emergency operations;
special operations; and postflight procedures.
Similar to the current practical test and PTS/ACS framework for
sport pilots, the FAA proposes to incorporate the two ACSs into the
regulations to delineate what an applicant must demonstrate on a
practical test to attain privileges for a sport pilot certificate with
a rotorcraft-helicopter privilege or flight instructor certificate with
sport pilot rating and rotorcraft-helicopter privilege. First, the FAA
proposes to revise Sec. 61.307, which sets forth the required tests an
applicant must take to obtain a sport pilot certificate. Specifically,
proposed new Sec. 61.307(b)(1) would precisely reflect the standards
that a person must successfully demonstrate on a practical test for a
sport pilot certificate with rotorcraft-helicopter privilege: those
knowledge, risk management, and skill elements for each area of
operation on the Sport Pilot Helicopter ACS. Proposed new Sec.
61.307(b)(2) provides the required incorporation by reference language,
including how the Sport Pilot Helicopter ACS is made readily available
to the public. Similarly, the FAA proposes to revise Sec. 61.405,
which sets forth the required tests an applicant must obtain to obtain
a flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating. Proposed new
Sec. 61.405(b)(3) would precisely reflect the standards that a person
must successfully demonstrate on a practical test for a flight
instructor certificate with a sport pilot certificate rotorcraft-
helicopter privilege (i.e., those knowledge, risk management, and skill
elements for each area of operation on the Sport Flight Instructor
Helicopter ACS). Proposed new Sec. 61.405(b)(4) provides the required
incorporation by reference language and how the Sport Flight Instructor
Helicopter ACS is made available to the public.
Incorporation by reference is a mechanism that allows Federal
agencies to comply with the requirements of the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA) to publish rules in the Federal Register and the
CFR by referring to material published elsewhere.\72\ Material that is
incorporated by reference has the same legal status as if it were
published in full in the Federal Register. In accordance with 5 U.S.C.
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51,\73\ the FAA makes the Sport Pilot ACS for
Rotorcraft-Helicopter reasonably available to interested parties by
providing free online public access to view on the FAA Training and
Testing website at faa.gov/training_testing. The ACS is available for
download, free of charge, at the provided web address. The FAA will
continue to provide the ACS to interested parties in this manner. In
addition to the free online material on the FAA's website, printable
versions are available from the FAA. Additionally, all ACSs proposed to
be incorporated by reference are contained in the docket for this NPRM
for inspection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ 5 U.S.C. 552(a), which states, ``except to the extent that
a person has actual or timely notice of the terms thereof, a person
may not in any manner be required to resort to, or be adversely
affected by, a matter required to be published in the Federal
Register and not so published. For the purpose of this paragraph,
matter reasonably available to the class of persons affected thereby
is deemed published in the Federal Register when incorporated by
reference therein with the approval of the Director of the Federal
Register.''
\73\ 5 U.S.C. 552(a) requires that matter incorporated by
reference be ``reasonably available'' as a condition of its
eligibility. Further, 1 CFR 51.5(a)(2) requires that agencies
seeking to incorporate material by reference discuss in the preamble
of the proposed rule the ways that the material it proposes to
incorporate by reference is reasonably available to interested
parties and how interested parties can obtain the material.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA recognizes that on December 12, 2022, the FAA published the
Airman Certification Standards and Practical Test Standards for Airmen;
Incorporation by Reference (ACS IBR) NPRM.\74\ As it pertains to this
NPRM, the ACS IBR NPRM proposed to revise certain part 61 regulations
to incorporate the three aforementioned PTSs into the requirements for
sport pilots (see footnote 70). The FAA will reconcile this proposal
with the ACS IBR final rule as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ 87 FR 75955.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Require Sport Pilots and Flight Instructors With a Sport Pilot
Rating Seeking To Add an Airplane or Helicopter Privilege To Accomplish
a Knowledge and Practical Test
Currently, to obtain a sport pilot certificate or a flight
instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating, a person must pass a
practical test with an examiner in the category and class of aircraft
for the initial privileges for that certificate.\75\ Once a person
possesses a sport pilot certificate or flight instructor certificate
with a sport pilot rating and wishes to add privileges to their
certificate, the person must pass a proficiency check with an
authorized instructor rather than a practical test with an
examiner.\76\ This proficiency check requirement currently applies to a
person seeking to add an airplane single engine privilege to their
certificate. Specifically, under the current framework of Sec. 61.321,
a person seeking to obtain privileges to operate an additional category
or class of aircraft must (1) receive a logbook endorsement validating
they received training on certain aeronautical knowledge and flight
proficiency requirements; (2) complete a proficiency check; and (3)
receive an endorsement certifying they are proficient in the applicable
areas of operation and aeronautical knowledge areas; and (4) complete
an application. Similarly, under the current framework of Sec. 61.419,
a certificated flight instructor with a sport pilot rating seeking to
provide training in an additional category or class of aircraft must
meet the same qualifying conditions (i.e., training, endorsements, and
a proficiency check).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ 14 CFR 61.307, 61.405.
\76\ 14 CFR 61.321, 61.419.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the proposed expansion of certificated light-sport category
aircraft that a sport pilot may operate and the addition of rotorcraft-
helicopters as light-sport category aircraft, the FAA contends that a
proficiency check with an authorized instructor is no longer a
sufficient method of evaluation or validation when qualifying a sport
pilot or flight instructor with a sport pilot rating to operate or
provide training in an airplane or helicopter in the national airspace
system. Therefore, the FAA is proposing to amend Sec. Sec. 61.321 and
61.419 to require sport pilots and flight instructors with a sport
pilot rating seeking to add an airplane or helicopter privilege to
their existing sport pilot certificate or flight instructor
certificate, to accomplish a knowledge test and practical test under
Sec. Sec. 61.307 and 61.405, respectively.
With the expansion of the aircraft models, weight, and speed that a
sport pilot may operate under proposed Sec. 61.316, performance and
design limitations and the proposed addition of a rotorcraft-helicopter
privilege, the FAA contends that a knowledge and practical test is
necessary to appropriately validate that a sport pilot can conduct
these airplane and helicopter operations safely. The rigor of an FAA
knowledge and practical test
[[Page 47692]]
using FAA-approved certification standards is significantly greater
than that of a proficiency check conducted by a flight instructor. FAA
examiners are trained and qualified annually to validate that the
conduct of a practical test meets specific standards and criteria
during the evaluation of an applicant. The FAA believes that the use of
the airmen certification standards qualifying a pilot for a
certificate, rating, or privilege will appropriately mitigate the risk
associated with the expansion of flight operations by sport pilots in
the NAS. In other words, the aircraft may now vary and perform in such
an extensive way such that a proficiency check can no longer adequately
validate that a pilot can proficiently operate a light-sport category
airplane single engine or rotorcraft-helicopter safely in the national
airspace system.
Therefore, the proposed knowledge and practical test requirement
would validate competency by replacing the regulatory requirements in
Sec. Sec. 61.321 and 61.419 that currently permit the conduct of a
proficiency check to obtain a new airplane or helicopter privilege for
sport pilots and other pilots who hold a higher grade of certificate
who want to add that category and class privilege at the sport pilot
level.\77\ Specifically, proposed Sec. 61.321(e) would require a
person who seeks to add an airplane single-engine land or sea or
rotorcraft-helicopter land or sea privilege to their pilot certificate
to accomplish a knowledge and practical test for that category
privilege, as specified in Sec. 61.309. Similarly, proposed Sec.
61.419(e) would require a person who seeks to add an airplane single
engine land or sea or rotorcraft-helicopter land or sea privilege to
their sport pilot flight instructor certificate to accomplish a
knowledge and practical test for that category privilege, as specified
in Sec. 61.405. Because these regulations require compliance with
Sec. Sec. 61.307 and 61.419, the practical tests would be aligned to
the Sport Pilot Helicopter ACS as proposed in Sec. Sec. 61.307(b)(1)
and 61.405(b)(3), as applicable, for a rotorcraft-helicopter privilege.
As previously noted, the ACS IBR rulemaking would address the material
on practical tests for an airplane single engine privilege in the
light-sport category, and the FAA will reconcile the proposals as the
respective rulemakings progress. The FAA notes that it is retaining
Sec. Sec. 61.321(a) and (c) and 61.419(a) and (c); therefore, these
pilots must complete the required training and obtain an authorized
instructor recommendation before evaluation by an examiner authorized
by the FAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ The FAA notes that the provision would apply if a pilot
held a higher grade certificate as well. For example, if a pilot
held a commercial pilot certificate with rotorcraft category and
helicopter class ratings and sought to operate a light sprot
category airplane single engine land, the pilot would be required to
take the practical test under this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Aviation Training Device or Flight Simulation Training Device
Credit, Removal of Certain Light-Sport Aircraft References, and Other
Amendments
The FAA proposes two additional amendments to support modernization
of the sport pilot regulations. Currently, the FAA does not permit the
use of FSTDs or ATDs to meet sport pilot experience requirements for a
certificate or rating. First, the FAA proposes to permit sport pilot
applicants to use a qualified FSTD or a FAA-approved ATD (basic or
advanced) to meet some of the experience requirements for a sport pilot
certificate through the proposed Sec. 61.313(b). Specifically, the FAA
would permit sport pilots to use up to 2.5 hours of training credit in
an FSTD and ATD representing the appropriate category and class of
aircraft to meet the experience requirements of part 61. The FAA notes
that the time in an FSTD or an ATD may be combined to meet the 2.5
hours of training, but the proposed regulation does not permit 2.5
hours in each device independently to count towards the experience
requirements.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ For example, a person may complete 1 hour of training in an
FSTD and 1.5 hours in an ATD to meet the 2.5 hours comprehensively.
However, a person may not count 2.5 hours in an FSTD and 2.5 hours
in an ATD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FSTD and ATD credit allowance proposal is consistent with the
FAA's long-standing regulations throughout part 61 that allow
simulation credit under certain circumstances. Furthermore, for those
part 61 flight schools or those flight school operators who possess a
part 141 air agency certificate, this proposal provides training device
credit for pilots pursuing an initial pilot certificate or rating. In
support, the FAA reasons that permitting the use of FAA evaluated,
qualified, and approved FSTDs and ATDs allows students to conduct
procedural tasks of various maneuvers in advance of doing those same
tasks in an aircraft, thereby reducing the risk of making mistakes
during the flight portion of the training and when practicing emergency
procedures. Allowing pilot time credit in an FSTD and ATD reduces risk
for those students or pilots in training, who then will accomplish
those same tasks or maneuvers in an aircraft. Moreover, conducting
training in FSTDs and ATDs reduces cost, teaches safe operational
procedures in advance of flight operations, permits practicing
emergency procedures without undue risk, and ultimately reduces risk
during pilot training.
Second, the FAA proposes conforming amendments to remove reference
to light-sport aircraft in Sec. Sec. 61.45, 61.313, and 61.325. The
removal of the reference to light-sport aircraft in subpart J is
consistent with the FAA's proposal to remove the definition for these
aircraft in Sec. 1.1. Where appropriate, the FAA proposes that the
reference to light-sport aircraft will be replaced with a reference to
newly proposed Sec. 61.316, which sets forth the performance
limitations for the aircraft a sport pilot may operate. As explained in
section IV.B.2 of this preamble, this change in terminology is
accompanied by broadening some of the limitations that currently exist
in the definition of light-sport aircraft in Sec. 1.1.
Section 61.3 speaks to pilot certificates, ratings, and
authorizations that are required to operate aircraft in the United
States. Currently, the privileges provided in Sec. 61.313 are not
codified in Sec. 61.3. The FAA also proposes a conforming amendment to
Sec. 61.3 that adds a new paragraph requiring that a sport pilot
exercising the privileges listed in Sec. 61.313 receives a qualifying
logbook endorsement for the appropriate category and class privilege,
as applicable. This clarification to Sec. 61.3 is required because
sport pilots do not obtain a rating issued on a sport pilot
certificate, but instead they receive an endorsement in their logbook
facilitating the appropriate category and class ``privilege,'' as
referenced in Sec. 61.317.
Finally, during this rulemaking, the FAA noted that Sec. 61.305 is
improperly formatted, as it sets forth a paragraph (a) but no
corresponding paragraph (b). Therefore, the FAA is proposing to
redesignate existing paragraph (a) as introductory text, existing
paragraph (a)(1) as new paragraph (a), and existing paragraph (a)(2) as
new paragraph (b). There are no substantive changes proposed for this
section; these are only formatting corrections.
F. Repairman (Light-Sport) Certificates
Part 65 provides the requirements for certification of airmen other
than flight crewmembers, including certification of a repairman (light-
sport aircraft) in subpart E. In addition to meeting the general
eligibility requirements (e.g., age, language) set forth by Sec.
65.107(a)(1), an applicant for a repairman certificate (light-sport
aircraft) must complete
[[Page 47693]]
specified training requirements.\79\ These specific training
requirements are first dependent on whether an applicant seeks an
inspection rating or a maintenance rating (or a combination
thereof).\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ As discussed in the 2004 final rule, the FAA established
training requirements for a repairman (light-sport aircraft)
certificate because owners of these aircraft cannot show that the
owner manufactured the major portion of the aircraft, unlike a
builder of an experimental amateur-built aircraft, and therefore
cannot show that the owner would have the skill necessary to inspect
and maintain the light-sport aircraft. 69 FR 44848.
\80\ A person must meet the eligibility requirements set forth
by Sec. 65.107(a)(1) for a repairman certificate (light sport
aircraft) before the person is eligible for an inspection rating or
maintenance rating pursuant to Sec. 65.107(a)(2)(i) and (3)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For an inspection rating, a person must complete a 16-hour training
course acceptable to the FAA on inspecting the particular class of
experimental light-sport aircraft for which the person intends to
exercise the privileges of this rating. For a maintenance rating,
instructional hours are dependent on the class of aircraft on which the
repairman intends to exercise the privileges of the certificate and
rating. The specific hours for each class of aircraft are the minimum
required to demonstrate a person is sufficiently knowledgeable about
the class of aircraft they perform work on. For example, a repairman
certificate (light-sport aircraft) with a maintenance rating and
airplane class privileges requires 120 hours of instruction in a
training course pursuant to Sec. 65.107(a)(3)(ii)(A), whereas a
maintenance rating with weight-shift control aircraft class privileges
requires 104 hours of instruction pursuant to Sec.
65.107(A)(3)(ii)(B).\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ Section 65.107(a)(3)(ii) also provides training course
instruction hour requirements for powered parachute class
privileges, lighter than air class privileges, and glider class
privileges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The holder of a repairman certificate (light-sport aircraft) with
an inspection rating is limited to performing the annual condition
inspection on an aircraft that is owned by the holder, that has been
issued an experimental certificate for operating light-sport aircraft
under Sec. 21.191 and that is in the same class of aircraft for which
the holder has completed training. The holder of a repairman
certificate (light-sport aircraft) with a maintenance rating is limited
to performing or inspecting maintenance on, and approving for return to
service, aircraft issued a special airworthiness certificate in the
light-sport category under Sec. 21.190, performing the annual
condition inspection on aircraft that have an experimental certificate
for operating light-sport aircraft under Sec. 21.191 and that is in
the same class of aircraft for which the holder has completed training.
The repairman certificate identifies the rating (i.e., inspection
or maintenance) held and the appropriate privileges/limitations of each
rating by class, which are set forth by Sec. 65.107(b) through (d), as
applicable. For example, if the applicant meets the eligibility
requirements and has completed the applicable training for conducting
maintenance on the glider class of light-sport aircraft, the repairman
certificate would list ``Maintenance--glider'' in the privileges and
limitations section of the airman certificate. Therefore, that person
could only exercise the privileges and limitations set forth by Sec.
65.107(c) and (d) on the glider class of aircraft.
Further, under Sec. 65.107(d), a certificated repairman (light-
sport aircraft) with a maintenance rating is not permitted to approve
for return to service an aircraft (or any part thereof) unless that
person has previously performed the work concerned satisfactorily. If
the person has not previously performed such work, then the person may
show the ability to do the work by performing it to the satisfaction of
the FAA or under direct supervision of certain persons.\82\ These
requirements (i.e., class specific privileges/limitations and
performance history) provide for a repairman who is sufficiently
experienced and knowledgeable on the aircraft and the specific work
being performed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ These persons include an appropriately rated mechanic, or a
certificated repairman, who has previous experience in the
operations concerned, as provided in Sec. 65.107(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Revisions to Terminology (``Light-Sport Aircraft'' and ``Class'')
The FAA is proposing several amendments to terminology to maintain
clarity with the subsequently discussed substantive proposals.
Currently, the term ``light-sport aircraft'' is defined in Sec. 1.1;
however, because the FAA is proposing to remove the definition of
``light-sport aircraft'' from Sec. 1.1, as discussed in section
IV.B.2, the FAA proposes to remove the term throughout subpart D of
part 65.
First, the FAA proposes to change the certificate title from
``repairman certificate (light-sport aircraft)'' to ``repairman
certificate (light-sport).'' Because future aircraft certificated in
the light-sport category will not necessarily conform to the current
definition of light-sport aircraft, the FAA seeks to reduce confusion
as to the designation of current light-sport aircraft versus future
aircraft with a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport
category. Specifically, these repairman certificates would simply be
issued as a repairman certificate (light-sport) after the
implementation of a final rule.
The FAA notes that, should this proposal be adopted, repairman
certificates issued before an effective date specified in the final
rule would be valid without additional training or reissuance to
account for the broader scope of light-sport category aircraft
characteristics. Preserving the privileges of repairman certificates
issued before the effective date of the final rule, despite the
expansion of aircraft upon which the holder of the certificate may
perform work, would not result in a reduction in safety for several
reasons. The repairman certificate extends privileges only for the
category \83\ of aircraft that a person has received training and
testing on, regardless of time of issuance. Additionally, the
limitations found in current Sec. 65.107(d) are retained in this
proposal.\84\ Thus, a certificated light-sport repairman with a
maintenance rating is, and would continue to be, restricted from
approving for return to service any aircraft or part thereof unless the
repairman previously performed the work satisfactorily, shows the
ability to do the work by performing it to the satisfaction of the FAA
or performs the work under direct supervision of certain defined
persons. The FAA is not proposing changes to existing privileges or
limitations of either rating. The FAA finds the existing requirements,
as discussed, adequately address the expansion of aircraft that could
be inspected or maintained under the current repairman certificate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ The term ``category'' in this instance is used in the
context of airman certification as defined in Sec. 1.1. As
subsequently discussed, the FAA is proposing to replace the term
``class'' as used in Sec. 65.107 with ``category.''
\84\ As subsequently discussed, current Sec. 65.107(d) would
relocate to new Sec. 65.109(c) under this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, the FAA proposes to remove the term ``light-sport
aircraft'' to indicate the category of aircraft a repairman is
certificated to work on and, instead, refer only to ``aircraft'' in
these instances. Rather, the regulations would directly cross-reference
the appropriate aircraft as provided in part 21 that a repairman
(light-sport) could inspect and maintain. For example, proposed Sec.
65.109(a) (which would be a new section as part of a reorganization, as
subsequently discussed) would provide the privileges of a repairman
certificate (light-sport) with an
[[Page 47694]]
inspection rating and would set forth the type of aircraft a holder may
perform the annual condition inspection on in proposed Sec.
65.109(a)(2).
Third, the FAA proposes to replace references to ``class'' of
aircraft with ``category'' of aircraft in the proposed amendments to
Sec. Sec. 65.107 and 65.109.\85\ Section 1.1 sets forth definitions
for category and class. Both terms are defined, first, as used with
respect to the certification, ratings, privileges, and limitations of
airmen and, second, as used with respect to the certification of
aircraft. Under Sec. 65.107, the references to ``class'' are used in
the context of classes of aircraft certification, not airmen
certification. For example, Sec. 65.107(a)(3)(ii) sets forth the
training course hours of instruction required for airplanes, weight-
shift control aircraft, powered parachutes, lighter than air aircraft,
and gliders, which are labeled as classes. These aircraft are, in fact,
classes under the definition provided in Sec. 1.1 for class as used
with respect to aircraft certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ As subsequently discussed, the FAA proposes to bifurcate
Sec. 65.107 into two sections; therefore, proposed Sec. 65.109 is
a new section, but contains largely the same information as set
forth in current Sec. 65.107(b) through (d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA has determined using the term ``category'' in the context
of airman certification as defined in Sec. 1.1,\86\ is more
appropriate because Sec. 65.107 specifically prescribes repairman
certification, ratings, privileges, and limitations (i.e., airman
certification \87\). Therefore, the FAA is proposing to replace the
term ``class'' in Sec. 65.107 with ``category'' as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ Section 1.1 defines category, as used with respect to the
certification, ratings, privileges, and limitations of airmen, as a
broad classification of aircraft. Examples include: airplane;
rotorcraft; glider; and lighter-than-air.
\87\ The FAA notes that part 65 designation of category and
class aligns with the aircraft category and classes as specified in
Sec. 61.5(b)(1).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . is replaced with
The term ``class'' as used in current: ``category'' as used in
proposed:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 65.107(a)(2)(ii)................... Sec. 65.107(c).
Sec. 65.107(a)(3)(ii)................... Sec. 65.107(d).
Sec. 65.107(b)(3)....................... Sec. 65.109(a)(3).
Sec. 65.107(c)(3)....................... Sec. 65.109(b)(3).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the existing regulations in Sec. 65.107(a)(2)(ii)
and (a)(3)(ii) include the term ``particular'' as a modifier to
``class.'' The FAA has received numerous inquiries seeking
clarification as to what is meant by ``particular'' in these instances.
Given the FAA's proposal to replace the term class with the term
category, the FAA finds the modifier of ``particular'' as superfluous,
as there is no distinction between a ``particular category'' and a
category. Accordingly, the FAA proposes to remove the term
``particular'' from this section.
Finally, where existing Sec. 65.107(c)(1) \88\ uses the term
``approve and return to service'' in the context of repairman
certificate privileges, the FAA is proposing to revise to ``approve for
return to service.'' Because an aircraft is not in service until it is
flown or operated, the holder of a repairman or mechanic certificate
cannot ``return'' the aircraft to service under the privileges of that
certificate as flying an aircraft is not a privilege bestowed by any
regulation in part 65. The FAA acknowledged the problem with the
phrasing and its inconsistency with the language in the part 43
maintenance regulations in a legal interpretation,\89\ where the FAA
stated that the wording of the phrase could be improved by removing the
word ``and'' and replacing it with ``for.'' Accordingly, the FAA is
proposing to revise the language in Sec. Sec. 65.81(a), 65.85(a) and
(b), and 65.87(a) and (b), and proposed Sec. 65.109(b) (currently
housed in Sec. 65.107(c)(1); the relocation of this regulation is
subsequently explained) to more accurately capture the intended
privileges of the certificate. Additionally, the FAA proposes to revise
certain gender references within those regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ As subsequently discussed, current Sec. 65.107(c) would
relocate to new Sec. 65.109(b) under this proposal.
\89\ Legal Interpretation to Wayne A. Forshey (July 9, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Light-Sport Repairman Training Courses
As previously discussed, a person must meet certain eligibility
requirements set forth by Sec. 65.107 to obtain a repairman (light-
sport aircraft) certificate. Specifically, Sec. 65.107 sets forth a
table establishing the general applicability requirements, as well as
the specific requirements to obtain an inspection rating and a
maintenance rating. After two decades of implementation and receiving
stakeholder feedback, the FAA recognizes that the section is difficult
to navigate. Therefore, the FAA proposes to reorganize the table into
paragraphs, which the FAA believes will improve readability and
understanding of the requirements.
Specifically, proposed Sec. 65.107 would set forth only the
eligibility and training course requirements, while new proposed Sec.
65.109 would set forth the privileges and limitations. Within Sec.
65.107, proposed paragraph (a) would provide the ratings that may be
issued on a repairman certificate (light-sport); \90\ proposed
paragraph (b) would set forth the general requirements for a repairman
certificate (light-sport); proposed paragraph (c) would set forth the
training course requirement for an inspection rating; proposed
paragraph (d) would set forth the training course requirement for a
maintenance rating, and proposed paragraph (e) would set forth certain
parameters that training course providers are expected to meet. Within
new Sec. 65.109, proposed paragraph (a) would set forth the privileges
and limitations of an inspection rating, proposed paragraph (b) would
set forth the privileges and limitations of a maintenance rating, and
proposed paragraph (c) would set forth additional limitations for
repairman certificate (light-sport). Table 2 is provided for clarity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ This paragraph is new to explicitly state the ratings that
the FAA may issue on a repairman (light-sport) certificate. Current
Sec. 65.107 only implies that the FAA may issue these ratings.
Table 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contains the Reorganized in
Current regulation: requirements for: proposed:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 65.107(a)(2) and (3)..... Ratings............ Sec. 65.107(a)
N/A............................. General eligibility \91\ Sec.
requirements, 65.107(b)
including a
requirement for a
test.
Sec. 65.107(a)(2)............. Inspection rating Sec. 65.107(c)
training
requirements.
Sec. 65.107(a)(3)............. Maintenance rating Sec. 65.107(d)
training
requirements.
new............................. Training course Sec. 65.107(e)
providers.
Sec. 65.107(b)................ Inspection rating Sec. 65.109(a)
privileges and
limitations.
[[Page 47695]]
Sec. 65.107(c)................ Maintenance rating Sec. 65.109(b)
privileges and
limitations.
Sec. 65.107(d)................ Additional Sec. 65.109(c)
limitations for
repairman (light-
sport) certificate
holders.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Training Course Content for Maintenance Rating & Incorporation by
Reference (1 CFR Part 51)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ The FAA notes a minor change in the proposed regulatory
text pertaining to the eligibility requirement to read, speak,
write, and understand English for a repairman certificate (light-
sport). Currently, Sec. 65.107(a)(1)(ii) states that if a person is
prevented from reading, speaking, writing, or understanding English
due to a medical reason, the FAA may place a limitation on the
repairman certificate, as necessary, to ensure safe performance of
the actions authorized by the certificate and rating. However, in
practice, the FAA issues an exemption to the repairman applicant in
conjunction with the application (on FAA Form 8610-3) and temporary
airman certificate (FAA Form 8060-4). The temporary certificate (and
subsequent permanent certificate) would then list the conditions and
limitations from the requirement to read, speak, write, and/or
understand English (as applicable) as granted under the part 11
exemption. This practice is in alignment with the treatment of all
other persons certificated under part 65 who have an identified
obstacle to meeting the English requirements. Therefore, the FAA is
removing the limitation direction as superfluous in proposed Sec.
65.107(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed, current Sec. 65.107 sets out the training
requirements for a repairman certificate (light-sport aircraft) for
maintenance and inspection ratings. Currently, the requirements set
forth training course instruction hours for these ratings (i.e., a 16-
hour training course under Sec. 65.107(a)(2) for an inspection rating
and/or varied hours of instruction under Sec. 65.107(a)(3) for a
maintenance rating, which as noted depend on the aircraft class for the
privileges sought). In the 2004 final rule, the FAA declined to align
the curriculum content for a repairman certificate (light-sport
aircraft) with a maintenance rating with the training and curriculum
subjects for maintenance in part 147 (aviation maintenance technician
schools), which were located in then-appendices B, C, and D, because
many of the technical subjects set forth at that time were not relevant
to light-sport aircraft.\92\ Therefore, the FAA implemented varied
training hour requirements dependent on the class of aircraft after
finding that differing training hours were required to address distinct
knowledge elements between classes.\93\ The FAA no longer believes this
is the best approach for maintenance training courses for repairman
(light-sport) and proposes the revisions described in this section,
which would require repairman to have the appropriate knowledge and
skills to maintain light-sport category aircraft and subsequently
demonstrate the requisite skill to determine whether the aircraft is in
a condition for safe operations. The FAA does not propose changes,
however, to the inspection training course requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ 69 FR 44849.
\93\ Id. Distinct knowledge elements between classes could
include part 39 and part 43 requirements; type-certificated engines,
floats, and composite structures; and two- and four-cycle engines
and electrical systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the 2004 final rule, the FAA has published the Aviation
Mechanic General, Airframe, and Powerplant ACS (Mechanic ACS). The
Mechanic ACS is required as the training curriculum for aviation
maintenance technician schools certificated under part 147 \94\ and as
the testing standard (as of the implementation date of August 1, 2023)
for all mechanic certificates issued under part 65.\95\ An ACS is a
comprehensive presentation that integrates standards for what an
applicant must know, consider, and do to demonstrate proficiency to
pass the tests required for the issuance of a certificate or rating.
The Mechanic ACS includes high-level subjects (e.g., Fundamentals of
Electricity and Electronics, Flight Controls, Engine Inspection), which
are broken down into components that include knowledge, risk
management, and skill elements relevant to that subject.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ 14 CFR 147.17.
\95\ 14 CFR 65.75(a) and 65.79(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notwithstanding that a repairman is limited in the scope of their
privileges to performing maintenance and inspection on light-sport
category aircraft, former light-sport category aircraft and light-sport
kit-built aircraft, as well as being limited to the aircraft category
on which they have received the requisite training, a repairman
nevertheless performs the same type of work as a mechanic. As such, it
is reasonable to expect a repairman to demonstrate similar knowledge
and skills as mechanics (limited in scope applicable to the aircraft
category they will work on). The FAA proposes that the Mechanic ACS
would most efficiently and effectively set forth the important
knowledge and skill elements that should be included in a training
course for a maintenance rating on a repairman certificate (light-
sport). In other words, using the Mechanic ACS as a standard for
repairman training, but limited in scope as appropriate to the category
of aircraft for which the repairman intends to exercise the privileges
of the certificate, provides a flexible and performance-based standard
for repairman training.
For these reasons, the FAA is proposing to replace the currently
specified aircraft class and training hour requirements for a
maintenance rating with a performance-based standard for repairman
(light-sport) training that will support existing and future categories
of aircraft. As such, the FAA is proposing to require training courses
to, at a minimum, include the knowledge, risk management, and skill
elements for each subject contained in the Mechanic ACS, as appropriate
to the category of aircraft being taught. Additionally, the FAA is
removing the hours requirement for a maintenance rating training course
in each category of aircraft. Similar to the training curriculum for
part 147 certificated aviation maintenance technician schools, the
Mechanic ACS provides a comprehensive set of standards such that allows
a training course provider to offer a training timeline that is best
suited to that particular training course and that category of
aircraft, while requiring that the applicant receives training on all
important subject areas to maintain safety.\96\ Therefore, proposed
Sec. 65.107(d) requires a person seeking a maintenance rating to
complete a training course accepted by the Administrator that includes
the knowledge, risk management, and skill elements for each subject
contained in the Mechanic ACS appropriate to the category of aircraft
for which the person intends to exercise the privileges of the
[[Page 47696]]
rating (in addition to meeting the general eligibility requirements in
proposed Sec. 65.107(a), which are largely unchanged from the current
requirements of Sec. 65.107(a)(1)).\97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ The FAA believes the hours of training maintenance rating
course providers are required to design their courses to under the
existing regulations would be similar to the hours training course
providers would include in new/revised courses meeting the proposal
because those courses should already be teaching students the
required information on how to maintain their class of aircraft.
However, the level of detail offered by each course provider could
add or remove hours from the course.
\97\ The changes to Sec. 65.107(a) are described in section
V.F.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2022, the Mechanic ACS was incorporated by reference \98\ into
part 65 as the testing standard for issuance of a mechanic certificate
under part 65, subpart D.\99\ As a result of the proposal to use the
Mechanic ACS as a standard under proposed Sec. 65.107(d), the FAA
proposes to amend Sec. 65.23(a)(2) to add Sec. 65.107 in the
referenced regulations for which the incorporation by reference of the
Mechanic ACS applies. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part
51,\100\ the FAA makes the Mechanic ACS reasonably available to
interested parties by providing free online public access to view on
the FAA ACS website at: faa.gov/training_testing/testing/acs.
Additionally, the Mechanic ACS is available for download, free of
charge, at the provided web address.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ Incorporation by reference is a mechanism that allows
Federal agencies to comply with the requirements of the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to publish rules in the Federal
Register and the Code of Federal Regulations by referring to
material published elsewhere. Material that is incorporated by
reference has the same legal status as if it were published in full
in the Federal Register. Because 5 U.S.C. 552(a) requires the
Director of the Federal Register to approve material to be
incorporated by reference, incorporation by reference is governed by
the Office of the Federal Register and as promulgated in its
regulations: 1 CFR part 51. Specifically, 1 CFR part 51 provides
certain requirements that a regulatory incorporation by reference
must contain.
\99\ Aviation Maintenance Technician Schools, Interim Final
Rule, 87 FR 31391 (May 24, 2022).
\100\ Section 552(a) of title 5, United States Code, requires
that matter incorporated by reference be ``reasonably available'' as
a condition of its eligibility. Further, 1 CFR 51.5(b)(2) requires
that agencies seeking to incorporate material by reference discuss
in the preamble of the final rule, the ways that the material it
incorporates by reference are reasonably available to interested
parties, and how interested parties can obtain the material.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA notes that it is not proposing any revisions to the current
training course content for an inspection rating. Applicants for a
repairman certificate (light-sport) with an inspection rating must
complete a 16-hour training course acceptable to the FAA on inspecting
the particular class of aircraft for which the applicant intends to
exercise the privileges of the inspection rating pursuant to current
Sec. 65.107(a)(2)(ii), which is proposed Sec. 65.107(c) in the
reorganization. As discussed in the original implementation of the
inspection rating training course, the 16-hour course is designed to
train an individual owner with no background in aviation maintenance or
inspection to perform a satisfactory annual condition inspection on
their experimental light-sport aircraft and, based on that inspection,
make a determination if that aircraft is safe to fly. Given this
limited scope of privileges of the inspection rating (i.e., annual
condition inspections only) compared to the broad scope of privileges
of a maintenance rating (i.e., all inspections and maintenance), the
FAA is not proposing any changes to this requirement relative to
training course content.
As a result of the proposed change to training course standards for
the maintenance rating, existing course providers would need to review
their existing training courses to determine if those courses include
the appropriate knowledge, risk management, and skill elements from the
Mechanic ACS. If revision is necessary, the course provider would have
to submit the revised course to the FAA for acceptance. To allow for a
transition period between the current and proposed training standards,
the FAA would delay the compliance requirement for having a training
course containing the knowledge, risk management, and skill elements of
the Mechanic ACS. The FAA will allow for a 6-month compliance
timeframe, as evidenced in proposed Sec. 65.107(d)(1). During that
time period, both an hours-based training course (developed under
current regulations) or an ACS-based training course (developed under
the proposed regulations) may be accepted by the FAA for issuance of
the maintenance rating on a repairman certificate (light-sport).
However, an applicant for a repairman certificate (light-sport) with a
maintenance rating who seeks privileges for one of the new categories
of aircraft (i.e., rotorcraft or powered-lift), would only be eligible
for the certificate if the training was an ACS-based training course,
since hours-based training courses developed under current regulations
do not address these aircraft categories.
The FAA notes that the agency will continue its current practice of
accepting these training courses, providing an acceptance letter to the
course provider, and maintaining a web-based computer database record
on all accepted training providers available to both industry and FAA
personnel.\101\ However, the FAA currently issues course acceptance
with a 24-month expiration. Current practice mandates that the FAA will
notify a training course provider 60 days before the end of the
acceptance period, at which time the training provider must reapply for
continuing authority to provide the training. Because these training
courses will now be aligned with the ACS, the FAA does not see a need
to limit the course acceptance timeframe for light-sport repairman
inspection or maintenance rating training courses to reexamine a
training course provider's training course content. Therefore, a
training course that is found acceptable to the FAA will no longer
require a 24-month re-application process and will continue to be
acceptable, until such time as it is found to be not acceptable (see
section IV.F.5 for further discussion on acceptability).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ FAA Order 8000.84B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Training Course Exams
In 2004, the NTSB commented on the FAA's proposal pertaining to the
training required of repairman (light-sport aircraft) applicants and
suggested that the FAA implement a testing requirement.\102\ Currently,
training providers issue a written exam to students, successful
completion of which is measured at 80%. However, neither the
examination nor the 80% passing standard are codified within the
regulation. In alignment with the NTSB, the FAA continues to believe
that a test is an important step within the airman certification
process; specifically, the written exam serves as a benchmark to
determine if an applicant possesses the appropriate knowledge to obtain
the privileges of a repairman certificate. In other words, the FAA
finds that a written test establishes the requisite level of safety
required of a certificated repairman today. As such, the FAA is
proposing to add a requirement in proposed Sec. 65.107(b), which is
the new section for the general eligibility requirements, to require an
applicant for an inspection or maintenance rating to pass a written
exam administered by the training course provider that covers the
content of the training course. Rather than memorializing an 80% pass
rate as dictated by FAA policy, the minimum passing grade requirement
(70 percent) that applies to all part 65 tests in Sec. 65.17(b) would
apply to Sec. 65.107(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\102\ 69 FR 44848. As discussed in the 2004 final rule, the FAA
stated that a training course should contain a written test that the
applicant should pass with a minimum score of 80%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Basis for Training Course Acceptance
Pursuant to Sec. 65.107(a)(2)(ii) and (a)(3)(iii), a training
course must be acceptable to the FAA. When the FAA implemented these
training courses, the 2004 final rule indicated that the FAA would look
at five areas in the determination of acceptability. These
[[Page 47697]]
areas included: passing grade, adherence to training guidance in FAA
advisory material, the provider's training course outline, and the
final written test. Additionally, the FAA referenced the appendices,
curriculum subjects, and level 3 training standard, as defined in part
147 at that time.\103\ The FAA developed guidance materials that direct
a prospective training course provider to submit specified information
such as information regarding the provider, the course outline, a
description of training aids used in the course, handbooks, sample
certificates of completion, course tests, a description of the
instructors qualifications, a schedule of where and when training will
be provided, and a description of the facilities if the course is
provided at a fixed location. However, these desired components are not
situated in the regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\103\ 69 FR 44849.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA believes it is crucial to set minimum standards for
training course providers to provide quality training for those persons
seeking a repairman certificate (light-sport) with associated ratings.
FAA Advisory Circular 65-32A provides guidance to stakeholders on the
acceptability of a training course, among other topics related to the
certification of repairman (light-sport aircraft). The FAA proposes to
codify provisions in AC 65-32A to add a requirement in new Sec.
65.107(e) that requires the training course provider to deliver the
course (1) using facilities, equipment, and materials appropriate to
the training course content being taught and (2) by instructors who are
appropriately qualified to teach the course content. The FAA interprets
``appropriate'' facilities, equipment, and materials to mean those
elements are sufficiently suited to instruct in the curriculum the
training course offered.\104\ Similarly, the FAA interprets
``appropriately qualified'' to mean an instructor is demonstrably
qualified to teach the course content. This demonstration may include
educational credentials, certifications, or practical experience that
aligns with the subject matter that the instructor teaches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ To illustrate, if the training course includes a skill
requirement that an applicant must perform on a specific piece of
equipment (as listed in the Mechanic ACS), the course provider must
have that piece of equipment (e.g., where the course requires a
student to be able to perform a skill requirement to service a
battery, the course provider must have an aircraft battery in a
condition that will allow a student to demonstrate the appropriate
servicing requirements to be considered to have equipment
appropriate to the training course content being sought).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For either an inspection or maintenance rating, the training course
which must be completed to obtain a repairman certificate (light-sport)
must be found acceptable to the FAA, including evaluation of these
elements. Because the FAA uses these training courses as the basis for
issuance of a repairman certificate, the FAA has determined each course
must be reviewed and accepted by the FAA to facilitate issuance of
repairman certificates by individual aviation safety inspectors. AC 65-
32A provides information on how to submit training course materials to
the FAA for acceptance. The FAA maintains a list of accepted courses
that it makes available to the public. FAA personnel who issue
repairman certificates use this this list to verify an applicant for a
repairman certificate (light-sport aircraft) has attended a training
course found acceptable to the FAA.
Additionally, while one eligibility element for a repairman
certificate (light-sport) is that a person complete a training course,
the current regulatory text lacks the explicit steps between completing
the training and receiving the certificate. Therefore, the FAA proposes
two clarifying amendments. First, proposed Sec. 65.107(c) and (d),
which set forth the eligibility requirements, would require an
applicant to successfully complete a training program and demonstrate
completion of the training program. This demonstration is most
logically done through a certificate of completion issued by the
training provider.\105\ Therefore, the FAA proposes to require in Sec.
61.107(e) that training course providers issue each student a
certificate of completion after the student has completed the training
and passed the test. This documentation will ensure that an applicant
has the means to demonstrate to the FAA that they have met the
requirements for the certificate or rating. The training provider would
be required to issue a certificate of completion that includes, at
least, the name of the training provider, the FAA course acceptance
number, the rating applicable to the training course (i.e., inspection
rating or maintenance rating), the category of aircraft the training
was based on, and the date of completion of the training.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\105\ The FAA notes that the regulatory text would not limit
acceptable demonstration of completion to only a certificate of
completion. While the FAA prefers an applicant to present a
certificate of completion to demonstrate completion of the training
program, the FAA intends to permit flexibility by accepting other
documentary evidence without having to seek an exemption (e.g., in a
case where a person has lost their certificate).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 28, 2017, the FAA published Notice N8900.444, ``Meaning
of the Terms `Acceptable to' and `Accepted by' for Use by Aviation
Safety Inspectors,'' to explain how each of the terms are used, which
has since been incorporated into FAA Order 8900.1.\106\ Where the term
``accepted by the FAA'' is used, it means the item at issue must be
submitted to the FAA for review and acceptance before use. Where the
term ``acceptable to the FAA'' is used, it means the item is not
normally privy to the FAA's active review and acceptance before its
use, although the FAA will exercise its oversight responsibilities.
While the current regulation requires the training course to be
``acceptable to'' the FAA, the FAA finds that in practice these
training courses are instead ``accepted by'' the FAA through the
previously discussed process. As such, the FAA proposes to change the
term ``acceptable to'' to ``accepted by'' in proposed Sec. 65.107(c)
for inspection rating training courses and Sec. 65.107(d) for
maintenance rating training courses. The FAA notes that should a
training course change, it would no longer be considered to be accepted
by the FAA and, therefore, the training course provider would be
required to resubmit the training course for acceptance by the FAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ FAA Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 1, Section 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Repairman Certificate (Light-Sport) for Rotorcraft
Under current regulations the FAA may issue a repairman certificate
(light-sport aircraft) with an inspection rating for aircraft in the
gyroplane class; however, the FAA does not currently issue a
maintenance rating applicable to gyroplanes. In the 2004 final rule,
gyroplanes were included in the light-sport aircraft definition to
permit a sport pilot to fly the small gyroplanes that were then
available on the market. At the time, the FAA did not intend to
certificate gyroplanes under Sec. 21.190.\107\ Because the primary
purpose of the maintenance rating is to perform maintenance on aircraft
certificated in accordance with Sec. 21.190, the FAA concluded it
would be unnecessary to issue a maintenance rating with gyroplane
privileges. As a result, there are no gyroplane training course
instruction hours requirements in Sec. 65.107(a)(3)(ii). In effect,
this means that, currently, it is not possible to attain a maintenance
rating with gyroplane class privileges on a repairman certificate
(light-sport aircraft). The FAA currently only issues the inspection
rating with a gyroplane privilege/limitation, specific to aircraft
[[Page 47698]]
owned by the applicant/holder of the repairman (light-sport aircraft)
certificate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\107\ 69 FR 44799.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposals in this rulemaking to expand aircraft certificated
under Sec. 21.190 to rotorcraft and powered-lift would facilitate the
possibility to obtain a light-sport repairman certificate in the
rotorcraft category and powered-lift category, which are not currently
available pursuant to the existing definition of light-sport aircraft
in Sec. 1.1. Under this proposal, the new rotorcraft category
encompasses both gyroplanes and helicopters. Because the FAA proposes
to expand the aircraft certification parameters for a light-sport
category aircraft, the FAA recognizes that both the gyroplane and
helicopter would be able to enter the light-sport market in greater
numbers,\108\ and there would be a corresponding demand for the ability
to safely maintain and inspect these aircraft. Therefore, the FAA
proposes to permit the issuance of maintenance ratings to the
rotorcraft category (i.e., gyroplane and helicopter classes).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\108\ Refer to preamble section IV.C. for discussion on the
expansion of eligibility requirements (proposed Sec. 22.100)
providing for the certification of additional classes of aircraft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA has determined that a rotorcraft category training course
is sufficient, rather than establishing mutually exclusive helicopter
and gyroplane courses. From a maintenance perspective, there is not a
substantial difference in systems on gyroplanes and helicopters. For
example, both gyroplanes and helicopters utilize an aircraft engine and
main rotor system which, from a maintenance perspective, are of similar
design and operation. Although there are other differences in operation
and in design, such as use of a tail rotor or propeller, the FAA
believes these differences can be covered in a single training course
that includes both types of aircraft. Additionally, because these
training courses require FAA acceptance, the FAA would verify in its
review process that the training includes the class-specific
differences within the rotorcraft category. Therefore, all persons
seeking repairman certificates (light-sport) with a maintenance rating
for rotorcraft category privileges (i.e., gyroplane or helicopter)
would be trained on both classes within the category.
Additionally, given the proposed change, as subsequently discussed,
to differentiate between categories of light-sport category aircraft,
the FAA proposes to permit the issuance of inspection ratings to the
rotorcraft category (i.e., gyroplane, which could already be issued,
and helicopter). The FAA has determined existing holders of a gyroplane
inspection rating would already have the knowledge and skills for
performing the annual condition inspection on aircraft in the
rotorcraft category due to the aforementioned similarities and limited
scope of privileges with the inspection rating. The FAA notes that
current holders of a repairman certificate (light-sport aircraft) with
an inspection rating with gyroplane class privileges would not need to
be reissued a certificate. However, if the airman requested either a
replacement certificate, or additional aircraft category privileges for
the same certificate, the FAA would amend the ``gyroplane'' class
privilege to a ``rotorcraft'' category privilege at the time the
permanent certificate is issued.
7. Inspection Ratings Privileges and Limitations
Existing Sec. 65.107(b)(2) establishes the privileges for
repairman certificates (light-sport aircraft) with an inspection
rating. Specifically, under Sec. 65.107(b)(2), a person may perform
the annual condition inspection if the aircraft has been issued an
experimental certificate under Sec. 21.191(i), with certain
conditions.\109\ Should this proposal be adopted as a final rule, the
FAA finds that the language in Sec. 65.107(b)(2) could result in a
situation where an individual was issued a repairman certificate
(light-sport aircraft) with an inspection rating specific for a former
light-sport category aircraft (experimental purpose under proposed
Sec. 21.191(i)), and the aircraft could later be re-certificated as a
light-sport category aircraft (special airworthiness certificate under
Sec. 21.190). In this scenario, if the aircraft was later re-
certificated in accordance with Sec. 21.190, that repairman's
certificate, which states the aircraft N-number and serial number could
allow the repairman to continue to conduct the annual condition
inspection on that aircraft. The FAA did not intend to allow for
repairman with an inspection rating to conduct an annual condition
inspection on aircraft certificated under Sec. 21.190.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\109\ The aircraft must also be owned by the holder and must be
in the same class of light-sport aircraft for which the holder
completed the requisite training.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, the FAA proposes to remove the phrase ``been issued'' to
clarify that to perform the annual condition inspection on an aircraft
it must currently have an experimental certificate for the certain
operating purposes, as set forth in Sec. 65.109(a)(2) (pursuant to the
proposed reorganization of Sec. Sec. 65.107 and 65.109, as previously
discussed). This change would require that to exercise the privileges
of the repairman certificate (light-sport) inspection rating, the
aircraft must have the appropriate experimental certificate.
8. Duration of Repairman Certificates
Section 65.15 prescribes the duration of effectivity of
certificates issued under part 65. Specifically, pursuant to Sec.
65.15(a), a certificate or rating under part 65 is effective until
surrendered, suspended, or revoked, but excludes repairman certificates
from these duration parameters. Section 65.15(b) provides the duration
for repairman certificates, which includes those issued in accordance
with Sec. Sec. 65.101, 65.104, and 65.107. Those certificates are
effective, unless sooner surrendered, suspended, or revoked, until the
holder is relieved from the duties for which the holder was employed
and certificated.
Employment is a requirement specific to repairman certificates
issued in accordance with Sec. 65.101. Specifically, Sec. 65.101(a)
requires an applicant be employed for a specific job, and Sec.
65.103(a) limits a repairman to conducting work only in connection with
duties for the certificate holder by whom the repairman was employed
and recommended. Different durations apply to certificates issued under
Sec. 65.104, repairman certificates (experimental aircraft builder),
and under Sec. 65.107, repairman certificates (light-sport aircraft).
Section 65.101(b) excepts those certificates from the general
eligibility requirements of Sec. 65.101, which includes the employment
requirement. In other words, there is no employment requirement for
those certificates. Therefore, Sec. 65.15(b) cannot be applied with
respect to the aforementioned repairman certificates because
eligibility, privileges, and limitations of these two types of
repairman certificate do not have any association with an employer.
The FAA proposes to revise Sec. 65.15(a) and (b) to distinguish
the effective period of repairman certificates issued under Sec.
65.101 from that of certificates issued under Sec. Sec. 65.104 and
65.107. Specifically, proposed Sec. 65.15(a) would except only those
repairman certificates issued in accordance with Sec. 65.101 from the
stated duration. In other words, repairman certificates issued in
accordance with Sec. Sec. 65.104 and 65.107 would be effective until
the certificate is surrendered, suspended, or revoked. Additionally,
Sec. 65.15(b) would specify the duration of repairman certificates
[[Page 47699]]
issued in accordance with Sec. 65.101 to be the effective until the
repairman is relieved from the duties for which the repairman was
employed and certificated (unless the certificate is sooner
surrendered, suspended, or revoked).
The FAA also proposes to remove the reference to March 31, 2013, in
Sec. 65.15. That date referenced a compliance date that has since
passed and, as such, is no longer necessary. In July 2003, the FAA
discontinued issuing paper airman certificates and began issuing
counterfeit-resistant plastic permanent airman certificates. In 2008,
the FAA issued a final rule that restricted airmen other than flight
crewmembers (regulated under 14 CFR part 65) from exercising the
privileges of a paper certificate five years from the effective date of
the final rule.\110\ After the five-year period (i.e., March 31, 2013),
only an FAA-issued plastic airmen certificate could be used to exercise
these privileges. Since March 31, 2013, has passed, the FAA is removing
this grace period from the regulations as superfluous. Therefore,
except for temporary certificates issued under Sec. 65.13, the holder
of a paper certificate issued under part 65 may not exercise the
privileges of that certificate. Removing the March 31, 2013, date from
the regulation simplifies the regulation and removes a date that no
longer has significance; in other words, this is a non-substantive
revision in nature with no practical repercussions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\ Drug Enforcement Assistance, Final Rule, 73 FR 10662,
(Feb. 28, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Repairman Certificate: Privileges and Limitations
Section 65.103 provides the privileges and limitations for a
repairman certificate issued under Sec. 65.101. Currently, Sec.
65.103(c) excepts holders of a repairman certificate (light-sport
aircraft) from this requirement while that repairman is performing work
under that certificate. Section 65.103(a) provides certificate
privileges appropriate to the job for which the repairman was employed
and certificated, limiting that repairman to duties only in connection
with the certificate holder who employed and recommended the repairman.
Section 65.103(b) further limits the repairman to only performing or
supervising duties for which the repairman understands the current
instructions of the certificate holder by whom the repairman is
employed. This language indicates that paragraphs (a) and (b) are only
applicable to repairman certificates issued in accordance with Sec.
65.101, which is the only repairman certificate type that has
requirements relating to employment.\111\ However, the FAA notes that
Sec. 65.103 also does not apply to a repairman certificate issued in
accordance with Sec. 65.104 (experimental aircraft builder repairman).
Accordingly, the FAA is proposing to amend Sec. 65.103(c) to state
that Sec. 65.103 does not apply to the holder of a repairman
certificate issued in accordance with either Sec. 65.104 (experimental
aircraft builder) or Sec. 65.107 (light-sport).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\111\ See Sec. 65.101(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Maintenance
Currently, light-sport aircraft are subject to the maintenance
requirements of Sec. 91.327. This rule would revise the maintenance
requirements for light-sport category aircraft in Sec. 91.327
regarding safety directives and major and minor repairs and
alterations, as described in the subsequently discussed proposals.
Additionally, the FAA is proposing conforming changes to Sec. Sec.
91.417, 65.85, and 65.87.
1. Safety Directives
Section 91.327(b)(4) states no person may operate an aircraft that
has a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category
unless the owner or operator complies with each safety directive
applicable to the aircraft that corrects an existing safety-of-flight
condition. The FAA considers that a separate regulatory requirement to
comply with safety directives issued by the aircraft manufacturer is
unnecessary, therefore the FAA proposes to remove this requirement. The
FAA expects that manufacturers would still issue safety directives when
necessary to correct a safety-of-flight condition because the
applicable FAA-accepted consensus standards would continue to direct
the aircraft manufacturer to issue safety directives to correct safety-
of-flight conditions. Additionally, Sec. 91.7 prohibits any person
from operating a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy
condition.\112\ The FAA considers that where a manufacturer has issued
a safety directive to correct a safety-of-flight condition, the
condition would need to be corrected before the aircraft could be
considered in airworthy condition. Similarly, if there is a safety-of-
flight condition that has not been corrected, the aircraft cannot pass
its annual condition inspection required by Sec. 91.327(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\112\ For example, see F3198-18--Standard Specification for
Light Sport Aircraft Manufacturer's Continued Operational Safety
(COS) Program and F2483-18e1 Standard Practice for Maintenance and
the Development of Maintenance Manuals for Light Sport Aircraft and
F2483-18e1--Standard Practice for Maintenance and the Development of
Maintenance Manuals for Light Sport Aircraft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because this proposal removes Sec. 91.327(b)(4) requiring
compliance with safety directives, the FAA is proposing to remove the
corresponding record keeping requirement for safety directives in Sec.
91.417(a)(2)(v). Current Sec. 91.417 specifies the records that must
be kept by each registered owner or operator of an aircraft.
Specifically, Sec. 91.417(a)(2)(v) requires that records contain the
current status of applicable safety directives, including, for each,
the method of compliance, the safety directive number and revision
date. If the safety directive involves recurring action, the record
must also state the time and date when the next action is required. The
safety directive record keeping requirement in Sec. 91.417(a)(2)(v)
exists because Sec. 91.327(b)(4) currently requires owners and
operators to comply with safety directives. Therefore, the FAA proposes
to remove the record-keeping requirement to maintain records of safety
directives. The FAA considers that a regulatory requirement under Sec.
91.417 to document safety directives is unnecessary because maintenance
performed on aircraft under Sec. 43.9 or Sec. 43.11 would still have
record-keeping requirements.
2. Minor Repairs and Minor Alterations
Section 91.327(b)(5) currently requires that each alteration
accomplished after the aircraft's date of manufacture meets the
applicable and current consensus standard and has been authorized by
either the manufacturer or a person acceptable to the FAA.\113\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\113\ 69 FR 44854. As discussed in the 2004 final rule, the FAA
stated, for the purpose of Sec. 91.327, ``a person acceptable to
the FAA'' includes: (1) the manufacturer that issued the statement
of compliance, (2) any person who has assumed, and is properly
exercising, the original manufacturer's responsibility for carrying
out the continued airworthiness procedures described in the
consensus standard, (3) The holder of an FAA-approved technical
standard order (TSO) authorization, parts manufacturer approval
(PMA), type certificate (TC), or supplemental type certificate (STC)
for a product or part installed on the aircraft, and (4) Any person
authorized by the manufacturer to produce modification or
replacement parts in accordance with the applicable consensus
standard addressing ``qualification of third-party modification or
replacement parts.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA has determined that the language in Sec. 91.327(b)(5) does
not allow for a certificated repairman (light-sport), an appropriately-
rated mechanic, or an appropriately-rated part 145 certificated repair
station to perform
[[Page 47700]]
minor alterations as otherwise permitted in Sec. 91.327(b)(1) without
the authorization of the manufacturer or person acceptable to the FAA.
Certificated persons who are already authorized under Sec.
91.327(b)(1) and part 43 to perform minor alterations, may be prevented
from doing so because of the language in Sec. 91.327(b)(5).
The FAA proposes to revise Sec. 91.327(b)(5) to require that minor
repairs and minor alterations meet the applicable design and
performance requirements, and allow the persons listed in Sec.
91.327(b)(1) to perform minor repairs and minor alterations without
obtaining authorization from the manufacturer or a person acceptable to
the FAA.
This proposed change is consistent with part 43 governing minor
repairs or minor alterations. For example, 14 CFR part 43 prescribes
rules governing the maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding,
and alterations performed on aircraft and is applicable to any light-
sport category aircraft. Under this proposal, minor repairs and minor
alterations would not require specific authorization of the
manufacturer or other person acceptable to the FAA, but rather must
meet the performance requirements of part 43, including Sec. 43.13.
Additionally, since minor repairs and minor alterations must already be
performed in accordance with the Sec. 91.327(b)(1) requirement to use
maintenance and inspection procedures developed by the aircraft
manufacturer or a person acceptable to the FAA, the FAA considers it
unnecessary to require additional authorization before minor repairs or
minor alterations can be performed. Finally, this proposal provides
some relief to aircraft owners and operators because they would not
have to receive authorization from the aircraft manufacturer, or
another person acceptable to the FAA to perform a minor repair or minor
alteration.
The proposed Sec. 91.327(b)(5) would also require that each minor
repair and minor alteration meet the applicable consensus standards
specified in the statement of compliance submitted to the FAA for the
aircraft. Part 43 prescribes performance rules for these aircraft.
Specifically, Sec. 43.13(b) requires work to be performed in such a
manner and use materials of such a quality, that the condition of the
aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance worked on
will be at least equal to its original or properly altered condition
(regarding aerodynamic function, structural strength, resistance to
vibration and deterioration, and other qualities affecting
airworthiness). Requiring the aircraft meet the applicable and current
consensus standards listed on the aircraft's statement of compliance
after either a minor repair or a minor alteration would be consistent
with Sec. 43.13(b). Finally, the FAA proposes that Sec. 91.327(b)(5)
would no longer contain language concerning alterations being
``accomplished after the aircraft's date of manufacture.'' By
definition, an aircraft could only be operated after it has been
manufactured. As such, including the phrase ``accomplished after the
aircraft's date of manufacture'' is not necessary and could
unintentionally cause confusion.
The FAA notes that this rule also proposes two changes to Sec.
43.13. First, the FAA proposes to eliminate the use of gender-specific
terminology that exists in Sec. 43.13(a). Second, the FAA proposes to
remove the paragraph heading that exists in current Sec. 43.13(c) to
ensure consistency with Sec. 43.13(a) and (b), which do not use
headings. The FAA also proposes minor editorial changes to Sec.
43.13(c). These proposed changes would not alter the substantive
requirements that are contained in Sec. 43.13.
3. Major Repairs and Major Alterations
Section 91.327(b)(6) currently requires that each major alteration
to an aircraft product produced under a consensus standard is
authorized, performed and inspected in accordance with maintenance and
inspection procedures developed by the manufacturer or a person
acceptable to the FAA. The FAA is proposing to revise this section by
adding the term ``major repair,'' removing the statement ``to an
aircraft produced under a consensus standard,'' and adding language to
clarify that the required authorization to perform a major repair or
major alteration must be provided by the manufacturer or a person
acceptable to the FAA.
The proposed Sec. 91.327(b)(6) text will require that each major
repair or major alteration is authorized by the manufacturer or a
person acceptable to the FAA. It will retain the existing requirement
that each major alteration be performed and inspected in accordance
with maintenance and inspection procedures developed by the
manufacturer or a person acceptable to the FAA. The proposal will add
that same requirement to major repairs. The following discussion
explains these changes in more detail.
First, Sec. 91.327(b)(6) establishes requirements for major
alterations but is silent on major repairs. The FAA is proposing to add
``major repairs'' to this provision to require major repairs also be
authorized by the manufacturer or a person acceptable to the FAA. The
proposed rule would also require that major repairs be performed and
inspected in accordance with maintenance and inspection procedures
developed by the manufacturer or a person acceptable to the FAA. The
proposal is consistent with how major repairs are applied to type-
certificated aircraft with one difference. Although a major repair on a
type-certificated aircraft must be done in accordance with technical
data approved by the Administrator (Sec. 65.95(a)(1)), such
Administrator approved data does not exist for a light-sport category
aircraft and so a major repair on a light-sport category aircraft built
to a consensus standard that meets the requirements of part 22 should
be done only after authorization from the manufacturer. Therefore, the
proposal requires the major repair must be authorized by the
manufacturer and performed and inspected in accordance with maintenance
and inspection procedures developed by the manufacturer, or a person
acceptable to the FAA. Additionally, related provisions in part 65,
specifically Sec. Sec. 65.85 and 65.87, reference both major
alterations and major repairs.
Second, the FAA proposes to remove the language ``to any aircraft
produced under a consensus standard'' from Sec. 91.327(b)(6) as
unnecessary. Section 91.327 applies to the operating requirements of
aircraft that have a special airworthiness certificate in the light-
sport category. Separately, pursuant to proposed Sec. 21.190(d)(6)
manufacturers must state that these aircraft are built to a consensus
standard. Therefore, reading Sec. 91.327(b)(6) and the proposed Sec.
21.190 together, it is clear that aircraft in the light-sport category
must be built to a consensus standard. As a result, the language
referencing consensus standards is unnecessary because all aircraft
subject to Sec. 91.327(b)(6) would have to be produced under a
consensus standard. Therefore, the FAA proposes to remove this language
from Sec. 91.327(b)(6).
Third, regarding the manufacturer authorizing major alterations,
the FAA finds that current language could be clearer. Read strictly,
the current Sec. 91.327(b)(6) requires that each major alteration to
an aircraft is authorized in accordance with maintenance and inspection
procedures developed by the manufacturer or a person acceptable to the
FAA. However, such a reading points to authorizations being in
accordance with maintenance and
[[Page 47701]]
inspection procedures. A major repair or major alteration must be
authorized by the manufacturer or a person acceptable to the FAA
because the aircraft is built to a consensus standard that meets the
requirements of part 22. The manufacturer is best suited to determine
if the aircraft will continue to meet the means of compliance with the
consensus standard following a major repair or major alteration.
Additionally, a major repair or major alteration must be performed and
inspected in accordance with maintenance and inspection procedures
developed by the manufacturer or a person acceptable to the FAA.
4. Changes to Certificated Mechanic Privileges
Currently, Sec. 65.85(b) allows a certificated mechanic with an
airframe rating to approve for return to service an airframe (or
related part or appliance) of an aircraft with a special airworthiness
certificate in the light-sport category, after a major repair or major
alteration, provided the work done was performed in accordance with
instructions developed by the manufacturer or a person acceptable to
the FAA.\114\ Similarly, under Sec. 65.87(b), the same privileges
apply to a certificated mechanic with a powerplant rating for return to
service a powerplant or propeller (or related part or appliance).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\114\ 69 FR 44847. This rule change gives the airframe or
powerplant-rated mechanic the same privilege to perform and inspect
major repairs and major alterations on special light-sport aircraft
that this rule grants a repairman (light-sport aircraft) with a
maintenance rating.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under proposed Sec. 91.327(b)(6), no person may operate an
aircraft that has a special airworthiness certificate in the light-
sport category unless each major repair or major alteration is
authorized by the manufacturer or a person acceptable to the FAA and is
performed and inspected in accordance with maintenance and inspection
procedures developed by the manufacturer or a person acceptable to the
FAA. Sections 65.85(b) and 65.87(b) currently do not align with the
proposed Sec. 91.327(b)(6) in a way that would require that a mechanic
does not approve an airframe or powerplant for return to service with
an unauthorized major repair or alteration. Performing the major repair
or major alteration in accordance with instructions developed by the
manufacturer or a person acceptable to the FAA may not sufficiently
verify the aircraft or engine meet the proposed Sec. 91.327(b)(6)
requirement. Therefore, the FAA is proposing to add language to
Sec. Sec. 65.85(b) and 65.87(b) that requires, in addition to the
existing requirement regarding instructions, the mechanic determine the
major repair or major alteration is authorized by the manufacturer or a
person acceptable to the FAA.\115\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\115\ See section V.F.1 for additional changes, technical in
nature, proposed to Sec. Sec. 65.85 and 65.87.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Operations
1. Aircraft Holding a Special Airworthiness Certificate in the Light-
Sport Category
In general, Sec. 91.327 does not currently allow a person to
operate an aircraft with a special airworthiness certificate in the
light-sport category for compensation or hire. However, Sec. 91.327(a)
does include two exceptions to this general prohibition against
operations for compensation and hire: conducting flight training and
towing a glider or an unpowered ultralight vehicle in accordance with
Sec. 91.309 are both permissible.
The FAA has received several petitions for exemptions and numerous
industry requests related to increased opportunities for using light-
sport category aircraft for compensation or hire.\116\ These requests
demonstrate significant public interest in expanding the use of light-
sport category aircraft for compensation or hire.\117\ Industry groups
argue that light-sport category aircraft for certain aerial work for
compensation and hire would be in the interest of public safety. For
example, industry groups state that some of the public safety interests
involve the safety of people and structures on the ground due to light-
sport category aircraft being generally quieter, slower, and more agile
than aircraft with standard airworthiness certificates. The FAA has
considered industry requests, as well as the use of FAA-accepted
consensus standards that can provide an appropriate level of safety,
and the FAA agrees that limited expansion of the use of light-sport
category aircraft for compensation and hire is in the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\116\ See Exemption granted to Operation Migration from 14 CFR
61.113(a), 91.319(e), and 91.327(a), April 30, 2014, Exemption No.
10984, Docket No. FAA-2013-1075, available online at https://www.regulations.gov/document/FAA-2013-1075-0004.
\117\ Dan Johnson & Roy Beisswenger. Modernizing Rules for Sport
Pilots and Light Sport Aircraft:1.0 Aerial Work for Light-sport
Aircraft, (June 2018), Retrieved from LAMA Report Modernizing
LSA.pdf.
Dan Pimentel, ``Will MOSAIC Allow LSAs To Do More: The industry
has lobbied the FAA to allow light sport aircraft to perform more
aerial work tasks,'' Flying Magazine, (May 20, 2022), https://www.flyingmag.com/will-mosaic-allow-lsas-to-do-more/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As previously stated, the FAA does not explicitly define aerial
work. The FAA broadly interprets the term to mean work done from the
air for compensation that does not involve the carriage of persons or
property.\118\ The FAA proposes to add a new paragraph in Sec. 91.327
to allow for operation of light-sport category aircraft for aerial work
for compensation or hire. The proposed amendment will allow light-sport
category aircraft to conduct limited aerial work operations.
Additionally, the proposed changes to the rule would not waive or
provide exception from any of the provisions required by 14 CFR part
119 or any other rule requiring an air operator certificate. To be
allowed to operate under the proposed amendment, light-sport category
aircraft would be required to meet applicable requirements under Sec.
21.190 concerning aerial work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\118\ See supra note 25 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA proposes amending Sec. 21.190 to address aerial work
operations, which would be designated by the manufacturer in the
consensus standards accepted by the Administrator for airworthiness
certification of light-sport category aircraft. The FAA proposes the
addition of Sec. 21.190(c)(3), which requires the manufacturer to
include a list in the pilot's operating handbook of any aerial work
operations that may be safely conducted using the aircraft. The
proposed Sec. 21.190(c)(3) requires the aforementioned list to also be
included in the manufacturer's statement of compliance. The proposed
amendments applicable to light-sport category aircraft will result in
aircraft that must meet consensus standards for aerial work operations.
When a light-sport category aircraft meets an FAA-accepted consensus
standard, including one specific to aerial work, a light-sport category
aircraft should provide an equivalent level of safety in comparison to
aircraft that undergo the type-certification processes that are
currently allowed to conduct aerial work. As such, this proposed change
will allow aerial work to be conducted in parallel with the proposed
changes applicable to airworthiness certification of Sec. 21.190
aircraft.
The FAA recognizes that this is an ever-evolving field and seeks to
not inhibit future innovation. As such, the proposed approach would not
prescribe types of aerial work but would rather provide a path for a
proven risk-based assessment of current and future aerial tasks. The
agency does not propose relaxation of any of the existing regulatory
safeguards that relate to aerial work operations, such as the minimum
safe altitude, minimum safe distance,
[[Page 47702]]
and minimum safe speed restrictions in part 91 and restrictions
surrounding dispensing of chemicals in part 137. If an operator seeks
to conduct aerial work operations that exceed existing rules, operators
must obtain regulatory relief in the form of a Certificate of Waiver,
Letter of Authorization, or an exemption.
The FAA anticipates that the proposed expansion of aerial work,
along with the proposed amendments applicable to light-sport category
aircraft, could lead to an increased interest in aerial work that
involves carrying higher numbers of occupants. The FAA is proposing the
addition of Sec. 91.327(f)(1) and (2) to address these concerns. The
proposed language states that no person may operate an airplane
certificated as a light-sport category aircraft when carrying more than
four occupants, including the pilot. Additionally, the proposed
language states that no person may operate a light-sport category
aircraft other than an airplane when carrying more than two occupants,
including the pilot. The FAA does not have sufficient data for
expanding the number of persons onboard an aircraft other than an
airplane. The proposed addition of Sec. 91.327(f)(1) and (2) does not
change the restriction on certificated sport pilots not carrying more
than two persons, including the pilot. Pilots with higher grades of
certification will be able to operate light-sport category aircraft
with the higher number of occupants allowed under the proposed Sec.
91.327(f)(1) and (2).
The current definition of light-sport aircraft in 14 CFR 1.1 limits
the seating capacity to no more than two persons, including the pilot.
The proposed rules would expand this to a four-person occupancy limit
for airplanes certificated as light-sport category aircraft and a two-
person occupancy for light-sport category aircraft other than
airplanes. The proposed rules are expected to lead to larger light-
sport category aircraft. The larger size, along with the proposed
expansion of aerial work, could result in situations where there are
occupants who do not require a seat. The FAA has decided that a
measured approach that limits the number of occupants on an aircraft is
safest in the near term, as it will prevent situations where operators
attempt to carry as many passengers that will physically fit in the
aircraft. In light of the safety continuum, as discussed in section
IV.C.5, the FAA has proposed a limit of four-person occupancy for
light-sport category airplanes and two-person occupancy for light-sport
category aircraft other than airplanes because that is consistent with
the maximum seating capacity in proposed Sec. 22.100(a)(1) and (2).
This is not a prohibition of persons being carried who are not in
seats, but rather a limitation on the total number of occupants,
including both those who are in seats and those who are otherwise
restrained.
2. Aircraft Holding Experimental Airworthiness Certificates
Section 91.319(c) currently authorizes the Administrator to issue
special operating limitations for particular aircraft holding
experimental airworthiness certificates to conduct takeoffs and
landings over densely populated areas or in congested airways. The
terms and conditions specified in the authorization must be in the
interest of safety in air commerce. The regulation only applies to
takeoffs and landings; it does not currently authorize operating
limitations to cover other flight segments. The current regulation
presents difficulties for operators, as they can obtain special
operating limitations for takeoff and landing, but not for any
operations between takeoff and landing. Due to urban sprawl, it has
become increasingly difficult for operators to avoid operating over
densely populated areas.
To address inconsistencies and possible operator difficulties in
the continuation of all flight segments, the FAA proposes to amend
Sec. 91.319(c) to allow the Administrator to grant operating
limitations to certain aircraft with experimental certificates to
conduct operations over densely populated areas or in congested
airways, including, but not limited to, takeoffs and landings. This
proposed amendment will allow the Administrator to issue special
operating limitations that allow all phases of flight and expands the
types of operations over densely populated areas or in congested
airways.\119\ The FAA anticipates such operating limitations will only
be issued in certain circumstances, as described in subsequent
paragraphs. The general prohibition against experimental aircraft
operating over densely populated areas or in congested airways will
continue to apply under the proposed amendment to all aircraft that do
not hold these special authorized operating limitations. When issuing
such operating limitations, the FAA will consider several factors
(discussed in subsequent paragraphs), including whether the aircraft in
question is one of proven design and has records for continued
operational safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\119\ 49 U.S.C. 44701 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With consideration of the continual safety trend of aircraft
holding experimental certificates, there are several reasons why an
operator may seek special operating limitations for their aircraft to
conduct operations over densely populated areas or in congested
airways, including, but not limited to, takeoffs and landings. One
example involves operators conducting flights and other operations to
show compliance with airworthiness regulations under Sec. 21.191(b).
An operator may need to takeoff, land, and operate over densely
populated areas or in congested airways to show compliance for the
issuance of type and supplemental type certificates and to show
compliance with the function and reliability requirements of the
airworthiness regulations. Other examples of when operators may seek
these operating limitations over densely populated areas or in
congested airways is to conduct market surveys, sales demonstrations,
or customer crew training for U.S. manufacturers of aircraft or
engines. Lastly, operators conducting research and development of new
equipment installations, operating techniques, or aircraft uses may
seek special operating limitations to conduct those operations over
densely populated areas or in congested airways.
The Administrator will consider many factors when determining which
aircraft, certificated under Sec. 21.191, may be issued the operating
limitations to operate over a densely populated area or in congested
airways. The Administrator may grant operating limitations to certain
aircraft with experimental certificates that demonstrate significant
safety attributes and records for continued operational safety, which
enable them to operate over densely populated areas. Even though there
is a broad variety of experimental aircraft with differing levels of
safety and risk, the process of issuing experimental aircraft
airworthiness certificates is an established process for all
experimental aircraft. Not all aircraft that hold experimental
certificates are true ``experiments,'' as that term is commonly
understood. While the term ``experimental'' is used to describe these
aircraft, that does not automatically mean they lack evidence of
continued operational safety or a strong safety record. A significant
number of aircraft hold experimental airworthiness certificates and,
while some of these aircraft lack sufficient evidence of safety to be
issued the proposed operating
[[Page 47703]]
limitations, many aircraft holding experimental certificates have
consistently demonstrated safe operational records. For instance, there
are large manufacturing companies performing market survey operations,
in accordance with FAA certification processes and significant
operating oversight.
The FAA recognizes that some aircraft holding experimental
airworthiness certificates pose overly significant risk to the general
public and will not consider extending the proposed operating
limitations to those aircraft. At a minimum, the FAA expects that all
aircraft who are issued the proposed operating limitations, including
any attached appliances, will conform to airworthiness requirements and
any applicable airworthiness directives. Additionally, the FAA
anticipates that the proposed operating limitations would not be issued
to experimental aircraft that have had alterations or appliances that
have not been adequately tested by the original manufacturer. In order
to determine whether an aircraft with alterations or appliances would
be able to obtain this operating limitation, the FAA would consider all
facts presented by the operator, as well as procedures described in FAA
guidance, including FAA Order 8130.2. This is similar to the process
used for issuing operating limitations currently. Such procedures would
be developed following this rulemaking and would be made available for
public comment prior to adoption.
Some amateur and kit-built aircraft may be able to obtain the
proposed operating limitations to operate over densely populated areas
or in congested airways, although the FAA currently has no intention of
considering original or plans-built designs for issuance of these
operating limitations. Depending upon the type of kit and the
aircraft's similarity to its kit model, the FAA may consider granting
these operating limitations to certain kit-built aircraft because of
the high level of consistency among kit-built aircraft.
There are specific aircraft features that the FAA may consider
before issuing operating limitations to operate over densely populated
areas or in congested airways. First, the FAA is concerned about the
increased risk that results from an aircraft that has a single point of
failure. When an experimental aircraft has a single point of failure,
such as the loss of a single hydraulic in an aircraft that uses that
system for flight controls, flight will become unrecoverable. Such
aircraft will not be eligible for the proposed operating limitations,
as they have a higher risk to persons and property on the ground.
Having redundant systems increases safety for persons and property on
the ground. Second, the FAA is concerned about the increased risk from
allowing aircraft with ejection seats or detachable external stores to
operate over densely populated areas. If an aircraft is equipped with
an ejection seat, deployment of that seat over a densely populated area
would significantly increase risk to persons on the ground. Similarly,
if a detachable external store fails and detaches from the aircraft
while operating over densely populated areas, there would be
significant risk to persons on the ground. The aforementioned examples
are some attributes that would cause the FAA to consider not issuing
the proposed operating limitations, but the examples are not an
exhaustive list.
Beyond the aircraft conforming to original airworthiness
requirements and having adequately tested alterations and appliances,
the FAA may also consider actions taken by the operator to decrease
risk. For example, the FAA views an aircraft that has completed a
structured, task-based phase I testing process as potentially posing a
lower risk over densely populated areas and in congested areas.
Therefore, these aircraft could be recipients of the proposed operating
limitations. Phase I flight testing is the initial flight-testing
period for a newly assembled aircraft. All experimental aircraft
seeking an airworthiness certificate must complete initial flight
testing. Structured ``task-based'' testing provides the operator and
the agency with consistent and reliable data for these aircraft.
Several methods of phase I testing are available. One method is to
develop and execute a ``task-based'' phase I flight test plan to obtain
an airworthiness certificate. Completing a successful task-based phase
I flight test plan process results in a document specific to the
aircraft, as compared to an aircraft that has not completed a
structured phase I flight test plan process and has only completed the
minimum required flight time option and maintenance record entry.
Additionally, the completion of a task-based phase I flight test plan
is one action the operator can take that may decrease risk to persons
and property on the ground during operations over densely populated
areas.\120\ The FAA anticipates that aircraft granted the proposed
operating limitations may be subject to additional requirements, such
as increased maintenance requirements, in order to establish an
equivalent level of safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\120\ See FAA Order 8130.2J, Airworthiness Certification of
Aircraft, Appendix D, Table D-1, Operating Limitations (July 21,
2017).
See FAA Advisory Circular 90-89C, Amateur-Built Aircraft and
Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook. (February 14, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Space Support Vehicles
This rule would implement language in Section 581 of the FAA
Reauthorization Act of 2018 (the Act), which authorizes certain
aircraft holding experimental certificates to conduct space support
vehicle flights. The Act provides definitions for ``space support
vehicle'' and ``space support vehicle flight.'' The Act also adopted 49
U.S.C. 44737, which provides the rules for space support vehicle
flights. To maintain consistency with the congressional language, the
FAA proposes to adopt the same language used in section 44737. The FAA
is also proposing regulatory amendments necessary to integrate the
statutory language into 14 CFR.
As defined in the Act, a space support vehicle is an aircraft that
is a launch vehicle, a reentry vehicle, or a component of a launch or
reentry vehicle. As stated in the statute, only aircraft holding
experimental certificates that are also a launch vehicle, a reentry
vehicle, or a component of a launch or reentry vehicle can be
considered space support vehicles. Under this proposed rule, the
definitions from the statute will be added to 14 CFR part 1 to
facilitate implementation of that law. The FAA does not intend to
create a new experimental purpose for space support vehicles to operate
under in this rule. Instead, space support vehicles would conduct space
support vehicle flights under an existing Sec. 21.191 experimental
purpose, such as research and development or crew training.
Additionally, the Act requires that space support vehicles must be
owned by or operated on behalf of a licensed launch or reentry vehicle
operator.
Space support vehicle flights are distinct from licensed launch or
reentry operations. Per the Act, an operator may conduct space support
vehicle flights only to simulate space flight conditions in support of
training for potential space flight participants, government
astronauts, or crew; the testing of hardware to be used in space
flight; or research and development tasks, which require the unique
capabilities of the aircraft conducting the flight. Additionally, the
aircraft conducting the space support vehicle flight is required to
take off and land at a single site that is licensed for operation under
51 U.S.C. chapter 509.
[[Page 47704]]
Per the Act, the operator of an aircraft may conduct space support
vehicle flights under an experimental airworthiness certificate
carrying persons or property for compensation or hire. These flights
may include carriage of persons or property for compensation or hire
without obtaining an exemption to operating rules or a certificate to
conduct air carrier or commercial operations. In contrast, operators
seeking to conduct such activities for other experimental purposes must
obtain an exemption to operating rules or a certificate to conduct air
carrier or commercial operations.
The FAA proposes to amend Sec. 91.319 in two ways in order to
integrate space support vehicle flights into the operations regulations
for aircraft holding experimental certificates. First, to implement the
statutory authorization for space support vehicles, the FAA proposes
the addition of Sec. 91.319(k). This proposed addition will allow the
operator of an aircraft with an experimental airworthiness certificate
to operate the aircraft for the purpose of conducting a space support
vehicle flight. Second, the FAA proposes to amend Sec. 91.319(a) to
reflect the addition of paragraph (k).
To implement the statutory mandate in the Act, the FAA also
proposes the addition of a new section addressing operating limitations
for space support vehicle flights. This proposed new section, Sec.
91.331, provides general operating requirements applicable to aircraft
holding experimental certificates that will conduct space support
vehicle flights. Section 91.331 would establish the same operating
requirements as provided in the Act, which includes the requirements
related to where takeoff and landing are to occur; who can conduct the
operation; which vehicle can be used; and the purposes for which the
vehicles can be used for. There will be only one change, as section
44740(b)(1)(A) refers to ``a single site that is operated by an entity
licensed for operation under chapter 509 of title 51.'' Since the only
sites licensed by the FAA under title 51 of the United States Code are
launch and reentry sites, proposed Sec. 91.331(a)(2)(1) would instead
refer to ``a single launch or reentry site that is operated by an
entity licensed to operate the launch or reentry site under 51 U.S.C.
chapter 509.''
Upon receipt of a request for an operating limitation to conduct a
space support vehicle flight, the FAA would consider whether the
requirements of proposed Sec. 91.331 are met. While it would be
relatively easy to determine if certain elements of proposed Sec.
91.331 are met (such as whether the location of takeoff and landing is
a qualifying launch or reentry site), others would require a more
intensive, fact-specific approach. For example, if the operator wants
to conduct space support vehicle flights for the purpose of research
and development tasks, the FAA will analyze the specific facts
proffered by the operator to determine whether the research and
development tasks require the unique capabilities of the aircraft
conducting the flight, as required by the proposed Sec. 91.331. If the
operator wants to conduct a space support vehicle flight for the
purpose of training potential space flight participants, government
astronauts, or crew, the operator would need to demonstrate that such
persons have taken sufficient steps towards becoming space flight
participants, government astronauts, or crew. The FAA would develop
guidance to assist operators in developing their space support vehicle
flight proposals, such as guidance related to what constitutes a unique
capability of the aircraft and what documentation should be provided to
support the status of a space flight participant, government astronaut,
or crew. The FAA also proposes to amend Sec. 119.1(e) by adding a new
paragraph, paragraph (e)(12), to allow for the operation of such
aircraft for the purpose of conducting a space support vehicle flight
under the requirements of the proposed Sec. 91.331. The proposed
addition of Sec. 119.1(e)(12) would add language to exclude space
support vehicle flights from the requirements of part 119 relating to
air carrier certificates. The addition of Sec. 119.1(e)(12) is
necessary in order to implement section 581 of the Act in the
regulations.
4. Right-of-Way Rules
Section 91.113 provides the right-of-way rules for operations other
than those conducted on water. The right-of-way rules instruct pilots
on how they must respond to other aircraft they encounter and are based
on the category of aircraft or the operational scenario. Pilots must be
vigilant to see and avoid other aircraft; and as always, aircraft in
distress have the right-of-way over all other air traffic. The current
regulation outlines specific categories of aircraft that a balloon, a
glider, or an airship have right-of-way over when converging at
approximately the same altitude (except head-on, or nearly so). By
explicitly naming specific categories of aircraft, the current Sec.
91.113(d)(2) and (3) do not provide information for how operators of
other categories of aircraft not listed in Sec. 91.113 are expected to
comply with the intent of the rule. This may lead to confusion,
especially for those operators of aircraft that are not explicitly
included in the current Sec. 91.113.
The FAA proposes to amend Sec. 91.113(d)(2) and (3) to update the
language by replacing the lists of aircraft in paragraphs (d)(2) and
(3) with the broader term ``powered aircraft.'' These proposed
amendments remove specific categories to include other powered aircraft
not included in the existing rule, as the current rule is too narrow.
The new language uses the term ``powered aircraft'' to include those
categories. These amendments clarify the language in Sec. 91.113(d)
where aircraft are categorized for the purpose of describing which
aircraft has the right-of-way when approaching another aircraft on a
converging course. Right-of-way rules maintain the privilege of less
maneuverable aircraft to safely proceed with priority over more
maneuverable aircraft in the NAS. The proposed Sec. 91.113(d)(2)
continues to give gliders right-of-way over powered aircraft.
Additionally, the proposed Sec. 91.113(d)(3) continues to give
airships right-of-way over all other powered aircraft, except for those
powered aircraft that are towing or refueling another aircraft.
Balloons will continue to have the right-of-way over any other aircraft
category.
Finally, for consistency and clarity, the proposed language updates
the previous language of the paragraph describing engine-driven
aircraft to ``powered aircraft.'' The FAA chooses the term ``powered
aircraft'' instead of ``engine driven'' to better convey the inclusion
of aircraft that may have non-traditional forms of propulsion,
including electric propulsion.
5. Operations at Airports in Class G Airspace
Section 91.126 provides requirements for operations on or in the
vicinity of an airport in Class G airspace, including the direction of
turns when approaching the airport, flap settings, and communications
with air traffic control towers. Currently, Sec. 91.126(b) requires
that, when approaching to land at an airport without an operating
control tower in Class G airspace, each pilot of a helicopter or a
powered parachute must avoid the flow of fixed-wing aircraft. This
requirement only addresses helicopters and powered parachutes. It does
not currently consider other types of aircraft that may require access
to these airports. Since its adoption, the current regulation has
become inadequate in this regard, as it only addresses specific
aircraft and does
[[Page 47705]]
not consider emerging aircraft technologies, such as powered-lift.
To address all other aircraft under these requirements, the FAA
proposes to amend Sec. 91.126(b)(1) to state that each pilot of a
powered fixed-wing aircraft and powered-lift aircraft operating in
wing-borne flight mode must make all turns of that aircraft to the left
unless the airport displays approved light signals or visual markings
indicating that turns should be made to the right, in which case the
pilot must make all turns to the right. The FAA is also proposing to
amend Sec. 91.126(b)(2) to require that each pilot of any other
aircraft must avoid the flow of the types of aircraft listed in
proposed Sec. 91.126(b)(1), specifically powered fixed-wing aircraft
and powered-lift aircraft operating in wing-borne flight mode. The term
``any other aircraft'' in proposed Sec. 91.126(b)(2) would include,
but would not be limited to, weight-shift aircraft, helicopters, and
powered parachutes. When powered-lift aircraft are operating in wing-
borne flight mode, they have similar flight characteristics as fixed-
wing aircraft. As such, the proposed language explicitly treats
powered-lift aircraft operating in wing-borne flight mode as fixed-wing
aircraft. However, powered-lift aircraft operating in vertical-lift
flight mode are not equivalent to fixed-wing aircraft and will
therefore not be treated the same. The purpose of this proposed
amendment is to address all aircraft that could be involved in
operations on or in the vicinity of an airport in Class G airspace.
The proposed change would improve aircraft separation in the
interest of safety by considering operational needs, aircraft
configurations, and speeds to enhance avoidance of dissimilar aircraft.
While there are many kinds of aircraft that are now grouped together
under the proposed rule, those aircraft have similar flight and
maneuvering characteristics and therefore should be kept separate from
powered fixed-wing aircraft. Currently, non-powered, non-fixed-wing
aircraft (other than powered parachutes and helicopters, which are kept
separate under the current rule) are expected to operate in the same
traffic pattern as powered fixed-wing aircraft. By separating powered
fixed-wing aircraft from all other aircraft, this proposal intends to
reduce risk to all aircraft by limiting all non-powered, non-fixed-wing
aircraft from operating in the same traffic pattern as powered fixed-
wing aircraft.
6. Towing
Section 91.309(a)(2) currently prohibits civil aircraft from towing
a glider or unpowered ultralight vehicle unless it is equipped with a
tow-hitch of a kind, and installed in a manner, which is approved by
the Administrator. When the FAA issued the 2004 final rule, the FAA
stated in the preamble that towing operations by light-sport aircraft
would be allowed. However, the 2004 final rule failed to actually amend
the regulation to address such operations. The FAA is proposing to
amend Sec. 91.309(a)(2) to clarify the addition of light-sport
category aircraft for towing operations and remedy the oversight in the
2004 final rule.
The proposed language creates three paragraphs, each addressing a
separate combination of the category of airworthiness certificate
issued to an aircraft and whether that aircraft was issued a type
certificate. Additionally, each paragraph of the proposed regulations
addresses the certification requirements of the tow-hitch, as a
product/article to be installed on an aircraft, as well as the manner
of installation of the tow-hitch. The FAA uses the terms ``approved by
the Administrator,'' ``authorized by the Administrator,'' and
``acceptable to the Administrator'' in the following paragraphs. Table
3 summarizes the differences among the terms used in Sec.
91.309(a)(2).
Table 3--Sec. 91.309(a)(2) Terminology
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where Sec. 91.309(a)(2) uses . .
. The Proposal means . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approved by the Administrator Part/article approval may be done
(i.e., FAA-approved). during the type-certification
process under part 21, subpart B,
the Supplemental Type Certificate
(STC) process under part 21,
subpart E, or the Parts Manufacture
Approval (PMA) process under part
21, subpart K.
Installation approval may be done
during the type-certification
process under part 21, subpart B,
the Supplemental Type Certificate
(STC) process under part 21,
subpart E, or the FAA's field
approval process.
Authorized by the Administrator... While there may be other methods of
authorization, the FAA can
authorize the installation of the
tow-hitch in the operating
limitations issued to the aircraft
or using the FAA's field approval
process.
Acceptable to the FAA............. This term means the tow-hitch or
installation is not necessarily
privy to the FAA's review before
its installation or use.
FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 43.13-2B,
Acceptable Methods, Techniques, and
Practices--Aircraft Alterations
contains acceptable methods for tow-
hitch installations in Chapter 8.
Consensus standards and
manufacturers' maintenance manuals
are also acceptable to the FAA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, for those aircraft that hold a standard airworthiness
certificate, the proposed language requires that the tow-hitch is
approved by the Administrator. Additionally, the tow-hitch is required
to be installed in a manner approved by the Administrator. The proposed
language maintains the current requirement for aircraft holding
standard airworthiness certificates.
Second, for those type-certificated aircraft that hold a special
airworthiness certificate, and for which the aircraft has been
previously issued a type certificate,\121\ the proposed language would
require the tow-hitch be of a kind that is approved or otherwise
authorized by the Administrator. Although these aircraft may have been
issued a special airworthiness certificate, the fact that the aircraft
was issued a type certificate means that the aircraft must continue to
meet its type design after an alteration to install a tow-hitch. A tow-
hitch installation for an aircraft issued a type certificate may be
done after the installation is FAA approved. This is the same
requirement that is currently imposed on aircraft with a standard
airworthiness certificate engaged in towing gliders or unpowered
ultralight vehicles. However, because these aircraft hold a special
airworthiness
[[Page 47706]]
certificate and are issued associated operating limitations, the FAA is
proposing an alternative to the tow-hitch and/or the installations
having FAA approval. Under the proposal, these aircraft may have a tow-
hitch and/or installation that is authorized by the Administrator using
some other manner, such as in the operating limitations issued to the
aircraft.\122\ In these instances, the FAA will verify that there will
be an equivalent level of safety when the Administrator authorizes a
tow-hitch or installation method.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\121\ For example, this could include aircraft in the limited,
primary, restricted, or provisional category, or aircraft issued an
experimental certificate for a purpose under Sec. 21.191(a) through
(f), when that aircraft has been previously issued a type
certificate.
\122\ For example, if a person were using an aircraft that had
been issued a TC to test a tow-hitch design, the aircraft could be
issued an experimental certificate for the purpose of showing
compliance with the regulations. The FAA would authorize the
installation of the tow-hitch in the operating limitations issued to
the aircraft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, for those aircraft that hold a special airworthiness
certificate, for which the aircraft has not been previously issued a
type certificate, the proposed language would allow for a tow-hitch of
a kind that is FAA approved. As an alternative to installing an FAA-
approved tow-hitch, the tow-hitch may instead be one that is acceptable
to the FAA. However, regardless of whether the tow-hitch is approved by
or acceptable to the FAA, the tow-hitch must be installed in a manner
acceptable to the FAA. As noted in the 2004 final rule, there is
historical precedent for towing operations by light-sport aircraft. The
FAA has determined that such operations can be conducted safely when
using a tow-hitch approved by the Administrator, so long as the tow-
hitch is installed in a manner acceptable to the Administrator. The
proposed language allows the option to install a tow-hitch that does
not have FAA approval because the aircraft itself was never subject to
an FAA approval process, as were those aircraft that were issued a type
certificate. Table 4 provides clarity of the proposed tow-hitch and
tow-hitch installation requirements in Sec. 91.309(a)(2).
Table 4--Sec. 91.309(a)(2) Tow-Hitch and Installation Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aircraft in proposed Sec. Tow-hitch Tow-hitch manner
91.309(a)(2) certification of installation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Aircraft holds a standard FAA-approved...... Approved by the
airworthiness certificate. Administrator.
(ii) Aircraft holds a special FAA-approved or FAA-approved; or
airworthiness certificate; and Otherwise Otherwise
The aircraft design was issued Authorized by the Authorized by the
a type certificate. Administrator. Administrator.
(iii) Aircraft holds a special FAA-approved; or Acceptable to the
airworthiness certificate; and Acceptable to the FAA.
The aircraft design was not FAA.
issued a type certificate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Section 91.409 Clarifying Amendment
Section 91.409 provides inspection requirements for aircraft
operation. The language under Sec. 91.409(c)(1) provides operational
inspection exceptions for specific aircraft airworthiness certificates
under Sec. 91.409. The FAA proposes to amend Sec. 91.409(c)(1) by
removing the first ``or'' and adding the words ``airworthiness
certificate'' following the word ``light-sport'' within the list of
special airworthiness certificates. The proposed Sec. 91.409(c)(1)
states that an aircraft that carries a special flight permit, a current
experimental certificate, a light-sport airworthiness certificate, or
provisional airworthiness certificate. This amendment would provide
better clarity, readability, and understanding for the operator for
proper use of the exception.
I. Experimental Airworthiness Certificates
1. Duration of Light-Sport Category Airworthiness Certificates
Currently, Sec. 21.181(a)(3) states that a special airworthiness
certificate in the light-sport category will remain effective as long
as the aircraft meets the definition of a light-sport aircraft and the
aircraft conforms to its original configuration, except for those
alterations performed in accordance with an applicable consensus
standard and authorized by the aircraft's manufacturer or a person
acceptable to the FAA. Additionally, the aircraft must not have any
unsafe condition and not be likely to develop an unsafe condition. It
also must be registered in the United States.
Under proposed Sec. 21.181(a)(3)(i), an aircraft issued an
airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category would have to
meet the eligibility criteria specified in proposed Sec. 21.190(b) for
its airworthiness certificate to remain effective. The specific
eligibility requirements would reflect the expanded scope and
performance of aircraft that could be certificated in the light-sport
category and are discussed in detail in sections IV.C. and IV.D. of
this preamble.
Aircraft issued airworthiness certificates in the light-sport
category before the effective date of the final rule may not be able to
meet the requirements in proposed Sec. 21.190(b), as these aircraft
would have been designed and produced before the enactment of the
proposed requirements. Accordingly, proposed Sec. 21.181(a)(3)(iv)
would allow these aircraft to maintain their special airworthiness
certificates. The duration of airworthiness certificates issued for
these aircraft would remain unaffected provided the aircraft still meet
the parameters of the definition of light-sport aircraft found in
current Sec. 1.1 and the other applicable requirements discussed in
this section. The parameters that these aircraft would be required to
meet would be specifically listed in the proposed paragraphs
(a)(3)(iv)(A) through (M) and are identical to those contained in the
current definition of light-sport aircraft found in Sec. 1.1. They
would be specifically listed in the proposed regulation since the
current definition of light-sport aircraft containing those parameters
would be removed from Sec. 1.1.
Proposed Sec. 21.181(a)(3)(ii) would revise the current
requirement specifying that for an airworthiness certificate in the
light-sport category to be effective the aircraft must conform to its
original configuration, except for those alterations performed in
accordance with an applicable consensus standard and authorized by the
aircraft's manufacturer or a person acceptable to the FAA. This
requirement would be revised to specify the aircraft must conform to
its original or properly altered configuration. The proposed revision
would conform the provisions of proposed Sec. 21.181(a)(3)(ii) to
another proposal in this NPRM which would revise Sec. 91.327 to no
longer require that the performance of minor alterations be authorized
by the manufacturer or a
[[Page 47707]]
person acceptable to the FAA. Accordingly, minor repairs and minor
alterations performed in accordance with acceptable methods, techniques
and practices that meet the provisions of the applicable consensus
standards and part 43 would result in an aircraft that would conform to
a properly altered configuration. Any minor repair or minor alteration
not performed in accordance with applicable consensus standards would
result in the aircraft not conforming to a properly altered condition.
The proposal would also retain current provision in Sec.
21.181(a)(3)(iii) specifying that for the airworthiness certificates of
aircraft certificated in the light-sport category to remain effective
the aircraft must have no unsafe condition and not be likely to develop
an unsafe condition. The current requirement in Sec. 21.181(a)(3)(iv)
that these aircraft be registered in the United States for their
airworthiness certificates to remain effective would also continue to
remain applicable; however, since that requirement applies to all
aircraft issued airworthiness certificates, the FAA proposes that the
requirement is better placed in Sec. 21.181(a), where it would be
applicable to all airworthiness certificates.
2. Issue of Experimental Airworthiness Certificates
In this proposed rule, the regulatory wording of Sec. 21.191 would
be revised from ``Experimental certificates are issued for the
following purposes:'' to ``Experimental airworthiness certificates are
issued for the following experimental purposes.'' ``Experimental
certificates'' would be changed to ``Experimental airworthiness
certificates'' to clarify that experimental certificates are
airworthiness certificates and that they are issued for the
experimental purposes listed in Sec. 21.191. The term ``purposes''
would be revised to ``experimental purposes'' to clarify that the
purposes in Sec. 21.191 are experimental. These changes are also being
proposed to align with a change in Sec. 21.175, which proposes to
clarify that special airworthiness certificates are issued for aircraft
operating for an experimental purpose.
This rule proposes to retain Sec. 21.191(a) through (h), revise
Sec. 21.191(i), and add Sec. 21.191(j) and (k).
3. Operating Former Light-Sport Category Aircraft
Currently Sec. 21.191(i), Operating light-sport aircraft, consists
of three sections. Each section was created for a particular type of
aircraft. The first section, identified in Sec. 21.191(i)(1), applies
to aircraft that have not been issued a U.S. or foreign airworthiness
certificate and do not meet the provisions of 14 CFR 103.1. These
aircraft are commonly referred to as ``fat ultralights.'' As provided
in Sec. 21.191(i)(1), an experimental certificate will not be issued
under this paragraph for these aircraft after January 31, 2008. As
such, the FAA is proposing to delete this requirement. The second
section, identified in Sec. 21.191(i)(2), applies to light-sport
aircraft that have been assembled from a kit in accordance with
manufacturer's assembly instructions that meet an applicable consensus
standard. The FAA is proposing to move this requirement to Sec.
21.191(j) as discussed in section IV.I.3. The third section, identified
in Sec. 21.191(i)(3), applies to aircraft previously issued an
airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category. This last
section would be retained in Sec. 21.191(i).
This rule proposes to revise the heading of Sec. 21.191(i) from
``Operating light-sport aircraft'' to ``Operating former light-sport
category aircraft.'' This section would contain the same experimental
purpose as the current Sec. 21.191(i)(3), which includes aircraft that
have previously been issued a special airworthiness certificate in the
light-sport category under Sec. 21.190. Aside from the relocation from
Sec. 21.191(i)(3) to Sec. 21.191(i) and the revision of the heading,
this proposal would not further materially change this section.
This rule would eliminate Sec. 21.191(i)(1) that allows for
airworthiness certification of ``fat ultralights.'' These aircraft have
not been issued a U.S. or foreign airworthiness certificate and do not
meet the provisions of 14 CFR 103.1. These aircraft were provided a
small timeframe in which they could be issued an airworthiness
certificate under this experimental purpose and that timeframe closed
on January 31, 2008, pursuant to Sec. 21.191(i)(1). As such, this
paragraph would be eliminated from this revised rule since these
aircraft can no longer be issued an airworthiness certificate under
this section.
4. Operating Light-Sport Category Kit-Built Aircraft
This rule would create a new experimental purpose, ``Operating
light-sport category kit-built aircraft'' in Sec. 21.191(j),
specifically for light-sport category kit-built aircraft that are
currently being certificated under Sec. 21.191(i)(2). Aircraft
certificated under this experimental purpose would continue to include
those that have been certificated under Sec. 21.190 and assembled from
an aircraft kit in accordance with the manufacturer's assembly
instructions that meet an applicable consensus standard.
The items the applicant must provide to apply for an experimental
airworthiness certificate for a light-sport category kit-built aircraft
currently exist in Sec. 21.193(e). This rule would relocate these
application items for light-sport category kit-built aircraft from
Sec. 21.193(e) to Sec. 21.191(j) with minor changes. Section
21.193(e)(1) requires evidence that an aircraft of the same make and
model was manufactured and assembled by the aircraft kit manufacturer
and issued a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport
category. This proposed rule, in Sec. 21.191(j)(1), would clarify that
the issuance of a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport
category would occur under Sec. 21.190.
Section 21.193(e)(2) requires the applicant to provide a copy of
the aircraft's operating instructions and Sec. 21.193(e)(5) requires
the applicant to provide a copy of the aircraft's flight training
supplement. These requirements would be relocated to Sec. 21.191(j)(2)
in this rule and would change ``the aircraft's operating instructions''
and ``the aircraft's flight training supplement'' to ``the pilot's
operating handbook that includes a flight training supplement,'' to
standardize with terminology proposed for use throughout Sec. 21.190
and part 22 of this proposal.
Section 21.193(e)(3) requires the applicant to provide a copy of
the aircraft's maintenance and inspection procedures. This requirement
would be moved to Sec. 21.191(j)(3) in this rule.
Section 21.193(e)(4) requires the applicant to provide the
manufacturer's statement of compliance for the aircraft kit used in the
aircraft assembly that meets Sec. 21.190(c), except that instead of
meeting Sec. 21.190(c)(7), the statement must identify assembly
instructions for the aircraft that meet an applicable consensus
standard. This proposed rule would move this requirement to Sec.
21.191(j)(4) and clarify that the aircraft kit must comply with the
applicable requirements of Sec. 21.190 and part 22 in effect at the
time the aircraft kit was manufactured, except the statement of
compliance need not indicate compliance with Sec. 22.100 for flight
and ground testing in accordance with a production acceptance test
procedure. This change is necessary because this rule would contain the
applicable requirements throughout Sec. 21.190 that an applicant would
have to comply with in addition to the manufacturer's
[[Page 47708]]
statement of compliance. Additionally, design, production, and
airworthiness requirements that must be complied with would be in part
22 of this proposed rule.
Finally, current Sec. 21.193(e)(6) requires an applicant for an
aircraft kit manufactured outside the United States to show evidence
that the aircraft kit was manufactured in a country with which the
United States has a Bilateral Airworthiness Agreement concerning
airplanes or a Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement with associated
Implementation Procedures for Airworthiness concerning airplanes, or an
equivalent airworthiness agreement. This requirement would remain
unchanged in the proposed rule and relocated to Sec. 21.191(j)(5).
Table 5--Proposed Changes to Sec. 21.191(i) Operating Light-Sport
Aircraft
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current purpose: Proposed purpose:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 21.191(i)(1) (``fat- Removed from Sec. 21.191;
ultralights''). timeframe closed on January 31,
2008.
Sec. 21.191(i)(2) (light-sport Sec. 21.191(j) Operating light-
kit). sport category kit-built aircraft;
would include provisions from
current Sec. 21.193(e).
Sec. 21.191(i)(3) (former Sec. Sec. 21.191(i) Operating former
21.190). light-sport category aircraft.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Operating Former Military Aircraft
This rule would create a new experimental purpose for former
military aircraft to be added as Sec. 21.191(k). To be eligible for an
experimental airworthiness certificate under the proposed rule,
aircraft would have to be manufactured, purchased, or modified under
contract by the U.S. Armed Forces or a foreign military. This proposed
requirement would establish the military history of the aircraft as a
prerequisite for eligibility under this section. The aircraft would
have to have been a military aircraft before the FAA would consider the
aircraft a former military aircraft. Under the proposed rule, unmanned
aircraft (UA) would be excluded from eligibility for an airworthiness
certificate under this purpose.
This additional purpose is necessary to allow for flights conducted
by these aircraft between their public aircraft operations performed on
behalf of the Department of Defense (DOD). Since fiscal year 2015, the
DOD components have increased the use of air support contracts,
including contracting for more flying hours and expanding the number of
training locations, to address training requirements. DOD components
awarded almost $8.4 billion for air support contracts in fiscal years
2015 through 2021.\123\ These contracts provide non-military aircraft
and personnel to replicate the role of combat aircraft for various
training activities. DOD has used contracts to meet training needs,
address shortages in available military aircraft and crew members, and
manage costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\123\ Government Accountability Office, Report to the Committee
on Armed Services of the United States House of Representatives
(Dec. 2021), https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-104475.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many of these DOD operations involve contract air support
operations that use civilian contractor aircraft and personnel. Some
examples of contract air support operations are ordinance delivery,
target towing, aerial refueling, and aggressor training, in which
military pilots are provided with simulated adversaries to replicate
combat activities. Although contract air support aircraft have been
issued experimental airworthiness certificates for the purpose of
exhibition and crew training, there currently is no experimental
purpose available that adequately addresses the DOD's needs with regard
to contract air support. Although the operations conducted under the
contract with DOD may be conducted as public aircraft operations, any
operations the aircraft may perform that do not meet the statutory
requirements for public aircraft operations would be a civil aircraft
operation subject to FAA airworthiness requirements.
Existing airworthiness requirements for experimental aircraft such
as exhibition and crew training also may not include the mitigations
appropriate to the operation of these aircraft. To date, former-
military aircraft seeking to conduct contract air support operations
typically have sought experimental airworthiness certificates for the
purposes of exhibition and crew training which the FAA has issued
accompanied by specific operating limitations developed for each
purpose in accordance with Sec. 91.319(i) and FAA Order 8130.2.\124\
As the DOD has increased its use of contract air support operations
over time, the FAA has become aware that issuing experimental
airworthiness certificates under the current available purposes may
result in a misalignment of the issued experimental purpose and the
operations being conducted. The proposed experimental purpose will
align the civil operations to be conducted and the purpose for which
these certificates are sought.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\124\ FAA Order 8130.2J, Airworthiness Certification of Aircraft
(July 21, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To better allow these aircraft to operate as civil aircraft, the
FAA proposes to establish a new experimental purpose for former
military aircraft that would allow for three types of civil operation.
First, aircraft with this purpose would be able to fly the aircraft to
a base where repairs, alterations, or maintenance would be performed.
Aircraft often need to be taken to specific locations to have requisite
repairs, alterations, and maintenance, whether scheduled or
unscheduled. Second, aircraft with this purpose would be able to fly
the aircraft to a point of storage. When not being used for contract
air support operations, these aircraft are typically not housed on
military property and need to be kept in storage facilities that meet
certain security, size, and environmental requirements. As such,
allowing for flight between the contract air support operations and
where the aircraft are housed is necessary. Third, aircraft with this
purpose would be able to be repositioned for use under contract with
the DOD. Contract air support operations occur at various DOD
installations and within special use airspace, with the same aircraft
often being used for contract air support operations at different
locations. As the flight between the two locations would not be
considered a public aircraft operation, this purpose will cover the
relocation flight necessary for the aircraft to fulfill contractual
requirements. These purposes are also aligned with the types of
operations generally allowed under a special flight permit. Unlike a
special flight permit, however, this rule would allow these aircraft to
seek an experimental airworthiness certificate rather than get specific
permission for each such operation. The proposed experimental purpose
would enable the DOD to use contract air services more effectively and
enable the FAA to oversee the civil use of these aircraft more
efficiently. Such civil air support operations are
[[Page 47709]]
critical to the defense readiness of the United States. The three
authorizations proposed by the FAA provide a pathway for the DOD
contractors to conduct limited civil operations.
6. Application for Special Airworthiness Certificates Issued for
Experimental Purposes
With the documentation requirements for light-sport category kit-
built aircraft proposed for relocation from Sec. 21.193(e) to Sec.
21.191(j), the remaining requirements in Sec. 21.193(a) through (d)
are those necessary for the application for an airworthiness
certificate for an experimental purpose. In accordance with these
proposed revisions, the heading of this section would be changed from
``Experimental certificates: general'' to ``Application for special
airworthiness certificates issued for experimental purposes.''
Section 21.193(a) requires a statement, in a form and manner
prescribed by the FAA setting forth the purpose for which the aircraft
is to be used. This rule would omit the first half of this requirement:
``A statement, in a form and manner prescribed by the FAA . . .'' In
this proposed rule, Sec. 21.193(a) would require an applicant to
submit the experimental purpose for which the aircraft would be used
and Sec. 21.193(b) would require an applicant to submit enough
information to describe the planned operation, equipment, or test, as
applicable. Combined, these two requirements would necessitate more
than a ``statement'' from the applicant, as currently required by Sec.
21.193(a). The applicant would be required to provide the Sec. 21.191
purpose(s) for which application is being made as well as provide
enough data for the FAA to understand the scope, risks, and hazards of
the planned operations, equipment, or test, as applicable.
Section 21.193(b) requires enough data (such as photographs) to
identify the aircraft when making application for an airworthiness
certificate for an experimental purpose. This proposed rule, in Sec.
21.193(e), would change this requirement by removing the phrase ``such
as photographs'' to clarify that other means of identification are
permitted.
The FAA is not changing the requirement in Sec. 21.193(c) stating
that, upon inspection of the aircraft, any pertinent information found
necessary by the FAA to safeguard the general public must be submitted
by the applicant. In this proposal, this requirement would simply be
moved to Sec. 21.193(g).
Section 21.193(d)(2) requires the applicant to submit the estimated
time or number of flights required for the experiment. This proposed
rule would keep this requirement in Sec. 21.193(c) but would make it
applicable only for an applicant seeking issuance of an experimental
airworthiness certificate for those experimental purposes specified in
Sec. 21.191(a) through (f). This change is necessary because the other
experimental purposes (i.e., operating amateur-built aircraft,
operating former light-sport-category aircraft, and operating light-
sport category kit-built aircraft) are not dependent upon time or
accomplishing a specific number of flights to validate their
experimental purpose. The experimental purposes of research and
development, showing compliance with regulations, crew training, and
market survey would all be subject to a certificate duration of three
years or less under this rule, or they could indicate the number of
flights it will take to complete their experiment or operation.
Applicants for the exhibition and air racing experimental purposes
would identify the number of flights, typically planned at events such
as airshows, movie or television productions, or air races. In this
section, the word ``experiment'' in Sec. 21.193(d)(2) would be changed
to ``operation'' in Sec. 21.193(c) of this rule to reflect that not
all the experimental purposes in Sec. 21.191(a) through (f) involve
experiments. Replacing ``experiment'' with ``operation'' more
accurately describes the flight operations of these experimental
purposes.
The current requirement in Sec. 21.193(d)(3) for applicants to
submit the areas over which the experiment will be conducted when
applying for an airworthiness certificate for an experimental purpose
would move to Sec. 21.193(d) in this proposed rule. Consistent with
other requirements in this section in this proposed rule, the word
``experiment'' would be changed to ``flight'' to show that not all
experimental purposes involve experiments.
Finally, current Sec. 21.193(d)(4) requires applicants for an
airworthiness certificate for an experimental purpose to provide three-
view drawings or three-view dimensioned photographs of the aircraft,
except for aircraft converted from a previously certificated type
without appreciable change in the external configuration. This proposed
rule, in Sec. 21.193(f), would omit the words ``aircraft converted
from'' to clarify that any previously type-certificated aircraft would
be excepted from this requirement if there was no appreciable change in
the external configuration.
Proposed Sec. 21.193(h) would require applicants for an
experimental certificate under Sec. 21.191(i) operating former light-
sport category aircraft, and Sec. 21.191(j) operating light-sport
category kit-built aircraft, to demonstrate compliance with the
aircraft noise limits in 14 CFR part 36. If compliance cannot be
demonstrated using analytical data (i.e., the aircraft needs to be
flight tested), an applicant for either of these experimental purposes
would need to obtain an experimental airworthiness certificate for the
purpose of showing compliance with regulations to complete noise
testing before receiving airworthiness certification under the proposed
Sec. 21.191(i) or (j). Options for noise compliance are discussed in
section IV.K.
7. Changes to the Experimental Purpose of Market Survey
Section 21.195(b) applies to manufacturers of aircraft engines and
Sec. 21.195(c) applies to persons who have altered the design of a
type-certificated aircraft. Both Sec. 21.195(b) and (c) have the
requirement for an aircraft, before alteration, to have been type
certificated in the normal, utility, acrobatic, commuter, or transport
category. This proposed rule would add aircraft type certificated in
the primary and restricted categories. This change would allow, for
example, a manufacturer or person to alter an aircraft, such as by
adding a new crop sprayer and install it in an aircraft that had been,
before alteration, type certificated in the restricted category for the
special purpose operation of crop spraying. This manufacturer or person
could demonstrate the new crop sprayer on a restricted category
aircraft to potential customers under the experimental purpose of
market survey. Currently, Sec. 21.195 does not contain requirements
applicable to these types of demonstrations in the primary and
restricted categories.
Section 21.195(d) states that an applicant for an experimental
certificate under this section is entitled to that certificate if, in
addition to meeting the requirements of Sec. 21.193, the applicant has
established an inspection and maintenance program for the continued
airworthiness of the aircraft and showed that the aircraft has been
flown for at least 50 hours, or for at least 5 hours if it is a type-
certificated aircraft which has been modified. The FAA may reduce these
operational requirements if the applicant provides adequate
justification. This proposed rule would clarify that Sec. 21.195(a),
(b), or (c) determine the eligibility for the application of an
airworthiness
[[Page 47710]]
certificate for the experimental purpose of market survey and that
Sec. 21.195(d) is not a stand-alone eligibility criterion. To remedy
this common misconception, this rule would clarify that Sec. 21.195(d)
only applies when an applicant meets the requirements of Sec. 21.193
and any of the three criteria in Sec. 21.195(a), (b), or (c).
In addition to the changes previously discussed, this rule proposes
to eliminate the use of gender-specific terminology that exists in this
section.
8. Noise Requirements
a. New Experimental Light-Sport Category Aircraft and Acoustic Changes
to Existing Experimental Light-Sport Aircraft
This rule proposes that new experimental light-sport aircraft and
existing experimental light-sport aircraft that are altered in a manner
that changes their noise generation would be required to demonstrate
compliance with part 36. While the noise limits listed in the
appendices to part 36 would apply, the FAA is proposing different
methods of compliance depending on the complexity of the aircraft and
the availability of noise consensus standards. A more comprehensive
discussion of the need for this requirement and the options available
for airworthiness certification is presented in section IV.K.
Aircraft certificated under current Sec. 21.191(i)(1) would be
excepted from meeting noise requirements, as discussed in section IV.K.
b. Experimental Light-Sport Category Kit-Built Aircraft
The FAA proposes to apply the noise requirements of part 36 to
experimental light-sport aircraft kit-built aircraft when an
airworthiness certificate is applied for under Sec. 21.191(j). The
applicability and methods of compliance with part 36 are fully
discussed in section IV.K.
9. Aircraft Identification
In Sec. 21.182(a), this rule would change the word ``his'' to
``the'' to make this sentence gender-neutral.
When combined, the current Sec. 21.182(b) introductory text and
(b)(2) contain double-negative language that is confusing. This rule
would eliminate the double-negative language to add clarity. Section
21.182(b) currently states in part that paragraph (a) of this section
does not apply to applicants for the following: an experimental
certificate for an aircraft not issued for the purpose of operating
amateur-built aircraft, operating primary kit-built aircraft, or
operating light-sport aircraft. To apply this double-negative language
correctly, a person would have to determine the experimental purposes
not listed in Sec. 21.182(b)(2). These purposes include research and
development, showing compliance with regulations, crew training,
exhibition, air racing, and market survey. The proposed Sec.
21.182(b)(2) would instead list these applicable experimental purposes,
making comprehension much easier.
A new experimental purpose, operating former military aircraft,
would be included under Sec. 21.182(b)(2), thereby excluding these
aircraft from compliance with the fireproof identification marking
requirements of Sec. 45.11. Former military aircraft were built under
U.S. or foreign military requirements, and it would be impractical and
extremely costly for them to have to retroactively comply with civil
fireproof identification marking requirements. Also, most former
military aircraft currently operating under FAA airworthiness
certificates are already excluded from fire-proof marking requirements
since they tend to operate under the experimental purposes of research
and development, crew training, or exhibition.
J. Restricted Category
1. General Changes to Airworthiness Certification of Restricted
Category Aircraft
For type certification in the restricted category, Sec.
21.25(a)(1) currently requires an aircraft to meet the airworthiness
requirements of an aircraft category, except those requirements that
the FAA finds inappropriate for the special purpose for which the
aircraft is to be used. This proposed rule would specify that the
airworthiness regulations for primary or light-sport categories are not
acceptable for type certification in the restricted category. These two
categories were created after the restricted category regulations were
established and were not intended to be included for type certification
in the restricted category.
Additionally, the airworthiness requirements for primary and light-
sport categories are not appropriate for use in restricted category
type certification. The primary category airworthiness regulations are
not designed to include all of the airworthiness standards in part 23
or 27, as applicable, while the airworthiness requirements for light-
sport category aircraft, as proposed in this rule, are based on the
design, performance, and production requirements in part 22. This
revision would preclude owners of primary category aircraft and light-
sport category aircraft from seeking certification of their aircraft in
the restricted category. Currently, the FAA is not aware of any owners
of primary category aircraft or light-sport category aircraft that have
requested their aircraft to be certificated in the restricted category.
As such, this proposed rule would result in the airworthiness
regulations for normal, utility, acrobatic, commuter, and transport
categories to be acceptable for use under the proposed restricted
category provisions in Sec. 21.25(a)(1).
Also in this proposed rule, the term ``special purpose'' would be
replaced with ``special purpose operation'' in Sec. 21.25(a)(1) and
(2). This change would standardize the use of this terminology
throughout Sec. Sec. 21.25, 21.185, and 91.313 and FAA Order 8110.56B,
Restricted Category Type Certification, dated July 19, 2017 (``FAA
Order 8110.56B'').
In general, Sec. 21.25(a)(2) addresses requirements for military
aircraft that could be type certificated in the restricted category.
This proposed rule would restructure Sec. 21.25(a)(2) by splitting
this section into three requirements, of which the latter two are new.
This restructuring would make this section easier to read. In this
proposed rule, the phrase, ``an Armed Force of the United States,''
would be replaced with ``the U.S. Armed Forces'' to align with
terminology used throughout 14 CFR part 21. Section 21.25(a)(2)(i)
would contain the existing requirement that the aircraft type was
manufactured in accordance with the requirements of, and accepted for
use by, the U.S. Armed Forces.
To be eligible for restricted category type certificate under
proposed Sec. 21.25(a)(2)(ii), an aircraft type must have been
operated by a U.S. Armed Force since this provision is intended for
former aircraft types of a U.S. Armed Force. Aircraft that have only
been manufactured for and accepted by a U.S. Armed Force, but never
operated by that U.S. Armed Force, could have been manufactured and
accepted on behalf of other operators such as under foreign military
sales arrangements and, therefore, not truly be an aircraft type of a
U.S. Armed Force.
Proposed Sec. 21.25(a)(2)(iii) would clarify that an aircraft must
be able to perform, or be modified to be able to perform, the special
purpose operation for which the aircraft is to be approved. Under the
current Sec. 21.25(a)(2), the requirements for what modifications are
permitted or required for type certification are not specified. This
has produced misconceptions that the aircraft can only be modified for
special purpose operation. Surplus military
[[Page 47711]]
aircraft may be type certificated to perform a special purpose
operation without any modification. Alternatively, modifications may be
made for other reasons, such as aircraft performance, reliability, or
safety enhancements.
2. Codification of Special Purpose Operations
The existing list of special purpose operations in Sec.
21.25(b)(1) through (7) that are authorized for restricted category
aircraft have largely remained unchanged since 1964 (see 29 FR 14564,
October 24, 1964). This proposed rule would revise Sec. 21.25(b) by
codifying the special purpose operations that have been approved by the
FAA since 1964. Most of these special purpose operations have been
published in FAA Order 8110.56B.
In this proposed rule, Sec. 21.25(b)(1) through (7) would continue
to contain the seven special purposes currently in Sec. 21.25(b)(1)
through (7) that include: agricultural, forest and wildlife
conservation, aerial surveying, patrolling, weather control, aerial
advertising, and other, as specified by the FAA. Additionally, the
associated special purpose operations for each special purpose would be
codified. For example, cloud seeding would be a special purpose
operation under the special purpose of weather control. This change
would align terminology in Sec. 21.25(b) with that used by the FAA in
the approvals for special purpose operations published in the Federal
Register. This change would also align this terminology with that used
in the certification basis section of type certificate data sheets and
supplemental type certificates, as well as with FAA policy in Order
8110.56 for restricted category aircraft.
For Sec. 21.25(b)(1), this rule would add three agricultural
special purpose operations that have been previously approved by the
FAA: insect control, dust control, and fruit drying and frost control.
Frost control and fruit drying, also called protection of crops,
involve the use of an aircraft to circulate air over a field or orchard
to prevent frost from forming on the crops or to dry the fruit on the
orchard trees.
For Sec. 21.25(b)(2), this rule would codify forest and wildlife
conservation special purpose operations that have been previously
approved by the FAA. These include aerial dispensing of fire-fighting
materials, fish spotting, wild animal survey, and oil spill response.
The special purpose of aerial dispensing of fire-fighting materials was
originally approved as ``aerial dispensing of liquids'' for fire-
fighting aircraft. However, this rule proposes to change the name to
aerial dispensing of fire-fighting materials to more closely align with
the regulatory language in 14 CFR 36.1.
For Sec. 21.25(b)(3), this rule would codify aerial surveying
special purpose operations that include: aerial imaging, gas
exploration, atmospheric survey and research, geophysical and
electromagnetic surveys, oceanic surveys, and airborne measurement of
navigation signals. Gas exploration would be added as a special purpose
operation since it uses the same processes as the special purpose
operation of oil exploration, which has existed since 1964.
Aerial imaging would replace photography as an aerial surveying
special purpose operation to clarify that specialized airborne sensing
or measuring equipment on the aircraft is a key component to perform
aerial surveying operations. Aerial imaging would permit new
technologies used to perform aerial surveying operations, such as light
detection and ranging, which is commonly known as LIDAR.
For Sec. 21.25(b)(4), this rule would codify patrolling special
purpose operations that include: patrolling of railroads, patrolling of
harbors, and patrolling of data transmission lines and towers.
Patrolling of data transmission lines and towers is a new special
purpose operation that would be added to this rule because it involves
a similar process used for the special purpose operation of patrolling
power lines, which has existed since 1964.
Finally, for Sec. 21.25(b)(7), this rule would codify other
special purpose operations that have been previously approved by the
FAA but are not categorized under the prior six special purposes. The
following special purpose operations would be added to Sec.
21.25(b)(7): rotorcraft external-load operations conducted under part
133, carriage of cargo incidental to the owner's or operator's
business, target towing, search and rescue operations, glider towing,
Alaskan fuel hauling, Alaskan fixed-wing external load operations, and
space vehicle launch support. This rule would move the existing
catchall, ``any other special purpose operation specified by the FAA,''
to become the last item in the list to indicate that the FAA may still
add special purpose operations in the future.
3. Corrections to Original Issuance of Restricted Category
Airworthiness Certificates
Section 21.185(a) states that an applicant for the original issue
of a restricted category airworthiness certificate for an aircraft type
certificated in the restricted category, that was not previously type
certificated in any other category, must comply with the appropriate
provisions of Sec. 21.183. In this proposed rule, Sec. 21.185(a)
would be revised to remove ``original issue of'' because ``original''
specifies compliance with the applicable requirements of Sec. 21.183
only for the original issuance of a restricted category airworthiness
certificate. This causes confusion in situations wherein a restricted
category aircraft's airworthiness certificate has to be re-issued. For
example, a restricted category aircraft may require re-issuance of the
airworthiness certificate in situations where the airworthiness
certificate was lost or had become unreadable due to damage. This
proposed revision would account for both original and re-issuance of a
restricted category airworthiness certificate.
Section 21.185(b) states that an applicant for a restricted
category airworthiness certificate for an aircraft type certificated in
the restricted category that was either a surplus aircraft of the Armed
Forces or previously type certificated in another category is entitled
to an airworthiness certificate if the aircraft has been inspected by
the FAA and found to be in a good state of preservation and repair and
in a condition for safe operation. Section 21.185(b), as proposed,
would be restructured to provide clarity and implement terminology
changes that align with the language used in other sections of this
chapter. For example, this section would add ``entitled to an
airworthiness certificate'' in the first sentence to align with other
sections of part 21, subpart H. Consistent with the changes previously
discussed in Sec. 21.25, terminology such as ``special purpose
operation'' and ``U.S. Armed Forces'' would be used in Sec.
21.185(b)(1) and (b)(2)(ii) respectively. Exclusion of aircraft
previously type-certificated in categories other than primary and
light-sport is proposed in Sec. 21.185(b)(2)(ii) and would be similar
to the exclusion proposed as discussed in the preamble for Sec.
21.25(a)(1).
In addition to the changes previously discussed, this rule proposes
to eliminate the use of gender-specific terminology that exists in this
section.
4. Issuance of Multiple Airworthiness Certificates for Restricted
Category Aircraft
This proposal would revise the heading of Sec. 21.187 by adding
``for restricted category aircraft'' to clarify that this section
applies only to restricted category aircraft.
[[Page 47712]]
K. Noise Certification of Aircraft That Do Not Conform to a Type
Certificate
The FAA is proposing to amend the applicability of 14 CFR part 36
to make noise certification applicable to aircraft that do not conform
to a type certificate. Since noise certification requirements have
historically only been applied to type-certificated aircraft, this
rulemaking proposes the addition of a new Sec. 36.0 for aircraft that
do not conform to a type certificate to keep the requirements clearly
separated. Part 36 would apply on the effective date of the final rule.
Compliance would be required when a new special airworthiness
certificate is applied for, or by the continued use of a previously
issued airworthiness certificate when an alternation is made to an
aircraft that would affect the amount of noise it produces when
operating. The noise certification requirements proposed for an
aircraft that does not conform to a type certificate would not be
retroactive for any aircraft currently operating.
1. Noise Certification Background
Pursuant to its authorizing legislation in 49 U.S.C. 44715, the FAA
has the responsibility to ``protect the public health and welfare from
aircraft noise.'' This responsibility came with broad authority to
adopt regulations and noise standards to carry out this mandate. When
promulgated in the 1970s, the FAA applied the part 36 noise
certification regulations when the agency issued type certificates.
This represented the provision in section 44715(a)(3) that acts as the
``floor'' for the FAA's duty to exercise its authority. The agency's
much broader authority over aircraft noise remains discretionary.
Initially, the FAA determined that there was little value in
assessing the noise from aircraft that did not receive type
certificates. Those aircraft were originally found to be few in number,
and in many cases may have been a single aircraft of its kind. The
agency did not find value in requiring noise testing by single
operators, nor any value in the test data from a single model of an
aircraft that was allowed only limited operations; these were often
categorized under the general heading of experimental airworthiness
certificates.
In the past two decades, the reality of the number of aircraft
operating that do not conform to a type certificate has overtaken those
historical presumptions. There are now tens of thousands of aircraft
that do not conform to type certificates, many of them nearly
identical, that have never been subject to noise testing or limits,
including aircraft that may be similar to or larger than aircraft with
type certificates that are already subject to the noise requirements.
The FAA did not anticipate the growth of aircraft that do not conform
to type certificates when the categories were created, and the noise
requirements did not keep pace with this growth of these categories
because they were based on historical use and expectations. The FAA can
no longer justify the exclusion of these aircraft and their noise
impact on communities under its statutory responsibility, nor can it
let the growth continue by changing the names or the categories. The
purpose of this rulemaking is to reorganize the issuance of special
airworthiness certificates to reflect the current realities of
certification, and it presents the opportunity to recognize and address
the noise created by these aircraft. This proposed expansion of the
applicability of part 36 acknowledges that noise certification is part
of the overall certification scheme for aircraft and is appropriate for
modernization as the agency modernizes its issuance of special
airworthiness certificates.
The intent of this expansion of the applicability of part 36 is
focused on those categories and classes of aircraft that represent the
more recent expansion, rather than the aircraft that were traditionally
excepted from noise regulations. Aircraft that would remain excepted
from part 36 applicability include those traditionally determined
experimental, for example the proposed categories of research and
development, showing compliance, market survey, exhibition, air racing,
and amateur-built aircraft. Aircraft holding airworthiness
certification or seeking a new special airworthiness certificate in
these categories would not be included in part 36 applicability.
Part 36 would not apply to light-sport category aircraft or
experimental light-sport category aircraft as long as their
airworthiness certificate was issued before the effective date of the
final rule and for as long as the aircraft remains unaltered. However,
any aircraft that would be certificated for the first time under
proposed Sec. 21.190 would be subject to noise requirements of part 36
at all weights. Part 36 would also apply to a current light-sport
category aircraft that incorporates an alteration that would routinely
be considered as requiring evaluation of the change for noise in
accordance with Sec. 21.93(b). That regulation is known as the
``acoustical change'' provision. However, because Sec. 21.93 only
applies to type-certificated aircraft the FAA finds the provision would
not be appropriate for aircraft that have no type certificate since
they have no original noise basis from which to evaluate a change. In
the proposed regulation, this type of change is referenced as an
alteration that would result in an acoustical change. In the context of
an aircraft that does not have a type certificate, such alteration
would likely be made by the airworthiness certificate holder for their
single aircraft. If an aircraft incorporates such an alteration, it
would be the responsibility of the airworthiness certificate holder to
comply with the requirements of part 36 for its aircraft, possibly for
the first time. For the purposes of discussion here, such alterations
almost always include a change in engine or propellers, a change in the
wing structure or material, significant additions to the fuselage or
fixed landing gear, increases in operating weight, and the attachment
of external equipment. Those alterations that incorporate a change that
would reduce the noise level created by the aircraft may also require a
demonstration of compliance with part 36, as it would establish a new
baseline for future changes.
Table 6--Summary of Sec. 36.0 Applicability to Aircraft That Do Not Conform to a Type Certificate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable noise
Aircraft certificated under Aircraft applicability regulation Means of compliance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14 CFR 21.190 (through Sec. 22.175) New aircraft or Part 36 (Sec. 36.0).. FAA-approved consensus
Acoustic alteration of standard, applicable
aircraft. part 36 appendix, or
other combination of
requirements as
approved by the FAA.
[[Page 47713]]
14 CFR 21.191(i) Operating former New experimental light- Part 36 (Sec. 36.0).. FAA-approved consensus
light-sport category aircraft; or sport category standard, applicable
(j) Operating light-sport category aircraft kits or part 36 appendix or
kit-built aircraft (through Sec. Acoustic alteration of other combination of
21.193(h)). experimental light- requirements as
sport category approved by the FAA.
aircraft.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. What Noise Certification Does and Does Not Mean
Although traditional noise certification of aircraft may evoke
impressions of burdensome testing and the potential for noise operating
limitations in certain areas, this is often not the case. Neither
comprehensive testing nor operating limitations are automatic when part
36 applies. At present, the only noise operating limitations in the
United States apply to jet aircraft.
The primary emphasis on controlling aircraft noise is done by
assessing noise at its source, the aircraft itself, rather than
operations generally. This assessment occurs when noise is measured at
the time of type certification. Through the creation of noise limits
for various aircraft types and the development of measurement
procedures and methods that are relevant to day-to-day operation, the
FAA meets its primary statutory obligation to protect the public health
and welfare by assessing the noise profiles of aircraft as they are
developed, and by setting a defined noise limit with which an aircraft
must comply before it is given an airworthiness certificate and
permitted to operate. The limits are set based on weight, design, and
means of propulsion. There are a set of standards and limits for fixed
wing small airplanes, one for jets, one for helicopters, and one for
tiltrotors. As new aircraft types develop, the FAA gathers the
appropriate data to determine what is acceptable for noise production
by the aircraft type to fulfill the agency's statutory
responsibilities. These standards and their adoption into regulations
are how the FAA meets its obligation to protect public health and
welfare from aircraft noise is appropriately and consistently
administered.
The noise certification requirements of part 36 are integrated into
the larger aircraft type and airworthiness certification processes that
assess safety. However, there is one significant difference between
safety and noise certification. Safety is maintained by continual
assessment of aircraft condition, and the FAA can address and require
correction of an unsafe condition by means such as an airworthiness
directive, which is a legally enforceable regulation adopted in
accordance with 14 CFR part 39. No such monitoring or correction
mechanism by the FAA exists for noise. This difference places
significant emphasis on the comprehensive evaluation of noise on a
level playing field at the one time the noise is measured at
certification. Since nothing in the regulations specifies any
particular means to control the noise of an individual aircraft, the
level playing field is maintained by specific test measurements of
aircraft noise at certification, one of demonstrating compliance and
equal enforcement of the standards. Part 36 requires that the noise
limits and reference conditions in part 36 be maintained when
demonstrating compliance, even if varied procedures are approved.
Until now, noise certification has been required only for aircraft
that conform to a type certificate, although it is considered an
airworthiness characteristic of an individual aircraft. As discussed
earlier, the expansion of the domestic fleet to include routine
operations of aircraft that are not type certificated has caused the
FAA to re-evaluate its statutory responsibility and respond to the
increased noise burden from aircraft of all kinds. As is required by
the FAA's statutory mandate, the existing limits and procedures for
noise certification have been developed in a manner that considers the
economic reasonableness, technological practicability, and
appropriateness for the aircraft to which it would apply.\125\ These
criteria also guided the expansion of the noise certification
requirements proposed here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\125\ 49 U.S.C. 44715(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noise certification is also a different and separate process from
the FAA's assessment of the environmental impacts of noise when
operating, especially in certain localities. Such considerations are
assessed separately under different statutory and regulatory criteria
than noise certification, e.g., the National Environmental Policy Act
\126\ and other special purpose laws. While these environmental impacts
often refer to noise data gathered during part 36 noise testing, the
noise measurements themselves are made under separate FAA authority as
noted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\126\ 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated earlier, the noise certification process does not itself
create operational restrictions. Instead, each type of aircraft has a
noise limit established in part 36. Noise certification is a two-step
process used to test an individual aircraft (or model) using the
procedures of part 36. The first step is to measure the noise levels
created by an aircraft at different operating points. The second step
is to determine whether the noise levels measured during testing are
below the regulatory noise limit, demonstrating that the aircraft
complies with part 36. Since it does not require any specific
technology or equipment be installed on an aircraft, part 36 functions
as a performance standard; the test shows that as configured, an
aircraft is below or above the regulatory limit. Noise certification is
considered part of the overall airworthiness of an aircraft (Sec.
21.183), even if the noise levels of an aircraft are, in many cases,
established at the time of type certification for the convenience of
the manufacturer (e.g., Sec. 21.17). The regulations require that each
individual aircraft remains compliant with the noise standards,
indicating that noise compliance is tied to the airworthiness
certificate of an individual aircraft as it maintains compliance (see
Sec. Sec. 21.93, 21.183).
As noted, there are no specific aircraft equipment requirements to
demonstrate compliance with part 36. An aircraft may incorporate any
equipment desired to stay below the noise limit established for that
aircraft. An aircraft that demonstrates compliance with part 36 must of
course meet the airworthiness requirements for safety as configured
when noise tested. Since aircraft noise is correlated to weight, noise
certification tests are conducted at the maximum takeoff weight (MTOW)
[[Page 47714]]
allowed by the airworthiness regulations for an aircraft. When an
aircraft at MTOW demonstrates that it remains below the noise limits in
part 36, that maximum weight for safe operation becomes an inherent
noise limitation (e.g., part 36, appendix B, section B36.7(b)(6)). If
an aircraft is altered in a way that it becomes louder, it results in
an acoustical change, and fairness requires that the aircraft be re-
assessed for its noise compliance because the noisiest certificated
configuration has changed (Sec. 21.93(b)).
For large aircraft used in scheduled passenger flight operations,
the requirements for noise testing cover various operating modes such
as takeoff, flyover and approach. In essence, the noise certification
regulations become more sophisticated for aircraft that are larger,
heavier, more powerful, and more complex. But for aircraft that are
smaller and lighter, the certification criteria are likewise simpler,
such as a noise level measured at takeoff at maximum allowed weight, or
at a level overflight condition. Part 36 uses such configurations
during noise certification to represent the flight segments that
generally have the most noise impact. Historically, these measurement
points were adopted to represent aircraft flight segments that are most
noticeable by people on the ground.
Noise certification is best viewed as a continuum, and despite that
aircraft noise is assessed according to weight and measured noise
output, the continuum has historically included only aircraft that
sought type certification. That historical application is changing. The
FAA's reassessment of its statutory obligations and the realities of
how aircraft get certificated for operation has led to the expansion of
part 36 applicability proposed here. This overall modernization of
airworthiness qualifications and categories in part 21 present a unique
opportunity for the FAA to modernize its noise responsibilities within
the framework of the various aircraft certification processes that
allow operation with or without type certificates. The FAA is aware
that type certification has long been avoided in part to skirt the
noise regulations. The FAA recognizes that its historical limitation of
noise certification to type-certificated aircraft has come to represent
a failing of the agency's duty to protect the public health and welfare
from aircraft noise as Congress intended.
As noise certification expands to cover aircraft that do not have
type certificates, the FAA is open to consideration of different
procedures and certification paths that will both meet its statutory
obligations and allow for less burdensome and more streamlined
compliance for newly affected airworthiness certificate holders. Those
compliance mechanisms are proposed in Sec. 36.0.
The first step in current noise certification process is the
determination of the appropriate certification basis. Typically, the
FAA determines which existing part 36 category applies to the aircraft,
depending on its design and expected operation. Once the part 36
category is determined, the next step is to determine the noise limits
and methods of compliance (reference conditions and test procedures)
from the corresponding subpart and appendices of part 36. The applicant
would then develop a noise certification test plan that includes these
methods, get the plan approved by the FAA, conduct the required noise
measurements, and submit its noise certification report for the FAA's
review and approval. Together these steps constitute the applicant's
demonstration of compliance.
For aircraft that do not conform to a type certificate, this
proposed rule introduces more flexibility for the methods of
compliance. Nothing has changed for aircraft that apply for a type
certificate that are required to show compliance under existing
regulations. Nothing about this proposal for aircraft that do not
conform to a type certificate is intended to change the status of those
that are type certificated. Type certification applicants should not
expect that they will get a choice to use alternate regulatory
procedures or industry consensus standards even though the name of an
aircraft category in part 21 may change as part of this proposed rule.
Nothing about these proposed regulations may be interpreted to alter
the current noise certification limits or test requirements for type-
certificated aircraft.
3. Aircraft Not Subject to Part 36 Noise Certification Requirements
Aircraft that historically have been designated experimental, that
remain few in number, are of limited use, or an aircraft that
represents an early stage of continuing design would continue to be
excepted from part 36 applicability. These aircraft are issued special
airworthiness certificates for experimental purposes as described in
Sec. 21.191(a) for research and development, Sec. 21.191(b) for
showing compliance, Sec. 21.191(c) for crew training, Sec. 21.191(d)
for exhibition, Sec. 21.191(e) for air racing, Sec. 21.191(f) for
market survey.
The FAA considered the inclusion of applying part 36 requirements
to Sec. Sec. 21.191(h) (primary category kit-built aircraft) and
21.191(g) (amateur-built aircraft). However, since this rulemaking is
intended to streamline only the categories of aircraft discussed in
this proposed rule, those aircraft are not among the proposed changes
to airworthiness certification requirements and have not been included
in this proposed application of part 36.
The FAA considered applying part 36 requirements to Sec. 21.191(k)
(former military aircraft). However, these aircraft are expected to
remain few in number and of limited use, and their numbers are not
expected to increase significantly in the future. Accordingly, this
rule does not propose application of part 36 to these aircraft.
The FAA requests comment on whether any categories of aircraft
should or should not be subject to part 36 noise requirements,
including any technical or economic data that support the comment.
4. Proposed Applicability
Proposed Sec. 36.0 would apply to all aircraft that do conform to
a type certificate and apply for an airworthiness certificate in
accordance with Sec. Sec. 21.190, 21.191, or 21.193(h) or part 22 with
exceptions listed in the rule. This rulemaking does not affect the
noise certification or operation of unmanned aircraft and they are not
included in the proposed applicability of part 36. Section 36.0(a)
lists the general compliance requirements applicable to each aircraft
that does not conform to a type certificate. That paragraph states that
the noise regulations of part 36 would apply at the time an applicant
submits an application for the first certificate of airworthiness for
an aircraft. For an aircraft that already has an airworthiness
certificate, noise compliance would take effect when an alteration to
the aircraft is made that would affect the noise level it creates, as
discussed earlier.
Section 36.0(b) states what an applicant must show to demonstrate
noise compliance. First, an applicant must demonstrate the aircraft,
usually in its noisiest operating configuration, produces less noise
than the limit specified for an aircraft of its kind and weight in part
36. The number that results from the test is called the aircraft's
noise level and it must be no louder than the part 36 noise limit. The
second part of demonstrating compliance concerns the test procedures
and analyses that may be required (depending on the aircraft),
[[Page 47715]]
and a determination that they conform to the requirements in part 36
for the aircraft type, meeting the level playing field referenced
earlier in the noise background discussion. Each of these two
requirements must be met during each configuration, flight profile or
reference condition that is determined to apply to the noise
certification plan for the aircraft. The simpler an aircraft is, the
simpler the test plan would be expected to be.
Section 36.0(c) lists the first method of compliance that would be
available to an aircraft that does not conform to a type certificate,
the use of a noise consensus standard. This is the first time the FAA
has proposed to allow a noise consensus standard to be used for initial
noise certification,
In past noise type certification projects, industry has
occasionally requested the use of equivalency procedures or methods,
including modeling, as an alternative to the noise measurement
procedures in part 36. These methods typically have been proposed to
demonstrate ``no acoustic change'' rather than be used for an initial
demonstration of compliance with a part 36 noise limit. These methods
are heavily scrutinized by the FAA, especially if they are new and
novel, and have only been accepted on a single project basis.
The FAA expects new noise consensus standards to be developed by
the industry for use by manufacturers of aircraft and kits, and by
individuals. Before a consensus standard could be used to demonstrate
initial compliance with part 36 for an aircraft that does not conform
to a type certificate, the standard would have to be approved by the
FAA and use part 36 noise limits. The FAA expects that any consensus
standards would not be limited to physical measurements of noise taken
during test flights. They might instead to be based on empirical data
or analytical modeling if the underlying noise prediction methods are
found to be robust.
In evaluating new noise consensus standards to be used to
demonstrate compliance with Sec. 36.0, the FAA expects to consider the
following factors:
(1) The methods in the standard, whether based in physical noise
testing or through validated and/or generally accepted noise prediction
methods, must be environmentally responsible, economically reasonable,
technologically practicable, and appropriate for the aircraft to which
it would apply;
(2) The standard must consider developments in other associated
fields (such as research programs into quantification and control of
aircraft noise) and participation by stakeholders;
(3) The noise levels generated from using the standard must be
within 90 percent of confidence limits and must be within +/-2 decibels
A (dBA) when compared to results from using the full noise measurement
procedures in the corresponding appendix of part 36; and
(4) The standard must clearly document all assumptions used in the
development, validation, results, and limitations of the methods
presented.
A modeling-based consensus standard would be expected to
significantly reduce the cost of noise compliance. Not only would there
not be a need to physically test every model (or aircraft), it would
also allow manufacturers to use the predictive capabilities to guide
and support aircraft design decisions in earlier phases, avoiding
costly future redesign or modifications.
Accordingly, proposed Sec. 36.0(c) would allow the use of a
consensus standard for an aircraft that does not conform to a type
certificate when the standard has been approved by the FAA, and the FAA
finds that the standard is appropriate for the aircraft and applies to
the specific design. The agency anticipates that manufacturers of
aircraft or kits will work to get such noise consensus standards
developed as an added value for its products, and to facilitate
compliance at an early stage. The FAA does not develop noise consensus
standards. If there is no approved noise consensus standard available
and appropriate to the aircraft of an applicant seeking a special
airworthiness certificate, another means of demonstrating compliance
with part 36 would be required.
Section 36.0(d) lists the methods of compliance with part 36
available for an aircraft that does not have an applicable noise
consensus standard. The first determination is whether the aircraft is
found by the FAA for noise purposes to be the same as or sufficiently
similar to a type-certificated aircraft covered by Sec. 36.1. If the
FAA finds there is such a type-certificated aircraft, then (1) the
applicant for a special airworthiness certificate may choose to retest
its aircraft using the same part 36 standards that apply to the type-
certificated aircraft, or (2) if the applicant's aircraft has had no
modifications that would affect the noise levels measured for the same
or similar type-certificated aircraft, the applicant can adopt the
noise levels recorded for the type-certificated aircraft. These are the
provisions found in proposed Sec. 36.0(d)(1)(i) and (ii). In some
cases, this may be an advantage to an aircraft that does not conform to
a type certificate. The FAA is aware that there are aircraft that once
conformed to a type certificate but have been modified, or that the
owner voluntarily chose to restrict their operation to qualify for a
special airworthiness certificate. If the applicant can show that the
aircraft had not been altered in a manner that would change its noise
profile, the applicant would be able to use the noise certification for
the type-certificated aircraft as its demonstration of compliance, and
no further action would be necessary; this method is sometimes referred
to as benchmarking. This would be true for jet airplanes, small
propeller-driven airplanes, small helicopters, and tiltrotors that have
been type certificated and demonstrated compliance with part 36.
Alternatively, if the FAA finds that the applicant's aircraft is
not the same or similar to an aircraft noise certificated under Sec.
36.1, the applicant can demonstrate noise compliance using the noise
requirements determined by the FAA to be appropriate for the aircraft.
This provision, Sec. 36.0(d)(2), is intended to allow the agency the
maximum flexibility in finding an acceptable combination of
requirements that are appropriate for the aircraft presented. The FAA
will be able to build a noise compliance basis for an aircraft using
parts of current regulations in part 36, regulations in part 36 that
are no longer used for new certifications, accepted noise compliance
standards that are not published in part 36 (such as those applicable
to single aircraft model), and portions of accepted noise consensus
standards. The noise limits established in part 36 would still apply,
but the method of compliance would consist of tests or analyses that
work for a particular aircraft, while allowing for the whole of the
noise compliance basis to be assessed according to the statutory
mandate for economic reasonableness and technological practicability.
This kind of flexibility is not available under Sec. 36.1 for type-
certificated aircraft. It is designed to assist applicants for special
airworthiness certificates, especially for new aircraft designs that do
not fit neatly into historical categories.
As an example, the FAA would allow the use of test procedures found
in appendix F to part 36 for simple propeller-driven airplanes. The
procedures in appendix F have not been available to type certification
applicants since 1988, when the regulations were updated to account for
larger and more sophisticated small airplanes, and for the technology
available to measure their noise more accurately. Appendix F
[[Page 47716]]
contains simpler procedures and less sophisticated equipment, such as
one tripod mounted microphone underneath a flight track.
5. Compliance With Part 36 Not Required
Aircraft issued an experimental airworthiness certificate in
accordance with Sec. 21.191(a) through (h) or (k) would be exempted
from meeting the requirements of part 36. To account for balloons,
gliders and possibly other specialized aircraft that have no or limited
noise sources, proposed Sec. 36.0(e)(2) exempts aircraft which, if
type certificated, would not be required to demonstrate compliance with
part 36.
Aircraft that were airworthiness certificated under Sec.
21.191(i)(1) would be excepted from meeting noise requirements of part
36. These are aircraft that exceeded the scope of part 103, and for
which Sec. 21.191(i)(1) was created, providing a temporary window for
obtaining an experimental airworthiness certificate. That window closed
in 2008. Although treated as experimental light-sport category
aircraft, these aircraft do not meet any accepted consensus standard
for certification as light-sport category aircraft and were not
delivered under a light-sport category aircraft manufacturer's
statement of compliance. These aircraft have little in common with
other light-sport category aircraft other than the name. No aircraft
will be added to this group, and no demonstration of compliance with
part 36 is considered necessary.
Overall, airworthiness certification for an aircraft that do not
conform to a type certificate is intended to be simpler than for type-
certificated aircraft. The process of noise certification for an
aircraft that does not conform to a type certificate is intended to be
simpler as well, with lower costs for manufacturers and for owners that
introduce significant alterations to their aircraft. The traditional
processes of demonstrating compliance to noise requirements can be
complex, requiring technical skills and experience with acoustic
measurement that most aircraft owners do not have. Conducting such
testing using accredited professional services can also be expensive.
Moreover, the best noise performance is often achieved by informed
decisions early in the design process rather than by later design
additions or modifications. Like the noise certification basis for
type-certificated aircraft, the FAA must approve the applicable noise
compliance standards for an aircraft before it is tested, or the
applicant risks the tests and data being deemed unusable for
demonstrating compliance with part 36. But the addition of consensus
standards and the application of other methods of demonstrating
compliance proposed here are all intended to create a simpler, less
restrictive process while maintaining the FAA's mandate to protect the
public health and welfare. The FAA invites comments on the proposed
expansion of noise applicability detailed here, including the exclusion
of certain aircraft, including any data or economic impact information
that supports the comment.
6. Other Amendments to Part 36
The FAA is proposing to amend other sections of part 36 to include
references to aircraft that do not conform to a type certificate where
the requirements would apply.
Section 36.3, Compatibility with airworthiness requirements, would
be amended by breaking the applicability into two paragraphs for type-
certificated aircraft and aircraft that do not conform to a type
certificate. The balance of the current section would be designated as
paragraph (b) and would apply to all aircraft in paragraph (a). No
changes to any of the requirements are proposed.
Section 36.1501, Procedures, noise levels, and other information,
would be amended by adding a sentence indicating that aircraft that
does not conform to a type certificate would have to include the noise
levels achieved during airworthiness certification in the Pilot's
Operating Handbook rather than the flight manual required for type-
certificated aircraft. No changes to the requirements of the section
are proposed.
Section 36.1581, Manuals, markings, and placards, would be amended
by adding a new paragraph (h) to describe the requirements for an
aircraft that does not conform to a type certificate. The new paragraph
indicates that for aircraft subject to Sec. 21.190(e) or Sec. 21.191,
compliance with part 36 must be documented as described in those
paragraphs. The section also includes a statement that no operating
limitations are prescribed as part of part 36 certification, and that
no other operating limitations designated for an aircraft by other
regulations are affected. The actual operating limitations statement is
included in the new paragraph (h) because the current paragraph of
Sec. 36.1581 where it appears applies only to type-certificated
aircraft.
L. Proposed Effective and Compliance Dates
The FAA proposes to require compliance with all proposals on the
effective dates of the rule. Except for the following, the FAA proposes
an effective date of 2 months after publication of the final rule. The
FAA proposes an effective date 6 months after publication of the final
rule for proposed amendments that would require new or revised
consensus standards for compliance; this effective date would apply to
amending--
Section 1.1 removing the term ``light-sport aircraft,''
Section 21.190 concerning the issue of a special
airworthiness certificate for light-sport category aircraft,
Paragraph (j) of Sec. 21.191 for the issuance of
experimental airworthiness certificates for the experimental purpose of
operating light-sport category kit-built aircraft,
Paragraph (l) of Sec. 91.319 for operating limitations
applicable to experimental light-sport aircraft, and
Section 91.327 for operating limitations applicable to
light-sport category aircraft.
The FAA understands that, although development of these consensus
standards may commence based on this NPRM, consensus standards bodies
need final rule requirements to finalize means of compliance within
their consensus standards. This effective date would also provide time
for manufacturers to complete fabrication and assembly of light-sport
category aircraft and experimental light-sport aircraft kits that
started under current rules. The FAA also proposes an effective date 6
months after publication of the final rule for 14 CFR 65.107(d) to
provide time for revision or development of training for certification
of repairman (light-sport) to align with the Mechanic Airman
Certification Standards. The FAA requests comments on whether the above
proposal to establish an effective date 6 months after publication of
the final rule for proposed amendments that would require new or
revised consensus standards for compliance would appropriately balance
enabling compliance to new provisions as soon as practical with the
need for additional time to revise consensus standards, complete
fabrication and assemble of aircraft that started under current rules,
determine compliance with new requirements, and revise of training for
certification of repairman (light-sport).
M. Amendments Concerning Import and Export of Aircraft
The FAA proposes to amend Sec. 21.183(d)(2) to enable acceptance
of an inspection performed by a foreign maintenance organization to
support imports of used aircraft from countries
[[Page 47717]]
with which the United States has a bilateral agreement that includes
acceptance of imported aircraft. This proposal would align regulatory
text with the intent expressed in the preamble when Sec. 21.183(d)(2)
was last amended.
This proposal would revise Sec. 21.327 to require that an
applicant for an export certificate of airworthiness for an aircraft
must be an owner of that aircraft and the aircraft must be registered
in the U.S. The current regulation states that any person may apply for
an export airworthiness approval and does not require that the aircraft
be registered in the U.S. This proposal would preclude persons from
exporting aircraft for which they are neither the owner nor the owner's
agent. Furthermore, by requiring that the aircraft is registered in the
U.S., this proposal would allow the aircraft to be under the regulatory
authority of the U.S. before export.
The proposed revision to Sec. 21.329(a)(1) concerning requirements
for the issuance of an export certificate of airworthiness would remove
the word ``airworthiness'' to clarify that a new or used aircraft
manufactured under subpart F or G of the part would need to meet all
applicable requirements under subpart H of the part, and not just those
requirements that may apply to airworthiness. Subpart H contains
requirements for items other than airworthiness, such as requirements
for aircraft registration and identification.
N. Conforming Amendments
This proposed revision would restructure Sec. 21.175(a) and (b) to
improve readability. Also, proposed Sec. 21.175(a) would be revised to
simplify the existing regulatory text by individually listing specific
categories of type-certificated aircraft. Proposed revisions to Sec.
21.175(b) would clarify that aircraft receiving primary, restricted,
provisional, and limited category airworthiness certificates are also
type certificated in their respective categories. This section would
also clarify that special airworthiness certificates are issued for
aircraft operating for experimental purposes.
The FAA proposes amendments to parts 43 and 65 to make sure that
existing text is consistent with the proposed changes in this NPRM. The
first proposed change is to Sec. 43.1. It updates the cross reference
in Sec. 43.1(b)(2) from Sec. 21.191(i)(3) to proposed Sec. 21.191(i)
to retain the applicability of part 43 to aircraft issued an
experimental airworthiness certificate for the purpose of operating
former light-sport category aircraft. The second change is to Sec.
65.109. It updates the cross references in Sec. 65.109(a)(2) and
(b)(2) to proposed Sec. 21.191(i) and (j) to identify the privileges
and limitations of repairman (light-sport). The FAA notes that the
requirements set forth in proposed Sec. 65.109 are currently in Sec.
65.107. The purpose of these changes is to make sure that the intent of
the proposed amendments discussed in this NPRM carries through to parts
43 and 65. These amendments do not, in and of themselves, make
substantive changes to the rule. Rather, they are conforming changes to
effectuate the changes discussed earlier in this document.
V. Regulatory Notices
Federal agencies consider impacts of regulatory actions under a
variety of executive orders and other requirements. First, Executive
Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563, as amended by Executive Order
14094 (``Modernizing Regulatory Review''), direct that each Federal
agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned
determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify the
costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354)
requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes
on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-
39) 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 agencies to consider
international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis
of 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 that may result in the expenditure by State,
local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private
sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in
any one year. The current threshold after adjustment for inflation is
$177,000,000, using the most current (2022) Implicit Price Deflator for
the Gross Domestic Product. The FAA has provided a regulatory impact
analysis (RIA) in the docket for this rulemaking. This portion of the
preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this
rule.
In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that this
rule: (1) will generate benefits that justify costs; (2) is not an
economically ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866; (3) may have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities; (4) will not create
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States; and
(5) will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal
governments, or on the private sector.
A. Regulatory Impact Analysis
1. Baseline for the Analysis
The baseline for the analysis of incremental benefits and costs of
the proposed rule includes existing regulations and standards, existing
practices, affected entities, and current safety and environmental
risks. The FAA promulgated the existing regulations for light-sport
category aircraft in 2004. These specifications and certification
requirements reflect small, simple, easy-to-fly aircraft for sport,
recreation, and experimental purposes with small range. The FAA also
works with industry in developing consensus standards for light-sport
category aircraft, as well as reviews the consensus standards
periodically.
The FAA amended its airworthiness standards for small type-
certificated aircraft in 2016. The standards provide risk-based
divisions for airplanes with a maximum seating capacity of 19
passengers or less and a maximum takeoff weight of 19,000 pounds or
less. Type-certificated aircraft must meet existing standards for
aircraft noise. Currently, noise standards are not applied to light-
sport aircraft in the United States.
The proposed rule may affect aircraft manufacturers to the extent
that they design and manufacture the types of aircraft for which the
performance-based or noise standards would apply. The FAA identified 54
(25 U.S. and 29 foreign) active manufacturers of light-sport aircraft
and 74 models produced since 2020 (35 from U.S. and 39 from foreign
manufacturers). In 2022, there were also almost 7,000 active sport
pilots and 250 new light sport repairman certificates.
In 2022, there were seven fatal accidents resulting in 10
fatalities, as well as 46 nonfatal accidents, involving previously
defined special light-sport aircraft. There were also 28 fatal
accidents and 97 nonfatal accidents, resulting in 43 fatalities and 23
serious injuries, involving amateur-built aircraft. The FAA does not
have data on baseline noise profiles of light-sport aircraft; however,
FAA noise standards are technology-following (i.e., aircraft with
current noise-reduction technology would successfully meet
requirements).
[[Page 47718]]
2. Benefits
The benefits of the proposed rule would include the value of
changes in safety and environmental risks, as well as recreational
values. The proposed rule could reduce risks associated with light-
sport category aircraft to the extent that the relaxation of certain
requirements spurs changes that make these aircraft safer to fly. The
performance-based rules could also enhance safety by enabling
attractive alternatives to amateur-built aircraft that do not meet 14
CFR or consensus standards. Given the value of reducing fatalities
(e.g., $11.8 million Value of Statistical Life, or VSL) and injuries
(e.g., fraction of VSL, or $1.2 million for serious injury), a
relatively small reduction in baseline risk could generate substantial
benefits.
The proposed rule will likely not lead to significant noise
reductions. Most current light-sport aircraft designs would not require
modifications to meet the noise standards. The proposed rule will,
however, prevent the introduction of obsolete, overly loud technology
into the light-sport aircraft fleet or modification of such existing
aircraft that would increase noise above the limit. Because the FAA
cannot predict the amount of technology backsliding that could occur in
the absence of the rule, it cannot quantify these benefits.
The proposed rule could also increase recreational values
associated with light-sport aircraft, either through increased value of
current activity or increased activity levels. For example, greater
access to newer technology, safer planes, or improved flying experience
could increase unit values and the level of participation. Sport pilots
would also be able to fly certain model planes that currently do not
meet the definition of light-sport aircraft, including some that they
may have used in training. However, the FAA does not have data on
baseline recreational values or how they may increase under the
proposed rule.
3. Costs
The FAA estimated that the proposed rule could result in
incremental compliance costs for design and production and noise
certification (Table 7). The FAA does not have data to estimate
incremental costs or cost savings for design and production. For noise
certification, costs are most likely to be minimal under the assumption
that manufacturers will comply using industry consensus standards
employing modeling-based methods. This assumption is supported by FAA
research showing that existing SAE standards for predicting light
propeller-driven aircraft noise have a potential for further
development into a modeling-based consensus standard tool. As an upper
bound, the FAA also calculated costs using the test-based methods in
the applicable 14 CFR part 36 appendix. Upper bound costs for the
industry as a whole may be in the range of $700,000 one-time and
$100,000 annually. One-time costs are to certify all existing light-
sport category aircraft and experimental light-sport aircraft models;
annual costs would depend on the number of new models developed in the
future.
Table 7--Summary of Total Compliance Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
One-time (existing Annual (new
Category models) models)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noise certification............. Minimal \1\ to Minimal \1\ to
$700,000.\2\. $100,000.\2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reflects industry compliance using consensus standards. Costs
inherent in design.
\2\ Reflects industry compliance using the applicable 14 CFR part 36
appendix. One-time (nonrecurring) costs based on FAA Registry data on
models produced since 2020 (although manufacturers may not continue
production of all models). Annual costs based on new model development
rate (models eligible to receive previously defined special light-
sport aircraft airworthiness certificates) since 2004.
The FAA does not anticipate more than minimal incremental costs for
other provisions of the proposed rule, such as training. For example,
course providers of training for a light-sport repairman would need to
revise courses so they contain content on aircraft that could be newly
included in that class of aircraft. However, these providers already
must update their training manuals every two years. The FAA's
acceptance, however, would no longer expire after two years, and the
FAA estimates that the net incremental impacts of these changes would
likely be minimal. The FAA also does not have data to estimate any cost
savings, such as could result from operating certain light-sport
category aircraft in aerial work which may be less costly than the
airplanes currently being used.
4. Summary
The proposed rule largely expands opportunities in the light-sport
aircraft sector. These expansions may result in safety and recreational
benefits; there may also be associated design and production costs and
cost savings. The proposed rule would also apply 14 CFR part 36 noise
standards to this sector, preventing obsolete, overly loud technology
from being introduced into the light-sport aircraft fleet. The FAA
expects that compliance with the noise standards would be minimal using
industry consensus standards. As an upper bound, the FAA also
calculated costs using the applicable 14 CFR part 36 appendix. Upper
bound costs for the U.S. industry as a whole may be in the range of
$700,000 to certify all existing models for continued production, and
approximately $100,000 per year to certify newly developed models based
on the current model production rate. The FAA does not anticipate more
than minimal incremental costs for other provisions of the proposed
rule, such as training. The FAA also does not have data to estimate any
cost savings, such as could result from operating certain light-sport
category aircraft in aerial work for compensation.
Please see the Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis available in
the docket for more details.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, Public Law 96-354, 94
Stat. 1164 (5 U.S.C. 601-612), as amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat.
857, Mar. 29, 1996), and the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (Pub. L.
111-240, 124 Stat. 2504. Sept. 27, 2010), requires Federal agencies to
consider the effects of the regulatory action on small business and
other small entities and to minimize any significant economic impact.
The term ``small entities'' comprises small businesses and not-for-
profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are
not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with
populations of less than 50,000.
The FAA is publishing this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) to aid the public in commenting on the
[[Page 47719]]
potential impacts to small entities from this proposal. The FAA invites
interested parties to submit data and information regarding the
potential economic impact that would result from the proposal. The FAA
will consider comments when making a determination or when completing a
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.
An IRFA must contain the following:
(1) A description of the reasons why the action by the agency is
being considered;
(2) A succinct statement of the objective of, and legal basis for,
the proposed rule;
(3) A description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number
of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply;
(4) A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and
other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an
estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the
requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for
preparation of the report or record;
(5) An identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant
Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the
proposed rule; and
(6) A description of any significant alternatives to the proposed
rule which accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes, and
which minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on
small entities.
1. Reasons the Action Is Being Considered
As described elsewhere in this preamble, the FAA is considering
this proposal to expand and enable innovation in the classes of
aircraft that may be certificated using consensus standards as light-
sport category aircraft, including emerging aircraft types; remove
prescriptive weight limits that hinder incorporation of safety-
enhancing designs and equipage; enable more robust aircraft for the
pilot training environment; enable increased capacities for passengers,
fuel, and cargo; enable electric propulsion; and enable faster, higher-
performing aircraft more suitable for personal travel. Together, the
FAA intends for these proposals to enhance safety by enabling
attractive alternative to amateur-built aircraft that do not meet 14
CFR or consensus standards. As also described elsewhere in this
preamble, the FAA is requiring that light-sport category aircraft and
experimental light-sport aircraft (except amateur-built) comply with 14
CFR part 36 noise standards because it has reconsidered its
responsibility to protect the public health and welfare from aircraft
noise.
The FAA is proposing to expand privileges for sport pilots and
light-sport repairmen, and update limitations for experimental
aircraft, to align with these changes. There are also smaller
amendments to related rules for experimental aircraft, restricted
category aircraft, and aircraft marking.
The FAA is also codifying statutory language in section 44740 to
enable certain aircraft with an experimental certificate to conduct
space support vehicle flights without an air carrier certificate or
exemption.
2. Objectives and Legal Basis of the Proposed Rule
As also described elsewhere in this preamble, the objectives of the
proposed rule are to enhance the safety, performance, and operating
privileges for light-sport category aircraft, including increasing
suitability for flight training, limited aerial work, and personal
travel, while continuing to enable the manufacture of safe and
economical certificated aircraft. This NPRM also includes proposals to
amend the special purpose operations for restricted category aircraft;
amend the duration, eligible purposes, and operating limitations for
experimental aircraft; and add operating limitations applicable to
experimental aircraft engaged in space support vehicle flights to
codify statutory language. Section III of this preamble describes the
FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety.
3. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities
FAA used the definition of small entities in the RFA for this
analysis. The RFA defines small entities as small businesses, small
governmental jurisdictions, or small organizations. In 5 U.S.C. 601(3),
the RFA defines ``small business'' to have the same meaning as ``small
business concern'' under section 3 of the Small Business Act. The Small
Business Act authorizes the Small Business Administration (SBA) to
define ``small business'' by issuing regulations.
SBA has established size standards for various types of economic
activities, or industries, under the North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS). These size standards generally define
small businesses based on the number of employees or annual receipts.
Table 8 shows the SBA size standards for example industrial
classification codes relevant for the proposed rule. Note that the SBA
definition of a small business applies to the parent company and all
affiliates as a single entity.
Table 8--Small Business Size Standards: Air Transportation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Size standard
NAICS code Description (employees)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
336411........................ Aircraft Manufacturing 1,500
336412........................ Aircraft Engine and 1,500
Engine Parts
Manufacturing.
336413........................ Other Aircraft Part 1,250
and Auxiliary
Equipment
Manufacturing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS = North American Industry Classification System.
As described in the Regulatory Impact Analysis, the FAA estimated
that there may be approximately 25 active US manufacturers of light-
sport category aircraft and experimental light-sport aircraft that
would have to comply with noise standards under the proposed rule.
These entities may meet the size standard for a small business.
4. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements
Section V.E of this preamble discusses the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements of the proposed rule. As described in that
section, these requirements represent only minor revisions of existing
requirements. Section IV.K. of the preamble describes the requirements
for compliance with noise standards. As described in that section, and
the Regulatory Impact Analysis, the FAA expects that compliance costs
will be minimal through use of industry consensus standards. As an
upper bound, the FAA also estimated the cost of noise certification
testing under applicable appendices to 14 CFR part 36. There may also
be incremental costs for design and production, depending on the
[[Page 47720]]
model and needed changes. The FAA does not have data to estimate these
impacts.
Using industry consensus standards, the FAA estimates that per
manufacturer costs for noise certification would be minimal. In the
event that manufacturers pursue noise certification testing, the
estimated costs for U.S. manufacturers to certify existing models
represent an average of one model per manufacturer. Based on the
estimated upper bound testing cost of $20,000 per model, Table 9 shows
these costs as a percentage of average receipts for companies of
different small sizes. Because the one-time costs are nonrecurring, any
impacts would occur only in the testing year. Not all manufacturers
will develop new models every year, but impacts associated with new
model development would be the same as shown in the table for existing
models and only occur in the testing year.
Table 9--Example Compliance Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average annual
receipts per
Entity size category (number of employees) entity (millions) Ratio of noise certification costs/receipts \2\
\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<5......................................... $0.7 Minimal to 2.9%.
5-9........................................ 1.9 Minimal to 1.1%.
10-14...................................... 3.1 Minimal to 0.6%.
50-74...................................... 28.3 Minimal to 0.1%.
150-199.................................... 49.4 Minimal to 0.04%.
500-749.................................... 131.3 Minimal to 0.02%.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Source for receipts: 2017 County Business Patterns and Economic Census (https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/susb/tables/2017/us_state_naics_detailedsizes_2017.xlsx). Adjusted for inflation using the Consumer
Price Index. Based on NAICS 336411.
\2\ Minimal estimate based on compliance using industry consensus standards. Upper bound estimate based on noise
certification testing for an average of 1 model per entity ($20,000).
5. All Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict
There are no relevant Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or
conflict with the proposed rule.
6. Significant Alternatives Considered
The FAA considered two alternatives to applying the noise standards
in 14 CFR part 36 to light-sport category aircraft. The FAA considered
the no action alternative in which noise standards do not apply to
light-sport category aircraft. The FAA determined, however, that this
alternative is not consistent with its responsibility to ``protect the
public health and welfare from aircraft noise.''
The FAA also considered applying the noise standards to operating
amateur-built aircraft [experimental certificates issued per 14 CFR
21.191(g). Manufacturers of kits for experimental amateur-built
aircraft have no requirement to meet any FAA design or manufacturing
standard or industry consensus standards. This alternative could
potentially have required additional manufacturers \127\ to undergo
noise testing. The FAA did not select this alternative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\127\ Only one manufacturer since 2020 has requested that the
FAA evaluate their aircraft kit for eligibility in meeting the
``major portion'' requirement of 14 CFR 21.191(g) (see faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/ultralights/amateur_built/kits/media/amateur_built_kit_listing.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. International Trade Impact Assessment
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic
objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a
manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also
requires consideration of international standards and, where
appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has
assessed the potential effect of this proposed rule and determined that
it would respond to a domestic safety objective and would not be
considered an unnecessary obstacle to trade.
D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) 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
(in 1995 dollars) in any 1 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.'' The FAA currently
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $177 million in lieu of $100
million. This proposed rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore,
the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. According to the 1995
amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act (5 CFR 1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an
agency may not collect or sponsor the collection of information, nor
may it impose an information collection requirement unless it displays
a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
This proposed rule contains amendments to the existing information
collection requirements approved under OMB Control Numbers 2120-0018,
2120-0022, 2120-0690, and 2120-0730. As required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), the FAA has submitted these
proposed information collection amendments to OMB for its review.
1. Summary
The FAA is proposing to amend rules for the manufacture,
certification, operation, maintenance, and alteration of light-sport
category aircraft. Certificate holders required to comply would
experience the following conforming revisions to existing information
collection activities:
[[Page 47721]]
Table 10--Summary of Conforming Revisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control No. Revisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2120-0018......................... FAA Form 8130-6, Application for
U.S. Airworthiness Certificate:
Update the ``LIGHT-
SPORT'' field to accommodate any
aircraft class.
Update the
``RESTRICTED'' filed to add
newly codified operations.
Update the
``EXPERIMENTAL'' field to add
new purpose for operating former
military aircraft.
Add provision for
attaching evidence of compliance
with 14 CFR part 36 and include
the tested noise levels of the
aircraft and include the
following statement: ``No
determination has been made by
the Federal Aviation
Administration that the noise
levels of this aircraft are or
should be acceptable or
unacceptable for operation in
any location.'' FAA Form
8130[dash]15, Light Sport
Aircraft Statement of
Compliance:
Update the ``Check
applicable items'' field to
change the 14 CFR reference for
kits, accommodate any aircraft
class, and indicate whether the
aircraft meets eligibility
requirements in part 61 for a
sport pilot.
Update the ``FAA
Applicable Accepted
Standard(s)'' and corresponding
``Manufacturer's Documentation''
fields to reflect new
requirements for noise,
manufacturer's training
requirements, optional
simplified flight controls, and
optional aerial work.
Add a statement
concerning acceptable aerial
work operations.
Revise statement(s) to
remove references to 14 CFR
definition of light-sport
aircraft and include new
statements required by this
rule.
Include new requirements
of Sec. 21.190(f)(3), (4), and
(5) for an amended statement of
compliance.
Update the certifying
statement field to add training/
certification credentials for
the person signing the form.
Add provision for the
manufacturer of light-sport
category aircraft to notify the
FAA and owners of aircraft it
manufactured in advance of
discontinuance of its continued
operational safety program or
transfer of its execution to
another responsible party.
2120-0022......................... FAA Form 8610-3, Airman Certificate
and/or Rating Application--
Repairman:
Change the certificate
title from repairman certificate
(light-sport aircraft) to
repairman certificate (light-
sport).
Use the term ``Aircraft
Category'' in place of ``LSA
Class'' and list the following
aircraft categories: airplane,
rotorcraft, glider, lighter-than-
air, powered-lift, powered
parachute, and weight-shift
control aircraft.
2120-0690......................... FAA Form 8710-11, Airman Certificate
and/or Rating Application
(previously part of OMB Control
Number 2120-0690):
Update the ``Application
Information'' field to
accommodate any aircraft class,
and to specify whether the
aircraft meets requirements for
simplified flight controls.
Update the ``Record of
Pilot Flight Time'' field to
accommodate any aircraft class.
2120-0730......................... 14 CFR 91.417, Maintenance Records--
Status of SLSA Safety Directives:
Cancelled (compliance no
longer mandatory).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Use
The FAA will use the revised information collections for oversight
activities in relation to the proposed rule including compliance and
data analysis.
3. Respondents (Including Number of)
Revisions to OMB Control Numbers 2120-0018, 2120-0022, and 2120-
0069 reflect minor form revisions (Table 1) that would have no impact
on the number of respondents in the approved collections.
The cancellation of OMB Control Number 2120-0730 would remove the
burden from 3,224 respondents as identified in the approved collection.
4. Frequency
The revisions to OMB Control Numbers 2120-0018, 2120-0022, and
2120-0069 would also have no impact on the frequency of collection
requirements in the approved collections.
The cancellation of OMB Control Number 2120-0730 would remove this
information collection activity entirely.
5. Annual Burden Estimate
The annual burden estimates in the OMB Control Numbers 2120-0018,
2120-0022, and 2120-0069 are unchanged from the approved collections.
The burden estimated for OMB Control Number 2120-0730 would be
eliminated (6,488 annual burden hours).
The agency is soliciting comments to--
(a) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and
(d) Minimize the burden of collecting information on those who are
to respond, including by using appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms
of information technology.
Individuals and organizations may send comments on the information
collection requirement to the address listed in the ADDRESSES section
at the beginning of this preamble by October 23, 2023. Comments also
should be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Desk Officer for FAA,
New Executive Building, Room 10202, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC
20053.
F. International Compatibility
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. However,
proposals in this NPRM concern aircraft that are issued special
airworthiness certificates for domestic operations. As such, these
aircraft are not required to be found to meet ICAO standards and
recommended practices as required for aircraft that engage in
international air navigation. The FAA notes that multiple
[[Page 47722]]
aviation authorities have established provisions for the certification
of light-sport category aircraft. Requirements among these authorities
share similarities for enabling the certification of small aircraft for
recreation. However, the specific eligibility parameters for
certification as light-sport category aircraft; design, performance,
and production requirements; and certification procedures are not
harmonized among these authorities. The FAA understands that European
Aviation Safety Agency requires the use of the noise standards in ICAO
Chapter 16 Volume I. This rule would not require the use of ICAO
Chapter 16 Volume I for these aircraft. Regardless of particular
differences among national civil aviation authorities for the
certification of light-sport category aircraft, proposals in this NPRM
generally align with recent rulemaking in Brazil and the European
Community in enabling increased safety and performance of these
aircraft.
G. Environmental Analysis
FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,
identifies FAA actions that may be categorically excluded from
preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact
statement under the National Environmental Policy Act in the absence of
extraordinary circumstances. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F,
paragraph 5-6.6(f), the FAA has determined that this notice of proposed
rulemaking qualifies for a categorical exclusion and does not involve
extraordinary circumstances.
VI. Executive Order Determinations
A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency has
determined that this action would not have a substantial direct effect
on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and
the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among
the various levels of government, and, therefore, would not have
federalism implications.
B. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Consistent with Executive Order 13175, Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,\128\ and FAA Order
1210.20, American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Consultation Policy
and Procedures,\129\ the FAA ensures that Federally Recognized Tribes
(Tribes) are given the opportunity to provide meaningful and timely
input regarding proposed Federal actions that have the potential to
affect uniquely or significantly their respective Tribes. Currently,
the FAA has not identified any unique or significant effects,
environmental or otherwise, on Tribes resulting from this proposed
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\128\ 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 6, 2000).
\129\ FAA Order No. 1210.20 (Jan. 28, 2004), available at
faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/1210.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
The FAA analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it
would not be a ``significant energy action'' under the Executive order
and would not be likely to have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.
D. Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation
Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation, promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet
shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security,
environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent
unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The FAA has
analyzed this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of
Executive Order 13609 and has determined that this action will have no
effect on international regulatory cooperation.
VII. Additional Information
A. Comments Invited
The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The FAA also
invites comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or
federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in
this document. Additionally, the FAA requests comment on whether the
FAA should remove the definition of consensus standard from Sec. 1.1
altogether or revise the definition as proposed. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To
ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters
should submit only one time if comments are filed electronically or
commenters should send only one copy of written comments if comments
are filed in writing.
The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well
as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA
personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this
proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before
the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed
after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without
incurring expense or delay. The FAA may change this proposal in light
of the comments it receives.
B. Confidential Business Information
Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial
information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by
its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552),
CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to
this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is
customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and
that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you
clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page
of your submission containing CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat
such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will
not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing
CBI should be sent to the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section of this document. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is
not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket
for this rulemaking.
Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 533(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to regulations.gov, as described in the system of
records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be viewed at dot.gov/privacy.
C. Electronic Access and Filing
A copy of this NPRM, all comments received, any final rule, and all
background material may be viewed online at regulations.gov using the
docket number listed above. A copy of this proposed rule will be placed
in the docket. Electronic retrieval help and guidelines are available
on the website. It is available 24 hours each day, 365
[[Page 47723]]
days each year. An electronic copy of this document may also be
downloaded from the Office of the Federal Register's website at
federalregister.gov and the Government Publishing Office's website at
govinfo.gov. A copy may also be found at the FAA's Regulations and
Policies website at faa.gov/regulations_policies.
Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9677.
Commenters must identify the docket or notice number of this
rulemaking. All documents the FAA considered in developing this
proposed rule, including economic analyses and technical reports, may
be accessed in the electronic docket for this rulemaking.
D. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996 requires the FAA to comply with small entity requests for
information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations
within its jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this
document may contact its local FAA official, or the person listed under
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the beginning of the
preamble. To find out more about SBREFA on the internet, visit faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.
List of Subjects
14 CFR Part 1
Air transportation.
14 CFR Parts 21 and 22
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Voluntary standards.
14 CFR Part 36
Agriculture, Aircraft, Noise control.
14 CFR Part 43
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
14 CFR Part 45
Aircraft, Signs and symbols.
14 CFR Part 61
Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference,
Recreation and recreation areas, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Teachers.
14 CFR Part 65
Air traffic controllers, Aircraft, Airmen, Airports, Aviation
safety, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
14 CFR Part 91
Air carriers, Air taxis, Air traffic control, Aircraft, Airmen,
Airports, Aviation safety, Noise control, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Transportation.
14 CFR Part 119
Administrative practice and procedure, Air carriers, Aircraft,
Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the forgoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:
PART 1--DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS
0
1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701.
0
2. Effective [DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE
IN THE Federal Register], amend Sec. 1.1 by revising the definition of
``Consensus standard,'' removing the definition of ``Light-sport
aircraft,'' and adding the definitions of ``Space support vehicle'' and
``Space support vehicle flight'' in alphabetical order to read as
follows:
Sec. 1.1 General definitions.
* * * * *
Consensus standard means any industry-developed standard that
applies to aircraft design, operation, production, maintenance, or
airworthiness, which--
(1) Has been adopted and promulgated by a standards-producing
organization under procedures which provide an opportunity for input by
persons interested and affected by the scope or provisions of the
standard;
(2) Has been reached through substantial agreement on its adoption;
and
(3) Has been accepted as a consensus standard by the FAA.
* * * * *
Space support vehicle means an aircraft that is a launch vehicle,
reentry vehicle, or a component of a launch or reentry vehicle.
Space support vehicle flight means a flight in the air that is not
a launch or reentry, but is conducted by a space support vehicle.
* * * * *
PART 21--CERTIFICATION PROCEDURES FOR PRODUCTS AND ARTICLES
0
3. The authority citation for part 21 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7572; 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40105,
40113, 44701-44702, 44704, 44707, 44709, 44711, 44713, 44715, 45303.
0
4. Revise Sec. 21.25 to read as follows:
Sec. 21.25 Issue of type certificate: restricted category aircraft.
(a) An applicant is entitled to a type certificate for an aircraft
in the restricted category for special purpose operations if the
applicant shows compliance with the applicable noise requirements of
part 36 of this chapter, and if the applicant shows that no feature or
characteristic of the aircraft makes it unsafe when it is operated
under the limitations prescribed for its intended use, and the
aircraft--
(1) Meets the airworthiness requirements of an aircraft category,
other than primary category or light-sport category, except those
requirements that the FAA finds inappropriate for the special purpose
operation for which the aircraft is to be used; or
(2) Is of a type that--
(i) Has been manufactured in accordance with the requirements of,
and accepted for use by, the U.S. Armed Forces;
(ii) Has a service history with the U.S. Armed Forces acceptable to
the FAA; and
(iii) Has been found capable by the FAA of performing, or has been
modified to perform, the special purpose operation for which the
aircraft is to be used.
(b) Restricted category aircraft can be approved for:
(1) Agricultural use, for one or more of the following special
purpose operations, including--
(i) Crop spraying, dusting, and seeding;
(ii) Livestock and predatory animal control;
(iii) Insect control;
(iv) Dust control; or
(v) Fruit drying and frost control.
(2) Forest and wildlife conservation, for one or more of the
following special purpose operations, including--
(i) Aerial dispensing of firefighting materials;
(ii) Fish spotting;
(iii) Wild animal survey; or
(iv) Oil spill response.
[[Page 47724]]
(3) Aerial surveying, for one or more of the following special
purpose operations, including--
(i) Aerial imaging and mapping;
(ii) Oil, gas, and mineral exploration;
(iii) Atmospheric survey and research;
(iv) Geophysical and electromagnetic survey;
(v) Oceanic survey; or
(vi) Airborne measurement of navigation signals.
(4) Patrolling, for one or more of the following special purpose
operations, including
(i) Patrolling of pipelines;
(ii) Patrolling of power lines;
(iii) Patrolling of data transmission lines and towers;
(iv) Patrolling of railroads;
(v) Patrolling of canals; or
(vi) Patrolling of harbors.
(5) Weather control, including the special purpose operation of
cloud seeding.
(6) Aerial advertising, for one or more of the following special
purpose operations, including--
(i) Skywriting;
(ii) Banner towing;
(iii) Displaying airborne signs; or
(iv) Public address systems.
(7) Other special purpose operations, including--
(i) Rotorcraft external-load operations conducted under part 133 of
this chapter;
(ii) Carriage of cargo incidental to the owner's or operator's
business;
(iii) Target towing;
(iv) Search and rescue operations;
(v) Glider towing;
(vi) Alaskan fuel hauling;
(vii) Alaskan fixed-wing external load operations;
(viii) Space vehicle launch support; or
(ix) Any other special purpose operation specified by the FAA.
0
5. Revise Sec. 21.175 to read as follows:
Sec. 21.175 Airworthiness certificates: classification.
(a) Standard airworthiness certificates are airworthiness
certificates issued for aircraft type certificated:
(1) In the normal, utility, acrobatic, commuter, or transport
category;
(2) As manned free balloons; or
(3) As special classes of aircraft.
(b) Special airworthiness certificates are airworthiness
certificates issued for:
(1) Aircraft type-certificated in the primary, restricted,
provisional, or limited categories;
(2) Aircraft certificated in the light-sport category;
(3) Aircraft operating for an experimental purpose; or
(4) Aircraft operating under a special flight permit.
0
6. Amend Sec. 21.181 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 21.181 Duration.
(a) Unless sooner surrendered, suspended, revoked, or a termination
date is otherwise established by the FAA, airworthiness certificates
are effective as long as the aircraft is registered in the United
States and as follows:
(1) Standard airworthiness certificates and special airworthiness
certificates issued for aircraft certificated in the primary,
restricted, or limited category are effective as long as the
maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations are performed in
accordance with parts 43 and 91 of this chapter.
(2) A special flight permit is effective for the period of time
specified in the permit.
(3) A special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category
will remain effective as long as all of the following conditions are
met:
(i) Except as specified in paragraph (a)(3)(iv) of this section,
the aircraft meets the eligibility criteria for the issuance of an
airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category specified in
Sec. 21.190(b).
(ii) The aircraft conforms to its original or properly altered
configuration.
(iii) The aircraft has no unsafe condition and is not likely to
develop an unsafe condition.
(iv) For aircraft originally certificated prior to [EFFECTIVE DATE
OF THE FINAL RULE], and for which an amended manufacturer's statement
of compliance has not been submitted to the FAA in accordance with
Sec. 21.190(e) on or after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE], the
aircraft meets all of the following conditions:
(A) A maximum takeoff weight of not more than 1,320 pounds (600
kilograms) for aircraft not intended for operation on water or 1,430
pounds (650 kilograms) for an aircraft intended for operation on water.
(B) A maximum airspeed in level flight with maximum continuous
power (VH) of not more than 120 knots CAS under standard
atmospheric conditions at sea level.
(C) A maximum never-exceed speed (VNE) of not more than
120 knots CAS for a glider.
(D) A maximum stalling speed or minimum steady flight speed without
the use of lift-enhancing devices (VS1) of not more than 45
knots CAS at the aircraft's maximum certificated takeoff weight and
most critical center of gravity.
(E) A maximum seating capacity of no more than two persons,
including the pilot.
(F) A single, reciprocating engine, if powered.
(G) A fixed or ground-adjustable propeller if a powered aircraft
other than a powered glider.
(H) A fixed or feathering propeller system if a powered glider.
(I) A fixed-pitch, semi-rigid, teetering, two-blade rotor system,
if a gyroplane.
(J) A nonpressurized cabin, if equipped with a cabin.
(K) Fixed landing gear, except for an aircraft intended for
operation on water or a glider.
(L) Fixed or retractable landing gear, or a hull, for an aircraft
intended for operation on water.
(M) Fixed or retractable landing gear for a glider.
(4) The duration of an experimental certificate issued for research
and development, showing compliance with regulations, crew training, or
market survey is effective for 3 years from the date of issue or
renewal unless the FAA prescribes a shorter period.
(5) The duration of an experimental certificate issued for
operating amateur-built aircraft, exhibition, air-racing, operating
primary kit-built aircraft, operating former light-sport category
aircraft, operating light-sport category kit-built aircraft, and
operating former military aircraft is unlimited, unless the FAA
establishes a specific period for good cause.
* * * * *
0
7. Amend Sec. 21.182 by revising paragraphs (a) and (b)(2) to read as
follows:
Sec. 21.182 Aircraft identification.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each
applicant for an airworthiness certificate under this subpart must show
that the aircraft is identified as prescribed in Sec. 45.11 of this
chapter.
(b) * * *
(2) An experimental certificate issued for the purposes of research
and development, showing compliance with regulations, crew training,
exhibition, air racing, market surveys, or operating former military
aircraft.
* * * * *
0
8. Amend Sec. 21.183 by:
0
a. Removing the word ``or'' the end of paragraph (d)(2)(iii);
0
b. Removing the word ``and'' and adding ``or'' in its place at the end
of paragraph (d)(2)(iv); and
0
c. Adding paragraph (d)(2)(v).
The addition reads as follows:
[[Page 47725]]
Sec. 21.183 Issue of standard airworthiness certificates for normal,
utility, acrobatic, commuter, and transport category aircraft; manned
free balloons; and special classes of aircraft.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(v) A foreign maintenance organization appropriately certificated
by an exporting authority with whose country the United States has a
bilateral agreement that includes acceptance of this aircraft category
by the United States for import. An acceptable inspection must have
been completed while the aircraft was operated on the registry of the
exporting authority and within 60 days of submitting the application
for a United States airworthiness certificate; and
* * * * *
0
9. Amend Sec. 21.185 by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 21.185 Issue of airworthiness certificates for restricted
category aircraft.
(a) Aircraft manufactured under a production certificate or type
certificate. An applicant for a restricted category airworthiness
certificate for an aircraft type certificated in the restricted
category, that was not previously type certificated in any other
category, must comply with the appropriate provisions of Sec. 21.183.
(b) Other aircraft. An applicant for an airworthiness certificate
in the restricted category is entitled to an airworthiness certificate
if--
(1) The aircraft is type certificated for a special purpose
operation in the restricted category;
(2) The aircraft was--
(i) Manufactured in accordance with the requirements of, and
accepted for use by, the U.S. Armed Forces and has a service history
with the U.S. Armed Forces acceptable to the FAA; or
(ii) Previously type certificated in another category (other than
primary category or light-sport category); and
(3) The aircraft has been inspected by the FAA and found to be in a
good state of preservation and repair and in a condition for safe
operation.
* * * * *
0
10. Amend Sec. 21.187 by revising the section heading to read as
follows:
Sec. 21.187 Issue of multiple airworthiness certifications for
restricted category aircraft.
* * * * *
0
11. Effective [DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL
RULE IN THE Federal Register], revise Sec. 21.190 to read as follows:
Sec. 21.190 Issue of a special airworthiness certificate for a light-
sport category aircraft.
(a) Purpose. The FAA issues a special airworthiness certificate in
the light-sport category to operate an aircraft, other than an unmanned
aircraft, that meets the requirements of this section.
(b) Eligibility. To be eligible for a special airworthiness
certificate in the light-sport category, an aircraft must meet the
applicable requirements of Sec. 22.100 of this chapter.
(c) Application for special airworthiness certificate in the light-
sport category. Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, an
applicant for a special airworthiness certificate under this section
must provide the FAA with:
(1) The manufacturer's statement of compliance as described in
paragraph (d) of this section.
(2) A pilot's operating handbook that includes--
(i) Recommended operating instructions and limitations to safely
accommodate all environmental conditions and abnormal procedures likely
to be encountered in the aircraft's intended operations; and
(ii) A flight training supplement to enable safe operation of the
aircraft within the intended flight envelope under all foreseeable
conditions.
(iii) A listing of any aerial work operations that may be safely
conducted using the aircraft and any instructions and limitations that
are necessary to safely conduct those operations.
(iv) A statement that the aircraft has demonstrated compliance with
part 36 of this chapter, the tested noise levels of the aircraft, and
the following statement: ``No determination has been made by the
Federal Aviation Administration that the noise levels of this aircraft
are or should be acceptable or unacceptable for operation in any
location.''
(3) A maintenance and inspection program containing procedures
necessary to ensure continued safe operation of the aircraft.
(4) Evidence that the aircraft has demonstrated compliance with the
applicable requirements of part 36 of this chapter.
(d) Manufacturer's statement of compliance. The manufacturer's
statement of compliance specified in paragraph (c)(1) of this section
must --
(1) Be signed by the manufacturer's authorized representative or
agent who is certified and trained on the requirements associated with
the issuance of a statement of compliance by an organization that
certifies and trains quality assurance staff in accordance with a
consensus standard that has been accepted by the FAA.
(2) Identify the aircraft by make, model, serial number, class, and
date of manufacture.
(3) State whether this aircraft meets the requirements specified in
subpart J of part 61 of this chapter for the exercise of privileges by
a sport pilot.
(4) Specify those aerial work operations the manufacturer has
determined may be safely conducted, and state that the aircraft has
been ground and flight tested to ensure that it can be operated to
safely conduct those operations in accordance with the instructions and
limitations provided by the manufacturer.
(5) State whether the aircraft meets the requirements of Sec.
22.180 of this chapter for simplified flight controls.
(6) Specify the consensus standards used to determine the
aircraft's compliance with subpart B of part 22 of this chapter and
state that the aircraft meets the eligibility, design, production, and
airworthiness requirements of subpart B of part 22 of this chapter in
accordance with those consensus standards. The specified consensus
standards must be accepted by the FAA for the airworthiness
certification of light-sport category aircraft.
(7) State that the aircraft conforms to the manufacturer's design
data, using the manufacturer's quality assurance system that meets the
specified consensus standard.
(8) State that the manufacturer will make available to any
interested person the documents specified in paragraph (c) of this
section.
(9) State that the manufacturer will support the aircraft by
implementing and maintaining a documented continued operational safety
program that--
(i) Addresses monitoring and resolving in-service safety of flight
issues;
(ii) Includes provisions for the issuance of safety directives;
(iii) Includes a process for notifying the FAA and all owners of
all safety of flight issues; and
(iv) Includes a process for advance notice to the FAA and all
owners of a continued operational safety program discontinuance or
provider change.
(10) State that the manufacturer will monitor and correct safety-
of-flight issues through the issuance of safety directives and a
continued operational safety program that meets the specified consensus
standard.
(11) State that at the request of the FAA, the manufacturer will
provide unrestricted access to its facilities and to all data necessary
to determine compliance with this section or other applicable
requirements of this chapter.
[[Page 47726]]
(12) State that the manufacturer has established and maintains a
quality assurance system that meets the requirements of Sec. 22.185 of
this chapter.
(e) Special provisions for aircraft certificated in the light-sport
category before [EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE]. The owner of an
aircraft issued a light-sport category airworthiness certificate before
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE], may submit an amended
manufacturer's statement of compliance to the FAA listing those aerial
work operations that may be conducted using the aircraft. The amended
statement of compliance must--
(1) Identify the aircraft by make, model, serial number, and date
of manufacture.
(2) Be made by the original manufacturer of the aircraft.
(3) Reference and reaffirm the statements made in the original
manufacturer's statement of compliance.
(4) State that the design and construction of the aircraft provides
sufficient structural integrity to enable safe operation of the
aircraft during the performance of the specified aerial work operations
and that the aircraft is able to withstand any foreseeable flight and
ground loads.
(5) Specify the FAA-accepted consensus standard used to make the
determination required by paragraph (a) of this section.
(6) Is accompanied by revisions to the aircraft's operating
instructions to indicate those aerial work operations that may be
conducted using the aircraft, and any applicable revisions to the
aircraft's maintenance and inspection procedures, and flight training
supplement.
0
12. Amend Sec. 21.191 by revising the section heading, introductory
text, and paragraph (i) and adding reserved paragraph (j) and paragraph
(k) to read as follows:
Sec. 21.191 Issue of experimental airworthiness certificates.
Experimental airworthiness certificates are issued for the
following experimental purposes:
* * * * *
(i) Operating former light-sport category aircraft. Operating an
aircraft that previously has been issued a special airworthiness
certificate in the light-sport category under Sec. 21.190.
(j) [Reserved]
(k) Operating former military aircraft. Operating a former military
aircraft that meets the following requirements:
(1) The aircraft is not an unmanned aircraft.
(2) The aircraft was manufactured, purchased, or modified under
contract by the U.S. Armed Forces or a foreign military.
(3) The aircraft is operated for one of the following purposes:
(i) Flying the aircraft to a base where repairs, alterations, or
maintenance are to be performed;
(ii) Flying to a point of storage; or
(iii) Repositioning the aircraft for use under contract with the
U.S. Armed Forces.
0
13. Effective [DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL
RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], amend Sec. 21.191 further by adding
paragraph (j) to read as follows:
Sec. 21.191 Issue of experimental airworthiness certificates.
* * * * *
(j) Operating light-sport category kit-built aircraft. Operating an
aircraft of a type that has been certificated under Sec. 21.190 and
assembled from an aircraft kit in accordance with manufacturer's
assembly instructions that meet an applicable FAA-accepted consensus
standard. An applicant must provide the following:
(1) Evidence that an aircraft of the same make and model was
manufactured and assembled by the aircraft kit manufacturer and issued
a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category under
Sec. 21.190.
(2) The pilot's operating handbook that includes a flight training
supplement.
(3) The aircraft's maintenance and inspection procedures.
(4) The manufacturer's statement of compliance for the aircraft kit
used in the aircraft assembly that meets the applicable requirements of
Sec. 21.190 in effect at the time the aircraft kit was manufactured,
except the statement need not indicate compliance with Sec. 22.175 of
this chapter. The statement must identify assembly instructions for the
aircraft that meet an applicable consensus standard.
(5) For an aircraft kit manufactured outside the United States,
evidence that the aircraft kit was manufactured in a country with which
the United States has a Bilateral Airworthiness Agreement concerning
airplanes or a Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement with associated
Implementation Procedures for Airworthiness concerning airplanes, or an
equivalent airworthiness agreement.
* * * * *
0
14. Revise Sec. 21.193 to read as follows:
Sec. 21.193 Application for special airworthiness certificates issued
for experimental purposes.
An applicant for an experimental airworthiness certificate must
submit the following information in a form and manner prescribed by the
FAA:
(a) The experimental purpose for which the aircraft is to be used.
(b) Enough information to describe the operation, equipment, or
test as applicable.
(c) The estimated time or number of flights required for the
operation, for an applicant seeking issuance of an experimental
airworthiness certificate for those experimental purposes specified in
Sec. 21.191(a) through (f).
(d) The areas over which flights will be conducted.
(e) Enough data to identify the aircraft.
(f) Except for a previously type certificated aircraft without an
appreciable change in its external configuration, three-view drawings
or three-view dimensional photographs of the aircraft.
(g) Upon inspection of the aircraft, any pertinent information
found necessary by the FAA to safeguard the general public.
(h) For applicants seeking certification of an aircraft for the
purpose of operating former light-sport category aircraft or for the
purpose of operating light-sport category kit-built aircraft, evidence
of compliance with the applicable aircraft noise limits in part 36 of
this chapter.
0
15. Amend Sec. 21.195 by revising paragraphs (b) through (d) to read
as follows:
Sec. 21.195 Experimental certificates: Aircraft to be used for market
surveys, sales demonstrations, and customer crew training.
* * * * *
(b) A manufacturer of an aircraft engine manufactured within the
United States, that has altered a type certificated aircraft by
installing an engine it has manufactured, may apply for an experimental
certificate for that aircraft to be used for market surveys, sales
demonstrations, or customer crew training, if the basic aircraft,
before alteration, was type certificated in the normal, utility,
acrobatic, commuter, transport, primary, or restricted category.
(c) A person who has altered the design of a type certificated
aircraft may apply for an experimental certificate for an altered
aircraft to be used for market surveys, sales demonstrations, or
customer crew training if the basic aircraft, before alteration, was
type
[[Page 47727]]
certificated in the normal, utility, acrobatic, commuter, transport,
primary, or restricted category.
(d) An applicant for an experimental certificate under paragraph
(a), (b), or (c) of this section is entitled to that certificate if, in
addition to meeting the requirements of Sec. 21.193, the applicant--
(1) Has established an inspection and maintenance program for the
continued airworthiness of the aircraft; and
(2) Shows that the aircraft has been flown for at least 50 hours,
or for at least 5 hours if it is a type certificated aircraft which has
been altered. The FAA may reduce these operational requirements if the
applicant provides adequate justification.
0
16. Revise Sec. 21.327 to read as follows:
Sec. 21.327 Application.
(a) Any owner of a U.S.-registered aircraft may apply for an export
certificate of airworthiness for that aircraft.
(b) Any person may apply for an export airworthiness approval for
an aircraft engine, propeller, or article.
(c) Each applicant must apply in a form and manner prescribed by
the FAA.
0
17. Amend Sec. 21.329 by revising paragraph (a)(1) introductory text
to read as follows:
Sec. 21.329 Issuance of export certificates of airworthiness.
(a) * * *
(1) A new or used aircraft manufactured under subpart F or G of
this part meets the requirements under subpart H of this part for a--
* * * * *
0
18. Add part 22 to read as follows:
PART 22--DESIGN, PRODUCTION, AND AIRWORTHINESS REQUIREMENTS FOR
NON-TYPE CERTIFICATED AIRCRAFT
Subpart A--General
Sec.
22.1 Applicability.
Subpart B--Light-Sport Category Aircraft
22.100 Eligibility.
22.105 Control and maneuverability.
22.110 Structural integrity.
22.115 Powered-lift: minimum safe speed.
22.120 Special requirements for light-sport aircraft used for aerial
work operations.
22.125 Environmental conditions.
22.130 Suitability and durability of materials.
22.135 Instruments and equipment.
22.140 Controls and displays.
22.145 Propulsion system.
22.150 Fuel system.
22.155 Fire protection.
22.160 Visibility.
22.165 Emergency evacuation.
22.170 Placards and markings.
22.175 Noise.
22.180 Special requirements for light-sport category aircraft with
simplified flight controls.
22.185 Quality assurance system.
22.190 Finding of compliance by trained compliance staff.
22.195 Ground and flight testing.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7572; 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40105,
40113, 44701-44702, 44704, 44707, 44709, 44711, 44713, 44715, 45303.
PART 22--DESIGN, PRODUCTION, AND AIRWORTHINESS REQUIREMENTS FOR
NON-TYPE CERTIFICATED AIRCRAFT
Subpart A--General
Sec. 22.1 Applicability.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, this part
prescribes design, production, and airworthiness requirements for the
issue of special airworthiness certificates, and changes to those
certificates, for non-type certificated aircraft applying for an
airworthiness certificate.
(b) Each person who applies under part 21 of this chapter for such
a certificate or change must comply with the applicable requirements in
this part.
(c) This part does not apply to aircraft issued an experimental
airworthiness certificate, aircraft operating under a special flight
permit, or unmanned aircraft.
Subpart B--Light-Sport Category Aircraft
Sec. 22.100 Eligibility.
(a) Aircraft manufactured in the United States. To be eligible for
a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category issued
under Sec. 21.190 of this chapter, an aircraft must--
(1) Except for an airplane, have a maximum seating capacity of not
more than two persons, including the pilot.
(2) For an airplane, have a maximum seating capacity of not more
than four persons, including the pilot.
(3) Have a maximum stalling speed or minimum steady flight speed,
without the use of lift-enhancing devices (VS1) at the
aircraft's maximum certificated takeoff weight and most critical center
of gravity of 54 knots CAS for an airplane, or 45 knots CAS for a
glider or weight-shift-control aircraft.
(4) Have a maximum speed of 250 knots CAS at maximum available
power under standard atmospheric conditions at sea level.
(5) Have a non-pressurized cabin, if equipped with a cabin.
(6) Not have been previously issued a standard, primary,
restricted, limited, or provisional airworthiness certificate, or an
equivalent airworthiness certificate by a foreign civil aviation
authority.
(7) Meet the aircraft design, production, and airworthiness
requirements specified in this subpart using a means of compliance
consisting of consensus standards accepted by the FAA.
(8) Be inspected by the FAA and found to be in a condition for safe
operation.
(b) Aircraft manufactured outside the United States. For aircraft
manufactured outside the United States to be eligible for a special
airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category under Sec.
21.190 of this chapter, an applicant must provide the FAA evidence
that--
(1) The aircraft meets the requirements of this subpart;
(2) The aircraft was manufactured in a country with which the
United States has a Bilateral Airworthiness Agreement concerning
airplanes or Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement with associated
Implementation Procedures for Airworthiness concerning airplanes, or an
equivalent airworthiness agreement; and
(3) The aircraft is eligible for an airworthiness certificate,
flight authorization, or other similar certification in its country of
manufacture.
Sec. 22.105 Control and maneuverability.
A light-sport category aircraft must--
(a) Be consistently and predictably controllable and maneuverable
through the normal use of primary flight controls at all loading
conditions during all phases of flight; and,
(b) Not have a tendency to inadvertently depart controlled flight
or require exceptional piloting skill, alertness, or strength.
Sec. 22.110 Structural integrity.
(a) The design and construction of the aircraft must provide
sufficient structural integrity to enable safe operations within the
aircraft's flight envelope throughout the aircraft's intended life
cycle; and,
(b) The aircraft must be able to withstand all anticipated flight
and ground loads when operated within its operational limits.
Sec. 22.115 Powered-lift: minimum safe speed.
To be certificated in the light-sport category, powered-lift
aircraft must have a known minimum safe speed for each flight condition
encountered in normal operations, including applicable sources
[[Page 47728]]
of lift and phases of flight, to maintain controlled safe flight. The
minimum safe speed determination must account for the most adverse
conditions for each configuration.
Sec. 22.120 Special requirements for light-sport aircraft used for
aerial work operations.
If the aircraft is designated by the manufacturer as suitable for
the performance of any aerial work operation, the design and
construction of the aircraft must provide sufficient structural
integrity to enable safe operation of the aircraft during the
performance of that operation and ensure that the aircraft is able to
withstand any foreseeable flight and ground loads.
Sec. 22.125 Environmental conditions.
The aircraft must have design characteristics to safely accommodate
all environmental conditions likely to be encountered during its
intended operations.
Sec. 22.130 Suitability and durability of materials.
The suitability and durability of materials used for products and
articles must account for the likely environmental conditions expected
in service, the failure of which could prevent continued safe flight
and landing.
Sec. 22.135 Instruments and equipment.
(a) The aircraft must have all instruments and equipment necessary
for safe flight, to include those instruments necessary for systems
control and management. The aircraft must also include all instruments
and equipment required for the kinds of operations for which it is
authorized.
(b) The aircraft, instruments, equipment, and systems must perform
their intended functions under all operating conditions specified in
the pilot's operating handbook. Likely failure or malfunction of a
system or component must not cause loss of control of the aircraft.
Systems and components must be considered separately and in relation to
each other.
Sec. 22.140 Controls and displays.
The aircraft must be designed and constructed so that the pilot has
the ability to reach all controls and displays in a manner that
provides for smooth and positive operation of the aircraft.
Sec. 22.145 Propulsion system.
The aircraft propulsion system must--
(a) Have controls that are simple, intuitive and not confusing;
(b) Be designed so that the failure of any product or article does
not prevent continued safe flight and landing or, if continued safe
flight and landing cannot be ensured, the hazard has been minimized;
(c) Not exceed safe operating limits under normal operating
conditions; and
(d) Have the necessary reliability, durability, and endurance for
safe flight without failure, malfunction, excessive wear, or other
anomalies.
Sec. 22.150 Fuel system.
The aircraft fuel system must--
(a) Provide a means to safely remove or isolate the fuel stored in
the system from the aircraft; and
(b) Be designed to retain fuel under all likely operating
conditions.
Sec. 22.155 Fire protection.
The hazards of fuel or electrical fires following a survivable
emergency landing must be minimized by incorporating design features to
sustain static and dynamic deceleration loads without structural damage
to fuel or electrical system components or their attachments that would
leak fuel to an ignition source or allow electrical power to become an
ignition source.
Sec. 22.160 Visibility.
The aircraft must be designed and constructed so that the pilot
has--
(a) Sufficient visibility of controls, instruments, equipment, and
placards; and
(b) Sufficient vison outside the aircraft necessary to conduct safe
aircraft operations.
Sec. 22.165 Emergency evacuation.
(a) The aircraft must be designed and constructed--
(1) So that all occupants have the ability to rapidly conduct an
emergency evacuation; and
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, to account
for all conditions likely to occur following an emergency landing.
(b) Aircraft not intended for operation on water are not required
to account for ditching in an emergency landing.
Sec. 22.170 Placards and markings.
The aircraft must display all placards and instrument markings
necessary for safe operation and occupant warning. Markings or graphics
must clearly indicate the function of each control, other than primary
flight controls.
Sec. 22.175 Noise.
The aircraft must meet the applicable noise standards of part 36 of
this chapter.
Sec. 22.180 Special requirements for light-sport category aircraft
with simplified flight controls.
An aircraft that meets the following requirements may be designated
by the manufacturer as having simplified flight controls--
(a) The aircraft allows the pilot to only control the flight path
of the aircraft or intervene in its operation without direct
manipulation of individual aircraft control surfaces or adjustment of
the available power;
(b) The aircraft is designed to inherently prevent loss of control,
regardless of pilot input; and
(c) The aircraft has a means to enable the pilot to quickly and
safely discontinue the flight and prevent any inadvertent activation of
this feature.
Sec. 22.185 Quality assurance system.
The aircraft must have been designed, produced, and tested under a
documented quality assurance system to ensure each product and article
conforms to its design and is in a condition for safe operation.
Sec. 22.190 Finding of compliance by trained compliance staff.
The aircraft must have been found compliant with the provisions of
the applicable FAA-accepted consensus standards by individuals who have
been trained on determining compliance with those consensus standards.
Sec. 22.195 Ground and flight testing.
The aircraft must have been ground and flight tested under
documented production acceptance test procedures to--
(a) Validate aircraft performance data.
(b) Ensure the aircraft has no hazardous operating characteristics
or design features.
(c) Ensure the aircraft is in a condition for safe operation.
(d) Ensure the aircraft can safely conduct any aerial work
operation designated by the manufacturer in accordance with Sec.
22.120.
PART 36--NOISE STANDARDS: AIRCRAFT TYPE AND AIRWORTHINESS
CERTIFICATION
0
19. The authority for part 36 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113,
44701-44702, 44704, 44715; sec. 305, Pub. L. 96-193, 94 Stat. 50,
57; E.O. 11514, 35 FR 4247, 3 CFR, 1966-1970 Comp., p. 902.
0
20. Add Sec. 36.0 to read as follows:
Sec. 36.0 Applicability; aircraft that do not conform to a type
certificate.
(a) General applicability. Except as provided in paragraph (e) of
this
[[Page 47729]]
section, for aircraft described in Sec. 21.190, Sec. 21.191, Sec.
21.193(h), or part 22 of this chapter, that does not conform to a type
certificate, the requirements of this part apply at the time of
application for a first airworthiness certificate, or when an aircraft
previously issued an airworthiness certificate incorporates an
alteration that would result in an acoustical change.
(b) Compliance requirements. Compliance with this part requires--
(1) A determination that the applicable noise limits specified in
this part are not exceeded for any configuration, flight profile, or
reference condition required for an aircraft to demonstrate compliance;
and,
(2) When applicable, a determination that any test procedures and
analyses contained in a related appendix to this part have been met for
any configuration, flight profile, or reference condition required.
(c) Use of a noise consensus standard. An aircraft that does not
conform to a type certificate may demonstrate compliance using a noise
consensus standard that meets the following conditions:
(1) The noise consensus standard has been approved by the FAA; and
(2) The noise consensus standard has been determined by the FAA to
be appropriate for the aircraft and applicable to the aircraft's
specific design.
(d) No noise consensus standard available. For an aircraft that
does not conform to a type certificate, and for which no noise
consensus standard has been approved or determined by the FAA to be
appropriate for the aircraft, the following apply:
(1) Aircraft similar to a type-certificated aircraft. An aircraft
that is determined by the FAA for noise purposes to be the same as or
sufficiently similar in design to a type certificated aircraft
described in Sec. 36.1 may demonstrate compliance with this part by--
(i) Using the same requirements as the type certificated aircraft
that is the same or sufficiently similar in design to the aircraft; or
(ii) Adopting the noise levels for the type certificated aircraft
that is the same or sufficiently similar in design to the aircraft when
the aircraft has not been altered to result in an acoustical change.
(2) Aircraft with no similar type-certificated aircraft. If the FAA
determines that for noise purposes, there is no type certificated
aircraft of the same or sufficiently similar design described in Sec.
36.1, an applicant may demonstrate compliance with this part using the
noise requirements determined by the FAA to be appropriate for the
aircraft.
(e) Exceptions. The following aircraft that do not conform to a
type certificate are excepted from demonstrating compliance with the
requirements of this part:
(1) Aircraft issued an experimental airworthiness certificate in
accordance with Sec. 21.191(a) through (h) or (k) of this chapter;
(2) Aircraft which, if type certificated, would not be required to
demonstrate compliance with this part; and
(3) Aircraft issued an experimental airworthiness certificate in
accordance with Sec. 21.191(i)(1) of this chapter on or before January
31, 2008, for the purpose of operating a light-sport aircraft.
0
21. Amend Sec. 36.1 by adding reserved paragraph (a)(6) and paragraph
(a)(7) to read as follows:
Sec. 36.1 Applicability and definitions.
(a) * * *
(6) [Reserved]
(7) Aircraft that do not conform to a type certificate, in
accordance with Sec. 36.0.
* * * * *
0
22. Revise Sec. 36.3 to read as follows:
Sec. 36.3 Compatibility with airworthiness requirements.
(a) Each applicant for certification under this part must
demonstrate that:
(1) For type certificated aircraft, that the aircraft complies with
the airworthiness regulations in this chapter that constitute the type
certification basis of the aircraft under all conditions in which
compliance with this part is shown; or
(2) For aircraft without a type certificate, that the aircraft
complies with all airworthiness requirements in this chapter applicable
to the design of the aircraft under all conditions in which compliance
with this part is shown.
(b) Each applicant for certification under this part must show that
any procedure used to demonstrate compliance with this part, and any
procedure and information for the flight crew developed under this
part, are consistent with the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) or (2)
of this section.
0
23. Amend Sec. 36.1501 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 36.1501 Procedures, noise levels and other information.
(a) All procedures, weights, configurations, and other information
or data employed for obtaining the certified noise levels prescribed by
this part, including equivalent procedures used for flight, testing,
and analysis, must be developed by the applicant and approved by the
FAA. For type certificated aircraft, noise levels achieved during type
certification must be included in the aircraft's approved flight
manual. For aircraft without a type certificate, noise levels achieved
during airworthiness certification must be included in the Pilot's
Operating Handbook.
* * * * *
0
24. Amend Sec. 36.1581 by adding paragraph (h) to read as follows:
Sec. 36.1581 Manuals, markings, and placards.
* * * * *
(h) For aircraft subject to Sec. 36.0, no noise operating
limitations are prescribed under this part, and this part does not
affect any operating limitations for these aircraft described elsewhere
in this chapter. Noise compliance with this part must be documented as
specified in Sec. 21.190(e) or Sec. 21.191 of this chapter, as
applicable. The noise information must:
(1) State that the aircraft has demonstrated compliance with this
part;
(2) Include the demonstrated noise levels of the aircraft; and
(3) Include the following statement: No determination has been made
by the Federal Aviation Administration whether the noise levels of this
aircraft are or should be acceptable for operation in any location.
PART 43--MAINTENANCE, PREVENTITIVE MAINTENANCE, REBUILDING, AND
ALTERATION
0
25. The authority citation for part 43 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7572; 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40105,
40113, 44701-44702, 44704, 44707, 44709, 44711, 44713, 44715, 45303.
0
26. Amend Sec. 43.1 by revising paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 43.1 Applicability.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) Any aircraft for which the FAA has issued an experimental
certificate under the provisions of Sec. 21.191(i) of this chapter,
and the aircraft was previously issued a special airworthiness
certificate in the light-sport category under the provisions of Sec.
21.190 of this chapter; or
* * * * *
0
27. Amend Sec. 43.13 by revising paragraphs (a) and (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 43.13 Performance rules (general).
(a) Each person performing maintenance, alteration, or preventive
maintenance on an aircraft, engine, propeller, or appliance shall use
the
[[Page 47730]]
methods, techniques, and practices prescribed in the current
manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued
Airworthiness prepared by its manufacturer, or other methods,
techniques, and practices acceptable to the Administrator, except as
noted in Sec. 43.16. That person must use the tools, equipment, and
test apparatus necessary to assure completion of the work in accordance
with accepted industry practices. If special equipment or test
apparatus is recommended by the manufacturer involved, that person must
use that equipment or apparatus or its equivalent acceptable to the
Administrator.
* * * * *
(c) Unless otherwise notified by the Administrator, the methods,
techniques, and practices contained in the maintenance manual or the
maintenance part of the manual of the holder of an air carrier
operating certificate or an operating certificate under part 121 or 135
of this chapter and operators under part 129 of this chapter holding
operations specifications (that is required by its operating
specifications to provide a continuous airworthiness maintenance and
inspection program) constitute acceptable means of compliance with this
section.
PART 45--IDENTIFICATION AND REGISTRATION MARKING
0
28. The authority citation for part 45 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113-40114, 44101-
44105, 44107-44111, 44504, 44701, 44708-44709, 44711-44713, 44725,
45302-45303, 46104, 46304, 46306, 47122.
0
29. Amend Sec. 45.23 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 45.23 Display of marks; general.
* * * * *
(b) Except for unmanned aircraft, when marks include only the Roman
capital letter ``N'' and the registration number is displayed on
limited, restricted, experimental, or provisionally certificated
aircraft, the operator must also display on that aircraft near each
entrance to the cabin, cockpit, or pilot station, in letters not less
than 2 inches nor more than 6 inches high, the words ``limited,''
``restricted,'' ``experimental,'' or ``provisional,'' as applicable.
PART 61--CERTIFICATION: PILOTS, FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS, AND GROUND
INSTRUCTORS
0
30. The authority citation for part 61 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701-44703, 44707,
44709-44711, 44729, 44903, 45102-45103, 45301-45302; sec. 2307, Pub.
L. 114-190, 130 Stat. 615 (49 U.S.C. 44703 note).
0
31. Amend Sec. 61.3 by revising the section heading and adding
paragraph (m) to read as follows:
Sec. 61.3 Requirement for certificates, ratings, privileges, and
authorizations.
* * * * *
(m) For a person who possesses a sport pilot certificate. No person
may exercise sport pilot privileges under Sec. 61.313 unless that
person receives a qualifying logbook endorsement under Sec. 61.317 or
Sec. 61.321 for the appropriate category and class privilege. The
requirement in this paragraph (m) does not apply to a person who
already holds the appropriate category and class rating on their pilot
certificate.
0
32. Add Sec. 61.9 to read as follows:
Sec. 61.9 Inapplicability of simplified flight controls aircraft
experience credit.
Notwithstanding the requirements specified in Sec. 61.51(c), any
pilot time acquired while operating an airplane or helicopter with a
simplified flight controls design and designation may not be used to
satisfy the following aeronautical experience requirements for a
private, commercial, or airline transport pilot certificate, except for
private pilot applicants who present an aircraft with the simplified
flight controls design and designation to conduct the practical test--
(a) The solo flight time requirements in Sec. 61.109(a)(5) or
(c)(4);
(b) The PIC flight time requirements in Sec. 61.129(a)(2)(i) and
(c)(2)(i);
(c) The PIC flight time requirements in Sec. 61.159(a)(5); and
(d) The PIC flight time requirements in Sec. 61.161(a)(3).
0
33. Amend Sec. 61.31 by redesignating paragraph (l) as paragraph (m)
and adding a new paragraph (l) to read as follows:
Sec. 61.31 Type rating requirements, additional training, and
authorization requirements.
* * * * *
(l) Additional aircraft model-specific flight training. No person
may act as pilot in command of an aircraft with a simplified flight
controls designation unless that person has--
(1) Received and logged model-specific flight training in that
aircraft, or in a full flight simulator or flight training device that
is representative of that model-specific aircraft with the simplified
flight controls designation; and
(2) Received a logbook endorsement from an authorized instructor
who has found the person proficient in the safe operation of that
model-specific aircraft and the associated simplified flight control
system.
* * * * *
0
34. Amend Sec. 61.45 by revising the introductory text in paragraph
(f) and adding paragraphs (g) and (h) to read as follows:
Sec. 61.45 Practical tests: Required aircraft and equipment.
* * * * *
(f) Conduct of a sport pilot practical test in an aircraft with a
single seat. A practical test for a sport pilot certificate may be
conducted in an aircraft having a single seat provided that the--
* * * * *
(g) Aircraft with a simplified flight controls designation. An
applicant for a pilot certificate, rating, or privilege may use an
aircraft with a simplified flight controls designation for a practical
test if--
(1) The examiner agrees to conduct the test;
(2) The examiner holds the appropriate category and class rating or
privilege, the simplified flight controls model-specific aircraft
endorsement, and an appropriate FAA designation to conduct the test;
(3) The examiner is able to assume control of the aircraft at any
time, except if paragraph (f) of this section applies; and
(4) After successful completion of the practical test, the
applicant is issued a pilot certificate with the appropriate category
and class privilege and model specific limitation.
(h) Simplified flight controls limitation. A person who receives a
category and class rating or privilege with a simplified flight
controls limitation may operate only the specified make and model of
aircraft set forth by the limitation unless the person satisfies the
following requirements, as applicable:
(1) If seeking to operate another make and model of aircraft with a
simplified flight controls designation in the same category and class,
the person must receive training and an endorsement in accordance with
Sec. 61.31(l).
(2) If seeking to operate a different category and class of
aircraft with a simplified flight controls designation or any aircraft
without a simplified flight controls designation, the person must
successfully complete a practical test for that category and class of
aircraft.
0
35. Amend Sec. 61.195 by adding paragraph (m) to read as follows:
[[Page 47731]]
Sec. 61.195 Flight instructor limitations and qualifications.
* * * * *
(m) Training in an aircraft with a simplified flight controls
designation. (1) For purposes of this paragraph (m), instructor pilot
means a pilot employed or used by a manufacturer of an aircraft with a
simplified flight controls designation to conduct operations of that
aircraft for the purpose of providing crew training.
(2) A flight instructor may conduct flight training in an aircraft
with a simplified flight controls designation without satisfying the
training and endorsement requirements under Sec. 61.31(l), provided
the flight instructor--
(i) Holds a flight instructor certificate with the appropriate
aircraft category, class, and type rating (if a class or type rating is
required);
(ii) Has received and logged model-specific training in that
aircraft from an instructor pilot for the manufacturer of the aircraft;
and
(iii) Has received a logbook or training record endorsement from
the instructor pilot certifying that the flight instructor is
proficient in the safe operation of that model-specific aircraft and
the associated simplified flight control system.
(3) Notwithstanding the requirements in Sec. 61.3(d)(2)(ii), an
instructor pilot may provide the training and endorsement specified in
paragraph (m)(2) of this section in lieu of an authorized instructor.
0
36. Amend Sec. 61.303 by revising the section heading and paragraphs
(a) and (b)(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 61.303 If I want to operate an aircraft that satisfies the
limitations identified in Sec. 61.316, what operating limits and
endorsement requirements in this subpart must I comply with?
(a) Use the following table to determine what operating limits and
endorsement requirements in this subpart, if any, apply to you when you
operate an aircraft that satisfies the limitations identified in Sec.
61.316. The medical certificate specified in this table must be in
compliance with Sec. 61.2 in regards to currency and validity. If you
hold a recreational pilot certificate, but not a medical certificate,
you must comply with cross country requirements in Sec. 61.101(c),
even if your flight does not exceed 50 nautical miles from your
departure airport. You must also comply with requirements in other
subparts of this part that apply to your certificate and the operation
you conduct. In the following table, when the word ``aircraft'' is
used, it refers to aircraft that satisfy the limitations identified in
Sec. 61.316.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you hold And you hold Then you may operate And
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) A medical certificate............ (i) A sport pilot Any aircraft for which You must hold any other
certificate,. you hold the endorsements required
endorsements required by this subpart, and
for its category and comply with the
class, limitations in Sec.
61.315.
(ii) At least a Any aircraft in that You do not have to hold
recreational pilot category and class,. any of the
certificate with a endorsements required
category and class by this subpart, nor
rating, do you have to comply
with the limitations
in Sec. 61.315.
(iii) At least a That aircraft, only if You must comply with
recreational pilot you hold the the limitations in
certificate but not a endorsements required Sec. 61.315, except
rating for the for Sec. 61.321 for Sec. 61.315(c)(14)
category and class of its category and and, if a private
the aircraft you class, pilot or higher, Sec.
operate, 61.315(c)(7).
(2) Only a U.S. driver's license..... (i) A sport pilot Any aircraft for which You must hold any other
certificate,. you hold the endorsements required
endorsements required by this subpart, and
for its category and comply with the
class limitations in Sec.
61.315.
(ii) At least a Any aircraft in that You do not have to hold
recreational pilot category and class,. any of the
certificate with a endorsements required
category and class by this subpart, but
rating, you must comply with
the limitations in
Sec. 61.315.
(iii) At least a That aircraft, only if You must comply with
recreational pilot you hold the the limitations in
certificate but not a endorsements required Sec. 61.315, except
rating for the in Sec. 61.321 for Sec. 61.315(c)(14)
category and class of its category and and, if a private
aircraft you operate, class, pilot or higher, Sec.
61.315(c)(7).
(3) Neither a medical certificate nor (i) A sport pilot Any glider or balloon You must hold any other
a U.S. driver's license. certificate,. for which you hold the endorsements required
endorsements required by this subpart, and
for its category and comply with the
class, limitations in Sec.
61.315.
(ii) At least a private Any glider or balloon You do not have to hold
pilot certificate with in that category and any of the
a category and class class. endorsements required
rating for glider or by this subpart, nor
balloon, do you have to comply
with the limitations
in Sec. 61.315.
(iii) At least a Any glider or balloon, You must comply with
private pilot only if you hold the the limitations in
certificate but not a endorsements required Sec. 61.315, except
rating for glider or in Sec. 61.321 for Sec. 61.315(c)(14)
balloon, its category and class and, if a private
pilot or higher, Sec.
61.315(c)(7).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) * * *
(4) Not know or have reason to know of any medical condition that
would make that person unable to operate an aircraft in a safe manner.
0
37. Revise Sec. 61.305 to read as follows:
Sec. 61.305 What are the age and language requirements for a sport
pilot certificate?
To be eligible for a sport pilot certificate you must:
(a) Be at least 17 years old (or 16 years old if you are applying
to operate a glider or balloon).
(b) Be able to read, speak, write, and understand English. If you
cannot read, speak, write, and understand English because of medical
reasons, the FAA may place limits on your certificate as are necessary
for the safe operation of aircraft.
0
38. Amend Sec. 61.307 by adding paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) to read as
follows:
Sec. 61.307 What tests do I have to take to obtain a sport pilot
certificate?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) For persons seeking a sport pilot certificate with a
rotorcraft-helicopter privilege, the applicant must complete a
practical test satisfactorily
[[Page 47732]]
demonstrating the knowledge, risk management, and skill elements for
each area of operation as specified in the Sport Pilot for Helicopter--
Simplified Flight Controls Airman Certification Standards, referenced
in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(2) FAA-S-ACS-26, Sport Pilot for Helicopter--Simplified Flight
Controls Airman Certification Standards, [date to be included], is
incorporated by reference into this section with the approval of the
Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part
51. This material is available for inspection at the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) and the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). Contact FAA at: Airman Testing Standards Branch/
Regulatory Support Division, 405-954-4151, [email protected],
faa.gov/training_testing. For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, visit archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html, or email: [email protected]. The material may be
obtained from FAA, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591,
866-835-5322, faa.gov/training_testing.
0
39. Revise Sec. 61.311 to read as follows:
Sec. 61.311 What flight proficiency requirements must I meet to apply
for a sport pilot certificate?
To apply for a sport pilot certificate, you must receive and log
ground and flight training from an authorized instructor on the
following areas of operation, as appropriate, for airplane single-
engine land or sea, glider, gyroplane, helicopter, airship, balloon,
powered parachute land or sea, weight-shift-control aircraft land or
sea privileges:
(a) Preflight preparation.
(b) Preflight procedures.
(c) Airport, heliport, seaplane base, and gliderport operations, as
applicable.
(d) Hovering maneuvers (applicable only to helicopters).
(e) Takeoffs (or launches), landings, and go-arounds.
(f) Performance maneuvers and, for gliders, performance speeds.
(g) Ground reference maneuvers (not applicable to gliders,
helicopters, and balloons).
(h) Soaring techniques (applicable only to gliders).
(i) Navigation.
(j) Slow flight (not applicable to lighter-than-air aircraft,
helicopters, and powered parachutes).
(k) Stalls (not applicable to lighter-than-air aircraft,
gyroplanes, helicopters, and powered parachutes).
(l) Emergency operations.
(m) Post-flight procedures.
0
40. Revise Sec. 61.313 to read as follows:
Sec. 61.313 What aeronautical experience must I have to apply for a
sport pilot certificate?
(a) Aeronautical experience. Use the following table to determine
the aeronautical experience you must have to apply for a sport pilot
certificate:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you are applying for a sport
pilot certificate with . . . Then you must log at least . . . Which must include at least . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Airplane category and single- 20 hours of flight time, including at (i) 2 hours of cross-country flight
engine land or sea class least 15 hours of flight training training;
privileges, from an authorized instructor in a (ii) 10 takeoffs and landings to a
single-engine airplane and at least full stop (with each landing
5 hours of solo flight training in involving a flight in the traffic
the areas of operation listed in pattern) at an airport;
Sec. 61.311, (iii) One solo cross-country flight
of at least 75 nautical miles total
distance, with a full-stop landing
at a minimum of two points and one
segment of the flight consisting of
a straight-line distance of at
least 25 nautical miles between the
takeoff and landing locations; and
(iv) 2 hours of flight training with
an authorized instructor on those
areas of operation specified in
Sec. 61.311 in preparation for
the practical test within the
preceding 2 calendar months from
the month of the test.
(2) Glider category privileges, and 10 hours of flight time in a glider, (i) Five solo launches and landings;
you have not logged at least 20 including 10 flights in a glider and
hours of flight time in a heavier- receiving flight training from an (ii) at least 3 training flights
than-air aircraft, authorized instructor and at least 2 with an authorized instructor on
hours of solo flight training in the those areas of operation specified
areas of operation listed in Sec. in Sec. 61.311 in preparation for
61.311, the practical test within the
preceding 2 calendar months from
the month of the test.
(3) Glider category privileges, and 3 hours of flight time in a glider, (i) Three solo launches and
you have logged 20 hours flight including five flights in a glider landings; and
time in a heavier-than-air while receiving flight training from (ii) at least 3 training flights
aircraft, an authorized instructor and at with an authorized instructor on
least 1 hour of solo flight training those areas of operation specified
in the areas of operation listed in in Sec. 61.311 in preparation for
Sec. 61.311, the practical test within the
preceding 2 calendar months from
the month of the test.
(4) Rotorcraft category and 20 hours of flight time, including 15 (i) 2 hours of cross-country flight
gyroplane class privileges, hours of flight training from an training;
authorized instructor in a gyroplane (ii) 10 takeoffs and landings to a
and at least 5 hours of solo flight full stop (with each landing
training in the areas of operation involving a flight in the traffic
listed in Sec. 61.311, pattern) at an airport;
(iii) One solo cross-country flight
of at least 50 nautical miles total
distance, with a full-stop landing
at a minimum of two points, and one
segment of the flight consisting of
a straight-line distance of at
least 25 nautical miles between the
takeoff and landing locations; and
(iv) 2 hours of flight training with
an authorized instructor on those
areas of operation specified in
Sec. 61.311 in preparation for
the practical test within the
preceding 2 calendar months from
the month of the test.
(5) Lighter-than-air category and 20 hours of flight time, including 15 (i) 2 hours of cross-country flight
airship class privileges, hours of flight training from an training;
authorized instructor in an airship (ii) Three takeoffs and landings to
and at least 3 hours performing the a full stop (with each landing
duties of pilot in command in an involving a flight in the traffic
airship with an authorized pattern) at an airport;
instructor in the areas of operation (iii) One cross-country flight of at
listed in Sec. 61.311, least 25 nautical miles between the
takeoff and landing locations; and
(iv) 2 hours of flight training with
an authorized instructor on those
areas of operation specified in
Sec. 61.311 in preparation for
the practical test within the
preceding 2 calendar months from
the month of the test.
(6) Lighter-than-air category and 7 hours of flight time in a balloon, (i) 2 hours of cross-country flight
balloon class privileges, including three flights with an training; and
authorized instructor and one flight (ii) 1 hours of flight training with
performing the duties of pilot in an authorized instructor on those
command in a balloon with an areas of operation specified in
authorized instructor in the areas Sec. 61.311 in preparation for
of operation listed in Sec. the practical test within the
61.311, preceding 2 calendar months from
the month of the test.
[[Page 47733]]
(7) Powered parachute category land 12 hours of flight time in a powered (i) 1 hour of cross-country flight
or sea class privileges, parachute, including 10 hours of training,
flight training from an authorized (ii) 20 takeoffs and landings to a
instructor in a powered parachute, full stop in a powered parachute
and at least 2 hours of solo flight with each landing involving flight
training in the areas of operation in the traffic pattern at an
listed in Sec. 61.311 airport;
(iii) 10 solo takeoffs and landings
to a full stop (with each landing
involving a flight in the traffic
pattern) at an airport;
(iv) One solo flight with a landing
at a different airport and one
segment of the flight consisting of
a straight-line distance of at
least 10 nautical miles between
takeoff and landing locations; and
(v) 1 hours of flight training with
an authorized instructor on those
areas of operation specified in
Sec. 61.311 in preparation for
the practical test within the
preceding 2 calendar months from
the month of the test.
(8) Weight-shift-control aircraft 20 hours of flight time, including 15 (i) 2 hours of cross-country flight
category land or sea class hours of flight training from an training;
privileges, authorized instructor in a weight- (ii) 10 takeoffs and landings to a
shift-control aircraft and at least full stop (with each landing
5 hours of solo flight training in involving a flight in the traffic
the areas of operation listed in pattern) at an airport;
Sec. 61.311, (iii) One solo cross-country flight
of at least 50 nautical miles total
distance, with a full-stop landing
at a minimum of two points, and one
segment of the flight consisting of
a straight-line distance of at
least 25 nautical miles between
takeoff and landing locations; and
(iv) 2 hours of flight training with
an authorized instructor on those
areas of operation specified in
Sec. 61.311 in preparation for
the practical test within the
preceding 2 calendar months from
the month of the test.
(9) Rotorcraft category and 30 hours of helicopter flight time, (i) 2 hours of flight training en
helicopter class, only if that including at least 15 hours of route to an airport that is located
helicopter is certificated under flight training from an authorized more than 25 nautical miles from
Sec. 21.190 of this chapter and instructor in a helicopter, and at the airport where the applicant
obtains the simplified flight least 5 hours of solo flight normally trains;
controls design designation, training in the areas of operation (ii) 3 takeoffs and landings at the
listed in Sec. 61.311, as airport located more than 25
appropriate, nautical miles from the airport
where the applicant normally
trains;
(iii) 3 hours of solo flying in the
aircraft for the privilege sought,
on the areas of operation listed in
Sec. 61.98 that apply to the
aircraft category and class
privilege sought; and
(iv) 3 hours of flight training with
an authorized instructor on those
areas of operation specified in
Sec. 61.311 in preparation for
the practical test within the
preceding 2 calendar months from
the month of the test.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Flight simulation training device and aviation training device
credit. (1) Sport pilot applicants can use up to 2.5 hours of training
credit in a qualified flight simulation training devise and aviation
training device representing the appropriate category and class of
aircraft to meet the experience requirements of this part.
(2) The training must be provided by an authorized instructor who
possesses the appropriate aircraft rating or privilege sought by the
applicant.
0
41. Amend Sec. 61.315 by revising paragraph (a), the introductory text
of paragraph (c), and paragraph (c)(5) and adding paragraph (c)(20) to
read as follows:
Sec. 61.315 What are the privileges and limits of my sport pilot
certificate?
(a) If you hold a sport pilot certificate you may act as pilot in
command of an aircraft that meets the provisions of Sec. 61.316,
except as specified in paragraph (c) of this section.
* * * * *
(c) You may not act as pilot in command of an aircraft:
* * * * *
(5) At night, except as provided in Sec. 61.329.
* * * * *
(20) If the aircraft--
(i) Has retractable landing gear, unless you have met the
requirements of Sec. 61.331(a).
(ii) Has a controllable pitch propeller, unless you have met the
requirements of Sec. 61.331(b).
0
42. Add Sec. 61.316 to read as follows:
Sec. 61.316 What are the performance limits and design requirements
for the aircraft that a sport pilot may operate?
(a) If you hold a sport pilot certificate, you may act as pilot in
command of an aircraft that, since its original certification, meets
the following requirements:
(1) A maximum stalling speed or minimum steady flight speed without
the use of lift-enhancing devices (VS1) of not more than 45
knots CAS, except for airplanes, which must have a VS1 speed
of not more than 54 knots CAS at the aircraft's maximum certificated
takeoff weight and most critical center of gravity.
(2) A maximum seating capacity of two persons, except for
airplanes, which may have a maximum seating capacity of four persons.
(3) A non-pressurized cabin, if equipped with a cabin.
(4) For powered aircraft other than powered gilders, a fixed or
ground-adjustable propeller, except as provided in paragraph (b) of
this section.
(5) For powered gliders, a fixed or feathering propeller system.
(6) For gyroplanes, a fixed-pitch, semi-rigid, teetering, two-blade
rotor system.
(7) For powered aircraft other than balloons or airships, the loss
of partial power would not adversely affect directional control of the
aircraft and the aircraft design must allow the pilot the capability of
establishing a controlled descent in the event of a partial or total
powerplant failure.
(8) For helicopters, they must be certificated with the simplified
flight controls design and designation.
(9) For a glider, fixed or retractable landing gear.
(10) For an aircraft intended for operation on water, fixed or
retractable landing gear or a hull.
(11) For powered-aircraft other than a glider or an aircraft
intended for operation on water, fixed landing gear except as provided
in paragraph (b) of this section.
[[Page 47734]]
(b) If you hold a sport pilot certificate, you may act as pilot in
command of an airplane that, since its original certification, has
retractable landing gear or a controllable pitch propeller if you have
met the training and endorsement requirements specified in Sec.
61.331.
0
43. Amend Sec. 61.321 by:
0
a. Revising the section heading and introductory text;
0
b. Removing the phrase ``light-sport aircraft'' and adding the word
``aircraft'' in their place in paragraph (a);
0
c. Revising paragraph (b);
0
d. Removing the phrase ``light-sport aircraft'' and adding the word
``aircraft'' in their place in paragraph (d); and
0
e. Adding paragraph (e).
The revision and addition read as follows:
Sec. 61.321 How do I obtain privileges to operate an additional
category or class of aircraft that satisfy the limitations identified
in Sec. 61.316?
If you hold a sport pilot certificate and seek to operate an
additional category or class of aircraft that satisfy the limitations
identified in Sec. 61.316, you must--
* * * * *
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section,
successfully complete a proficiency check from an authorized instructor
other than the instructor who trained you on the aeronautical knowledge
areas and areas of operation specified in Sec. Sec. 61.309 and 61.311
for the additional aircraft privilege you seek;
* * * * *
(e) If you are seeking to add an airplane single-engine land or sea
or a rotorcraft-helicopter privilege to your pilot certificate,
successfully accomplish a knowledge and practical test for that
category and class privilege as specified in Sec. 61.307.
0
44. Amend Sec. 61.325 by revising the section heading and introductory
text to read as follows:
Sec. 61.325 How does a sport pilot obtain privileges to operate an
aircraft at an airport within, or in airspace within, Class B, C, and D
airspace, or in other airspace with an airport having an operational
control tower?
If you hold a sport pilot certificate and seek privileges to
operate an aircraft in Class B, C, or D airspace, at an airport located
in Class B, C, or D airspace, or at an airport having an operational
control tower, you must receive and log ground and flight training. The
authorized instructor who provides this training must provide a logbook
endorsement that certifies you are proficient in the following
aeronautical knowledge areas and areas of operation:
* * * * *
0
45. Add Sec. 61.329 to read as follows:
Sec. 61.329 How do I obtain privileges to operate an aircraft at
night?
You may act as pilot in command with a sport pilot certificate
during night operations if you:
(a) Receive three hours of flight training at night from an
authorized instructor and receive a logbook endorsement from an
authorized instructor certifying that you are proficient in the
operation of the aircraft at night;
(b) Conduct at least one cross-country flight during the flight
training under paragraph (a) of this section at night, with a landing
at an airport of at least 25 nautical miles from the departure airport,
except for powered parachutes;
(c) Accomplish at least ten takeoffs and landings at night with an
authorized instructor; and
(d) Either hold a medical certificate issued under part 67 of this
chapter or, provided the pilot holds a valid U.S. driver's license,
meet the requirements of Sec. 61.23(c)(3) and conduct the operation
consistently with Sec. 61.113(i). If you are satisfying this by
meeting the requirements of Sec. 61.23(c)(3), if there is a conflict
between the requirements of this section and Sec. 61.113(i), this
section controls.
0
46. Add Sec. 61.331 to read as follows:
Sec. 61.331 How do I obtain privileges to operate an aircraft with
retractable landing gear or an airplane with a controllable pitch
propeller?
(a) If you hold a sport pilot certificate and seek privileges to
operate an aircraft with retractable landing gear, you must either--
(1) Satisfy the training and endorsement requirements specified in
Sec. 61.31(e); or
(2) Receive and log ground and flight training from an authorized
instructor in an airplane that has retractable landing gear and receive
an endorsement from the instructor certifying that you are proficient
to operate the aircraft.
(b) If you hold a sport pilot certificate and seek privileges to
operate an airplane with a controllable pitch propeller, you must
either--
(1) Satisfy the training and endorsement requirements specified in
Sec. 61.31(e); or
(2) Receive and log ground and flight training from an authorized
instructor in an airplane that has a controllable pitch propeller and
receive an endorsement from the instructor certifying that you are
proficient to operate the aircraft.
0
47. Amend Sec. 61.405 by adding paragraphs (b)(3) and (4) to read as
follows:
Sec. 61.405 What tests do I have to take to obtain a flight
instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) For persons seeking a rotorcraft-helicopter privilege, the
applicant must complete a practical test and satisfactorily demonstrate
the knowledge, risk management, and skill elements for each area of
operation specified in the Sport Flight Instructor for Helicopter--
Simplified Flight Controls Airman Certification Standards, referenced
in paragraph (b)(4) of this section.
(4) FAA-S-ACS-31, Sport Flight Instructor for Helicopter--
Simplified Flight Controls Airmen Certification Standards, [date to be
included], is incorporated by reference into this section with the
approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a)
and 1 CFR part 51. This material is available for inspection at the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). Contact FAA at: Airman Testing Standards
Branch/Regulatory Support Division, 405-954-4151,
[email protected], faa.gov/training_testing. For information on
the availability of this material at NARA, visit: archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html, or email: [email protected]. The
material may be obtained from FAA, 800 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20591, 866-835-5322, faa.gov/training_testing.
0
48. Revise Sec. 61.409 to read as follows:
Sec. 61.409 What flight proficiency requirements must I meet to apply
for a flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating?
You must receive and log ground and flight training from an
authorized instructor on the following areas of operation for the
aircraft category and class in which you seek flight instructor
privileges:
(a) Technical subject areas.
(b) Preflight preparation.
(c) Preflight lesson on a maneuver to be performed in flight.
(d) Preflight procedures.
(e) Airport, heliport, seaplane base, and gliderport operations, as
applicable.
(f) Hovering maneuvers (applicable only to helicopters).
(g) Takeoffs (or launches), landings, and go-arounds.
(h) Fundamentals of flight.
(i) Performance maneuvers and, for gliders, performance speeds
(j) Ground reference maneuvers (except for gliders, helicopters,
and lighter-than-air).
[[Page 47735]]
(k) Soaring techniques (gliders only).
(l) Slow flight (not applicable to lighter-than-air, helicopters,
and powered parachutes).
(m) Stalls (not applicable to lighter-than-air, powered parachutes,
helicopters, and gyroplanes).
(n) Spins (applicable to airplanes and gliders).
(o) Emergency operations.
(p) Tumble entry and avoidance techniques (applicable to weight-
shift-control aircraft).
(p) Special operations (helicopter only).
(q) Post-flight procedures.
0
49. Amend Sec. 61.411 by adding paragraph (h) to read as follows:
Sec. 61.411 What aeronautical experience must I have to apply for a
flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating?
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you are applying for a
flight instructor Then you must log Which must include at
certificate with a sport at least . . . least . . .
pilot rating for . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
(h) Rotorcraft category and (1) 150 hours of (i) 100 hours of
helicopter class, only if flight time as a flight time as pilot
that helicopter is pilot, in command in powered
certificated under Sec. aircraft;
21.190 of this chapter and (ii) 50 hours of
obtains the simplified flight time in a
flight controls design and helicopter;
designation, (iii) 25 hours of
cross-country flight
time;
(iv) 10 hours of cross-
country flight time
in a helicopter; and
(v) 15 hours of flight
time as pilot in
command in a
helicopter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
50. Amend Sec. 61.415 by adding paragraphs (k) through (n) to read as
follows:
Sec. 61.415 What are the limits of a flight instructor certificate
with a sport pilot rating?
* * * * *
(k) You cannot carry more than one person.
(l) You may not provide training in an airplane with a controllable
pitch propeller or an aircraft with a retractable landing gear unless
you have received training and an instructor endorsement validating
proficiency in the safe operation of these types of aircraft.
(m) You may not provide training in an aircraft that has the
simplified flight controls design and designation unless you have
received the model-specific flight training and an endorsement from an
authorized instructor validating proficiency in the safe operation of
these aircraft.
(n) You may not provide training in an aircraft at night unless you
have completed the night experience and instructor endorsement
requirements listed in Sec. 61.329.
0
51. Amend Sec. 61.419 by:
0
a. Revising the section heading;
0
b. Removing the phrase ``light-sport aircraft'' and adding the word
``aircraft'' in their place from the introductory text;
0
c. Revising paragraph (b); and
0
d. Adding paragraph (e).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 61.419 How do I obtain privileges to provide training in an
additional category or class of aircraft?
* * * * *
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section,
successfully complete a proficiency check from an authorized instructor
other than the instructor who trained you on the areas specified in
Sec. 61.409 for the additional category and class flight instructor
privilege you seek;
* * * * *
(e) If you are seeking to add an airplane single-engine land or sea
or a rotorcraft-helicopter privilege to your flight instructor
certificate, successfully accomplish a knowledge and practical test for
that category and class privilege as specified in Sec. 61.405.
0
52. Amend Sec. 61.429 by adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 61.429 May I exercise the privileges of a flight instructor
certificate with a sport pilot rating if I hold a flight instructor
certificate with another rating?
* * * * *
(d) If you want to exercise the privileges of your flight
instructor certificate in a model-specific aircraft that has a
simplified flight controls designation, you must meet the training and
endorsement requirements specified in Sec. 61.31(l) prior to providing
any flight training in that aircraft.
PART 65--CERTIFICATION: AIRMEN OTHER THAN FLIGHT CREWMEMBERS
0
53. The authority citation for part 65 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701-44703, 44707,
44709-44711, 45102-45103, 45301-45302.
0
54. Amend Sec. 65.15 by revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (d) to read
as follows:
Sec. 65.15 Duration of certificates.
(a) Except for repairman certificates issued in accordance with
Sec. 65.101, a certificate or rating issued under this part is
effective until it is surrendered, suspended, or revoked.
(b) Unless it is sooner surrendered, suspended, or revoked, a
repairman certificate issued in accordance with Sec. 65.101 is
effective until the holder is relieved from the duties for which the
holder was employed and certificated.
* * * * *
(d) Except for temporary certificates issued under Sec. 65.13, the
holder of a paper certificate issued under this part may not exercise
the privileges of that certificate.
0
55. Amend Sec. 65.23 by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 65.23 Incorporation by reference.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(2) FAA-S-ACS-1, Aviation Mechanic General, Airframe, and
Powerplant Airman Certification Standards, November 1, 2021; IBR
approved for Sec. Sec. 65.75, 65.79, and 65.107.
* * * * *
0
56. Revise Sec. 65.81 to read as follows:
Sec. 65.81 General privileges and limitations.
(a) A certificated mechanic may perform or supervise the
maintenance, preventive maintenance or alteration of an aircraft or
appliance, or a part thereof, for which that person is rated (but
excluding major repairs to, and major alterations of, propellers, and
any repair to, or alteration of, instruments), and may perform
additional duties in accordance with Sec. Sec. 65.85, 65.87, and
65.95. However, a certificated mechanic may not supervise the
maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alteration of, or approve for
return to service, any aircraft or appliance, or part thereof, for
which that person is rated unless that person has satisfactorily
performed the work concerned at an earlier date. If that person has not
so performed that work at an earlier date, that person may show the
ability to do it by performing it to the satisfaction of the
Administrator or
[[Page 47736]]
under the direct supervision of a certificated and appropriately rated
mechanic, or a certificated repairman, who has had previous experience
in the specific operation concerned.
(b) A certificated mechanic may not exercise the privileges of that
person's certificate and rating unless that person understands the
current instructions of the manufacturer, and the maintenance manuals,
for the specific operation concerned.
0
57. Revise Sec. 65.85 to read as follows:
Sec. 65.85 Airframe rating; additional privileges.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, a
certificated mechanic with an airframe rating may approve for return to
service an airframe, or any related part or appliance, after that
person has performed, supervised, or inspected its maintenance or
alteration (excluding major repairs and major alterations). In
addition, a certificated mechanic with an airframe rating may perform
the 100-hour inspection required by part 91 of this chapter on an
airframe, or any related part or appliance, and approve for return to
service.
(b) A certificated mechanic with an airframe rating can approve for
return to service an airframe, or any related part or appliance, of an
aircraft with a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport
category after performing and inspecting a major repair or major
alteration for products that are not produced under an FAA approval
provided the major repair or major alteration was authorized by, and
performed in accordance with instructions developed by, the
manufacturer or a person acceptable to the FAA.
0
58. Revise Sec. 65.87 to read as follows:
Sec. 65.87 Powerplant rating; additional privileges.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, a
certificated mechanic with a powerplant rating may approve for return
to service a powerplant or propeller or any related part or appliance,
after that person has performed, supervised, or inspected its
maintenance or alteration (excluding major repairs and major
alterations). In addition, a certificated mechanic with a powerplant
rating may perform the 100-hour inspection required by part 91 of this
chapter on a powerplant or propeller, or any part thereof, and approve
and for return it service.
(b) A certificated mechanic with a powerplant rating can approve
for return to service a powerplant or propeller, or any related part or
appliance, of an aircraft with a special airworthiness certificate in
the light-sport category after performing and inspecting a major repair
or major alteration for products that are not produced under an FAA
approval, provided the major repair or major alteration was authorized
by, and performed in accordance with instructions developed by, the
manufacturer or a person acceptable to the FAA.
0
59. Amend Sec. 65.103 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 65.103 Repairman certificate: Privileges and limitations.
* * * * *
(c) This section does not apply to the holder of a repairman
certificate (experimental aircraft builder) issued in accordance with
Sec. 65.104 or to the holder of a repairman certificate (light-sport)
issued in accordance with Sec. 65.107, while that repairman is
performing work under that certificate.
0
60. Revise Sec. 65.107 to read as follows:
Sec. 65.107 Repairman certificate (light-sport): Eligibility and
training courses.
(a) Ratings. The following ratings may be issued on a repairman
certificate (light-sport) under this section:
(1) Inspection rating.
(2) Maintenance rating.
(b) Eligibility requirements: General. To be eligible for a
repairman certificate (light-sport), a person must:
(1) Be at least 18 years old;
(2) Be able to read, speak, write, and understand English;
(3) Be a citizen of the U.S. or a citizen of a foreign country who
has been lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the U.S.;
(4) Demonstrate the requisite skill to determine whether the
aircraft is in a condition for safe operation;
(5) Complete a training course pursuant to paragraph (c) or (d) of
this section, as applicable to the rating sought; and
(6) Pass a written test administered by the training course
provider that covers the contents of the course pursuant to paragraph
(c) or (d) of this section, applicable to the rating sought.
(c) Eligibility requirements: Repairman certificate (light-sport)
with an inspection rating. To obtain an inspection rating on a
repairman (light-sport) certificate, a person must satisfactorily
complete, and present documentary evidence satisfactory to the
Administrator of, a 16-hour training course accepted by the
Administrator on inspecting the category of experimental aircraft for
which the person intends to exercise the privileges of the rating.
(d) Eligibility requirements: Repairman certificate (light-sport)
with a maintenance rating. To obtain a maintenance rating on a
repairman (light-sport) certificate, a person must satisfactorily
complete, and present documentary evidence satisfactory to the
Administrator of completion of, a training course accepted by the
Administrator appropriate to the category of aircraft for which the
person intends to exercise the privileges of the rating.
(1) Until [DATE SIX MONTHS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], the
training course must provide the following number of hours of
instruction for the applicable privileges:
(i) For airplane privileges--120-hours;
(ii) For weight-shift control aircraft privileges--104 hours;
(iii) For powered parachute privileges--104 hours;
(iv) For lighter than air privileges--80 hours; and
(v) For glider privileges--80 hours; or
(2) The training course must include, at a minimum, the knowledge,
risk management, and skill elements for each subject contained in the
Aviation Mechanic General, Airframe, and Powerplant Airman
Certification Standards (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 65.23),
as appropriate to the category of aircraft for which the person intends
to exercise the privileges of the rating.
(e) Training course providers. The training course described in
paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section must be delivered using
facilities, equipment, and materials appropriate to the training course
content taught and must be delivered by instructors that are
appropriately qualified to teach the course content. After a student
completes the training and passes the written test, the training course
provider must provide a certificate of completion to the student
indicating the name of the training provider, the FAA course acceptance
number, the rating applicable to the training course, the category of
aircraft the training was based on, and the date of training
completion.
0
61. Effective [DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL
RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], amend Sec. 65.107 further by revising
paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 65.107 Repairman certificate (light-sport): Eligibility and
training courses.
* * * * *
(d) Eligibility requirements: Repairman certificate (light-sport)
with a maintenance rating. To obtain a
[[Page 47737]]
maintenance rating on a repairman (light-sport) certificate, a person
must satisfactorily complete, and present documentary evidence
satisfactory to the Administrator of, a training course accepted by the
Administrator appropriate to the category of aircraft for which the
person intends to exercise the privileges of the rating. The course
must include, at a minimum, the knowledge, risk management, and skill
elements for each subject contained in the Aviation Mechanic General,
Airframe, and Powerplant Airman Certification Standards (incorporated
by reference, see Sec. 65.23).
* * * * *
0
62. Add Sec. 65.109 to subpart E to read as follows:
Sec. 65.109 Repairman certificate (light-sport): Privileges and
limitations.
(a) The holder of a repairman certificate (light-sport) with an
inspection rating may perform the annual condition inspection on an
aircraft:
(1) That is owned by the holder;
(2) That has an experimental certificate for the purpose of
operating light-sport category aircraft under Sec. 21.191(i) of this
chapter or operating light-sport category kit-built aircraft under
Sec. 21.191(j) of this chapter, or an aircraft that does not meet the
provision of Sec. 103.1 of this chapter and that has an experimental
certificate for the purpose of operating light-sport that was issued on
or before January 31, 2008; and
(3) That is in the same category of aircraft for which the holder
has completed the training specified in Sec. 65.107(c).
(b) The holder of a repairman certificate (light-sport) with a
maintenance rating may--
(1) Approve for return to service an aircraft that has been issued
a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category under
Sec. 21.190 of this chapter, or any part thereof, after performing or
inspecting maintenance (to include the annual condition inspection and
the 100-hour inspection required by Sec. 91.327 of this chapter),
preventive maintenance, or an alteration (excluding a major repair or a
major alteration on a product produced under an FAA approval);
(2) Perform the annual condition inspection on an aircraft that has
an experimental certificate for the purpose of operating light-sport
category aircraft under Sec. 21.191(i) of this chapter or operating
light-sport category kit-built aircraft under Sec. 21.191(j) of this
chapter, or an aircraft that does not meet the provision of Sec. 103.1
of this chapter and that has an experimental certificate for the
purpose of operating light-sport that was issued on or before January
31, 2008; and
(3) Only perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, and an
alteration on an aircraft that is in the same category of aircraft for
which the holder has completed the training specified in Sec.
65.107(d). Before performing a major repair, the holder must complete
additional training acceptable to the FAA and appropriate to the repair
performed.
(c) The holder of a repairman certificate (light-sport) with a
maintenance rating may not approve for return to service any aircraft
or part thereof unless that person has previously performed the work
concerned satisfactorily. If that person has not previously performed
that work, the person may show the ability to do the work by performing
it to the satisfaction of the FAA, or by performing it under the direct
supervision of a certificated and appropriately rated mechanic, or a
certificated repairman, who has had previous experience in the specific
operation concerned. The repairman may not exercise the privileges of
the certificate unless the repairman understands the current
instructions of the manufacturer and the maintenance manuals for the
specific operation concerned.
PART 91--GENERAL OPERATING REQUIREMENTS AND FLIGHT RULES
0
63. The authority citation for part 91 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40101, 40103, 40105, 40113,
40120, 44101, 44111, 44701, 44704, 44709, 44711, 44712, 44715,
44716, 44717, 44722, 44740, 46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506-46507,
47122, 47508, 47528-47531, 47534; Pub. L. 114-190, 130 Stat. 615 (49
U.S.C. 44703 note); articles 12 and 29 of the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, 61 Stat. 1180; Pub. L. 112-95, 126
Stat. 11.
0
64. Amend Sec. 91.113 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (d)(2) and (3); and
0
b. Removing the undesignated paragraph following paragraph (d)(2).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 91.113 Right-of-way rules: Except water operations.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) A glider has the right-of-way over powered aircraft.
(3) An airship has the right-of-way over all other powered
aircraft. However, an aircraft towing or refueling other aircraft has
the right-of-way over all other powered aircraft.
* * * * *
0
65. Amend Sec. 91.126 by revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) to read as
follows:
Sec. 91.126 Operating on or in the vicinity of an airport in Class G
airspace.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Each pilot of a powered fixed wing aircraft and powered-lift
aircraft operating in wing-borne flight mode must make all turns to the
left unless the airport displays approved light signals or visual
markings indicating that turns should be made to the right, in which
case the pilot must make all turns to the right; and
(2) Each pilot of any other aircraft must avoid the flow of the
aircraft specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
* * * * *
0
66. Amend Sec. 91.309 by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 91.309 Towing: Gliders and unpowered ultralight vehicles.
(a) * * *
(2) The towing aircraft has:
(i) A standard airworthiness certificate and is equipped with a
tow-hitch of a kind, and installed in a manner, that is approved by the
Administrator;
(ii) A special airworthiness certificate for which a type
certificate has been issued, and is equipped with a tow-hitch of a
kind, and installed in a manner, that is approved or otherwise
authorized by the Administrator; or
(iii) A special airworthiness certificate, for which the aircraft
has not been previously issued a type certificate, and is equipped with
a tow-hitch of a kind that is approved or otherwise acceptable to, and
is installed in a manner acceptable to, the Administrator;
* * * * *
0
67. Amend Sec. 91.319 by revising paragraphs (a) introductory text and
(c) and adding paragraph (k) to read as follows:
Sec. 91.319 Aircraft having experimental certificates: Operating
limitations.
(a) Except as specified in paragraph (k) of this section, no person
may operate an aircraft that has an experimental certificate--
* * * * *
(c) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator in operating
limitations, no person may operate an aircraft that has a certificate
issued under Sec. 21.191 of
[[Page 47738]]
this chapter over a densely populated area.
* * * * *
(k) A person may operate an aircraft issued an experimental
certificate to conduct a space support vehicle flight carrying persons
or property for compensation or hire provided the operation is
conducted in accordance with Sec. 91.331.
* * * * *
0
68. Effective [DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL
RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], amend Sec. 91.319 further by adding
paragraph (l) to read as follows:
Sec. 91.319 Aircraft having experimental certificates: Operating
limitations.
* * * * *
(l) No person may operate an aircraft issued an experimental
certificate under Sec. 21.191(i) or (j) of this chapter after the
performance of an alteration accomplished after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE
FINAL RULE], unless that aircraft has demonstrated compliance with the
applicable requirements of part 36 of this chapter.
* * * * *
0
69. Effective [DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL
RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], amend Sec. 91.327 by:
0
a. Revising the section heading and paragraphs (a), (b)(1), (4), (5),
and (6), (c) introductory text, and (c)(1);
0
b. Redesignating paragraph (f) as paragraph (g); and
0
c. Adding a new paragraph (f).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 91.327 Aircraft issued a special airworthiness certificate in
the light-sport category: Operating limitations.
(a) No person may operate an aircraft that has a special
airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category for compensation
or hire except--
(1) To tow a glider or an unpowered ultralight vehicle in
accordance with Sec. 91.309;
(2) To conduct flight training; or
(3) To conduct any aerial work operations specified in the
aircraft's pilot operating handbook or operating limitations, as
applicable, and specified in the aircraft's statement of compliance, in
accordance with Sec. 21.190 of this chapter.
(b) * * *
(1) The aircraft is maintained by a certificated repairman (light-
sport aircraft) with a maintenance rating, an appropriately rated
mechanic, or an appropriately rated repair station in accordance with
the applicable provisions of part 43 of this chapter and maintenance
and inspection procedures developed by the aircraft manufacturer or
other maintenance and inspection procedures acceptable to the FAA;
* * * * *
(4) The aircraft has demonstrated compliance with the applicable
requirements of part 36 of this chapter;
(5) Each minor repair or minor alteration to an aircraft meets the
applicable and current FAA-accepted consensus standards specified in
the statement of compliance submitted to the FAA for the aircraft;
(6) Each major repair or major alteration is authorized by the
manufacturer or a person acceptable to the FAA, and is performed and
inspected in accordance with maintenance and inspection procedures
developed by the manufacturer or a person acceptable to the FAA; and
* * * * *
(c) No person may operate an aircraft issued a special
airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category to tow a glider
or unpowered ultralight vehicle for compensation or hire or conduct
flight training for compensation or hire in an aircraft which that
person provides unless within the preceding 100 hours of time in
service the aircraft has--
(1) Been inspected by a certificated repairman (light-sport) with a
maintenance rating, an appropriately rated mechanic, or an
appropriately rated repair station in accordance with inspection
procedures developed by the aircraft manufacturer or maintenance and
inspection procedures acceptable to the FAA and been approved for
return to service in accordance with part 43 of this chapter; or
* * * * *
(f) No person may operate an aircraft certificated in the light-
sport category to carry--
(1) More than four occupants, including the pilot, if the aircraft
is an airplane; or
(2) More than two occupants, including the pilot, if the aircraft
is other than an airplane.
* * * * *
0
70. Add Sec. 91.331 to read as follows:
Sec. 91.331 Space support vehicle flights: Operating limitations.
(a) A person may operate an aircraft to conduct a space support
vehicle flight carrying persons or property for compensation or hire
provided--
(1) The aircraft has a special airworthiness certificate issued
under Sec. 21.191 of this chapter to operate the aircraft for the
purpose of conducting a space support vehicle flight.
(2) The aircraft conducting the space support vehicle flight--
(i) Takes flight and lands at a single launch or reentry site that
is operated by an entity licensed to operate the launch or reentry site
under 51 U.S.C. chapter 509;
(ii) Is owned or operated by a launch or reentry vehicle operator
licensed under 51 U.S.C. chapter 509, or on behalf of a launch or
reentry vehicle operator licensed under 51 U.S.C. chapter 509;
(iii) Is a launch vehicle, a reentry vehicle, or a component of a
launch or reentry vehicle licensed for operations pursuant to 51 U.S.C.
chapter 509; and
(iv) Is used only to simulate space flight conditions in support
of--
(A) Training for potential space flight participants, government
astronauts, or crew (as those terms are defined in 51 U.S.C. chapter
509);
(B) The testing of hardware to be used in space flight; or
(C) Research and development tasks, which require the unique
capabilities of the aircraft conducting the flight.
(b) The Administrator may prescribe additional operating
limitations that the Administrator considers necessary in the interest
of safety.
0
71. Amend Sec. 91.409 by revising paragraph (c)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 91.409 Inspections
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) An aircraft that carries a special flight permit, a current
experimental certificate, a light sport, or provisional airworthiness
certificate;
* * * * *
0
72. Amend Sec. 91.417 by revising paragraph (a)(2)(v) to read as
follows:
Sec. 91.417 Maintenance records.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(v) The current status of applicable airworthiness directives (AD)
including, for each, the method of compliance, the AD number and
revision date. If the AD involves recurring action, the time and date
when the next action is required.
* * * * *
PART 119--CERTIFICATION: AIR CARRIERS AND COMMERCIAL OPERATIONS
0
73. The authority citation for part 119 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Pub. L. 111-216, sec. 215 (August 1, 2010); 49 U.S.C.
106(f), 106(g), 1153, 40101, 40102, 40103, 40113, 44105, 44106,
44111, 44701-44717, 44722, 44901, 44903, 44904, 44906, 44912, 44914,
44936, 44938, 46103, 46105.
[[Page 47739]]
0
74. Amend Sec. 119.1 by:
0
a. Removing the word ``or'' at the end of paragraph (e)(10);
0
b. Removing the period at the end of paragraph (e)(11) and adding ``;
or'' in its place; and
0
c. Adding paragraph (e)(12).
The addition reads as follows:
Sec. 119.1 Applicability.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(12) Space support vehicle flights conducted under the provisions
of Sec. 91.331 of this chapter.
Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a),
and 44703 in Washington, DC.
Lirio Liu,
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-14425 Filed 7-19-23; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P