[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 141 (Tuesday, July 23, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59602-59610]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-15924]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 61

[Docket No. FAA-2023-2083; Amdt. No. 61-154]
RIN 2120-AL89


Robinson Helicopter R-22 and R-44 Special Training and Experience 
Requirements

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this final rule, the FAA revises the Special Federal 
Aviation Regulation No. 73--Robinson R 22/R-44 Special Training and 
Experience Requirements to provide consistency with other FAA 
regulatory requirements, training, and Airman Certification Standards 
and Practical Test Standards. This final rule removes the low gravity 
flight instruction requirement to align this Special Federal Aviation 
Regulation with current aircraft placard requirements and the 
limitations section of the Robinson Helicopter Company Rotorcraft 
Flight Manual/Pilot Operating Handbook set forth by Airworthiness 
Directives. The FAA amends certain terminology in this Special Federal 
Aviation Regulation to mirror the Helicopter Flying Handbook, Airman 
Certification Standards, and Practical Test Standards. This final rule 
also clarifies the awareness training endorsement and flight review 
requirements for less experienced pilots, removes legacy dates, and 
updates the applicability section to include ground and flight 
training, including flight reviews provided by flight instructors. 
Finally, the FAA adds an expiration date to the Special Federal 
Aviation Regulation to allow the FAA time to review and refine the R-22 
and R-44 requirements for ground training, aeronautical experience, 
including flight training, and flight reviews, before permanently 
adopting them into an independent separate subchapter.

DATES: Effective August 22, 2024.

ADDRESSES: For information on where to obtain copies of rulemaking 
documents and other information related to this final rule, see ``How 
to Obtain Additional Information'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 
section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cara M. Barbera, Training and 
Certification Group, General Aviation and Commercial Division, Federal 
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 
20591; telephone (202) 267-1100; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
    A. Overview of Regulatory Action
    C. Summary of the Costs and Benefits
II. Authority for This Rulemaking
III. Background
    A. History
    D. AD 95-11-09 (R-22) and AD 95-11-10 (R-44) Low G Cyclic 
Pushover Prohibition Background
    C. Summary of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
    D. General Overview of Comments
IV. Discussion of Comments and the Final Rule
    A. Support for the Rule
    B. Suggested Changes to the Rule
V. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
    A. Regulatory Impact Analysis
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. International Trade Impact Assessment
    D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment
    E. Paperwork Reduction Act
    F. International Compatibility
    G. Environmental Analysis
VI. Executive Order Determinations
    A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
    B. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    C. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    D. Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory 
Cooperation
VII. Additional Information
    A. Electronic Access and Filing
    B. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

I. Executive Summary

A. Overview of Regulatory Action

    Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) No. 73, found in part 61 
of title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, addresses Robinson 
Helicopter Company R-22 and R-44 special training and experience 
requirements. SFAR No. 73 currently requires flight training on the 
effects of low gravity (low G) maneuvers and proper recovery 
procedures. However, because of the inherent danger in performing low 
gravity maneuvers, Airworthiness Directives 95-11-09 \1\ and 95-11-10 
\2\ prohibit intentionally inducing low gravity flight in Robinson 
Helicopter Company model R-22 and R-44 helicopters, contrary to certain 
requirements in the current SFAR requiring dual instruction (flight 
instruction) on the effects of low G maneuvers and proper recovery 
procedures. Therefore, this final rule removes the requirement in the 
SFAR to perform low gravity maneuvers during flight training due to 
safety concerns. However, low gravity hazards will continue to be 
addressed in ground training. Additionally, this final rule replaces 
the term ``awareness training'' with ``ground training.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See AD 95-11-09, Robinson Helicopter Company Model R22 
Helicopters (Jul. 14, 1995), https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/AB0E6D73A5A548F186256A4D006126BD.0001.
    \2\ See AD 95-11-10, Robinson Helicopter Company Model R44 
Helicopters (Jul. 14, 1995), https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/FED1D31B434F466E86256A4D00613579.0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, this final rule updates SFAR No. 73 to align its 
terminology with other regulations and publications. Certain 
terminology used in the current SFAR is neither defined nor used in the 
same context as found in the Helicopter Flying Handbook (HFH),\3\ 
Airman Certification Standards, Practical Test Standards,\4\ and part 
61. Specifically, updating the terms ``awareness,'' ``certified/
certificated flight instructor,'' and ``blade stall'' provides 
consistency with part 61 terms and definitions without impacting 
preexisting requirements. In addition, the final rule replaces the term 
``enhanced'' with more specific language detailing how to satisfy 
autorotation training in an R-22 and/or R-44 helicopter. The 
terminology changes do not require updates to endorsements, websites, 
or other publications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Helicopter Flying Handbook, FAA-H-8083-21B (2019) 
https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/helicopter_flying_handbook/helicopter_flying_handbook.pdf.
    \4\ See Airman Certification Standards and Practical Test 
Standards https://www.faa.gov/training_testing/testing/acs. The FAA 
notes that the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (88 FR 71509, 
October 17, 2023) to this final rule only referred to alignment with 
the Practical Test Standards (PTSs), as no helicopter PTSs had 
transitioned to Airman Certification Standards (ACSs) yet. However, 
on April 1, 2024, the FAA issued a final rule incorporating the ACSs 
and PTSs, which included four newly published helicopter ACSs for: 
commercial pilot certificate, private pilot certificate, instrument 
rating, and flight instructor certificate. See 89 FR 22482.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, this final rule aligns certain provisions pertaining to 
applicability, ground training, and flight reviews. First, this 
rulemaking revises the applicability section in SFAR No. 73 by 
including applicability to flight

[[Page 59603]]

instructors who conduct ground training, flight training, or a flight 
review. Second, the final rule clarifies the current model 
applicability endorsement within the ground training requirements. 
Third, this final rule refines the formatting of the aeronautical 
experience flight review requirements for less experienced pilots.
    Finally, this final rule adds a five-year expiration date to SFAR 
No. 73. This allows the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) time to 
review and refine the requirements for R-22 and R-44 helicopters for 
eventual movement into a permanent location in title 14 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations, chapter I.
    To note, this final rule does not impose any additional 
requirements to the current regulations and practice, nor does it 
render current requirements less restrictive. Rather, the changes more 
clearly identify the current requirements for persons seeking to 
manipulate the flight controls, act as pilot in command, provide ground 
training or flight training, or conduct a flight review in a Robinson 
Helicopter Company model R-22 or R-44 helicopter that are unique to 
SFAR No. 73, and are not otherwise included in part 61.
    After reviewing the comments received on the NPRM, the FAA did not 
make any changes to the final rule.

C. Summary of the Costs and Benefits

    The final rule promotes safety without imposing costs by clarifying 
existing requirements, eliminating inconsistencies, and updating 
language. Thus, the FAA has determined that this final rule will have 
minimal economic effects.

II. Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in 
title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, section 106 describes 
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation 
Programs, describes the scope of the FAA's authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in 
subtitle VII, part A, subpart iii, section 44701, General Requirements. 
Under these sections, the FAA prescribes regulations and minimum 
standards for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator 
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This rulemaking is within 
the scope of that authority.

III. Background

A. History

    The regulation at 14 CFR part 61 provides certification 
requirements for pilots, flight instructors, and ground instructors. 
Subparts C through G of part 61 contain training requirements for 
applicants seeking rotorcraft category and helicopter class ratings. 
These requirements do not address specific types or models of 
rotorcraft. However, in 1995, the FAA determined that specific training 
and experience requirements were necessary for the safe operation of 
Robinson Helicopter Company (Robinson) model R-22 and R-44 
helicopters.\5\ \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Robinson R-22/R-44 Special Training and Experience 
Requirements, 60 FR 11254 (Mar. 27, 1995).
    \6\ The FAA notes that such an action to address additional 
training and experience for a type of aircraft is not unique. For 
example, the FAA initially created an SFAR and later codified 
regulations specific to the Mitsubishi MU-2B to ensure safe 
operation. See 81 FR 61584.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The R-22 helicopter is a two-seat, reciprocating engine-powered 
helicopter frequently used in initial student pilot training. The R-22 
is one of the smallest helicopters in its class and incorporates a 
unique cyclic control and teetering rotor system. The R-44 is a four-
seat helicopter with operating characteristics and design features that 
are similar to the R-22. Certain aerodynamic and design features of 
these aircraft result in specific flight characteristics that require 
particular pilot knowledge and responsiveness to operate these models 
safely.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See 60 FR 11254.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA issued a type certificate to Robinson in 1979. However, as 
explained in the 1995 final rule, the R-22 had a high number of fatal 
accidents due to main rotor/airframe contact when compared to other 
piston powered helicopters. In its analysis of accident data, the FAA 
found that many of those accidents were attributed to pilot performance 
or inexperience, where low rotor revolutions per minute (RPM) or low G 
conditions caused mast bumping or main rotor-airframe contact 
accidents.
    Therefore, the FAA determined additional specific pilot training 
was necessary for the safe operation of these helicopters as part of a 
comprehensive program that responded to a high number of accidents.\8\ 
Furthermore, the R-44 had also been recently certified, and the FAA was 
concerned that the R-44 would experience the same frequency of 
accidents because of its similar design to the R-22. Accordingly, the 
FAA issued SFAR No. 73, which addressed pilot training and requirements 
for flight instructors and continued flight reviews in the specific 
model to be flown.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Other elements of this program included addressing design 
and operational issues, cited by the National Transportation Safety 
Board (NTSB) as possible contributing factors in some of the 
accidents.
    \9\ See 60 FR 11254.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While accidents in the R-22 and R-44 helicopters have declined 
markedly since SFAR No. 73 was issued, the NTSB recommended the FAA 
ensure that SFAR No. 73, the Flight Standards Board specifications, and 
the Airworthiness Directives (ADs) applicable to the operation of the 
R-22 and R-44 be made permanent.\10\ According to a special 
investigation report the NTSB issued on April 2, 1996, the special 
operating rules for flight instructors and students and low-experience 
and non-proficient pilots must continue to ensure the safe operation of 
these helicopter models.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See National Transportation Safety Board, Special 
Investigation Report, Robinson Helicopter Company R22 Loss of Main 
Rotor Control Accidents, Adopted April 2, 1996, https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SIR9603.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the NPRM,\11\ in 2021, the FAA formed a Safety Risk 
Management (SRM) Team to perform an assessment of SFAR No. 73 to, 
first, analyze hazards associated with operating and training pursuant 
to SFAR No. 73 and, second, to determine whether the SFAR effectively 
controls risk or is no longer needed. The SRM Team's analysis resulted 
in six proposed modifications of the Robinson Helicopter R-22 and R-44 
Special Training and Experience Requirements, which may be found in the 
docket to this rulemaking.\12\ The SRM recommended the FAA: determine 
which elements of SFAR No. 73 currently mitigate hazards and should be 
retained or are no longer required; develop permanent regulatory 
requirements; determine actions required for SFAR 73 requirements that 
are not captured in rulemaking; ensure implementation of the SRM 
recommendations consider limitation in AD 95-26-04; \13\ add an 
expiration date to the SFAR (should it remain in place); and, perform a 
gap analysis of the SFAR and the SRM recommendations. The SRM 
recommendation regarding the development of permanent regulatory 
requirements specifies that changes made to experience and endorsements 
be driven by the evaluation of data related to the instructor 
requirements,

[[Page 59604]]

solo experience, and pilot-in-command (PIC) requirements for the 
Robinson R-44 model.\14\ Although the SRM process is separate, some of 
the SRM Team's assessment has supported this rulemaking effort, which 
is reflected in this final rule. Items that would impact substantive 
requirements for special training or experience established by this 
SFAR do not fall under the scope of this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 88 FR 71510.
    \12\ See Final Report for the SFAR 73, Robinson R-22/R-44 
Special Training and Experience Requirements Safety Risk Assessment 
(May 13, 2022), https://www.regulations.gov/document/FAA-2023-2083-0002.
    \13\ See AD 95-26-04, Robinson Helicopter Company Model R22 
Helicopters (January 1, 1996), https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/91BE0874983FB92686256A4D0061449D.0001.
    \14\ As discussed in this preamble, this final rule adds an 
expiration date to the SFAR as a first step in facilitating a 
permanent rulemaking of R-22 and R-44 training requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since SFAR No. 73 was published, Robinson model R-22 and R-44 
helicopters have continued to operate throughout the world. Although 
other international civil aviation authorities have taken different 
approaches to implementing pilot certification standards, Robinson 
makes advisory material and safety alerts available to all operators 
worldwide.\15\ Additionally, safety notices, available both in the 
Pilot's Operating Handbook/Rotorcraft Flight Manual (POH/RFM) \16\ and 
on the Robinson website, emphasize subject matter found in SFAR No. 73. 
Although these notices are not regulatory in nature, they provide 
guidance and recommended practices to operators for all Robinson 
helicopters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Robinson Helicopter Company Safety Notices, https://robinsonheli.com/robinson-safety-notices/.
    \16\ See Robinson Helicopter Company POH/FRM https://robinsonheli.com/current-status/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. AD 95-11-09 (R-22) and AD 95-11-10 (R-44) Low G Cyclic Pushover 
Prohibition Background

    SFAR No. 73 consists of ground and flight training requirements, 
including low G flight training.\17\ However, shortly after the initial 
adoption of the SFAR in 1995, the FAA prohibited intentionally inducing 
low G flight in R-22 and R-44 helicopters due to the inherent risk in 
performing those maneuvers through ADs 95-11-09 (R-22) \18\ and 95-11-
10 (R-44).\19\ That action was prompted by FAA analysis of the 
manufacturer's data that indicated a low G cyclic pushover maneuver may 
result in mast-bumping on the Robinson model R-22 helicopters. If 
uncorrected, this condition could result in an in-flight main rotor 
separation or contact between the main rotor blades and the airframe of 
the helicopter and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. The 
FAA found this condition could also occur in a Robinson model R-44 
helicopter due to the similar operating characteristics and design 
features. The ADs require the installation of placards in the 
helicopter and the insertion of a prohibition against low G cyclic 
pushover maneuvers into the limitations section of the RFM/POH.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See 14 CFR part 61, Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 
73--Robinson R-22/R-44 Special Training and Experience Requirements.
    \18\ See AD 95-11-09, Robinson Helicopter Company Model R22 
Helicopters (Jul. 14, 1995), https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/AB0E6D73A5A548F186256A4D006126BD.0001.
    \19\ See AD 95-11-10, Robinson Helicopter Company Model R44 
Helicopters (Jul. 14, 1995), https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/FED1D31B434F466E86256A4D00613579.0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Summary of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    On October 17, 2023, the FAA published an NPRM that proposed to 
update SFAR No. 73, Robinson R-22/R-44 Special Training and Experience 
Requirements, to provide consistency with other FAA regulatory 
requirements, training, and testing publications.\20\ Specifically, the 
NPRM proposed to remove the low G dual flight instruction requirement 
to align the SFAR with current aircraft placard requirements and the 
limitations section of the RFM/POH set forth by ADs. Although the FAA 
proposed to remove the requirement for flight training on the effects 
of low G maneuvers and proper recovery procedures under paragraph 2(b) 
of SFAR No. 73 (aeronautical experience), the FAA proposed to continue 
to require low G maneuvers and proper recovery procedures as a ground 
training (currently referred to as ``awareness training'') subject area 
under paragraph 2(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Robinson Helicopter R-22 and R-44 Special Training and 
Experience Requirements, 88 FR 71509 (Oct. 17, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NPRM also proposed to update the SFAR to mirror the terminology 
currently used in part 61, the Helicopter Flying Handbook, Airman 
Certification Standards, and Practical Test Standards. First, paragraph 
2(a) of SFAR No. 73 currently uses the term ``awareness training'' to 
distinguish ground training requirements from aeronautical experience 
requirements, which does not have a part 61 definition. Conversely, 
ground training is defined in Sec.  61.1(b) as ``training, other than 
flight training, received from an authorized instructor.'' Therefore, 
the FAA proposed to replace the term ``awareness training'' in 
paragraph 2(a) with ``ground training.'' \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ As discussed in the NPRM, upon effectivity of this final 
rule, the FAA will interpret endorsements, websites, or other 
publications and documents that use the term ``awareness training'' 
as synonymous with the term ``ground training'' as defined in 14 CFR 
61.1(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, part 61 does not define the term ``enhanced.'' In the 
context of the SFAR, the FAA intends ``enhanced'' to mean different 
autorotation iterations. However, the term lacks sufficient specificity 
to adequately inform the regulated community what autorotation 
maneuvers are expected to be performed.\22\ Therefore, the FAA proposed 
to remove the term ``enhanced'' from paragraphs 2(b)(1)(ii), 
2(b)(2)(ii), 2(b)(3) and (4), and 2(b)(5)(iii) of the SFAR and clarify 
it with language specifying that the training must include autorotation 
procedures and energy management, including utilizing a combination of 
flight control inputs and maneuvering to prevent overshooting or 
undershooting the selected landing area from an entry altitude that 
permits safe recovery. As discussed in the NPRM, the R-22 training 
differs slightly from the R-44 training because the RFM/POH does not 
provide information for airspeed and main rotor revolutions per minute 
to perform an autorotation minimum rate of descent configuration, 
whereas the R-44 flight manual establishes those flight parameters.\23\ 
The FAA proposed that the new sections will require flight training to 
include autorotations at an entry altitude that permits safe 
maneuvering and recovery utilizing maximum glide configuration for the 
Robinson model R-22 and R-44 helicopter and minimum rate of descent 
configuration for the Robinson model R-44 helicopter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See 88 FR 71512.
    \23\ See 88 FR 71513.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, the terminology ``low rotor RPM (blade stall)'' is currently 
identified as a ground training topic in paragraph 2(a)(3)(iii). This 
ground training topic places blade stall in parentheticals, which could 
suggest that low rotor RPM and blade stall are synonymous. However, 
they are different topics; low RPM is the onset of the emergency, and 
stall is the state at which the aircraft becomes unrecoverable. 
Therefore, the NPRM proposed to remove the parentheticals and label 
this ground topic as ``low rotor RPM and rotor stall'' to better align 
SFAR No. 73 terminology with the HFH.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Helicopter Flying Handbook, FAA-H-8083-21B (2019) 
https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/helicopter_flying_handbook/helicopter_flying_handbook.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the NPRM proposed to remove the terms ``certified'' and 
``certificated'' from SFAR No. 73 when used to describe flight 
instructors. The FAA proposed using flight instructor authorization 
requirements specific to SFAR No. 73, paragraph 2(b)(5)(iv),

[[Page 59605]]

throughout the SFAR, where appropriate.
    The NPRM also proposed to clarify the annual flight review 
requirements for less experienced pilots (i.e., those pilots who have 
not had at least 200 flight hours in helicopters, at least 50 of which 
were in the Robinson model R-22 or R-44, as applicable).\25\ Such 
flight review requirements are currently identified in paragraphs 
2(b)(1)(ii) and 2(b)(2)(ii) of the SFAR and are grouped together in the 
same paragraph that describes the general pilot-in-command flight 
training. The annual flight review conditions for less experienced 
pilots in this grouping are not clearly stated or easily discernable 
from the general pilot-in-command flight training. Furthermore, these 
flight review requirements do not specify which subjects less 
experienced pilots must accomplish to satisfy the ground training 
portion of the flight review. To resolve these issues, the FAA proposed 
to move the annual flight review requirements located in paragraphs 
2(b)(1)(ii) and 2(b)(2)(ii) for that specified group of pilots to 
separate paragraphs 2(b)(1)(iii) and 2(b)(2)(iii) and identify the 
general subject areas (from current awareness training, now required 
ground training) and the associated abnormal and emergency procedures. 
The FAA noted in the NRPM that the change would not impact the flight 
review requirements outlined in paragraph 2(c) (other than conforming 
editorial revisions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ As established in the first publication of the final rule 
for SFAR No. 73 in 1995, pilots who do not meet a threshold 
experience level in the R-22 or R-44 (i.e., those with less than 200 
flight hours in helicopters and at least 50 hours in the model of 
Robinson helicopters) are required to complete an annual flight 
review to continue to act as PIC in the R-22 or R-44, as 
appropriate. This requirement is in addition to the flight review 
requirements outlined in 2(c) of the respective model of helicopter 
and consist of the ground and flight as proposed in paragraphs 
2(b)(1)(iii) and 2(b)(2)(iii) of the NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the NPRM proposed three revisions largely editorial 
in nature. First, the FAA proposed to remove the long-expired 
compliance dates in paragraphs 2(a)(1), (2), and (4). Next, the FAA 
proposed to update the applicability section in paragraph 1 to include 
persons who provide ground and flight training and who conduct a flight 
review in a Robinson R-22 or R-44 helicopter. Finally, the FAA proposed 
to add an expiration date to the SFAR to allow the FAA time to review 
and refine the R-22 and R-44 requirements set forth in this SFAR before 
permanent codification.
    In response to public comments received on or before the comment 
period closed on December 18, 2023, the FAA finds the proposed 
revisions to the regulations sufficient to achieve the goal of the 
rulemaking, which is to update and clarify the SFAR. This preamble 
subsequently responds to comments, and this final rule adopts the 
NPRM's proposal without changes.

D. General Overview of Comments

    The FAA received and considered five comments on the NPRM, 
consisting of comments from Robinson, Helicopter Association 
International (HAI),\26\ and three individuals. A majority of the 
commenters supported the rule, which included three commenters 
expressing support in addition to proposing changes. Two individual 
commenters neither supported nor opposed the rule, however, one of 
these commenters provided a suggestion. None of the commenters opposed 
the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ The FAA notes that on February 26, 2024, the commenter 
announced the renaming of Helicopter Association International (HAI) 
to Vertical Aviation International (VAI).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion of Comments and the Final Rule

A. Support for the Rule

    The majority of commenters expressed support for the NPRM's 
proposed changes to SFAR No. 73. HAI agreed with the modifications as 
proposed and reiterated that the proposal would eliminate the conflict 
between the low G flight requirements in SFAR No. 73 and ADs 95-11-09 
and 95-11-10. HAI also supported the proposed five-year expiration date 
for SFAR No. 73 with the understanding that its content will eventually 
be moved to a permanent location in Title 14. HAI provided 
recommendations pertaining to analyses and reviews to inform the FAA's 
future permanent rulemaking, which is subsequently discussed in section 
IV.B of this preamble.
    Robinson stated that the NPRM provides a number of necessary 
revisions to clarify requirements and opined on the SRM Team 
assessment, which is subsequently discussed in section IV.B of this 
preamble. An individual commenter also agreed with the proposal but 
stated that the training requirement for the R22 and R44 as promulgated 
by the original SFAR should only have required low G avoidance rather 
than requiring low G maneuvers to be conducted on purpose. While this 
recommendation neither supports nor opposes the proposed rule, the FAA 
finds that the revisions as set forth in this rulemaking align with the 
commenter's statement (i.e., not conducting low G maneuvers 
purposefully in flight). Additionally, another individual commenter 
specifically agreed with the proposed removal of effects of low G 
maneuvers and proper recovery procedures from flight training 
requirements. This commenter further suggested those concepts be added 
to the ground training topics set forth in paragraph 2(a) (currently 
termed ``awareness training''); the FAA notes such changes were already 
proposed in the NPRM.

B. Suggested Changes to the Rule

    Three commenters suggested changes to the proposed regulatory text, 
asked specific questions, or made related recommendations.
    An individual commenter stated that a flight instructor authorized 
to provide training outlined in SFAR No. 73 should not be required to 
complete two flight reviews in the R-22 and R-44 every two years. The 
commenter further commented that this issue should be addressed after 
the SFAR expires, if not sooner. The FAA interprets the commenter as 
disagreeing with the current model-specific flight review requirements 
for those who are eligible to function as PIC in the R-22 and/or R-44, 
found in paragraph 2(c) of the SFAR. To operate as PIC in either the R-
22 or R-44, paragraph 2(c) requires a model-specific flight review, 
which includes satisfying applicable requirements in Sec.  61.56, 
ground training outlined in paragraph 2(a)(3), and flight training in 
abnormal and emergency procedures required by paragraph 2(b) for the 
appropriate model aircraft. Flight instructor experience conducting 
training in an R-22 or R-44 helicopter does not replace the flight 
review requirements as described in paragraph 2(c) that provide for 
regular assessment of pilot skills and aeronautical knowledge to act as 
PIC.
    As discussed in the NPRM to this rule and original rulemaking for 
the SFAR, all pilots, regardless of their level of experience, must 
have a greater awareness of the flight conditions that have led to main 
rotor/airframe contact accidents in Robinson model R-22 and R-44 
helicopters and have the capability to respond appropriately when those 
conditions are encountered.\27\ Supplemental analysis, including by the 
FAA Flight Standardization Board (FSB) 28 29 and by

[[Page 59606]]

the NTSB,\30\ supports model-specific flight reviews as necessary for 
the Robinson model R-22 and R-44 helicopters to ensure pilots maintain 
proficiency and competency over time. A flight instructor who is also 
acting as PIC of a Robinson model R-22 and/or R-44 helicopter must 
comply with the model-specific flight review requirements established 
in paragraph 2(c). Given the accident history of the R-22 and R-44 and 
the lack of any changed information to support the elimination of 
model-specific flight reviews (i.e., two separate flight reviews for 
those persons who seek to instruct and may act as PIC in both the R-22 
and R-44 helicopter), the FAA will not adopt the recommendation to 
remove model-specific flight review requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Robinson R-22/R-44 Special Training and Experience 
Requirements, 60 FR 11254 (Mar. 27, 1995).
    \28\ Robinson R-22 Flight Standardization Report, Published 
February 15, 1995, https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/DRSDOCID162186082420240430181938.0001;
    Robinson R-22 Flight Standardization Report, Published December 
17, 2018,https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/12EA7A537A55143F86258394006281DB.0001;
    Robinson R-44 Flight Standardization Report, Published February 
15, 1995, https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/DRSDOCID186317524120240430200522.0001;
    Robinson R-44 Flight Standardization Report, Published December 
17, 2018,https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/17AE3EE7274CD67E86258394006301A2.0001.
    \29\ The first published SFAR No. 73, with an effective date of 
March 27, 1995, adopted specific training and experience 
recommendations put forth by a Flight Standardization Board (FSB) 
and recorded in FSB Reports Robinson model R-22 and R-44 dated 
February 15, 1995. This FSB Report was later revised on December 17, 
2018, which references training requirements as outlined in SFAR No. 
73. The NTSB Special Investigation Report published on April 12,1996 
further recommended that FSB specifications are made permanent.
    \30\ See National Transportation Safety Board, Special 
Investigation Report, Robinson Helicopter Company R22 Loss of Main 
Rotor Control Accidents, Adopted April 2, 1996, https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SIR9603.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to generally agreeing with the NPRM, Robinson's comment 
also noted general concerns with their lack of involvement in the SFAR 
No. 73 rulemaking process and the rationale of proposing to integrate 
only some of the SRM Team's recommendations.\31\ Specifically, Robinson 
noted a lack of explanation as to why, first, certain recommendations 
from the safety risk assessment were included in the NPRM while others 
were not and, second, why Robinson's request to remove the R-44 from 
SFAR No. 73 requirements, as noted in the SRM report, was not 
incorporated into the rulemaking. This rulemaking was not intended to 
implement all recommendations set forth by the SRM Team. The SRM Team's 
recommendations that would change required specialized training and 
experience (i.e., substantive revisions to the SFAR), including 
modifications to the requirements for the Robinson model R-44 
helicopter, are identified in the SRM report as items to assess during 
the development of permanent requirements. Conversely, the FAA 
undertook this rulemaking to adopt recommendations that would not 
substantively change the current training and experience regime as the 
first step in a tiered, long-term revision to the SFAR. Specifically, 
as previously stated, the FAA intends the five-year time period (as 
promulgated by the expiration date added to the SFAR in this final 
rule) to allow the FAA time to review and refine the R-22 and R-44 
requirements for ground training, aeronautical experience, including 
flight training, and flight reviews. Therefore, the FAA will not make 
any changes to the final rule resulting from Robinson's recommendation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ As noted in the SRM report found in this docket (FAA-2023-
2083), subject matter experts (SMEs) from the FAA and industry were 
invited to provide their input. Tables 1, 2, and 3 in the report 
list the members, observers, and facilitation team of the SRM Team, 
respectively. While in many cases there are multiple SRM Team 
members from a single organization, each organization on the SRM 
Team received one vote when it came time to identify hazards, 
determine risk levels, and develop safety recommendations. The 
organizations included members from Robinson Helicopter Company and 
HAI. The FAA notes that the public, including stakeholders such as 
Robinson, does not partake in the process of drafting and issuing an 
NPRM, but had the opportunity to provide input for due consideration 
during the comment period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, HAI recommended that the FAA immediately establish an 
appropriate government or industry body tasked with providing research 
and recommendations informing the FAA's plan to review or revise 
current R-22 and R-44 requirements, to sunset SFAR No. 73, and to move 
the applicable requirements to a permanent location in title 14. 
Specifically, HAI recommended the FAA either charter a Robinson Model 
R-22 and R-44 helicopter training and experience Aviation Rulemaking 
Committee \32\ or task the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee \33\ 
with establishing an industry working group. The FAA acknowledges that 
these are possible options to evaluate requirements for Robinson model 
R-22 and R-44 helicopters for future rulemaking. The scope of this 
final rule is solely to clarify and update current requirements in SFAR 
No. 73. The FAA will not make any changes to the final rule based on 
this recommendation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC)--A rulemaking committee 
that provides information, advice and recommendations to the FAA. 
The FAA has the sole authority to establish and task ARCs, which are 
not subject to Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and therefore 
somewhat more flexible. ARCs are formed on an ad hoc basis, for a 
specific purpose, and are typically of limited duration. https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/committees/documents/index.cfm/committee/definitions.
    \33\ Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC)--A formal 
standing advisory committee that is subject to FACA and provides the 
FAA with information, advice, and recommendations, concerning 
rulemaking activity for topics such as aircraft owners and 
operators, airman and flight crewmembers, airports, maintenance 
providers, manufactures, public citizens and passenger groups, and 
training providers. https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/committees/documents/index.cfm/committee/definitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    Federal agencies consider impacts of regulatory actions under a 
variety of executive orders and other requirements. First, Executive 
Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563, as amended by Executive Order 
14094 (``Modernizing Regulatory Review''), direct that each Federal 
agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned 
determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify the 
costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) 
requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes 
on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) 
prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary 
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Fourth, the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies 
to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other 
effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate that 
may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, 
in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more 
(adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. The current 
threshold after adjustment for inflation is $183 million using the most 
current (2023) Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. 
This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of the 
economic impacts of this rule.
    In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that this 
rule: will result in benefits that justify costs; is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of 
Executive Order 12866, as amended; will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities; will not create 
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States; and 
will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal 
governments, or on the private sector.

[[Page 59607]]

A. Regulatory Impact Analysis

    This final rule removes a flight training requirement from SFAR No. 
73 that cannot be currently performed in the aircraft because it is 
inconsistent with Airworthiness Directives (ADs) related to Robinson 
model R-22 and R-44 helicopters. It is current practice not to perform 
the flight training maneuver notwithstanding the regulatory requirement 
in the SFAR; therefore, the change imposes no new cost. The FAA expects 
the final rule to promote safety without imposing costs by clarifying 
requirements, eliminating inconsistencies, and updating language.
    The rule is needed to resolve a contradiction between SFAR No. 73, 
which requires low G maneuvers during flight training for Robinson R-22 
and R-44 helicopters, and subsequent ADs that prohibit low G cyclic 
pushover maneuvers in these aircraft. The FAA originally promulgated 
SFAR No. 73 in 1995 in response to a series of fatal accidents 
attributed to pilot inexperience resulting in main rotor and airframe 
contact. To address these safety concerns, SFAR No. 73 established 
special awareness training, aeronautical experience, endorsement, and 
flight review requirements for pilots operating Robinson R-22 and R-44 
helicopters. However, within months, the FAA issued ADs requiring the 
insertion of limitations in the rotorcraft flight manual and aircraft 
placards prohibiting low G cyclic pushover maneuvers. The final rule 
removes the requirement for low G maneuvers during in-flight training 
from SFAR No. 73 while continuing ground training related to low G 
conditions and proper recovery procedures. The final rule makes other 
conforming changes to improve clarity and consistency without creating 
new information collections or requiring immediate changes to current 
industry or FAA publications and documents.
    Based on this information, the FAA has determined that the final 
rule will have minimal economic effects.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601-612), as 
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996 (Pub. L. 104-121) and the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 
111-240), requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of the 
regulatory action on small business and other small entities and to 
minimize any significant economic impact. The term ``small entities'' 
comprises small businesses, and not-for-profit organizations that are 
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, 
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA. 
However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, 
section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so 
certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The 
certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for 
this determination with a reasoned explanation.
    The final rule applies most directly to providers of training for 
Robinson model R-22 and R-44 helicopters. Some of these training 
providers are small entities. However, the final rule does not impose 
new burdens. The final rule aligns SFAR No. 73 with current practice 
and Airworthiness Directives (ADs) related to Robinson model R-22 and 
R-44 helicopter training requirements. Total training hours remain the 
same. The final rule also updates language and makes other conforming 
changes to improve clarity and consistency regarding training for 
Robinson model R-22 and R-44 helicopters without imposing new 
recordkeeping or other requirements.
    If an agency determines that a rulemaking will not result in a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, 
the head of the agency may so certify under section 605(b) of the RFA. 
Therefore, the FAA certifies that the rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

C. International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal 
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities 
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United 
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not 
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the 
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic 
objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a 
manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also 
requires consideration of international standards and, where 
appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards.
    The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this final rule and 
determined that the rule responds to a domestic safety objective. The 
FAA has determined that this rule is not considered an unnecessary 
obstacle to trade.

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) 
governs the issuance of Federal regulations that require unfunded 
mandates. An unfunded mandate is a regulation that requires a State, 
local, or tribal government or the private sector to incur direct costs 
without the Federal Government having first provided the funds to pay 
those costs. The FAA determined that the rule will not result in the 
expenditure of $183 million or more by State, local, or tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector, in any one year. 
This rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore, the requirements 
of Title II of the Act do not apply.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires 
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information 
collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that 
there is no new requirement for information collection associated with 
this final rule.

F. International Compatibility

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on 
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to 
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and 
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has 
determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices 
that correspond to these regulations.

G. Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1F identifies FAA actions that are categorically 
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or 
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy 
Act (NEPA) in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has 
determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical 
exclusion identified in paragraph 5-6.6f for regulations and involves 
no extraordinary circumstances.

[[Page 59608]]

VI. Executive Order Determinations

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and 
criteria of Executive Order (E.O.) 13132, Federalism. The FAA has 
determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect 
on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and 
the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among 
the various levels of government, and, therefore, will not have 
federalism implications.

B. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Consistent with Executive Order 13175, Consultation and 
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,\34\ and FAA Order 1210.20, 
American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Consultation Policy and 
Procedures,\35\ the FAA ensures that Federally Recognized Tribes 
(Tribes) are given the opportunity to provide meaningful and timely 
input regarding proposed Federal actions that have the potential to 
have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the 
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes; or to affect uniquely or significantly 
their respective Tribes. At this point, the FAA has not identified any 
unique or significant effects, environmental or otherwise, on tribes 
resulting from this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 6, 2000).
    \35\ FAA Order No. 1210.20 (Jan. 28, 2004), available at https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/1210.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    The FAA analyzed this final rule under E.O. 13211, Actions 
Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The FAA has determined that it 
will not be a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order 
and would not be likely to have a significant adverse effect on the 
supply, distribution, or use of energy.

D. Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory 
Cooperation

    Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory 
Cooperation, promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet 
shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, 
environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent 
unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The FAA has 
analyzed this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of 
Executive Order 13609 and has determined that this action will have no 
effect on international regulatory cooperation.

VII. Additional Information

A. Electronic Access and Filing

    A copy of the NPRM, all comments received, this final rule, and all 
background material may be viewed online at https://www.regulations.gov 
using the docket number listed above. A copy of this final rule will be 
placed in the docket. Electronic retrieval help and guidelines are 
available on the website. It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days 
each year. An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded 
from the Office of the Federal Register's website at https://www.federalregister.gov and the Government Publishing Office's website 
at https://www.govinfo.gov. A copy may also be found on the FAA's 
Regulations and Policies website at https://www.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 final rule, 
including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed in 
the electronic docket for this rulemaking.

B. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 
1996 requires the FAA to comply with small entity requests for 
information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations 
within its jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this 
document may contact its local FAA official or the person listed under 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the beginning of the 
preamble. To find out more about SBREFA on the internet, visit https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 61

    Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation 
Administration amends chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal 
Regulations as follows:

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

0
1. The authority citation for part 61 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701-44703, 44707, 
44709-44711, 44729, 44903, 45102-45103, 45301-45302; Sec. 2307 Pub. 
L. 114-190, 130 Stat. 615 (49 U.S.C. 44703 note); and sec. 318, Pub. 
L. 115-254, 132 Stat. 3186 (49 U.S.C. 44703 note).


0
2. Revise Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 73 to read as 
follows:

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

Sections

    1. Applicability.
    2. Required training, aeronautical experience, endorsements, and 
flight review.
    3. Expiration date.
    1. Applicability. Under the procedures prescribed in this section, 
this Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) applies to all persons 
who seek to manipulate the controls, act as pilot in command, provide 
ground training or flight training, or conduct a flight review in a 
Robinson model R-22 or R-44 helicopter. The requirements stated in this 
SFAR are in addition to the current requirements of this part.
    2. Required training, aeronautical experience, endorsements, and 
flight review.
    (a) Ground Training.
    (1) Except as provided in paragraph 2(a)(2) of this SFAR, no person 
may manipulate the controls of a Robinson model R-22 or R-44 
helicopter-for the purpose of flight unless the ground training 
specified in paragraph 2(a)(3) of this SFAR is completed and the 
person's logbook has been endorsed by a flight instructor authorized 
under paragraph 2(b)(5)(iv) of this SFAR.
    (2) A person who holds a rotorcraft category and helicopter class 
rating on that person's pilot certificate and meets the experience 
requirements of paragraph 2(b)(1) or paragraph 2(b)(2) of this SFAR may 
not manipulate the controls of a Robinson model R-22 or R-44 helicopter 
for the purpose of flight unless the ground training specified in 
paragraph 2(a)(3) of this SFAR is completed and the person's logbook 
has

[[Page 59609]]

been endorsed by a flight instructor authorized under paragraph 
2(b)(5)(iv) of this SFAR.
    (3) Ground training must be conducted by a flight instructor who 
has been authorized under paragraph 2(b)(5)(iv) of this SFAR and 
consists of the following general subject areas:
    (i) Energy management;
    (ii) Mast bumping;
    (iii) Low rotor revolutions per minute (RPM) and rotor stall;
    (iv) Low G conditions, effects, and proper recovery procedures; and
    (v) Rotor RPM decay.
    (4) The general subject areas identified in paragraph 2(a)(3) of 
this SFAR are intended to cover both Robinson model R-22 and R-44 
helicopters.
    (5) A person who can show satisfactory completion of the 
manufacturer's safety course may obtain an endorsement from an FAA 
aviation safety inspector in lieu of completing the ground training 
required by paragraphs 2(a)(1) and (2) of this SFAR.
    (b) Aeronautical Experience.
    (1) No person may act as pilot in command of a Robinson model R-22 
unless that person:
    (i) Has logged at least 200 flight hours in helicopters, at least 
50 flight hours of which were in the Robinson model R-22 helicopter; or
    (ii) Has logged at least 10 hours of flight training in the 
Robinson model R-22 helicopter and has received an endorsement from a 
flight instructor authorized under paragraph 2(b)(5)(iv) of this SFAR 
that the individual has been given the training required by this 
paragraph 2(b)(1)(ii) and is proficient to act as pilot in command of 
an R-22. The flight training must include at least the following 
abnormal and emergency procedures:
    (A) Training in autorotation procedures and energy management, 
including utilizing a combination of flight control inputs and 
maneuvering to prevent overshooting or undershooting the selected 
landing area from an entry altitude that permits safe recovery;
    (B) Autorotations at an entry altitude that permits safe 
maneuvering and recovery utilizing maximum glide configuration;
    (C) Engine rotor RPM control without the use of the governor; and
    (D) Low rotor RPM recognition and recovery.
    (iii) Pilots who do not meet the experience requirement of 
paragraph 2(b)(1)(i) of this SFAR may not act as pilot in command of a 
Robinson model R-22 helicopter beginning 12 calendar months after the 
date of the endorsement identified in paragraph 2(b)(1)(ii) of this 
SFAR until those pilots have:
    (A) Completed a flight review of the ground training subject areas 
identified by paragraph 2(a)(3) of this SFAR and the flight training 
identified in paragraph 2(b)(1)(ii) of this SFAR in an R-22; and
    (B) Obtained an endorsement for that flight review from a flight 
instructor authorized under paragraph 2(b)(5)(iv) of this SFAR.
    (2) No person may act as pilot in command of a Robinson model R-44 
helicopter unless that person--
    (i) Has logged at least 200 flight hours in helicopters, at least 
50 flight hours of which were in the Robinson model R-44 helicopter. 
The pilot in command may credit up to 25 flight hours in the Robinson 
model R-22 helicopter toward the 50-hour requirement in the Robinson 
model R-44 helicopter; or
    (ii) Has logged at least 10 hours of flight training in a Robinson 
helicopter, at least 5 hours of which must have been accomplished in 
the Robinson model R-44 helicopter, and has received an endorsement 
from a flight instructor authorized under paragraph 2(b)(5)(iv) of this 
SFAR that the individual has been given the training required by this 
paragraph 2(b)(2)(ii) and is proficient to act as pilot in command of 
an R-44. The flight training must include at least the following 
abnormal and emergency procedures--
    (A) Training in autorotation procedures and energy management, 
including utilizing a combination of flight control inputs and 
maneuvering to prevent overshooting or undershooting the selected 
landing area from an entry altitude that permits safe recovery;
    (B) Autorotations at an entry altitude that permits safe 
maneuvering and recovery utilizing minimum rate of descent 
configuration and maximum glide configuration;
    (C) Engine rotor RPM control without the use of the governor; and
    (D) Low rotor RPM recognition and recovery.
    (iii) Pilots who do not meet the experience requirement of 
paragraph 2(b)(2)(i) of this SFAR may not act as pilot in command of a 
Robinson model R-44 helicopter beginning 12 calendar months after the 
date of the endorsement identified in paragraph 2(b)(2)(ii) of this 
SFAR until those pilots have:
    (A) Completed a flight review of the ground training subject areas 
identified by paragraph 2(a)(3) and the flight training identified in 
paragraph 2(b)(2)(ii) of this SFAR in an R-44; and
    (B) Obtained an endorsement for that flight review from a flight 
instructor authorized under paragraph 2(b)(5)(iv) of this SFAR.
    (3) A person who does not hold a rotorcraft category and helicopter 
class rating must have logged at least 20 hours of flight training in a 
Robinson model R-22 helicopter from a flight instructor authorized 
under paragraph 2(b)(5)(iv) of this SFAR prior to operating it in solo 
flight. In addition, the person must obtain an endorsement from a 
flight instructor authorized under paragraph 2(b)(5)(iv) of this SFAR 
that training has been given in those maneuvers and procedures, and the 
instructor has found the applicant proficient to solo a Robinson model 
R-22 helicopter. This endorsement is valid for a period of 90 days. The 
flight training must include at least the following abnormal and 
emergency procedures:
    (i) Training in autorotation procedures and energy management, 
including utilizing a combination of flight control inputs and 
maneuvering to prevent overshooting or undershooting the selected 
landing area from an entry altitude that permits safe recovery;
    (ii) Autorotations at an entry altitude that permits safe 
maneuvering and recovery utilizing maximum glide configuration;
    (iii) Engine rotor RPM control without the use of the governor; and
    (iv) Low rotor RPM recognition and recovery.
    (4) A person who does not hold a rotorcraft category and helicopter 
class rating must have logged at least 20 hours of flight training in a 
Robinson model R-44 helicopter from a flight instructor authorized 
under paragraph 2(b)(5)(iv) of this SFAR prior to operating it in solo 
flight. In addition, the person must obtain an endorsement from a 
flight instructor authorized under paragraph 2(b)(5)(iv) of this SFAR 
that training has been given in those maneuvers and procedures and the 
instructor has found the applicant proficient to solo a Robinson model 
R-44 helicopter. This endorsement is valid for a period of 90 days. The 
flight training must include at least the following abnormal and 
emergency procedures:
    (i) Training in autorotation procedures and energy management, 
including utilizing a combination of flight control inputs and 
maneuvering to prevent overshooting or undershooting the selected 
landing area from an entry altitude that permits safe recovery;
    (ii) Autorotations at an entry altitude that permits safe 
maneuvering and recovery utilizing minimum rate of descent 
configuration and maximum glide configuration;

[[Page 59610]]

    (iii) Engine rotor RPM control without the use of the governor, and
    (iv) Low rotor RPM recognition and recovery.
    (5) No flight instructor may provide training or conduct a flight 
review in a Robinson R-22 or R-44 unless that instructor--
    (i) Completes the ground training in paragraph 2(a) of this SFAR.
    (ii) For the Robinson model R-22 helicopter, has logged at least 
200 flight hours in helicopters, at least 50 flight hours of which were 
in the Robinson model R-22 helicopter, or for the Robinson model R-44 
helicopter, logged at least 200 flight hours in helicopters, 50 flight 
hours of which were in Robinson helicopters. Up to 25 flight hours of 
Robinson model R-22 helicopter flight time may be credited toward the 
50-hour requirement.
    (iii) Has completed flight training in a Robinson model R-22 or R-
44 helicopter, or both, on the following abnormal and emergency 
procedures--
    (A) Training in autorotation procedures and energy management, 
including utilizing a combination of flight control inputs and 
maneuvering to prevent overshooting or undershooting the selected 
landing area from an entry altitude that permits safe recovery;
    (B) For the Robinson model R-22 helicopter, autorotations at an 
entry altitude that permits safe maneuvering and recovery utilizing 
maximum glide configuration. For the Robinson model R-44 helicopter, 
autorotations at an entry altitude that permits safe maneuvering and 
recovery utilizing maximum glide configuration and minimum rate of 
descent configuration;
    (C) Engine rotor RPM control without the use of the governor; and
    (D) Low rotor RPM recognition and recovery.
    (iv) Has been authorized by endorsement from an FAA aviation safety 
inspector or authorized designated examiner that the instructor has 
completed the appropriate training, meets the experience requirements, 
and has satisfactorily demonstrated an ability to provide training on 
the general subject areas of paragraph 2(a)(3) of this SFAR, and the 
flight training identified in paragraph 2(b)(5)(iii) of this SFAR.
    (c) Flight Review.
    (1) No flight review completed to satisfy Sec.  61.56 by an 
individual after becoming eligible to function as pilot in command in a 
Robinson model R-22 helicopter shall be valid for the operation of an 
R-22 unless that flight review was taken in an R-22.
    (2) No flight review completed to satisfy Sec.  61.56 by an 
individual after becoming eligible to function as pilot in command in a 
Robinson model R-44 helicopter shall be valid for the operation of an 
R-44 unless that flight review was taken in the R-44.
    (3) The flight review will include a review of the ground training 
subject areas of paragraph 2(a)(3) of this SFAR and flight training in 
abnormal and emergency procedures in the Robinson model R-22 or R-44 
helicopter, as appropriate, identified in paragraph 2(b) of this SFAR.
    (d) Currency Requirements. No person may act as pilot in command of 
a Robinson model R-22 or R-44 helicopter carrying passengers unless the 
pilot in command has met the recency of flight experience requirements 
of Sec.  61.57 in an R-22 or R-44, as appropriate.
    3. Expiration date. This SFAR expires August 22, 2029, unless 
sooner revised or rescinded.

    Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a), 
and 44703 in Washington, DC.
Michael Gordon Whitaker,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2024-15924 Filed 7-22-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P