Robinson Helicopter R-22 and R-44 Special Training and Experience Requirements, 71509-71518 [2023-22634]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules
(5) You may view this service information
that is incorporated by reference at the
National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on
the availability of this material at NARA,
email fr.inspection@nara.gov, or go to:
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibrlocations.html.
Issued on October 4, 2023.
Victor Wicklund,
Deputy Director, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023–22488 Filed 10–16–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 61
[Docket No. FAA–2023–2083; Notice No. 24–
1]
RIN 2120–AL89
Robinson Helicopter R–22 and R–44
Special Training and Experience
Requirements
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
This rulemaking would revise
the Special Federal Aviation Regulation
(SFAR), Robinson R–22/44 Special
Training and Experience Requirements,
to provide consistency with other FAA
regulatory requirements, training, and
testing publications. The rulemaking
would remove the low gravity (low G)
dual flight instruction requirement to
align the SFAR with current aircraft
placard requirements and the
limitations section of the Rotorcraft
Flight Manual/Pilot Operating
Handbook (RFM/POH) set forth by
Airworthiness Directives (ADs). This
proposed revision would also update
the SFAR so it mirrors the terminology
currently used in the Helicopter Flying
Handbook and Practical Test Standards
(PTS). This rulemaking proposes to
clarify the awareness training
endorsement and flight review
requirements for less experienced pilots,
remove legacy dates, and update the
applicability section to include ground
and flight training, including flight
reviews provided by authorized flight
instructors. Additionally, the FAA
proposes to add an expiration date to
the SFAR 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
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 Oct 16, 2023
Jkt 262001
moving them to a permanent location in
a separate subchapter.
DATES: Send comments on or before
December 18, 2023.
ADDRESSES: Send comments identified
by docket number FAA–2023–2083
using any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.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, 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
https://www.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, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
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
Cara.Barbera@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
A. Overview of Proposed Rule
B. Summary of the Costs and Benefits
II. Authority for This Rulemaking
III. Background
A. SFAR 73 Final Rule Background
Information
B. AD 95–11–09 (R–22) and AD 95–11–10
(R–44) Low G Cyclic Pushover
Prohibition Background
C. Recommendation and Proposal
IV. Discussion of the Proposal
A. Removal of Required Flight Training on
the Effects of Low G Maneuvers and
Proper Recovery Procedures
B. Moving Flight Training Topic of Low G
Hazards to Ground Training
Requirements
C. Awareness Training Renamed as Ground
Training
D. Flight Review Requirements for Pilots
With Less Experience in R–22/R–44
E. Enhanced Training in Autorotation
Procedures
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
71509
F. Removal of Legacy Dates
G. Add Persons Who Seek To Provide
Ground Training or Flight Training or
Conduct a Flight Review to Applicability
Section
H. Revise Term Blade Stall
I. Revise Term Certified and Certificated
for Flight Instructors
J. R–22/R–44 Awareness Training
Endorsement
K. Add Expiration Date to SFAR No. 73
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. Comments Invited
B. Confidential Business Information
C. Electronic Access and Filing
D. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act
I. Executive Summary
A. Overview of Proposed Rule
Special Federal Aviation Regulation
(SFAR) No. 73, found in part 61 of Title
14 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR), currently requires the effects
of low G maneuvers and proper
recovery procedures to be accomplished
during dual instruction flight training.
However, because of the inherent
danger in performing low G maneuvers,
Airworthiness Directives (ADs) 95–11–
09 1 and 95–11–10,2 effective July 14,
1995, prohibit intentionally inducing
low G flight in Robinson model R–22
and R–44 helicopters. The FAA
proposes to remove the requirement to
perform low G maneuvers during flight
training due to safety concerns and to
continue addressing these hazards in
the ground training topic for low G
hazards, which is established in the
SFAR.
The FAA proposes additional
amendments to SFAR No. 73 to update
and align its terminology with other
FAA regulations and publications.
Certain terminology in SFAR No. 73 has
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.
E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM
17OCP1
71510
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
not been defined or used in the same
context as found in the Helicopter
Flying Handbook, Practical Test
Standards, and 14 CFR part 61.
Changing this terminology would not
impact the requirements of SFAR No. 73
but would update the terms
‘‘awareness,’’ ‘‘certified/certificated
flight instructor,’’ and ‘‘blade stall’’ for
consistency with part 61 terms and
definitions. Throughout this NPRM,
‘‘awareness training’’ will be referred to
as ‘‘ground training.’’ In addition, the
FAA proposes to replace the term
‘‘enhanced’’ with more specific
language outlining what is necessary to
satisfy autorotation training in an R–22
and/or R–44 helicopter. The
terminology changes would not require
updates to endorsements, websites, or
other publications.
The FAA proposes to memorialize
current ground training general subject
area requirements to simplify the model
applicability endorsement. It also would
improve formatting to focus on the
requirements for flight reviews specific
to SFAR No. 73. Finally, this
rulemaking proposes to align the
applicability section in the SFAR with
its other sections by including
applicability to flight instructors who
conduct ground training, flight training,
or a flight review.
The FAA also proposes to add a fiveyear expiration date to SFAR No. 73.
The addition of an expiration date
would allow the FAA time to review
and refine the requirements for R–22
and R–44 helicopters and move them to
a permanent location in Title 14 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, chapter 1.
The changes proposed by this rule
would not impose any additional
requirements to the current regulations,
nor would they render current
requirements less restrictive. Rather, the
proposed changes are intended to 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 model R–22 or R–44
helicopter that are unique to SFAR No.
73, and not otherwise included in part
61.
B. Summary of the Costs and Benefits
The FAA expects the proposal to
promote safety without imposing costs
by memorializing existing requirements,
eliminating inconsistencies, and
updating language. Thus, the FAA has
determined that the proposal would
have minimal economic effects and pose
no novel or legal policy issues.
Therefore, the FAA has determined that
this proposal is not ‘‘significant’’ as
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 Oct 16, 2023
Jkt 262001
defined in section 3(f) of Executive
Order 12866 and is not ‘‘significant’’ as
defined by DOT’s Regulatory Policies
and Procedures.
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.
The FAA is proposing this rulemaking
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
proposal is within the scope of that
authority.
III. Background
A. SFAR 73 Final Rule Background
Information
Title 14 CFR part 61 details the
certification requirements for pilots,
flight instructors, and ground
instructors. Subparts C through G of part
61 contain training requirements for
applicants seeking rotorcraft category
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 model R–22 and
R–44 model helicopters.3 4
The R–22 helicopter is a two-seat,
reciprocating engine powered helicopter
that is 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 in
order to be operated safely.5
3 See Robinson R–22/R–44 Special Training and
Experience Requirements, 60 FR 11254 (March 27,
1995).
4 The Mitsubishi MU–2B is another example of an
instance where the FAA initially created an SFAR
and later codified regulations specific to an aircraft
to ensure safe operation. Similarly, the conflicts
between SFAR No. 108 and FAA guidance
prompted the FAA to codify regulations related to
the Mitsubishi MU–2B. See 81 FR 61584.
5 See 60 FR 11254.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
As explained in the 1995 final rule,
the FAA found the R–22 met 14 CFR
part 27 certification requirements and
issued a type certificate to Robinson in
1979. However, the R–22 had a high
number of fatal accidents due to main
rotor/airframe contact when compared
to other piston powered helicopters.
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.
In its analysis of accident data, the
FAA found that pilots rated to fly the
helicopter were not properly prepared
to safely operate the R–22 and R–44
helicopters in certain flight conditions.
The FAA determined that additional
specific pilot training was necessary for
safe operation of these helicopters as
part of a comprehensive program that
responded to a high number of
accidents. Other elements of this
program included addressing design
and operational issues, cited by the
National Transportation Safety Board
(NTSB), that may have been
contributing factors in some of the
accidents. Furthermore, at that time, the
R–44 had been recently certified, and
the FAA was concerned that the R–44
would experience the same frequency of
accidents because of the similar design.
Accordingly, the FAA issued SFAR No.
73, which, in addition to addressing
pilot training, also included
requirements for flight instructors and
continued flight reviews in the specific
model to be flown.6
In 2021, the FAA formed a Safety Risk
Management (SRM) Team to perform a
safety risk assessment of SFAR No. 73.
The SRM Team included
representatives from the FAA,
Helicopter Association International
(HAI), Robinson Helicopter Company,
and two Designated Pilot Examiners
(DPEs). Between November 16–18, 2021,
and on January 19, 2022, the SRM Team
met to analyze hazards associated with
operating and training pursuant to
SFAR No. 73 and determine whether the
SFAR effectively controls risk or is no
longer needed.
Subject matter experts from the FAA
and industry were invited to provide
their input. After the SRM Team
meeting concluded, Robinson
Helicopter Company provided specific
opinions and background material. The
SRM Team’s analysis resulted in
recommended modifications of SFAR
No. 73 that are reflected in this
proposed rule. A copy of the full SRM
Team Safety Risk Assessment Report for
6 See
E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM
60 FR 11254.
17OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules
SFAR No. 73 is posted to the docket for
this rulemaking.
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, the manufacturer of these
helicopters makes advisory material
available to all operators worldwide.7
Safety notices, available both in the
Pilot’s Operating Handbook/Rotorcraft
Flight Manual (POH/RFM) 8 and on the
Robinson Helicopter Company website,
emphasize subject matter found in
SFAR No. 73. Although these notices
are not regulatory in nature, they
provide guidance and recommended
practices to owners of all Robinson
helicopters. In addition, the
manufacturer produces publications,
including safety alerts, which are also
located on the Robinson Helicopter
Company website. The FAA anticipates
the international aviation community
will be interested in the outcome of this
rulemaking.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
B. AD 95–11–09 (R–22) and AD 95–11–
10 (R–44) Low G Cyclic Pushover
Prohibition Background
helicopter. The ADs require installation
of placards in the helicopter and
insertion of a prohibition against low G
cyclic pushover maneuvers into the
limitations section of the RFM.
C. Recommendation and Proposal
While accidents in the R–22 and R–
44 helicopters have declined markedly
since SFAR No. 73 was issued, the
NTSB has recommended that the FAA
should ensure that SFAR No. 73, the
Flight Standards Board specifications,
and the ADs applicable to the operation
of the R–22 and R–44 are made
permanent.12 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 in order to ensure
the safe operation of the helicopter.
The inconsistency between the low G
flight training requirement in SFAR No.
73 and the ADs’ prohibition on
intentionally inducing low G flight has
led to confusion regarding the actual
requirements for flight training in R–22
and R–44 helicopters. The FAA
proposes to resolve that discrepancy by
removing the requirement in SFAR No.
73 to perform low G maneuvers during
flight training. The FAA also proposes
to revise certain language in this SFAR
by updating terminology to make it
consistent across FAA regulations and
guidance.
SFAR No. 73 consists of ground and
flight training requirements, including
low G flight training.9 However, shortly
after issuance of this SFAR, the FAA
prohibited intentionally inducing low G
flight in R–22 and R–44 helicopters.
This prohibition was published on July
14, 1995, in ADs 95–11–09 (R–22) 10 and
95–11–10 (R–44) 11 because of the
inherent risk in performing those
maneuvers. That action was prompted
by FAA analysis of the manufacturer’s
data that indicated a low G cyclic
pushover maneuver may result in mastbumping 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
A. Removal of Required Flight Training
on the Effects of Low G Maneuvers and
Proper Recovery Procedures
Shortly after issuance of SFAR No. 73
in 1995, the FAA issued priority letters
AD 95–11–09 13 and AD 95–11–10 14 in
response to 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 and R–44 helicopters.15
These ADs prohibited intentionally
induced low G flight in R–22 (AD 95–
11–09) and R–44 (AD 95–11–10)
helicopters in an effort to prevent in-
7 See Robinson Helicopter Company Safety
Notices, https://robinsonheli.com/robinson-safetynotices/.
8 See Robinson Helicopter Company POH/FRM
https://robinsonheli.com/current-status/.
9 See 14 CFR part 61 Special Federal Aviation
Regulation No. 73—Robinson R–22/R–44 Special
Training and Experience Requirements.
10 See AD 95–11–09, Robinson Helicopter
Company Model R22 Helicopters (Jul. 14, 1995),
https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/
AB0E6D73A5A548F186256A4D006126BD.0001.
11 See AD 95–11–10, Robinson Helicopter
Company Model R44 Helicopters (Jul. 14, 1995),
https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/
FED1D31B434F466E86256A4D00613579.0001.
12 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.
13 See AD 95–11–09, Robinson Helicopter
Company Model R22 Helicopters (Jul. 14, 1995),
https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/
AB0E6D73A5A548F186256A4D006126BD.0001.
14 See AD 95–11–10, Robinson Helicopter
Company Model R44 Helicopters (Jul. 14, 1995),
https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/
FED1D31B434F466E86256A4D00613579.0001.
15 [Title] 60 FR 33686, (Jun. 29, 1995), Docket No.
95–SW–24–AD.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 Oct 16, 2023
Jkt 262001
IV. Discussion of the Proposal
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
71511
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. To provide immediate
corrective action, the FAA issued these
ADs by priority letters to all known U.S.
owners and operators of Robinson
model R–22 and R–44 helicopters on
May 25, 1995, and then published them
in the Federal Register as an
amendment to 14 CFR 39.13 to make the
mandate applicable to all persons.16
Since their publication, these ADs
have conflicted with SFAR No. 73,
which requires dual instruction (flight
training) on the effects of low G
maneuvers and proper recovery
procedures.17 To resolve this conflict,
the FAA proposes to remove the
requirements for flight training on the
effects of low G maneuvers and proper
recovery procedures from paragraph
2(b) of SFAR No. 73. Specifically, the
FAA proposes to remove paragraphs
2(b)(1)(ii)(D), 2(b)(2)(ii)(D), 2(b)(3)(iv),
2(b)(4)(iv), and 2(b)(5)(iii)(D) from the
current regulation.
B. Moving Flight Training Topic of Low
G Hazards to Ground Training
Requirements
Although the FAA is proposing 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, the FAA will continue to
require knowledge-based training on
low G as a general subject area under
paragraph 2(a)(3). To enhance the
quality of low G ground training
provided under paragraph (a)(3)(iv) and
emphasize the importance of
understanding the risks, the FAA
proposes to reconfigure the current
flight training requirement on low G
maneuvers and proper recovery
procedures as a ground training
requirement in paragraph 2(a)(3)(iv).
Specifically, the FAA proposes to
replace the term ‘‘Low G hazards’’ in the
ground training requirements in
paragraph 2(a)(3)(iv) with the term
‘‘Low G conditions, effects, and proper
recovery procedures.’’ This proposal
would resolve the conflict with the
airworthiness requirements for the
aircraft while continuing to underscore
16 See R–22 Docket No. 95–SW–24–AD;
Amendment 39–9299; AD 95–11–09 and R–44
Docket No. 95–SW–25–AD; Amendment 39–9300;
AD 95–11–10, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/
pkg/FR-1995-06-29/pdf/FR-1995-06-29.pdf.
17 In essence, the ADs and RFM contradict the
requirements in the SFAR, creating confusion and
an inability to comply with both requirements.
Flight instructors and flight schools adhere to the
AD and RFM limitations and do not conduct SFAR
73 low-G flight training.
E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM
17OCP1
71512
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules
the importance of a pilot’s
understanding of low G-related hazards
when operating an R–22 or R–44
helicopter. This more specific and
comprehensive classroom coverage of
the subject would educate pilots about
the situations and conditions that lead
to low G, the aerodynamic impact it has
on the aircraft, and the proper way to
recover to prevent an accident.
The FAA proposes changes to the
existing ground training requirements,
which would align SFAR No. 73 with
existing FAA publications that address
low G hazards. For example, the
Helicopter Flying Handbook (HFH)
highlights the importance of low G
recognition and recovery procedures but
also discusses the risk of low G flight
operations, stating that low G mast
bumping has been the cause of
numerous military and civilian fatal
accidents.18 The HFH details the safety
consequences of low G conditions,
which further emphasizes the hazards of
low G in flight and the importance of
addressing these topics through ground
training.
Furthermore, the helicopter testing
standard for airman certificates and
ratings addresses knowledge elements
related to low G, understanding and
recognizing those conditions, and
explaining the proper recovery
procedure.19 This change to the
regulations would ensure consistency
with those testing standards.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
C. Awareness Training Renamed as
Ground Training
SFAR No. 73 distinguishes ground
training requirements from aeronautical
experience 20 requirements. This ground
training, currently titled ‘‘awareness
training,’’ is provided by an authorized
instructor as part of the comprehensive
program to help prevent accidents in
Robinson R–22 and R–44 helicopters.
18 See FAA–H–8083–21B, Helicopter Flying
Handbook, published 2019; https://www.faa.gov/
regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/
helicopter_flying_handbook.
19 Some PTSs may transition to Airman
Certification Standards (ACS) to be utilized as
practical test testing standard for airman certificates
and ratings. The FAA published a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) which proposes to
incorporate these Airman Certification Standards
and Practical Test Standards by reference into the
certification requirements for pilots, flight
instructors, flight engineers, aircraft dispatchers,
and parachute riggers. See Airman Certification
Standards and Practical Test Standards for Airmen;
Incorporation by Reference, 87 FR 75955 (Monday,
Dec. 12).
20 Section 61.1 defines aeronautical experience as
‘‘pilot time obtained in an aircraft, flight simulator,
or flight training device for meeting the appropriate
training and flight time requirements for an airman
certificate, rating, flight review, or recency of flight
experience requirements of this part.’’ As such,
aeronautical experience includes flight training.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 Oct 16, 2023
Jkt 262001
The FAA has found that there is a need
for all pilots operating these helicopters
to be aware of certain characteristics
associated with Robinson R–22 and R–
44 helicopters. Awareness training
requirements and the associated ground
topics are detailed in SFAR No. 73,
paragraph 2(a).21 Ground training, as
defined by 14 CFR 61.1(b), ‘‘means that
training, other than flight training,
received from an authorized instructor.’’
On the other hand, the term ‘‘awareness
training’’ does not have a corresponding
definition. Therefore, the FAA proposes
to change the title ‘‘Awareness
Training’’ to ‘‘Ground Training.’’ This
proposed change would align the
regulatory language throughout part 61
and provide clarity in differentiating the
ground training section from the
aeronautical experience requirements of
SFAR No. 73. The FAA thereafter would
interpret endorsements, websites, or
other publications and documents that
currently use the term ‘‘awareness
training’’ as synonymous with the term
‘‘ground training,’’ as defined in 14 CFR
61.1(b). Adopting this interpretation
would eliminate any requirement to
amend previously issued endorsements
or make immediate changes to current
industry and FAA publications and
documents. The FAA recommends that,
if the rule change becomes final, the
terminology used in industry
documents or websites that utilize
SFAR No. 73 (effective on June 29,
2009) be updated during a normally
scheduled revision process or a planned
revision rather than as an unscheduled
change immediately following the
adoption of any final rule associated
with this notice of proposed
rulemaking.
D. Flight Review Requirements for Pilots
With Less Experience in R–22/R–44
Under § 61.56, no person may act as
PIC of an aircraft unless, within the
preceding 24 months, the person has
completed a flight review in an aircraft
for which that pilot is rated.22 Under
2(c)(1) of SFAR No. 73, to continue
acting as PIC of an R–22 after initially
completing the SFAR training
requirements, a person must complete
the flight review in an R–22.23 A
21 Currently, SFAR No. 73 awareness training
requires instruction in the general subject areas of
energy management, mast bumping, low rotor RPM
(blade stall), low G hazards; and rotor RPM decay.
22 A flight review consists of one hour of ground
training and one hour of flight training on general
operating and flight rules of part 91 and those
maneuvers and procedures that, at the discretion of
the person giving the flight review, are necessary for
the pilot to demonstrate the safe exercise of the
privileges of the pilot certificate. 14 CFR 61.56(a).
23 By completing a flight review in an R–22, a
person would be current to act as PIC of an R–22
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
separate flight review is required for the
R–44 under 2(c)(2). The flight review
must include the awareness training and
the flight training in SFAR No. 73 as set
forth in paragraph 2(c)(3). 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 of the respective
model of helicopter. The purpose of
these provisions is to ensure persons
operating Robinson R–22 and R–44
maintain proficiency and competency
over time.
The flight review requirements for
less experienced pilots are identified in
paragraphs 2(b)(1)(ii) and 2(b)(2)(ii) and
grouped together in the same paragraph
that describes the general pilot-incommand flight training. This annual
flight review requirement is not set forth
as an individual condition in a way that
calls attention to its necessity.
Furthermore, these flight review
requirements do not specify within the
paragraphs what subjects this group of
pilots must accomplish to satisfy the
ground training portion of the flight
review. To resolve these issues, the FAA
proposes moving the annual flight
review requirements located in
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)—
within the same section. This change
will not impact the flight review
requirements outlined in 2(c), as
appropriate. This new paragraph would
also identify the general subject areas
from the awareness training as the
required ground training and the
associated abnormal and emergency
procedures for the Robinson R–22 or R–
44 helicopter, as appropriate. This
proposed change would increase
awareness of the annual flight review
requirements and reduce the likelihood
of pilots overlooking this requirement.
E. Enhanced Training in Autorotation
Procedures
A pilot who seeks to manipulate the
flight controls of a Robinson R–22 or R–
44 helicopter must meet the applicable
flight training requirements set forth in
SFAR 73, paragraph 2(b), including
enhanced training in autorotation
procedures.24 The term ‘‘enhanced’’ is
and would satisfy the flight review requirements for
any other helicopter (except for the R–44). By
contrast, a pilot who completes a flight review in
a helicopter other than the R–22 would be ineligible
to act as PIC of the R–22.
24 Subsequent to issuance of SFAR 73, industrystandard training has emphasized autorotation
training to maneuver the aircraft that avoids
E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM
17OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
not defined in part 61. In the context of
the SFAR, the FAA interprets the term
‘‘enhanced’’ to mean different
autorotation iterations. On its face,
however, the term lacks sufficient
specificity to adequately inform the
regulated community what autorotation
maneuvers are expected to be
performed. As such, the proposed
change would remove the term
‘‘enhanced’’ in SFAR No. 73, paragraphs
2(b)(1)(ii), 2(b)(2)(ii), 2(b)(3), 2(b)(4), and
2(b)(5)(iii) and replace 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.
Revising the terminology would provide
a better understanding of the necessary
flight control inputs to achieve the
desired airspeed, rotor RPM, and
autorotation performance and improve
pilot proficiency with the Robinson R–
22 and R–44 helicopter.
In addition, the FAA also proposes to
add specificity in 2(b)(1)(ii)(B) and
2(b)(2)(ii)(B) in place of the term
‘‘enhanced’’ training in autorotation
procedures to include autorotation
training in the maximum glide
configuration for the R–22 and both the
minimum rate of descent and maximum
glide configuration for the R–44.25 The
R–22 training would differ slightly
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.
The proposed changes would more
clearly establish the expectations for the
autorotation portion of the flight
training requirements to receive an
endorsement to act as pilot in
command, solo, conduct a flight review,
or provide flight instruction in a
Robinson R–22 and R–44. These
autorotation procedures would align
with the Helicopter Flying Handbook
(HFH) and RFM/POH.
F. Removal of Legacy Dates
SFAR No. 73 contains three longexpired compliance dates for ground
training in paragraphs 2(a)(1), 2(a)(2),
overshooting or undershooting the selected landing
area that is consistent with the specificity proposed
in this rule. See Safety Risk Assessment Report for
SFAR 73: Robinson R–22/R–44 Special Training
and Experience Requirements (2022).
25 See Safety Risk Assessment Report for SFAR
73: Robinson R–22/R–44 Special Training and
Experience Requirements (2022).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 Oct 16, 2023
Jkt 262001
71513
and 2(a)(4). Since the ground training
requirements outlined in these
paragraphs now apply to all pilots and
operators of R–22 and R–44 helicopters,
the FAA proposes to remove those
expired dates that are no longer
applicable.
cover each independent topic, this
proposed change is not substantive and
would not expand the requirements set
forth in SFAR No. 73.
G. Add Persons Who Seek To Provide
Ground Training or Flight Training or
Conduct a Flight Review to Applicability
Section
The FAA also proposes to amend the
applicability section of SFAR No. 73
(Section 1) to include persons who
provide ground or flight training or
conduct a flight review in R–22 or R–
44 helicopters. While paragraph 2(b)(5)
contains requirements for persons who
provide flight training or conduct a
flight review, the Applicability section
of SFAR No. 73 does not identify
authorized flight instructors as persons
to whom the rule applies. For the
purposes of clarity and consistency, the
FAA, therefore, proposes to modify
Section 1 by adding persons who seek
to provide ground training or flight
training or conduct a flight review in a
Robinson model R–22 or R–44
helicopter.
This NPRM proposes to remove
‘‘certified’’ and ‘‘certificated’’ from areas
in this SFAR that reference flight
instructors to align with part 61
definition of flight instructor and
provide consistency. This SFAR would
instead use the term ‘‘flight instructor’’
and identify the authorization
requirement established in SFAR No.
73, paragraph 2(b)(5)(iv) where
appropriate throughout the SFAR. The
flight instructor requirements outlined
in SFAR No. 73, paragraph 2(b)(5)
establish the aeronautical experience,
training requirements, and
demonstration of skills to receive
authorization to perform ground and
flight training identified in this rule.
This authorization is documented by the
issuance of an endorsement from an
FAA aviation safety inspector or
authorized designated pilot examiner.
H. Revise Term Blade Stall
Low rotor RPM (blade stall) is
identified as a ground training topic in
SFAR No. 73, paragraph 2(a)(3)(iii). This
ground training topic places blade stall
in parentheticals. This formatting leads
the reader to believe 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. Low rotor RPM
is recoverable if identified early and
immediately corrected. If this flight
condition is not rectified and the rotor
RPM continues to trend lower, blade
stall may occur. Blade stall is a fatal
condition where the rotor RPM is not
recoverable.
Furthermore, the term blade stall can
be confused with retreating blade stall,
which occurs at high forward speeds
and has its own unique emergency/
hazard situation. Rotor stall can occur at
any airspeed, and the rotor quickly
stops producing enough lift to support
the helicopter, causing it to lose lift and
descend rapidly.
Changing the term blade stall to rotor
stall would more accurately capture a
consequence of low rotor RPM.
Removing the parentheticals and
labeling this ground topic as low rotor
RPM and rotor stall would also better
align SFAR No. 73 terminology with the
HFH. As the terms are not synonymous
and ground training currently must
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
I. Revise Term Certified and Certificated
for Flight Instructors
J. R–22/R–44 Awareness Training
Endorsement
Flight instructors and pilots have
misinterpreted the ground training
endorsement identified in SFAR No. 73,
paragraphs 2(a)(1) and 2(a)(2) to be
aircraft make and model specific.26
However, the ground training on the
general subject areas listed in paragraph
2(a)(3) is given to increase awareness for
the operation of both R–22 and R–44
models and is not unique to either
model. They have the same subject
content, technical detail, and recovery
techniques for both the Robinson model
R–22 and R–44 helicopters. A person
would receive model specific training
during the flight training listed in SFAR
No. 73, paragraph 2(b), Aeronautical
Experience. Because the ground training
covers general subject areas, the
endorsement may be written to cover
both aircraft. The FAA proposes to add
a new paragraph to paragraph (a)
clarifying that the ground training
endorsement is intended to cover both
Robinson model R–22 and R–44
helicopters.27
26 The FAA has received inquiries requesting
clarification regarding SFAR No. 73 ground training
endorsement and if it pertains to a specific
Robinson model for training on general subject
areas for the R–22 and R–44.
27 The proposed addition would become new
paragraph (a)(4), and existing (a)(4) governing
endorsements for completing the manufacturer’s
safety course will be redesignated as paragraph
(a)(5).
E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM
17OCP1
71514
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules
K. Add Expiration Date to SFAR No. 73
A. Regulatory Impact Analysis
SFAR No. 73 became effective on June
29, 2009, and does not have an
expiration date. The proposed revision
would add a five-year expiration date
that starts on the effective date of a final
rule adopting this notice of proposed
rulemaking. Adding an expiration date
to this SFAR would provide a timeframe
for an assessment of how to move its R–
22 and R–44 requirements for ground
training, aeronautical experience, flight
training, and flight reviews to a
permanent location in a subchapter of
14 CFR, chapter 1.
This proposal would remove 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 R–22 and R–44. It
is current practice not to perform the
flight training maneuver
notwithstanding the regulatory
requirement in the SFAR; therefore, the
proposed change imposes no new cost.
The FAA expects the proposal to
promote safety without imposing costs
by clarifying requirements, eliminating
inconsistencies, and updating language.
The proposal 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 insertion of
limitations in the rotorcraft flight
manual and aircraft placards prohibiting
low G cyclic pushover maneuvers. The
proposal would remove 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 proposal would make
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 proposal would
have minimal economic effects and pose
no novel or legal policy issues.
Therefore, the FAA has determined that
this proposal is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ as defined in section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and is not
‘‘significant’’ as defined by DOT’s
Regulatory Policies and Procedures.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
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 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 $177 million
using the most current (2022) Implicit
Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic
Product.
In conducting these analyses, the FAA
has determined that this proposed rule:
(1) will result in benefits that justify
costs; (2) is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ as defined in section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866; (3) is not
‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s
Regulatory Policy and Procedures; (4)
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities; (5) will not create unnecessary
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the
United States; and (6) will not impose
an unfunded mandate on State, local, or
tribal governments, or on the private
sector.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 Oct 16, 2023
Jkt 262001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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-forprofit 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 FAA expects the proposal to have
a minimal economic impact on small
entities. The proposal applies most
directly to providers of training for
Robinson R22 and R44 helicopters.
Some of these training providers are
small entities. However, the proposal
does not impose new burdens. The
proposal would align SFAR No. 73 with
current practice and Airworthiness
Directives (ADs) related to Robinson R–
22 and R–44 helicopter training
requirements. Total training hours
remain the same. The proposal would
also update language and make other
conforming changes to improve clarity
and consistency regarding training for
Robinson 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 proposes to certify that the rule
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The FAA welcomes comments
on the basis of this certification.
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
E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM
17OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules
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 the proposal responds
to a domestic safety objective. The FAA
has determined that this proposed 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 proposed rule will
not result in the expenditure of $177
million or more by State, local, or tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or the
private sector, in any one year. This
proposed rule does not contain such a
mandate; therefore, the requirements of
Title II of the Act do not apply.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
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 would
be no new requirement for information
collection associated with this proposed
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 proposed
regulations.
G. Environmental Analysis
FAA Order 1050.1F identifies FAA
actions that are categorically excluded
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 Oct 16, 2023
Jkt 262001
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.
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
FAA 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,28 and
FAA Order 1210.20, American Indian
and Alaska Native Tribal Consultation
Policy and Procedures,29 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. At
this point, the FAA has not identified
any unique or significant effects,
environmental or otherwise, on tribes
resulting from this proposed rule.
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. The FAA 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.
28 65
FR 67249 (Nov. 6, 2000).
29 FAA Order No. 1210.20 (Jan. 28, 2004),
available at https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/
media/1210.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
71515
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 would 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. 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.
Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C.
553(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
https://www.regulations.gov, as
described in the system of records
notice (DOT/ALL–14 FDMS), which can
be reviewed at https://www.dot.gov/
privacy.
B. Confidential Business Information
Confidential Business Information
(CBI) is commercial or financial
information that is both customarily and
E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM
17OCP1
71516
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules
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 that is not specifically
designated as CBI will be placed in the
public docket for this rulemaking.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
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 https://www.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 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 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 Oct 16, 2023
Jkt 262001
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/.
the experience requirements of
paragraph (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
been endorsed by a flight instructor
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 61
authorized under paragraph 2(b)(5)(iv)
Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety,
of this SFAR.
Reporting and recordkeeping
(3) Ground training must be
requirements.
conducted by a flight instructor who has
been authorized under paragraph
The Proposed Amendment
2(b)(5)(iv) of this SFAR and consists of
In consideration of the foregoing, the
instruction in the following general
Federal Aviation Administration
subject areas:
proposes to amend chapter I of title 14,
(i) Energy management;
Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
(ii) Mast bumping;
(iii) Low rotor RPM and rotor stall;
PART 61—CERTIFICATION: PILOTS,
(iv) Low G conditions, effects, and
FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS, AND GROUND proper recovery procedures; and
INSTRUCTORS
(v) Rotor RPM decay.
(4) The general subject areas
■ 1. The authority citation for part 61
identified in paragraph 2(a)(3) of this
continues to read as follows:
SFAR are intended to cover both
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113,
Robinson model R–22 and R–44
44701–44703, 44707, 44709–44711, 44729,
helicopters.
44903, 45102–45103, 45301–45302.
(5) A person who can show
■ 2. Revise Special Federal Aviation
satisfactory completion of the
Regulation No. 73 to read as follows:
manufacturer’s safety course may obtain
an endorsement from an FAA aviation
Special Federal Aviation Regulation
No. 73—Robinson Helicopter Company, safety inspector in lieu of completing
the ground training required by
Robinson R–22/R–44 Special Training
paragraphs 2(a)(1) and 2(a)(2) of this
and Experience Requirements
SFAR.
Sections
(b) Aeronautical Experience.
1. Applicability.
(1) No person may act as pilot in
2. Required training, aeronautical
command of a Robinson model R–22
experience, endorsements, and
unless that person:
flight review.
(i) Has logged at least 200 flight hours
3. Expiration date.
in helicopters, at least 50 flight hours of
1. Applicability. Under the procedures which were in the Robinson R–22; or
prescribed herein, this SFAR applies to
(ii) Has logged at least 10 hours of
all persons who seek to manipulate the
flight training in the Robinson R–22 and
controls, act as pilot in command,
has received an endorsement from a
provide ground training or flight
flight instructor authorized under
training, or conduct a flight review in a
paragraph 2(b)(5)(iv) of this SFAR that
Robinson model R–22 or R–44
the individual has been given the
helicopter. The requirements stated in
training required by this paragraph and
this SFAR are in addition to the current is proficient to act as pilot in command
requirements of part 61.
of an R–22. The flight training must
2. Required training, aeronautical
include at least the following abnormal
experience, endorsements, and flight
and emergency procedures:
review.
(A) Training in autorotation
(a) Ground Training:
procedures and energy management,
(1) Except as provided in paragraph
including utilizing a combination of
2(a)(2) of this SFAR, no person may
flight control inputs and maneuvering to
manipulate the controls of a Robinson
prevent overshooting or undershooting
model R–22 or R–44 helicopter for the
the selected landing area from an entry
purpose of flight unless the ground
altitude that permits safe recovery;
training specified in paragraph 2(a)(3) of
(B) Autorotations at an entry altitude
this SFAR is completed and the person’s that permits safe maneuvering and
logbook has been endorsed by a flight
recovery utilizing maximum glide
instructor authorized under paragraph
configuration;
2(b)(5)(iv) of this SFAR.
(C) Engine rotor RPM control without
(2) A person who holds a rotorcraft
the use of the governor; and
category and helicopter class rating on
(D) Low rotor RPM recognition and
that person’s pilot certificate and meets
recovery.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM
17OCP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules
(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 R–22
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 R–44 unless
that person—
(i) Has logged at least 200 flight hours
in helicopters, at least 50 flight hours of
which were in the Robinson R–44. The
pilot in command may credit up to 25
flight hours in the Robinson R–22
toward the 50-hour requirement in the
Robinson R–44; 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 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 R–44
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 Oct 16, 2023
Jkt 262001
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 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 R–22. 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 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 R–44. 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
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
71517
descent configuration and maximum
glide configuration;
(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 R–22, has logged
at least 200 flight hours in helicopters,
at least 50 flight hours of which were in
the Robinson R–22, or for the Robinson
R–44, logged at least 200 flight hours in
helicopters, 50 flight hours of which
were in Robinson helicopters. Up to 25
flight hours of Robinson R–22 flight
time may be credited toward the 50hour requirement.
(iii) Has completed flight training in
a Robinson R–22, R–44, 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 R–22,
autorotations at an entry altitude that
permits safe maneuvering and recovery
utilizing maximum glide configuration.
For the Robinson R–44, 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 § 61.56 by an individual after
becoming eligible to function as pilot in
command in a Robinson R–22
helicopter shall be valid for the
operation of an R–22 helicopter unless
that flight review was taken in an R–22.
(2) No flight review completed to
satisfy § 61.56 by an individual after
becoming eligible to function as pilot in
command in a Robinson R–44
E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM
17OCP1
71518
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules
helicopter shall be valid for the
operation of an R–44 helicopter 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
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 § 61.57 in an R–22 or R–
44, as appropriate.
3. Expiration date. This SFAR No. 73
expires [DATE FIVE YEARS AFTER
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL
RULE] unless sooner revised or
rescinded.
Issued under authority provided by 49
U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a), and 44703 in
Washington, DC.
Wesley L. Mooty,
Acting Deputy Executive, Flight Standards
Service.
[FR Doc. 2023–22634 Filed 10–16–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2023–0422; FRL–11353–
01–R9]
Air Plan Revisions; California; Butte
County Air Quality Management
District; Nonattainment New Source
Review Requirements for the 2015
8-Hour Ozone Standard
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
state implementation plan (SIP)
revisions submitted by the State of
California addressing the nonattainment
new source review (NNSR)
requirements for the 2015 8-hour ozone
national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS or ‘‘standard’’). This SIP
revision addresses the Butte County Air
Quality Management District
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 Oct 16, 2023
Jkt 262001
(‘‘District’’) portion of the California SIP.
This action is being taken pursuant to
the Clean Air Act (CAA or ‘‘Act’’) and
its implementing regulations.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before November 16, 2023.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09–
OAR–2023–0422 at https://
www.regulations.gov. For comments
submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments
cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish
any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please
contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets. If you need
assistance in a language other than
English or if you are a person with
disabilities who needs a reasonable
accommodation at no cost to you, please
contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Shaheerah Kelly, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne Street (AIR–3–2), San
Francisco, CA 94105. By phone: (415)
947–4156 or by email at
kelly.shaheerah@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background and Purpose
II. The State’s Submittal
A. What did the State submit?
B. What is the purpose of the submitted
rule?
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
III. Analysis of Nonattainment New Source
Review Requirements
IV. Proposed Action and Public Comment
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background and Purpose
On October 26, 2015, the EPA
promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone
NAAQS of 0.070 parts per million
(ppm).1 Upon promulgation of a new or
revised NAAQS, the CAA requires the
EPA to designate as nonattainment any
area that is violating the NAAQS based
on the three most recent years of
ambient air quality data. Butte County
was classified as a ‘‘Marginal’’ ozone
nonattainment area.2
On December 6, 2018, the EPA issued
a final rule entitled, ‘‘Implementation of
the 2015 National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Ozone: Nonattainment
Area State Implementation Plan
Requirements’’ (‘‘SIP Requirements
Rule’’), which establishes the
requirements and deadlines that state,
tribal, and local air quality management
agencies must meet as they develop
implementation plans for areas where
ozone concentrations exceed the 2015
ozone NAAQS.3 Based on the initial
nonattainment designation for the 2015
ozone standard, the District was
required to make a SIP revision
addressing NNSR no later than August
3, 2021. See 40 CFR 51.1314. This
requirement may be met by submitting
a SIP revision consisting of a new or
revised NNSR permit program.
II. The State’s Submittal
A. What did the State submit?
Table 1 lists the dates the submitted
rule addressed by this proposal was
amended by the District and submitted
by the California Air Resources Board
(CARB), the agency that serves as the
governor’s designee for California SIP
submittals.
1 80
FR 65292 (October 26, 2015).
FR 25776 (June 4, 2018).
3 83 FR 62998 (December 6, 2018). The SIP
Requirements Rule addresses a range of
nonattainment area SIP requirements for the 2015
ozone NAAQS, including requirements pertaining
to attainment demonstrations, reasonable further
progress (RFP), reasonably available control
technology, reasonably available control measures,
major new source review, emission inventories, and
the timing of SIP submissions and of compliance
with emission control measures in the SIP.
2 83
E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM
17OCP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 199 (Tuesday, October 17, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 71509-71518]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22634]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 61
[Docket No. FAA-2023-2083; Notice No. 24-1]
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: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rulemaking would revise the Special Federal Aviation
Regulation (SFAR), Robinson R-22/44 Special Training and Experience
Requirements, to provide consistency with other FAA regulatory
requirements, training, and testing publications. The rulemaking would
remove the low gravity (low G) dual flight instruction requirement to
align the SFAR with current aircraft placard requirements and the
limitations section of the Rotorcraft Flight Manual/Pilot Operating
Handbook (RFM/POH) set forth by Airworthiness Directives (ADs). This
proposed revision would also update the SFAR so it mirrors the
terminology currently used in the Helicopter Flying Handbook and
Practical Test Standards (PTS). This rulemaking proposes to clarify the
awareness training endorsement and flight review requirements for less
experienced pilots, remove legacy dates, and update the applicability
section to include ground and flight training, including flight reviews
provided by authorized flight instructors. Additionally, the FAA
proposes to add an expiration date to the SFAR 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 moving them to a permanent location in a separate subchapter.
DATES: Send comments on or before December 18, 2023.
ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2023-2083
using any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.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, 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
https://www.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, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
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 Proposed Rule
B. Summary of the Costs and Benefits
II. Authority for This Rulemaking
III. Background
A. SFAR 73 Final Rule Background Information
B. AD 95-11-09 (R-22) and AD 95-11-10 (R-44) Low G Cyclic
Pushover Prohibition Background
C. Recommendation and Proposal
IV. Discussion of the Proposal
A. Removal of Required Flight Training on the Effects of Low G
Maneuvers and Proper Recovery Procedures
B. Moving Flight Training Topic of Low G Hazards to Ground
Training Requirements
C. Awareness Training Renamed as Ground Training
D. Flight Review Requirements for Pilots With Less Experience in
R-22/R-44
E. Enhanced Training in Autorotation Procedures
F. Removal of Legacy Dates
G. Add Persons Who Seek To Provide Ground Training or Flight
Training or Conduct a Flight Review to Applicability Section
H. Revise Term Blade Stall
I. Revise Term Certified and Certificated for Flight Instructors
J. R-22/R-44 Awareness Training Endorsement
K. Add Expiration Date to SFAR No. 73
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. Comments Invited
B. Confidential Business Information
C. Electronic Access and Filing
D. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
I. Executive Summary
A. Overview of Proposed Rule
Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) No. 73, found in part 61
of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), currently
requires the effects of low G maneuvers and proper recovery procedures
to be accomplished during dual instruction flight training. However,
because of the inherent danger in performing low G maneuvers,
Airworthiness Directives (ADs) 95-11-09 \1\ and 95-11-10,\2\ effective
July 14, 1995, prohibit intentionally inducing low G flight in Robinson
model R-22 and R-44 helicopters. The FAA proposes to remove the
requirement to perform low G maneuvers during flight training due to
safety concerns and to continue addressing these hazards in the ground
training topic for low G hazards, which is established in the SFAR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA proposes additional amendments to SFAR No. 73 to update and
align its terminology with other FAA regulations and publications.
Certain terminology in SFAR No. 73 has
[[Page 71510]]
not been defined or used in the same context as found in the Helicopter
Flying Handbook, Practical Test Standards, and 14 CFR part 61. Changing
this terminology would not impact the requirements of SFAR No. 73 but
would update the terms ``awareness,'' ``certified/certificated flight
instructor,'' and ``blade stall'' for consistency with part 61 terms
and definitions. Throughout this NPRM, ``awareness training'' will be
referred to as ``ground training.'' In addition, the FAA proposes to
replace the term ``enhanced'' with more specific language outlining
what is necessary to satisfy autorotation training in an R-22 and/or R-
44 helicopter. The terminology changes would not require updates to
endorsements, websites, or other publications.
The FAA proposes to memorialize current ground training general
subject area requirements to simplify the model applicability
endorsement. It also would improve formatting to focus on the
requirements for flight reviews specific to SFAR No. 73. Finally, this
rulemaking proposes to align the applicability section in the SFAR with
its other sections by including applicability to flight instructors who
conduct ground training, flight training, or a flight review.
The FAA also proposes to add a five-year expiration date to SFAR
No. 73. The addition of an expiration date would allow the FAA time to
review and refine the requirements for R-22 and R-44 helicopters and
move them to a permanent location in Title 14 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, chapter 1.
The changes proposed by this rule would not impose any additional
requirements to the current regulations, nor would they render current
requirements less restrictive. Rather, the proposed changes are
intended to 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 model R-22 or R-44 helicopter that are unique to SFAR No.
73, and not otherwise included in part 61.
B. Summary of the Costs and Benefits
The FAA expects the proposal to promote safety without imposing
costs by memorializing existing requirements, eliminating
inconsistencies, and updating language. Thus, the FAA has determined
that the proposal would have minimal economic effects and pose no novel
or legal policy issues. Therefore, the FAA has determined that this
proposal is not ``significant'' as defined in section 3(f) of Executive
Order 12866 and is not ``significant'' as defined by DOT's Regulatory
Policies and Procedures.
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.
The FAA is proposing this rulemaking 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 proposal is within the scope of that authority.
III. Background
A. SFAR 73 Final Rule Background Information
Title 14 CFR part 61 details the certification requirements for
pilots, flight instructors, and ground instructors. Subparts C through
G of part 61 contain training requirements for applicants seeking
rotorcraft category 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 model R-22 and R-44 model
helicopters.3 4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Robinson R-22/R-44 Special Training and Experience
Requirements, 60 FR 11254 (March 27, 1995).
\4\ The Mitsubishi MU-2B is another example of an instance where
the FAA initially created an SFAR and later codified regulations
specific to an aircraft to ensure safe operation. Similarly, the
conflicts between SFAR No. 108 and FAA guidance prompted the FAA to
codify regulations related to the Mitsubishi MU-2B. See 81 FR 61584.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The R-22 helicopter is a two-seat, reciprocating engine powered
helicopter that is 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 in order to
be operated safely.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See 60 FR 11254.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained in the 1995 final rule, the FAA found the R-22 met 14
CFR part 27 certification requirements and issued a type certificate to
Robinson in 1979. However, the R-22 had a high number of fatal
accidents due to main rotor/airframe contact when compared to other
piston powered helicopters. 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.
In its analysis of accident data, the FAA found that pilots rated
to fly the helicopter were not properly prepared to safely operate the
R-22 and R-44 helicopters in certain flight conditions. The FAA
determined that additional specific pilot training was necessary for
safe operation of these helicopters as part of a comprehensive program
that responded to a high number of accidents. Other elements of this
program included addressing design and operational issues, cited by the
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), that may have been
contributing factors in some of the accidents. Furthermore, at that
time, the R-44 had been recently certified, and the FAA was concerned
that the R-44 would experience the same frequency of accidents because
of the similar design. Accordingly, the FAA issued SFAR No. 73, which,
in addition to addressing pilot training, also included requirements
for flight instructors and continued flight reviews in the specific
model to be flown.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See 60 FR 11254.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2021, the FAA formed a Safety Risk Management (SRM) Team to
perform a safety risk assessment of SFAR No. 73. The SRM Team included
representatives from the FAA, Helicopter Association International
(HAI), Robinson Helicopter Company, and two Designated Pilot Examiners
(DPEs). Between November 16-18, 2021, and on January 19, 2022, the SRM
Team met to analyze hazards associated with operating and training
pursuant to SFAR No. 73 and determine whether the SFAR effectively
controls risk or is no longer needed.
Subject matter experts from the FAA and industry were invited to
provide their input. After the SRM Team meeting concluded, Robinson
Helicopter Company provided specific opinions and background material.
The SRM Team's analysis resulted in recommended modifications of SFAR
No. 73 that are reflected in this proposed rule. A copy of the full SRM
Team Safety Risk Assessment Report for
[[Page 71511]]
SFAR No. 73 is posted to the docket for this rulemaking.
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, the
manufacturer of these helicopters makes advisory material available to
all operators worldwide.\7\ Safety notices, available both in the
Pilot's Operating Handbook/Rotorcraft Flight Manual (POH/RFM) \8\ and
on the Robinson Helicopter Company website, emphasize subject matter
found in SFAR No. 73. Although these notices are not regulatory in
nature, they provide guidance and recommended practices to owners of
all Robinson helicopters. In addition, the manufacturer produces
publications, including safety alerts, which are also located on the
Robinson Helicopter Company website. The FAA anticipates the
international aviation community will be interested in the outcome of
this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Robinson Helicopter Company Safety Notices, https://robinsonheli.com/robinson-safety-notices/.
\8\ See Robinson Helicopter Company POH/FRM https://robinsonheli.com/current-status/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. 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.\9\ However, shortly after issuance of
this SFAR, the FAA prohibited intentionally inducing low G flight in R-
22 and R-44 helicopters. This prohibition was published on July 14,
1995, in ADs 95-11-09 (R-22) \10\ and 95-11-10 (R-44) \11\ because of
the inherent risk in performing those maneuvers. 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 ADs require installation of
placards in the helicopter and insertion of a prohibition against low G
cyclic pushover maneuvers into the limitations section of the RFM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See 14 CFR part 61 Special Federal Aviation Regulation No.
73--Robinson R-22/R-44 Special Training and Experience Requirements.
\10\ See AD 95-11-09, Robinson Helicopter Company Model R22
Helicopters (Jul. 14, 1995), https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/AB0E6D73A5A548F186256A4D006126BD.0001.
\11\ See AD 95-11-10, Robinson Helicopter Company Model R44
Helicopters (Jul. 14, 1995), https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/FED1D31B434F466E86256A4D00613579.0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Recommendation and Proposal
While accidents in the R-22 and R-44 helicopters have declined
markedly since SFAR No. 73 was issued, the NTSB has recommended that
the FAA should ensure that SFAR No. 73, the Flight Standards Board
specifications, and the ADs applicable to the operation of the R-22 and
R-44 are made permanent.\12\ 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 in order to ensure the safe operation
of the helicopter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The inconsistency between the low G flight training requirement in
SFAR No. 73 and the ADs' prohibition on intentionally inducing low G
flight has led to confusion regarding the actual requirements for
flight training in R-22 and R-44 helicopters. The FAA proposes to
resolve that discrepancy by removing the requirement in SFAR No. 73 to
perform low G maneuvers during flight training. The FAA also proposes
to revise certain language in this SFAR by updating terminology to make
it consistent across FAA regulations and guidance.
IV. Discussion of the Proposal
A. Removal of Required Flight Training on the Effects of Low G
Maneuvers and Proper Recovery Procedures
Shortly after issuance of SFAR No. 73 in 1995, the FAA issued
priority letters AD 95-11-09 \13\ and AD 95-11-10 \14\ in response to
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
and R-44 helicopters.\15\ These ADs prohibited intentionally induced
low G flight in R-22 (AD 95-11-09) and R-44 (AD 95-11-10) helicopters
in an effort to prevent 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. To provide immediate
corrective action, the FAA issued these ADs by priority letters to all
known U.S. owners and operators of Robinson model R-22 and R-44
helicopters on May 25, 1995, and then published them in the Federal
Register as an amendment to 14 CFR 39.13 to make the mandate applicable
to all persons.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See AD 95-11-09, Robinson Helicopter Company Model R22
Helicopters (Jul. 14, 1995), https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/AB0E6D73A5A548F186256A4D006126BD.0001.
\14\ See AD 95-11-10, Robinson Helicopter Company Model R44
Helicopters (Jul. 14, 1995), https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/FED1D31B434F466E86256A4D00613579.0001.
\15\ [Title] 60 FR 33686, (Jun. 29, 1995), Docket No. 95-SW-24-
AD.
\16\ See R-22 Docket No. 95-SW-24-AD; Amendment 39-9299; AD 95-
11-09 and R-44 Docket No. 95-SW-25-AD; Amendment 39-9300; AD 95-11-
10, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1995-06-29/pdf/FR-1995-06-29.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since their publication, these ADs have conflicted with SFAR No.
73, which requires dual instruction (flight training) on the effects of
low G maneuvers and proper recovery procedures.\17\ To resolve this
conflict, the FAA proposes to remove the requirements for flight
training on the effects of low G maneuvers and proper recovery
procedures from paragraph 2(b) of SFAR No. 73. Specifically, the FAA
proposes to remove paragraphs 2(b)(1)(ii)(D), 2(b)(2)(ii)(D),
2(b)(3)(iv), 2(b)(4)(iv), and 2(b)(5)(iii)(D) from the current
regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ In essence, the ADs and RFM contradict the requirements in
the SFAR, creating confusion and an inability to comply with both
requirements. Flight instructors and flight schools adhere to the AD
and RFM limitations and do not conduct SFAR 73 low-G flight
training.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Moving Flight Training Topic of Low G Hazards to Ground Training
Requirements
Although the FAA is proposing 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, the FAA will continue
to require knowledge-based training on low G as a general subject area
under paragraph 2(a)(3). To enhance the quality of low G ground
training provided under paragraph (a)(3)(iv) and emphasize the
importance of understanding the risks, the FAA proposes to reconfigure
the current flight training requirement on low G maneuvers and proper
recovery procedures as a ground training requirement in paragraph
2(a)(3)(iv). Specifically, the FAA proposes to replace the term ``Low G
hazards'' in the ground training requirements in paragraph 2(a)(3)(iv)
with the term ``Low G conditions, effects, and proper recovery
procedures.'' This proposal would resolve the conflict with the
airworthiness requirements for the aircraft while continuing to
underscore
[[Page 71512]]
the importance of a pilot's understanding of low G-related hazards when
operating an R-22 or R-44 helicopter. This more specific and
comprehensive classroom coverage of the subject would educate pilots
about the situations and conditions that lead to low G, the aerodynamic
impact it has on the aircraft, and the proper way to recover to prevent
an accident.
The FAA proposes changes to the existing ground training
requirements, which would align SFAR No. 73 with existing FAA
publications that address low G hazards. For example, the Helicopter
Flying Handbook (HFH) highlights the importance of low G recognition
and recovery procedures but also discusses the risk of low G flight
operations, stating that low G mast bumping has been the cause of
numerous military and civilian fatal accidents.\18\ The HFH details the
safety consequences of low G conditions, which further emphasizes the
hazards of low G in flight and the importance of addressing these
topics through ground training.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See FAA-H-8083-21B, Helicopter Flying Handbook, published
2019; https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/helicopter_flying_handbook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, the helicopter testing standard for airman
certificates and ratings addresses knowledge elements related to low G,
understanding and recognizing those conditions, and explaining the
proper recovery procedure.\19\ This change to the regulations would
ensure consistency with those testing standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Some PTSs may transition to Airman Certification Standards
(ACS) to be utilized as practical test testing standard for airman
certificates and ratings. The FAA published a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) which proposes to incorporate these Airman
Certification Standards and Practical Test Standards by reference
into the certification requirements for pilots, flight instructors,
flight engineers, aircraft dispatchers, and parachute riggers. See
Airman Certification Standards and Practical Test Standards for
Airmen; Incorporation by Reference, 87 FR 75955 (Monday, Dec. 12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Awareness Training Renamed as Ground Training
SFAR No. 73 distinguishes ground training requirements from
aeronautical experience \20\ requirements. This ground training,
currently titled ``awareness training,'' is provided by an authorized
instructor as part of the comprehensive program to help prevent
accidents in Robinson R-22 and R-44 helicopters. The FAA has found that
there is a need for all pilots operating these helicopters to be aware
of certain characteristics associated with Robinson R-22 and R-44
helicopters. Awareness training requirements and the associated ground
topics are detailed in SFAR No. 73, paragraph 2(a).\21\ Ground
training, as defined by 14 CFR 61.1(b), ``means that training, other
than flight training, received from an authorized instructor.'' On the
other hand, the term ``awareness training'' does not have a
corresponding definition. Therefore, the FAA proposes to change the
title ``Awareness Training'' to ``Ground Training.'' This proposed
change would align the regulatory language throughout part 61 and
provide clarity in differentiating the ground training section from the
aeronautical experience requirements of SFAR No. 73. The FAA thereafter
would interpret endorsements, websites, or other publications and
documents that currently use the term ``awareness training'' as
synonymous with the term ``ground training,'' as defined in 14 CFR
61.1(b). Adopting this interpretation would eliminate any requirement
to amend previously issued endorsements or make immediate changes to
current industry and FAA publications and documents. The FAA recommends
that, if the rule change becomes final, the terminology used in
industry documents or websites that utilize SFAR No. 73 (effective on
June 29, 2009) be updated during a normally scheduled revision process
or a planned revision rather than as an unscheduled change immediately
following the adoption of any final rule associated with this notice of
proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Section 61.1 defines aeronautical experience as ``pilot
time obtained in an aircraft, flight simulator, or flight training
device for meeting the appropriate training and flight time
requirements for an airman certificate, rating, flight review, or
recency of flight experience requirements of this part.'' As such,
aeronautical experience includes flight training.
\21\ Currently, SFAR No. 73 awareness training requires
instruction in the general subject areas of energy management, mast
bumping, low rotor RPM (blade stall), low G hazards; and rotor RPM
decay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Flight Review Requirements for Pilots With Less Experience in R-22/
R-44
Under Sec. 61.56, no person may act as PIC of an aircraft unless,
within the preceding 24 months, the person has completed a flight
review in an aircraft for which that pilot is rated.\22\ Under 2(c)(1)
of SFAR No. 73, to continue acting as PIC of an R-22 after initially
completing the SFAR training requirements, a person must complete the
flight review in an R-22.\23\ A separate flight review is required for
the R-44 under 2(c)(2). The flight review must include the awareness
training and the flight training in SFAR No. 73 as set forth in
paragraph 2(c)(3). 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 of the respective model of helicopter. The purpose of these
provisions is to ensure persons operating Robinson R-22 and R-44
maintain proficiency and competency over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ A flight review consists of one hour of ground training and
one hour of flight training on general operating and flight rules of
part 91 and those maneuvers and procedures that, at the discretion
of the person giving the flight review, are necessary for the pilot
to demonstrate the safe exercise of the privileges of the pilot
certificate. 14 CFR 61.56(a).
\23\ By completing a flight review in an R-22, a person would be
current to act as PIC of an R-22 and would satisfy the flight review
requirements for any other helicopter (except for the R-44). By
contrast, a pilot who completes a flight review in a helicopter
other than the R-22 would be ineligible to act as PIC of the R-22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The flight review requirements for less experienced pilots are
identified in paragraphs 2(b)(1)(ii) and 2(b)(2)(ii) and grouped
together in the same paragraph that describes the general pilot-in-
command flight training. This annual flight review requirement is not
set forth as an individual condition in a way that calls attention to
its necessity. Furthermore, these flight review requirements do not
specify within the paragraphs what subjects this group of pilots must
accomplish to satisfy the ground training portion of the flight review.
To resolve these issues, the FAA proposes moving the annual flight
review requirements located in 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)--within the same section. This change will not impact the
flight review requirements outlined in 2(c), as appropriate. This new
paragraph would also identify the general subject areas from the
awareness training as the required ground training and the associated
abnormal and emergency procedures for the Robinson R-22 or R-44
helicopter, as appropriate. This proposed change would increase
awareness of the annual flight review requirements and reduce the
likelihood of pilots overlooking this requirement.
E. Enhanced Training in Autorotation Procedures
A pilot who seeks to manipulate the flight controls of a Robinson
R-22 or R-44 helicopter must meet the applicable flight training
requirements set forth in SFAR 73, paragraph 2(b), including enhanced
training in autorotation procedures.\24\ The term ``enhanced'' is
[[Page 71513]]
not defined in part 61. In the context of the SFAR, the FAA interprets
the term ``enhanced'' to mean different autorotation iterations. On its
face, however, the term lacks sufficient specificity to adequately
inform the regulated community what autorotation maneuvers are expected
to be performed. As such, the proposed change would remove the term
``enhanced'' in SFAR No. 73, paragraphs 2(b)(1)(ii), 2(b)(2)(ii),
2(b)(3), 2(b)(4), and 2(b)(5)(iii) and replace 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. Revising the terminology would provide a better understanding
of the necessary flight control inputs to achieve the desired airspeed,
rotor RPM, and autorotation performance and improve pilot proficiency
with the Robinson R-22 and R-44 helicopter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Subsequent to issuance of SFAR 73, industry-standard
training has emphasized autorotation training to maneuver the
aircraft that avoids overshooting or undershooting the selected
landing area that is consistent with the specificity proposed in
this rule. See Safety Risk Assessment Report for SFAR 73: Robinson
R-22/R-44 Special Training and Experience Requirements (2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the FAA also proposes to add specificity in
2(b)(1)(ii)(B) and 2(b)(2)(ii)(B) in place of the term ``enhanced''
training in autorotation procedures to include autorotation training in
the maximum glide configuration for the R-22 and both the minimum rate
of descent and maximum glide configuration for the R-44.\25\ The R-22
training would differ slightly 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See Safety Risk Assessment Report for SFAR 73: Robinson R-
22/R-44 Special Training and Experience Requirements (2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed changes would more clearly establish the expectations
for the autorotation portion of the flight training requirements to
receive an endorsement to act as pilot in command, solo, conduct a
flight review, or provide flight instruction in a Robinson R-22 and R-
44. These autorotation procedures would align with the Helicopter
Flying Handbook (HFH) and RFM/POH.
F. Removal of Legacy Dates
SFAR No. 73 contains three long-expired compliance dates for ground
training in paragraphs 2(a)(1), 2(a)(2), and 2(a)(4). Since the ground
training requirements outlined in these paragraphs now apply to all
pilots and operators of R-22 and R-44 helicopters, the FAA proposes to
remove those expired dates that are no longer applicable.
G. Add Persons Who Seek To Provide Ground Training or Flight Training
or Conduct a Flight Review to Applicability Section
The FAA also proposes to amend the applicability section of SFAR
No. 73 (Section 1) to include persons who provide ground or flight
training or conduct a flight review in R-22 or R-44 helicopters. While
paragraph 2(b)(5) contains requirements for persons who provide flight
training or conduct a flight review, the Applicability section of SFAR
No. 73 does not identify authorized flight instructors as persons to
whom the rule applies. For the purposes of clarity and consistency, the
FAA, therefore, proposes to modify Section 1 by adding persons who seek
to provide ground training or flight training or conduct a flight
review in a Robinson model R-22 or R-44 helicopter.
H. Revise Term Blade Stall
Low rotor RPM (blade stall) is identified as a ground training
topic in SFAR No. 73, paragraph 2(a)(3)(iii). This ground training
topic places blade stall in parentheticals. This formatting leads the
reader to believe 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. Low rotor RPM is recoverable if identified early and
immediately corrected. If this flight condition is not rectified and
the rotor RPM continues to trend lower, blade stall may occur. Blade
stall is a fatal condition where the rotor RPM is not recoverable.
Furthermore, the term blade stall can be confused with retreating
blade stall, which occurs at high forward speeds and has its own unique
emergency/hazard situation. Rotor stall can occur at any airspeed, and
the rotor quickly stops producing enough lift to support the
helicopter, causing it to lose lift and descend rapidly.
Changing the term blade stall to rotor stall would more accurately
capture a consequence of low rotor RPM. Removing the parentheticals and
labeling this ground topic as low rotor RPM and rotor stall would also
better align SFAR No. 73 terminology with the HFH. As the terms are not
synonymous and ground training currently must cover each independent
topic, this proposed change is not substantive and would not expand the
requirements set forth in SFAR No. 73.
I. Revise Term Certified and Certificated for Flight Instructors
This NPRM proposes to remove ``certified'' and ``certificated''
from areas in this SFAR that reference flight instructors to align with
part 61 definition of flight instructor and provide consistency. This
SFAR would instead use the term ``flight instructor'' and identify the
authorization requirement established in SFAR No. 73, paragraph
2(b)(5)(iv) where appropriate throughout the SFAR. The flight
instructor requirements outlined in SFAR No. 73, paragraph 2(b)(5)
establish the aeronautical experience, training requirements, and
demonstration of skills to receive authorization to perform ground and
flight training identified in this rule. This authorization is
documented by the issuance of an endorsement from an FAA aviation
safety inspector or authorized designated pilot examiner.
J. R-22/R-44 Awareness Training Endorsement
Flight instructors and pilots have misinterpreted the ground
training endorsement identified in SFAR No. 73, paragraphs 2(a)(1) and
2(a)(2) to be aircraft make and model specific.\26\ However, the ground
training on the general subject areas listed in paragraph 2(a)(3) is
given to increase awareness for the operation of both R-22 and R-44
models and is not unique to either model. They have the same subject
content, technical detail, and recovery techniques for both the
Robinson model R-22 and R-44 helicopters. A person would receive model
specific training during the flight training listed in SFAR No. 73,
paragraph 2(b), Aeronautical Experience. Because the ground training
covers general subject areas, the endorsement may be written to cover
both aircraft. The FAA proposes to add a new paragraph to paragraph (a)
clarifying that the ground training endorsement is intended to cover
both Robinson model R-22 and R-44 helicopters.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ The FAA has received inquiries requesting clarification
regarding SFAR No. 73 ground training endorsement and if it pertains
to a specific Robinson model for training on general subject areas
for the R-22 and R-44.
\27\ The proposed addition would become new paragraph (a)(4),
and existing (a)(4) governing endorsements for completing the
manufacturer's safety course will be redesignated as paragraph
(a)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 71514]]
K. Add Expiration Date to SFAR No. 73
SFAR No. 73 became effective on June 29, 2009, and does not have an
expiration date. The proposed revision would add a five-year expiration
date that starts on the effective date of a final rule adopting this
notice of proposed rulemaking. Adding an expiration date to this SFAR
would provide a timeframe for an assessment of how to move its R-22 and
R-44 requirements for ground training, aeronautical experience, flight
training, and flight reviews to a permanent location in a subchapter of
14 CFR, chapter 1.
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 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 $177 million using the most
current (2022) Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product.
In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that this
proposed rule: (1) will result in benefits that justify costs; (2) is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866; (3) is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's
Regulatory Policy and Procedures; (4) will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; (5) will not
create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States; and (6) will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or
tribal governments, or on the private sector.
A. Regulatory Impact Analysis
This proposal would remove 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 R-
22 and R-44. It is current practice not to perform the flight training
maneuver notwithstanding the regulatory requirement in the SFAR;
therefore, the proposed change imposes no new cost. The FAA expects the
proposal to promote safety without imposing costs by clarifying
requirements, eliminating inconsistencies, and updating language.
The proposal 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 insertion of limitations in the rotorcraft flight
manual and aircraft placards prohibiting low G cyclic pushover
maneuvers. The proposal would remove 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 proposal would make 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 proposal
would have minimal economic effects and pose no novel or legal policy
issues. Therefore, the FAA has determined that this proposal is not a
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866 and is not ``significant'' as defined by DOT's
Regulatory Policies and Procedures.
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 FAA expects the proposal to have a minimal economic impact on
small entities. The proposal applies most directly to providers of
training for Robinson R22 and R44 helicopters. Some of these training
providers are small entities. However, the proposal does not impose new
burdens. The proposal would align SFAR No. 73 with current practice and
Airworthiness Directives (ADs) related to Robinson R-22 and R-44
helicopter training requirements. Total training hours remain the same.
The proposal would also update language and make other conforming
changes to improve clarity and consistency regarding training for
Robinson 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 proposes to certify that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The FAA welcomes comments on the basis of this certification.
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
[[Page 71515]]
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 the proposal responds to a domestic safety objective.
The FAA has determined that this proposed 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 proposed rule will not result
in the expenditure of $177 million or more by State, local, or tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector, in any one year.
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. The FAA has determined that
there would be no new requirement for information collection associated
with this proposed 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 proposed 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.
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 FAA 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,\28\ and FAA Order 1210.20,
American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Consultation Policy and
Procedures,\29\ 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. At this
point, the FAA has not identified any unique or significant effects,
environmental or otherwise, on tribes resulting from this proposed
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 6, 2000).
\29\ 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 proposed rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. The FAA 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 would 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. 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.
Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(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 https://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
https://www.dot.gov/privacy.
B. Confidential Business Information
Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial
information that is both customarily and
[[Page 71516]]
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 that is not specifically
designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this
rulemaking.
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 https://www.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 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 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 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 Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 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.
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 herein, this 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 part 61.
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 (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 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 instruction in the following general subject areas:
(i) Energy management;
(ii) Mast bumping;
(iii) Low rotor 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(a)(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 R-22; or
(ii) Has logged at least 10 hours of flight training in the
Robinson R-22 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 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.
[[Page 71517]]
(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 R-22 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 R-44 unless
that person--
(i) Has logged at least 200 flight hours in helicopters, at least
50 flight hours of which were in the Robinson R-44. The pilot in
command may credit up to 25 flight hours in the Robinson R-22 toward
the 50-hour requirement in the Robinson R-44; 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 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 R-44 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 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 R-22.
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 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 R-44.
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;
(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 R-22, has logged at least 200 flight hours in
helicopters, at least 50 flight hours of which were in the Robinson R-
22, or for the Robinson R-44, logged at least 200 flight hours in
helicopters, 50 flight hours of which were in Robinson helicopters. Up
to 25 flight hours of Robinson R-22 flight time may be credited toward
the 50-hour requirement.
(iii) Has completed flight training in a Robinson R-22, R-44, 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 R-22, autorotations at an entry altitude that
permits safe maneuvering and recovery utilizing maximum glide
configuration. For the Robinson R-44, 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 R-22 helicopter shall be valid for the operation of an R-22
helicopter 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 R-44
[[Page 71518]]
helicopter shall be valid for the operation of an R-44 helicopter
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 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 No. 73 expires [DATE FIVE YEARS AFTER
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE] unless sooner revised or rescinded.
Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a),
and 44703 in Washington, DC.
Wesley L. Mooty,
Acting Deputy Executive, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-22634 Filed 10-16-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
