Integration of Powered-Lift: Pilot Certification and Operations; Miscellaneous Amendments Related to Rotorcraft and Airplanes
Federal RegisterNov 21, 2024
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 1, 11, 43, 60, 61, 91, 97, 111, 135, 136, 141, 142, and 194
[Docket No. FAA-2023-1275; Amdt. Nos. 1-78, 11-69, 43-62, 60-8, 61-157, 91-379, 97-1340, 111-2, 135-147, 136-4, 141-26, 142-11, and 194-1]
RIN 2120-AL72
Integration of Powered-Lift: Pilot Certification and Operations; Miscellaneous Amendments Related to Rotorcraft and Airplanes
AGENCY:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION:
Final rule.
SUMMARY:
This final rule adopts permanent amendments and a Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) for a period of ten years to: facilitate the certification of powered-lift pilots, clarify operating rules applicable to operations involving a powered-lift, and finalize other amendments which are necessary to integrate powered-lift into the National Airspace System (NAS). In this final action, the FAA finalizes its alternate framework to stand-up initial groups of powered-lift pilots and flight instructors. Most notably, the FAA adopts alternate frameworks to facilitate the certification of pilots seeking qualifications in a powered-lift with single functioning flight controls and a single pilot station. In response to commenters, the FAA provides clarification for certain operating rules and adopts a performance-based approach to certain operating rules to enable powered-lift operations. In addition to finalizing provisions for powered-lift, this action also makes changes to practical tests in aircraft that require type ratings, including airplanes and helicopters, training center rotorcraft instructor eligibility, training and testing requirements, and training center use of rotorcraft in flight training.
DATES:
This final rule is effective January 21, 2025, except for amendatory instruction 52 which is effective July 21, 2025.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this final rule are approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of January 21, 2025.
ADDRESSES:
For information on where to obtain copies of rulemaking documents and other information related to this final rule, see “How to Obtain Additional Information” in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For technical questions concerning this action, contact Christina Grabill, AFS-810, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-1100; email
9-FAA-Powered-Lift@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
B. Aircraft Certification
C. Airman Certification
D. Operational Requirements
E. International Operation of Powered-Lift
F. Summary of the Costs and Benefits
G. SFAR Framework and Duration
II. Authority for This Rulemaking
III. Background
A. General
B. Summary of the NPRM
C. General Overview of Comments
D. Differences Between the NPRM and the Final Rule
IV. Powered-Lift Type Certification and FSTD Qualification
A. Type Certification
B. Noise Certification
C. Qualification of Powered-Lift Flight Simulation Training Devices (FSTDs)
V. Certification of Powered-Lift Pilots
A. Establish a Type Rating Requirement for Persons Seeking To Act as PIC of Powered-Lift
B. Applicability of the Type Rating Requirement to Military Pilots
C. Applicability of the SIC Qualification Requirements of § 61.55 to Powered-Lift
D. Dual Controls Considerations Related to Flight Training and Supervised Operating Experience
E. Supervised Operating Experience of § 61.64
F. Establishment of an Alternate Pathway for Pilot Certification
G. Training in an Approved Program Under Parts 135, 141, and 142
H. Practical Tests
I. Miscellaneous Amendments
J. Part 135 Pilot Qualifications
K. Part 142 Training Centers
L. Subpart K of Part 91 Pilot Qualifications
VI. Operational Rules for Powered-Lift
A. Introduction
B. Part 91 Rules for Powered-Lift
C. Part 97 Rules for Powered-Lift
D. Part 135 Rules for Powered-Lift
E. Part 136 Rules for Powered-Lift
F. Part 43 Applicability to Powered-Lift
G. Pilot Records Database
VII. Air Traffic Operations
VIII. International Operations for Powered-Lift
A. Personnel Licensing
B. Operations of Aircraft
C. Airworthiness of Aircraft
IX. Advanced Air Mobility
X. SFAR Framework and Duration
XI. Autonomous Powered-Lift
XII. Comments to Regulatory Impact Analysis
XIII. FAA Readiness
XIV. Definitions
A. Definition of Powered-Lift
B. Definition of Flight Modes
C. Definition of Heliport
D. Definition of Autorotation
XV. Other Comments Related to Powered-Lift
A. Other Comments Related to Language or Definitions in the Powered-Lift NPRM
B. Safety Systems or Procedures Not Addressed in the NPRM
C. Other Comments Related to Powered-Lift Design
D. Congressional Comments
XVI. Related Rulemakings
XVII. Severability
XVIII. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
A. Summary of the 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
H. Regulations Affecting Intrastate Aviation in Alaska
I. Congressional Review Act
XIX. Executive Order Determinations
A. Executive Order 14036, Promoting Competition in the United States Economy
B. Executive Order 13985, Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government
C. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
D. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
E. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
F. Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation
XX. Additional Information
A. Electronic Access and Filing
B. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms Frequently Used in This Document
Abbreviations and Acronyms Used in This Document
ACO—Aircraft Certification Office
ACS—Airman Certification Standards
APD—Aircrew Program Designee
AIH—Aviation Instructor's Handbook
AQP—Advanced Qualification Program
ATC—Air Traffic Control
ATP—Airline Transport Pilot
ATO—Air Traffic Organization
CAMP—Continuous Airworthiness Maintenance Program
CFIT—Controlled Flight Into Terrain
CFR—Code of Federal Regulations
CLOA—Certificate and Letter of Authority
CVR—Cockpit Voice Recorder
DPE—Designated Pilot Examiner
GPS—Global Positioning System
GPWS—Ground Proximity Warning Systems
ELT—Emergency Locator Transmitter
ERT—Extended Review Team
FDR—Flight Data Recorder
FFS—Full Flight Simulator
FSB—Flight Standardization Board
FSBR—Flight Standardization Board Report
FSTD—Flight Simulation Training Device
FTD—Flight Training Device
HAA—Helicopter Air Ambulance
HTAWS—Helicopter Terrain Awareness Warning System
ICAO—International Civil Aviation Organization
IFR—Instrument Flight Rules
IMC—Instrument Meteorological Conditions
IOE—Initial Operating Experience
IPC—Instrument Proficiency Check
LOA—Letter of Authorization
LOFT—Line Oriented Flight Training
MDA—Minimum Descent Altitude
MCTW—Maximum Certificated Takeoff Weight
MEL—Minimum Equipment List
MFD—Multifunction Display
MGTOW—Maximum Gross Takeoff Weight
MMEL—Master Minimum Equipment List
NAS—National Airspace System
NPRM—Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
NM—Nautical Mile
NSP—National Simulator Program
NTSB—National Transportation Safety Board
OEM—Original Equipment Manufacturer
PA—Public Address System
PDP—Professional Development Program
PIC—Pilot in Command
PFD—Primary Flight Display
POI—Principal Operations Inspector
PTS—Practical Test Standards
QPS—Qualification Performance Standards
RPA—Rules of Particular Applicability
SARPs—Standards and Recommended Practices
SFAR—Special Federal Aviation Regulation
SIC—Second in Command
SLF—Supervised Line Flying
SOE—Supervised Operating Experience
SVO—Simplified Vehicle Operations
TAPL—Technically Advanced Powered-Lift
TAWS—Terrain Awareness and Warning System
TC—Type Certificate
TCE—Training Center Evaluator
TCDS—Type Certificate Data Sheet
VFR—Visual Flight Rules
VMC—Visual Meteorological Conditions
VTOL—Vertical Takeoff and Landing
I. Executive Summary
This final rule establishes the requirements for pilot certification and operation of powered-lift. Powered-lift are defined in title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 1 as heavier-than-air aircraft capable of vertical takeoff, vertical landing, and low speed flight that depends principally on engine-driven lift devices or engine thrust for lift during these flight regimes and on nonrotating airfoil(s) for lift during horizontal flight. Powered-lift are capable of vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) while being able to fly like an airplane during cruise flight. Currently, there are no type-certificated powered-lift in civil operations; however, there are several applicants seeking type certificates for such aircraft.
Several of the powered-lift that the FAA expects to enter the civilian market have complex and unique design, flight, and handling characteristics with varying degrees of automation. The FAA anticipates that these aircraft will conduct an array of different operations, such as transporting crew and material to offshore oil rigs, transporting passengers from point-to-point as an air ambulance, and transporting passengers in concentrated urban environments.
To safely integrate powered-lift in the national airspace system (NAS), the FAA is making permanent changes to parts 61, 135, and 142 to train and certificate powered-lift pilots and instructors, as well as issuing a temporary Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) that supplements existing rules, creates temporary alternatives for airman certification, removes operational barriers, and mitigates safety risks for powered-lift. As discussed in section X of this preamble, the duration of the SFAR is 10 years.
Powered-lift will also be utilized to support the deployment of advanced air mobility (AAM) operations. AAM is an umbrella term for an air transportation system that moves people and cargo using revolutionary new aircraft. The AAM Coordination and Leadership Act defines AAM as “a transportation system that transports people and property by air between two points in the United States using aircraft with advanced technologies, including electric aircraft or electric vertical take-off and landing aircraft, in both controlled and uncontrolled airspace.” The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 updated the definition to mean “a transportation system that is comprised of urban air mobility and regional air mobility using manned or unmanned aircraft.”
1
Congress directed the Department of Transportation to establish an advanced air mobility working group to plan for and coordinate efforts necessary for maturation of the AAM ecosystem in the United States through the Advanced Air Mobility Coordination and Leadership Act. This rulemaking is an important step in facilitating the integration of powered-lift and AAM into the NAS.
1
FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024, Pub. L. 118-63 (May 16, 2024). The media often refer to these operations as “air taxis”; however, this term is used only in the context of 14 CFR chapter II (pertaining to DOT-specific regulations). Consequently, throughout this preamble, the FAA refers to these operations as passenger-carrying operations or air carrier operations.
A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
This final rule addresses regulatory barriers to introducing powered-lift as a new category of aircraft into operations in the NAS. The final rule creates an alternate pathway for pilot certification and enables operations under parts 91 (General Operating and Flight Rules), 97 (Standard Instrument Procedures), 135 (Commuter and On-Demand Operations), and 136 (Commercial Air Tours).
The existing regulations in part 61 for training and certificating powered-lift flight instructors and pilots do not adequately address the unique challenges of introducing a new category of aircraft to civil operations. First, the existing regulations did not anticipate the diversity in design of the powered-lift that are working through the aircraft certification process. Second, there are challenges with applying existing aeronautical experience requirements to train and certificate the initial cadre
2
of powered-lift flight instructors and pilots. In addition, part 135 regulations for certain commercial operations do not contain specific requirements addressing the qualifications for powered-lift pilots. Therefore, current part 135 pilot qualification requirements that apply to pilots of airplanes and helicopters need to be amended to include powered-lift pilots to close the safety gap.
2
The FAA uses the term “initial cadre” throughout this preamble. In some instances, initial cadre refers to a sufficient number of instructors and evaluators to train and qualify pilots for powered-lift ratings under an approved training program under part 135, 141, or 142. In other instances, the term refers to a sufficient number of pilots who are rated in powered-lift to meet the demands of the market.
In addition, to address an operational safety risk that exists because the current regulatory framework governing operations does not contemplate powered-lift, changes had to be made to certain operational rules. There are myriad operational rules under parts 91, 97, 135, and 136 that currently apply to “airplanes,” “helicopters,” and/or “rotorcraft” that should also apply to powered-lift.
Industry has expressed its intent to introduce these aircraft immediately into passenger-carrying commercial operations under part 135, making the need to reconsider the existing airman certification standards and operating regulations for powered-lift and address the absence of specific regulations for pilots in part 135 more urgent. The FAA requires and the public expects that commercial operations be conducted with the highest regard for safety and by pilots who have the requisite experience flying the particular category of aircraft in which paying passengers will be transported. As a result, this rulemaking is necessary to ensure that pilots for these aircraft are properly trained and
that these rapidly developing aircraft can safely integrate and operate within the NAS.
The following sections discuss the provisions being adopted in this final rule.
B. Aircraft Certification
The FAA did not establish any new requirements for the type certification of powered-lift, nor did it revise existing type certification requirements. The FAA determined that existing aircraft certification requirements are sufficient to type certificate powered-lift as a special class under § 21.17(b). The special class process allows the FAA to address the novel features of unique and nonconventional aircraft without the need for additional processes such as special conditions or exemptions that would be required if the FAA used the airworthiness standards already in place. The aircraft certification requirements and comments the FAA received are discussed in more detail in section IV.A. of this preamble.
C. Airman Certification
To maintain a level of safety commensurate with that expected for airplanes and helicopters, the FAA adopts new requirements for pilots to hold type ratings for each powered-lift they fly and qualification requirements for powered-lift pilots serving in part 135 operations. To address the obstacles to airman certification, the FAA provides alternatives to certain requirements in part 61 through the establishment of a new part 194, Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 120—Powered-Lift: Pilot Certification and Training; Operations Requirements, to facilitate the training and certification of the initial cadre of powered-lift instructors and pilots. In addition to this alternate framework, the FAA adopts several pathways to certificate powered-lift pilots utilizing aircraft with a single flight control and single pilot station. The FAA is facilitating this through three options: (1) recognition of a single flight control that is accessible by both the student and flight instructor and allows for the instructor to immediately intervene if necessary; (2) expanded use of simulators to allow an applicant to train in a simulator and gain necessary experience solo in the aircraft; and (3) deviation authority for consideration of future advancements in technology that is not currently validated at this time.
1. Type Rating
The FAA did not establish classes within the powered-lift category because each powered-lift can have different configurations, unique inceptors, diversified flight controls, and distinctive operating characteristics. Further, the FAA lacks sufficient operational data to identify commonality to establish classes within the powered-lift category because powered-lift are still in the development phase. The FAA finds that reasons for not establishing class ratings persist, and the final rule adopts the proposal for all powered-lift pilot in commands (PICs) to hold a type rating.
2. Flight Instructors
The FAA recognizes that, once the first powered-lift achieve type certification, there will be an insufficient number of qualified flight instructors to provide training to the pilots who will need to obtain certificates and ratings necessary to serve in powered-lift operations. For this reason, the FAA is allowing certain pilots employed by the manufacturer to obtain the necessary training and experience for powered-lift through the test flights and crew training activities necessary for aircraft certification. Once the manufacturer's personnel obtain the necessary ratings, they would form the initial cadre of instructors who could conduct certification training in the manufacturer's aircraft for certain instructor personnel at part 141 pilot schools, part 142 training centers, and part 135 operators. These instructors under parts 141, 142, and 135 would then develop the curricula for the initial powered-lift training at their respective organizations and conduct certification training at their respective certificate holders. The FAA finalizes this alternate framework for test pilots and instructor pilots to facilitate certification training as proposed.
3. Alternate Framework for Pilot Certification
Even with sufficient qualified flight instructors, the existing airman certification rules for powered-lift present barriers for persons seeking to accomplish the training and experience necessary to obtain the certificates and ratings for commercial operations. In response to industry concerns, the FAA adopts alternate requirements for meeting PIC flight time and cross-country flight time requirements in part 61 and expanding the opportunity for pilots to obtain powered-lift ratings at the commercial pilot certificate level through part 135 training programs. Most of the alternative requirements would be available only to pilots who already hold a commercial pilot certificate and an instrument rating for another category of aircraft. In addition, although no flight simulation training devices (FSTDs) representing powered-lift are currently qualified, the FAA anticipates near-term qualification of such devices and proposed allowing increased flight training opportunities through simulation. This final rule adopts the alternate aeronautical experience and cross-country requirements, as proposed, with some minor alterations.
In addition, as explained more fully in section V.F., this final rule reduces the PIC flight time in a powered-lift at the commercial pilot certificate level from 50 hours to 35 hours, of which 15 hours may still be in a Level C or higher full flight simulator (FFS).
4. Part 135 Qualifications
The FAA adopts permanent changes to training and qualification requirements for pilots to align with the requirements for powered-lift with those established for pilots of airplanes and rotorcraft in part 135. The proposals included Airline Transport Pilot (ATP) certification and operating experience in the make and model of powered-lift for PICs in commuter operations, part 121 Advanced Qualification Program (AQP) training requirements for pilots who serve in commuter operations in certain powered-lift, and instrument ratings for all powered-lift pilots in part 135 operations. In addition to allowing a part 135 operator to develop and provide training for powered-lift pilot certification at the commercial pilot level, the FAA is permitting successful completion of part 135 pilot checks to be used to meet the practical test requirements for powered-lift ratings subject to certain conditions.
Overall, the FAA finalizes the proposed requirements regarding integration of powered-lift pertaining to part 135 qualifications without substantial changes from what was proposed in the NPRM. In response to commenters, the FAA made certain editorial changes to add clarification and better enable powered-lift training and testing that would have otherwise created obstacles.
5. Dual Controls
The FAA noted in its proposal that it was retaining the powered-lift category and proposed alternate aeronautical experience and logging requirements to allow certain groups of pilots to attain the necessary aeronautical experience. In accordance with flight training requirements under § 91.109 and the requirements for supervised operating experience (SOE) in § 61.64, the powered-lift would be required to have a dual set of controls to accomplish the
aeronautical experience required in an aircraft and SOE.
After consideration of the comments received, the FAA is adopting several pathways to enable the use of a powered-lift without dual controls. The first pathway permits flight training in a powered-lift with a single set of flight controls accessible by both student and instructor (
e.g.,
a throwover control). The second pathway allows all flight training to be conducted in an approved simulator, culminating in solo aeronautical experience in a powered-lift with a single set of flight controls subject to certain conditions and limitations set forth in a new appendix to part 194. This pathway allows an Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) to utilize a Level C or higher FFS to conduct the required flight training in accordance with part 61 and part 194. The pilot can gain the necessary experience through a series of demonstration flights and solo experience, complete a practical test in a Level C FFS, and then conduct abbreviated operating experience in the powered-lift to become fully qualified and fly in the NAS. Finally, the third pathway permits the FAA to issue deviation authority to facilitate flight training in a powered-lift with a single set of flight controls in the NAS based on future demonstrated and validated advancements in technology.
The FAA makes conforming amendments in light of these alternate pathways to the supervised operating experience requirements and in part 135. Specifically, this final rule adopts certain alternate provisions to facilitate supervised operating experience in a powered-lift with a single set of controls and a single pilot seat. Additionally, this final rule revises current requirements for instructor training that is accomplished from either pilot station to provide a feasible pathway for approved part 135 training programs, pilots, instructors, and check airman operating only with one pilot station and/or set of flight controls.
6. Impacts to Rotorcraft Training at Part 142 Training Centers
The FAA adopts permanent changes that, in addition to establishing requirements for powered-lift, would affect certain part 142 training in FSTDs for rotorcraft. These proposed changes would harmonize requirements for airplanes, powered-lift, and rotorcraft in part 142, specifically for pilot training in an FSTD that represents an aircraft requiring a type rating. This final rule applies the ATP aeronautical experience requirements to FSTD instructors in airplanes and helicopters requiring a type rating, powered-lift weighing over 12,500 pounds, and turbojet powered powered-lift rather than all aircraft requiring a type rating. In some instances, these adopted changes provide additional flexibility to training and qualification for rotorcraft instructors consistent with allowances for airplane instructors and provide training and testing for rotorcraft instructors that is more specifically focused on rotorcraft, instead of airplanes.
D. Operational Requirements
To mitigate the safety gaps that exist due to the absence of operational regulations specifically applicable to powered-lift, the FAA proposed, through the SFAR, to apply specific airplane, rotorcraft, and helicopter rules contained in parts 43, 91, 97, 135, and 136 to powered-lift as appropriate. In the proposal, the FAA determined that applying the airplane rules in most instances was a safer, more conservative approach, especially given the lack of powered-lift operational data. Notwithstanding, in some instances, for example under part 136, the FAA determined that applying the helicopter or rotorcraft rules were appropriate and provided an equivalent level of safety.
Specifically, the FAA initially proposed using the visual flight rules (VFR) fuel requirements specified for airplanes for both operations conducted under parts 91 and 135. After considering comments received, the FAA is adopting different requirements than proposed related to fuel reserves when conducting VFR operations. The SFAR now stipulates helicopter minimums for powered-lift capable of conducting a landing in the vertical-lift flight mode along the entire route of flight. Powered-lift that are not capable of conducting a landing in the vertical-lift flight mode along the entire route of flight must meet airplane minimums.
In addition, the FAA initially proposed using the instrument flight rules (IFR) fuel requirements specified for airplanes for operations conducted under parts 91 and 135. The SFAR now permits the use of helicopter minimums stipulated for powered-lift that are authorized to conduct Copter Procedures and that have the performance capability, as provided in the Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM), to conduct a landing in the vertical-lift flight mode for the entire flight. Powered-lift that do not meet these criteria will be required to meet the airplane minimums.
The FAA also proposed using the VFR visibility requirements prescribed for airplanes. The final rule states that helicopter minimums are applicable if the powered-lift is operated in the vertical-lift flight mode and is operated at a speed that allows the pilot adequate opportunity to see any other traffic or obstructions in time to avoid a collision. If either of those requirements are not met, then the airplane minimums apply.
Finally, the FAA proposed using the general aircraft minimum safe altitudes for operations conducted under parts 91 and 135, rather than allowing powered-lift to utilize helicopter exclusions. The final rule provides that powered-lift operating in vertical-lift flight mode that have demonstrated a capability to autorotate or conduct an approved equivalent maneuver are allowed the same minimum safe altitudes as those afforded to helicopters. However, for part 135 operations, it is important to note that the minimum altitude cannot be lower than 300 feet above the surface. When a powered-lift is operating in the vertical-lift flight mode and is certificated to conduct an autorotation or an approved equivalent maneuver to a landing, then helicopter minimum safe altitudes or lowest altitude published in the AFM apply.
Under part 136, the FAA proposed applying the operational requirements specific to helicopter operations within part 136 to powered-lift operations because the FAA anticipated powered-lift will hover and operate similarly to helicopters when conducting air tours, except when relying on wing-borne flight. In the final rule, as addressed in section VI.E. of this preamble, “Part 136 Rules for Powered-Lift,” the FAA applies some provisions in part 136 to powered-lift regardless of the flight mode in which the aircraft is operating because the FAA determined those provisions—such as requiring flotation equipment—should apply to powered-lift regardless of whether they are operating in the vertical-lift or wing-borne flight mode.
The FAA will allow powered-lift operators to use Copter Procedures as defined in part 97 if the aircraft has been type-certificated and equipped to utilize those procedures. That capability will be identified in the limitations section of the AFM along with any other specific limitations and procedures necessary for safe operation of the aircraft.
The FAA has made a permanent change to the regulatory requirements for the Pilot Records Database contained in part 111 to include powered-lift as a qualifying aircraft to meet the threshold requirement of whether a person operating in furtherance of a business needs to report pilot records to the Pilot Records Database.
For purposes of maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, and alteration, the FAA proposed to apply the current requirements under part 43, with only two modifications. First, the FAA proposed to apply the preventive maintenance requirements available to certificate holders operating rotorcraft under part 135 in remote areas to certificate holders similarly operating powered-lift. Second, the FAA proposed that in lieu of complying with § 43.15(b), each person performing an inspection required by part 91 on a powered-lift, must inspect “critical parts” (as defined under §§ 27.602 and 29.602) in accordance with the maintenance manual or Instruction for Continuous Airworthiness, or as otherwise approved by the Administrator. The FAA is adopting these requirements as proposed.
The operational requirements and comments the FAA received are discussed in more detail in section VI.F. of this preamble.
E. International Operation of Powered-Lift
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 (SARPs) to the maximum extent practicable. In this final rule, the FAA amends part 61 to require powered-lift pilots to have a type rating, which meets the standards outlined in ICAO Annex 1, Personnel Licensing. Under parts 91 and 135, the FAA requires U.S. operators to comply with ICAO Annex 2, Rules of the Air, when operating over the high seas or when operating within a foreign country.
3
ICAO Annex 8, Airworthiness of Aircraft, is silent on powered-lift; however, the FAA designates powered-lift as special class aircraft for type certification in accordance with § 21.17(b) and applies airworthiness criteria that meet an equivalent level of safety to the FAA's existing airworthiness standards and are consistent with the intent of ICAO Annex 8 to the Chicago Convention. Accordingly, U.S. operators of powered-lift that are type-certificated with a standard airworthiness certificate and conduct their operations in accordance with the standards outlined in Annex 2 would be eligible to operate over the high seas. The requirements for the international operation of powered-lift and comments the FAA received are discussed in more detail in section VIII.B. of this preamble.
3
See 14 CFR 91.703. To note, § 91.703(a)(2) requires each person operating a civil aircraft of U.S. registry outside the U.S. when within a foreign country to comply with the regulations relating to the flight and maneuver of aircraft there in force and, with narrow exceptions, comply with 14 CFR part 91 so far as it is not inconsistent with the applicable regulations of the foreign country where the aircraft is operating or Annex 2.
F. Summary of the Costs and Benefits
Operations with powered-lift are anticipated to offer benefits over traditional airplanes and rotorcraft. A report published by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) stated that many of these newer kinds of aircraft could be easier to design, simpler to construct, less complicated to maneuver, quieter to fly, and more economical to operate compared to traditional aircraft.
4
Many use cases for these aircraft are envisioned, and this rulemaking is a step toward those use cases coming to realization.
4
Transforming Aviation: Stakeholders Identified Issues to Address for ‘Advanced Air Mobility’ | U.S. GAO,
www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-105020.pdf.
Several problems exist absent this rulemaking. The first is that only operating rules applicable to powered-lift are those specific to “aircraft,” which introduces a substantial safety gap in part 91 and part 135 operations. This safety gap does not exist for parts 91 and 135 operations conducted with airplanes, helicopters, and rotorcraft because decades of FAA rulemaking has resulted in a continuum of rules establishing minimum safety standards for operations conducted with these aircraft. A similar suite of category-specific rules simply does not exist for powered-lift because these are new and novel aircraft that have yet to be type-certificated for operations in the NAS. Consequently, powered-lift would not be required to operate at the level of safety required of operations conducted with airplanes, helicopters, or rotorcraft.
The second problem is challenges presented by the existing airmen certification regulations. Unlike the extensive infrastructure in place for the training and certification of airplane and rotorcraft pilots and instructors, the resources to scale powered-lift training and certification of pilots and instructors is scant due to the lack of powered-lift flight instructors and FAA-certificated aircraft available for airman training and testing (and operations). Without this rulemaking, civilian pilots will be unable to obtain powered-lift ratings necessary for industry to scale operations intended for these new and novel aircraft.
The third problem absent this SFAR are the requirements for acting as PIC of a powered-lift operation. Should type-certificated powered-lift become available before this rule is finalized, individuals holding an airman certificate with a powered-lift category rating would be permitted to act as PIC of powered-lift operations. Taking into consideration the variation in operating characteristics for each powered-lift coming to the civilian market, a powered-lift category rating would not adequately prepare an individual to act as PIC of a powered-lift operation.
While operators choosing to conduct operations with powered-lift will incur costs to comply with regulations in this SFAR, these costs are on a scale equivalent to those incurred by operators choosing to conduct operations with airplanes or rotorcraft under similar regulations. Likewise, costs imposed on individuals that choose to accomplish the training and testing required to hold an airman certificate with a type rating in the powered-lift category are on a scale equivalent to those incurred by individuals accomplishing training and testing to hold an airman certificate with a type rating in the airplane or rotorcraft category. In other words, the costs imposed on operators and individuals that choose to comply with regulations finalized by this rule will be no more burdensome than the costs incurred by entities and individuals complying with corresponding airplane and rotorcraft regulations that are already in effect. Additionally, the FAA has provided some performance-based options in certain rules that could reduce the burden on industry as compared to the comparable prescriptive requirements of the proposed rule.
The provisions in this SFAR can generally be grouped by those rules affecting airman certification and those rules enabling powered-lift to conduct operations under parts 91, 97, 135, and 136. For certification of airmen with a type rating in powered-lift, the FAA allows alternative aeronautical experience and logging requirements. For the operational rules, the FAA applies specific airplane, rotorcraft, or helicopter rules to powered-lift, as appropriate. The FAA has considered each finalized regulation in the SFAR to determine its economic impact. An overview of this analysis is included in the Regulatory Evaluation portion of this preamble. A regulatory impact analysis has also been prepared for the finalized SFAR and can be found in the docket for this rule.
The following table presents a summary of the primary estimate for which data was available to monetize
the costs of this rule, as well as estimates for a pessimistic and optimistic scenario. The monetized costs include incremental costs for individuals to hold an airman's certificate with a type rating for the powered-lift flown, costs for the minimum fuel reserve requirement, and costs for the provision of dual-control aircraft and full flight simulators for training. For the primary estimate, over a 10-year period of analysis, this rule would result in present value costs of about $914.2 million at a two percent discount rate with annualized costs of about $101.8 million.
5
Additional details are provided in the Regulatory Evaluation section of this SFAR and in the regulatory impact analysis available in the docket for this rulemaking.
5
Monetized costs for the rule stem from the cadence of aircraft deliveries. In the optimistic scenario, aircraft deliveries are forecast to begin in year 1 and continue through year 10. Aircraft deliveries for the base scenario are forecast to occur during years 2-10, and in the pessimistic scenario during years 3-10. As a result, costs for the optimistic scenario accumulate over a period of 10 years versus the base and pessimistic scenarios, over which costs accumulate for a period of 9 years and 8 years, respectively.
Table 1—Monetized Costs of SFAR
[Millions $]
Forecast scenario
10-Year
present
value
Annualized
Base—Primary Estimate
$914.2
$101.8
Pessimistic
865.5
96.4
Optimistic
966.1
107.6
G. SFAR Framework and Duration
This final rule enables powered-lift operations for a limited duration and provides the FAA an opportunity to assess the operations and establish a comprehensive regulatory scheme. This final rule adopts both limited permanent changes and a time-limited SFAR to facilitate powered-lift operations. The SFAR permits the FAA to gather data—via established approved information collections, regulatory requirements, and informal anecdotal information and observations—and better understand what a comprehensive permanent regulatory framework should look like.
Further, the FAA notes that section 955(c) of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 (Pub. L. 118-63) mandates that the FAA establish an aviation rulemaking committee (ARC) no later than three years after the FAA issues the first commercial operating certificate to a powered-lift, to provide the Administrator with specific findings and recommendations for, at a minimum, the creation of a standard pathway for the performance-based certification of powered-lift aircraft; the certification of airmen capable of serving as pilot-in-command of a powered-lift; and operation of powered-lift in commercial service and air transportation. Section 955(d) requires the FAA to initiate a rulemaking no later than 270 days after the ARC submits its report. Not only does this language impose a timeline for establishing the ARC and subsequent rulemaking, it acknowledges that an ARC will first need real-world operational data from commercial powered-lift operations before it can provide informed recommendations for a permanent rulemaking.
Because the SFAR will affect several parts of 14 CFR, the FAA has determined that the most clear and comprehensive regulatory approach is through the creation of a new part to wholly contain the SFAR. Specifically, the FAA is adding a new part 194, titled “Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 120—Powered-Lift: Pilot Certification and Training; Operations Requirements,” to 14 CFR under new subchapter L, titled “Other Special Federal Aviation Regulations.” New part 194 utilizes the traditional regulatory structure to supplement existing rules, creates temporary alternatives for airman certification, removes operational barriers, and mitigates safety risks for powered-lift. As a result, requisite applicability revisions are made to parts 43, 60, 61, 91, 97, 111, 135, 136, 141, and 142 to clearly communicate that current regulations are intended to operate in tandem with part 194, as subsequently discussed in this preamble.
This SFAR will remain in effect for ten years after this final rule becomes effective. In selecting ten years as the appropriate duration for this SFAR, the FAA considered a number of factors including the time it will take to initiate operations after this final rule becomes effective and the type certification status of the powered-lift that are commercially viable. As discussed in section I.G. of this preamble (“SFAR Framework and Duration”), the FAA has determined that a ten-year period is an appropriate length of time to collect operational data from powered-lift operations. This data will inform a subsequent rulemaking to implement permanent amendments.
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 in more detail the scope of the FAA's authority.
The FAA is issuing this final rule under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart i, Section 40113, Administrative, and Subpart iii, Section 44701, General Requirements; Section 44702, Issuance of Certificates; Section 44703, Airman Certificates; Section 44704, Type Certificates, Production Certificates, Airworthiness Certificates, and Design and Production Organization Certificates; Section 44705, Air Carrier Operating Certificates; and Section 44707, Examination and Rating Air Agencies. Under these sections, the FAA prescribes regulations and minimum standards for practices, methods, and procedures necessary for safety in air commerce, including the authority to examine and rate civil schools and prescribe regulations to ensure the competency of instructors. The FAA is also authorized under these sections to issue certificates, including airman certificates, type certificates, and air carrier operating certificates, in the interest of safety.
This rulemaking is also issued under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart iii, Section 44712, Emergency Locator Transmitters; Section 44713, Inspection and Maintenance; Section 44715, Noise and Sonic Boom; Section 44716, Collision
Avoidance Systems; and Section 44722, Winter conditions. These sections direct the Administrator to prescribe regulations to govern the use of emergency locator transmitters and collision avoidance systems, the standards for inspecting and performing maintenance on aircraft, and regulations to control aircraft noise and safety risks related to winter conditions, respectively.
Section 955 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 (Pub. L. 118-63) requires that, within seven months of the date of enactment of the Act, the FAA publish a final rule finalizing the notice of proposed rulemaking entitled “Integration of Powered-Lift: Pilot Certification and Operations; Miscellaneous Amendments Related to Rotorcraft and Airplanes.” Section 955 requires that, with respect to any powered-lift aircraft type certificated by the FAA, the regulations must provide a practical pathway for pilot qualification and operations; establish performance-based requirements for energy reserves and other range- and endurance-related requirements that reflect the capabilities and intended operations of the aircraft; provide for a combination of pilot training requirements, including simulators, to ensure the safe operation of powered-lift; and to the maximum extent practicable, align powered-lift pilot qualifications with section 2.1.1.4 of Annex 1 to the Chicago Convention. Additionally, as required by section 955(a)(3)(B), the FAA must ensure coordination with the Department of Defense (DoD).
In this rule, the FAA provides practical pathways for pilots to qualify to operate powered-lift, establishing pathways for pilots with military experience, airline transport pilot and commercial experience, and flight instruction experience to gain experience in the operation of these aircraft, providing them with sufficient foundations to safely conduct passenger-carrying operations. These multiple pathways will give pilots of diverse backgrounds and prior experience opportunities to enter this emerging aviation sector. For further information on pilot pathways see section V. of this preamble.
Also, in recognition of the comments received, the FAA has revised requirements related to fuel and energy reserves to provide greater flexibility for operations conducted under certain parameters. Specifically, the SFAR outlines performance-based requirements that allow powered-lift operators to use certain helicopter operating rules as long as the operator complies with the appropriate risk mitigations that are detailed in the rule. For example, an operator may use the helicopter fuel requirements under § 91.151 if the powered-lift is continuously capable of conducting a landing in the vertical-lift flight mode along the entire route of flight. For further information, see section VI. of this preamble.
Further, based on comments received to the NPRM, the FAA has significantly expanded the ability of manufacturers and operators to use flight simulation training devices in the training and qualification of pilots, recognizing the significant advancements in flight simulation technology and pilot training. This includes providing an opportunity for a pilot applicant to credit certain experience in a simulator in addition to outlining a pathway for pilot certification greatly expanding the use of simulation when a powered-lift has a single functioning flight control. For further information on these provisions, see sections IV. and V. of this preamble.
The FAA has considered the provisions of section 2.1.1.4 of Annex 1 to the Chicago Convention and ensured that the requirements in this rule related to pilot certification and operations are responsive to the intent of that section of the Annex. The FAA carefully considered implementation of section 2.1.1.4 and found it impracticable to disrupt the FAA's traditional airman certification framework by the addition of a type rating within a wholly different aircraft category to an existing certificate with a different category rating. However, through this SFAR, the FAA chose to facilitate alternative measures for a pilot to directly receive a powered-lift category rating and a powered-lift type rating. Similar to the conditions set forth in ICAO's transitional recommendation, these alternative measures to receive a powered-lift category and type rating would be completed during training provided under an approved or proposed training curriculum and would take previous experience of an applicant in an airplane or helicopter into account. Considering the flexibilities extended in the final rule, FAA believes it has aligned with section 2.1.1.4 to the maximum extent practicable while maintaining safety and consistency with its existing regulatory structure. For further discussion, see section V.A. of this preamble.
Based on the foregoing authorities, the FAA makes amendments to clarify the rule and corrects inadvertent errors contained in the NPRM. These are explained in more detail throughout this final rule. Amendments correcting for clarity, correctness, and grammar are not substantive in nature and are a logical outgrowth of the NPRM.
The FAA also makes minor technical amendments to its regulations that are discussed throughout this preamble. The FAA finds that notice and comment is unnecessary for these technical changes.
6
6
Further, technical amendments are “a routine determination, insignificant in nature and impact, and inconsequential to the industry and to the public.” See
Mack Trucks, Inc.
v.
EPA, 682 F.3d 87, 94 (D.C. Cir. 2012) | (quotation marks and citation omitted)
; See also
United States
v.
Mullins,
2012 WL 3777067, at *4 (D. Vt. Aug. 29, 2012) (explaining that public comment is unnecessary if minor or merely technical amendments in which the public is not particularly interested were involved).
Additionally, in this final rule, the FAA revised certain sections of the proposed rule to account for FAA Test Pilots and Aviation Safety Inspectors (ASIs). Providing notice and seeking comment on these changes is not required as they are rules of agency organization, practice, or procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A).
Finally, in accordance with § 955(a)(3)(B), the FAA has consulted with the DoD on a host of issues regarding powered-lift, including the United States Air Force Agility Prime program; powered-lift that are used for military purposes; and commonalities, differences, and handling qualities of various types of powered-lift. In addition to direct consultation, the FAA notes that because this final rule was designated significant under Executive Order 12866, it was coordinated with the DoD as well as other agencies during interagency coordination.
7
This coordination serves as another opportunity for the FAA to consult with the DoD on this rule.
7
Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, issued on Sept. 30, 1993 (58 FR 51735).
III. Background
A. General
Powered-lift are unique in their ability to take off and land vertically like helicopters and fly like an airplane during cruise flight. They can operate in different flight regimes utilizing features of helicopters or airplanes or both. The flight controls for such aircraft are also often unique to the individual aircraft design and can incorporate both traditional helicopter and airplane controls, or control systems that are dissimilar to either helicopters or airplanes. Likewise, the flight characteristics for powered-lift vary depending on the aircraft design and the different modes in which they operate.
Currently, the FAA has several powered-lift in the type certification process. The powered-lift coming to the civilian market have varied greatly in design, flight, and handling characteristics with varying degrees of automation.
While none of the powered-lift for which type certification is being sought have yet been approved for civilian use, the powered-lift industry has identified many potential uses for these aircraft. The FAA anticipates the introduction of aircraft that vary in size and passenger seating configuration and employ both new and traditional kinds of propulsion systems into the civilian market.
Manufacturers and initial operators of powered-lift indicate operations with powered-lift could offer many benefits over rotorcraft. For example, some powered-lift may be capable of transporting heavier loads at higher altitudes and faster cruise speeds than rotorcraft. Such capability may increase efficiency in transporting crew and material to remote locations such as offshore oil rigs and add diversity when considering landing points that are currently available to helicopters and not airplanes. Certificate holders seeking to take advantage of these capabilities may also seek to use powered-lift for transporting passengers from point-to-point; for example, such transportation could occur from a heliport and proceed at airplane airspeeds and ranges. Other opportunities may also exist in concentrated urban environments, where short point-to-point distances coupled with VTOL capability may allow for more efficient transportation of passengers than existing ground transportation methods.
B. Summary of the NPRM
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed permanent changes to the Code of Federal Regulations and a temporary SFAR to facilitate the safe integration of powered-lift operations into the NAS. Under this comprehensive approach, the FAA proposed to incorporate changes to pilot certification rules, operating rules, air agency rules, as well as other conforming proposals to maintenance requirements, pilot records database requirements, and FSTD qualification requirements. This section provides a broad summary of the NPRM.
Although the FAA did not propose any new type certification requirements or noise standards applicable to powered-lift, the FAA clarified that it would follow its existing aircraft certification process under § 21.17(b) to type certificate powered-lift. The FAA proposed a new process for an OEM to attain qualification of an FSTD in accordance with part 60. Because the existing deviation authority in part 60 cannot be used to qualify an FSTD that represents a category of aircraft for which there is no standard under part 60, the FAA proposed to mirror the aircraft certification process under § 21.17(b) to similarly allow an applicant seeking to qualify a powered-lift FSTD to use a combination of requirements in appendices A through D to part 60 to form a basis to qualify an FSTD under that part.
Part 61 sets forth the aeronautical experience requirements to attain a pilot certificate, as well as a flight instructor certificate, with powered-lift ratings. The FAA noted in the NPRM that the broader powered-lift category requirement, without an established class rating or type rating, would not adequately prepare a pilot to fly the specific powered-lift moving through FAA aircraft certification, thus potentially creating a safety gap. To address this concern, the FAA proposed to require pilots in command hold a type rating for the powered-lift they seek to fly. Most significantly, the FAA proposed alternate aeronautical experience and logging requirements from the existing powered-lift requirements in part 61. These alternate requirements would be applicable to certain pilot groups that the FAA deemed have the most relevant experience to establish a base of powered-lift pilots and instructors. As proposed, the experience and logging provisions would create an alternative pathway to powered-lift certification for (1) OEM instructor pilots and test pilots; (2) initial cadres of flight instructors from certificate holders under parts 135, 141, and 142 receiving training at an OEM; and (3) pilots receiving training from the initial cadres of flight instructors under approved training programs under part 135, 141, or 142. Alternate aeronautical experience proposed by the FAA focused on giving allowances for flight training, including allowing the logging of PIC time when an applicant is the sole manipulator of the flight controls, and reduced distances to meet cross-country aeronautical experience. This experience, combined with meeting the alternate experience and logging provisions set forth in the FAA's proposed SFAR, would result in pilots attaining the required experience necessary to hold a commercial pilot certificate.
The FAA sought comment on existing requirements that dictate an aircraft used for flight instruction must have dual controls. The FAA outlined expectations regarding these rules as they are currently applicable to all aircraft (except manned free balloons) and, therefore, are applicable to powered-lift. The FAA also discussed how the dual control requirement would affect a pilot's ability to act as PIC when the PIC has no access to flight controls (
i.e.,
supervised operating experience). The FAA acknowledged that manufacturers were in the midst of developing single flight control powered-lift and sought comment from the public on facilitating flight training and supervised operating experience in those aircraft.
In addition to the proposed revisions to part 61 and the temporary alternatives proposed in part 194, the FAA proposed changes to part 135, which does not currently stipulate which training requirements and experience requirements are applicable to powered-lift.
8
Additionally, to further facilitate the certification of powered-lift pilots for the expected commercial operations, the NPRM proposed to allow part 135 operators to conduct training for their pilots seeking to obtain powered-lift category and type ratings for a commercial pilot certificate.
9
The FAA also incorporated permanent and temporary amendments to pilot experience requirements, curriculum content, and part 135 instructor requirements to address the absence of powered-lift specific regulations in part 135. Finally, the NPRM proposed changes to parts 141 and 142 to facilitate the training of powered-lift pilots in accordance with those parts as well as the amendments set forth in the SFAR.
8
The FAA recently published a final rule amending the regulatory definitions of certain air carrier and commercial operations to enable powered-lift operations under part 135. See 88 FR 48072 (July 26, 2023).
9
After an initial cadre of instructors have completed training at the OEM, the FAA proposed that operators use their instructors to train and test additional pilots according to their approved part 135 training program.
The FAA proposed in the SFAR which operating rules apply to powered-lift on a temporary basis under parts 91 (“General Operating and Flight Rules”), 135 (“Operating Requirements: Commuter and On Demand Operations”), and 136 (“Commercial Air Tours”). The FAA noted that this would enable the FAA to gather additional information and determine the most appropriate permanent rulemaking path for these aircraft. The FAA proposed the requirements that should be applicable to powered-lift based on its phase of operation, current requirements for
airplanes and helicopters, and safety intent of the current rule.
Under parts 91 and 135, generally the FAA proposed applying the operating rules pertaining to airplanes; however, in some instances, the FAA proposed applying certain helicopter rules based on whether a powered-lift is anticipated to operate similar to a helicopter and subject to some performance-based standards. The FAA proposed exceptions, however, to account for the different modes of flight and applicable operational requirements. Under part 91, the FAA proposed applying helicopter rules during some instances of vertical flight. Under part 135, the FAA proposed applying helicopter rules related to overwater equipment and briefing, specified IFR and VFR requirements, operations in icing conditions, airport requirements, and operations in remote areas.
The FAA proposed to permanently amend part 111 (“Pilot Records Database”) to apply to operators and pilots of large powered-lift. Pilots of large powered-lift may go on to work for an air carrier in the future. Reporting these pilot records would be relevant to a future hiring air carrier.
The FAA determined that part 43 (“Maintenance, Preventive Maintenance, Rebuilding, and Alteration”) was applicable to powered-lift but proposed other amendments to clarify preventative maintenance requirements considering that powered-lift can operate outside of the airport environment.
Part 97 (“Standard Instrument Procedures”) outlines the current requirements for standard instrument approach procedures, obstacle departure procedures, and weather minimums for IFR takeoffs and landings at U.S. civil airports. Copter procedures are also outlined in this part. The FAA proposed that, as with airplanes and helicopters, powered-lift could also utilize these standard procedures during IFR operations if the powered-lift was capable in accordance with its type certification.
C. General Overview of Comments
The FAA received 81 comments in response to the NPRM from a variety of commenters, including aircraft manufacturers and operators, aviation training companies, other aviation companies, trade associations, civil aviation authorities, and individuals. Powered-lift manufacturers and operators commenting on the NPRM included: AIR VEV; Archer Aviation (Archer); Augusta-Westland Philadelphia Corporation (AWPC), a subsidiary of Leonardo Helicopters ; BETA Technologies, Inc. (BETA); Bristow Group Inc. (Bristow); a joint comment from Eve Air Mobility and Embraer S.A. (Eve); Joby Aviation (Joby); Lilium GmbH (Lilium); Supernal LLC (Supernal); Vertical Aerospace Group LTD (Vertical Aerospace Group); Wisk Aero (Wisk); and XTI Aircraft Company (XTI). Other aviation companies commenting on the NPRM included: Airbus Helicopters, Alakai Technologies Corporation, ASR-Pioneer, CAE, Electra.aero, Ferrovial Vertiports, L3Harris Commercial Aviation Solutions—Advanced Air Mobility (L3Harris), Sabrewing Aircraft Company (SACO), and UPS Flight Forward (UPS FF). Trade association commenters included: Advanced Air Mobility Institute, Air Line Pilots Association International (ALPA), Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
(AOPA),
Airlines for America (A4A), Association for Uncrewed Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI), FlightSafety International Inc., General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA), Helicopter Association International (HAI),
10
National Air Transportation Association (NATA), National Business Aviation Association (NBAA), and Vertical Flight Society (VFS). SAE International, a consensus standards-setting organization, commented on the NPRM. Civil aviation authorities, governmental agencies, and industry associations located outside the United States commenting on the NPRM included: ADS Group (ADS); European Aerospace, Security and Defence Industries (ASD); the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); and the National Civil Aviation Agency of Brazil (ANAC).
10
The FAA notes that on February 26, 2024, the commenter announced the renaming of Helicopter Association International (HAI) to Vertical Aviation International (VAI).
While the FAA received only 81 comments, each comment detailed a wide array of discrete issues and recommendations. Some commenters provided general, high-level comments on the NPRM. Archer applauded the FAA's progress in its proposed powered-lift regulations, while Bristow said the proposed rules are a good start and will have a positive impact. An individual supported the proposed regulatory framework, which they said would enhance safety, efficiency, and innovation. Electra.aero stated the FAA should be proactive in powered-lift standards development to “help[] preclude unrealistic expectations of commercial market introduction of these technologies.”
Overall, the majority of commenters expressed general support for the FAA's approach to integrating powered-lift into the NAS through expeditious rulemaking. However, they also recommended a number of revisions to the FAA's proposal that they believed would provide greater ability to quickly and safely integrate powered-lift into the NAS. The following provides a high-level overview of key issues raised by commenters. Detailed discussions of comments received and FAA responses are found throughout this preamble.
Alignment With ICAO Requirements for Powered-Lift Airman Certification Category
The FAA received numerous comments on the proposal to retain the category requirement for powered-lift pilots. Commenters requested the FAA align its requirements with ICAO Annex 1 recommendations by requiring only a powered-lift type rating on an existing commercial pilot certificate with an airplane category or helicopter class rating (
i.e.,
no powered-lift category rating).
Aircraft Dual Controls Requirement
The FAA received many comments in response to the request for information on the existing requirement for dual controls to be installed on training aircraft and those used for supervised operating experience (SOE). Commenters requested: (1) no requirement for dual controls regardless of how the powered-lift will be used; (2) 100 percent simulator training, which would relieve any requirement for dual controls/aircraft training; and (3) non-traditional methods to accomplish SOE. However, EASA's comment supported a requirement for dual controls/access as currently required by §§ 61.195 and 91.109.
Other Pilot Certification Comments of Note
Commenters broadly suggested aligning pilot certification requirements for powered-lift with those of helicopters.
Amount of FSTD Time Allowed for a Powered-Lift Rating
Commenters requested the use of a flight training device (FTD) instead of an FFS and requested to utilize the FTD to perform all 50 hours of PIC flight time required for a powered-lift category rating at the commercial pilot level. Several commenters expressed the need for FSTDs that are not Level C or higher FFS, stating the need for more avenues by which an equivalent level of training may be accomplished. Commenters
noted additional burdens of both time and resources to meet the proposed FSTD requirements. Other comments suggested using preexisting deviation authority mechanisms to achieve an equivalent level of safety.
VFR and IFR Fuel Requirements
The FAA received comments on parts 91 and 135 VFR and IFR fuel requirements. Commenters requested different variations of two comment themes: (1) performance-based fuel reserves, and (2) use of fuel requirements specified for helicopters. Several commenters noted that powered-lift incorporating innovative power sources could offer greater operational capability if they were able to use energy reserves lower than those currently prescribed for airplanes or helicopters. They asserted that by enforcing the requirements proposed in the NPRM, the FAA would limit the capability and scope of operations. Other commenters suggested applying helicopter fuel requirements to powered-lift, asserting that powered-lift, like helicopters, have the maneuverability and operational flexibility to land in more varied locations.
Visibility Requirements
The FAA received comments on visibility requirements. Commenters requested to utilize the helicopter provisions existing in the regulations, as well as the adoption of a performance-based approach. Several commenters suggested applying helicopter weather minima rather than the airplane requirements. Several commenters also noted that technological advancements could enable powered-lift to safely operate in visibilities lower than currently prescribed for airplanes or helicopters. Furthermore, several commenters contended that since powered-lift could operate at speeds and maneuverability comparable to helicopters, they should be permitted to use the visibility requirements prescribed for helicopters or a performance-based visibility requirement.
Minimum Safe Altitudes for Operations Conducted Under Parts 91 and 135
The FAA received comments on parts 91 and 135 minimum safe altitudes. Commenters requested: (1) the use of VFR minimum altitudes specified for helicopters (one variation proposed), and (2) performance-based minimum safe altitudes. Commenters suggested the FAA consider the operational capabilities of powered-lift, which are able to operate at low speeds and have the maneuverability similar to helicopters, and therefore apply the VFR minimum altitudes prescribed for helicopters. Commenters also suggested the FAA permit a performance-based approach when applying VFR minimum altitude requirements to powered-lift.
SFAR Duration (10 Years)
Commenters supported the temporary adaptability of the SFAR but stated that an approach with 2 to 3-year reviews within the 10-year period would ensure dynamic rather than static regulations.
D. Differences Between the NPRM and the Final Rule
The following table summarizes key changes from the NPRM made in this final rule.
Table 2—Summary of Key Changes From NPRM
Proposed action in the NPRM
Adopted by this Final Rule
Regulatory citation
(14 CFR)
Additional discussion in section of preamble
The NPRM did not propose to revise the definition of autorotation
This final rule adds powered-lift to the definition of autorotation
§ 1.1
XIV.D.
The NPRM proposed to revise § 61.64(a)(1) to specify the ratings that must be sought when using an FSTD representing an aircraft requiring a type rating
This final rule does not adopt the proposed revision
§ 61.64(a)(1)
V.I.5.
The NPRM proposed revising § 91.113 as a temporary change under part 194 and grouped powered-lift in the same right-of-way category with airplanes and rotorcraft
The final rule adopts the proposed § 91.113 temporary change as a permanent change
§ 91.113(d)(2)-(4)
VI.B.1.
The NPRM proposed amending the note in § 135.100 to replace the word “airplane” with “aircraft”
The regulation now clarifies the definition of taxi to include VTOL aircraft and specifies the airspeed and height above ground level
§ 135.100(d)
VI.D.2.
The NPRM did not address § 135.165, which contains an incorrect cross-reference to part 119
The final rule corrects the cross-reference in § 135.165(d) to reference part 110 rather than part 119
§ 135.165(d)
VI.D.3.
The NPRM did not propose revisions to § 135.339
This final rule revises certain training regulations for check airmen to account for flight training in powered-lift with a single set of controls
§ 135.339(e)(3) and (4)
V.J.11.
The NPRM did not propose revisions to § 135.340
This final rule revises certain training regulations for instructors to account for flight training in powered-lift with a single set of controls
§ 135.340(e)(3) and (4)
V.G.1.iv. & V.J.11.
The NPRM did not propose changing § 136.75(a) to reference “single-engine” rotorcraft
The final rule corrects § 136.75(a) by adding “single-engine” before “rotorcraft” as a permanent change
§ 136.75(a)
VI.E.5.ii.
The NPRM did not propose revisions to § 141.37
This final rule corrects the ratings that may be held on a ground instructor certificate
§ 141.37(a)(3)(ii)
V.F.2.ii., V.G.2., & V.I.5.
The NPRM proposed to replace “airplane” requiring a type rating with “aircraft” requiring a type rating, thereby including all powered-lift, in regard to certain instructor qualifications under part 142
This final rule applies the ATP aeronautical experience requirements to FSTD instructors in airplanes and helicopters requiring a type rating, powered-lift over 12,500 pounds, and turbojet powered powered-lift rather than all aircraft requiring a type rating
§ 142.47(a)(5)
V.F.2.ii.
The NPRM did not propose any changes to the minimum aeronautical experience requirements in § 142.47(a)(5)
This final rule adds a qualification option of holding a commercial pilot certificate with the appropriate ratings or an unrestricted ATP with the appropriate ratings rather than meeting certain aeronautical experience requirements
§ 142.47(a)(5)(ii) and (ii)
V.G.3.
The NPRM did not include FAA test pilots or ASIs in the population of pilots able to utilize the alternate requirements set forth by part 194
This final rule adds FAA test pilots and ASIs to the alternate requirements for test pilots, accounts for both groups of pilots as it pertains to instructor pilots, and adds definitions for both groups of pilots
§§ 194.103, 194.203(a)(3), 194.213(a)(1)(iii), 194.217, 194.219(b)(1)(i), 194.219(b)(3)(iii), 194.225, 194.227(b)(1)(i)
V.F.2.i.d., V.F.2.ii., V.F.7., V.D.3.ii., V.F.2.i.a.-d., V.F.7., V.F.3.i.a.-c., & V.F.3.i.
The NPRM did not account for persons receiving flight training in powered-lift type certificated for more than one pilot
This final rule excepts applicants receiving flight training from § 61.55(a)(1), (a)(2), and (b)(2) in order to serve as Second in Command (SIC) in a powered-lift type certificated for more than one required pilot flight crewmember
§ 194.209(c)
V.C.
The NPRM did not propose any relief to § 61.129(e)(2)(i), which requires 50 hours of PIC time in a powered-lift
This final rule reduces the amount of required PIC time in a powered-lift to 35 hours for pilots under the SFAR
§ 194.216(a)
V.F.2., V.F.2.iii.a., & V.G.3.
The NPRM proposed to only permit pilots at approved training programs to credit a maximum of 15 hours in an FSTD toward the PIC flight time requirement of § 61.129(e)(2)(i)
This final rule permits any applicant under the SFAR to credit a maximum of 15 hours towards the 35-hour PIC flight time requirement of § 194.216(a)
§ 194.216(b)
V.F.2. & V.F.2.iii.b.
The NPRM proposed to permit certain pilots to log up to 40 hours of PIC flight time as sole manipulator of the controls when the person is not rated
This final rule reduces the number of hours that may be logged from 40 hours to 25 hours to account for the reduction in required PIC flight time in a powered-lift (see § 194.216(a))
§§ 194.221(c), 194.223(c)
V.F.2.ii.b.
The NPRM proposed to mirror a part 141 section prescribing certain ratings that may be held on a ground instructor certificate
This final rule corrects the ratings that may be held on a ground instructor certificate, mirroring the correction to § 141.37(a)(3)(ii)
§ 194.241(b)
V.I.5.
The NPRM did not contemplate retraining requirements for unsatisfactory performance on part 135 checks in lieu of a practical test
This final rule adopts training and endorsement requirements mirroring § 61.49 for certain unsatisfactory part 135 checks under the SFAR
§ 194.243(b)(4)
V.G.1.v.
The NPRM referenced the Aircraft Flight Manual as determining when two pilots are required
This final rule corrects the reference to the type certificate as dictating when two pilots are required
§ 194.247(b)
V.J.3.
The NPRM proposed to require a certificate holder conducting commuter operations with powered-lift in which two pilots are required to comply with subpart Y to part 121
This final rule specifies §§ 121.903(c) and 121.921(a) in subpart Y will apply to powered-lift, notwithstanding use of the term “airplane” in the regulations
§ 194.247(b)(1)
V.J.3.
The NPRM did not propose any relief to the requirement that a powered-lift must have dual controls for flight training
This final rule adopts three options for flight training in powered-lift with a single set of controls
§ 194.253, Appendix A to part 194
V.D.3.ii. & V.D.3.iii.
The NPRM proposed not allowing powered-lift to use the helicopter/rotorcraft criteria stipulated in the following part 91 sections: § 91.119 (minimum safe altitudes), § 91.151 (VFR fuel requirements), §§ 91.155 and 91.157 (VFR weather minimums), § 91.167 (IFR fuel requirements), § 91.169 (IFR flight plan), and § 91.175 (IFR takeoff and landing)
The final rule allows some powered-lift to use the helicopter/rotorcraft provisions as long as they meet the performance-based criteria outlined in part 194
• § 194.302(d) (pertaining to § 91.119)
VI.B.1., VI.B.2., VI.B.4., & VI.B.5.
• § 194.302(l) (pertaining to § 91.151)
• § 194.302(m) and (n) (pertaining to § 91.155)
• § 194.302(p) (pertaining to § 91.157)
• § 194.302(q) (pertaining to § 91.167)
• § 194.302(r) (pertaining to § 91.169)
• § 194.302(s) (pertaining to § 91.175)
The NPRM proposed not allowing powered-lift to use the helicopter/rotorcraft criteria stipulated in the following part 135 sections:
§ 135.93 (Autopilot minimum altitudes), 135.203 (VFR minimum altitudes), 135.205 (VFR visibility requirements), 135.209 (VFR fuel supply), 135.221 (IFR alternate airport weather minimums), 135.223 (IFR alternate airport requirements), 135.609 (VFR visibility requirements for Class G airspace), 135.613 (approach/departure IFR transitions), and 135.615 (VFR flight planning)
The final rule allows some powered-lift to use the helicopter/rotorcraft provisions as long as they meet the performance-based criteria outlined in part 194
• § 194.306(c) (pertaining to § 135.93)
VI.D.2., VI.D.4., & VI.D.8.
• § 194.306(nn) (pertaining to § 135.203)
• § 194.306(pp) (pertaining to 135.205)
• § 194.306(ss) (pertaining to § 135.209)
• § 194.306(tt) (pertaining to § 135.221)
• § 194.306(uu) (pertaining to § 135.223)
• § 194.306(qqq) (pertaining to § 135.609)
• § 194.306(sss) and (ttt) (pertaining to § 135.613)
• § 194.306(uuu) (pertaining to § 135.615)
The NPRM proposed applying the requirements of § 135.158 (pitot heat indication systems) to powered-lift
The final rule applies § 135.158 to powered-lift but allows the indication light to be other than an amber light
§ 194.306(t)
VI.D.3.
The NPRM did not address powered-lift that experience a “critical change of thrust.”
The final rule revises some language in part 194, pertaining to parts 135 and 136, to reference powered-lift that experience a “critical change of thrust” and adopts a definition for this term
• § 194.306(z) (pertaining to § 135.168)
VI.D.3., VI.E.2., VI.E.3., & VI.E.5.i.
• § 194.306(ii) and (jj) (pertaining to § 135.181)
• § 194.306(kk) (pertaining to § 135.183)
• § 194.308(d)(1) (pertaining to § 136.9)
• § 194.308(d)(2)(ii) (pertaining to § 136.11(a)(2))
• § 194.308(d)(6) (pertaining to § 136.75(c))
The NPRM did not clarify the instrument and ATP certificate requirements under § 135.603
The final rule outlines the instrument and ATP certificate requirements for powered-lift conducting air ambulance operations
§ 194.306(nnn) (pertaining to § 135.603)
VI.D.8.
The NPRM did not apply the flotation requirements under § 136.11 to single-engine powered-lift and applied the requirements only to powered-lift operating in vertical-lift flight mode while conducting operations beyond the auto-rotational or gliding distance from the shoreline
The final rule applies § 136.11(a)(1) to single-engine powered-lift. It also applies § 136.11 to powered-lift operating in both vertical-lift and wing-borne flight modes. Finally, the final rule removes the redundant and unnecessary language pertaining to auto-rotational and gliding distances
§ 194.308(d)(2) (pertaining to § 136.11)
VI.E.3.
IV. Powered-Lift Type Certification and FSTD Qualification
A. Type Certification
In the NPRM, the FAA did not propose any new requirements for the type certification of powered-lift. The FAA determined it will use its existing regulatory process to type certificate powered-lift as a special class under § 21.17(b).
The FAA uses a tiered safety approach for minimum certification standards, with different levels for airplanes and rotorcraft. For certain unique aircraft for which the FAA has not established airworthiness standards in its regulations (
e.g.,
gliders, airships, powered-lift), the FAA uses the special class aircraft process. For powered-lift, the FAA will designate airworthiness requirements and other criteria that match the safety levels of existing standards by considering factors like aircraft size, seating, and performance. The FAA will publish the proposed airworthiness criteria, along with an explanation of its equivalency determination, in the
Federal Register
for public notice and comment for each powered-lift project.
11
11
E.g., see: Airworthiness Criteria: Special Class Airworthiness Criteria for the Joby Aero, Inc. Model JAS4-1 Powered-Lift, 87 FR 67399 (Nov. 8, 2022); 89 FR 17230 (March 8, 2024). Alternatively, the FAA may designate acceptable airworthiness criteria as the certification basis for powered-lift by publishing a future advisory circular (AC), as the agency has done for airships (AC 21.17-1A,
Type Certification—Airships,
dated Sept. 25, 1992), gliders (AC 21.17-2A,
Type Certification—Fixed Wing Gliders (Sailplanes), Including Powered Gliders,
dated Feb. 10. 1993), and very light airplanes (AC 21.17-3,
Type Certification of Very Light Airplanes Under FAR 21.17(b),
dated Dec. 21, 1992).
In some cases, specific airworthiness requirements for issuance of type certificates might not fulfill the requirements of operational rules. Applicants seeking powered-lift type design approval should identify areas needing additional approvals to meet anticipated operational needs. Operational rules often reference airworthiness standards in part 23, 25, 27, or 29, but adaptations might be necessary for unique designs.
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed that powered-lift weighing more than 12,500 pounds would be required to meet certain operating regulations that currently apply to large transport category airplanes. The FAA also stated that this specific weight point would be an appropriate weight at which to apply certain transport category certification standards when type certificating powered-lift under § 21.17(b). The FAA further requested comments on whether the public believes there is a more appropriate weight at which to apply transport category regulations to powered-lift.
Two commenters generally supported the FAA's proposed approach for type certification. HAI commented that older powered-lift designs are significantly different from those proposed by recent applicants and supported the FAA's intended use of § 21.17(b) for the type certification of unique and novel designs. The commenter also recommended collecting information during the certification process of novel AAM aircraft before requiring type ratings for each make and model. SAE International generally supported the FAA's intended use of performance-based regulations for powered-lift type certification airworthiness criteria.
An individual commenter highlighted specific concerns regarding powered-lift type certification and recommended that the FAA consider the unique aspects of each design when developing the type certification requirements. The commenter highlighted the need to consider all the various flight-mode unique aspects and that the regulations should focus on control law development instead of prescribing specific regulations based on specific design configurations. The commenter also identified technical areas that the FAA should consider when developing powered-lift airworthiness criteria. The FAA agrees that the novel aspects of powered-lift require an alternate approach to existing prescriptive airworthiness standards for airplanes and rotorcraft, which is why the FAA expects to largely employ performance-based airworthiness criteria. The FAA also agrees that the novel features identified by the commenter require evaluation during powered-lift type certification; however, this is beyond the scope of this SFAR and will instead be covered in each powered-lift airworthiness criteria publication.
An individual commenter requested clarification as to how the FAA would determine which airworthiness standards would be appropriate for use in the type certification of powered-lift and what criteria would be used to make this decision.
As described in the NPRM, when conducting the evaluation for determining an equivalent level of safety to existing standards, the FAA will consider the powered-lift's specific type design features (aircraft's size, passenger seating configuration, performance, etc.) and evaluate them against the applicable airworthiness requirements contained in parts 23, 25, 27, 29, 33, and 35. In addition, certain transport category (
i.e.,
14 CFR parts 25 and 29) certification standards will be appropriate for powered-lift weighing more than 12,500 pounds.
EASA noted discrepancies in the type certification section of the NPRM. EASA stated that while the NPRM stated that no changes to type certification requirements were proposed, the FAA has separately published airworthiness criteria for two companies that propose changes to part 23 requirements and establish new requirements.
To clarify the FAA's statement in the NPRM regarding no new/changed type certification requirements, the FAA noted that the existing regulatory structure in 14 CFR part 21 already provides the means by which powered-lift can receive a type certificate. Specifically, § 21.17(b) provides for the ability to type certificate powered-lift as a special class aircraft. As stated in the NPRM, under § 21.17(b), the FAA designates the applicable airworthiness requirements, which may include requirements from the existing airworthiness standards applicable to normal category and transport category airplanes, normal category and transport category rotorcraft, aircraft engines and propellers (parts 23, 25, 27, 29, 33, and 35), and it may also include unique airworthiness criteria developed specifically for the individual product.
Alakai Technologies Corporation stated the proposed entrants into the AAM industry include “special class rotorcraft”
12
and powered-lift, both of which would be type certificated under § 21.17(b). However, the commenter noted the proposed rule provides a framework for airman certification and operation only for powered-lift, and not for special class rotorcraft. The commenter contended that without providing a framework for airman certification and operation for special class rotorcraft, special class rotorcraft will be prohibited from operating in the NAS, thereby limiting the market to powered-lift special class aircraft AAM technology.
12
“Special class rotorcraft” are rotorcraft, as defined in § 1.1, that meet three or more of the following criteria: (1) for its support in flight, the rotorcraft depends principally on the lift generated by three or more rotors and creates directional control by varying the power at each rotor; (2) the rotorcraft utilizes electric or hybrid-electric propulsion; (3) the rotorcraft's design includes an advanced flight control system (
e.g.,
a fly-by-wire flight control system) that uses electronically operated controls such that the pilot has no direct mechanical link to the control surfaces or swashplate; and (4) the rotorcraft is not capable of traditional autorotation, but instead provides an alternate method of safe landing following loss of engine power. See
definition of rotorcraft in 1.1 and FAA Policy Statement PS-AIR 21.17-02.
The commenter referred to a developing policy the FAA has not yet finalized that would designate certain rotorcraft as “special class rotorcraft.” Although special class rotorcraft would be type certificated under the special class process in § 21.17(b), they still meet the regulatory definition of a rotorcraft in § 1.1. As such, special class rotorcraft would fall under the operating and airmen rules for rotorcraft (helicopter) in parts 61, 91, 135, etc. and would not need the same accommodations that were necessary for powered-lift. The FAA determined that the inclusion of special class rotorcraft in this SFAR was not needed for enabling those aircraft and that including special class rotorcraft is beyond the scope of this rulemaking to enable powered-lift.
EASA asked how the FAA would consider operational alleviations for these type-certificated aircraft in the context of AAM. The FAA reviewed the SFAR language to determine where operational alleviations could be provided for powered-lift that meet certain performance criteria and made changes to the minimum safe altitude, visibility, and fuel reserves requirements. These accommodations are addressed within the respective sections of this preamble for each rule as applicable for powered-lift.
Vertical Aerospace Group commented that powered-lift should be built to the highest safety standards and that the combination of complex aircraft systems and complex commercial operating environment require a design safety target of 10
−9
and Design Assurance Level (DAL) A for systems, software, and complex hardware, with respect to failure conditions classified as catastrophic. Additionally, the commenter requested the FAA provide details on what transport category airworthiness criteria would be used for powered-lift, including crashworthiness, gust loads, wind speeds, and performance criteria.
Currently, airplanes and rotorcraft type certificated in the normal category are permitted to perform commercial operations transporting passengers without meeting the more stringent transport category design requirements. As stated in the NPRM, for powered-lift, which are type certificated under § 21.17(b), the safety targets for each product are based on meeting an equivalent level of safety to the existing airworthiness standards. Rather than establishing a rigid “one size fits all” safety target or DAL for all powered-lift, which will be used in varied types of operations, the FAA separately considers each aircraft's unique design characteristics to ensure the selected airworthiness criteria are appropriate to the design, intended operations, and safety. The FAA will publish the proposed airworthiness criteria for each powered-lift, including an explanation of its equivalency determination, in the
Federal Register
for public notice and comment before issuing final airworthiness criteria.
ALPA responded to the FAA's request for comments on applying transport category regulations to large powered-lift, those weighing more than 12,500 pounds. ALPA disagreed with the FAA's proposal to use 12,500 pounds as the weight threshold for large powered-lift because ALPA asserted this cutoff is arbitrarily based on historical aircraft safety records that are not relevant to new aircraft being proposed in the
powered-lift industry. ALPA recommended that 7,500 pounds would be more appropriate for first-generation powered-lift, noting that this would allow the FAA to apply more appropriate sections of existing parts 135 and 136 to the majority of the first-generation powered-lift.
The FAA disagrees with the ALPA recommendation that 7,500 pounds should be used instead of 12,500 pounds as the weight at which transport category airworthiness standards would be appropriate. The FAA has determined that 12,500 pounds provides the appropriate level of safety and places the weight threshold between the weight limits for transport category airplanes and transport category rotorcraft.
13
Imposing part 25/29 airworthiness requirements on powered-lift weighing 12,500 pounds or less would decrease the useful payload of the powered-lift and increase the cost of type certification.
13
The NPRM included a typographical error that identified the normal category weight limits for rotorcraft and airplanes as 7,500 lbs. and 19,500 lbs., respectively. The correct weight limits for those airworthiness standards are 7,000 lbs. and 19,000 lbs., respectively.
XTI said that, in addition to wing-borne flight and vertical lift, some powered-lift will also operate in an intermediate configuration utilizing vectored thrust and wing-borne flight during takeoff and landing. This short takeoff and landing (STOL) mode, the commenter said, provides significant performance benefits and improves ranges. XTI requested clarification whether required runway distances would be calculated differently for powered-lift operating in STOL mode than the required distances for fully wing-borne flight.
The method by which the required runway distance is calculated would be the same for powered-lift and conventional takeoff and landing aircraft; however, the distance for powered-lift would be shorter. The specific configuration for takeoff and landing would need to be defined in the flight manual along with the respective takeoff and landing performance for those configurations. However, the particular details in calculating runway distances for a certain powered-lift are beyond the scope of this SFAR.
A helicopter pilot recommended that the FAA review its bird strike certification procedures when certificating powered-lift. The commenter cited concerns that powered-lift will be more prone to bird strikes than helicopters given they operate at lower altitudes and environments prone to more bird activity, generate less noise and rotor downwash that would normally keep birds away, and may travel at faster speeds. The commenter suggested powered-lift test pilots should use their experience to recommend methods of bird strike avoidance through training, emergency procedures, and system designs like detect-and-avoid systems.
The commenter's recommendations are beyond the scope of this SFAR. However, the agency notes that, to date, the FAA has included bird strike protection requirements in the proposed airworthiness criteria for the first three powered-lift applicants the agency has published for notice and comment under § 21.17(b).
14
14
See Airworthiness Criteria: Special Class Airworthiness Criteria for the Joby Aero, Inc. Model JAS4-1 Powered-Lift, 87 FR 67399 (Nov. 8, 2022); Airworthiness Criteria: Special Class Airworthiness Criteria for the Archer Aviation Inc. Model M001 Powered-Lift, 87 FR 77749 (Dec. 20, 2022); Airworthiness Criteria: Special Class Airworthiness Criteria for the AgustaWestland Philadelphia Corporation Model AW609 Powered-Lift, 88 FR 37805 (June 9, 2023).
The remaining comments on type certification requested clarification on language used in the NPRM preamble or specific information on the type certification process or specific safety objectives required during type certification. These comments are beyond the scope of this rulemaking. As stated previously, the specific airworthiness criteria for each powered-lift project will be published in the
Federal Register
for public notice and comment.
B. Noise Certification
The FAA did not propose any new requirements for the noise certification of powered-lift. The FAA is mandated to establish noise standards and regulations that ensure public safety regarding aircraft noise. Recent advancements in electric motors and control systems have led manufacturers to develop novel aircraft that differ significantly from conventional ones covered by existing noise certification standards. The FAA will examine each application and determine whether the existing part 36 requirements are appropriate as a noise certification basis, as it does for all noise certification applicants. If the FAA determines that the part 36 rules are not sufficient for a particular powered-lift, the FAA may create rules of particular applicability for that powered-lift. Due to potentially diverse designs of these aircraft and limited data on their noise signatures, the FAA has not yet established broad noise standards for all powered-lift. However, powered-lift that are tilt-rotors are currently subject to the noise regulations of appendix K of part 36.
If a manufacturer seeks certification for a powered-lift which could not be certificated using appendix K of part 36, the FAA would propose amending the SFAR to include operating noise limits in subpart I of part 91, which would be applicable to that powered-lift.
15
15
Appendix K to part 36 outlines noise requirements for tiltrotors utilized by a powered-lift. The FAA notes that these would be applicable to powered-lift if it is determined during the aircraft certification process.
HAI said that the certification process could reveal that AAM vehicles emit less noise than traditional aircraft, referencing the GAO report cited in the NPRM.
16
HAI said that current standards may need adjustment but that the certification process should reveal any requirements and inform future rulemaking in this area. The FAA contemplated the need for future rulemaking in the NPRM. Rather than use the existing requirements for small propeller airplanes, jet transport airplanes, helicopters, or tiltrotors in part 36, such diverse conceptual designs and new aircraft types may require tailored noise certification requirements. As stated in the NPRM, the FAA will examine each application and determine whether existing part 36 requirements are appropriate as a noise certification basis, as it does for all noise certification applicants. If the current regulations cannot be applied appropriately, the FAA may promulgate a rule of particular applicability to establish a noise certification basis for these new aircraft designs. The noise sources from these aircraft have been shown to be complex, and the FAA does not yet have sufficient data on the aircraft types and noise signatures expected from these new entrants. Accordingly, until sufficient data are collected, the FAA would not be able to promulgate standards of general applicability for these aircraft.
16
U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO-22-105020, Transforming Aviation: Stakeholders Identified Issues to Address for “Advanced Air Mobility”, published, May 9, 2022. Publicly released, May 9, 2022.
C. Qualification of Powered-Lift Flight Simulation Training Devices (FSTDs)
Part 60 prescribes the rules governing the initial and continuing qualification of all aircraft FSTDs, which includes full flight simulators (FFS) and flight training devices (FTDs)
17
used to meet the training, evaluation, or flight experience requirements for flightcrew member certification or qualification. In accordance with § 60.15, the FAA qualifies each FSTD at a specific level
if that FSTD meets the applicable Qualification Performance Standards (QPS). The QPS are published in the following appendices to part 60: appendix A for airplane FFSs, appendix B for airplane FTDs, appendix C for helicopter FFSs, appendix D for helicopter FTDs, appendix E for the quality management system for all FSTDs, and appendix F for definitions and abbreviations applicable to part 60. While appendices E and F will apply to powered-lift FSTDs, as discussed in the NPRM, part 60 does not set forth a powered-lift QPS similar to what exists for airplanes and helicopters. As discussed later in this section, the FAA maintains that creation and adoption of a new appendix as a permanent fixture in part 60 is premature given the wide variation of powered-lift and rapid pace of development. Additionally, as discussed in this preamble, one intent of the SFAR is to equip the FAA with operational data to implement future permanent regulations, to include that data necessary to develop a powered-lift QPS in the future.
17
See 14 CFR 1.1.
In general, FSTDs qualified under part 60 are typically used to replace an aircraft for required air carrier or pilot certification training and proficiency checking. Because FSTDs are used for applications such as air carrier training and type rating training, detailed validation requirements are defined in the part 60 QPS to ensure that the FSTD performs equivalently to a specific make, model, and series of aircraft. Depending upon the qualification level of the FSTD, it may completely replace an aircraft for all training and proficiency checking events. As mentioned by one commenter who recommended caution on the use of simulators to replace an aircraft due to the ability to replicate complex aerodynamic environments, the FAA notes that rigorous objective validation requirements are applied to ensure the FSTDs perform equivalently to the aircraft in similar training and proficiency checking events. These validation requirements cover a wide range of training tasks, including takeoff, landing, hovering/low speed operations, and various other flight maneuvers that are required for pilot training and qualification. As described in the NPRM, the qualification of powered-lift FSTDs would be validated similarly in an objective manner to ensure the FSTD performs equivalently to the aircraft in required training and checking events.
Therefore, the FAA proposed the addition of new requirements in § 194.105 of the SFAR to enable the qualification of powered-lift FSTDs. The FAA contended that § 194.105 would function to add flexibility to part 60 in proposed § 194.105 to permit qualification of FSTDs of powered-lift using components of existing standards for airplanes and helicopters in appendices A through D to part 60, where applicable and as determined by the FAA, that would provide an equivalent level of safety to existing QPS components. As written in the NPRM, the proposal was intended to follow the established process in § 21.17(b) for the certification of special classes of aircraft. This addition facilitates the FSTD qualification process by enabling FSTD sponsors to propose FSTD qualification standards where the current standards do not apply to new and novel aircraft designs. Particularly with objective validation testing, the ability to propose alternate testing methods is necessary to fully evaluate the FSTD's capability to provide pilot training for powered-lift.
The FAA received several comments on the proposed FSTD qualification process, to which it responds in the subsequent sections, and FAA adopts the rule text as proposed.
1. Publication of Proposed FSTD Standards
Several commenters noted the urgency to enable a means to ensure safety and efficiency of FSTDs. Specifically, several commenters disagreed with publication of the proposed powered-lift standards to the
Federal Register
for notice and comment. The primary concern was that adding a notice and comment process would introduce an unnecessary delay in approving such standards and qualifying FSTDs. Commenters suggested alternatives such as: expediting an independent SFAR consisting only of a powered-lift QPS for part 60; creating an alternate means of compliance for interim certification; allowing FAA principal operations inspectors (POIs) to approve FSTDs for use within the training organization they oversee; developing an expert panel with approving authority who would conduct a technical review; and providing notice and an opportunity to comment only for the first QPS, then utilizing it as a baseline for future QPSs absent
Federal Register
publication.
As discussed in the NPRM, the requirements proposed in § 194.105 will follow similar processes that are used to certify special classes of aircraft. The FAA understands commenters' concerns regarding the potential for delays; FAA is not required to, and does not plan to, adhere to all of the requirements for issuing generally applicable rules. The notice and comment process for a project of this nature, a rule of particular applicability, does not necessitate a full regulatory impact analysis or going through the same level of review as a rule of general applicability. Rather, the FAA anticipates working closely and directly with the FSTD sponsor and manufacturer to develop the QPS, after which the FAA would announce the availability of, and request comment on, the proposed QPS. FAA would solicit comment for a shorter timeframe than it typically does for a generally applicable rule, consistent with the time required to complete the comment consideration and adjudication process for the certification of special classes of aircraft. Additionally, the FAA does not intend to publish every proposed QPS for those FSTDs/QPS that have already been published. In other words, the FAA intends to leverage precedent for similarly situated FSTDs. For example, if Sponsor A qualified FSTD A under § 194.105 (after notice, comment, and comment adjudication), and FSTD A was identical to FSTD B that Sponsor B wished to qualify, the FAA would apply FSTD A's QPS without public notice and comment, but after providing Sponsor B notice of the QPS and an opportunity to comment.
To effectuate this process, while also recognizing there are instances (like the previously described scenario) where the FAA will find it unnecessary to provide public notice and seek comment, the FAA adopts a new paragraph in § 194.105. Specifically, § 194.105 as it was proposed will be designated as paragraph (a), and new paragraph (b) will set forth the FAA's intent to publish proposed QPSs in the
Federal Register
for comment. Additionally, paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) will acknowledge that the FAA may find public notice and comment to be unnecessary in certain circumstances. The FAA finds this regulatory approach will address commenters concerns with timeliness in publication where extenuating circumstances exist and when similar simulators seek to enter into service.
The FAA anticipates that much of the existing FSTD standards in appendix A through appendix D to part 60 are applicable to powered-lift FSTDs with minor changes, including current general requirements, functions and subjective requirements, and certain cueing requirements for airplane and helicopter FSTDs. Additionally, portions of existing validation testing requirements may potentially be applied to powered-lift with adjustments of testing maneuvers, modification of applicable parameters, and the addition
of testing conditions to cover unique aircraft characteristics and associated training requirements. The FAA already maintains a framework for adjudication of special class airworthiness comments and intends to leverage that existing framework in the adjudication of comments after QPS notice.
While the FAA acknowledges that the notice and comment process may introduce some administrative burden and time delays, the transparent process and public participation benefits both the industry and the FAA. First, as previously mentioned, the FAA intends to use the SFAR to inform a permanent rulemaking to part 60 (
i.e.,
likely the addition of appendices to part 60 for powered-lift FFS and FTD QPSs). By treating QPSs under the same framework as special classes of aircraft, the FAA foresees the accumulation of requisite information to propose the most appropriate permanent amendment to part 60. This information may stem from industry, sponsors, FAA inspectors and subject matter experts, and the general public; public notice provides an efficient and familiar platform for such input. The FAA recognizes that public commenters may have limited technical and proprietary information on the design of these new and novel aircraft designs but maintains the benefit of improving efficiency over time for new aircraft entry into the NAS. Additionally, the nature of public notice, adjudication of comments, and issuance of final QPS will establish precedent whereby interested stakeholders will be able to view past approved proposals and base future proposals upon them. Rather than addressing multiple individual proposals in a non-transparent manner through a deviation process, the FAA anticipates that the public notice and comment process could have a converging effect on the powered-lift FSTD standards over time.
The FAA considered the various alternatives suggested by commenters. First, the creation of fixed QPS standards to part 60 through a permanent generally applicable rulemaking or through an expedited SFAR is premature given the lack of any certificated powered-lift and presentation of any powered-lift FSTD to the FAA. Primarily, the FAA lacks requisite information to develop a universal FSTD QPS applicable to the array of unique configurations of powered-lift. The SFAR approach facilitates a flexible and transparent process tailored to the specific powered-lift FSTD. The information and expertise accumulated during the pendency of the SFAR will position the FAA and its industry counterparts in a more conducive position to future permanent regulations. Furthermore, under the SFAR public comment process, feedback from the well-established airplane and helicopter simulation and training industry and other interested parties can be leveraged in proposed powered-lift FSTD standards to incorporate past lessons learned in utilizing simulation to improve simulator fidelity, pilot training, and, ultimately, aviation safety.
Next, while POIs already approve the use of FSTDs for training,
18
their responsibilities do not extend to the base qualification of the simulator. Rather, the Training and Simulation Group within the FAA's Office of Safety Standards is the office of primary responsibility for FSTD qualification and certification. The FAA Training and Simulation Group is comprised of aeronautical engineers, aviation safety inspectors, and analysts who specialize in the highly technical qualification activities for FSTDs. This existing branch and process resembles one commenter's suggestion to convene an expert panel with approving authority. Conversely, POIs and training center program managers (TCPM) maintain expertise in ensuring certificate holders apply appropriate regulations, policies, and procedures pertaining to use of the FSTD for training rather than the evaluation, approval, and oversight of QPS specifications. Where the Training and Simulation Group qualifies and assigns a specific level of qualification to the FSTD, the POI approves the FSTD for use by a certificate holder for a specific maneuver, procedure, or crewmember function. Due to the differing functions, training, and experience of the persons performing these separate job responsibilities, the FAA declines to expand POI responsibilities to include FSTD qualification as they do not have the specialized expertise required for such a duty.
18
FAA Order 8900.1, Vol 3, Ch. 54, Sec. 5.
The FAA comprehensively addresses alternate means of compliance and interim certification in subsequent sections.
2. Use of Deviation Authority
Several commenters stated that the FAA could incorporate powered-lift into part 60 through the already-existing mechanism of deviation authority set forth in § 60.15(c)(5). These commenters explained that the FAA erroneously excluded deviation authority as an option, indicating that § 60.1 gives the Administrator authority to designate an appendix as applicable to a powered-lift and then to utilize deviation authority to amend that designation. Other commenters, such as GAMA, expressed concern that the FAA had previously approved part 60 deviations for FSTD projects, and the new proposed process could result in regulatory risk and might delay these projects.
The FAA acknowledges that some commenters believe there already exists a path to powered-lift FSTD qualification through part 60 deviation authority. However, the NPRM preamble explained why § 60.15(c)(5) deviation authority is inapplicable; the FAA maintains this position. Section 60.15(c)(5) states that an FSTD sponsor or manufacturer may submit a request for approval of a deviation from the QPS requirements as defined in appendices A through D to part 60. Thus, the deviation authority is explicitly applicable to the already existing appendices for airplanes and helicopters only. To further support this narrowly scoped authority, as explained in the preamble to the final rule adopting § 60.15(c)(5), the FAA added deviation authority to allow for FSTD sponsors to deviate from technical requirements in the part 60 QPS.
19
Deviation may only be considered from minimum requirements tables, objective testing tables, the functions and subjecting testing tables, and other supporting tables and requirements in the part 60 QPS.
20
Therefore, the deviation authority was never intended to be utilized to create a brand new QPS for a new class of aircraft, nor does the plain language of the regulation support such a use. Rather, deviation authority in § 60.15(c)(5) is utilized for those unique instances where novel airplane or rotorcraft characteristics do not precisely fit within the common and technical criteria set forth in the respective appendices or where a published FSTD standard, such as ICAO Document 9625,
21
may be substituted for the part 60 QPS.
19
Flight Simulation Training Device Qualification Standards for Extended Envelope and Adverse Weather Event Training Tasks
final rule, 81 FR 18178 (Mar. 30, 2016); corrected at 81 FR 32016 (May 20, 2016).
20
§ 60.15(c)(5)(ii).
21
Manual of Criteria for the Qualification of Flight Simulation Training Devices—Volume I—Aeroplanes (9625-1).
Commenters are correct in noting that the FAA previously issued a deviation in accordance with § 60.15(c)(5) for a powered-lift FSTD. Specifically, the FAA approved one deviation for a set of powered-lift FSTD standards under § 60.15(c)(5) in 2018; however, an FSTD has not yet been qualified under this
approved deviation. While the FAA has since determined that the deviation authority is not the appropriate mechanism to approve FSTD standards for powered-lift, the FAA intends to work directly with that operator to facilitate FSTD qualification under this adopted process.
22
22
The FAA notes that commenters' concerns regarding regulatory risk did not include the specific regulations where risk would exist. As stated, the FAA intends to work directly with the operator issued a deviation in light of this final rule to avoid any noncompliance issues.
The FAA acknowledges that the adopted SFAR process may result in less timely decision-making by the FAA as compared to using a deviation process without public notice and comment. However, what commenters are proposing would essentially be establishing new standards, because the existing appendices are not appropriate for these new FSTDs. The establishment of new standards must comply with the informal rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. In addition, the FAA believes that public input will provide value in helping to ensure the safe and efficient integration of powered-lift into the NAS and that this regulatory approach is designed to be as broad and open to innovation as possible without sacrificing safety and effectiveness.
3. Interim FSTD Qualification
Lilium, CAE, NBAA, and others commented on the need for an interim FSTD qualification process for powered-lift FSTDs and advocated for the use of engineering/predicted data to support FSTD qualification. Some commenters urged the FAA to accept the engineering simulations and predicted engineering data from aircraft OEMs to expedite an interim qualification process.
Part 60 supports interim FSTD qualifications, which would be equally applicable in the case of a powered-lift FSTD. Specifically, § 60.21 sets forth the requirements for the interim qualification of FSTDs for new aircraft types or models and requires the sponsor to provide: (1) the aircraft manufacturer's data consisting of at least predicted data validated by a limited set of flight test data, (2) the aircraft manufacturer's description of the prediction methodology used to develop the predicted data, and (3) the Qualification Test Guide test results.
23
Because this regulation applies to all aircraft, interim qualification is an available option to powered-lift FSTDs even within the alternate qualification framework set forth in the SFAR. As discussed in the NPRM preamble that adopted § 60.21, the intent of interim qualification is to facilitate training before final flight test data is available so the operator can put the aircraft into service swiftly, while maintaining necessary safety standards.
24
The regulation enables the use of the aforementioned predictive and/or engineering data that meets the reliability parameters set forth in § 60.21(a) to support interim FSTD qualification and properly trained flightcrew in accordance with FAA pilot training and qualification standards. The FAA notes that engineering simulation and predicted engineering data may be accepted for airplanes and helicopters as an alternative to flight test data in accordance with appendices A and C to part 60; however, this concept is not succinctly applicable to powered-lift interim qualification because powered-lift and their corresponding FSTDs are new and novel entrants into the aviation market.
23
Appendix F to part 60 defines the following terms: flight test data, predicted data, and qualified test guide.
24
Flight Simulation Device Initial and Continuing Qualification
NPRM, 67 FR 60284 (Sept. 25, 2002).
Established practice and additional regulatory requirements in airplane and helicopter QPS clearly require the applicant to demonstrate past success by providing such data to support FSTD qualification.
25
While the SFAR utilizes a non-traditional mechanism of QPS formation, establishing past success at providing predictive data that will support FSTD qualification continues to be a necessary deliverable for interim qualification so pilots will be adequately trained and checked in an interim qualified FSTD. Particularly with new and emerging aircraft designs, the FAA anticipates significant challenges with establishing past success in predicting the behavior of these aircraft for the purposes of developing real-time simulation models for pilot training.
25
E.g.,
“. . . based on acceptable aeronautical principles with proven success history and valid outcomes for aerodynamics, engine operations, avionics operations, flight control applications, or ground handling,” appendix A to part 60, Attachment 2, paragraphs 8 (Additional information about flight simulator qualification for new or derivative airplanes) and 9 (Engineering Simulator—Validation Data). See similar language in appendix C, Attachment 2, Paragraph 9.
In sum, new § 194.105 does not prohibit a sponsor or manufacturer from pursuing interim qualification of an FSTD. The interim qualification requirements of § 60.21 apply to all aircraft, including powered-lift. While the FAA predicts challenges in the accumulation of powered-lift FSTD flight test data sufficient to meet the requirements for interim qualification, if a sponsor or manufacturer could meet the standard as set forth in § 60.21(a), the SFAR does not foreclose interim qualification.
4. Emerging Technological Advances in FSTDs
Several commenters, including AWPC, CAE, Vertical Flight Society, Advanced Air Mobility Institute, and GAMA, stated that the FAA must consider new and innovative simulation technologies, such as virtual reality (VR), extended reality (XR), and mixed reality (MR) systems. The commenters emphasized that these technologies provide opportunities for safe, immersive training, as well as offer the potential to significantly reduce the hardware footprint of an FSTD flightdeck and visual system. Additionally, the commenters stated that integrating new and novel technology would reduce associated material cost to the operator. These commenters urged the FAA to update part 60 to account for novel technology, use “acceptability” standards to account for novel technology, or use § 61.4(c) to approve the novel devices that provide comparable fidelity and representation. The Advanced Air Mobility Institute recommended collaborating with the U.S. Armed Forces to understand their training regime, which includes desktop avionics trainers, mixed reality part-task trainer, and common software flight training devices. ALPA further commented that virtual reality and mixed reality technologies should only be used after qualification standards have been established and should not replace the in-aircraft training or minimum FFS used.
The FAA acknowledges the potential benefit of immersive simulation technologies like virtual reality, extended reality, and mixed reality in improving FSTD quality and reducing the overall cost of simulation for pilot training. In addition to powered-lift FSTDs, the use of immersive simulation technologies is an issue currently being addressed by the FAA under existing airplane and helicopter standards. The FAA is actively working toward encompassing these tools into the qualification regime for all aircraft, not just powered-lift. Because the current part 60 standards do not specifically address immersive technologies, such as virtual reality systems, the FAA recognizes the need to facilitate these technologies. Additionally, while the current part 60 standards do not yet address the use of such immersive technologies for FSTDs, this does not necessarily prevent an operator or training provider from using such
technologies for training that does not require the use of an FSTD, such as for classroom instruction or providing flightdeck familiarization training to prepare students for formal flight training.
The FAA notes, however, a survey of past research work on virtual reality systems as applied to pilot training simulators has shown instances of significant degradation of pilot performance and increased simulation sickness in virtual reality-equipped simulators.
26
The FAA must understand the effectiveness, benefits, and shortcomings of these systems in conducting pilot training and evaluation before memorializing FSTD qualification with such systems in part 60, not just for powered-lift, but for any aircraft. The FAA recognizes that the aforementioned study likely does not represent the state of the art in virtual reality systems and that additional study on the latest advancements is needed. To inform future policy decisions and potential rulemaking, the FAA recently initiated an immersive simulation research study
27
to examine, for example, human factors, potential use cases, and technical standards for virtual reality and other systems. Currently, the FAA is engaging with sponsors and manufacturers to work toward qualification of lower-level helicopter FSTDs with virtual reality systems, as well as maintaining awareness of EASA's recent FSTD qualification with a virtual reality system.
28
In sum, the FAA remains committed to staying apprised of new and novel technology that serves as a benefit in pilot training and preparation.
26
E.g.,
Oberhauser, M., Dreyer, D., Braunstingl, R., & Koglbauer, I. (2018). “What's real about virtual reality flight simulation? Comparing the fidelity of a virtual reality with a conventional flight simulation environment.” Aviation Psychology and Applied Human Factors, 8(1), 22-34.
27
The FAA's Tech Center Acquisition & Grants Division in the Office of Finance and Management published an RFI to complete a feasibility assessment and to develop the requirements for Immersive Flight Simulation CRADA(s) on December 14, 2022, See
Government RFI for Immersive Flight Simulation Cooperative Research and Development Agreement, available at SAM.gov.
28
www.easa.europa.eu/en/downloads/137723/en.
Further, the QPS process adopted by this final rule will not prohibit a manufacturer or sponsor from proposing a QPS that includes new and novel technologies. For powered-lift FSTDs, applicants may propose the use of virtual reality systems under the SFAR process, similar to how airplane and helicopter FSTD manufacturers may propose, use, or require a deviation to facilitate these systems within their airplane or helicopter FSTD. Because the FAA has well-established standards for conventional simulation in appendices A through D to part 60, the applicant must include sufficient supporting data and justification that the virtual reality-equipped FSTD can satisfactorily provide relevant fidelity to an equivalent level or better than that of a conventional FSTD at the same qualification level to facilitate satisfactory pilot training and checking. In developing this justification, piloted experiments comparing performance, workload, simulation sickness, and transfer of training between a virtual reality FSTD and a conventional FSTD acceptable to the FAA should be considered.
5. Use of Consensus Standards
SAE International and CAE both urged the FAA to recognize consensus standards for powered-lift FSTDs when published. As discussed in the NPRM, the FAA intends to consider consensus standards during the qualification of powered-lift FSTDs under part 60. The FAA is aware of, and participates in, certain consensus standards subcommittees tasked with examining FSTD qualification standards for powered-lift. At the time of the publication of the NPRM, no publicly available consensus standards existed to reference; therefore, the FAA declined to include them as a compulsory basis for qualification. However, under the SFAR process, an applicant may propose the use of an industry consensus standard to support the qualification of a powered-lift FSTD.
While the FAA intends to leverage consensus standards as efficiently as possible for both industry and the FAA, the broad array of powered-lift features and inability to identify similar operating characteristics
29
render a universal approval akin to part 23 consensus standards challenging. However, the FAA intends to review proposed consensus standards for approval and determine the application of any necessary conditions or limitations upon availability. Because the FAA does not currently have a proposed consensus standard to review, consideration on the applicability of a future consensus standard will likely initially be made on a project-by-project basis. If a proprietary consensus standard is submitted for consideration, the FAA would not publish this standard in full to the
Federal Register
but would publish a summary of the proposed action and any applicable differences or conditions and limitations.
29
See section V.A.
6. Levels of FSTD Qualification
Archer, CAE, VFS, and others commented that there will be a need for FSTDs other than a Level C or higher FFS. The FAA agrees that many levels of FSTDs are currently necessary and available for both airplane and helicopter pilot training, and there will likely be a similar need for additional FSTD levels for powered-lift pilot training. For FSTD qualification purposes, § 194.105 will not limit FSTD qualification to only Level C FFS and above.
30
Under the FSTD qualification process in the SFAR, an applicant may propose standards for any FSTD qualification level in part 60 using the standards in appendices A through D to part 60 as a baseline. Where an applicant proposes unique FSTD configurations that are not consistent with established part 60 FSTD appendices, such as with virtual reality-equipped FSTDs or alternative motion platform, the sponsor or manufacturer must provide justification and supporting data demonstrating the capability of the FSTD to conduct approved pilot training and evaluation at the requisite level of qualification sought.
30
See Section IV.C.6.
V. Certification of Powered-Lift Pilots
As outlined in the Executive Summary, the introduction of powered-lift as a new category of civil aircraft creates unique challenges for pilot training and certification, particularly when considering the lack of available certificated powered-lift in which a flight instructor would conduct flight training and the difficulty in obtaining flight training itself due to a lack of qualified flight instructors.
To address these barriers, the FAA finalizes alternate aeronautical experience requirements and expanded logging provisions, in section V.F. of this preamble. Additionally, section V.F.6. of this preamble provides tables summarizing the requirements for pilot certification to facilitate readability of the alternate experience and logging provisions.
A. Establish a Type Rating Requirement for Persons Seeking To Act as PIC of Powered-Lift
Part 61 prescribes the requirements for issuing pilot and flight instructor certificates and ratings, the conditions under which those certificates and ratings are necessary, and the privileges and limitations of those certificates and
ratings.
31
The FAA issues six levels of pilot certificates (student, sport, recreational, private, commercial, and ATP) and assigns category, class, and type ratings on each pilot certificate.
32
To act as PIC of any aircraft, a person must hold the category, class, and type rating (if class and type are applicable) on their pilot certificate.
33
Part 61 sets forth the requirements (
e.g.,
aeronautical experience, practical test) to obtain such certificates and ratings.
31
§ 61.1(a)(1).
32
§ 61.5.
33
§ 61.31(d).
Part 1 of 14 CFR, which provides definitions and abbreviations for Title 14, defines category and class for the purposes of airmen ratings. Specifically, “category” is defined as a broad classification of aircraft (
e.g.,
airplane, rotorcraft, powered-lift), while “class” is defined as a group of aircraft within a category having similar operating characteristics (
e.g.,
single engine, multiengine, helicopter).
34
34
§ 1.1.
In 1997, when the FAA established the powered-lift category in part 61, the FAA declined to create powered-lift classes or require type ratings for powered-lift beyond those established in § 61.31(a) (
i.e.,
large aircraft or as specified by the Administrator under aircraft type certificate procedures).
35
35
Flight Instructor, Ground Instructor, and Pilot School Certification Rules; NPRM, 60 FR 41160 at 41165 (Aug. 11, 1995).
During the development of the NPRM, the FAA reconsidered whether (1) classes of powered-lift could be established and (2) type ratings should be required. In this final rule, the FAA maintains its position on the infeasibility of establishing powered-lift classes at this time and adopts the requirement for the PIC of a powered-lift to hold a type rating on their pilot certificate. This section briefly discusses the amendment and responds to comments.
Currently, pursuant to § 61.31(a), a person must hold a type rating to act as PIC of (1) a large aircraft
36
(except lighter-than-air), (2) a turbojet-powered airplane, and (3) other aircraft as specified by the Administrator through aircraft type certificate procedures.
37
To obtain a type rating, a person must receive aircraft-specific training and pass a practical test in the aircraft for the type rating sought.
38
Currently, the FAA's regulatory framework in part 61 allows for the issuance of a powered-lift category rating on a pilot certificate and does not specifically require a type rating to act as PIC of a powered-lift operation (unless a powered-lift specifically meets one of the parameters in § 61.31(a)).
36
Section 1.1 defines “large aircraft” as “aircraft of more than 12,500 pounds, maximum certificated takeoff weight.”
37
As discussed in the NPRM, FSBs are normally established when the responsible FAA Aircraft Certification Office issues a Type Certificate for large aircraft, turbojet powered airplanes, and other aircraft specified by the Administrator through the aircraft certification process (see § 61.31(a)). Powered-lift will be evaluated under the existing FSB process by the Aircraft Evaluation Division, which will determine the requirements for a pilot type rating and develop training objectives for the type rating.
38
§ 61.63(d), 61.157(b).
In the NPRM, the FAA extensively discussed the lack of commonality between each design of powered-lift.
39
For example, powered-lift types are expected to vary in configuration from tilt-wing, tilt-propeller, lift plus cruise, and tilt plus cruise designs, as well as varying degrees of automation. Further, powered-lift have unique flight and handling qualities managed with indirect flight controls, meaning movement of the inceptor does not directly correlate to the movement of a specific flight control surface.
40
The divergence of characteristics between powered-lift drives, first, the infeasibility to create classes because there is not a discernable group of similar operating characteristics with which the FAA can create classes at this time. Secondly, it drives the need for specific training and testing in the powered-lift that a PIC intends to operate. Generalized training requirements based on a broad categorization of powered-lift alone would not adequately address the unique characteristics and operating requirements of each individual aircraft.
39
88 FR 38946 at 38956 (June 14, 2023).
40
For purposes of this preamble, the term “inceptor” refers to a wide variety of non-traditional pilot controls through which pilot inputs are managed for the purpose of operating the powered-lift.
Therefore, to establish an appropriate level of safety by ensuring persons receive adequate training and are tested on the unique design and operating characteristics of each powered-lift, the FAA proposed to require a person who acts as PIC of a powered-lift to hold a type rating
41
in new § 61.31(a)(3).
42
41
The FSB will evaluate each powered-lift on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the training recommended by the manufacturer will enable the pilot to safely operate the aircraft in the NAS. Additionally, the FSB will identify the unique characteristics of each powered-lift that require special training, which will be documented in the Flight Standardization Board Report (FSBR). Subsequently, these findings are utilized to determine the applicability of tasks within the appropriate powered-lift Airman Certification Standards for training, testing, and checking.
42
The FAA also proposed to redesignate current § 61.31(a)(3), which requires a type rating for other aircraft specified by the Administrator through aircraft type certificate procedures, as new § 61.31(a)(4).
These proposals necessitated conforming amendments within part 61. Section 61.5(b)(7) sets forth the aircraft type ratings that may be placed on a pilot certificate when the applicant satisfactorily accomplishes the training and certification requirements for the rating sought. These type ratings include the aircraft currently identified in § 61.31(a), as well as the SIC pilot type rating for aircraft that are type-certificated for operations with a minimum crew of at least two pilots. The FAA proposed to revise paragraph (b)(7)(iii) to reflect the proposed aircraft type rating for a powered-lift and to redesignate current § 61.5(b)(7)(iii) as new § 61.5(b)(7)(iv). The FAA also determined current § 61.5(b)(7)(iv), which allows for the issuance of a SIC pilot type rating, does not belong under § 61.5(b)(7). Section 61.5(b)(7) contains aircraft type ratings; however, a pilot type rating subject to “SIC Privileges Only” is not an “aircraft” type rating. To more accurately capture the SIC pilot type rating as a pilot rating independent of “aircraft,” the FAA proposed to relocate this provision to stand independently in new § 61.5(b)(9).
Comments in Support of a Type Rating
Several commenters expressed support for the FAA's proposal to require a type rating for each powered-lift a PIC seeks to operate. AgustaWestland Philadelphia Corporation (AWPC),
43
BETA, Lilium, and Joby agreed with the proposed type rating requirement, citing the lack of commonality between powered-lift designs and their diverse capabilities. Likewise, ALPA and A4A endorsed the FAA's proposed approach to require a type rating to recognize the uniqueness of powered-lift, diversity of aircraft handling characteristics, and operations relative to evolving aircraft designs. ALPA added that some reports list over 500 different designs of powered-lift under manufacturer development and stated that pilots cannot rely on the transferability of skills between powered-lift types. An individual commenter noted that, because powered-lift systems are complex and quite different from one another, pilots should be qualified similarly to jet type ratings, specifically emergency recovery procedures. HAI expressed general support for the type rating requirement at this time but urged a cautious
approach, as subsequently discussed in this section.
43
AgustaWestland Philadelphia Corporation is a subsidiary of Leonardo S.p.A Helicopter Division.
ICAO Recommendation: Powered-Lift Type Rating on Existing Airplane or Rotorcraft Certificate
While these commenters supported a type rating, many supported the type rating framework specifically as recommended by ICAO Annex 1, section 2.1.1.4,
44
which permits a Licensing Authority to endorse a type rating for aircraft of the powered-lift category on an airplane or helicopter pilot license. Commenters supporting this position included: NATA, CAE, Eve, AWPC, Lilium, BETA, Supernal, the Vertical Flight Society, ADS Group, Vertical Aerospace Group, FlightSafety International, AUVSI, Ferrovial Airports, GAMA,
45
Joby, NBAA, Aerospace Industries Association, Helicopter Association International, L3Harris, and EASA.
44
ICAO Annex 1, 14th Ed. (July 2022). ICAO sets forth Section 2.1.1.4 until March 5, 2025.
45
GAMA suggested amending part 194 (and revising SFAR references as appropriate) to say that the appropriate category and class for powered-lift is that found by the Administrator to be appropriate, as designated by the type certificate data sheet and FSB report. GAMA noted there was precedent for this approach when the FAA provided relief to Wing from § 135.243 rules with respect to “appropriate category and class ratings” for the operation of its powered-lift unmanned aircraft. See, Exemption No. 18163 issued to Wing Aviation, LLC (Mar. 28, 2019). Since the issuance of Exemption No. 18163 in 2019, the FAA has determined that it erroneously tied having a type certificate to the ability to define the appropriate category, class and type of aircraft. In actuality, the FAA has the ability to determine definitionally under 14 CFR 1.1 what category and class of aircraft it is. Additionally, the FAA notes that unmanned aircraft were not contemplated in the FAA regulations when they were conceived, and that unmanned operations are unique—autonomy, airspace, capability, people on board, etc.—and do not fit into the traditional category and class framework.
Many commenters supported § 2.1.1.4 on two premises. First, commenters agreed with the premise that all powered-lift are unique enough to require a type rating which renders a category rating unnecessary. Therefore, given the similarity to airplanes and helicopters, commenters stated that removing the powered-lift category rating requirement and fully aligning with § 2.1.1.4 in the simple addition of the powered-lift type rating to an existing airplane or helicopter certificate would maintain an equivalent level of safety to the traditional certification framework. Second, commenters stated that alignment with § 2.1.1.4 would facilitate training and checking in Level C or higher simulators,
46
which commenters emphasized would standardize training and data collection to support continuous training improvement.
46
§ 61.63(d).
ICAO Annex 1 contains a recommended transitional measure in section 2.1.1.4 that permits a licensing authority to endorse a type rating for a powered-lift category on an existing airplane or helicopter category pilot license (
i.e.,
certificate). Application of this optional transitional measure would require the endorsement of the rating on the license to indicate that the aircraft is part of the powered-lift category and the training for the type rating must have been completed during an approved training course incorporating all relevant aspects of operating an aircraft of the powered-lift category, taking previous experience of the applicant into account as appropriate.
Joby stated the FSB operational evaluation process is adaptable within the type rating framework by providing appropriate consideration of new technologies or unique training needs, including special emphasis areas (training requirements) and specific flight characteristics (checking requirements) unique to a type. Supernal said ICAO would add category and class ratings at a later date when such additions could be supported by data. L3Harris posited that once sufficient experience is gathered, the FAA could reevaluate the category requirement and implement permanent rules as needed.
GAMA resubmitted the “GAMA Manufacturer Consensus Recommendations for the FAA's Powered-Lift Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR)” providing insights from the powered-lift industry to the FAA regarding SFAR regulation.
47
Participants in the letter highly encouraged the FAA to reconsider the GAMA member consensus initiative aligned with ICAO,
48
as it promotes adaptability, harmonization with international standards, and collaboration with other aviation authorities. The commenters supported the ICAO guidance as recognizing that pilot qualification and training shall be based on an aircraft's capabilities. GAMA further commented that the type rating for powered-lift should be defined in accordance with FAA's existing Operational Evaluation Board Process in a manner appropriate for each aircraft. In sum, given the global nature of the eVTOL industry, GAMA stated adopting an approach that reflects the ICAO framework is imperative. The Advanced Air Mobility Institute suggested that harmonization and coordination with EASA would reduce bureaucratic hurdles and minimize duplication of efforts. Additionally, the Advanced Air Mobility Institute asserted that through a joint approach, seamless training and certification procedures can be facilitated, leading to enhanced efficiency and benefits for all stakeholders involved.
47
As noted in the NPRM, on July 21, 2022, GAMA submitted a letter to the FAA providing its recommendations regarding consensus standards for powered-lift. The FAA has placed a copy of this letter in the docket for this rulemaking. On August 17, 2022, the FAA met with GAMA to discuss eVTOL Entry Into Service. The FAA did not take the recommendations contained in the letter or the contents of the meeting into consideration while developing the NPRM. GAMA resubmitted the letter and information related to the listening session to the docket in response to the NPRM. The FAA has incorporated responses throughout this preamble appropriate to the respective subject matter. FAA-2023-1275-0086.
48
The FAA interprets GAMA's broad reference to “ICAO guidance” in their comments, subsequently referenced throughout this preamble, as a reference to ICAO Doc. 10103 and recommendations in the applicable ICAO Annex.
The FAA first notes that the transitional measure is a recommendation
49
and not a standard. Under Articles 37 and 38 of the Chicago Convention, the U.S. is required to comply with ICAO standards or notify ICAO of differences. However, because section 2.1.1.4 is a permissive recommendation, the FAA is neither required to comply with the transitional measure nor file a difference with ICAO when deviating from recommended practices.
49
Annex 1 defines Recommended Practices, in pertinent part, as any specification of which the uniform application is recognized as desirable in the interest of safety, regularity, or efficiency of international air navigation, and to which Contracting States will endeavor to conform in accordance with the Convention.
As discussed in the NPRM, the FAA duly considered implementation of section 2.1.1.4 and declined to disrupt FAA's traditional airman certification framework by the addition of a type rating within a wholly different aircraft category to an existing certificate with a different category rating. Since 1997, part 61 has included regulations for powered-lift pilot and flight instructor certification. The FAA concedes that those regulations do not adequately address the unique challenges of introducing a new category of aircraft to civil operations; therefore, through this SFAR, the FAA chose to facilitate alternative measures for a pilot to directly receive a powered-lift category rating and a powered-lift type rating. Similar to the conditions set forth in ICAO's transitional recommendation, these alternative measures to receive a powered-lift category and type rating would be completed during training
provided under an approved or proposed training curriculum
50
and would take previous experience of an applicant in an airplane or helicopter into account, as appropriate.
51
50
See §§ 194.217, 194.219, 194.221, 194.223, 194.225, 194.227, 194.229, 194.231.
51
I.e., by virtue of the proposed eligibility prerequisites for pilots to utilize the relieving alternate framework that will be set forth in part 194.
The FAA acknowledges commenters' suggestions to more strictly align with ICAO's recommended transitional measure in section 2.1.1.4, reiterated in section 955 of the 2024 FAA Reauthorization. The FAA notes that commenters generally disagreed with the FAA's proposal to keep the powered-lift as a separate category of aircraft. These commenters stated that ICAO's standard provides an equivalent or higher level of safety but failed to provide supporting rationale as to why the FAA should deviate from its generalized airman certification framework in existence or how the transitional measure would provide an equivalent or higher level of safety to meeting the longstanding aeronautical experience requirements specific to a category of aircraft. Additionally, the FAA notes that ICAO Annex 1 does not forego the powered-lift category completely but gives the temporary option of an alternate means for a member state to implement the powered-lift category.
The FAA maintains that while powered-lift vary widely within the respective category, they are essentially a hybrid between an airplane and a helicopter with a distinct foundational set of characteristics.
52
Therefore, assurance of proficiency in those characteristics is an essential element of airman training that may be lost if a type rating, with no minimum flight hour or flight training requirement before testing for such rating,
53
is simply added to an existing airplane or helicopter rating, thereby rendering it impracticable for the FAA to wholly align with ICAO Recommendation 2.1.1.4, as explained throughout this section. While these pilots have significant prior experience operating in the NAS by virtue of holding a certificate with an airplane category rating or rotorcraft category, helicopter class rating, the experience is not tailored to powered-lift operations (the subsequent section of this preamble explains the FAA's finding on the value of the category rating).
52
See 14 CFR 1.1,
Powered-lift
definition: a heavier-than-air aircraft capable of vertical takeoff, vertical landing, and low speed flight that depends principally on engine-driven lift devices or engine thrust for lift during these flight regimes and on nonrotating airfoil(s) for lift during horizontal flight.
53
§ 61.63(d).
The FAA recognizes there is a fine line between a powered-lift being so unique that none resemble each other, thereby eliminating the similarities associated with a category of aircraft, and all powered-lift possessing similar fundamental characteristics such that a category rating remains essential. The subsequent section discusses additional comments received on the FAA's proposal to retain the powered-lift category and the safety benefit of doing so. This preamble also provides discussion of simulator time in section V.D. of this preamble.
Value of the Powered-Lift Category
Several commenters discussed the powered-lift category. As previously stated, the predominant position identified a perceived inconsistency between the FAA's statements about the uniqueness of powered-lift to support a universal type rating requirement and those statements supporting the powered-lift category rating as foundational. Additionally, commenters discussed the burden and barriers that a powered-lift category rating requirement would bestow on operators. CAE, NBAA, and Eve stated that a powered-lift category rating would create challenges in developing an initial cadre because it would require an FSB team to spend several months with the manufacturer to receive training compared to a type rating, which would only require a few weeks, according to the commenters. Joby and NBAA stated the category-based approach is potentially unsafe because it could lead to a negative transfer of skills between aircraft.
54
Similarly, an individual commenter noted that pilots of aircraft that operate primarily in wing-borne flight mode (
e.g.,
F-35, AV-8) may not be properly trained to fly aircraft that possess the unique aerodynamic and handling qualities-related effects of aircraft that generate thrust via proprotors.
54
The FAA acknowledges difficulties with entry into service for aircraft with single controls. Section V.D. of this preamble addresses these challenges.
Lilium suggested that, should the FAA maintain the requirement for a powered-lift category rating, the FAA should credit commercial pilot and ATP flying experience toward the powered-lift category rating. Specifically, Lilium stated an approach should focus on powered-lift type rating specifics with a combined check at the end of training. Finally, HAI generally expressed that the FAA should credit time logged in both airplanes and helicopters in the qualification framework.
The FAA considers the aircraft category rating to be a key element of airman certification for ensuring persons exercising the privileges of their pilot certificate possess a common level of competency. To be eligible to obtain a category rating, a person must complete set hours of flight time and flight training in the category of aircraft. Moreover, unlike class ratings within a category, a pilot who holds a category rating and seeks to add a new category to their pilot certificate must meet all of the flight time and flight training as would be required for an initial category rating.
55
Nearly 30 years ago, the FAA identified the need to establish a new powered-lift category for emerging technology.
56
At that time, the FAA explained that these regulations were necessary to respond to the future needs of aviation because industry was developing powered-lift and the pilot certification standards did not adequately reflect the certification requirements for powered-lift.
57
Like airplanes and rotorcraft, modern powered-lift vary significantly in terms of operational capabilities and complexity. However, like airplanes and rotorcraft, the FAA has determined that the wide range of current powered-lift in development share enough design attributes to establish a common aircraft category and ensure that a new powered-lift pilot has the necessary aeronautical experience to safely operate that category of aircraft in the NAS.
55
Under § 61.63(c)(3), a person who seeks to add a class rating in the same category of aircraft is not required to complete the prescriptive flight training requirements for an initial class rating but rather must only have a logbook or training record endorsement from an authorized instructor attesting that the person was found proficient in the appropriate areas of operation. Under § 61.63(b)(1), a person adding a category rating must complete all of the aeronautical experience requirements for the certificate level.
56
Pilot, Flight Instructor, Ground Instructor, and Pilot School Certification Rules,
NPRM, 60 FR 41160 (Aug. 11, 1995); final rule, 62 FR 16220 (Apr. 4, 1997).
57
62 FR 16220 at 16230 (Apr. 4, 1997).
The FAA notes that, for purposes of airman certification, an aircraft category groups similar aircraft that are designed to produce lift in a certain way. The characteristics of each category and how it produces lift lends itself to unique conditions a pilot would experience exclusive to the category of aircraft being operated. Powered-lift pilots operating a powered-lift may conduct operations that are similar to airplanes and helicopters, but the pilot's experience in either category is unique to that category and would not (1)
completely prepare the pilot for what may be encountered in a totally unique category of aircraft and (2) would not have the same unique conditions as a result of the production of lift by just wings or engine or just a rotor system.
Pilots maintain proficiency on specific flight characteristics based on these differing categories of aircraft (
e.g.,
their unique production of lift), such that category flight experience is not a comprehensive fit to another category. For example, unique conditions specific to only an airplane or only a helicopter include engine failures and vortex ring state. During a loss of power in a multiengine airplane, a pilot must be cognizant of the speeds at which they are flying because a pilot of a multiengine airplane could encounter a loss of directional control attributed to operations below the airplanes published V
MC.
58
In a multiengine airplane, operations below V
MC
result in a loss of directional control because the thrust is provided directly by the multiple engines. In a helicopter, the engines power a drive train that provides thrust through a rotor system. Since the thrust is not being directly provided by the engines in a helicopter there is no published V
MC
. Therefore, a helicopter would not experience loss of directional control because of operations below V
MC
as outlined for a multiengine airplane. Likewise, a pilot of a helicopter must be proficient in recovering from a vortex ring state, which is a transient condition of downward flight in which an aircraft descends through the air after previously ingested by the rotor system causing portions of the rotor blade to stall. If not corrected, the pilot experiences significant descent rates that require immediate intervention unique to a helicopter.
59
This condition is the result of the operation of a helicopter's rotor system producing downwash. As an airplane does not have a rotor system, this condition would not occur in an airplane.
58
V
MC
is a calibrated airspeed at which following the sudden critical loss of thrust the pilot would still be able to maintain directional control of the multiengine airplane. See Airplane Flying Handbook, FAA-H-8083-3C (2021), page 13-2.
59
FAA Helicopter Flying Handbook FAA-H-8083-21B at 11-9.
These examples are specific to the category of aircraft in which they are encountered, of which, a powered-lift may or may not ever experience. Moreover, powered-lift are operationally capable of both vertical takeoffs and landings as well as horizontal flight. This increased transitional complexity means an aircraft, while perhaps having some similar characteristics as an airplane or helicopter, has very unique and more novel conditions that may arise that would preclude crediting airplane or rotorcraft hours to count as comparable experience.
Given these characteristics, a pilot operating a powered-lift must be proficient in adverse conditions related to both horizontal flight and vertical take-off and landings (
i.e.,
certain airplane and helicopter characteristics), as all powered-lift have these capabilities regardless of the size, and any other powered-lift specific condition that may arise. A pilot who holds only a pilot certificate with an airplane category rating would lack proficiency in vertical takeoffs or landings and wouldn't be familiar with unique characteristics of flight that may be similar to a helicopter. Likewise, a pilot who holds a pilot certificate with only a rotorcraft category with helicopter class rating could lack proficiency in conditions related to horizontal flight similar to that of an airplane. Proficiency in both is required for any powered-lift, regardless of size, that may not be sufficiently covered in type rating training focused on a specific aircraft rather than universal category-shared characteristics. Therefore, the FAA disagrees with the notion that requiring a powered-lift category introduces safety risks into the NAS and maintains that the foundational characteristics necessitate a generalized powered-lift category rating.
In making this determination, the FAA also examined the areas of operation and tasks required to be performed to obtain a powered-lift category rating versus those required for a powered-lift type rating. The FAA found that the areas of operation covered when an applicant takes a practical test for a commercial pilot certificate with a powered-lift category rating are more expansive and include foundational concepts and skills necessary to operate any powered-lift in the NAS. In comparison, the areas of operation that are covered for a powered-lift type rating tend to be more narrowly tailored to a particular powered-lift, assuming the applicant would have the foundational category skills (or be concurrently attaining such proficiency). For example, broader Areas of Operation (AOO) such as airport and heliport operations (III), rapid deceleration/quick stop (AOO VI, Task A), slow flight and stalls (AOO VIII); high altitude operations (AOO X); and special operations (AOO XI) appear on the powered-lift category rating test as foundational category elements,
60
but are not covered on the powered-lift type rating test, nor would some of these foundational elements be covered on an airplane category or rotorcraft category, helicopter class practical test.
61
Comprehensive proficiency to facilitate safe operations in the NAS must include these foundational elements, among others set forth in the applicable ACS, that may be overlooked given a type-rating only training and practical test.
60
Commercial Pilot for Powered-lift Category ACS (FAA-S-ACS-2).
61
The FAA notes that the Commercial Pilot for Powered-Lift Category ACS sets forth a table indicating the required tasks for each area of operation tested in accordance with the ACS for the addition of a powered-lift category rating to an existing commercial pilot certificate, which results in an abbreviated test for SFAR pilots where there is overlap in foundational elements between categories. For example, pilots who possess a commercial pilot certificate with an airplane category rating (and any airplane class rating) are not required to test again on high altitude operations (AOO X).
Additionally, the FAA also notes the practical complexities of subjective assignment of an aircraft category as suggested by GAMA. Without a clearly communicated standard under which powered-lift would be certificated, the regulated community would be at a disadvantage in (1) lack of advanced notice of certification requirements (
e.g.,
if a powered-lift was assigned in the airplane category during the type certification process, but the manufacturer only employed helicopter pilots), (2) arbitrary determination frameworks (
e.g.,
how close a powered-lift would be required to align with the helicopters or rotorcraft to be in that category, whether it was a key system determination driver, etc.), and (3) potential absence of consistency in operational requirements (
e.g.,
minimum safe altitude requirements
62
and emergen
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.