[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 4 (Wednesday, January 7, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 660-666]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-317]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 61
[Docket No. 28095; SFAR No. 73-1]
RIN 2120-AG47
Robinson R-22/R-44 Special Training And Experience Requirements
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule extends the expiration date of Special Federal
Aviation Regulation (SFAR) 73, and amends the special training and
experience requirements for pilots operating the Robinson R-22 or R-44
helicopters in order to maintain the safe operation of Robinson
helicopters. It also requires special training and experience
requirements for certified flight instructors conducting student
instruction or flight reviews. The purpose of this action is to
maintain awareness of and training for the potential hazards of
particular flight operations needed for the continued safe operation of
Robinson helicopters.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 31, 1997.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert J. O'Haver, Operations Branch, AFS-820, General Aviation and
Commercial Division, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC
20591; telephone: (202) 267-7031.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability of Final Rule
This document may be downloaded from the FAA regulations section of
the FedWorld electronic bulletin board (telephone: 703-321-3339), the
Federal Register's electronic bulletin board (telephone: 202-512-1661),
or the FAA's Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee Bulletin Board
(telephone: 800-322-2722 or 202-267-5948).
Internet users may access the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov
or the Federal Register's web page at http://www.access.gpo.gov/
su__docs to download recently published rulemaking documents.
Any person may obtain a copy of this final rule by submitting a
request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking,
ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by
calling (202) 267-9677. Communications must reference the amendment
number of this final rule.
[[Page 661]]
Persons interested in being placed on the mailing list for future
rules should request a copy of Advisory Circular (AC) No. 11-2A, Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the
application procedure.
Small Entity Inquiries
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
(SBREFA) requires the FAA to report inquiries from small entities
concerning information on, and advice about, compliance with statutes
and regulations within the FAA's jurisdiction, including interpretation
and application of the law to specific sets of facts supplied by a
small entity.
The FAA's definitions of small entities may be accessed through the
FAA's web page http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/sbrefa.htm, by contacting a
local FAA official, or by contacting the FAA's Small Entity Contact
listed below.
If you are a small entity and have a question, contact your local
FAA official. If you do not know how to contact your local FAA
official, you may contact Charlene Brown, Program Analyst Staff, Office
of Rulemaking, ARM-27, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, 1-888-551-1594.
Internet users can find additional information on SBREFA in the ``Quick
Jump'' section of the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov and may send
electronic inquiries to the following Internet address: 9-AWA-
[email protected]
Background
Part 61 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR part
61) details the certification requirements for pilots and flight
instructors. Particular requirements for pilots and flight instructors
in rotorcraft are found in subparts C through G, and appendix B of part
61. These requirements do not address any specific type or model of
rotorcraft. However, the FAA determined in 1995 that specific training
and experience requirements are necessary for the safe operation of
Robinson R-22 and R-44 helicopters.
The R-22 is a 2-seat, reciprocating engine-powered helicopter that
is frequently used as low-cost initial student training aircraft. The
R-44 is a 4-seat helicopter with similar operating characteristics and
design features of the R-22. The R-22 is the smallest helicopter in its
class and incorporates a unique cyclic control and rotor system. Its
small size and relatively low operating costs result in its use as a
training or small utility aircraft, and its operation by a significant
population of relatively inexperienced helicopter pilots. However,
certain aerodynamic and design features of the aircraft cause specific
flight characteristics that require particular pilot awareness and
responsiveness.
The FAA found that the R-22 met 14 CFR part 27 certification
requirements and issued a type certificate in 1979; however, the R-22
has had a high number of fatal accidents due to main rotor/airframe
contact when compared to other piston powered helicopters. Overall,
since the R-22 was certificated, there have been 339 accidents in the
U.S. involving R-22's. Many of these accidents have been attributed to
pilot performance or inexperience, leading to low rotor revolutions per
minute (RPM) or low ``G'' conditions that resulted in mast bumping and/
or main rotor-airframe contact accidents.
In its analysis of accident data, the FAA has found that apparently
qualified pilots may not be properly prepared to safely operate the R-
22 and R-44 helicopters in certain flight conditions. The additional
pilot training, originally established by SFAR 73, continues to be
needed for the safe operation of these helicopters.
Previous Regulatory Action
To address the accident causes, on March 1, 1995, the FAA published
SFAR 73 (60 FR 11256) which required certain additional experience and
training to perform pilot-in-command (PIC) and/or certified flight
instructor (CFI) duties. SFAR 73 was issued on an emergency basis
without the usual public notice and comment; however, the FAA sought
comment on the final SFAR.
Since the issuance of SFAR 73, which expires on December 31, 1997,
no accidents have occurred related to low rotor RPM, low g maneuvers,
and main rotor/airframe contact. Therefore, on November 21, 1997 (62 FR
62486), the FAA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) No.
97-15 which proposed to extend the provisions of SFAR 73 until December
31, 2002, with a minor amendment. As noted above, the preamble to
Notice No. 97-15 discussed the 46 comments that the FAA had received
after the issuance of SFAR 73 in 1995 and those comments were
considered by the FAA in the issuance of this rule.
The Amendment
As previously noted, since the issuance of SFAR 73, there has been
a dramatic drop in the accident rate of Robinson helicopters associated
with low ``G'' maneuvers, low motor rpm and main rotor/airframe
contact. Also in the interim, the FAA has taken steps to improve the
airworthiness of the R-22 and R-44 through the issuance of a number of
airworthiness directives. Both of these factors support the FAA's
proposal to extend the provisions of SFAR 73.
The comments received on SFAR 73 demonstrated that there is a
general consensus that the required training is beneficial to those
operating Robinson helicopters. Also, the ongoing increase of new
rotary wing pilots supports continuing the requirements of SFAR 73.
This rule also contains a minor amendment to SFAR 73 to clarify
paragraph 2(b)(5) regarding the instructor experience required to
conduct training in either the R-22 or R-44. The FAA has recognized
that the R-44, which was not operated in the U.S. in large numbers when
SFAR 73 was originally promulgated, is being operated in greater
numbers now. The FAA has also recognized that the R-44 is a more stable
aircraft than the R-22. Therefore, the FAA is allowing the crediting of
up to 25 flight hours acquired in the R-22 helicopter towards the 50
flight hour experience requirements of paragraph 2(b)(2)(i) for the R-
44, and up to 5 hours of dual instruction received in the R-22 credited
toward the 10 hour dual flight instruction requirement of 2(b)(2)(ii)
for the R-44.
In addition, paragraph 2(b)(5)(ii) is clarified in this amendment.
The FAA had receive many inquiries as to the intent of this paragraph.
Individuals have mistaken the intent of the paragraph and had concluded
that instructors may be endorsed to provide flight instruction in the
R-22 or R-44 if they comply with paragraph 2(b)(1)(ii) or 2(b)(2)(ii)
of the SFAR. It is contended that the reference in paragraph
2(b)(5)(ii) to the experience requirements of 2(b)(1)(i) or 2(b)(2)(i)
includes the ``or;'' at the end of the sentence.
This was not the FAA's intent; paragraph 2(b)(5)(ii) separately
refers to the R-22 and the R-44. However to avoid any future confusion,
the FAA is changing paragraph 2(b)(5)(ii) to clarify the specific
requirements.
As discussed in Notice No. 97-15, the FAA is also amending
paragraphs 2(b)(1)(ii) and 2(b)(2)(ii) in response to a comment made by
Robinson Helicopter Company (RHC) supported by 15 additional commenters
on the original emergency SFAR. RHC proposed a reduction in the hours
of dual instruction from 10 hours to 5 hours for those persons who had
an
[[Page 662]]
experience level of more than 200 flight hours in helicopters.
Additionally, a clause stating the need for a flight instructor's
endorsement prior to exercising the privileges of a pilot in command of
an Robinson R-44 was inadvertently left out of the proposal to amend
paragraph 2(b)(2)(ii). That requirement exists in the current SFAR was
written; it's omission is considered minor and editorial in nature and
had been corrected in this amendment.
Discussion of Comments
Fifty-six comments were received before the docket closed on
December 22, 1997 on Notice No. 97-15. Of this total, 42 individual
pilot commenters submitted identical letters supporting the position of
the R-22/R-44 Operators & Pilots Association.
The identical pilot commenters express overall support of SFAR 73,
citing various statistics documenting the reduced accident rate
involving R-22 and R-44 helicopters since the SFAR has been in effect.
While these commenters are in favor of continuing the mandated
awareness training for all pilots of R-22 and R-44 helicopters, they
recommend that ``mandated hourly flight requirements * * * be modified
unless future fatal accident rates indicate otherwise.'' Specifically,
these commenters recommend amending paragraph 2(b)(5)(ii) to read as
follows:
``and for the R-22, has had at least 150 flight hours in an R-22
(or at least 200 flight hours in helicopters, at least 50 flight hours
of which were in the Robinson R-22), or for the R-44, has had at least
200 flight hours in helicopters, 50 flight hours of which were in the
Robinson helicopters. Up to 25 flight hours of Robinson R-22 flight
time may be credited toward the 50 hour requirement.''
The effect of the recommended change would be to reduce the total
number of required flight hours for a qualified R-22 flight instructor
from 200 flight hours to 150 flight hours if all 150 flight hours were
in an R-22.
These commenters state that this change would enhance safety by
ensuring that flight instructors operating in the R-22 have a greater
number of flight hours in the same make and model of helicopter that
they will be teaching in.
The FAA disagrees with this comment. As was stated in the preamble
to SFAR 73 and the NPRM, the FAA is convinced a clear relationship
exists between pilot inexperience in the R-22 and R-44 helicopter and
main rotor/airframe contact accidents. In 23 of the 30 fatal accidents,
the pilots apparently manipulating the controls have had less than 200
flight hours in the model of Robinson helicopter they were operating.
The FAA has determined that 200 flight hours is needed for the safe
operation of either helicopter.
One commenter (Rotorcraft, Inc.) states that SFAR 73 is an unfair
burden on R-22/R-44 operators and should not be continued. This
commenter states that SFAR 73 serves no safety function because the R-
22/R-44 has been found to be the safest in the industry.
The FAA disagrees with this statement. Prior to the SFAR, there
were 30 fatal accidents involving Robinson helicopters and low rotor
RPM or ``low G'' maneuvers leading to main rotor/airframe contact. The
R-22's and the R-44's two blade, low inertia, teetering rotor system
(combined with a high tail mount position of the tail rotor) has
repeatedly been involved in the type of accident which this SFAR is
designed to address. The FAA determined that the additional special
experience requirements and awareness training was necessary for safe
operation of these helicopters as part of a comprehensive program that
responded to the high number of accidents involving these helicopters.
Other elements of the program included addressing design and
operational issues that may have been contributing factors in some of
these accidents. The FAA has determined that SFAR 73 is essential for
the safe operation of the R-22 and R-44 helicopters.
Robinson Helicopter Company and Sky Helicopters support the
proposed changes in SFAR 73 but strongly recommends that the same
reasoning should be applied to the biennial flight review, which would
then recognize flight review in the R-22 to be valid for flight in the
R-44. These commenters and one other commenter also request that the
requirements of the SFAR ``be reviewed and re-evaluated at least every
two years so that any additional changes based upon experience may be
promptly implemented.'' Thus, this commenter recommends that SFAR 73
should be extended until December 31, 1999, rather than 2002.
The FAA disagrees with the comment regarding biennial flight
reviews. The requirements for the flight review in the R-22 helicopter
were established by the R-22 Flight Standardization Board (FSB) Report,
dated February 15, 1995. This report states in paragraph 8.2, ``All
pilots who wish to act as pilot in command of a Robinson R-22 aircraft
should complete a flight review as required by FAR Part 61.56 in a
Robinson R-22 model helicopter.'' The FSB report for the R-44, also
dated February 15, 1995, make similar statements regarding the
completion of a flight review in a R-44 specifically.
The FAA disagrees with the recommendation for a shorter effective
period. A longer effective period of the SFAR will allow for sufficient
collection of data and analysis. But, as noted below, other safety
authorities have stated that this SFAR should be made permanent. The
FAA has determined that 5 years of data will more fully address both
recommendations.
Another comment submitted by Robinson Helicopter Company's
Engineering Department recommends simplification of the wording of the
amendatory language in the proposal.
The FAA did not adopt this suggestion. The FAA reviewed the
specific wording suggested and determined that the wording as written
in the proposed rule was clear regarding the type of flight hours which
can be credited toward the aeronautical experience for the R44, i.e.
the creditable time must be in the R-22, not a helicopter other than
the R-22.
Another comment by an individual helicopter pilot says that the
SFAR has been successful in reducing fatal accidents in the R-22 and R-
44, caused by the low RPM stalls and low G maneuvering, through
increased pilot awareness training. The commenter states that this
training will continue to be carried forward and that there is no
longer a need for the SFAR, therefore it should not be renewed.
The FAA disagrees that this recommendation. The specific points
made by this commenter are the precise reasons why the FAA will extend
the SFAR so as to ensure that this training is given to new students
entering the training population. The R-22's and R-44's accident record
before and after this SFAR is strong evidence that a mandatory rule is
needed for the continued safe operation of these helicopters.
Another individual helicopter pilot supports the annual awareness
training required by the SFAR but believes that adding more
restrictions (additional flight instruction hours) would increase the
cost of flying Robinson helicopters, thereby discouraging people from
flying these helicopters. This commenter says that the cost analysis in
the proposal ``appears to be about 15-20% low for the available
services in my area'' (Kansas). The commenter suggests not changing
SFAR 73 for another year so that more data can be compiled.
For reasons discussed previously, the FAA has determined that the
extension of the SFAR as amended is needed. Also, this amendment has
not added
[[Page 663]]
any restrictions from the previous rule, but instead, has granted
credit for specific experience in the R-22, thereby reducing the
overall requirements for gaining a rating in both the R-22 and R-44.
Therefore, this SFAR will not increase flight instruction hours.
Also, the Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board
(NTSB) filed a comment that concurred with the extension of the SFAR as
proposed. He noted that the NTSB had made multiple recommendations to
the FAA concerning the R-22 and R-44, and that the NTSB recommended the
SFAR should be made permanent. The FAA agrees with the NTSB and most
commenters that safety dictates that the SFAR should continue without
lapse until December 31, 2002. Accordingly, this rule is to be
effective in less than 30 days to prevent that lapse. As noted in the
NPRM, the current SFAR expires on December 31, 1997 and such lapse
would be detrimental to aviation safety.
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and Joint Aviation
Regulations
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with ICAO
Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable.
The FAA has determined that this rule does not conflict with any
international agreement of the United States.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Information collection requirements in this rule have been approved
by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the provisions of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), and have been
assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0021.
Regulatory Evaluation Summary
Both the executive and legislative branches of government recognize
that economic considerations are an important factor in establishing
regulations. Executive Order 12866 signed by President Clinton on
September 30, 1993 requires Federal agencies to assess both the costs
and benefits of proposed regulations and, recognizing that some costs
and benefits are difficult to quantify, propose or adopt regulations
only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of each regulation
justify its costs. In addition, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
requires Federal agencies to determine whether or not proposed
regulations are expected to have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, and, if so, examine feasible
regulatory alternatives to minimize the economic burden on small
entities. Finally, the Office of Management and Budget directs agencies
to assess the effects of proposed regulations on international trade.
This section summarizes the FAA's economic and trade analyses,
findings, and determinations in response to these requirements. The
complete economic and trade analyses are contained in the docket.
Benefits
The benefits of the final rule will be a reduction of the number of
fatal accidents that occur in Robinson helicopters associated with low
``G'' maneuvers that can result in main rotor contact with the
airframe. The estimated reduction in the number of accidents is
expected from the increased level of safety related to specific flight
training and awareness training requirements for all individuals
operating Robinson R-22 and R-44 aircraft.
Between the years 1985 and 1994 there were a total of 43 fatal
accidents involving Robinson helicopters, resulting in 63 fatalities.
Accidents due to main rotor contact with the airframe accounted for 16
of the 43, or approximately 37 percent of the total accidents. There
were 26 fatalities (41 percent of all fatalities on Robinson
helicopters) that resulted from those 16 accidents prior to the
issuance of SFAR 73. Since the SFAR was issued in 1995, however, there
have been no accidents or fatalities involving R-22 or R-44 aircraft
associated with low ``G`` operations or main rotor contact with the
airframe. Although there is not yet sufficient historical data to
statistically demonstrate that the almost three year period of no fatal
accidents of this type is a result of SFAR 73, it is the judgment of
the FAA after reviewing all available information that this is the
case.
Assuming that SFAR 73 is effective at preventing the above types of
rotorcraft accidents, the FAA has estimated the benefit associated with
preventing these accidents. A value of $2.7 million was applied to each
statistical fatality avoided. This computation resulted in an estimate
of approximately $35.1 million in five year casualty costs. Also, the
estimated value of the 16 destroyed aircraft was $587,000. If this
rulemaking helps prevent the recurrence of the 26 fatalities associated
with low ``G'' maneuvers, then expected safety benefits will be
approximately $35.7 million (present value, $29.3 million) over five
years, in 1996 dollars.
Costs
In this analysis, the FAA has estimated the cost of the final rule
over the five year period from 1998 through 2002. All of the costs
incurred as a result of changes to existing training procedures will
begin when the final rule becomes effective. Costs are computed in 1996
dollars and are discounted by seven percent.
The groups that incur costs from the final rule are rated pilots
who aspire to be flight instructors or newly certificated flight
instructors who desire to conduct student instruction or flight reviews
in the Robinson model R-22 or R-44 helicopter. In addition, students
that receive their instruction in the R-22 or R-44, such as pilots
adding a rotorcraft rating and new rotorcraft students, will also incur
costs from the final rule. All the cost estimates pertaining to the
acquisition of a rotocraft category rating are based on the minimum
times required to receive the category rating, as published in 14 CFR
Part 61.
Flight Instructor Costs
Theoretically a flight instructor can acquire his or her
certificate with as little as 50 hours of actual rotorcraft time and
little more than 150 hours of total flight time. However, the SFAR
established additional requirements for flight instructors who wish to
continue to instruct or conduct flight reviews in a Robinson
helicopter. These requirements were based on a combination of
experience and training, which requires more than the minimum amount
necessary for certification as an instructor. Further, additional
flight evaluation criteria were established to ensure that the
instructors are knowledgeable and competent to conduct the awareness
and flight training that the FAA believes are necessary for Robinson
helicopters. Therefore, no grandfathering was permitted for evaluators
or flight instructors.
While it is still possible for an individual to obtain a flight
instructor certificate for aircraft other than Robinson helicopters in
the minimum time required, those aspiring a flight instructor
certificate in the Robinson model helicopters will be required to have
an additional 50 hours of flight time. However, because some flight
experience requirements in the model R-22 also apply to flight
experience requirements in the R-44, a credit of up to 25 flight hours
acquired in the model R-22 helicopter can apply to the 50 flight hour
experience requirement for the R-44.
For a rated pilot to become certificated as a flight instructor in
the R-22, the pilot will need an additional 50 flight hours in the R-
22. The cost of
[[Page 664]]
the additional flight hours in the R-22 at $150 a flight hour, equals
$7,500 per person ($150 times 50 hours). Likewise, for a rated pilot to
become certificated as a flight instructor in the R-44, the pilot will
need an additional 50 flight hours in the R-44 (25 hours may be done in
a R-22). The cost for flight hours in the R-44 is $300 a flight hour.
The additional cost of $300 per flight hour for 25 hours in a R-44 and
$150 per flight hour for 25 hours in a R-22, equals a total of $11,250
per person. However, for a person to become certificated as a flight
instructor on both models of Robinson helicopters, the pilot will need
75 additional flight hours, 50 hours in the R-22 and 25 hours in the R-
44. The added cost for 75 additional flight hours to become
certificated in both the R-22 and the R-44 is $15,000 per person. The
FAA assumes that a rated pilot seeking to become a flight instructor
will want to be certificated on both models of Robinson helicopters;
therefore, the FAA has based the cost estimate to become a flight
instructor on the 75 additional flight hours.
The FAA believes that the number of individuals seeking a new
flight instructor certificate for a specific Robinson model helicopter
is small relative to the total of new flight instructor certificates
issued. To estimate the number of people seeking a flight instructor
certificate for the Robinson model helicopters, the FAA determined the
ratio of rotorcraft-only certificates held to the total airmen
certificates held (less student and glider-only certificates). The
ratio was then applied to the change in flight instructor certificates
between 1995 and 1996.
The FAA estimates that in 1996 there was the potential for 13
individuals seeking a rotorcraft a flight instructor certificate in a
Robinson model helicopter, based on the minimum requirements for a
helicopter only rating. The FAA assumes in this evaluation that all 13
of these individuals would want to qualify as flight instructors in
Robinson model helicopters. Based on the addition of 75 flight hours at
an added cost of $15,000 per individual, the total cost for 13 people
seeking a rotorcraft only flight instructor certificate in a Robinson
helicopter is approximately $189,000 annually. The estimated cost over
the next five years is approximately $900,000 (present value,
$800,000), in 1996 dollars.
Student Costs
The costs encompass two classes of students: (1) Pilots that
currently have a class certificate who wish to add a rotorcraft rating,
and (2) new students receiving rotorcraft-only training. However, to be
included in the cost estimate, students (new students or those adding a
rotorcraft rating) must be receiving instruction in the Robinson model
R-22 or R-44 helicopter.
New students receiving instruction in the Robinson helicopters will
be required to receive an additional five hours of dual instruction.
Because the small size, low purchase price, and low maintenance costs
make the R-22 attractive to flight schools, the FAA assumes that new
students will receive their instruction in the Robinson model R-22
helicopter. The added cost per student, assuming $165 an hour for
instruction in the R-22, will amount to $825 (5 hours times $165 an
hour).
Estimation of the total added cost for all students receiving
instruction in the Robinson helicopter was calculated in several steps.
First, the FAA estimated the ratio of original rotorcraft certificates
issued to original student certificates issued. That ratio was applied
to the total student pilot certificates held in 1996, which produced an
estimate of the number of student rotorcraft certificates held. The
estimated student rotorcraft certificates held was multiplied by an
estimate of the portion of new students receiving instruction on
Robinson helicopters (about \2/3\rds). That estimate was then applied
to the added cost per student to derive the total added cost for all
students.
The FAA estimates that approximately 3,300 new students will
receive instruction in the Robinson R-22 model helicopter at an
estimated cost of approximately $2.7 million annually. Total new
student costs are approximately $13.5 million ($11.1 million, present
value) over the next five years in 1996 dollars.
Although the FAA used a higher per hour estimate for dual
instruction, the costs reflected above are still approximately $1.3
million less than reported in the NPRM, because more accurate data was
supplied to the FAA regarding original rotorcraft pilot certificates
issued. The updated data presented fewer original rotorcraft pilot
certificates issued than what was used in the NPRM. Because there are
few original rotorcraft pilot certificates issued, that lowers the
ratio used as a component to calculate total added cost for all
students, thereby lowering the cost estimate.
Pilots that have a current class certificate who wish to add a
rotorcraft rating and receive instruction in the Robinson helicopters
will be required to take an additional five hours of dual instruction
the same as new students. However, unlike the new students, the FAA
assumes that a portion of the pilots seeking to add a rotorcraft rating
will receive instruction in the Robinson model R-44. Therefore, in
addition to estimating the total number of pilots seeking to add a
rotorcraft rating in Robinson helicopters in general, the FAA estimated
the percentage of those seeking a rating only in the R-44.
Experienced pilots who wish to add a rotorcraft rating to a current
class certificate could receive more advanced instruction, or
instruction in more advanced equipment, than a new pilot. For example,
they could receive instruction in a larger, more sophisticated turbine
helicopter, or they could receive instruction to add the instrument
rating to their class certicate. Therefore, the number of current
pilots seeking to add a rotorcraft rating only in the Robinson models
R-44 and R-22 was estimated by the FAA. First, to determine the number
of rotorcraft ratings that apply only to the R-44, the FAA multiplied
the ratio of R-44s to the helicopter fleet by the added rotorcraft
ratings for 1996. To estimate the added cost of instruction in the R-
44, the number of R-44 ratings was multiplied by the number of required
added hours of instruction, and by the R-44 cost per hour.
Next, it was necessary to estimate the number of rotorcraft ratings
that apply only to the R-22. As with the R-44, the added cost of the R-
22 was estimated by applying the R-22 ratings to the added rotorcraft
ratings for 1996. The number of R-22 ratings was multiplied by the
number of added hours of instruction and by the R-22 cost per hour.
Finally, the two products were added together to estimate the annual
cost for pilots to add a rotorcraft rating using a Robinson helicopter.
The total additional cost to receive instruction in a Robinson
helicopter for the purpose of adding a rotorcraft rating to a pilot
certificate is approximately $90,000 annually. The estimated cost over
the next five years is approximately $450,000 (present value, $369,000)
in 1996 dollars.
Although the FAA used a higher per hour estimate for dual
instruction, the costs reflected above are still approximately $1.8
million less than reported in the NPRM, because updated data, which
presented fewer added rotorcraft ratings than what was used in the
NPRM, was supplied to the FAA regarding added rotorcraft ratings.
Because of the lower number of added rotorcraft ratings, ratios applied
to the added rotorcraft ratings produced a lower cost estimate.
[[Page 665]]
Cost Summary
The final rule will impose costs to the those receiving instruction
in Robinson model R-22 and R-44 helicopters. Before they can be
certificated, affected individuals will be required to receive
additional model-specific training and experience for each model of
Robinson helicopter. Individuals affected by the rule are rated pilots
who aspire to be flight instructors or newly certificated flight
instructors who desire to conduct student instruction or flight reviews
in the Robinson model R-22 or R-44 helicopter, new rotorcraft students,
and certificated pilots seeking to add a rotorcraft rating. Both the
new student and the pilot seeking to add a rotorcraft rating must be
receiving instruction in a Robinson helicopter to incur the added cost.
The final rule will impose total estimated costs of approximately $14.9
million (present value, $12.2 million) over the next five years, in
1996 dollars.
All of the costs described in this analysis will be incurred
voluntarily. These added costs are not being forced on any individual
that wishes to receive rotorcraft training. If an individual wishes to
avoid the additional costs of rotorcraft instruction delineated above,
they can receive their instruction in a rotorcraft other than a
Robinson model, and not incur any of the costs that are described in
this analysis. However, they will not be certificated for Robinson
model helicopters.
Comparison Of Costs And Benefits
The rule will require those who receive or provide instruction in a
Robinson helicopter to incur additional costs related to specific
flight training and awareness training. The addition of these
requirements will impose costs of approximately $14.9 million (present
value, $12.2 million) over five years in 1996 dollars. Benefits from
the final rule will be a reduction in the number of fatal accidents
that occur in Robinson helicopters associated with low ``G'' maneuvers
that may result in main rotor/airframe contact. The reduction in the
number of accidents is due to the increased level of safety due to
specific flight training and awareness training requirements for all
individuals operating Robinson R-22 and R-44 aircraft. If the final
action prevents a repeat of the 26 fatalities that occurred during the
past 10-year period, the estimated benefits will be $71.4 million
($50.1 million, present value). Since this SFAR will be in effect for
only 5 years, the estimated benefits will be $35.7 million ($29.3
million, present value) for this rulemaking, resulting in benefits
substantially exceeding costs.
Final Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as amended, was
enacted by Congress to ensure that small entities are not unnecessarily
and disproportionately burdened by Government regulations. The Act
requires that, whenever an agency publishes a general notice of final
rulemaking, a regulatory flexibility analysis be done identifying the
economic impact on small entities, and considering alternatives that
may lessen those impacts if the final rule will have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule is to extend SFAR 73 published on March 1, 1995, which
was issued on an emergency basis without the usual public notice
period, but the FAA sought comments after issuance. No comments were
received from small entities indicating that they suffered any adverse
economic impact. The FAA again sought comments from small entities in
the NPRM published November 21, 1997 to extend SFAR 73 until 2002.
Again the FAA did not receive any comments from small entities
indicating any adverse economic impact. Further, the SFAR is limited to
experience and training requirements to perform pilot-in-command and
certified flight instructor duties, thereby impacting individuals
rather than entities. In view of all of the above, the FAA certifies
that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
small entities.
International Trade Impact Statement
This final rule will only impose additional costs on those
receiving instruction on Robinson helicopters. This rule will have no
effect on the sale of foreign aviation products or services in the
United States, nor will it affect the sale of United States aviation
products or services in foreign countries.
This final rule is not expected to impose a competitive
disadvantage to either US air carriers doing business abroad or foreign
air carriers doing business in the United States. This final rule
extends the SFAR and is not expected to impose any additional
competitive disadvantage over what has already been imposed by the
original SFAR requiring additional training in the Robinson. This
assessment is based on the fact that several other foreign countries
have adopted most provisions of the SFAR and that the production and
sale of Robinson helicopters has increased over the last two years.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Assessment
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act),
enacted as Pub. L. 104-4 on March 22, 1995, requires each Federal
agency, to the extent permitted by law, to prepare a written assessment
of the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency
rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year.
Section 204(a) of the Act, 2 U.S.C. 1534(a), requires the Federal
agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by
elected officers (or their designees) of State, local, and tribal
governments on a proposed ``significant intergovernmental mandate.'' A
``significant intergovernmental mandate'' under the Act is any
provision in a Federal agency regulation that will impose an
enforceable duty upon State, local, and tribal governments, in the
aggregate, of $100 million (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one
year. Section 203 of the Act, 2 U.S.C. 1533, which supplements section
204(a), provides that before establishing any regulatory requirements
that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments, the
agency shall have developed a plan that, among other things, provides
for notice to potentially affected small governments, if any, and for a
meaningful and timely opportunity to provide input in the development
of regulatory proposals.
This rule does not contain any Federal intergovernmental mandates,
but does contain a private sector mandate. However, because
expenditures by the private sector will not exceed $100 million
annually, the requirements of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 do not apply.
Federalism Implications
The regulation herein will not have substantial direct effects on
the States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive
Order 12612, it is determined that this rule will not have sufficient
federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism
Assessment.
[[Page 666]]
Significance
This rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866, nor is it
considered significant under DOT Order 2100.5, Policies and Procedures
for Simplification, Analysis, and Review of Regulations.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 61
Aircraft, Aircraft pilots, Airmen, Airplanes, Air safety, Air
transportation, Aviation safety, Balloons, Helicopters, Rotorcraft,
Students.
The Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends part 61 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR part 61) as follows:
PART 61--CERTIFICATION: PILOTS AND FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS
1. The authority citation for part 61 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44703, 44707, 44709-
44711, 45102-45103, 45301-45302.
2. Paragraphs 2(b)(2), 2(b)(5), and 3 of Special Federal Aviation
Regulation (SFAR) No. 73 to part 61 are revised to read as follows:
Special Federal Aviation Regulations
* * * * *
SFAR No. 73--Robinson R-22/R-44 Special Training and Experience
Requirements
* * * * *
2. Required training, aeronautical experience, endorsements, and
flight review.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) No person may act as pilot in command of a Robinson R-44 unless
that person--
(i) Has had at least 200 flight hours in helicopters, at least 50
flight hours of which were in the Robinson R-44. The pilot in command
may credit up to 25 flight hours in the Robinson R-22 toward the 50
hour requirement in the Robinson R-44; or
(ii) Has had at least 10 hours dual instruction in a Robinson
helicopter, at least 5 hours of which must have been accomplished in
the Robinson R-44 helicopter and has received an endorsement from a
certified flight instructor authorized under paragraph (b)(5) of this
section that the individual has been given the training required by
this paragraph and is proficient to act as pilot in command of an R-44.
Beginning 12 calendar months after the date of the endorsement, the
individual may not act as pilot in command unless the individual has
completed a flight review in a Robinson R-44 within the preceding 12
calendar months and obtained an endorsement for that flight review. The
dual instruction must include at least the following abnormal and
emergency procedures flight training--
(A) Enhanced training in autorotation procedures;
(B) Engine rotor RPM control without the use of the governor;
(C) Low rotor RPM recognition and recovery; and
(D) Effects of low G maneuvers and proper recovery procedures.
* * * * *
(5) No certificated flight instructor may provide instruction or
conduct a flight review in a Robinson R-22 or R-44 unless that
instructor--
(i) Completes the awareness training in paragraph 2(a) of this
SFAR.
(ii) For the Robinson R-22, has had at least 200 flight hours in
helicopters, at least 50 flight hours of which were in the Robinson R-
22, or for the Robinson R-44, has had at least 200 flight hours in
helicopters, 50 flight hours of which were in Robinson helicopters. Up
to 25 flight hours of Robinson R-22 flight time may be credited toward
the 50 hour requirement.
(iii) Has completed flight training in a Robinson R-22, R-44, or
both, on the following abnormal and emergency procedures--
(A) Enhanced training in autorotation procedures;
(B) Engine rotor RPM control without the use of the governor;
(C) Low rotor RPM recognition and recovery; and
(D) Effects of low G maneuvers and proper recovery procedures.
(iv) Has been authorized by endorsement from an FAA aviation safety
inspector or authorized designated examiner that the instructor has
completed the appropriate training, meets the experience requirements
and has satisfactorily demonstrated an ability to provide instruction
on the general subject areas of paragraph 2(a)(3) of this SFAR, and the
flight training identified in paragraph 2(b)(5)(iii) of this SFAR.
* * * * *
3. Expiration date. This SFAR expires on December 31, 2002, unless
sooner superceded or rescinded.
Issued in Washington, DC on December 31, 1997.
Jane F. Garvey,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 98-317 Filed 1-2-98; 11:47 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
