[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 225 (Friday, November 21, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62486-62491]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30772]
[[Page 62485]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part VII
Department of Transportation
_______________________________________________________________________
Federal Aviation Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
14 CFR Part 61
Robinson R-22/R-44 Special Training and Experience Requirements;
Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 1997 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 62486]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 61
[Docket No. 28095; SFAR No. 73-1; Notice No. 97-15]
RIN 2120-AG47
Robinson R-22/R-44 Special Training and Experience Requirements
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes to extend the expiration date of
Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) 73, and to amend the special
training and experience requirements for pilots operating the Robinson
model R-22 or R-44 helicopters in order to maintain the safe operation
of Robinson helicopters. It also proposes special training and
experience requirements for certified flight instructors conducting
student instruction or flight reviews. This action is proposed to
maintain awareness of and training for the potential hazards of
particular flight operations for the continued safe operation of
Robinson helicopters.
DATES: Comments must be received by December 22, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted in triplicate to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel, Attn: Rules
Docket (AGC-200), Docket No. 28095, 800 Independence Avenue, S.W.,
Washington, DC 20591.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert J. O'Haver, Operations Branch,
AFS-820, General Aviation and Commercial Division, 800 Independence
Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591; Telephone: (202) 267-7031.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
All interested persons are invited to comment on this proposed rule
by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may
desire, including comments relating to the environmental, energy, or
economic impacts. Communications should identify the regulatory docket
number, and be submitted in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel, Attn: Rules Docket (AGC-
200), Docket No. 28095, 800 Independence Ave., Washington, DC 20591.
Comments may also be sent electronically to the Rules Docket by using
the following Internet address: 9-nprm-cmts@faa.dot.gov. All
communications received will be considered by the Administrator. This
proposed rule may be changed as a result of comments received from the
public. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the
Rules Docket in Room 915-G of the FAA Building, 800 Independence Ave.,
Washington, DC 20591. Persons wishing to have the FAA acknowledge
receipt of their comments must submit a self-addressed, stamped
postcard with the following statement: ``Comments to Docket Number
28095.'' The postcard will then be dated, time stamped, and returned by
the FAA.
Availability of This Proposed Rule
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded, using a
modem and suitable communications software, from the FAA regulations
section of the Fedworld electronic bulletin board service ((703) 321-
3339), the Federal Register's electronic bulletin board service ((202
512-1661), or the FAA's Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee Bulletin
Board service ((800) 322-2722 or (202) 267-5948). Internet users may
reach 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 for access to
recently published rulemaking documents.
Any person may obtain a copy of this document by submitting a
request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking,
ARM-1, 800 Independence Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling
(202) 267-9677. Communications must identify the docket number of this
proposal.
Persons interested in being placed on the mailing list for future
rules should request from the above office a copy of Advisory Circular
No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which
describes the application procedure.
Background
Part 61 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR part
61) details the certification requirements for pilots and flight
instructions. 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 model 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.
Certain aerodynamic and design features of the aircraft cause specific
flight characteristics that require particular pilot awareness and
responsiveness.
Since the R-22 was certificated, there have been 339 accidents in
the U.S. involving R-22's. 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. 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 most bumping or
main rotor-airframe contact accidents. 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.
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 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 SFAR.
SFAR 73 will expire on December 31, 1997. Since its issuance, no
accidents have occurred related to the low rotor RPM and/or tailboom/
main rotor contact. Therefore, the FAA is proposing to extend, with a
minor amendment, the provisions of SFAR 73.
Comments on SFAR 73
Forty-six comments were received on SFAR 73 from various
individuals, associations and businesses. These are discussed by topic
below. One comment
[[Page 62487]]
received from Helicopter Association International was rescinded at
their request, and was later amended and replaced by them. One comment
received made reference to the potential noise problem of low flying
helicopters; this comment had no relevance to the SFAR and is therefore
considered to be outside the scope of the request for comment.
Twenty-one comments received in the docket supported the SFAR. One
commenter expressed approval of the SFAR as an interim measure while
engineering studies are completed. Two commenters suggested the SFAR
was deficient or weak. Two commenters disagreed with the SFAR, stating
that it was unnecessary or that they disagreed with the intent. The
remaining commenters stated general support for the SFAR.
Scope of the SFAR
Some commenters recommended removing the reference to Robinson
helicopters, and/or stating that SFAR, particularly in the area of
awareness training, should apply to all helicopters, not only Robinson
helicopters. However, five comments were received refuting this
position stating that the SFAR should apply only to Robinson
helicopters; in addition, they suggested the intent of the FAA was to
apply the SFAR across the board for all light helicopters.
FAA Response: It was the FAA's intent that SFAR 73 apply only to
Robinson Helicopters in that the R-22 and R-44 are the only U.S.
manufactured, light helicopters utilizing a two blade teetering rotor
system, combined with a high tail rotor mount position that has a
history of this common type of accident. Therefore, the SFAR is
directed to the Robinson helicopter models R-22 and R-44.
Awareness Training
One commenter noted that awareness training was not appropriate for
beginning students and should not be required until just prior to solo
and after 10 hours of dual instruction.
FAA Response: The FAA disagrees with this comment. Awareness
training for helicopter operations should begin with the first flight.
Students should be made aware from the outset of training of the
hazards of abrupt control movements, rapid or abnormal control inputs,
and the recognition of potential problems encountered in normal
operations which could lead to an emergency. Such training is
appropriate at all levels of proficiency, while the technical details
surrounding such information increases in complexity and detail as
understanding and experience increases.
Additionally, the subject matter of the training required by the
SFAR pertaining to low ``G'' maneuvers, rotor RPM control, and the
dangers of mast bumping applies to all helicopters. Therefore, the FAA
has made significant and permanent changes to various advisory material
publications (e.g. practical test standards) as well as standards for
certification.
Required Experience and Training
Eight comments were received with regard to newly certificated
flight instructors who had completed all, or the majority of their
training in the Robinson helicopter. The commentors stated that those
instructors who had received all their training in the R-22, even
though they had a minimum time of 150 hours, should be authorized to
conduct training (or continue to do so) in Robinson helicopters, if
properly authorized and endorsed.
FAA Response: The FAA disagrees with this comment. While it is true
that some newly certificated flight instructors who meet the minimum
experience requirements established for certification may be eminently
qualified to teach others, there are others whose skills may only meet
minimum performance standards. Some who aspire to be flight instructors
can and do occasionally acquire a flight instructor's certificate with
as little as 50 hours of actual rotorcraft time, and little more than
150 hours of total flight time. The accidents that precipitated the
issuance of SFAR 73 were attributed to pilot performance or experience,
leading to low rotor RPM or low ``G'' conditions that resulted in mast
bumping 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 operate safely the R-22 and R-44
helicopters in certain flight conditions. As was stated in the preamble
to SFAR 73, there is a clear relationship between pilot inexperience in
the R-22 and R-44 helicopters and main-rotor/airframe contact
accidents. In 23 of the 30 fatal accidents, the pilot apparently
manipulating the controls has less than 200 flight hours in helicopters
or less than 50 flight hours in the model of Robinson helicopter they
were operating.
Creditable Training
Robinson Helicopter Company (RHC) and 15 additional commentors
provided support for a RHC proposal to allow a reduction in the hours
of dual instruction required by paragraphs 2(b)(1)(ii) and 2(b)(2)(ii)
from 10 hours to 5 hours for those persons who had an experience level
of more than 200 flight hours in helicopters.
FAA Response: The FAA agrees with this comment and incorporated it
into this proposal. SFAR 73 was originally written to provide for
adequate training of instructional and evaluator cadre by separating
the two models of aircraft (R-22 and R-44), noting that the model R-44
had, at that point, not been marketed in the United States. At that
time, it was determined that 10 hours of dual instruction in each model
would accomplish the goal of those who had been trained exclusively in
one model of Robinson helicopter, the R-22 for United States pilots,
and the Model R-44 for foreign operators. The 10 hour requirement could
have been fulfilled by any dual flight instruction acquired in the
appropriate model of aircraft over any period of time. The stipulation
was that some dual flight instruction would entail the specific
training provisions of the SFAR.
Since the R-44 is now being marketed in the United States, the
training now entails transition or differences training, rather than
initial training. The instruction provisions that applied to the model
R-22, along with the acquired experience in that model of aircraft have
provided a suitable increase in operational skills for pilots of the
smaller aircraft which are applicable to the larger model R-44
aircraft.
For these reasons, the FAA determined that the safety aspects of
the SFAR as they apply to flight experience in the model R-22 should be
credited toward the flight experience requirements in the R-44.
The Proposed Amendment
Prior to the issuance of SFAR 73, there had been 339 accidents
involving the Robinson R-22 helicopters. Many of these accidents were
related to the hazardous condition encountered in low ``G'' maneuvers
resulting in main-rotor/tailboom contact. The situation was so serious
that on March 1, 1995, the FAA took corrective action and published
SFAR 73 setting out specific training and experience requirements to
perform PIC or CFI duties in the R-22 or R-44 Robinson helicopters.
Since the issuance of SFAR 73, there has been a dramatic drop in
the accident rate of Robinson helicopters associated with low ``G''
maneuvers or main rotor/tailboom 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.
[[Page 62488]]
With this remarkable decline in the accident rate, the FAA is
proposing to extend the provisions of SFAR 73. As a result of the
comments received on SFAR 73, there is a general consensus that the
training is beneficial to those operating Robinson helicopters.
Recognizing that there is a constant recurrence of training
requirements to meet the ongoing influx of new rotary wing pilots, the
FAA believes there is benefit to continuing the requirements of SFAR
73.
This proposal also provides a minor amendment to the previous
provisions of 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 wasn't 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
proposing to allow the crediting of up to 25 flight hours acquired in
the model 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(c)(2)(ii) for R-44.
In addition, paragraph 2(b)(5)(ii) is clarified in this proposal.
The FAA has received many inquiries as to the intent of this paragraph.
Callers have mistaken the intent of the paragraph and concluded upon
reading the SFAR, 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. They contend that the reference
in paragraph 2(b)(5)(ii) to the experience requirements of 2(b)(1)(i)
or 2(b)(2)(i) include the ``or,'' at the end of the sentence.
This was not the FAA's intent, paragraph 2(b)(5)(i) specifically
refers to a numbered line only. The FAA is proposing a change to
paragraph 2(b)(5)(i) to provide clarification.
Regulatory Evaluation Summary
Proposed changes to Federal regulations must undergo several
economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each
Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned
determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its
costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to
analyze the economic effect of regulatory changes on small entities.
Third, the Office of Management and Budget directs agencies to assess
the effect of regulatory changes on small entities and changes on
international trade. In conducting these analyses, the FAA has
determined that this proposal. (1) Is cost-beneficial; (2) is not ``a
significant regulatory action'' as defined in the Executive Order, (3)
is not significant as defined in Department of Transportation's
Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities, and (5) will not
constitute a barrier to international trade. All of these analyses have
been prepared as a regulatory evaluation and are summarized below. A
copy of the regulatory evaluation has also been placed into the docket.
Benefits
The benefits of the proposed rule would 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 that resulted from those 16 accidents prior to the
issuance of SFAR 73. The 26 fatalities represent 41 percent of all
fatalities on Robinson helicopters prior to issuance of the SFAR. 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 judgement 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 would 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 proposed
rule over the five year period from 1998 through 2002. All of the costs
incurred as a result of changes to existing procedures will begin when
the proposed rule becomes effective. Costs are computed in 1996 dollars
and are discounted by seven percent. The Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) requires using a discount factor of seven percent when
calculating the present value.
The groups that incur costs from the proposed 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 proposed rule. All the cost estimates pertaining to the
acquisition of a rotorcraft category rating are based on the minimum
times required to receive the category rating, as published in 14 CFR
Part 61.
Flight Instructor Costs
Occasionally 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
criteria for flight instructors who wish to continue to instruct or
conduct flight reviews in a Robinson helicopter. The criteria were
based on a combination of experience and training, which require more
than the minimum amount required for certification as an instructor.
Further, the criteria were established to ensure that the instructors
are knowledgeable and competent to conduct the awareness and flight
training 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 published time, those aspiring a flight instructor
certificate in the Robinson
[[Page 62489]]
model helicopters will require 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, at a cost of $150 an hour, or $7,500. 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 (25 hours credit in the R-22)
in the R-44, at an additional cost of $300 an hour for 25 hours in a R-
44 and $150 an hour for 25 hours in a R-22, or 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 422 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
would 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.
For several reasons, the FAA believes that only a small number of
potential flight instructors will be affected by the proposed rule.
First, most certificated flight instructors have been rated pilots for
some time, and as a consequence, have far more than the minimum total
flight time. In addition many pilots have an instrument rating, which
requires significantly more flight experience. Second, most FAA-
approved schools require flight instructors to have considerably more
experience than the required minimums to become a flight instructor.
Finally, 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. These relationships may be
summarized as follows:
Estimate of Rotorcraft only Flight Instructor
Certificates=ICt-ICt=1 *
RCt/ PCt
where:
ICt=instructor certificates held in time period t;
ICt-1=instructor certificates held in time period t=1;
PCt=pilot certificates held in time period t;
RCt=rotorcraft certificates held in time period t.
Applying the above formula, the FAA estimates that in 1996 there was
the potential for 13 individuals to seek a flight instructor
certificate based on the minimum requirements for a helicopter only
rating. 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
would be required to receive an additional 5 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 $150 an hour for
instruction in the R-22, will amount to $750 (5 hours times $150 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
student rotorcraft certificates held was multiplied by an estimate of
the number of new students receiving instruction on Robinson
helicopters. That estimate was then applied to the added cost per
student to derive the total added cost for all students. These
relationships may be summarized as follows:
Total Added Cost for all Students =
{2**CR-22*[SPC*(ORI/OSI)]}/3
where:
H = added hours;
C = added cost per hour;
SPC = student pilot certificates held;
OSI = original student certificates issued;
ORI = original rotorcraft certificates issued.
Applying the above procedure, the FAA estimates that approximately
4,000 new students will receive instruction in the Robinson R-22 model
helicopter at an estimated cost of approximately $3.0 million annually.
The total new student costs are approximately $14.9 million ($12.2
million, present value) over the next five years in 1996 dollars.
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 5 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 certificate. 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. 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
[[Page 62490]]
annual cost or pilots to add a rotorcraft rating using a Robinson
helicopter.
These relationships may be summarized as follows:
Total added cost to add a rotorcraft rating =
ARRt*(R44/F)*H*CR44 +
ARRt*[(R-R-44)/F]*H*CR22
where:
R = U.S. active Robinson fleet;
F = U.S. active helicopter fleet;
R44 = Robinson Model R-44 helicopter;
ARRt = added rotorcraft ratings in time period t;
H = added hours;
C = added cost per hour.
Applying the above description, 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 $448,000
annually. The estimated cost over the next five years is approximately
$2.2 million (present value, $1.8 million) in 1996 dollars.
Cost Summary
The proposed rule would impose costs to those receiving instruction
in Robinson model R-22 and R-44 helicopters. Before they could be
certificated, affected individuals would be required to receive
additional model-specific training and experience for each model of
Robinson helicopter. Individuals affected by the proposal 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 and 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 proposed rule would impose total estimated costs of
approximately $18.1 million (present value, $14.8 million) over the
next five years, in 1996 dollars.
All of the costs described in this analysis would 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.
Comparison of Costs and Benefits
The proposal would 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 those proposed
requirements would impose costs of approximately $18.1 million (present
value, $14.8 million) over five years in 1996 dollars. Benefits from
the proposed rule would 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 estimated 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 model R-22 and R-44 aircraft. If the
proposed action prevents the 26 fatalities that occurred during the
past 10-year period, the estimated benefits would be $71.4 million
($50.1 million, present value). Since this SFAR will be in effect for
only 5 years, the estimated benefits would be $35.7 million ($29.3
million, present value) for this rulemaking, resulting in benefits
exceeding costs by a factor of about two.
Initial 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 proposed
rulemaking, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis identifying the
economic impact on small entities, and considering alternatives that
may lessen those impacts must be conducted if the proposed rule would
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
This notice 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 would suffer a
significant 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. So in view of the above, the FAA concluded that
this proposed rule, if extended, will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Agency, however,
invites comments on this conclusion.
International Trade Impact Statement
This proposed 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 assessment is
based on the fact that this proposed rule would impose additional costs
only on those receiving instruction on Robinson helicopters. This
proposal would have no effect on the sale of foreign aviation products
or services in the United States, nor would it affect the sale of
United States aviation products or services in foreign countries.
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 would 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.
[[Page 62491]]
Federalism Implications
The SFAR proposed herein will not have substantial direct effects
on the states, on the relationship between the Federal government and
the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among
the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with
Executive Order 12866, it is determined that this proposed rule does
not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation
of a Federalism Assessment.
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 proposed rule does not conflict with
any international agreement of the United States.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The OMB control number assigned to the collection of information
for this proposed rule is 2120-0021.
Conclusion
For the reasons previously discussed in the preamble, the FAA has
determined that this SFAR is not significant under Executive Order
12866. Based on the findings in the Regulatory Flexibility
Determination and the International Trade Impact Analysis, the FAA
certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic
impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. This SFAR is not
considered significant under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
FR 11034; February 26, 1979).
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 61
Aircraft, Aircraft pilots, Airmen, Airplanes, Air safety, Air
transportation, Aviation safety, Balloons, Helicopters, Rotorcraft,
Students.
The Proposal
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend part 61 of Title 14 of the 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.
SFAR 73 [Amended]
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 model 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 model R-44
toward this 50 hour requirement; 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 model R-44 helicopter. 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 an 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 model R-44 or R-44 unless that
instructor:
(i) Completes the awareness training in paragraph 2(a) of this
SFAR,
(ii) and for the 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 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 model R-22 flight time may be
credited toward the 50 hour requirement,
(iii) Has completed flight training in an 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) 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 terminates on December 31, 2002,
unless sooner superseded or rescinded.
Issued in Washington, D.C. on November 18, 1997.
Richard O. Gordon,
Acting Director, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. 97-30772 Filed 11-20-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
