[Federal Register: July 27, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 143)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 44771-44882]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr27jy04-21]
[[Page 44771]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Department of Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Aviation Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14 CFR Parts 1, 21, et al.
Certification of Aircraft and Airmen for the Operation of Light-Sport
Aircraft; Final Rule
[[Page 44772]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 1, 21, 43, 45, 61, 65, and 91
[Docket No. FAA-2001-11133; Amendment No. 1-53; 21-85; 43-39; 45-24;
61-110; 65-45; 91-282]
RIN 2120--AH19
Certification of Aircraft and Airmen for the Operation of Light-
Sport Aircraft
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FAA is creating a new rule for the manufacture,
certification, operation, and maintenance of light-sport aircraft.
Light-sport aircraft weigh less than 1,320 pounds (1,430 pounds for
aircraft intended for operation on water) and are heavier and faster
than ultralight vehicles and include airplanes, gliders, balloons,
powered parachutes, weight-shift-control aircraft, and gyroplanes. This
action is necessary to address advances in sport and recreational
aviation technology, lack of appropriate regulations for existing
aircraft, several petitions for rulemaking, and petitions for
exemptions from existing regulations. The intended effect of this
action is to provide for the manufacture of safe and economical
certificated aircraft that exceed the limits currently allowed by
ultralight regulation, and to allow operation of these aircraft by
certificated pilots for sport and recreation, to carry a passenger, and
to conduct flight training and towing in a safe manner.
DATES: Effective September 1, 2004.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions on airman certification
and operational issues (parts 1, 61, and 91 of title 14, Code of
Federal Regulations (14 CFR)), contact Susan Gardner, Flight Standards
Service, General Aviation and Commercial Division (AFS-800), Federal
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC
20591; telephone 907-271-2034 or 202-267-8212.
For questions on aircraft certification and identification (14 CFR
parts 21 and 45), contact Scott Sedgwick, Aircraft Certification
Service, Small Airplane Directorate (ACE-100), Federal Aviation
Administration, 901 Locust Street, Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone
816-329-2464; fax 816-329-4090; e-mail
9-ACE-AVR-SPORTPILOT-QUESTIONS@faa.gov.
For questions on aircraft maintenance and repairman certification
(14 CFR parts 43 and 65), contact Bill O'Brien, Aircraft Maintenance
Division (AFS-305), Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence
Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-3796.
In addition, information on the implementation of this rule is
available on http://AFS600.faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability of Rulemaking Documents
You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by--
(1) Searching the Department of Transportation's (DOT) electronic
Docket Management System (DMS) Web page (http://dms.dot.gov/search). (2) Visiting the FAA Office of Rulemaking's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/index.cfn.
(3) Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://
http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html.
You can also get a copy 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) 267-9680.
Identify the amendment number or docket number of this rulemaking.
You may search the electronic form of all comments received into
any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment
(or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, or labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy
Act statement in the April 11, 2000 Federal Register (65 FR 19477) or
at http://dms.dot.gov.
Implementation Information
The FAA spent a considerable amount of time determining the
effective date of the final rule. Based on a review of the planning and
scheduling of the tasks necessary to support the development of the
infrastructure to implement the final rule, the agency believes that it
had two options in determining this date. The first option was to
establish the effective date of the rule after all of the guidance,
policy, and infrastructure was in place to implement the rule. The FAA
considered the economic impact of delaying the implementation of the
rule while waiting for all of this material to be completed and
believes that such action would not be in the best interest of those
persons affected by the rule. Additionally, the complexity of the rule
and the interrelationship among many of its new provisions makes the
use of more than a single effective date for the rule difficult to
implement. The second option was to select an effective date shortly
after publication of the rule in the Federal Register. The FAA could
then provide the public with many of the benefits of the rule while
concurrently carrying out a plan for implementing other portions of the
rule. The plan will contain milestones for completion of the specific
guidance, policy, and infrastructure necessary for the public to
conduct operations and seek certification under the new regulations.
Selection of this option, for example, will permit currently
certificated pilots to take advantage of many of the benefits of the
new rule, such as those provisions relating to the exercise of sport
pilot privileges without the necessity of holding an airman medical
certificate. The infrastructure to implement other provisions of the
rule can be developed during this period.
Due to the agency's intent to provide the public with as many of
the benefits of the rule as soon as possible, the agency has
established a single effective date of September 1, 2004 for the final
rule. Shortly after publication of this rule, the FAA will post an
implementation plan for the rule on the FAA Sport Pilot and Light-Sport
Aircraft Web site, http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/ sportpilot or http://AFS600.faa.gov.
The FAA recognizes that persons seeking certification
as airmen under the rule or seeking the certification of light-sport
aircraft under the rule will not be able to obtain such certification
immediately after the rule's effective date. The FAA, however, will
work closely with the sport aviation community and those organizations
that support its members to ensure that each milestone on the FAA's
implementation plan is met and that information regarding
implementation of the rule is made available in a timely manner.
The FAA has also reissued exemptions to the Experimental Aircraft
Association (EAA), the United States Ultralight Organization (USUA),
and Aero Sports Connection (ASC) that address flight training in
ultralight vehicles. These revised exemptions from certain provisions
of 14 CFR part 103 contain an expiration date of January 31, 2008. This
date coincides with the date established to transition existing
ultralight training vehicles, single and two-place ultralight-like
aircraft, and ultralight operators and instructors to the provisions of
the final rule.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996 requires the FAA to comply with small entity requests for
information or
[[Page 44773]]
advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its
jurisdiction. Therefore, any small entity that has a question regarding
this document may contact its local FAA official, or the person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT above. You can find out more
about SBREFA on the Internet at http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/sbrefa.htm.
Guide to Terms and Acronyms Frequently Used in This Document
AD--Airworthiness Directive
AGL--Above ground level
AME--Aviation Medical Examiner
ARAC--Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee
ASC-- Aero Sports Connection
ATC--Air traffic control
BAA-- Bilateral Airworthiness Agreement
BASA-- Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement
CAS--Calibrated airspeed
DAR--Designated Airworthiness Representative
DPE--Designated pilot examiner
EAA--Experimental Aircraft Association
Experimental light-sport aircraft--Aircraft issued an experimental
certificate under Sec. 21.191(i)
IFR--Instrument flight rules
LTA--Lighter-than-air
MSL--Mean sea level
NAS--National Airspace System
NM--Nautical mile
NTSB--National Transportation Safety Board
PMA--Parts Manufacturer Approval
SFAR--Special Federal Aviation Regulation
Special light-sport aircraft--Aircraft issued a special
airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category (or, aircraft
issued a special airworthiness certificate under Sec. 21.190)
STC--Supplemental type certificate
TC--Type certificate
TSO--Technical Standard Order
Ultralight-like aircraft--An unregistered aircraft that exceeds the
parameters of part 103 and meets the definition of ``light-sport
aircraft''
USUA--United States Ultralight Association
VH--Maximum airspeed in level flight with maximum
continuous power
VNE--Maximum never-exceed speed
VS0--Maximum stalling speed or minimum steady flight
speed in landing configuration
VS1--Maximum stalling speed or minimum steady flight
speed without the use of lift-enhancing devices
Outline of This Document
I. The Proposed Rule
I.1. NPRM and On-Line Public Forum
I.2. Public Comment Period
I.3. Ex Parte Communications
II. Purpose of This Final Rule
III. General Discussion of Changes in the Final Rule
III.1. FAA Judgment and Discretion
III.2. Summary of Significant Issues Raised By Commenters
III.3. Security Concerns Related to Pilot Identification and
Certification
III.4. SFAR No. 89
III.5.A. Comments on Ultralight Vehicles
III.5.B. Future Rulemaking on Ultralight Vehicles
IV. Comparative Tables
V. Section-by-Section Discussion of Comments and Changes
Incorporated Into the Final Rule
V.1. Part 1
V.2. Part 21
V.3. Part 43
V.3.A. Part 43--General Issues
V.3.B. Part 43--Section-by-Section Discussion
V.4. Part 45
V.5. Part 61
V.5.A. Part 61--General Issues
V.5.A.i. SFAR No. 89 Conversion Table
V.5.A.ii. Medical Provisions
V.5.A.iii. Flight Training and Proficiency Requirements
V.5.A.iv. Make and Model Logbook Endorsements, and Sets of
Aircraft
V.5.A.v. Changes to Airspace Restrictions
V.5.A.vi. Changes to Altitude Limitations
V.5.A.vii. Gyroplanes
V.5.A.viii. Demonstration of Aircraft to Perspective Buyers
V.5.A.ix. Category and Class Discussion: FAA Form 8710-11
Submission
V.5.B. Part 61 Section-by-Section Discussion
V.6. Part 65
V.7. Part 91
V.7.A. Part 91--General Issues
V.7.B. Part 91--Section-by-Section Discussion
VI. Plain Language
VII. Paperwork Reduction Act
VIII. International Compatibility
IX. Economic Assessment
X. Regulatory Flexibility Determination
XI. Trade Impact Analysis
XII. Unfunded Mandates Assessment
XIII. Executive Order 3132, Federalism
XIV. Environmental Analysis
XV. Energy Impact
XVI. List of Subjects
I. The Proposed Rule
I.1. NPRM and On-Line Public Forum
On February 5, 2002 the FAA published the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM), ``Certification of Aircraft and Airmen for the
Operation of Light-Sport Aircraft'' (67 FR 5368; Feb. 5, 2002), and
requested comments by May 6, 2002. In addition, the FAA held an on-line
public forum from April 1, 2002, until April 19, 2002, during which
time the FAA posed 15 questions on the Internet. For a description of
the on-line public forum and a list of the 15 questions, see the FAA's
announcement published in the Federal Register on March 19, 2002 (67 FR
12826; March 19, 2002). The NPRM and the announcement of the on-line
public forum are in the public docket for this rulemaking.
I.2. Public Comment Period
The FAA received over 4,700 comments to the NPRM. Of those, 2,913
were in response to the publication of the NPRM in the Federal
Register, and approximately 1,800 additional comments came through the
on-line forum. To read the on-line forum comments, go to the electronic
docket address given above in the section entitled ``Availability of
Rulemaking Documents'' and view item number 2676 in Docket No. FAA-
2001-11133. A detailed discussion of the public's comments and the
FAA's responses are in ``V. Section-by-Section Discussion of Comments
and Changes Incorporated Into the Final Rule.''
Most commenters expressed fundamental agreement with the FAA's
intent in proposing the rule. While there were many comments containing
specific criticisms of the proposed rule and suggestions for how the
rule could be improved, few of the commenters expressed a complete
disagreement with the FAA's goal of providing for the manufacture of
safe and economical aircraft and to allow operation of these aircraft
by the public in a safe manner. Some comments contained numerous
specific suggestions and criticisms, yet were prefaced by a statement
of support for the FAA's efforts to make aviation more accessible to
the general public. It should be noted that, while not substantial in
number, several commenters expressed a fundamental disagreement with
the FAA's proposed action, based upon a lack of confidence in the
ultralight community. The commenters did not support these concerns
with accompanying data.
I.3. Ex Parte Communications
The FAA worked closely with industry associations on this
rulemaking in a number of ways. FAA staff conducted informational
sessions with interested groups to determine how these rules, if
adopted, should best be implemented. The FAA also assisted
manufacturers in the development of consensus standards for light-sport
aircraft. The Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) and others met
with the FAA repeatedly to urge the completion of this rulemaking as
quickly as possible so as to meet the public need for authority to
engage in activities permitted under this rule.
On occasion, FAA personnel met with interested organizations to
discuss specific aspects of the NPRM and to determine, based on
information received from these groups, how the NPRM should be
modified. The issues discussed, however, were also set out in
[[Page 44774]]
numerous comments to the public docket. These discussions, while of an
ex parte nature, have helped to develop a final rule that is responsive
to the comments. The revisions to the NPRM, as adopted in this final
rule, respond to written and oral concerns raised by individuals and
organizations. This final rule reflects the FAA's independent judgment
as to the appropriate level of safety for the manufacture and operation
of light-sport aircraft.
II. Purpose of This Rule
The FAA intends this rule to--
Increase safety in the light-sport aircraft community by
closing the gaps in existing regulations and by accommodating new
advances in technology.
Provide for the manufacture of light-sport aircraft that
are safe for their intended operations.
Allow operation of light-sport aircraft exceeding the
limits of ultralight vehicles operated under 14 CFR part 103, with a
passenger and for flight training, rental, and towing.
Establish training and certification requirements for
repairman (light-sport aircraft) to maintain and inspect light-sport
aircraft.
The rule is designed to allow individuals to experience sport and
recreational aviation in a manner that is safe for the intended
operations, but not overly burdensome. By bringing these individuals
under a new regulatory framework, the FAA believes this rule lays the
groundwork for enhancing safety in the light-sport aircraft category.
This rule does not change existing aircraft certification or
maintenance regulations for aircraft already issued an airworthiness
certificate, such as a standard, primary, or special certificate (e.g.,
experimental amateur-built and experimental exhibition aircraft).
However, as discussed in the section-by-section preamble discussion for
Sec. 1.1, Definition of Light-Sport Aircraft, a sport pilot can
operate an aircraft meeting the light-sport aircraft definition in
Sec. 1.1, regardless of the airworthiness certificate issued. In
addition, this rule does not change existing part 103 requirements.
A more detailed discussion and justification for the rule can be
found in the preamble to the NPRM published in the Federal Register on
February 5, 2002. On page 5370 of that Federal Register publication, is
a section entitled ``Effects of the Proposal on the Public and
Industry'' that gives answers to frequently asked questions (FAQs).
These questions and answers have been updated on the FAA's Web site
(http://faa.gov/avr/afs/sportpilot and click on FAQs) to reflect the
changes being adopted in this final rule.
III. General Discussion of Changes in the Final Rule
III.1. FAA Judgment and Discretion
As the following summary reflects, commenters provided a variety of
suggestions for the rule. As discussed more completely in the section-
by-section discussions that follow, the FAA carefully considered the
comments. Besides the specific issues in the comments, the FAA weighed
two factors in adopting, modifying, or rejecting the comments.
First, the FAA is making decisions in a new area for regulation.
Although some experience exists in similar aircraft, the rule
anticipates growth and change in the industry. There are areas where
only time and experience will determine whether these regulatory
provisions meet the FAA's expectations or require modification. There
is room for debate and disagreement, and the FAA is prepared to make
changes when appropriate. But in the FAA's judgment, these standards
strike a balance in favor of safety while allowing freedom to operate.
Second, there are situations where a line must be drawn. For
example, the case can be made that the maximum weight or speed could be
somewhat higher or lower than what is being adopted. In these
situations, the FAA is not establishing this rule with the intent of
including or excluding specific aircraft. Instead, the FAA is trying to
objectively determine where the line should be drawn while considering
the appropriate level of safety and the complexity of the operation.
III.2. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Commenters
While most commenters expressed a desire to see some aspect of the
proposed rule revised, they either agreed with the proposed regulation
overall or agreed with the intent of the proposal. Most commenters
believed the proposal would succeed if revised to address the issues
they identified.
Significant issues raised by commenters are listed below, with
reference to the corresponding proposal. These issues account for
approximately 80 percent of the comments. They, and other comments on
the NPRM, are discussed in detail under ``V. Section-by-Section
Discussion of Comments and Changes Incorporated Into the Final Rule.''
Towing: 1,298 comments
a. Prohibition of towing of hangliders and paragliders by
ultralight pilots; part 103--691 comments
b. Prohibition of towing of hangliders and paragliders by light-
sport aircraft; SFAR No. 89 section 73(b)(12)--607 comments
Section 1.1 definition of ``light-sport aircraft''--122
comments
Maximum weight limits for light-sport aircraft; Sec. 1.1
definition of ``light-sport aircraft'' paragraph (1)--489 comments
Maximum speed in level flight under maximum continuous power
for light-sport aircraft; Sec. 1.1 definition of ``light-sport
aircraft'' paragraph (2)--141 comments
Maximum stall speed limits for light-sport aircraft; Sec. 1.1
definition of ``light-sport aircraft'' paragraph (4)--62 comments
Fixed or ground-adjustable propellers and repositionable
landing gear on light-sport aircraft; Sec. 1.1 definition of ``light-
sport aircraft'' paragraphs (8) and (11)--116 comments
Sport pilot certification (general comments on SFAR No. 89)--
653 comments
Maximum speed limit on student pilot operation of light-sport
aircraft; SFAR No. 89 section 35(e)--57 comments
Altitude limits on operation of light-sport aircraft; SFAR No.
89 section 73(b)(6)--55 comments
Logbook endorsement requirement for each make and model of
light-sport aircraft; SFAR No. 89 section 61--129 comments
Repairman certification; Sec. 65.107--159 comments
Existing exemptions for two-seat ultralight vehicles; part
103--288 comments
Operation of ultralights that would be issued an experimental
certificate; Sec. 21.191(i)--116 comments
Use of a U.S. driver's license to establish medical
eligibility; SFAR 89, sections 15 and 111--230 comments
III.3. Security Concerns Related to Pilot Identification and
Certification
One State's Department of Transportation's aeronautical division
expressed concern that allowing persons with a driver's license as a
sole form of identification to have access to airports and the airspace
system would reduce pilot identification standards and would lead to
reduced security. The commenter said that since the terrorist attacks
of September 11, 2001, airport security identification, as well as
pilot identification, are under greater scrutiny, and that higher
standards must be established to prevent unauthorized
[[Page 44775]]
access to airports and aircraft. The commenter went on to say that
additional scrutiny provided by the process of obtaining a pilot
certificate, an airman medical certificate, and passing an FAA
practical test is a welcome safety enhancement at this time and must
not be eliminated.
The FAA agrees that the additional scrutiny provided by the process
of obtaining a pilot certificate, an airman medical certificate, and
passing an FAA practical test enhances safety. The FAA is not
eliminating any of these certificates or testing requirements for
holders of currently issued pilot certificates. All persons operating
an aircraft are required to possess a pilot certificate and pass a
practical test. All persons issued at least a recreational pilot
certificate (except those operating gliders and balloons) are also
required to possess an airman medical certificate. This rulemaking
action will bring persons who were formerly operating as ultralight
pilots into an existing certification system that will provide further
scrutiny of these individuals. These ultralight pilots have not been
required to have pilot certificates, possess airman medical
certificates or driver's licenses, or been required to take practical
tests. Therefore, they have not been subject to any level of government
scrutiny. Only sport pilots, or those seeking to exercise sport pilot
privileges will be afforded the opportunity to exercise certificate
privileges with either an airman medical certificate or a U.S. driver's
license. These persons will be required to possess a pilot certificate
and pass a practical test.
Sport pilots, like all pilots, will have to hold and possess their
sport or student pilot certificates at all times when operating light-
sport aircraft. Recent FAA rulemaking requires all pilots to carry
photo identification when exercising the privileges of a pilot
certificate and to present it, if requested by the FAA, an authorized
representative of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), the
Transportation Security Administration (TSA), or a law enforcement
officer (67 FR 65858; Oct. 28, 2002). That rule will apply to all sport
pilots.
Additionally, the FAA is creating FAA Form 8710-11 ``Sport Pilot
Certificate and/or Rating Application.'' Information from the
applicant's U.S. driver's license or airman medical certificate will be
recorded on the form.
As a result of this new regulatory action, an estimated 15,000
persons operating ultralight-like aircraft now will be required to hold
pilot certificates. In addition, persons performing work on light-sport
aircraft will be required to hold repairman (light-sport aircraft)
certificates. According to new security procedures, their names will be
entered into the FAA airman registry. In addition, all existing
unregistered ultralight-like aircraft and two-place utralight training
vehicles will now, as certificated aircraft, be required to display an
``N'' registration number. These numbers will also be entered into the
FAA aircraft registry. This will enable the TSA to conduct any
necessary security screening for certificated airmen and registered
aircraft operating in the National Airspace System (NAS).
These new sport pilots will now be required to make themselves
aware of safety- and security-related information contained in notices
to airmen (NOTAMs). Currently, operators of ultralight vehicles are not
required to review these NOTAMs; although those who receive voluntary
training and participate in industry-provided ultralight programs are
encouraged to access this information that is made available through
their organizations.
III.4. SFAR No. 89
The FAA proposed most of the sport pilot certification requirements
as a Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR). After further
consideration, the FAA decided not to use the SFAR, but to codify most
of the requirements as new subparts J and K of part 61, and the
remainder in the existing structure of part 61. The SFAR format is
appropriate to regulate operations in a very narrow set of
circumstances, to address a temporary situation, or both. However,
light-sport aircraft and their operation will be a significant segment
of aviation and will require long-term regulatory oversight.
For the convenience of the user, a table showing how the sections
of SFAR No. 89 were incorporated into part 61 is provided under ``V.
Section-by-Section Discussion of Comments and Changes Incorporated Into
the Final Rule.''
III.5.A. Comments on Ultralight Vehicles
The comments regarding ultralight vehicles were so significant,
that, except for towing issues, a response is presented here, rather
than in the section-by-section analysis below. A total of 1,586
comments were related to the operation of ultralights under the
proposed rule. Of those, 1,298 comments addressed ultralight towing,
specifically--
The prohibition on towing hangliders and paragliders by
ultralight pilots; part 103--691 comments; and
The prohibition on towing hangliders and paragliders by
light-sport aircraft; SFAR No. 89 section 73(b)(12)--607 comments.
Towing issues are discussed in the section-by-section analysis for
Sec. 61.69.
Four hundred and four comments addressed--(1) eliminating existing
exemptions from part 103 (288 comments) and (2) reclassifying aircraft
operating under exemptions to part 103 as light-sport aircraft under
Sec. 21.191(i) (116 comments). The commenters were nearly uniform in
their opposition to eliminating existing exemptions from part 103 and
codifying the exemptions into parts 21 and 61. The majority of
commenters opposed including ultralights in the proposed regulation.
Almost all commenters suggested keeping ultralight regulation as it is,
but incorporating existing exemptions from part 103 into that part.
Part 103 defines an ultralight vehicle and prescribes the operating
rules for these vehicles. An ultralight vehicle is either an unpowered
or powered vehicle with certain weight, speed, and other limits, as
prescribed in Sec. 103.1. An ultralight vehicle can carry only one
occupant and be used for sport and recreational purposes. The
ultralight industry has established voluntary training programs and
recommended maintenance practices. In an effort to encourage the use of
these voluntary training programs, the FAA has granted exemptions to
part 103 that allow--
Training and proficiency flights to be conducted in a two-
place ultralight vehicle operated by an ultralight flight instructor or
ultralight student.
Tandem training operations for hang gliders and powered
paragliders conducted by an ultralight flight instructor or ultralight
student.
Towing operations in a single-seat and two-seat
ultralight-like aircraft to facilitate operations and training in an
ultralight vehicle that is a hang glider, glider, or paraglider.
The FAA has granted these exemptions to part 103 to gather data and
to temporarily meet the training needs for persons operating ultralight
vehicles and to resolve operational issues such as towing.
Commenters contended that eliminating existing training exemptions
from part 103 would--
Force unregistered two-place training ultralights to be
classified as experimental light-sport aircraft, which would prevent
their use for compensation or hire and increase the operating costs of
these aircraft; and
Place unregistered single-place and two-place ultralight-
like aircraft and
[[Page 44776]]
standard category aircraft under the same regulation.
Many of these commenters specifically referred to the United States
Ultralight Association (USUA)'s comprehensive suggestion for a two-
tiered approach for the regulation of ultralight vehicles and light-
sport aircraft. USUA recommended that the FAA not only retain the
proposed regulations for light-sport aircraft, but also adopt
additional regulations codifying long-standing FAA exemptions for two-
place ultralight training. One set of regulations (Tier I) would
address single- and two-place ultralight-like aircraft. Single-place
aircraft would be limited to 360 pounds empty weight (662 pounds
maximum gross weight), 10 gallons maximum fuel capacity, 32 knots
maximum power-off stall speed, and 72 knots VH. Two-place aircraft
under Tier I would be limited to 496 pounds empty weight (992 pounds
maximum gross weight), 10 gallons maximum fuel capacity, 35 knots
maximum power-off stall speed, and 75 knots VH. Another set of
regulations (Tier II) would address light-sport airplanes, using the
weight and performance limits as proposed in the NPRM.
USUA's suggested regulations for ultralight vehicles would
accommodate both ``fat single- and two-place ultralight aircraft.''
USUA stated that this regulation could require registration of these
aircraft. This action would enable the FAA to provide safety
information to the owners and permit training for compensation, as
permitted under current exemptions. USUA noted that these ultralight
vehicles would have more restrictions than light-sport aircraft. For
example, they would not be permitted to operate over congested areas,
and would require prior air traffic control (ATC) permission for flight
in controlled airspace.
USUA was unequivocal in its comments on the proposed rule, stating
that the FAA must update ultralight regulations to better reflect the
manner in which ultralights are currently flown in the United States.
USUA stated that two-place ultralights have become heavier since part
103 was established in 1980, and that two-seat ultralight training has
become common as a result of the training exemptions. The USUA stated
that its suggested regulatory approach would include two-seat and
single-seat unregistered ultralight-like aircraft, allowing for a
permanent solution to the ongoing problem of how to regulate
ultralights that do not comply with part 103.
USUA clearly stated that ultralight pilots want the part 103
training exemption provisions used by USUA and other ultralight
associations incorporated in the regulations. USUA noted that its
recommendation to expand the parameters of ultralight vehicles
currently regulated by part 103 has an international precedent in
Europe. USUA also noted that the Federation Aeronautique Internationale
(FAI), the world governing body of air sports activities, has defined
microlights as weighing up to 450 kg (992 pounds) gross weight, with a
stall speed no greater than 65 kilometers per hour (kph) (35 knots),
and the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) have accepted this definition.
Regarding airspeed, the rule allows a sport pilot to fly only a
light-sport aircraft that has a maximum airspeed in level flight with
maximum continuous power (VH) of 87 knots CAS or less,
unless he or she receives additional training and a one-time
endorsement to operate a light-sport aircraft with a VH up
to 120 knots CAS. On the weight criterion, the FAA proposed a weight
limit of 1,232 pounds, which is increased to 1,320 pounds in the final
rule for aircraft not intended for operation on water. This weight is
maximum gross takeoff weight and is essentially equivalent to the empty
weight suggested by USUA. The gross takeoff weight includes the added
weight of two passengers, ten or more gallons of fuel, one or more
pieces of luggage, and a ballistic parachute carried on an aircraft.
This weight allows the aircraft to be constructed with stronger
materials, to use stronger landing gear, and to use a heavier and more
powerful four-stroke engine. All of these items were specifically
requested by industry and other commenters, most often in the interest
of safety. The consensus standards will address a minimum weight for
design standards for a single-place light-sport aircraft.
USUA's recommendation was influential on the ultralight community.
Most commenters addressing the subject of ultralights simply
recommended that the FAA adopt the USUA's two-tiered approach; however,
many of these commenters did not supply any analysis to support their
recommendation.
Concerning the aircraft certification component of the USUA's
proposed two-tiered concept, the FAA believes that the use of consensus
standards is appropriate for aircraft that exceed the parameters of
ultralight vehicles as specified in part 103, yet do not exceed the
parameters of a light-sport aircraft. The FAA believes that the
operating characteristics of these aircraft necessitate their
certification. However, their characteristics and the operations that
they will be used to conduct do not warrant the more extensive
certification standards applied to primary or standard category
aircraft. The FAA believes that the use of consensus standards provides
a level of safety appropriate for the operation of the aircraft.
Concerning the regulation of airmen and flight operations, FAA does
not completely agree with USUA's proposal. The FAA does not agree that
the part 103 operating environment is appropriate for the larger,
heavier, higher performance aircraft USUA's proposal identifies as
``Tier 1'' Ultralight Aircraft.'' The FAA acknowledges the safety
benefits for aircraft design and manufacturing and airman training that
have resulted from the exemption process; however, the FAA believes
that the operational characteristics of these aircraft are of such a
degree that a more comprehensive regulatory structure should be
applicable to their operation.
Like USUA, most commenters who are ultralight pilots stated that
ultralights fundamentally differ from standard category aircraft, and
that the FAA should continue to regulate ultralights, regardless of
their size, under part 103. For two reasons, the FAA disagrees with the
suggestion that all ultralight-like aircraft should be regulated under
part 103, either with incorporations of the existing training
exemptions or with a continuation of the current exemptions.
First, that approach would not provide the solution recommended
specifically by the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC). USUA
chaired the ARAC working group that addressed the regulation of
ultralight vehicles. That working group of the committee was made up of
members of the ultralight industry and produced a comprehensive
recommendation to the FAA regarding ultralight regulation. The FAA
notes that the ARAC recommendation did not include USUA's proposal to
expand part 103 to include larger aircraft. The ARAC recommendation
did, however, include the USUA's position as a dissenting opinion.
ARAC's recommendation to focus on appropriate training for sport pilots
served as the basis for the FAA's proposed rule. ARAC's recommendation
did not propose either the continuation of existing part 103
exemptions, or the codification of those exemptions into part 103. See
the discussion in the preamble of the NPRM, ``Section V. The Aviation
Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC).''
Second, the FAA issued exemptions to temporarily resolve training
issues and operational issues such as towing.
[[Page 44777]]
In the preamble to the rule establishing part 103 (47 FR 38776; Sept.
2, 1982), the FAA explained its rationale for permitting no more than a
single occupant in an ultralight vehicle. The FAA noted that the
general public might incorrectly assume that an ultralight operator
possesses certain minimum qualifications and has met specific
requirements resulting in the issuance of a pilot certificate. The
public would be unaware of the risks that an ultralight pilot assumes
with the operation of an uncertificated ultralight vehicle. The FAA
still believes that it would be inappropriate to permit the operation
of larger and more capable ultralight-like aircraft without the
benefits afforded by the certification of these aircraft and their
pilots. In addition, extending current training exemptions on a long-
term basis would be an inappropriate use of the exemption process. It
would not allow the FAA to address the many other regulatory changes
contemplated in this rulemaking.
This rule is intended to provide a comprehensive regulatory
approach that extends beyond the ultralight community. A significant
purpose of the rule is to certificate those two-seat ultralight-like
aircraft previously operated under part 103 training exemptions and
those two-seat and single-seat unregistered ultralight-like aircraft
operating outside of the regulations.
Several commenters noted that the speed differential between
ultralights and standard category aircraft makes their operation in the
same airspace dangerous. However, USUA recommended a continuation of
the current practice allowed under part 103, which permits flights in
controlled airspace (Class A, B, C, D, and surface-based Class E) with
prior ATC permission. These flights may occur at any altitude, with no
equipment requirements for communication, navigation, or
identification, and with no required pilot training.
The FAA has considered the comments on the issue of speed
differentials and operations in controlled airspace. As adopted, a
sport pilot operating a light-sport aircraft will be prohibited from
operating in Class A airspace and from operating above 10,000 feet mean
sea level (MSL). A sport pilot is authorized to operate in Class G and
E airspace. With training on airspace requirements and communications
equivalent to the training requirements for a private pilot, and a one-
time endorsement from an authorized instructor, a sport pilot can
operate in Class B, C, and D airspace and to, from, through, or at an
airport having an operational control tower. A sport pilot can only do
so, however, if the light-sport aircraft he or she is operating is
properly equipped and authorized for that operation. The FAA is also
providing that, like a student pilot, a sport pilot will not be
authorized to take off or land at any of the airports listed in part
91, appendix D, section 4. For a complete discussion, see ``V.5.A.v.
Changes to Airspace Restrictions'' and the discussion of Sec. 91.131
below.
The FAA notes that many of USUA's suggestions were incorporated in
the FAA's proposal. The FAA agreed with the recommendation that it not
permit flight at night. However, the rule will permit special light-
sport aircraft to fly over cities. The use of light-sport aircraft
engines that meet consensus standards for powerplant performance and
reliability will make any prohibition of flight over cities
unnecessary. Experimental light-sport aircraft (the existing fleet of
ultralight-like aircraft) will continue to be restricted to flight over
uncongested areas. The rule provides more privileges than the two-tier
system suggested by USUA. The rule allows the carriage of a passenger
for purposes other than flight training, which has never been allowed
under part 103 or the part 103 training exemptions. The rule
establishes new categories of airman ratings and two new classes of
aircraft--(1) weight-shift-control, and (2) powered parachute. The rule
allows a special light-sport aircraft owner to accept compensation for
the use of the aircraft for flight training or towing a glider or
unpowered ultralight vehicle. It also allows a light-sport aircraft
owner to accept compensation for rental of the aircraft. Neither of
these privileges had been allowed under the part 103 exemptions. The
rule establishes the requirements for repairmen (light-sport aircraft)
to maintain and inspect the newly certificated experimental and special
light-sport aircraft. Finally, the final rule addresses the concern
that it will limit or prevent the use of currently unregistered
ultralight-like aircraft. The FAA revised the final rule to assist
those who have been operating two-seat ultralight-like aircraft under
the part 103 training exemptions. The rule provides a 5-year period
during which persons may continue to operate their two-place
ultralight-like aircraft and receive compensation for flight training,
provided those aircraft are certificated as experimental light-sport
aircraft. The FAA expects that in the long term, instructors operating
light-sport aircraft previously classified as two-seat ultralight-like
aircraft will provide instruction at a lower cost and with greater
safety.
In some cases, the rule is more restrictive than USUA's
recommendation, but the FAA is using a building-block approach in
extending privileges to sport pilots. The rule permits a sport pilot to
obtain additional training to permit the exercise of additional
privileges at a later time. In the proposed rule, the FAA stated that
there would be many safety benefits to certificating sport pilots,
light-sport aircraft, and the repairman who would maintain these
aircraft that would not be realized under the USUA proposal. For a
complete discussion of these safety benefits and alternatives refer to
the discussion in the preamble of the NPRM, ``IV. Background--B. The
FAA's Reason for This Proposal.''
III.5.B. Future Rulemaking on Ultralight Vehicles
The NPRM did not address, nor does the final rule address, the use
of hangliders, paragliders and powered paragliders in tandem operations
and training. There is a need to address these issues, but the FAA did
not examine questions in this area for this rule. Rather than delay
this rule to include these issues, the FAA intends to initiate a
separate rulemaking action. Until that can be completed, the FAA
intends to maintain the status quo for these operations by continuing
or reissuing training exemptions as necessary.
IV. Comparative Tables
The following tables provide a quick comparison of regulations
governing light-sport aircraft and other aircraft.
Abbreviations Used In Tables
A&P--Airframe and powerplant
CFI--Certificated flight instructor
CTD--Computer Testing Designee
DPE--Designated Pilot Examiner
ELSA--Experimental light-sport aircraft
EW--Empty weight
IFR--Instrument flight rules
LS-I--Light-sport--Inspection
LS-M--Light-sport--Maintenance
M/M--Make and model
MTOW--Maximum takeoff weight
PIC--Pilot in command
PMA--Parts Manufacturer Approval
SLSA--Special light-sport aircraft
SP--Sport pilot
STC--Supplemental Type Certificate
TC--Type Certificate
TSO--Technical Standard Order
VFR--Visual flight rules
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
[[Page 44778]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27JY04.005
[[Page 44779]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27JY04.006
(1) For two-place ultralight training vehicles operating under
an exemption and registered with an FAA-recognized ultralight
organization--100-hour condition inspection done by ultralight
instructor registered with an FAA-recognized ultralight
organization.
(2) Applies to training aircraft used for compensation until
January 31, 2010, and tow aircraft used for compensation.
[[Page 44780]]
(3) Applies to aircraft used for flight training or towing for
compensation.
(4) Applies to aircraft used for flight instruction for hire--
Sec. 91.409.
(5) ELSA--Kit-built (Sec. 21.191(i)(2)(ii)) or aircraft that
have been previously issued a special airworthiness certificate in
the light-sport category (Sec. 21.191(i)(3)) meet consensus
standards.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27JY04.007
[[Page 44781]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27JY04.008
[[Page 44782]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27JY04.009
[[Page 44783]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27JY04.010
[[Page 44784]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27JY04.011
[[Page 44785]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27JY04.012
[[Page 44786]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27JY04.013
BILLING CODE 4910-13-C
V. Section-by-Section Discussion of Comments and Changes Incorporated
Into Final Rule
The following is a summary of comments for each section of rule
text, with a description of any changes the FAA is making to the final
rule. Because of the large number of comments received on the proposed
rule, it is not possible to discuss each commenter's remarks
individually. Some of the changes are being made as the result of
public comments, and others are being made after further review within
the FAA. As discussed previously in this preamble, the requirements
proposed as SFAR No. 89 are being moved into part 61, and a conversion
table is included for the reader's convenience in the discussion of
comments to part 61. All comments to proposed SFAR No. 89 therefore are
located under the discussion of changes to part 61.
[[Page 44787]]
V.1. Part 1--Definitions And Abbreviations
Section 1.1 General Definitions
Definition of ``Consensus Standard''
The FAA received numerous comments on the topic of consensus
standards. Most commenters expressed support for the concept of
airworthiness standards developed by a consensus of industry and the
FAA. However, some commenters expressed concern that they could not
review any actual consensus standards, as the standards were
nonexistent at the time of the NPRM comment period. These standards
would be developed either concurrent with, or subsequent to, the
adoption of the rule. The FAA understands the commenters' concern, but
notes that the consensus standards development process will include
adequate opportunity for public participation and comment. The FAA
further notes that the consensus standards process will not replace,
but rather will supplement, existing design, manufacturing, and
airworthiness certification procedures, and that alternative consensus
standards may be found acceptable.
Since the publication of the proposal, a number of aviation
organizations have chosen to work with ASTM International to develop
light-sport aircraft consensus standards. ASTM International has
established Committee F37--Light-Sport Aircraft for this standards
development task. Anyone who desires to comment on the consensus
standards may participate in their development by ASTM International.
Also, when an acceptable standard is developed, the FAA will publish a
Notice of Availability in the Federal Register. This notification will
include a statement that the FAA has found the standard acceptable for
certification of the specified aircraft under the provisions of this
rule. This statement will assert that:
The FAA has participated in the development process for
this consensus standard;
The FAA has reviewed the standard for compliance with the
regulatory requirements of the rule; and
Any light-sport aircraft designed, manufactured, and
operated in accordance with that consensus standard provides the public
with an appropriate level of safety.
If comments from the public are received as a result of the Notice
of Availability, the FAA will address them during its recurring review
of the consensus standards and participation in the consensus standards
revision process. Refer to the comment below from NTSB concerning FAA
participation in the revision of consensus standards.
Several commenters recommended delaying the effective date of the
rule until the consensus standards were issued. The FAA recognizes that
consensus standards may not be completed by the effective date of the
rule, and has therefore revised the rule to permit existing two-seat
ultralights to be used for many of the operations that are intended for
aircraft manufactured to a consensus standard.
Some commenters were concerned that the consensus standards process
would only represent viewpoints of particular manufacturers, and would
not assure adequate representation of small manufacturers or aircraft
operators. Other commenters believed the consensus standards should not
be set only by the aircraft manufacturers and ASTM International.
Another proposed that a committee of pilots, aircraft owners,
manufacturers, standards organizations, and regulators should formulate
the consensus standards. The FAA agrees that broad representation of
all affected parties is necessary for the FAA to accept a consensus
standard. Any and all interested parties can participate in the
development of consensus standards. In fact, OMB Circular A-119
requires balanced participation and voting. The FAA believes that the
ASTM process balances the representation of product manufacturers,
product users, and the interests of other affected persons. The FAA
notes that the current ASTM consensus standard committees are comprised
of individuals representing all the perspectives recommended by the
commenter. The FAA believes that the ASTM standards development
procedures satisfy the other attributes (openness, due process, and
appeals process) set forth in OMB Circular A-119 for an acceptable
consensus standard body. The OMB Circular permits FAA to make this
determination. If necessary, the FAA will participate with other
standards development organizations in the development of alternative
consensus standards. The FAA would refer to paragraphs 2, 6.e. and f.
of OMB Circular A-119 in making this determination. These paragraphs
describe the goals of the government in using consensus standards and
the considerations the FAA should make when considering the use of a
consensus standard.
The FAA received a comment from the NTSB saying that the NPRM
lacked sufficient information for it to determine to what extent the
FAA will be involved in the review of consensus standards after they
have been issued. As stated in the NPRM, the FAA will participate in
the development of and any revision to the consensus standards, in
accordance with OMB Circular A-119. In the preamble of the NPRM, the
FAA stated that it expected a suitable consensus standard to be
reviewed every two years. As a member of the consensus standard body,
the FAA can call for revisions to the consensus standard when the
agency determines such revisions are necessary. The FAA, as all other
participants, may propose changes to amend the consensus standard to
address new technology, applications, or deficiencies. As part of the
FAA's participation in the consensus standards development, the FAA
will review proposed consensus standards prior to the issuance of a
Notice of Availability. The FAA will not issue a Notice of Availability
for a consensus standard it considers unacceptable. The FAA will notify
the public, through a Notice of Availability, of its acceptance of a
consensus standard or any revision to a consensus standard. The FAA
will continue to participate in revising the consensus standard at an
interval no longer than every 2 years. The FAA will respond to comments
on the consensus standards in this revision process.
One commenter proposed that the term ``industry developed consensus
airworthiness standard'' be changed to ``industry developed
airworthiness standard.'' The FAA prefers that the word ``consensus''
be included to emphasize that these standards are developed in
accordance OMB A-119. Use of the term ``consensus'' will also
distinguish consensus standards from airworthiness standards that are
developed by the FAA through the normal rulemaking process and are
specifically contained in other parts of 14 CFR subchapter C. Within
the definition, the FAA is removing the modifier ``airworthiness'' from
the phrase ``industry developed consensus airworthiness standard.''
This change is to permit the consensus standards body to develop light-
sport aircraft and sport pilot safety standards that may encompass more
standards than those affecting airworthiness.
A commenter stated that FAA involvement in developing the criteria
for certificating light-sport aircraft should be minimal to keep
aircraft design and manufacturing costs down. As noted above, the FAA
has chosen to use consensus standards developed in accordance with the
criteria in OMB Circular A-119 for these aircraft. The use of the
consensus standard process
[[Page 44788]]
assures government and industry discussion and agreement on appropriate
standards for the required level of safety. The FAA believes that the
consensus standards process will minimize costs while meeting the level
of safety appropriate for these aircraft.
Several commenters expressed concern that the consensus standards
would result in excessive increases to the price of light-sport
aircraft. A commenter expressed concern over insurance costs for light-
sport aircraft, and expressed the opinion that general aviation
revitalization depends on the availability of factory-built aircraft
priced under $40,000. The FAA has discussed the certification process
for these aircraft in both the NPRM and this final rule. How the public
will interact with insurance companies and legal professionals, as well
as the pricing of these aircraft are matters of commercial interest.
The FAA, however, believes that this rule may significantly decrease
the cost of purchasing and operating light-sport aircraft. See the full
economic analysis in the public docket for this rulemaking.
Consensus Standards Topics
In the notice, the FAA proposed that consensus standards address
airworthiness certification and continued airworthiness. In the NPRM,
the proposed definition for consensus standard specified that the
standard address ``* * * aircraft design and performance, quality
assurance system requirements, production acceptance test
specifications, and continued operational safety monitoring system
characteristics.'' Based on comments received from the public on the
proposed rule and as a result of FAA review of the NPRM, the FAA has
determined that the consensus standard definition should be expanded to
include additional topics. These additional topics are related to
aircraft maintenance and operations, or subjects that should be more
appropriately addressed as separate topics rather than as subsections
within the four topics listed in the FAA's proposed definition.
In view of this consideration, the consensus standards definition
is being revised to specifically require the consensus standards to
address topics other than the four specified in the proposed rule. The
revised definition sets forth a broader approach. It generally
specifies that the consensus standards must address the three subjects
of aircraft design, production and airworthiness. Additional specific
topics the consensus standards must address are set forth in the
revised definition. Consensus standards may address additional topics,
as determined by the consensus standards body. As a result of FAA's
review of questions from commenters to the NPRM, and as a result of
FAA's participation in the ongoing development of consensus standards,
the FAA has determined that the consensus standards must address the
following topics so that appropriate information and procedures are
provided for manufacturers and operators of light-sport aircraft.
Design and Performance: The consensus standard includes a design
and performance section, which should address the following:
(1) Methodology for determining parameters associated with the
definition of light-sport aircraft. The consensus standard should
provide methodologies for determining definition parameters such as:
maximum takeoff weight; maximum airspeed in level flight with maximum
continuous power (VH); maximum never-exceed speed
(VNE) for gliders; maximum stalling speed or minimum steady
flight speed without the use of lift-enhancing devices
(VS1).
(2) Methodology for distinguishing different make and model
aircraft from the same manufacturer and for updating and recording
information that may change during the course of the production of the
make and model aircraft.
Required Equipment: The FAA did not expressly propose to require
the consensus standard to address or include minimum equipment in the
NPRM. However, the FAA notes that certain aircraft equipment is
required by part 91 to operate in the NAS. The FAA notes that, because
the requirements of Sec. 91.205 do not apply to these aircraft, the
FAA has revised the definition of consensus standard to specifically
indicate that a consensus standard must address required equipment. The
design and performance portion of the consensus standard, therefore,
should indicate standards for performance for equipment that is
required for specific authorized operations. The FAA recognizes that
the operator of a light-sport aircraft may have a variety of privileges
based on differing certificate privileges or individual logbook
endorsements. However, a person may not exercise those privileges,
unless the aircraft is appropriately equipped.
Quality Assurance: Commenters recommended that instructors
functioning also as dealers, be allowed to continue to assemble weight-
shift-control and powered parachutes kits for their clients. They did
not believe that this privilege should be limited to the factory
(manufacturer). The commenters also expressed an interest in
assembling, demonstrating, and selling the aircraft. They cite that
they were already providing these distributor-type services. They
further stated that costs to ship a completed aircraft are much more
than shipping a kit-built aircraft that can be assembled at the final
destination. The FAA agrees that persons other than the manufacturer
may complete the assembly of light-sport aircraft subject to this rule.
This may be permitted provided the consensus standard addresses how the
manufacturer will control these outside entities under its quality
assurance system. The consensus standard should address how the
manufacturer maintains oversight of the persons and the processes of
assembly, and, if the aircraft is delivered to a dealer for assembly,
procedures for the dealer to issue a statement of compliance on behalf
of the manufacturer. The manufacturer that issues the statement of
compliance is responsible for the quality of the end product, and this
includes material supplied by, or assembly work performed by, a person
or other entity.
In the proposed definition, the term ``quality assurance system
requirements'' has been revised to read ``manufacturer quality
assurance systems'' to emphasize that the aircraft manufacturer has the
overall responsibility to assure that safe aircraft are delivered to
its customers.
Production Acceptance Tests: The production acceptance tests should
include all tests needed to prove the aircraft's reliability and
functionality. These tests may be accomplished at different stages of
assembly and at final completion. The tests verify the aircraft's
proper function on the ground and in the air, as required by Sec.
21.190(c)(7). The consensus standard should include tests that
demonstrate that the aircraft is in a condition for safe operation. As
a minimum, these ground and flight tests show that the aircraft--
Has been assembled in accordance with the manufacturer's
criteria and specifications.
Can be operated normally throughout all ranges of
capability, as defined in the consensus standard.
In the proposed definition, the term ``production acceptance test
specifications'' has been revised to read ``production acceptance test
procedures.'' The FAA believes that use of the word ``specifications''
is not consistent with performance-based standards, which are
preferable to prescriptive standards for aircraft built to consensus
standards.
[[Page 44789]]
Aircraft Operating Instructions: In the proposal, the FAA stated
that the consensus standards must address aircraft design and
performance. The proposal did not include a specific requirement for
the consensus standards to address aircraft operating instructions.
Proposed Sec. 21.186, however, required the manufacturer to identify,
and the applicant to present, the applicable ``Pilot Operating
Handbook.''
In the final rule the FAA is revising the consensus standard
definition to specifically address aircraft operating instructions.
Although the FAA believed that the proposed consensus standards
definition would require aircraft operating instructions to be
addressed in the standards for aircraft design and performance, the FAA
has determined that standards for aircraft operating instructions
should be developed specifically as part of the consensus standards
process.
The FAA also notes that rather than using the term ``Pilot
Operating Handbook'' in the definition of consensus standards it is
using the term ``Aircraft Operating Instructions.'' The term ``Pilot
Operating Handbook'' is normally associated with type-certificated
general aviation aircraft and may include information approved by the
FAA. ``Aircraft Operating Instructions,'' however, will not require FAA
approval. ``Aircraft Operating Instructions'' provide methods and
procedures to safely operate the aircraft. Additionally, the aircraft
operating instructions specify those parameters (e.g. weight, stall
speed, maximum speed) that show the aircraft make and model meets the
light-sport aircraft definition.
Maintenance and Inspection Procedures: The proposal did not include
a specific requirement for the consensus standards to address
maintenance and inspection procedures. Proposed Sec. 21.186, however,
required the manufacturer to identify, and the applicant to present,
the applicable maintenance and inspection procedures. In the final rule
the FAA is revising the consensus standard definition to specifically
address maintenance and inspection procedures. The FAA has determined
that standards for maintenance and inspection procedures should be
developed specifically as part of the consensus standards process.
Through the consensus standards process the rule requires the
development of maintenance and inspection procedures for the entire
aircraft. This includes the engine, propeller, and accessories, such as
ballistic parachutes, floats, and skis. These maintenance and
inspection procedures can be developed solely by the airframe
manufacturer or with other manufacturers that supply engines,
propellers, or other products for the aircraft. The purpose of
requiring maintenance and inspection procedures is to ensure the
continued airworthiness of the aircraft throughout its useful life.
Maintenance and inspection procedures should contain at least two
parts, one part for inspection and one for maintenance.
The inspection section should include inspection requirements and a
checklist for conducting the annual condition inspection, the 100-hour
inspection, or any other inspection, as needed. The inspection section
should also identify any checks needed to verify adequate limits for
items subject to wear or replacement due to age or time in use.
The maintenance section should specifically address major aircraft
systems and components such as the engine, propeller, fuel system,
flight controls, lubrication system, instrumentation, airframe, and
landing gear. Each part of this maintenance section should identify the
maintenance that a certificated repairman, mechanic, or repair station
can perform, and those preventive maintenance tasks that a pilot can
perform. For each major system, instructions should be provided that
detail the service and maintenance requirements for that system,
including removal and replacement instructions for components, repair
and overhaul instructions for those products that can be repaired and
overhauled, and how Airworthiness Directives (ADs) and Safety
Directives should be addressed.
The maintenance and inspection procedures also should include a
section that addresses major repairs and major alterations. This
section should include the training requirements for a person to
perform a major repair for each aircraft system (e.g., overhaul an
engine), what data should be used to perform a major repair or major
alteration, and describe the process used to notify the manufacturer
that a major repair or major alteration has been accomplished on its
product. While a parts manual is not required to be developed as part
of the required maintenance and inspection procedures, the FAA
recommends that manufacturers develop these manuals to ensure the
proper parts are installed.
Identification and Recording of Major Repairs and Major
Alterations: The proposal did not include a specific requirement for
the consensus standards to address major repairs and major alterations,
and procedures to record them, for each class of light-sport aircraft.
The FAA has revised the proposal to require maintenance on special
light-sport aircraft to be performed in accordance with part 43, except
for those requirements that apply to the performance and recording of
major repairs and major alterations. In the final rule, therefore, the
FAA is revising the consensus standard definition to specifically
address major repairs and major alterations. The FAA has determined
that standards for defining, performing, and recording major repairs
and major alterations should be developed specifically as part of the
consensus standards process. The consensus standard also should address
the level of training a person must have before performing a major
repair. Refer to the discussions of part 43 and Sec. 91.327 for more
explanation of this topic.
Continued Airworthiness: The FAA specifically requested comments
from the public on its proposal that the consensus standards include
provisions for defining minimum characteristics for a manufacturer's
continued operational safety monitoring system. The FAA received
comments both for and against the use of the FAA's existing AD process
for correcting unsafe conditions in light-sport aircraft. These
comments are addressed in item (2) below. The FAA discussed the
expectations for a continued airworthiness system in the section-by-
section analysis of the NPRM under ``Definition of ``Consensus
Standard''' under Sec. 1.1, and also in Sec. 21.186(c)(6). In
response to comments received concerning continued airworthiness, the
following clarifies the processes that should be followed for the
continued airworthiness of special light-sport aircraft.
The consensus standard should address the following:
(1) The types of occurrences or events or incidents that the
aircraft owner is to report back to the manufacturer.
(2) How the manufacturer will issue Safety Directives to correct
unsafe conditions, including a process for how the determination of an
unsafe condition will be made. Examples of unsafe conditions include,
but may not be limited to:
(a) Structural failures that reduce the aircraft ability to carry
flight or ground loads;
(b) Structural failures affecting the attachment of high mass items
to the aircraft;
(c) Structural failures affecting flight or powerplant control
systems; or
(d) Failures that might result in occurrence of a fire in flight.
A commenter stated that for light-sport aircraft, the AD system
should be
[[Page 44790]]
used because the aviation community is familiar with it, and it helps
to assure that the owners of light-sport aircraft can be found
regardless of changes of ownership of the aircraft manufacturer. A
different commenter questioned if Safety Directives issued by the
aircraft manufacturer would be any better quality than ADs, which the
commenter believes are sometimes issued in haste and may be ineffective
or burdensome. Another commenter agreed with not using the AD system,
believing that the AD system can be used in the event that a
manufacturer no longer exists or is no longer able to issue safety-of-
flight information.
The FAA maintains the position it took in the proposed rule. The
FAA does not intend to issue ADs on the special light-sport aircraft,
but will issue them on type-certificated products incorporated into
special light-sport aircraft, and may, if necessary, issue them on
products having other forms of FAA approval. Therefore, as proposed,
the final rule requires development of corrective actions for unsafe
conditions in special light-sport aircraft by the aircraft
manufacturer, or a group or individual that has assumed that
responsibility. As described in the discussion of proposed Sec.
21.186(c)(6), the FAA intended for the rule to provide for persons
other than the manufacturer to assume continued airworthiness
responsibilities in the event that the special light-sport aircraft
manufacturer would cease to exist, or cease to provide safety-of-flight
information.
The FAA, in discussing the intended advantages of the proposed
rule, referred to the safety benefits of ``* * * safety-of-flight
bulletins, similar to airworthiness directives and service bulletins *
* *'' that would be issued by the manufacturer to correct problems that
might exist on aircraft in service. A commenter recommended that the
FAA change the term ``safety-of-flight'' to a different term such as
``safety directive,'' since the military already uses the term
``safety-of-flight'' and this may cause confusion. The FAA agrees and
has revised the term to ``Safety Directive'' in the final rule. The FAA
uses the term ``Safety Directive'' to identify the documents that a
special light-sport aircraft manufacturer issues to make changes that
are needed to correct conditions that may adversely affect safety of
flight for aircraft that are in service.
One commenter recommended that proposed corrective actions by
individual manufacturers should be subject to industry review and
acceptance within a two- or three-month time period. The FAA recognizes
that this proposal would provide for a balance of manufacturer and
operator interests in assuring effective continued airworthiness
support of special light-sport aircraft. As the consensus standards
process develops procedures for continued airworthiness, the FAA will
present the commenter's proposal to the appropriate technical committee
for consideration.
(3) Operator actions that will be addressed by a service
publication other than a Safety Directive. This discussion addresses a
comment expressing concern that manufacturers might issue mandatory
part replacement or maintenance instructions that would be not be
justified by any corresponding safety concern. The consensus standard
should identify those situations for which the manufacturer's Safety
Directives should not be issued. Those situations include, but are not
limited to, circumstances in which service publications are issued to
improve or enhance the following:
(a) Spare part sales;
(b) Aircraft performance, capability, or efficiency, unless the
change is needed for the aircraft to meet the minimum design and
performance standards identified in the consensus standard and the
manufacturer's statement of compliance;
(c) Aircraft appearance;
(d) Aircraft maintainability; or
(e) Any other aircraft characteristic when the action called for
does not remedy an unsafe condition, including those related to
reliability which do not have an impact on safety of flight.
(4) A process for responding to requests for methods of correcting
unsafe conditions that differ from those prescribed in Safety
Directives. This section addresses comments recommending that the owner
of a special light-sport aircraft be able to correct an unsafe
condition using methods other than specified by a Safety Directive.
Refer also to the discussion in Sec. 91.327, ``Safety-of-Flight
Issues.'' The FAA notes that owner-developed alterations and repairs
are permitted for experimental light-sport aircraft where compliance
with Safety Directives is not mandatory.
(5) A process for permitting successor organizations to assume
responsibility for providing continued airworthiness support. Adding
this section to the consensus standard addresses comments recommending
the consensus standard contain provisions for assuming or transferring
continued airworthiness responsibilities if the original manufacturer
of a light-sport aircraft goes out of business. The FAA, in the NPRM,
intended to allow for this. This was discussed in the proposal in
Sec. Sec. 21.186(b)(1)(iv), (b)(1)(v), and (c)(6), in which the FAA
allowed for a person other than the original aircraft manufacturer to
assume continued airworthiness responsibilities for in-service
aircraft. (The phrase ``manufacturer or a person acceptable to the
FAA'' in proposed Sec. 21.186(b)(1)(iv) and (v) allowed for this
possibility.) A person acceptable to the FAA may include persons other
than the original manufacturer, such as a licensee, designee,
successor, or a person other than the manufacturer or licensee who
built a product or part that was not part of the original design,
(i.e., a third-party modifier). In the current rule, these provisions
are in Sec. 91.327(b), since continued airworthiness of light-sport
aircraft will be controlled by the operating limitations of the
aircraft airworthiness certificate.
(6) A process for qualification of third-party alterations or
replacement parts, if a manufacturer chooses to permit this. In the
proposed rule, alterations, repairs, design modifications, or
replacement parts manufactured by third parties (distinct from the
manufacturer or the airplane owner) were not addressed. The FAA's
assumption at the time of the NPRM was that each manufacturer would
determine if it intended to permit third-party aircraft support, such
as the manufacture of replacement parts, or the alteration of aircraft
in service. If a manufacturer chooses to permit this, the standard
should address how oversight and control of the third parties
performing this service will be accomplished by the manufacturer.
The FAA also notes that the operating limitations for aircraft
having the special light-sport aircraft airworthiness certificate
require that all changes to an aircraft after its original manufacture
be authorized by the manufacturer or other acceptable person. Aircraft
modifiers, manufacturers of replacement parts for light-sport aircraft,
and manufacturers of products used to modify light-sport aircraft also
must comply with the provisions of the applicable consensus standard in
order to be considered a person acceptable to the FAA.
(7) A process for responding to an aircraft owner's assertion that
a Safety Directive was issued for reasons other than to correct an
unsafe condition. Providing this process also responds to the
previously stated concern that manufacturers might require the operator
to purchase expensive parts and make changes to the aircraft that do
not correct an unsafe condition. By developing guidelines through an
appropriate consensus standard, the
[[Page 44791]]
balanced representation of interests will help to minimize the
possibility of a manufacturer issuing a safety directive for an
inappropriate reason. If an aircraft owner believes a Safety Directive
was issued for reasons other than to correct an unsafe condition, the
owner should raise this issue to the manufacturer. The consensus
standard process should address how the manufacturer reviews the
request, and how it responds to the aircraft owner by justifying its
position that the Safety Directive addresses an existing unsafe
condition affecting the aircraft. The FAA notes that a manufacturer may
permit an alternative means of compliance to the Safety Directive. In
the event that the aircraft owner does not accept the manufacturer's
response and chooses not to correct the condition in a manner permitted
by the manufacturer, the aircraft owner may request a waiver from the
FAA to operate his or her aircraft without following the Safety
Directive. See the discussion of the ``waiver'' process under Sec.
91.327, ``Safety-of-flight issues.''
(8) A process for reviewing ADs issued on FAA-approved products
used in special light-sport aircraft. Upon further internal review, the
FAA recognized that special light-sport aircraft may embody equipment
that has its own FAA approval (e.g., engines, propellers,
communications equipment, instruments). Owners of special light-sport
aircraft will be required to comply with applicable ADs issued against
FAA-approved products installed on special light-sport aircraft. For
details, see the discussion under Sec. 91.327 ``Safety-of-flight
issues.''
In addition, the FAA believes that the consensus standards should
also address--
Manufacturer's Assembly Instructions. In proposed Sec.
21.193(e)(5), the FAA stated an expectation that kit-built experimental
light-sport aircraft would be assembled following detailed instructions
provided by the manufacturer. This was stated in the section-by-section
analysis of the NPRM. However, the FAA did not establish any
requirements with regard to the quality of those assembly instructions.
In the final rule, a requirement is being added to Sec. 21.193(e)(4)
for the assembly instructions to meet the consensus standard. Also,
there is a change to Sec. 21.191(i)(2) requiring that the assembler
provide evidence that he or she assembled the aircraft according to the
manufacturer's instructions.
The manufacturer should prescribe the details of an individual
aircraft assembly process. The objective is for the assembly
instructions to provide the detailed instructions to build and safely
flight test the product. Any necessary mechanical skills or training
should be defined. The instructions should prescribe the tooling,
fixtures, inspections, measurements, and other pertinent items that
must be recorded by the assembler and presented to the FAA or the FAA
representative, such as, the Designated Airworthiness Representative
(DAR), as evidence that the manufacturer's assembly instructions were
followed.
In the proposed definition, the term ``continued operational safety
monitoring system characteristics'' is revised to read ``continued
airworthiness.'' The changed language requires the consensus standard
to address continued airworthiness subjects that may be considered
outside the scope of a continued operational safety monitoring system.
Changes
The definition of ``consensus standard'' is changed in the final
rule as follows:
The words ``consensus airworthiness standard'' are changed to
``consensus standard.''
The word ``governs'' is changed to ``applies to.''
The words ``aircraft design and performance'' are changed to
``aircraft design, production, and airworthiness.''
The four topics that a consensus standard would govern have been
revised and additional specific items have been added to the list of
items that a consensus standard must address.
The definition now lists the items that a consensus standard
``includes but is not limited to.'' The topics specified in the
definition now include ``standards for aircraft design and performance,
required equipment, manufacturer quality assurance systems, production
acceptance test procedures, operating instructions, maintenance and
inspection procedures, identification and recording of major repairs
and major alterations, and continued airworthiness.''
Definition of ``Light-Sport Aircraft''
Overview
The FAA believes that there might be confusion concerning what
airworthiness certificates apply to light-sport aircraft. Therefore,
the FAA is clarifying this issue. A sport pilot may operate any
aircraft that meets the definition in Sec. 1.1 of a light-sport
aircraft, regardless of the airworthiness certificate issued for the
aircraft. An aircraft that meets the light-sport aircraft definition
may have any airworthiness certificate that may be issued for an
aircraft, such as standard, special, primary, or experimental amateur-
built aircraft. An aircraft that meets the light-sport aircraft
definition and holds a standard airworthiness certificate must be
operated and maintained in accordance with the limitations of that
airworthiness certificate. For example, the sport pilot must operate
the aircraft within the limits of the aircraft's flight manual and type
certificate data sheet. Also, maintenance will still need to be done in
accordance with part 43 by an appropriately rated mechanic, repairman,
or repair station. A repairman (light-sport aircraft) is not authorized
to conduct any maintenance on an aircraft issued a standard
airworthiness certificate or a special airworthiness certificate in a
category other than light-sport.
Numerous commenters raised issues pertaining to the design
attributes associated with the definition of light-sport aircraft. A
majority recommended expanding the design attributes in one or more
areas, such as maximum weight, stall speed, or cruise speed. The design
attributes associated with the definition are discussed individually
later in this section.
As stated in the proposal, the FAA intended to limit the definition
of light-sport aircraft to primarily address the population of
ultralight-like aircraft that are being operated under exemptions to
part 103 to conduct flight training. The rule was not primarily
intended to address type-certificated and vintage aircraft where there
were not significant regulatory, certification, or operational issues.
The FAA recognizes that any aircraft that meets the light-sport
aircraft definition may be operated by a sport pilot. However, it is
necessary for the FAA to use its judgment and discretion in setting
limits on aircraft to be flown by sport pilots.
The most frequently cited justification to increasing one or more
design attributes associated with the light-sport aircraft definition
was to enable existing aircraft designs to be operated as light-sport
aircraft. A majority of these comments contended that the light-sport
aircraft definition should be expanded to accept these additional
aircraft simply because these larger or higher performance aircraft
could be safely operated as light-sport aircraft.
While some changes were made to the design attributes of the
definition, there was only one change made to the definition as a
result of comments pertaining to operating type-certificated aircraft
as light-sport aircraft. The change prohibits aircraft modified to
[[Page 44792]]
meet the parameters of the definition from being operated as light-
sport aircraft. The reasoning for this change is explained below.
One commenter noted that the FAA's proposal is unique in attempting
to address aircraft for used for recreation rather than transportation
purposes. Some commenters expressed concern that the light-sport
aircraft definition did not describe how a given constraint would be
shown to be satisfied. Neither a Sec. 1.1 definition nor an operating
rule definition is normally so complete as to establish how compliance
with the definition is determined.
Another commenter noted that the definition of an aircraft category
is usually established in the applicability section of the appropriate
airworthiness standard, rather than in Sec. 1.1. The FAA agrees with
this observation. However, there will not be airworthiness standards
set forth in specific parts of the Code of Federal Regulations, and the
definition of light-sport aircraft will be applicable to a variety of
different kinds of aircraft. Also, the definition is significant both
for aircraft and airman certification purposes. For these reasons, it
is appropriate for the FAA to establish these limits for the light-
sport aircraft in the general definitions section of part 1.
Many commenters wanted various existing airplanes to be included in
the light-sport aircraft definition. Many of these commenters believe
that the existing service record of these airplanes makes them safe and
more affordable than a new airplane. The FAA recognizes that certain
aircraft that do not meet the definition of light-sport aircraft may
have operating characteristics that are similar to aircraft that meet
the definition. The FAA determined that the values used in the
definition strike an appropriate balance between safety and public
interest. Refer to the discussion under ``III.1. FAA Judgment and
Discretion.'' The FAA has revised the light-sport aircraft definition
without the intent to include or exclude specific aircraft.
General Comments on the Design Attributes in the Light-Sport Aircraft
Definition
There was considerable interest in changing the design attributes
that control the definition of light-sport aircraft. The FAA received
numerous general questions and comments on aircraft currently
certificated. Some commenters operating aircraft with a standard or an
experimental certificate stated that their aircraft nearly met the
definition of light-sport aircraft. Many of these commenters expressed
their desire that the light-sport aircraft definition be changed to
include their aircraft, whether it be an airplane with a standard
airworthiness certificate, an amateur-built aircraft, or a vintage
aircraft with a standard airworthiness certificate. Several commenters
stated a desire that the FAA revise the light-sport aircraft definition
to permit them to obtain the perceived advantages of the sport pilot
certificate's medical provisions when operating their aircraft.
Commenters also requested clarification as to how compliance with
some of the parameters used to define light-sport aircraft will be
determined. The most frequently cited parameters were maximum takeoff
weight, maximum airspeed in level flight with maximum continuous power
VH, and stall speeds VS1 (without lift enhancing
devices) and VS0 (landing configuration). As discussed under
Sec. 1.1, the consensus standards will address details on methods of
demonstrating compliance.
A commenter stated that the light-sport aircraft definition should
require ballistic parachute recovery systems as protection in case of
inadvertent encounter of instrument flight rule (IFR) weather
conditions. The FAA disagrees. This rule does not directly prescribe
design or equipment standards, those are contained in the consensus
standard.
Modifications of Aircraft To Meet the Light-Sport Aircraft Definition
Some commenters stated that aircraft with quite high payload and
performance characteristics that far exceed the stated definition of
light-sport aircraft could be modified to meet the definition of light-
sport aircraft. The FAA has revised the definition of light-sport
aircraft in the rule to prevent these modifications. The FAA notes that
these types of modified aircraft are outside the stated purpose of the
proposal. The proposal identified light-sport aircraft as aircraft that
exceed the limits set in Sec. 103.1, and are compatible with the
skills and training required to obtain a sport pilot certificate.
Light-sport aircraft are simple low-performance aircraft that are
distinct from small aircraft that can be designed and built to existing
airworthiness standards. In the proposal, the FAA permitted sport
pilots to fly any aircraft that meets the light-sport aircraft
definition. In prohibiting modifications to aircraft to meet the light-
sport aircraft definition, the FAA seeks to ensure that the light-sport
aircraft operating characteristics are consistent with the skills and
training for the sport pilot. The FAA is concerned that modifications
to an aircraft to meet the light-sport aircraft definition may increase
its complexity to a level that is inappropriate for the capabilities of
the sport pilot. This is the FAA's rationale for excluding these
modified aircraft from the light-sport aircraft definition.
The FAA notes that compliance with light-sport aircraft parameters
can be more readily verified for type-certificated aircraft than for
amateur-built aircraft certificated under existing Sec. 21.191(g).
Amateur-built aircraft do not have a TC, a flight manual, or a type
certificate data sheet. Because of this, it may be difficult to
determine if aircraft with other than a standard airworthiness
certificate meets the limits listed for a light-sport aircraft and can
be operated by a sport pilot. The FAA anticipates that the aircraft
design consensus standard will include methodologies that will readily
enable a determination that an aircraft design meets the light-sport
aircraft definition.
Requests for Light-Sport Aircraft Definition To Include Additional
Kinds of Aircraft
A number of commenters wanted ``light'' helicopters and gyroplanes
to be included in the definition of light-sport aircraft. They believed
that these aircraft are suited for the sport and recreation that the
proposed rule addresses.
As stated in the proposal, the FAA did not include helicopters
because their complex design, manufacture, and operation is beyond what
the FAA envisioned for light-sport aircraft. The FAA included
gyroplanes in the light-sport aircraft definition, but does not intend
to issue the special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport
category for gyroplanes. See the discussion of paragraph (9) of the
definition of light-sport aircraft below.
Several comments recommended that the light-sport aircraft
definition include individual unique aircraft designs, such as flying
platforms or tandem wing aircraft. The FAA disagrees. The light-sport
aircraft definition does not need to address every possible variation
of aircraft. The FAA believes that the unique nature of these aircraft
precludes the development of consensus standards for these aircraft at
this time. However, these aircraft remain eligible for the experimental
certificate for operating amateur-built aircraft, under existing Sec.
21.191(g). A few commenters requested that aircraft with standard
airworthiness certificates not be included in the sport pilot program.
As stated in the proposed rule, a sport pilot may fly an aircraft with
a standard airworthiness certificate, if it meets the definition of
light-sport aircraft. See also
[[Page 44793]]
Sec. 21.175 discussion on airworthiness certificates. As stated above
in the section titled ``Modifications of Aircraft To Meet the Light-
Sport Aircraft Definition,'' a sport pilot may not fly an aircraft with
a standard airworthiness certificate that has been modified to meet the
light-sport aircraft definition.
Comments Concerning the Limits Established by the Light-Sport Aircraft
Definition
Many commenters suggested alternatives to the maximum speed as
limiting factors for the light-sport aircraft definition. The
alternatives proposed included wing loading (airplane weight divided by
airplane wing area); horsepower (ranging from 80 to 180 horsepower);
fuel capacity; aircraft payload; kinetic energy of the airplane at
cruise speed; weight of the drive train package. One commenter proposed
to base the light-sport aircraft definition on the weights and
aerodynamic performance of the J-3 Cub airplane. The FAA disagrees that
the light-sport aircraft definition should be changed to replace the
maximum speed limit with a different limiting design condition. The FAA
does not believe that any of the alternatives suggested will be a
better, more readily determined method of assuring that light-sport
aircraft are simple, low performance aircraft. The FAA has not
eliminated a maximum speed in the light-sport aircraft definition.
However, the light-sport aircraft definition has been revised to
increase the maximum speed limit. The FAA has not adopted an
alternative approach to setting an upper limit to the power or
performance of a light-sport aircraft. However the FAA decided that the
light-sport aircraft definition should set an upper limit for aircraft
power to assure that the aircraft is suitable for the sport pilot. The
FAA believes that the maximum airspeed limit, combined with a maximum
takeoff weight, acceptably serves this purpose, for the reasons
originally stated in the proposed rule. The FAA discusses each of the
attributes of the light-sport aircraft definition elsewhere in this
section.
Some commenters believed that the limits in the FAA's definition of
light-sport aircraft would limit innovation, or lead to the development
of unsafe aircraft. The FAA disagrees with this opinion, and believes
that the consensus standards process and the FAA's participation in
that process will lead to an acceptable balance between innovation and
safety.
A few commenters requested that the FAA use the definition of
microlight aircraft established by the International Aeronautical
Federation (FAI). The FAA did consider this definition in developing
its proposal. The microlight aircraft definition primarily addresses
weight, seating capacity, and stall speed. The FAA notes that the
light-sport aircraft definition addresses significantly more parameters
than the definition of microlight aircraft. The FAA developed this
definition to provide for the development of an aircraft that matches
the capabilities of the sport pilot.
A few commenters believed that the FAA's definition of light-sport
aircraft was too broad. Alternatives suggested included three different
weight limits for light-sport aircraft, and the two-tiered system
proposed by USUA and discussed in detail under ``III.5.A. Comments on
Ultralight Vehicles.'' The FAA disagrees that the light-sport aircraft
definition should be changed to address different weight limits for
different kinds of light-sport aircraft. The FAA believes that the use
of a broad definition for light-sport aircraft, along with the
development of consensus standards appropriate for each class of
aircraft, will result in safe and economical aircraft for the wide
range of products in recreational aviation.
One commenter suggested eliminating the word ``light'' from the
definition, to prevent the implication that there might be medium- and
heavy-sport aircraft to follow. Another commenter suggested ``Class III
aircraft'' as an alternative, stating that the public might form an
impression that light-sport aircraft ``* * * are frivolous toys.'' The
FAA disagrees with these opinions and believes that the words used to
describe ``light-sport aircraft'' are adequate to distinguish this
category of aircraft.
Several commenters stated that the cost of new aircraft would be
prohibitive with the goals of the proposed rule. The FAA disagrees. The
aircraft certification process that uses industry consensus standards
and a manufacturer's statement of compliance is a lower-cost approach
than type and production certification. Refer to the full regulatory
evaluation that is in the rulemaking docket for a detailed discussion
on the estimated cost to the end user.
A commenter suggested that light-sport aircraft should have a
maximum noise limit established and verified by a simple protocol to be
defined in the consensus standard for aircraft performance. The
commenter believed that including a noise limit would prevent adverse
public impressions of light-sport aircraft. Current amateur-built
aircraft do not require compliance with a maximum noise limit.
Presently, part 36 noise standards are applicable only to aircraft with
a type certificate or a standard airworthiness certificate. See ``XIV.
Environmental Analysis'' below.
Paragraph (1) Maximum Certificated Takeoff Weight
Some commenters stated that lacking a definition of maximum takeoff
weight, aircraft with fairly high performance characteristics could
meet the definition of light-sport aircraft by limiting the approved
weight and payload of the airplane. The FAA considers this a valid
concern and has provided some additional constraints on the weight as
detailed below. The maximum weight of a light-sport aircraft is the sum
of:
(1) Aircraft empty weight;
(2) Weight of the passenger for each seat installed;
(3) Baggage allowance for each passenger; and
(4) Full fuel, including a minimum of the half-hour fuel reserve
required for day visual flight rules in Sec. 91.151(a)(1).
Some commenters wanted the weight increased to permit stronger
aircraft structures, use of four-stroke or type-certificated engines,
electrical systems for avionics, starters for engines, or ballistic
recovery systems. The FAA is increasing the weight limitation of the
light-sport aircraft from the proposed 1,232 pounds (560 kilograms) to
1,320 pounds (600 kilograms). The originally proposed weight limitation
was based on the 1,200-pound weight limitation proposed by the ARAC's
light-sport aircraft working group. The FAA agrees that there may be a
safety benefit to light-sport aircraft designs to include provisions
for currently produced type-certificated four-stroke engines and
ballistic parachute recovery systems. Commenters submitted data that
indicated that an additional 60 to 70 pounds would accommodate four-
stroke aviation powerplants, and that an additional 30 to 40 pounds
would accommodate the ballistic parachute recovery systems. For these
reasons, the FAA has revised its proposed maximum takeoff weight
limitation to 1,320 pounds (600 kilograms) for aircraft designed for
operation on land.
In addition, many commenters requested that the proposed weight
limitation be increased to accommodate flying boats, amphibious or
float plane aircraft designs. The FAA originally envisioned these kinds
of aircraft in its proposed light-sport aircraft definition.
Recommendations from these commenters indicated weights ranging from
100 pounds to 250 pounds to allow for amphibious or float plane
capability. The rule provides for a maximum take-off weight of 1,430
pounds for light-
[[Page 44794]]
sport aircraft designed for operation on water. The 110-pound weight
increase compared to an aircraft not designed for operation on water is
consistent with data submitted regarding weight of floats for
microlight type aircraft.
Some commenters objected to setting a weight limit that becomes a
specific number of pounds based on conversion of kilograms to pounds,
assuming that the FAA is relying solely upon foreign airworthiness
standards in establishing the light-sport aircraft category. The FAA
stated weight limitations are different from those used by other
airworthiness authorities for the reasons stated in the two preceding
paragraphs.
Many commenters proposed alternative weight limits, ranging from
1,250 to 2,650 pounds, to encompass a number of existing general
aviation or classic aircraft. In the FAA's judgment, the weight limit
in the rule is appropriate for the light-sport aircraft to be
compatible with the skills and training of the sport pilot.
Some commenters wanted the weight increased, stating that a
passenger weight of 170 pounds is not realistic today. The FAA notes
that the maximum take-off weight includes the weight of the occupants.
The manufacturer may want to consider this in their design and
communicate any weight limits to the customer. A few commenters stated
that the FAA should use weight other than maximum takeoff weight as a
limiting condition. Alternatives suggested by commenters included
aircraft empty weight, or maximum payload. The FAA believes that the
maximum take-off weight is an appropriate limiting parameter for light-
sport aircraft, because it is an objective measure that can easily be
determined when the aircraft configuration is specified.
A few commenters agreed with the FAA's originally proposed weight
limit of 1,232 pounds for aircraft that are not lighter-than-air (LTA)
aircraft. Some commenters questioned the rationale for the FAA's
originally proposed weight limit. As stated above, the weight limit
originally proposed by the FAA for other than LTA was a balance between
the original ARAC recommendation for light-sport aircraft, and existing
foreign airworthiness requirements for sport aircraft, such as
microlights and aircraft certificated under the Joint Airworthiness
Requirements for Very Light Aircraft (JAR-VLA).
Some commenters objected to the FAA's proposed weight limit of 660
pounds (300 kilograms) for an LTA aircraft, stating that the weight
limit is too low for a two-passenger hot air balloon. One comment asked
if the weight limit was intended to refer to an uninflated mass. The
FAA intended for the LTA weight limit to be comparable to the weight
limit for the other light-sport aircraft designs, that is, a maximum
mass for the aircraft. The FAA intended for the weight limit to include
the aircraft with passengers and fuel, and the weight of the lifting
gas (the product of lifting gas volume and density) added to the weight
of the uninflated mass. For airships, the FAA intended the defined
weight limit to include the empty weight of the airship, the weight of
pilot and passenger, fuel, and lifting gas (FAA-P-8110-2, ``Airship
Design Criteria,'' paragraph 2-4). One commenter provided a weight
statement for a two-passenger hot air balloon, saying that 800 to 1,000
pounds would be appropriate in that it would allow for two 15-gallon
fuel tanks, or 230 pounds of fuel. The FAA disagrees. The FAA's
originally proposed weight limit for LTA aircraft was based on a review
of the weights of type-certificated manned free balloons. The FAA
believed that the maximum weight permitted for a LTA light-sport
aircraft should not be greater than the maximum weight of currently
existing type-certificated manned free balloons. The FAA believes the
requirements in part 21 and part 31 are appropriate for the manufacture
and design of hot air balloons larger than proposed by the FAA.
Additionally, one commenter stated that 2,200 pounds would be an
appropriate weight limit for airships in the light-sport aircraft
category because the low speeds for takeoff or approach to landing
would result in low kinetic energy. The commenter also expressed
concern that existing very light hot air airships are robust enough to
accommodate two large persons plus the systems and structures for a
powered LTA aircraft. The commenter did not provide any data to support
the position that the weight limit in the FAA's proposal or the
existing airship design certification criteria for small airships used
for sport and personal recreation are unnecessarily burdensome. The FAA
believes that the requirements of part 21 and the guidance contained in
FAA publication FAA-P-8110-2, ``Airship Design Criteria'' are
appropriate for the manufacture and design of airships as large as that
proposed by the commenter.
Several commenters stated that the FAA's proposed weight limit for
the light-sport aircraft definition had the effect of eliminating some
existing certificated aircraft that they believed were ideally suited
for the sport pilot rule. One commenter's opinion was that the FAA
strategically established the weight limit to favor the sale of new,
more expensive light-sport aircraft. The FAA did not have such a
purpose in mind when it established its proposed light-sport aircraft
weight limit. Also, in establishing the light-sport aircraft, FAA did
not intend to promote existing certificated aircraft. When the FAA
initially set the proposed limits for the light-sport aircraft
definition, the FAA did not look at currently built aircraft, either
with type certificate approval or in the amateur-built aircraft
marketplace. The FAA's proposed definition was to address aircraft to
be designed and built for the sport pilot, rather than addressing
existing aircraft for currently certificated pilots.
A commenter stated that the proposed weight limit eliminates the
eligibility of many production aircraft, and seems to cater to
homebuilt aircraft. The FAA disagrees with this opinion. The reasons
for the weight limit were discussed in the proposal and were intended
to accommodate a wide variety of simple, low performance aircraft that
have no more than two occupants. The FAA has explained elsewhere in
this section the reasons for its changes to the proposed weight limit
in the light-sport aircraft definition. A few commenters noted that the
FAA's originally proposed weight limit would result in some models in a
particular classic aircraft line being eligible for the light-sport
aircraft category, while other models in the same line would not be
eligible. The FAA believes that this is evidence that the weight limit
for light-sport aircraft was not drawn with the intent of including or
excluding specific aircraft.
A commenter proposed that the FAA establish different weight limits
for single- and two-seat aircraft. This would add an additional
limiting condition to the definition of light-sport aircraft. The FAA
disagrees. The weight is only one component of the definition. The FAA
believes that its weight limit is appropriate for a two-seat aircraft.
One of the main purposes of the light-sport aircraft definition is to
provide appropriate flight training aircraft for sport pilots. The
weight limit proposed by the FAA is intended to accommodate aircraft
designed for two occupants. The FAA does not have data that would
support establishing a reduced weight limit for single occupant
aircraft. The FAA notes, however, that a manufacturer may choose to
produce a single place aircraft with a weight less than the maximum
permitted by the rule. A commenter stated that the weight limit will
preclude tricycle landing gear on light-sport aircraft, and that will
make light-sport aircraft more
[[Page 44795]]
difficult to operate by low-time pilots. The FAA does not agree that
the weight limit will preclude tricycle gear light-sport aircraft. The
FAA is aware of tricycle-gear aircraft that meet the light-sport
aircraft weight limit.
A commenter proposed that the FAA's weight limit should only apply
to powered parachutes and weight-shift-control aircraft, and that
higher weights should be permitted for airplanes in the light-sport
aircraft category. The FAA disagrees that different weight limits
should be established for powered parachutes, weight-shift-control
aircraft, and airplanes. However, the FAA agrees that the weight limit
for light-sport aircraft should be raised and has done so in the final
rule. The FAA believes that the maximum weight limits established in
the light-sport aircraft definition will permit the design and
manufacture of two-seat airplanes suitable for operation by sport
pilots. Manufacturers of powered parachutes and weight-shift control
aircraft may manufacture aircraft that weigh less than the maximum
weight limit permitted by the light-sport aircraft definition.
Some commenters stated that low stall speed is more important than
aircraft weight. The FAA agrees that low stall speed is important;
however, the FAA does not believe that the light-sport aircraft
definition should identify any one attribute of the definition as more
important than another.
Commenters recommended that sport pilots be permitted to fly
aircraft heavier than the FAA's proposed weight limits with a logbook
endorsement. Another commenter proposed that sport pilots with higher
experience levels be permitted to fly aircraft heavier than the FAA's
proposed weight limits. A different commenter said that for 5 years
following the adoption of the FAA's proposal, sport pilots should be
permitted to fly existing general aviation training aircraft that are
within 120 percent of the limits established in the light-sport
aircraft definition. The FAA disagrees that sport pilots should be
permitted to fly aircraft heavier than the weight limits for light-
sport aircraft. The FAA believes that a pilot operating aircraft above
these weights should have at least a private or recreational pilot's
certificate. For further discussion on sport pilot training limits
reference the discussion titled ``Flight Training and Proficiency
Requirements'' in the section on Part 61 general issues.
Paragraph (2) Maximum Airspeed in Level Flight With Maximum Continuous
Power (VH)
As discussed in more detail later in this section, the FAA always
intended that the light-sport aircraft definition would establish an
appropriate limiting maximum airspeed. During the preliminary
discussions to set the design attributes proposed in the NPRM, the FAA
considered a range of limiting airspeeds. When setting an appropriate
limiting maximum airspeed, the FAA took into account that: (1) Training
requirements for the sport pilot certificate are based on the
simplicity of the aircraft's operating characteristics; and (2)
aircraft certification requirements are based on a performance envelope
appropriate for a light-sport aircraft.
In constructing the light-sport aircraft definition, the FAA also
took into consideration three groups of aircraft that will be addressed
by this rule: (1) Two-place ultralight-like aircraft that have been
operating under an exemption to part 103; (2) new light-sport aircraft
to be designed, manufactured and operated under this rule; and (3)
existing aircraft whose low performance capabilities would meet the
light-sport aircraft definition. In the proposed rule, the FAA believed
that the 115 knots CAS VH limit met the two considerations
in the preceding paragraph and covered the range of aircraft described
in this paragraph.
Additionally, the FAA specifically requested additional input
through the light-sport aircraft online forum on methods to establish
upper limits for the light-sport aircraft definition. To read the
online forum comments, go to the electronic docket address given above
in the section titled ``Availability of Rulemaking Documents'' and view
item number 2676 in Docket No. FAA-2001-11133.
The FAA still believes that establishing a maximum airspeed in
level flight at maximum continuous power (VH) is the best
way to limit ``high-end'' capability of the powered light-sport
aircraft. With the change to the light-sport aircraft definition
permitting increased weight, which may provide for the use of higher-
powered engines, the FAA is also increasing VH to 120 knots.
The FAA believes that this small increase is appropriate for the
revised light-sport aircraft definition and remains consistent with the
purpose that was the basis for the originally proposed 115-knot CAS
(VH) limit. The FAA believes that the training required for
sport pilots operating light-sport aircraft over 87 knots
(VH) addresses any training concerns and that the change in
the VH airspeed limit from 115 to 120 knots does not require
any additional training beyond what is established in the rule.
Some commenters believed that the proposed airspeed limitation,
VH, should be eliminated and some commenters state that
unlimited maximum speeds would not jeopardize safety. A commenter said
that the FAA should impose other design limits or flight
characteristics instead of a maximum speed limit for light-sport
airplanes. One commenter specifically asked why the FAA cares how fast
the airplane can fly. The FAA disagrees that a maximum speed limit is
unnecessary for light-sport aircraft. As stated in the NPRM, the FAA
believes that a maximum speed limit is appropriate for aircraft
designed for operation by persons with the minimum training and
experience of a sport pilot. Some commenters state that the maximum
speed limitation is essentially unenforceable. For the purpose of
issuing the special light-sport aircraft airworthiness certificate, the
FAA believes that the consensus standards will identify an easily
repeatable demonstration for the manufacturer to prove that the
aircraft meets the light-sport aircraft definition. The manufacturer
will perform this test in support of its statement of compliance.
One commenter stated that aircraft speeds vary with altitude, and
the light-sport aircraft definition did not state any FAA expectation
concerning this. The FAA agrees with the comment, and is specifying in
the light-sport aircraft definition that performance limitations are
expected to be met for standard atmospheric conditions at sea level.
Commenters stated that the FAA's proposed limit of 115 knots
maximum airspeed in level flight with maximum continuous power is
unnecessary or redundant because the aircraft weight and stall speed
establish power and wing loading, which effectively set drag that
limits maximum speed. One commenter proposed that a weight limit of 750
pounds for a single-seat light-sport airplane would limit power and
airspeed without requiring a design constraint. Alternatively, some
commenters proposed that the sport pilot accept an operating limitation
to not operate at speeds in excess of the FAA's desired limit. A
commenter proposed that a sport pilot operating limitation of 100 knots
CAS in the airport traffic pattern should be an alternative to the
proposed light-sport aircraft maximum airspeed limit. The FAA believes
that because of the wide variety of aircraft to be included in the
[[Page 44796]]
light-sport aircraft definition, the use of airplane-based parameters
is not adequate to eliminate an upper limit on light-sport aircraft
speed. The FAA requires a maximum speed limit to assure a light-sport
aircraft design that is compatible with the capabilities of a sport
pilot. However the FAA disagrees with the use of operating limitations
to prescribe limitations on the aircraft definition. Using operating
limitations instead of aircraft design limits may permit sport pilots
to use aircraft that exceed the parameters of the light-sport aircraft
definition.
Commenters requested that the FAA consider alternative maximum
speed limits, ranging from 120 to 187 knots CAS. One commenter proposed
that the maximum airspeed limit should be 120 knots, so that 2 nautical
miles (NM) per minute would simplify navigation by pilotage. The FAA
disagrees that simplifying navigation by pilotage would be an
appropriate justification; however, the FAA is increasing the maximum
speed value to 120 knots CAS from the 115 knots CAS originally
proposed. As previously stated, the FAA believes this small increase is
appropriate for the revised definition of ``light-sport aircraft,'' and
it remains consistent with the original proposal. The FAA does not
believe that this change will materially affect the population of
aircraft that are eligible to meet the definition of light-sport
aircraft.
Commenters stated that the proposed limit is unenforceable, because
a propeller pitch change can increase or decrease the airplane speed at
maximum power. Some commenters asked if flat pitch propellers or engine
governors would be permitted as a way for an airplane to satisfy the
maximum airspeed constraint. The FAA agrees that the manufacturer may
use flat pitch propellers or engine governors as part of the aircraft
design to demonstrate compliance with the light-sport aircraft
definition. If an aircraft propeller or engine configuration causes the
aircraft to exceed the prescribed limitations, the aircraft will not be
considered to meet the definition of light-sport aircraft. The FAA
notes that although it is not permitting variable pitch propellers, the
use of ground adjustable propellers is permitted. The FAA expects the
airplane manufacturer to define the airplane configuration, using
critical parameters, when determining compliance with the light-sport
aircraft definition. The FAA expects that the sport pilot will operate
the aircraft in the configuration that the manufacturer used to
demonstrate compliance with the light-sport aircraft definition.
Commenters stated that the proposed limit is impractical, because
when the airplane nose drops, it will accelerate and possibly exceed
the limit set by the light-sport aircraft definition. The FAA disagrees
that the limit is impractical. The proposed limit is for straight and
level flight only and should not be confused with a maximum operating
speed or a maximum dive speed. The consensus standard for airplane
design and performance will assure that the aircraft structure has
adequate margins to be operated within its allowable speed range.
Several commenters stated that the same flying skills are needed
for a slower or a faster airplane. The FAA disagrees and notes that the
skills necessary to operate an aircraft that exceeds 120 knots differ
from those skills necessary to operate a light-sport aircraft. In
addition, the FAA requires a sport pilot to obtain additional training
to operate an aircraft with VH greater than 87 knots and
less than 120 knots because different skills are necessary to operate
these light-sport aircraft with higher performance capabilities. For
further discussion on training requirements reference ``V.5.A.iii.
Flight Training and Proficiency Requirements'' in the discussion of
Part 61 general issues.
A commenter proposed that a different light-sport airplane category
permit faster airplanes, or that a sport pilot be permitted to operate
faster airplanes with a logbook endorsement. The FAA disagrees that
sport pilots should be permitted to fly faster aircraft heavier than
permitted by the definition of light-sport aircraft. The FAA believes
that a pilot operating aircraft above the speed in the definition
should have at least a private or recreational pilot's certificate
because the FAA believes it would not be appropriate or safe for
persons with the minimum training and experience of a sport pilot to
operate faster or heavier aircraft.
A commenter stated that cruise speed has little to do with aircraft
energy when the aircraft is out of control. The FAA notes that the
purpose of the limitation on speed is to make it easier for the sport
pilot to maintain aircraft control. The FAA believes that, at higher
cruise speeds, the possibility for adverse consequences from momentary
loss of control is greater. Commenters objected that the proposed limit
would force the design of inefficient aircraft. The FAA disagrees with
this opinion. Faster aircraft are not necessarily more efficient than
slower aircraft. Maximum speed is not an indication as to whether or
not an aircraft has an efficient design. An efficient aircraft design
(with lower drag) can provide benefits to the operator other than
increased speed. Such benefits may permit the aircraft to use a smaller
engine, have increased range, or have increased payload capacity.
Some commenters proposed that a horsepower limit would be more
suitable than a maximum speed limit. A commenter stated that horsepower
and drag are the factors that set airplane maximum speed. The FAA
agrees that there are alternative methods of limiting aircraft speed,
however, the FAA has chosen to limit the speed directly rather than
indirectly through some other parameter. Due to the variability of
aircraft design the FAA believes that limiting horsepower would not
necessarily result in consistent maximum airspeed limitations.
Some commenters stated that higher speed does not affect safety,
but insufficient power may reduce safety. The FAA has previously
discussed how higher speed may affect safety. With regard to simple,
low-performance aircraft, the design and performance consensus standard
will ensure that all aircraft meet a minimum performance standard and
therefore provide an acceptable level of safety. Several commenters
stated that the maximum airspeed is dependent upon throttle position,
and that operating at 100% throttle is not a normal operation. Although
this statement is true, the FAA has determined that it is appropriate
to impose a maximum speed limit for the reasons stated above.
Another commenter stated that many airplanes ``claim'' inflated top
speeds, so only a demonstrated maximum speed would be credible. The FAA
agrees and notes that VH was selected as it is easily
demonstrated. Several commenters noted that in-service variations
affecting engine or propeller efficiency, instrument calibration, or
airplane aerodynamics could cause significant variations in actual
maximum airspeed. The FAA agrees that some small variations in actual
aircraft performance are to be expected. However, the FAA believes that
a demonstration by the manufacturer of the aircraft's maximum airspeed
in a specified configuration is adequate to ensure that the airplane
design is compatible with the light-sport aircraft definition. A
commenter stated that foreign sport airplane airworthiness standards do
not impose a maximum airspeed requirement, and this would be an unfair
advantage compared to American aircraft. The FAA disagrees that foreign
aircraft have an unfair advantage. Regardless of the country of
manufacture, in order to be considered a light-sport aircraft, the
aircraft must
[[Page 44797]]
meet the parameters of the light-sport aircraft definition.
A commenter proposed that the light-sport aircraft definition
should assure structural integrity by requiring that the maximum speed
in level flight with maximum continuous power, VH, be less
than or equal to the design maneuvering speed (VA) at
altitudes of 8,000 feet or less. Because the FAA is not establishing
structural limits in the definition of light-sport aircraft, it would
be inappropriate to include this constraint in the definition. The FAA
believes that this would be an excessive restriction for light-sport
aircraft.
Paragraph (3) Maximum Never-Exceed Speed (VNE) for a Glider
A commenter stated that the FAA's proposed maximum speed of 115
knots for a glider does not provide adequate protection against
headwinds or wind shear. A commenter asked that the never-exceed speed
(VNE) be increased slightly to allow for increased safety,
utility, and comfort. Several comments recommended increased
VNE for gliders. Additional comments expressed satisfaction
with the consistency with the VH for powered aircraft. The
FAA is aware that the two maximum speed limits established in the
light-sport aircraft definition have two different bases. As stated in
the previous section, the FAA's concern is that the light-sport
aircraft definition set a maximum speed limit for the aircraft to be
flown by sport pilots. In response to the comments reported in this
section, in the final rule, VNE for gliders is increased to
120 knots CAS. This is done to maintain consistency between the
VH value for powered aircraft and the VNE value
for gliders.
Proposed Paragraph (4) Maximum Stalling Speed or Minimum Steady Flight
Speed in Landing Configuration (VS0)
Some commenters recommended that the FAA eliminate the 39-knot
stall speed in the landing configuration. Many comments recommended
raising the limit of 39 knots CAS in the landing configuration. Some
commenters questioned the narrow proposed spread between the originally
proposed VS0 (proposed in paragraph (4)) of 39 knots CAS and
the VS1 (proposed in paragraph (5)) of 44 knots CAS.
The FAA agrees that the proposed spread of stall speeds in practice
is narrow, and provides a mixed message as to the limiting design
condition. A low stall speed is desirable, but not at the expense of
forcing a simple aircraft that otherwise meets the definition to become
more complex to operate and maintain by adding flaps to a design for no
other purpose than to meet the VS0 requirement. Light-sport
aircraft may have flaps because the safety benefit of this feature can
be achieved without the complexity inherent in retractable landing gear
or controllable-pitch propellers. The FAA is eliminating the maximum
stalling speed in the landing configuration (VS0)
restriction that was proposed in paragraph (4) of the NPRM because the
low-speed limit is adequately addressed by the maximum ``clean'' stall
speed (VS1).
Final Rule Paragraph (4) Maximum Stalling Speed or Minimum Steady
Flight Speed Without the Use of Lift-Enhancing Devices (VS1) (Proposed
as Paragraph (5))
The FAA received numerous comments concerning the two proposed
maximum stall speeds. Some commenters agreed with the stall speeds
originally proposed by the FAA. Many commenters proposed higher
alternative values for the light-sport aircraft stall speed limit,
ranging from 45 miles per hour (mph) (39 knots) to 63 mph (55 knots).
Typically, commenters referred to a particular homebuilt, classic, or
existing training airplane as being appropriate for consideration under
the light-sport aircraft definition and for operation by a sport pilot.
The FAA did not establish a maximum stall speed for light-sport
aircraft based on the parameters of particular aircraft.
Additionally, one commenter asked why the stall speeds were so low.
The FAA's proposed stall speeds were based on early discussions with
light-sport aircraft industry representatives. A basic design principle
for light-sport aircraft is that the stall speed for these aircraft is
about one third of the aircraft maximum speed. The FAA notes that when
it increased the maximum aircraft speed in the final rule it also
increased the maximum stall speed accordingly.
A commenter stated that the FAA should increase the stall speed to
a range of 50 mph to 60 mph, ``* * * which would be above what is
generally encountered as normally high runway turbulence and would lead
to safer landings.'' The FAA believes that the stall speed established
in the light-sport aircraft definition should be adequate to address
airport surface conditions normally encountered by light-sport
aircraft. Permitting significantly increased stall speeds may have the
effect of changing the takeoff and landing characteristics of light-
sport aircraft to a degree that is inappropriate for their operation by
sport pilots.
A commenter stated that a 50-knot stall speed would be needed for
light-sport aircraft to operate in Class B, C, or D airspace. The FAA
does not agree that operating in these airspace classes requires such a
high stall speed and notes that ultralight vehicles may operate in
Class B, C, or D airspace with ATC permission. Additionally, other
aircraft with stall speeds below 50 knots routinely operate in these
classes of airspace.
A commenter proposed that the FAA require shoulder harnesses in
light-sport aircraft and then increase the proposed stall speed limits
by 10 percent. The FAA disagrees that installing shoulder harnesses
should permit increased stall speeds for light-sport aircraft. This
rule does not directly prescribe equipment standards as those are
contained in the consensus standards.
A commenter proposed that an increased stall speed would permit a
higher aircraft weight, which would permit installation of more
navigation and communication equipment on the light-sport aircraft. As
noted elsewhere in this section, to accommodate the weight increase and
maximum speed increase from the originally proposed maximum values, the
FAA is increasing the limit stall speed without the use of lift
enhancing devices VS1 to 45 knots CAS.
Several commenters proposed that the light-sport aircraft should
have a lower stall speed limit. One reasoned that slower flight permits
a wider choice of emergency landing fields. Several stated that the
stall speed should be as low as possible for safety's sake. The FAA
agrees with these principles; however, disagrees with the need to lower
the proposed stall speed. The FAA believes that the revised stall speed
is appropriate for aircraft that might weigh as much as the maximum
weight limit that is established in the light-sport aircraft
definition. The FAA notes that the maximum stall speed does not
prohibit a manufacturer from producing lighter aircraft with lower
stall speeds.
A commenter believed that 30 to 35 knots would be better than the
value proposed by the FAA, and recommended that the part 103 stall
speed of 24 knots would be even better. As described in detail
elsewhere in this section, the FAA believes that an increased stall
speed for light-sport aircraft is appropriate for the maximum aircraft
weight permitted by the light-sport aircraft definition. The FAA notes
that the light-sport aircraft definition is intended to broadly
encompass a wide range of aircraft for sport pilots. Some light-sport
aircraft design parameters significantly exceed the parameters of
vehicles operating under part 103. Therefore, it would not be
appropriate
[[Page 44798]]
to use the part 103 stall speed limits for all light-sport aircraft.
A commenter agreed with the concern for a low stall speed, but
stated that pilot awareness should better focus on airplane angle of
attack rather than speed. The FAA agrees that there is a need to limit
the capability of the light-sport aircraft but notes that angle of
attack is not an appropriate design parameter for these aircraft. Pilot
training typically addresses critical aircraft attitudes, including
angle of attack.
A commenter stated that FAA should clarify that aircraft speeds are
more accurately represented by knots True Air Speed (TAS) or knots
Calibrated Air Speed (CAS), rather than knots Indicated Air Speed
(IAS). Both the proposal and the final rule refer to speeds in knots
CAS.
Commenters asked for details on how the stall speed is determined.
The definition was changed to specify that maximum stalling speed is
determined at maximum weight, with most critical center of gravity
location, at sea level standard day conditions. However, the actual
test method is to be defined in the consensus standard.
Final Rule Paragraph (5) Maximum Seating Capacity (Proposed As
Paragraph (6))
Several commenters stated that the FAA should permit more than two
seats for the light-sport aircraft. Additionally, a commenter asked if
four-seat airplanes could meet the light-sport aircraft definition with
limitation of only using two seats. Light-sport aircraft are simple,
non-complex, aircraft and adding more seats or passengers would add to
the weight and complexity of these aircraft resulting in operational
characteristics that would be inappropriate for the sport pilot. A
commenter asked if a single-seat aircraft is eligible as a light-sport
aircraft. The definition permits a single-seat aircraft.
A commenter asked if side-by-side seating would be permitted for
flight instruction. Another commenter questioned the permissible
arrangement of the seats in a two-place aircraft. Side-by-side or
tandem seating is permitted under this rule. The definition does not
define the arrangement of the seats.
Final Rule Paragraph (6) Single, Reciprocating Engine (Proposed As
Paragraph (7))
Commenters recommended that the light-sport aircraft definition
allow for multi-engine aircraft, turbine-powered aircraft, or both. The
FAA disagrees with this suggestion. Multi-engine and turbine-powered
aircraft introduce a level of operational and mechanical complexity
that extends far beyond the scope of this rule. Current pilot
certification rules require an additional rating for multi-engine
operation and a type rating for turbojet powered aircraft. These
additional pilot ratings are not available to the holder of a sport
pilot certificate. Further, most turbopropeller engines make use of
cockpit-controllable variable pitch propellers and many have a reverse
thrust operational mode as well. Such devices are mechanically and
operationally complex, requiring more extensive training to operate in
flight and having far more complex maintenance requirements. Therefore,
the definition of light-sport aircraft will continue to exclude
multiengine or turbine-powered aircraft.
Several commenters proposed that small turbine engines be permitted
for light-sport aircraft. Reasons included simplicity of design and
operation, desire to foster innovation, and safety relative to a
propeller design. A commenter stated that a small turbine engine
permits a simpler powerplant package for a powered glider than a
propeller engine. The FAA does not agree that turbine engines are
appropriate for the light-sport aircraft category. Turbine engines
possess inherent design characteristics that must be accommodated by
stringent design, maintenance, and operating criteria that are
inconsistent with the light-sport aircraft regulatory philosophy.
Specifically, turbine engine failure modes, such as disc bursts, can be
catastrophic to the aircraft. The FAA has established engine and
airframe certification regulations to address these failure modes such
as mandatory life limits, extensive engine analyses and testing, and
airframe layout, structural and performance criteria that require
extensive FAA oversight that is beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
Many commenters stated that light-sport aircraft should have the
safety benefit of multi-engine reliability. A commenter stated that
small multi-engine ultralight-like airplanes respond differently to a
single engine failure than relatively larger general aviation aircraft.
Another commenter stated that the light-sport aircraft performance
would assure that multi-engine operation would require a negligible
difference in pilot skills. Another proposed to require only a single
thrust line and permit multi-engines. Another proposed that the light-
sport aircraft definition contain suggested specific performance values
and include provisions that would result in a light-sport aircraft
having docile handling characteristics to accommodate single-engine
failure in a multi-engine layout. A commenter proposed that multi-
engines be permitted, with a combined horsepower limit. For the reasons
stated previously, the FAA disagrees that light-sport aircraft should
be permitted to have multiple engines because of the additional
operational complexity of these aircraft.
A commenter stated that for ultralight-like aircraft, the engines
should be considered non-essential equipment. Another commenter stated
that because ultralight pilots are trained to stay within safe gliding
distance from an emergency landing field then engines should be
considered as non-essential equipment. The FAA will permit the teams
developing the design consensus standards for the different classes of
light-sport aircraft to determine whether engine operation is essential
to the safe operation of these aircraft. Neither the light-sport
aircraft definition nor the rule directly prescribes standards for
design of equipment, such as engines. The FAA believes that in many
instances light-sport aircraft will be operated well beyond safe
gliding distances from an emergency landing field.
A commenter asked if type-certificated engines will be required for
light-sport aircraft. The FAA notes that the rule does not require the
installation of type-certificated engines.
The FAA notes that in the final rule the term ``single non-turbine
engine'' has been modified to single reciprocating non-turbine engine.
This was done to preclude light-sport aircraft powered by rocket
engines but still permit rotary and diesel engines.
Final Rule Paragraphs (7) and (8) Propellers (Proposed as Paragraph
(8))
The FAA received numerous comments on the proposed definition
limiting powered light-sport aircraft to a fixed or ground-adjustable
propeller. Several commenters stated that existing electronically
controlled in-flight adjustable propellers are widely used in the
ultralight industry, and are not as complicated as hydromechanically
controlled constant-speed propellers. A commenter stated that the
light-sport aircraft definition should not stifle innovation in
developing automatically controlled adjustable propellers. Most of the
commenters stated that electrically driven variable-pitch propellers
have been used on ultralight vehicles, and that they are not inherently
complex and recommended changing the definition to include variable-
pitch propellers. The FAA does not agree that the light-sport aircraft
definition should
[[Page 44799]]
be changed to permit controllable pitch propellers. These propellers
add operational complexity to an aircraft, as well as the potential for
mechanical failure. In addition, because of the training requirements
for sport pilots and repairmen (light-sport aircraft), the FAA does not
believe that light-sport aircraft should have controllable pitch
propellers. The FAA further notes that a controllable-pitch propeller
is one of the characteristics of a complex airplane as listed in Sec.
61.31 (e). As stated in the proposed rule, the FAA intends for light-
sport aircraft to be simple, low performance aircraft.
Commenters proposed that adjustable-pitch propellers are needed for
safety and performance benefits for powered aircraft, particularly for
seaplanes. One commenter stated that the maximum speed limit and
additional weight for floatplanes should permit adjustable propellers
for those aircraft. Another commenter noted that reversible propellers
are typically used by floatplanes as brakes in surface operations on
the water. The FAA does not believe that these benefits justify
permitting controllable pitch propellers for these aircraft for the
reasons stated above.
Commenters proposed that controllable pitch propellers be permitted
on light-sport aircraft and that a sport pilot be permitted to operate
that aircraft if the pilot has the appropriate training and a
corresponding endorsement. The FAA does not agree that the light-sport
aircraft definition should be revised to permit this because it would
require a level of training for sport pilots and repairmen (light-sport
aircraft) that is not commensurate with the privileges of those
certificates.
A commenter proposed that adjustable propellers be permitted on
light-sport aircraft, but that a private pilot license be required for
these aircraft. Light-sport aircraft are intended to be flown by
persons exercising privileges of a sport pilot. In addition, the FAA
notes that private pilots may fly aircraft with adjustable propellers;
however those aircraft are not considered light-sport aircraft.
A commenter asked if the FAA would require operators of existing
weight-shift-control and powered parachute aircraft to remove their in-
flight electronically adjustable propellers. If the operator wishes the
aircraft to be considered a light-sport aircraft, the aircraft may not
be equipped with an in-flight adjustable propeller. Under the
provisions of Sec. 21.191(i)(1), existing aircraft would have to meet
the definition of a light-sport aircraft in order to receive an
experimental certificate for the purpose of operating a light-sport
aircraft. The operator may be able to qualify for another experimental
certificate for a different purpose such as amateur-built.
Some commenters recommended that the light-sport aircraft
definition include particular aircraft that have constant-speed
propellers. Some commenters stated that variable-pitch propellers
provide performance benefits for smaller powerplants, and that this can
be a safety benefit. The FAA does not agree that these potential
benefits outweigh concerns discussed previously concerning the
complexity of operations and maintenance for light-sport aircraft.
Some commenters stated that seaplanes use reversible-pitch
propellers to assist in water handling characteristics and that the
definition of light-sport aircraft be modified to permit reversible-
pitch props on seaplanes. For the reasons stated above, the FAA
disagrees and will not permit the use of reversible pitch propellers
for seaplanes.
Some commenters requested that the light-sport aircraft definition
permit powered gliders to have in-flight adjustable propellers.
According to the commenters, powered gliders use a small motor and
propeller to prolong the cruise or soaring flight. The powerplant may
also be used for self-launching of the powered glider. A number of
different systems exist, ranging from a windmilling propeller, to
various autofeather propeller systems, to systems that fold the
propeller and stow the motor.
The FAA notes that reduction of drag is critical to safe operation
of unpowered and powered gliders. Powered gliders are a unique kind of
light-sport aircraft in that they use a propeller to carry the aircraft
to glide altitude, then the engine is turned off as the aircraft begins
soaring flight. If the propeller were not stowed or faired from the
cockpit to reduce drag, the aircraft's glide performance would be
greatly hindered.
The FAA further notes that propellers used on powered gliders are
simple and only allow the pilot to feather or retract the propeller
from the cockpit once the engine has been shut down. In addition,
potential failure of these systems does not add to pilot workload
during the more critical flight phases of takeoff or landing.
Therefore, the FAA believes that the use of an autofeathering propeller
system is appropriate for powered gliders. The proposed light-sport
aircraft definition is revised in the final rule to permit
autofeathering propeller systems on powered gliders.
Paragraph (9) Gyroplane Rotor System
The definition of light-sport aircraft in proposed Sec. 1.1
included gyroplanes. As discussed in the NPRM, the FAA did not propose
to issue special airworthiness certificates for gyroplanes in the
light-sport category. The FAA received numerous comments on the subject
of gyroplanes (or autogyros or gyrocopters), including a submittal from
the gyroplane trade association. Most of the comments concerned the
availability of dual-instruction, and the effect that terminating
current training exemptions would have on the availability of training
for gyroplane pilots. The FAA included gyroplanes in the light-sport
aircraft definition to permit a sport pilot to fly the small gyroplanes
that are currently available on the market. The FAA believes that the
training exemptions have permitted some increased availability of
gyroplane flight instructors because the exemptions allowed for a two-
seat gyroplane to be operated as an ultralight training vehicle by a
qualified ultralight instructor. Existing two-seat gyroplanes that had
been operated as training vehicles under the part 103 exemptions, and
which have been certificated under Sec. 21.191(i)(1), will be
permitted to conduct similar flight training operations for five years,
as provided for in Sec. 91.319 in this rule. The part 61 provisions of
the rule will permit an existing ultralight gyroplane flight instructor
to transition to become a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating.
The FAA anticipates that this 5-year transition period will permit the
gyroplane flight instructor pool to continue to expand to address the
concerns of most of the commenters.
Two-seat gyroplanes that have been issued experimental certificates
for the purpose of operating amateur-built aircraft under Sec.
21.191(g) may be operated in accordance with operating limitations
issued under Sec. 91.319. Generally, they may be used for sport and
recreation operations, including carrying a passenger, and receiving
personal flight training. Receiving personal flight training (obtaining
credit for flight instruction received in the aircraft that one owns)
was a concern for some commenters.
Many of the commenters were concerned that the consensus standards
for light-sport aircraft would add prohibitively expensive costs to
gyroplanes, and would result in fewer gyroplane flight instructors. The
FAA notes that there are four gyroplane designs that have been type
certificated. The FAA notes that many gyroplane designs are smaller and
lighter weight
[[Page 44800]]
than type certificated gyroplane designs. One commenter stated that
even with less mass, ultralight gyroplanes are not different from
existing gyroplanes and could be considered similar to gyroplanes that
have a standard airworthiness certificate. If it is true that existing
ultralight gyroplanes are similar to gyroplanes that have a standard
airworthiness certificate, then the FAA will work with any manufacturer
who desires to obtain a type certificate for a two-seat gyroplane that
meets existing airworthiness standards. Part 27 airworthiness standards
define an internationally recognized level of safety for small rotary
wing aircraft. A gyroplane design may also receive a primary category
type certificate, which will be issued if the FAA finds that the
aircraft complies with the applicable airworthiness requirements
approved under Sec. 21.17(f) and has no feature or characteristic that
makes it unsafe for its intended use.
Many of the commenters who called for the special light-sport
aircraft airworthiness certificate for gyroplanes referred to the
simple design and operation of flight controls. The FAA acknowledges
that this is a reason for permitting sport pilots to fly gyroplanes,
and for that reason the FAA included gyroplanes in the light-sport
aircraft definition. However, the FAA does not agree that this
operational simplicity would apply to design and performance criteria
for the light-sport aircraft gyroplane design. Complicating design
factors for gyroplanes include the location of thrust and lift lines
with respect to the center of gravity; horizontal and vertical
stabilizer size and location; and effects of turbulence. Larger
gyroplanes have greater inertia, which makes the aircraft less
sensitive to the relative effects of these factors. The FAA believes
that the dynamics of a rotary wing aircraft and the light weight of
existing two-seat ultralight gyroplanes require a design standard for
structural integrity and aircraft stability that may add prohibitively
expensive costs to gyroplanes. One commenter expressed doubt that the
ultralight gyroplane industry would agree upon a design standard.
The FAA reviewed gyroplane accident statistics in the NTSB's
electronic database. The data show 70 fatal accidents in the years 1983
through 1994 with mechanical failures accounting for 12 of those
accidents. Data show 20 fatal accidents in the years 1995 through 2001,
and mechanical failures accounting for two of those accidents. This
data tends to support those commenters who state that gyroplane safety
is better served by increased availability of training rather than
different standards for design and performance of gyroplanes. Refer to
the discussion under ``VI.5.A.viii. Gyroplanes'' for details on how
this rule proposes to assure better training for sport pilots seeking a
gyroplane rating.
To summarize, the FAA stated in the NPRM that, for sport pilots
flying light-sport aircraft, the continued use of exemptions would
generally be inappropriate to allow aircraft larger than the limits in
part 103 to be used for flight training. At this time, the FAA is not
participating in developing consensus standards for gyroplanes, because
the FAA believes that, unlike other kinds of light-sport aircraft,
there are significant complex design issues for gyroplanes that are
unresolved by the industry. The simplicity of operation of gyroplanes
supports making this aircraft available to sport pilots. The need for
dual instruction in gyroplanes, and the scarcity of gyroplane
instructors, is reason for the FAA to issue training exemptions for the
gyroplane community. Including gyroplanes in the light-sport aircraft
definition will permit the continued construction of two-seat
gyroplanes that will support increased availability of gyroplane flight
instructors. If the gyroplane community is successful in developing a
design and performance consensus standard, and if service experience,
including accident data, demonstrates a marked difference between
ultralight gyroplanes and those that are built to that voluntary
consensus standard, then the FAA may revise the rule to permit
gyroplanes to receive the special airworthiness certificates in the
light-sport category. Otherwise, before the end of the 5-year period
during which aircraft certificated under Sec. 21.191(i)(1) may be used
for flight training for compensation, the FAA may consider if it will
continue to keep exemptions in place to allow flight instructors to
train sport pilots in gyroplanes issued experimental certificates.
Paragraph (10) Nonpressurized Cabin
The FAA did not receive any comments on the proposed requirement
for a light-sport aircraft to include a nonpressurized cabin, if
equipped with a cabin, in paragraph (10).
Paragraphs (11) Through (13) Landing Gear
Numerous commenters requested that the FAA revise the proposed
definition of a light-sport aircraft to permit retractable landing
gear. The FAA reiterates its original position that for aircraft other
than gliders, retractable landing gear is inconsistent with the
simplicity of the light-sport aircraft, and the training requirements
for the sport pilot.
The FAA received many comments requesting that the light-sport
aircraft definition allow for simple mechanical retractable landing
gear. Some commenters requested that specific existing aircraft that
have simple mechanical retractable landing gear be eligible to be a
light-sport aircraft. They noted these aircraft would otherwise satisfy
the FAA's proposed definition of light-sport aircraft. The reasons
stated by commenters for permitting light-sport aircraft to have
retractable landing gear included--the safety benefit for emergency
landings on water or rough fields; that speed limitations make the
performance restriction of a fixed gear redundant; that training and
endorsement for pilots under existing Sec. 61.31(e) adequately
prepares pilots to operate aircraft with retractable landing gear; that
the slow speed of light-sport aircraft will naturally limit damage in
event of an inadvertent gear-up landing; that gear-up landings are not
an uncommon occurrence; and that mechanical retractable landing gear is
inherently simple compared to electrical, hydraulic, or pneumatically
actuated systems. The FAA disagrees that aircraft other than gliders
should have simple mechanical, or any other type of, retractable
landing gear for the reasons stated above.
A commenter asked the FAA to define its safety concern for not
permitting light-sport aircraft to have retractable landing gear. The
FAA does not expect retractable gear would improve the safety of a
light-sport aircraft. The FAA believes that retractable landing gear
add to pilot workload, particularly during the critical takeoff and
landing phases of flight. Further, the addition of retractable landing
gear would introduce the potential for gear failure. Therefore, the FAA
believes that allowing the use of retractable landing gear on light-
sport aircraft other than gliders would provide no safety benefit for
powered airplanes while adding to the operational and mechanical
complexity of the aircraft.
Many of these commenters stated their position that retractable
landing gear does not add to aircraft complexity while helping to
reduce drag and increase aircraft performance. The FAA disagrees and
notes that retractable gear adds complexity as discussed above. The FAA
notes that retractable landing gear are designed to enhance the
performance of aircraft by reducing drag. This performance improvement
is typically attained at operational speeds that exceed the performance
limitations
[[Page 44801]]
for light-sport aircraft. Several commenters proposed alternative rule
language to permit simple mechanical retractable landing gear, and to
define repositionable landing gear. As stated above, the FAA is not
revising the light-sport aircraft definition to permit retractable
landing gear on aircraft other than gliders. The FAA discusses
repositionable landing gear later in this section.
Some commenters proposed to permit simple mechanical retractable
landing gear for specific makes and models of aircraft, which would
otherwise satisfy the proposed light-sport aircraft definition. Other
proposed exceptions included replica fighter aircraft, and existing
classic aircraft. The FAA does not agree for the reasons stated
elsewhere in this section.
A commenter submitted a description of an existing aircraft
mechanical retractable landing gear, with a pneumatic gear position
indicating system. The FAA believes that the system's complex
description justifies the FAA's position that it is inappropriate for
the light-sport aircraft.
Several commenters stated that it is discriminatory to permit
retractable landing gear for some kinds of light-sport aircraft but not
for others. The FAA explains below why it is allowing retractable
landing gear for gliders.
Several commenters stated that, by including a reference to landing
gear, the FAA does not include provisions for foot-launched aircraft,
such as hang gliders and powered paragliders in the light-sport
aircraft definition. The FAA does not consider these to be light-sport
aircraft. As stated in the proposed rule, the FAA specifically intended
to exclude from consideration as light-sport aircraft configurations in
which the engine and/or wing is mounted on the person operating the
aircraft, rather than a fuselage.
A commenter requested a definition of repositionable landing gear
that distinguishes it from retractable landing gear. The FAA notes that
for the purposes of light-sport aircraft, repositionable landing gear
is wheeled landing gear that allows an aircraft designed for operation
on water to take off and land from a hard surface and which may be
retracted on the ground to permit takeoff and landing on water.
Repositionable landing gear remains fixed in its position from takeoff
through landing. For aircraft intended for operation on water,
repositionable landing gear is acceptable for light-sport aircraft
because it does not add to mechanical or operational complexity.
In the proposed rule, the FAA had permitted repositionable landing
gear for seaplanes. The FAA had not intended to only permit
repositionable landing gear for fixed wing airplanes intended for
operation on water. Upon further consideration, the FAA has changed the
term ``seaplanes'' to ``aircraft designed for operation on water.''
This change in terminology is consistent with FAA's original intention
to permit powered parachutes and weight-shift-control aircraft to be
used for operation on water. It also removes the restrictions on
powered parachutes and weight-shift-control aircraft designed for
operation on water implied by the use of the term ``seaplanes.'' As
noted previously in the discussion of light-sport aircraft weight
limits, the FAA has also intended to permit the light-sport aircraft
definition to include flying boat aircraft. For this reason, the FAA
has added the term ``hull'' to paragraph (12) of the light-sport
aircraft definition.
Several commenters saw no difference between simple retractable
landing gear, and the repositionable landing gear that the FAA's
proposal would permit for seaplanes. The FAA disagrees. The FAA did not
intend to permit retractable landing gear for aircraft designed for
operation on water. The FAA believes that the repositionable landing
gear that will be permitted for light-sport aircraft that are designed
for operation on water is consistent with the FAA's original position
that sport pilots flying aircraft other than gliders should not have to
concern themselves with verifying the position of a light-sport
aircraft's landing gear.
Although no comments were received on the topic, FAA did not intend
for the definition of light-sport aircraft to preclude the installation
of skis. FAA believes that fixed skis are acceptable for light-sport
aircraft, and retractable skis are not acceptable for light-sport
aircraft.
Some commenters pointed out a need for provisions for a simple
retractable wheel for gliders that are light-sport aircraft. The FAA
agrees that retractable landing gear is acceptable for use on light-
sport gliders. Most of the gliders that otherwise meet the definition
of a light-sport aircraft do make use of retractable landing gear.
Reduction of drag is of critical importance for gliders, because they
do not use power to generate airspeed and maintain lift. Because of
these considerations, the FAA is revising the definition of a light-
sport aircraft to permit a retractable landing gear (wheel or skid) for
gliders. The consensus standards for light-sport aircraft gliders
should assure that the retractable landing gear will be a simple
mechanically operated system.
Changes
The words, ``since its original certification has continued to meet
the following'' are added to the introductory text of Sec. 1.1. The
reasons for this are discussed in the section titled ``Modification of
Type-Certificated Aircraft to Meet the Light-Sport Aircraft
Definition.''
The FAA is restructuring the maximum takeoff weight requirements in
paragraph (1) of the definition of ``light-sport aircraft.'' In
addition, the FAA is changing the maximum takeoff weight from ``1,232
pounds (560 kilograms)'' to ``not more than 1,320 pounds (600
kilograms)'' and is adding ``1,430 pounds (650 kilograms) for an
aircraft designed for operation on water.''
For the VH requirements in paragraph (2), ``115 knots
CAS under standard atmospheric conditions'' is changed in the final
rule to read ``120 knots CAS under standard atmospheric conditions at
sea level.''
In paragraph (3) (regarding VNE for a glider), ``115
knots CAS'' is changed to ``120 knots CAS.''
Proposed paragraph (4) (regarding VS0) is not adopted in
the final rule.
Proposed paragraph (5) (regarding VS1) is adopted as
paragraph (4) in the final rule, with the following change. The words
``44 knots CAS'' are changed to read, ``45 knots CAS at the aircraft's
maximum certificated takeoff weight and most critical center of
gravity.''
Proposed paragraph (6), prescribing a maximum seating capacity of
two seats, is renumbered as paragraph (5) in the final rule and adopted
with the addition of a non-substantive change to include the words ``no
more than.''
Proposed paragraph (7), prescribing a single, non-turbine engine
for powered light-sport aircraft, is renumbered as paragraph (6) in the
final rule and modified by replacing the word ``nonturbine'' with
``reciprocating.''
The fixed or ground-adjustable propeller requirements for light-
sport aircraft in proposed paragraph (8) are divided into paragraphs
(7) and (8) in the final rule to distinguish between powered gliders
and other powered aircraft. In the final rule, paragraph (7) requires a
fixed or ground-adjustable propeller for powered aircraft other than a
powered glider. Paragraph (8) requires a fixed or autofeathering
propeller system for a powered glider.
Paragraph (9), regarding the gyroplane rotor system, is adopted
without change.
Paragraph (10), concerning a nonpressurized cabin, is adopted
without change.
Proposed paragraph (11) contained requirements for fixed landing
gear for
[[Page 44802]]
light-sport aircraft, with an exception permitting repositionable
landing gear for seaplanes. In the final rule, this is modified and
divided into paragraphs (11) and (12) in the final rule for clarity. In
the final rule, paragraph (11) requires fixed landing gear, except for
an aircraft intended for operation on water or a glider. Paragraph (12)
requires fixed or repositionable landing gear, floats, or a hull for an
aircraft intended for operation on water.
Paragraph (13) is added to permit fixed or retractable landing gear
for gliders.
Definition of ``Powered Parachute''
Several commenters requested that the powered parachute definition
be broadened to permit paragliders and paramotors, or other forms of
foot-launched aircraft. Some commenters were opposed to identifying
these aircraft as powered parachutes. The FAA does not intend light-
sport aircraft to include foot-launched aircraft because the variety of
these aircraft combined with the lack of an aircraft fuselage and an
aircraft geometry based on the individual characteristics of the
operator would not be consistent with the FAA's desire for training
aircraft built to specific design and performance standards.
Commenters proposed that the rule make provisions for land- and
sea-classes for powered parachutes. The proposed rules for aircraft
certification do not preclude this, assuming that appropriate aircraft
design consensus standards for both land and sea class powered
parachutes are developed. Similarly, the FAA did not intend to preclude
the installation of skis on powered parachutes. As stated previously,
the FAA believes that fixed skis are acceptable for light-sport
aircraft. The FAA will participate in the development of the consensus
standards for powered parachute design and performance, and will
determine when these standards are completed and acceptable for use.
Some commenters proposed specific language for the definition of a
powered parachute. The FAA agrees that the definition should make clear
that the wing of a powered parachute does not deploy unless the
aircraft is in motion, and is revising the definition to accommodate
this. Also, the definition is being revised to characterize the powered
parachute wing as ``flexible'' or ``semi-rigid'' instead of the term
``non-rigid'' that was used in the proposed rule. This change more
closely represents current designs for powered parachutes. In the
proposed rule, the definition described the wing as ``* * * inflat[ing]
into a lifting surface when exposed to a wind.'' The definition is
revised to state ``* * * the wing is not in a position for flight until
the aircraft is in motion* * *'' to more correctly correspond to
powered parachute operational practice. The language in the proposed
definition stated that the engine is an integral part of the aircraft.
The definition is revised to specify that the engine is a part of the
fuselage, as was intended by the FAA. Also, the revised definition
specifies that the seats are a part of the fuselage. That is consistent
with current designs and was intended by the FAA. The language in the
proposal did not address this consideration.
A commenter proposed that the definition identify different classes
of powered parachutes, including utility or commercial. The FAA notes
that powered parachutes will not be issued type certificates. Aircraft
used for commercial purposes typically have a type certificate based on
compliance with the airworthiness standards and certification
procedural requirements contained in 14 CFR. The FAA intends that
experimental and special light-sport aircraft be limited to activities
generally considered to be sport and recreation. The operating
limitations for experimental and special light-sport aircraft will
generally prohibit these aircraft from being used for commercial
purposes.
The FAA received comments that the definition for powered parachute
aircraft should not be limited to aircraft with a fuselage. The FAA
does not agree for reasons stated in the proposed rule and notes that
to remove this restriction would permit foot-launched vehicles, such as
powered paragliders, to be considered light-sport aircraft. The FAA
retains the requirement for a fuselage in the definition.
Changes
The proposed rule stated: ``A powered parachute means a powered
aircraft that derives its lift from a non-rigid wing that inflates into
a lifting surface when exposed to a wind.'' This is changed to state:
``A powered parachute means a powered aircraft comprised of a flexible
or semi-rigid wing connected to a fuselage so that the wing is not in
position for flight until the aircraft is in motion.''
The proposed definition also stated: ``A powered parachute is
propelled by an engine that is an integral part of the aircraft and is
controlled by a pilot within a fuselage that is suspended beneath the
non-rigid wing.'' The definition is changed to state: ``The fuselage of
a powered parachute contains the aircraft engine, a seat for each
occupant and is attached to wheels or floats.''
Definition of ``Weight-Shift-Control Aircraft''
Several commenters proposed alternative definitions for the weight-
shift-control aircraft that would permit rigid wings with ailerons and
rudder control. One commenter noted that the consensus standard for
weight-shift-control aircraft that is being developed makes provisions
for rigid-wing aircraft. The commenter believes that this is a good
feature. The FAA's definition identified ``* * * a framed, pivoting
wing * * *.'' A rigid wing is beyond what the FAA intended for these
aircraft. The FAA intended for the weight-shift-control aircraft
classification to address only flex-wing aircraft. The definition is
being revised to clarify this by specifically indicating that the
aircraft is ``controllable only in pitch and roll.''
A commenter questioned the FAA's objective in making a
classification for weight-shift-control aircraft. The FAA believes that
weight-shift-control aircraft should be distinguished not only by their
use of flexible wings and weight shift for flight control, but also by
the aircraft response to a pilot input. Pilot input is applied to a
control bar that is a rigid wing member. The rigid wing member is
limited to translation in a lateral plane that is either push forward
(aircraft nose up)/pull aft (aircraft nose down), or push left
(aircraft turn right)/push right (aircraft turn left). The former
motions control aircraft pitch; the latter motions control aircraft
roll. These motions cause aircraft response in the opposite sense for a
conventional three-axis-control aircraft. The training for sport pilots
to operate a weight-shift-control aircraft is based on these
assumptions.
A commenter stated that the definition of a weight-shift-control
aircraft should more correctly address control by changing the
direction of wing lift, rather than changing the aircraft center of
gravity location. The commenter also noted that if aircraft center of
gravity location is calculated with respect to a fuselage station, then
the pilot control inputs do not change the airplane center of gravity
location. The FAA agrees with the commenter, and the weight-shift-
control aircraft definition is revised to indicate that for flight
control the center of gravity location is considered in relation to the
wing.
The FAA did receive some comments that the definition for weight-
shift-control aircraft should not be limited to
[[Page 44803]]
aircraft with a fuselage. The FAA does not agree for reasons stated in
the proposed rule and notes that to remove this restriction would
permit foot-launched vehicles, such as powered or unpowered hang
gliders, to be considered light-sport aircraft. The FAA has retained
the requirement for a fuselage.
The FAA is working with the weight-shift-control aircraft technical
committee of ASTM. The FAA has discussed with this group that the
definition of weight-shift-control aircraft should be limited to two-
axis-control aircraft, in which the wing pitch attitude may vary, and
the wing position may be moved about the longitudinal axis of the
aircraft. The definition of weight-shift-control aircraft precludes yaw
control by vertical surfaces, or hinged control surfaces such as a
rudder or ailerons to distinguish these aircraft from airplanes.
Changes
The proposed definition of weight-shift control aircraft stated:
``Weight-shift-control aircraft means a powered aircraft with a framed
pivoting wing and a fuselage that is controllable in pitch and roll
only by the pilot's ability to change the aircraft's center of
gravity.'' This is changed to state: ``Weight-shift-control aircraft
means a powered aircraft with a framed pivoting wing and a fuselage
controllable only in pitch and roll by the pilot's ability to change
the aircraft's center of gravity with respect to the wing.''
The FAA is also adding to the definition the following sentence:
``Flight control of the aircraft depends on the wing's ability to
flexibly deform rather than the use of control surfaces.''
V.2. Part 21--Certification Procedures for Products and Parts
Section 21.175 Airworthiness Certificates: Classification
A few commenters recommended that light-sport aircraft be issued
standard airworthiness certificates. The FAA agrees that a light-sport
aircraft may be issued a standard airworthiness certificate if it meets
the requirements of the airworthiness standards under Sec. 21.175(a).
But an aircraft issued a standard airworthiness certificate requires a
type certificate for its design, and usually a production certificate
to be manufactured. Any light-sport aircraft not manufactured under a
type certificate cannot be issued a standard airworthiness certificate.
One commenter recommended that light-sport be added as a category
of airworthiness certificate. The FAA agrees in part, but, as proposed
in the NPRM and adopted in this final rule, determines that light-sport
aircraft will be added as a category under special airworthiness
certificate. Aircraft may receive a special airworthiness certificate
in two separate ways. First, an aircraft may receive a special
airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category if that aircraft
meets a consensus standard. Second, if a light-sport aircraft does not
meet a consensus standard, the owner may obtain an experimental
certificate for it.
One commenter recommended retaining experimental as a purpose, and
not as a classification, on the special airworthiness certificate. The
FAA disagrees. Taking this action would not allow the FAA to
distinguish the various purposes for which experimental certificates
are issued. Also, this action was not proposed and is outside the scope
of this rulemaking.
A few other commenters recommended that light-sport aircraft be
required to have type certificates. One purpose of this rule is to
provide for increased safety without substantially increasing the
burden on the industry. Imposing type design requirements would add
substantially to the cost of producing aircraft. A type certificate
will not be necessary for light-sport aircraft that are certificated as
special light-sport aircraft or experimental light-sport aircraft. They
are issued airworthiness certificates with operating limitations that
provide an appropriate level of safety for these aircraft. However, if
the manufacturer of a light-sport aircraft chooses to apply to the FAA
and demonstrates the appropriate level of compliance with the existing
regulations, it may obtain a type certificate for its light-sport
aircraft.
Finally, upon further review, the FAA is correcting the wording of
paragraph (b) to remove the word ``categories'' and the words
``experimental airworthiness certificate'' are corrected to read
``experimental certificate.'' This is necessary because all of the
items in the list are not categories of special airworthiness
certificates, and the experimental certificate does not indicate the
airworthiness standards that the aircraft meets.
Changes
In paragraph (b), the word ``categories'' is removed, and the words
``experimental airworthiness certificate'' are corrected to read
``experimental certificate.''
Section 21.181 Duration [of Airworthiness Certificates]
Several commenters agreed with the FAA's position that the aircraft
owner is ultimately responsible for the airworthiness of the light-
sport aircraft. These commenters also assumed that the FAA could take
certificate action against the holder of the airworthiness certificate
if necessary. The FAA discussed certificate action in the NPRM, but
realizes that the proposed rule would not have provided a sufficient
regulatory means to invalidate the airworthiness certificates issued to
these aircraft. The FAA is therefore adopting language to include
several limitations to the duration of the airworthiness certificate.
The proposed rule would have revised paragraph (a)(1) to include
requirements for special airworthiness certificates in the light-sport
category. The FAA has decided not to amend (a)(1) but to move the
proposed requirements for maintaining a valid special airworthiness
certificate in the light-sport aircraft category to new paragraph
(a)(3) (and redesignate proposed (a)(3) as (a)(4)). The new paragraph
clarifies that those requirements must be continuously met to maintain
the validity of the airworthiness certificate. The paragraph indicates
that the aircraft must meet the definition of a light-sport aircraft;
conform to its original configuration, except for authorized
alterations; have no unsafe condition or be likely to develop an unsafe
condition; and be registered in the United States. If a special light-
sport aircraft fails to meet the limitations listed under Sec.
21.181(a)(3), the special airworthiness certificate issued under Sec.
21.190(a) is no longer valid. However, the aircraft may still be
eligible for an experimental certificate issued under Sec.
21.191(i)(3) with a duration established by Sec. 21.181(a)(4).
Changes
Paragraph (a)(1) is retained without change in the final rule.
Proposed paragraph (a)(3), which discusses experimental certificates,
is redesignated as (a)(4), and a new paragraph (a)(3) addressing
special airworthiness certificates is added. New paragraph (a)(3) adds
requirements that the aircraft must meet to maintain eligibility for a
special airworthiness certificate.
Section 21.182 Aircraft Identification
The FAA received no comments on this section.
[[Page 44804]]
Changes
The proposal is adopted without change.
Proposed Sec. 21.186 (Adopted as Sec. 21.190--See Discussion Below)
Proposed Sec. 21.186 is renumbered as Sec. 21.190 in the final
rule. This is being done because Sec. 21.45, which addresses
privileges of the holder or licensee of a type certificate for a
product, refers to Sec. Sec. 21.173 through 21.189. Since light-sport
aircraft are not issued type certificates, the FAA is moving this
section on light-sport aircraft out of that group of sections to Sec.
21.190.
Section 21.190 Issue of a Special Airworthiness Certificate for a
Light-Sport Category Aircraft (Proposed as Sec. 21.186)
Paragraph (a) Purpose: The FAA received comments that suggested
using certification standards already acceptable in Europe and other
countries. The FAA opted for design and performance standards developed
through the consensus standard process. Those working on the consensus
standards are aware of the other certification standards and may adopt
all or a portion of them as deemed appropriate. See also discussions in
Sec. 1.1 above.
The FAA received several comments stating that gyroplanes also
should be allowed to obtain special airworthiness certificates in the
light-sport category under the terms of the proposed rule and not be
limited to experimental certificates. The commenters recommended that
gyroplanes have the same options as the other types of special light-
sport aircraft to obtain a special light-sport aircraft airworthiness
certificate. See the discussion of gyroplanes under the definition of
``light-sport aircraft'' in Sec. 1.1 above.
In addition, upon further review by the FAA, the words ``for sport
and recreation,'' ``flight training,'' and ``rental'' are deleted from
this paragraph because these intended operations are more appropriate
for inclusion under the operating rules of Sec. 91.327. As discussed
under that section, special light-sport aircraft may be used for these
types of operations or purposes.
Paragraph (b) Eligibility: Proposed paragraph (b)(1) would have
required that the registered owner of the aircraft provide the
documentation listed in paragraph (b). Upon further review, the FAA
realized that it was inappropriate to require the registered owner,
rather than the applicant for the airworthiness certificate, to submit
this information.
In many cases, the proposal may have resulted in the registered
owner needing to resubmit the information required by paragraph (b) and
the airworthiness certificate being needlessly re-issued with a change
in ownership. This would be an unnecessary administrative burden to the
owners, to the FAA, and to the manufacturers. As specified in Sec.
21.179, airworthiness certificates for all aircraft are transferred
with the aircraft. Accordingly, the term ``registered owner'' in
proposed paragraph (b)(1) is changed to ``applicant'' in the final
rule.
Proposed (b)(1)(i) would have required the submission of the
applicable pilot operating handbook. Upon further review, the FAA is
changing the name of the document to ``aircraft operating
instructions.'' The name change will distinguish it from a pilot
operating handbook, which is normally developed for small aircraft
certificated under part 23. The content of the aircraft operating
instructions will be governed by applicable consensus standard.
A few commenters recommended that the FAA revise paragraph (b)(1)
to allow light-sport aircraft manufacturers to apply for blocks of
registration numbers. This is unnecessary since it can be done under 14
CFR part 47, Aircraft Registration.
Proposed paragraphs (b)(1)(iv) and (b)(1)(v) were intended to
prevent past and future modifications that deviate from the consensus
standards. The final rule deletes the proposed requirement that the
registered owner produce statements regarding the past and future
modification. Instead, the final rule addresses this issue with a
limitation on the duration of the certificate's effectivity under Sec.
21.181(a)(3), discussed above. Also, the FAA is addressing alterations
to these aircraft in the operating limitations contained in Sec.
91.327. The intent of the limitation is to preclude unauthorized
alterations, repairs, and replacement parts. For additional discussion,
see Sec. 91.327(b)(5), and (b)(6) of the operating limitations
concerning alterations and repairs for these aircraft.
Proposed paragraph (b) is also revised to require an applicant to
submit the aircraft's flight training supplement. The FAA proposed that
the manufacturer of an aircraft intended for certification with a
special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category issue a
statement of compliance that identified the applicable pilot flight
training manual and state that it would be made available to any
interested person. The FAA is changing the term ``flight training
manual'' to ``flight training supplement,'' as this document is
intended to supplement the aircraft's operating instructions. To ensure
that all owners of these aircraft possess appropriate flight training
information to safely operate the aircraft, the FAA is requiring an
applicant for a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport
category to submit the aircraft's flight training supplement when
application for that certificate is made.
Proposed paragraph (b)(2) would have prevented an aircraft having
either a standard or a primary category airworthiness certificate from
obtaining a special light-sport aircraft airworthiness certificate.
This prohibition is broadened in the final rule to include not only
aircraft issued standard or primary airworthiness certificates, but
also those issued restricted, limited, or provisional airworthiness
certificates or equivalent foreign airworthiness certificates. In
broadening the rule's provisions, the FAA is using the same rationale
that it used in the proposed rule. In the preamble of the proposed
rule, the FAA stated that allowing aircraft with standard or primary
airworthiness certificates to obtain a special light-sport certificate
would be an unnecessary burden on the manufacturers, the operators, and
the FAA. The FAA also stated that there would be little interest in
``downgrading,'' as a special light-sport aircraft airworthiness
certificate would have more restrictive operating limitations. (See
discussion of proposed Sec. 21.186(b)(2).) The FAA is making these
changes for the same reasons. These provisions are not intended to
preclude a special light-sport aircraft airworthiness certificate from
being issued to an aircraft that has been previously issued an
experimental certificate.
A few commenters also recommended that the FAA revise paragraph
(b)(3) to allow use of designated airworthiness representatives (DARs)
at factories for the purpose of performing FAA inspections. DARs are
FAA designees and, as authorized, they may perform FAA inspections.
They may be employed by manufacturers. No revision is necessary to
allow DARs the authority to perform the inspections under (b)(3). See
also the discussion on DARs under Sec. 21.191(i)(1).
A commenter stated that requiring an individual FAA inspection
before issue of a special airworthiness certificate is unnecessary. The
FAA disagrees. The FAA, through an aviation safety inspector or a
designee, inspects all aircraft before issuing an airworthiness
certificate. An inspection is necessary to establish a minimum level of
safety for special light-sport aircraft. The inspection is a way of
determining that
[[Page 44805]]
the aircraft complies with the applicable consensus standard. As
discussed above, an inspection may be performed by an appropriately
authorized FAA designee.
Another commenter wanted to know if minimum equipment required
under Sec. 91.205 will apply to these aircraft. Section 91.205 only
applies to powered civil aircraft with standard category U.S.
airworthiness certificates. Instead, the appropriate minimum equipment
requirements for specific categories and classes of light-sport
aircraft will be established by the applicable consensus standard. In
addition, the operating rules in part 91 may establish specific
requirements for particular operations. See part 91 general issues
discussion on minimum equipment.
Another commenter recommended that the rule address alterations.
The FAA agrees and is revising the definition of ``consensus standard''
in Sec. 1.1 to permit authorized alterations. The FAA is also adding
Sec. 91.327(b)(5) and (b)(6) to better address repairs and
alterations. See the discussions of those sections.
A commenter questioned if Sec. 21.190(b) requires that the FAA
perform an inspection every time a different wing is used or installed
on a powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft. Owners of
these types of aircraft regularly change the wings to change the
performance and maneuverability of the aircraft. This allows the
aircraft to have different capabilities depending on what the owner
wants to do on the particular flight. The FAA does not consider an
inspection necessary each time a wing is installed or removed, if the
different wings have been inspected and authorized for installation on
the light-sport aircraft. If the manufacturer has authorized the
installation of the different wings and the initial inspections have
been done, the changing of wings does not need to be inspected again
for installation, except as part of the regular aircraft maintenance.
As discussed under part 45, the aircraft registration number must be
placed on the fuselage, but is not required on the wing. Therefore, if
the registration number is placed on the wing, it must have the same
registration number as the one placed on the fuselage. The FAA notes
that the inspection requirement under Sec. 21.190(b)(3) pertains to
the issuance of an airworthiness certificate only and not to inspection
after maintenance or repair activities.
Paragraph (c) Manufacturer's statement of compliance: Two
commenters recommended that the FAA stop all rulemaking activity until
it does a survey of manufacturers to determine how many would
retroactively issue statements of compliance for a special
airworthiness certificate. The FAA disagrees. The rule permits a
manufacturer to issue a statement of compliance for any aircraft
manufactured prior to the effective date of the rule. Therefore, each
manufacturer would make a business decision whether to issue a
retroactive statement of compliance.
Several commenters recommended delaying the effective date of the
rule until the consensus standards are issued. Several other commenters
said the proposal should be re-opened for comment when the consensus
standards are developed. The FAA disagrees and notes that there are
adequate opportunities for the public to participate in the development
of the consensus standards. Also, alternative consensus standards may
be developed and presented to the FAA for consideration. Any consensus
standards accepted by the FAA will constitute one means, but not the
only means, of complying with the rule. This is discussed under the
definition of ``consensus standard'' in Sec. 1.1.
In the NPRM, under paragraph (c)(4) (now (c)(3)), the FAA referred
to a ``quality system.'' This was intended to be consistent with other
references to a ``quality assurance system'' in the NPRM. In the final
rule, paragraph (c)(3) has been revised accordingly.
Several commenters recommended that the pilot operating handbook
and maintenance and aircraft operating instructions comply with the
consensus standard. The FAA agrees, and the final rule, under Sec.
21.190(c)(4), includes the requirement that both the aircraft operating
instructions and maintenance and inspection procedures comply with the
consensus standard. As discussed under Sec. 1.1 above, the FAA is
changing the term ``pilot operating handbook'' to ``aircraft operating
instructions.''
A few commenters recommended that the pilot flight training manual
be deleted from the list of items that need to be submitted in proposed
paragraph (c)(5) (now (c)(4)). The FAA disagrees. These commenters
stated that this information is normally provided by the FAA or another
third party. The FAA agrees that a person other the manufacturer may
develop this manual. However, the manufacturer must provide this manual
if the aircraft model is to be eligible for the special airworthiness
certificate in the light-sport category because it provides specific
training information necessary for a make and model endorsement. In
addition, in final rule paragraph (c)(4), the term ``flight training
manual'' is changed to ``flight training supplement.'' This is being
done to more clearly indicate that this document supplements the
aircraft operating instructions.
Several commenters suggested that the manufacturer's system for
monitoring and correcting unsafe conditions comply with the consensus
standard. The FAA agrees. The FAA intended that the continued
airworthiness system meet the consensus standard, as evidenced by
including this requirement in Sec. 1.1 under the definition of
``consensus standard'' in the proposed rule. Proposed Sec.
21.186(c)(6) would only have required that the manufacturer identify
its system for monitoring and correcting safety-of-flight issues in the
statement of compliance. The final rule, under Sec. 21.190(c)(5),
requires that the manufacturer's continued airworthiness system comply
with an identified consensus standard. Additionally, the final rule
clarifies that the process the manufacturer will use to monitor and
correct safety-of-flight issues will include the issuance of safety
directives.
Some commenters recommended that there be independent third-party
audits of manufacturer compliance with consensus standards, including
those dealing with monitoring of continued operational safety. The FAA
believes that the manufacturer's statement of compliance is appropriate
for determining whether a light-sport aircraft meets the consensus
standards. Past experience with construction of non-type-certificated
aircraft that meet the definition of light-sport aircraft has not
indicated a need for significant FAA oversight. The FAA accepts that a
manufacturer can participate in a system that includes voluntary third-
party audits, but there is no requirement in this rule for these
audits. The FAA generally will not perform compliance evaluations of
these manufacturers. Note that manufacturers will, however, have to
comply with any audit requirements defined in the consensus standards.
A commenter wanted the FAA to establish criteria for a third party
to use to conduct compliance audits within industry standards. As
stated above, the FAA is not requiring third-party audits of
manufacturers. However, the consensus standards may establish criteria
for audits to be performed.
Another commenter states that FAA oversight of the consensus
standards is not clear once the FAA has accepted them. The FAA agrees
that more clarification is needed and has added
[[Page 44806]]
more detail on FAA participation in consensus standards in Sec. 1.1,
as discussed above.
In proposed paragraph (c)(8), the FAA proposed that the
manufacturer test its aircraft in accordance with a production
acceptance test procedure established in the consensus standard. The
FAA is modifying the final rule (now (c)(7)) to specify that these
production and acceptance test procedures include both ground and
flight tests. Production acceptance tests are also discussed in the
definition of ``consensus standard'' in Sec. 1.1.
Paragraph (d) Imported light-sport aircraft: A few commenters
recommended that manufacturers in other countries meet the same
consensus standards that the United States-manufactured aircraft must
meet. Other commenters recommended that imported aircraft be issued a
special airworthiness certificate without meeting the consensus
standards, if the country of origin considered the aircraft airworthy.
The proposed rule would have required all aircraft, regardless of the
country of manufacture, to meet a consensus standard. This provision is
retained in the final rule. This ensures a uniform level of safety for
these aircraft, regardless of the country of manufacture. The FAA may
accept a consensus standard developed in another country.
One commenter questioned whether foreign-manufactured ultralights
would be eligible for a special light-sport aircraft airworthiness
certificate, or whether they would have to be imported as experimental
aircraft. As stated in paragraph (d), foreign-manufactured aircraft are
eligible for a special light-sport aircraft airworthiness certificate.
These aircraft must meet the same eligibility requirements as U.S.-
manufactured aircraft and an applicant seeking a special airworthiness
certificate for a light-sport category aircraft must also submit a
manufacturer's statement of compliance. The FAA notes that these
aircraft must not have been issued a foreign airworthiness certificate
equivalent to a U.S. standard, primary, restricted, limited, or
provisional airworthiness certificate. A foreign-manufactured
ultralight would, therefore, not necessarily have to be imported as an
experimental aircraft.
The FAA notes that in the regulatory text of paragraph (d),
references to ``imported light-sport aircraft'' are changed to ``light-
sport aircraft manufactured outside the United States'' Since a light-
sport aircraft could be issued an airworthiness certificate in the
light-sport category long after the aircraft has been physically
imported into the United States, the FAA is revising the term
``imported light-sport aircraft'' to ``light-sport aircraft
manufactured outside the United States.'' This change clarifies that an
applicant for an airworthiness certificate for an aircraft manufactured
outside the United States must provide the evidence specified in
paragraph (d) whenever an application for an airworthiness certificate
under Sec. 21.190 is made. In addition, references to ``import'' and
``export'' are removed, since the use of these terms is redundant when
referring to bilateral agreements.
Proposed paragraph (d)(1) would have required evidence that the
imported light-sport aircraft was manufactured in a country with which
the United States had an agreement for import or export of that
particular product. The FAA has determined that the proposed rule
language would unduly limit the number of exporting countries. To ease
this restriction, the FAA has determined that the existence of a
Bilateral Airworthiness Agreement (BAA) concerning airplanes or a
Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement (BASA) with associated
Implementation Procedures for Airworthiness (IPA) concerning airplanes,
or equivalent airworthiness agreement, provides a suitable basis for
issuing an airworthiness certificate for aircraft manufactured outside
the United States. Any BAA, BASA with an IPA, or equivalent
airworthiness agreement concerning airplanes between the country of
export and the United States is sufficient, even if the agreement does
not address light-sport aircraft. These agreements establish a working
history and relationship between the countries, even though light-sport
aircraft may not be specifically addressed in the agreement. These
bilateral agreements provide a means by which the FAA could, if
necessary, seek assistance from the local Civil Aviation Authority
(CAA) on any light sport aircraft problems dealing with production,
continued airworthiness, or other matters needing investigation or
analysis.
Proposed paragraph (d)(2) would have required evidence that the
make and model of the aircraft manufactured outside of the United
States is eligible for an airworthiness certificate or flight authority
in the country of manufacture. The final rule removes the words ``make
and model.'' As the provisions of the rule address specific aircraft,
the use of the term ``make and model'' is redundant. The FAA is also
adding the words ``or other similar certification'' to recognize
additional methods of providing evidence of airworthiness certification
in the country of manufacture. Special light-sport aircraft imported
into the United States may meet other national certifications for which
there may not be an equivalent in the United States.
The FAA is deleting proposed paragraph (d)(3) that required that
the civil aviation authority of the country of export to determine that
the aircraft is in a condition for safe operation. This requirement is
deleted because an inspection by a foreign CAA is redundant. Special
light-sport aircraft will be inspected as part of the process for
issuing an airworthiness certificate under paragraph (b)(3).
Changes
Paragraph (a): The FAA is changing the paragraph caption of
paragraph (a) to read ``Purpose.'' Elsewhere in the paragraph, the
words ``for sport and recreation,'' ``flight training,'' and ``rental''
are deleted.
Paragraph (b): In paragraph (b)(1), the term ``a registered owner''
is changed to ``an applicant,'' and the word ``submit'' is changed to
``provide.''
In paragraph (b)(1)(i) ``applicable pilot operating handbook'' is
changed to ``the aircraft's operating instructions.''
In paragraph (b)(1)(ii), ``applicable maintenance and inspection
procedures'' is changed to ``the aircraft's maintenance and inspection
procedures.''
The provisions of proposed paragraphs (b)(1)(iv) and (v) are not
adopted. The intent of these provisions is now addressed in Sec.
91.327.
In the final rule, new paragraph (b)(1)(iv) states that an
applicant must provide the FAA with ``the aircraft's flight training
supplement.''
In paragraph (b)(2), ``in the standard or primary category'' is
revised to include aircraft with restricted, limited, or provisional
airworthiness certificates.
Paragraph (c): The paragraph was reworded and reorganized for
improved clarity as follows:
Proposed paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) are combined so that (c)(1)
now includes ``the consensus standard used.''
Proposed paragraph (c)(3) is redesignated as (c)(2) and revised
with no substantive change.
Proposed paragraph (c)(4) is redesignated as (c)(3) and revised.
The term ``quality system'' is changed to ``quality assurance system.''
Proposed paragraph (c)(5) is redesignated as (c)(4) and
reorganized. In addition, the term ``applicable pilot operating
handbook'' is changed to ``aircraft operating instructions,'' and
``pilot flight training manual'' is
[[Page 44807]]
changed to ``aircraft flight training supplement.''
Proposed paragraph (c)(6) is redesignated as (c)(5) and is revised.
Paragraph (c)(5) now states that the manufacturer will monitor and
correct safety-of-flight issues, rather than identify a document to
that effect. The paragraph also includes the requirement that the
continued airworthiness system comply with the consensus standard and
that the process to monitor and correct safety-of-flight issues will
include the issuance of safety directives.
Proposed paragraph (c)(7) is redesignated as (c)(6).
Proposed paragraph (c)(8) is redesignated as (c)(7) and is
reorganized and revised. The paragraph now includes the requirement
that the manufacturer will ground and flight test the aircraft.
Paragraph (d): The paragraph heading is changed from ``Imported
light-sport aircraft'' to ``Light-sport aircraft manufactured outside
the United States.''
The words ``imported,'' ``import,'' and ``export'' are removed in
the final rule, and the words ``manufactured outside the United
States'' are used.
In the introductory text, the words ``registered owner'' are
changed to ``applicant.''
Paragraph (d)(1) includes more specific language regarding the
types of international agreements that are required for aircraft
manufactured outside of the United States to be certificated as special
light-sport aircraft.
In paragraph (d)(2), the words ``make and model'' are removed; the
words ``flight authority'' are changed to ``flight authorization;'' and
the words ``other similar certification'' are added.
Proposed paragraph (d)(3) is deleted.
Section 21.191 Experimental Certificates
Paragraph (i) Operating light-sport aircraft: The proposed rule
made several references to ``for the purpose of sport and recreation
and flight training.'' These are not purposes related to the
certification of light-sport aircraft, but are operational privileges
and limitations. Therefore, all references to ``sport and recreation''
or ``flight training'' are removed from this section and addressed in
the requirements for operating limitations set forth in part 91.
Proposed Sec. 21.191(i)(1) would have permitted a light-sport
aircraft with an experimental certificate to be used for training for
compensation or hire until 36 months after the effective date of the
regulation. Currently, two-seat ultralight vehicles are not permitted
to be operated under part 103, but can be used for flight training for
compensation or hire under exemptions to part 103. Because these
provisions affect the operation, rather than the certification, of the
aircraft, the rule language containing these provisions has been moved
to Sec. 91.319, and all comments addressing this issue are discussed
under that section.
As discussed in the following paragraphs, there were numerous
comments on the certification of existing two-seat ultralight vehicles.
A few commenters also expressed concern over the certification of older
unregistered ultralight-like aircraft. One commenter suggested that
these unregistered ultralight-like aircraft be ``grandfathered'' into
the rule. Paragraph (i)(1) effectively allows grandfathering if the
aircraft meets the requirements for the issuance of an experimental
certificate, and is safe for operation as a light-sport aircraft. There
is no requirement that these aircraft meet a consensus standard.
Another commenter stated that requiring that certain documents, such as
operating instructions and inspection procedures manuals, for
certification of older unregistered ultralight-like aircraft would be a
problem. Owners may no longer possess or be able to obtain these
documents. Paragraph (i)(1) has no requirements that the applicant have
any manufacturer documents in order to be issued an airworthiness
certificate.
Several commenters stated that they wanted to receive an
experimental certificate for their existing unregistered ultralight-
like aircraft without having to meet the ``51%-build'' requirement for
amateur-built aircraft. The ``51%-build'' requirement applies only to
amateur-built aircraft certificated under Sec. 21.191(g). There is no
``51% build'' requirement for existing unregistered ultralight-like
aircraft that are certificated under Sec. 21.191(i)(1).
Several commenters expressed concern over the process of issuing
airworthiness certificates for unregistered ultralight-like aircraft
and recommended measures to speed the process and prevent backlogs,
such as use of DARs. Another commenter wanted to know if the FAA would
allow representatives from private ultralight organizations to be
designated as inspectors, as is done in Great Britain. The FAA believes
that after the effective date of this final rule, a large number of
owners of existing two-seat ultralight-like aircraft operating under
training exemptions will apply for an experimental light-sport
certificate. The FAA believes that there are several thousand of these
aircraft that have not been registered. The FAA intends to rely
primarily on DARs to meet the initial need for issuing airworthiness
certificates on light-sport aircraft. The FAA is working with industry
to develop procedures to ensure that adequate numbers of DARs will be
available. The FAA will issue advisory material on how to apply to be a
DAR to certificate light-sport aircraft and how to get light-sport
aircraft registered and certificated.
The FAA recognizes that a number of administrative and resource
challenges will prevent the entire existing fleet of unregistered
ultralight-like aircraft from being certificated on September 1, 2004.
The FAA expects registration and certification to proceed as
expeditiously as circumstances permit once this final rule becomes
effective.
The FAA proposed that if a person sought to have an aircraft
certificated under Sec. 21.191(i)(1) that did not meet the definition
of ``ultralight vehicle'' specified in part 103, that person would have
to apply to register the aircraft with the FAA not later than 24 months
after the effective date of the rule. Under the proposal, a person
would then be required to have the aircraft inspected by the FAA (or a
designated representative of the Administrator) and have an
experimental light-sport certificate issued for the aircraft not later
than 36 months after the effective date of the final rule.
Under the final rule, the FAA is revising Sec. 21.191(i)(1) to
remove language that many believed would have allowed a person to
operate an aircraft, which exceeds the parameters of an ultralight
vehicle yet meets the definition of light-sport aircraft, without
registering that aircraft for a period of 24 months. The FAA is also
revising Sec. 21.191(i)(1) to avoid any implication that a person can
operate these aircraft for 36 months without an airworthiness
certificate. The revised language makes clear the original intent of
the proposal, which was that an experimental certificate will not be
issued for an aircraft under Sec. 21.191(i)(1) after August 31, 2007.
The FAA notes that, except as specified in Sec. 91.715, Sec.
91.203(a) prohibits a person from operating a civil aircraft unless it
has within it an appropriate and current airworthiness certificate and
a registration certificate (or application as per Sec. 47.31(b)). Once
an aircraft registration certificate has been issued by the FAA and
received by the applicant, a two-place training vehicle operated under
an exemption to part 103 is considered an aircraft. Operation of the
aircraft without an airworthiness certificate is a violation of
[[Page 44808]]
the provisions of Sec. 91.203(a) and the statutory provisions of 49
U.S.C. 44711(a)(1). Preamble language contained in the notice may have
misled some individuals operating under an exemption to part 103 to
believe that an aircraft could be operated without both a registration
certificate and an airworthiness certificate or that an aircraft issued
a registration certificate could be operated without an airworthiness
certificate. This impression may have been caused by using rule
language that included a compliance date based on making an application
for a registration certificate and not reiterating both the regulatory
and statutory requirement for an aircraft to be issued an airworthiness
certificate before it can be operated. The FAA should not have stated
in the notice that if you currently operate an ultralight vehicle under
a training exemption and have applied to the FAA for an aircraft
registration, you would be allowed to continue to operate under a
training exemption until you are issued an experimental, light-sport
airworthiness certificate. The FAA strongly encourages those persons
seeking airworthiness certificates for light-sport aircraft under
21.191(i)(1) to make the necessary arrangements to obtain airworthiness
certification to coincide with the issuance of the aircraft's
registration. Such action will minimize the amount of time that these
aircraft cannot be legally operated.
The FAA also notes that if an ultralight-like aircraft does not
meet the definition of an ultralight vehicle specified in part 103, or
is not operated in accordance with the provisions of an exemption under
part 103 to conduct flight training, the aircraft can not be operated
under part 91 until the aircraft has been registered with the FAA and
an airworthiness certificate has been issued for the aircraft.
Additionally, any person operating the aircraft must possess a current
and valid pilot certificate.
After reviewing the comments, the FAA believes it is necessary to
clarify that only aircraft that have not been previously issued U.S. or
foreign airworthiness certificates are eligible for the experimental
light-sport certificate under Sec. 21.191(i)(1). If an aircraft has
previously been issued any airworthiness certificate under part 21, it
is not eligible for an experimental light-sport certificate under Sec.
21.191(i)(1). Language has been added to Sec. 21.191(i)(1) in the
final rule to reflect his intent. Also see the discussion above,
``III.5.A. Comments on Ultralight Vehicles.''
Proposed paragraph (i)(2) addressed operating a light-sport
aircraft that was assembled from an eligible kit. Proposed Sec.
21.0193(e)(5) stated that the assembler of an aircraft, seeking
certification under paragraph (i)(2), had to provide the instructions
used to assemble the aircraft. There was no requirement in Sec.
21.191(i)(2) that a person had to assemble the aircraft in accordance
with the manufacturer's assembly instructions. In the final rule,
therefore, Sec. 21.191(i)(2) now includes the requirement that the
aircraft kit be assembled in accordance with the manufacturer's
assembly instructions that meet an applicable consensus standard.
A commenter stated that experimental certificates should not be
issued for light-sport aircraft that are not intended for experimental
use but are intended to be mass-produced on production line. The
commenter said that the FAA should create another status for aircraft
whose certification falls between current type-certificated aircraft
and true experimental aircraft. The FAA believes that the special
light-sport aircraft certificate serves this purpose. In ``experimental
certificate,'' the word ``experimental'' indicates that there is no
known standard for the design or production of the aircraft. Therefore,
the FAA believes that experimental certificates are appropriate for
kit-built aircraft.
The same commenter noted that proposed Sec. 21.191(i) would allow
certification of aircraft carrying persons for compensation or hire
that have never been shown to meet any design or production
airworthiness standard. The FAA notes that these aircraft will not be
permitted to be used for the full range of compensation or hire
operations normally carried out by aircraft with standard airworthiness
certificates. Operating limitations for these aircraft will restrict
their use, as specified in Sec. 91.319. The commenter also stated that
there is no rigid conformity requirement for kit-built aircraft
certificated under this section. The FAA disagrees and notes that an
applicant seeking to certificate a kit-built aircraft under Sec.
21.191(i)(2) must also comply with Sec. 21.193(e) and provide a
statement of compliance issued by the aircraft's manufacturer that
contains the information generally required by Sec. 21.190(c). The
commenter was also concerned that an operator of a special light-sport
aircraft could decide to obtain an experimental light sport certificate
when that operator no longer intends to comply with the more stringent
operating limitations of the special light-sport aircraft. The
commenter asserts that the operator could still engage in many of the
operations permitted for special light-sport aircraft without meeting
those more stringent limitations. The FAA disagrees. Operating
limitations specified in Sec. 91.319 for experimental light-sport
aircraft certificated under Sec. 21.191(i)(3) are more restrictive
than the operating limitations issued to special light-sport aircraft.
The FAA is deleting the requirement that aircraft certificated
under Sec. 21.191(i)(2) be assembled without the supervision and
quality system of the manufacturer. The FAA does not want to preclude
individuals seeking certification of these aircraft under this section
from obtaining the assistance of the manufacturer.
In paragraph (i)(3), the FAA is changing the reference to Sec.
21.190 from Sec. 21.186. In addition, the words ``sport and recreation
and flight training'' are deleted. These limitations are addressed in
operating limitations specified in Sec. 91.319.
A few commenters wanted the FAA to amend Sec. 39.1 to permanently
relieve experimental aircraft from airworthiness directives. The FAA
did not propose this action in the NPRM and considers it to be outside
the scope of this rule.
Changes
The proposed amendment to paragraph (h) is adopted without change.
Paragraph (i) is changed by removing the words ``for the purpose of
sport and recreation and flight training'' throughout.
Paragraph (i)(1) is changed to state that the paragraph applies to
light-sport aircraft that have ``not been issued an airworthiness
certificate under [part 21].''
In paragraph (i)(1), the references to the time a person must apply
for registration and receive an experimental certificate are removed
and replaced with the sentence, ``An experimental certificate will not
be issued under this paragraph for these aircraft after August 31,
2007.''Also in paragraph (i)(1), the allowable period for which the
aircraft may be used for compensation and hire for initial flight
training was moved to Sec. 91.319.
In paragraph (i)(2), the term ``eligible kit'' is changed to
``aircraft kit,'' and a reference to Sec. 21.193(e) is included to
clarify what constitutes an eligible kit. The paragraph is also changed
to specify that the aircraft must be assembled in accordance with the
manufacturer's assembly instructions that meet applicable consensus
standards. In addition, the requirement that the kit be
[[Page 44809]]
assembled without the supervision and quality system of the
manufacturer is deleted.
In paragraph (i)(3), the FAA is changing the reference to Sec.
21.190 from Sec. 21.186. In addition, the words ``sport and recreation
and flight training'' are deleted.
Section 21.193 Experimental Certificates: General
One commenter suggested that the proposal would not permit a
manufacturer to produce only kits. The FAA disagrees. The rule does not
contain such a limitation. As proposed, the manufacturer is required to
manufacture and assemble at least one complete aircraft of each make
and model before an airworthiness certificate is issued for a kit-built
aircraft under Sec. 21.191(i). The aircraft assembled by the
manufacturer must have been issued a special light-sport airworthiness
certificate. This provides evidence that the aircraft meets an
applicable consensus standard.
Other commenters recommended that the FAA clarify what an applicant
must provide to the FAA to show that the kit-built light-sport aircraft
was assembled in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. The
FAA agrees and has made changes to the final rule in response to these
comments. The changes to Sec. 21.191(i)(2) mentioned above require the
applicant to provide evidence that the aircraft was assembled in
accordance with the manufacturer's assembly instructions and that the
assembly instructions meet an applicable consensus standard.
One commenter questioned the need for the requirement that a
registered owner provide evidence that an imported aircraft kit was
manufactured in a country with which the United States had an agreement
for its import or export. The commenter noted that kit-built aircraft
would be classified as experimental light-sport aircraft under the
rule. The FAA disagrees. Kit-built experimental light-sport aircraft
certificated under Sec. 21.191(i)(2) must comply with consensus
standards. The FAA believes that all aircraft designed to a consensus
standard must be manufactured in a country with which the United States
has a BAA, BASA with an IPA concerning airplanes, or equivalent
airworthiness agreement, regardless of whether the aircraft is a kit or
a completed aircraft. The requirement in Sec. 21.193(e)(6) is similar
to that imposed under Sec. 21.190(d). The requirement specified in
Sec. 21.193(e)(6) is retained and modified in a manner similar to
Sec. 21.190(d) to better describe the applicable international
agreements. See discussion of Sec. 21.190(d).
Proposed paragraph (e)(5) would have required that the assembler of
a kit aircraft provide the assembly instructions. This requirement has
been removed; however, Sec. 21.191(i)(2) has been changed to require
that these aircraft be assembled in accordance with the manufacturer's
assembly instructions that meet an applicable consensus standard. Under
that section, the FAA does not specifically require that an applicant
submit manufacturer's assembly instructions; however, it may be
necessary for the applicant to present those instructions to show that
the kit was assembled in accordance with those instructions.
The FAA has added new Sec. 21.193(e)(5) to the final rule to
require that the assembler of a kit aircraft provide the aircraft
flight-training supplement. This is to assure that the assembler, who
must operate and test the aircraft according to the manufacturer's
instructions as part of the assembly process, is aware of any flight-
training requirements that the manufacturer may specify. This document
should also identify the set of aircraft to which the individual
aircraft belongs. This is consistent with requirements for a ready-to-
fly aircraft under Sec. 21.190(b)(1).
A few commenters requested direct assistance from the FAA in the
assembly and certification of their specific aircraft. This is outside
the scope of rulemaking. The FAA does not assist persons in the
assembly of aircraft. The FAA will, however, respond to questions
regarding the certification of aircraft.
Additionally, the FAA received comments pertaining to the
construction of kit-built light-sport aircraft and the FAA's control of
kit manufacturers. The FAA provides for the safety of the kit-built
aircraft through the inspection of the assembled aircraft prior to
issuing an experimental certificate. Each kit-built aircraft is
inspected prior to certification. An aircraft that is not in a
condition for safe operation will not be issued an experimental
certificate.
Changes
In paragraph (e), ``registered owner'' is changed to ``applicant.''
Paragraph (e)(1) is revised for clarity with no substantive change.
In paragraph (e)(2), ``applicable pilot operating handbook'' is
changed to ``the aircraft operating instructions.''
In paragraph (e)(3), ``applicable maintenance and inspection
procedures'' is changed to ``the aircraft maintenance and inspection
procedures.''
Paragraph (e)(4) is revised for clarity and to correct references
to Sec. 21.190 (which was proposed as Sec. 21.186). Also, the
paragraph is modified to require that assembly instructions must meet
an applicable consensus standard.
The provisions of proposed paragraph (e)(5) are not adopted.
Instead, its provisions have been revised and placed in Sec.
21.191(i)(2).
In the final rule, new paragraph (e)(5) adds the requirement to
provide the aircraft flight training supplement.
Proposed paragraph (e)(6) is revised to include more specific
language regarding the types of international agreements that are
required for an experimental light-sport aircraft to be certificated
from an aircraft kit manufactured outside the United States.
V.3. Part 43--Maintenance, Preventive Maintenance, Rebuilding, and
Alteration
V.3.A. Part 43--General Issues
The NPRM proposed to give repairmen (light-sport aircraft) the
authority to work on special light-sport aircraft without complying
with part 43. The proposal was based on the three factors--(1) special
light-sport aircraft would be very basic in design and construction;
(2) these aircraft, and parts installed on them, would not be FAA
approved; and (3) work could be performed on these aircraft under
operating limitations that would contain provisions similar to part 43.
The proposal would have required maintenance on these aircraft to be
performed in accordance with operating limitations. This parallels the
current requirement to have annual condition inspections on
experimental amateur-built aircraft performed in accordance with the
aircraft's operating limitations.
Several commenters expressed concern that there would be a
degradation of safety by excepting special light-sport aircraft from
part 43 maintenance performance standards and recording requirements.
One commenter specifically expressed concerns that safety would be
compromised without a maintenance standard and wanted part 43 to be
required, or equivalent standards included in the aircraft operating
limitations. The FAA agrees and is changing the rule to require
maintenance to be performed in accordance with part 43 for reasons
described below. These requirements will apply to repairmen, repair
stations, or mechanics when performing and recording work on special
light-sport aircraft.
[[Page 44810]]
After reviewing public comments on the definition of ``light-sport
aircraft'' in Sec. 1.1, the FAA is increasing the takeoff weight of
light-sport aircraft to allow incorporation of more reliable FAA-
approved type-certificated engines and propellers. As a result of that
change, the FAA anticipates that type-certificated engines and
propellers will be installed on special light-sport aircraft, the
majority of which will be used for flight training and rental.
The FAA wants to encourage the use of these type-certificated
products, as they will enhance safety and reliability of special light-
sport aircraft. This change necessitates more clearly established
maintenance performance and recording procedures, in part to address
work that may be performed to satisfy ADs issued on products installed
on these aircraft.
The need to perform and record maintenance on these aircraft in
accordance with part 43 was highlighted when, on September 3, 2002, the
FAA issued Airworthiness Directive 2002-16-07 on Bombardier-Rotax 912
and 914 series type-certificated engines. These engines may be used on
ultralight-like aircraft used for flight training and amateur-built
aircraft, the kinds of aircraft that may fall within the weight, speed,
and two-seat occupancy parameters of light-sport aircraft. The AD
demonstrates that it is reasonable to expect that some special light-
sport aircraft used for training and rental will be subject to ADs.
Generally, the changes in this rule require compliance with
Sec. Sec. 43.9, 43.12, and 43.13. Repairmen performing maintenance and
pilots performing preventive maintenance on light-sport special
aircraft will be held to the following:
The recording requirements in Sec. 43.9 for maintenance;
The falsification and alteration of records prohibitions
in Sec. 43.12; and
The performance requirements in Sec. 43.13, which
requires the repairman and pilot to do the work in accordance with the
manufacturer's instructions and states that the work performed must be
done in a way that the aircraft condition is equal to its original or
properly altered condition.
Other sections of part 43 are changed to address the newly created
sport pilots and repairmen (light-sport aircraft) under Sec. Sec.
43.9, 43.12, and 43.13. These changes will permit these persons to
perform maintenance in accordance with the provisions of part 43;
however, a person performing work equivalent to a major repair or a
major alteration on a non-FAA-approved product installed on a special
light-sport aircraft will not need to--
Use the repair and alteration form (FAA Form 337) required
by Sec. Sec. 43.5(b) and 43.9 (d);
Use the list of major repairs and major alterations in
part 43, appendix A, sections (a) and (b) to determine what constitutes
a major repair or major alteration; or
Record major repairs and major alterations as prescribed
in part 43, appendix B.
The use of Form 337 is not required because special light-sport
aircraft will be built to a consensus standard ``accepted'' by the FAA,
but not ``approved'' by the FAA. Since data used to comply with the
consensus standard will be accepted design data only, the FAA will not
require the use of approved data for major repairs or major
alterations, nor will the FAA require the use of a form that requires
the listing of ``approved'' data for a major repair or major alteration
of a special light-sport special aircraft. The FAA expects that the
consensus standards will address the identification and recording of
major repairs and major alterations for each category of light-sport
aircraft.
For major repairs and major alterations performed on FAA-approved
products installed on special light-sport aircraft, the recording
requirements to document major repairs and major alterations in part 43
will apply.
Another commenter expressed concern that communication and
navigation equipment required by part 91 would not be adequately
maintained. The FAA agrees this kind of equipment should be maintained
in accordance with part 91 and the applicable provisions of part 43 and
these requirements are now reflected in the rule.
Several commenters wanted part 43 to be amended to allow sport
pilots to perform preventive maintenance as defined in part 43. The FAA
agrees that sport pilots should be permitted to perform preventive
maintenance on certain light-sport aircraft. Therefore Sec. 43.3 is
revised to permit sport pilots to perform preventive maintenance, but
only on special light sport aircraft the pilot owns and operates.
V.3.B. Part 43--Section-by-Section Discussion
Section 43.1 Applicability
The FAA's response to comments regarding the applicability of part
43 to light sport aircraft are addressed in the discussion above. In
the final rule, paragraph (b) is revised to remove proposed language
stating that part 43 would not apply to any aircraft issued a special
airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category.
In addition, paragraph (d) is added to create exceptions for major
repairs and major alterations performed on products not produced under
an FAA approval installed on special light-sport aircraft. If the parts
are produced under an FAA approval, the exceptions in paragraph (d) do
not apply.
Changes
The introductory text of paragraph (a) is amended to include a
reference to the exception established by new paragraph (d).
Paragraph (b) is revised to remove the proposed exception for
special light-sport aircraft.
Paragraph (d) is added to address the performance of major repairs
and major alterations on special light-sport aircraft.
Section 43.3 Persons Authorized To Perform Maintenance, Preventive
Maintenance, Rebuilding, and Alterations
As stated above, Sec. 43.1 now includes maintenance performance
and recording requirements for special light-sport aircraft. In Sec.
43.3, paragraph (c) is revised to allow repairmen to perform
alterations as provided in part 65. This change is being made because
part 65 has been revised to permit repairmen (light-sport aircraft) to
perform alterations on special light-sport aircraft. Also, Sec.
43.3(g) is revised to allow the holder of a sport pilot certificate to
perform preventive maintenance on special light-sport aircraft, if he
or she owns or operates the aircraft.
The new maintenance privileges for sport pilots and repairmen
(light-sport aircraft) do not extend to work performed on type-
certificated aircraft that meet the definition of light-sport aircraft.
Sport pilots and repairmen (light-sport aircraft) will not be permitted
to perform preventive maintenance and maintenance on type-certificated
aircraft. This decision is based on the fact that they do not have the
same level of experience as persons who currently perform maintenance
and preventive maintenance on type certificated aircraft. The FAA
believes the amount of training required under this rule for sport
pilots and repairmen (light-sport aircraft) is not sufficient to permit
them to sign off maintenance-related tasks on more complicated type-
certificated aircraft and this lack of training would create additional
safety concerns.
The FAA wants to make it clear that, while an appropriately rated
sport pilot
[[Page 44811]]
may fly a type-certificated aircraft that meets the definition of
light-sport aircraft, only certificated airframe and powerplant
mechanics with inspection authorization and appropriately rated repair
stations must conduct the annual inspection and ensure compliance with
ADs and other inspections required to maintain a standard airworthiness
certificate or other special airworthiness certificate issued to a type
certificated aircraft.
Some commenters expressed confusion over what the term ``preventive
maintenance'' means. As defined in Sec. 1.1, preventive maintenance
means ``...simple or minor preservation operations and the replacement
of small standard parts not involving complex assembly operations.''
Preventive maintenance operations are listed in appendix A of part 43.
As the term pertains to special light-sport aircraft, preventive
maintenance may be performed by the holder of at least a sport pilot
certificate. That aircraft must be owned or operated by that pilot and
the work must be performed in accordance with the performance rules
specified in Sec. 43.13.
Experimental aircraft do not meet a recognized standard for
certification, and the FAA has not imposed the maintenance rules in
part 43 for the continuing airworthiness of these aircraft. Therefore,
the limitations on the performance of preventive maintenance in part 43
do not apply, and experimental aircraft may have preventive maintenance
performed by any individual.
Light-sport aircraft manufacturers are not included in the list of
persons authorized to perform maintenance, preventive maintenance,
rebuilding or alterations, or approve an aircraft for return to
service, because they are not required to hold an FAA-issued production
approval or repair station certificate. This lack of FAA certification
does not prevent the manufacturer from having FAA-certificated persons
on its staff who are authorized to perform maintenance and inspection
functions.
Changes
Paragraphs (c) and (g) of Sec. 43.3 are revised in the final rule
as discussed above.
Section 43.7 Persons Authorized To Approve Aircraft, Airframe, Aircraft
Engines, Propellers, Appliances, or Component Parts for Return to
Service After Maintenance, Preventive Maintenance, Rebuilding, or
Alteration
In Sec. 43.7, paragraph (g) is added to enable the repairman
(light-sport aircraft) with a maintenance rating to approve an aircraft
certificated as a special light-sport category aircraft for return to
service. This includes approving both special and experimental light-
sport aircraft for return to service after the performance of either an
annual condition inspection or a 100-hour inspection. It also includes
approving a special light-sport aircraft for return to service after
maintenance is performed on that aircraft.
Paragraph (h) is added to allow the holder of a sport pilot
certificate to approve a special light-sport aircraft for return to
service after performance of preventive maintenance as authorized in
Sec. 43.3(g).
For reasons similar to those discussed under Sec. 43.3, light-
sport aircraft manufactures are not authorized to approve aircraft for
return to service, unless otherwise certificated.
Changes
Paragraphs (g) and (h) are added to Sec. 43.7 as discussed above.
Section 43.9 Content, Form, and Disposition of Maintenance, Preventive
Maintenance, and Alterations Records (Except Inspections Performed in
Accordance With Part 91, Part 125, Sec. 135.411(a)(1), and Sec.
135.419 of This Chapter)
Section 43.9 is amended and reorganized for clarity. In the final
rule, the FAA is adding a new paragraph (d) using the language
presently at the end of paragraph (a) (beginning with the words ``In
addition to the entry required * * * ''). This new paragraph contains
the obligation for persons who perform major repairs and major
alterations on type-certificated aircraft to record that work as
prescribed in appendix B to part 43. As stated above, the FAA will not
require that major repairs and major alterations on non-FAA-approved
products installed on an aircraft certificated as a special light-sport
category aircraft meet these requirements. New paragraph (d) is being
established to facilitate the exception specified in Sec. 43.1(d)(1),
which states that the repair or alteration form specified in this
section is not required to be completed when work is performed on a
non-FAA-approved product. Major repairs and major alterations performed
on FAA-approved products must still meet the recording requirements in
part 43. For a complete discussion, see ``V.3.A. Part 43--General
Issues'' above.
In addition, although not related to the amendments for the
recording major repairs and major alterations, the FAA is taking this
opportunity to revise the heading of Sec. 43.9 and paragraph (c) to
remove the reference to part 123, which no longer exists.
Changes
The heading for Sec. 43.9 is revised to remove the reference to
part 123.
In paragraph (a), the concluding text (beginning with the words,
``In addition to the entry required * * * '') is designated as a new
paragraph (d). In addition, the words, ``required by this paragraph''
are changed to ``required by paragraph (a) of this section.''
In paragraph (c), the reference to part 123 is removed.
V.4. Part 45--Identification and Registration Marking
Section 45.11 General
Although not proposed in the NPRM, the FAA is including an
amendment to Sec. 45.11 in the final rule. The change is necessary
because current Sec. 45.11 sets forth a requirement that an aircraft's
identification plate must be secured either adjacent to and aft of the
rearmost entrance door or on the fuselage surface near the tail
surfaces. Powered parachutes and weight-shift-control aircraft have
neither entrance doors or tail surfaces. Therefore, the FAA is adding
an exception in a new paragraph (e) to address powered parachutes and
weight-shift-control aircraft. Identification plates on these aircraft
may be secured to the aircraft fuselage exterior so that they are
legible to a person on the ground.
Changes
Paragraph (a) is amended to add a reference to the exception in new
paragraph (e).
Paragraph (e) is added, as discussed above.
The changes were not proposed.
Section 45.23 Display of Marks; General
Section 45.23(b) sets forth the general requirements for displaying
registration marks (``N'' numbers) on an aircraft, as well as other
display markings for other types of aircraft. Although not originally
included in the proposed rule, the FAA is adopting a revision to Sec.
45.23(b) to respond to commenters' requests that light-sport aircraft
have additional markings identifying them as light-sport aircraft
similar to other marking requirements for experimental aircraft. This
change to Sec. 45.23 adds the requirement for special light-sport
aircraft certificated under Sec. 91.190 to include the mark ``light-
sport.'' The FAA emphasizes that aircraft having a standard
airworthiness certificate that
[[Page 44812]]
meet the definition of a light-sport aircraft are not required to have
the mark ``light-sport'' displayed on the aircraft. Aircraft that are
required to be marked ``experimental'' also are not required have the
mark ``light-sport'' displayed on the aircraft.
Changes
Paragraph (b) is revised to add light-sport aircraft to the list of
other aircraft to which the section applies. This amendment was not
proposed.
Section 45.27 Location of Marks; Nonfixed-Wing Aircraft
The FAA received several comments on the where marks should be
located on non-fixed-wing aircraft. Some commenters recommended that
the FAA require powered parachute owners to place markings on the
airframe and not the airfoil. One commenter requested that markings be
required on gas tanks. Another commenter wanted to be able to ``swap
out'' the wings on weight-shift-control aircraft, as they have multiple
wings that attach directly to one powered fuselage unit, and it only
takes minutes to change them. The FAA believes that all of these
commenters' concerns can be addressed by requiring that the markings be
placed on the fuselage, as that is a permanent structure of these
aircraft. The FAA has revised the rule language accordingly.
Another commenter requested that marks be required on the wing or
the canopy, as is done in Europe. The FAA will allow markings on the
wings or canopy if the operator wants to place them there; however,
they will not be required. As discussed above, the markings are
required on the fuselage. This allows the interchanging of wings
without having to have the wings and the fuselage recertificated as one
unit each time they are changed.
Changes
In paragraph (e), the words ``on any structural member or airfoil''
have been changed to ``on any fuselage structural member.''
Section 45.29 Size of Marks
Some commenters suggested that the rule allow experimental light-
sport aircraft to use 1.5-inch-high markings instead of 3-inch-high
markings already required for most similar types of aircraft. These
commenters noted that because some light-sport aircraft are constructed
using narrow tubular metal spars to form the aircraft's fuselage, there
is not sufficient area on the side of such aircraft to display 3-inch-
high markings. The FAA disagrees with these observations. Aircraft that
do not have the required surface area for the display of the required
3-inch-high markings may be modified easily to be in compliance with
this requirement through the installation of a plate on the side of the
aircraft large enough to accommodate the required markings. The FAA
does not believe that the markings for these aircraft should be smaller
than those required for other certificated aircraft. The FAA will
continue to require that all registered aircraft display at least 3-
inch-high markings.
Some commenters wanted all light-sport aircraft to display 12-inch
markings, regardless of the type of aircraft. The FAA disagrees that
all light-sport aircraft must display such marks. While most aircraft
are required to display 12-inch-high marks, part 45 allows for certain
types of aircraft and experimental aircraft with airspeeds under 180
knots CAS to display 3-inch-high marks. The size and speed of light-
sport aircraft does not necessitate the display of marks of a size more
appropriate for larger and faster aircraft.
Changes
The proposed rule is adopted without change.
V.5. Part 61--Certification: Pilots, Flight Instructors, and Ground
Instructors
V.5.A. Part 61--General Issues
V.5.A.i. SFAR No. 89 Conversion Table
As discussed above, the FAA proposed the sport pilot certification
provisions as Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) No. 89. Those
provisions now have been incorporated into the main body of part 61.
Please use the chart below to determine how the SFAR section numbers
correspond to part 61 section numbers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SFAR section Part 61 section
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. What is the purpose of this SFAR?... Sec. 61.1 Applicability and
definitions.
Sec. 61.301 What is the
purpose of this subpart?
Sec. 61.401 What is the
purpose of this subpart?
Sec. 61.213 Eligibility
requirements.
Sec. 61.215 Ground instructor
privileges.
3. When am I eligible for a certificate Existing Sec. 61.83,
under this SFAR?. Eligibility requirements for
student pilots, contains the
same requirements as the
proposed rule.
Sec. 61.305 What are the age
and language requirements for
a sport pilot certificate?
Sec. 61.403 What are the age,
language, and pilot
certificate requirements for a
flight instructor certificate
with a sport pilot rating?
5. Does this SFAR expire?.............. Not adopted in final rule.
7. Does a sport pilot certificate Existing Sec. 61.19, Duration
issued under this SFAR expire? of pilot and instructor
certificates, contains the
same requirements as the
proposed rule.
9. What is a light-sport aircraft?..... Sec. 1.1 General definitions.
11. Who is an authorized instructor?... Existing Sec. 61.1,
Applicability and definitions,
contains the same requirements
as the proposed rule.
13. Do regulations other than those Sec. 61.303 If I want to
contained in this SFAR apply to a operate a light-sport
sport pilot? aircraft, what operating
limits and endorsement
requirements in this subpart
must I comply with?
15. Must I hold an airman medical Sec. 61.3 Requirement for
certificate?. certificates, ratings, and
authorization.
Sec. 61.23 Medical
certificates: Requirement and
duration.
17. Am I prohibited from operating a Sec. 61.53 Prohibition on
light-sport aircraft if I have a operations during medical
medical deficiency? deficiency?
Student Pilot Certificate to Operate
Light-Sport Aircraft
31. How do I apply for a student pilot Existing Sec. 61.85,
certificate to operate light-sport Application, contains the same
aircraft? requirements as the proposed
rule.
33. (a), (b), and (c): What solo Sec. 61.87 Solo requirements
requirements must a student pilot for student pilots.
operating light-sport aircraft meet?
[[Page 44813]]
33. (d), (e), and (f): What solo Sec. 61.93 Solo cross-country
requirements must a student pilot flight requirements.
operating light-sport aircraft meet?
35. Are there any limits on how a Sec. 61.89 General
student pilot may operate a light- limitations.
sport aircraft? Sec. 61.23 Medical
certificates: Requirement and
duration.
37. How do I obtain privileges to Sec. 61.94 Student pilot
operate in Class B, C, or D airspace seeking a sport pilot
and at an airport located in Class B, certificate or recreational
C, or D airspace? pilot certificate: Operations
at airports within, and in
airspace within, Class B, C,
and D airspace, or at airports
with an operational control
tower in other airspace.
Sport Pilot Certificate
51. What aeronautical knowledge must I Sec. 61.309 What aeronautical
have to apply for a sport pilot knowledge must I have to apply
certificate? for a sport pilot certificate?
53. What flight proficiency Sec. 61.311 What flight
requirements must I meet to apply for proficiency requirements must
a sport pilot certificate? I meet to apply for a sport
pilot certificate?
55. What aeronautical experience must I Sec. 61.313 What aeronautical
have to apply for a sport pilot experience must I have to
certificate? apply for a sport pilot
certificate?
57. What tests do I have to take to Sec. 61.307 What tests do I
receive a sport pilot certificate?. have to take to obtain a sport
pilot certificate?
59. Will my sport pilot certificate Sec. 61.317 Is my sport pilot
list light-sport aircraft category and certificate issued with
class ratings? aircraft category and class
ratings?
61. May I operate all categories, Sec. 61.303 If I want to
classes, and makes and models of light- operate a light-sport
sport aircraft with my sport pilot aircraft, what operating
certificate? limits and endorsement
requirements in this subpart
must I comply with?
Sec. 61.319 Can I operate a
make and model of aircraft
other than the make and model
aircraft for which I have
received an endorsement?
63. How do I obtain privileges to Sec. 61.321 How do I obtain
operate an additional category or privileges to operate an
class of light-aircraft? additional category or class
of light-sport aricraft?
65. How do I obtain privileges to Sec. 61.323 How do I obtain
operate an additional make and model privileges to operate a make
of light-sport aircraft? and model of light-sport
aircraft in the same category
and class within a different
set of aircraft?
67. Must I carry my logbook with me in Sec. 61.51 Pilot logbooks.
the aircraft?.
Privileges and Limits of Holders of a
Sport Pilot Certificate
71. What type of aircraft may I fly if Sec. 61.303 If I want to
I hold a sport certificate? operate a light-sport
aircraft, what operating
limits and endorsement
requirements in this subpart
must I comply with?
73. What are my limits for the Sec. 61.315 What are the
operation of light-sport aircraft?. privileges and limits of my
sport pilot certificate?
75. May I demonstrate an aircraft in Sec. 61.315 What are the
flight to a prospective buyer?. privileges and limits of my
sport pilot certificate?
Paragraph (c)(9).
77. May I carry a passenger?........... Sec. 61.315 What are the
privileges and limits of my
sport pilot certificate?
79. May I share operating expenses of a Sec. 61.315 What are the
flight with a passenger? privileges and limits of my
sport pilot certificate?
Paragraph (b).
81. How do I obtain privileges to Sec. 61.325 How do I obtain
operate in Class B, C, or D airspace? privileges to operate a light-
sport aircraft at an airport
within, or in airspace within,
Class B, C, and D airspace, or
in other airspace with an
airport having an operational
control tower?
83. How do I obtain privileges to Sec. 61.327 How do I obtain
operate a light-sport aircraft that privileges to operate a light-
has a VH greater than 87 knots CAS? sport aircraft that has a VH
greater than 87 knots CAS?
Transitioning to a Sport Pilot
Certificate
91. How do I obtain a sport pilot Sec. 61.303 If I want to
certificate if I already hold at least operate a light-sport
a private pilot certificate issued aircraft, what operating
under 14 CFR part 61? limits and endorsement
requirements in this subpart
must I comply with?
93. How do I obtain a sport pilot Sec. 61.52 Use of
certificate if I do not hold a pilot aeronautical experience
certificate issued under 14 CFR part obtained in ultralight
61, but I have been flying ultralight vehicles.
vehicles under 14 CFR part 103? Sec. 61.329 Are there special
provisions for obtaining a
sport pilot certificate for
persons who are registered
ultralight pilots with an FAA-
recognized ultralight
organization?
95. How do I obtain a sport pilot Subpart J--Sport Pilots
certificate if I don't hold a pilot establishes all requirements.
certificate and have never flown an
ultralight vehicle?
Flight Instructor Certificate With a
Sport Pilot Rating
111. Must I hold an airman medical Sec. 61.3 Requirement for
certificate?. certificates, ratings, and
authorizations.
Sec. 61.23 Medical
certificates: Requirement and
duration.
113. What aeronautical knowledge Sec. 61.407 What aeronautical
requirements must I meet to apply for knowledge must I have to
a flight instructor certificate with a obtain a flight instructor
sport pilot rating? certificate with a sport pilot
rating?
115. What training must I have in areas Sec. 61.409 What flight
of operation to apply for a flight proficiency requirements must
instructor certificate with a sport I meet to apply for a flight
pilot rating? instructor certificate with a
sport pilot rating?
117. What aeronautical experience must Sec. 61.411 What aeronautical
I have to apply for a flight experience must I have to
instructor certificate with a sport apply for a flight instructor
pilot rating? certificate with a sport pilot
rating?
119. What tests do I have to take to Sec. 61.405 What tests do I
get a flight instructor certificate have to take to obtain a
with a sport pilot rating? flight instructor certificate
with a sport pilot rating?
121. What records do I have to keep and Sec. 61.423 What are the
for how long? recordkeeping requirements for
a flight instructor with a
sport pilot rating?
[[Page 44814]]
123. Will my flight instructor Sec. 61.417 Will my flight
certificate with a sport pilot rating instructor certificate with a
list light-sport aircraft category and sport pilot rating list
class ratings? aircraft category and class
ratings?
125. Am I authorized to provide Sec. 61.413 What are the
training in all categories and classes privileges of my flight
of light-sport aircraft with my flight instructor certificate with a
instructor certificate with a sport sport pilot rating?
pilot rating? Sec. 61.415 What are the
limits of a flight instructor
certificate with a sport pilot
rating?
127. How do I obtain privileges to Sec. 61.419 How do I obtain
provide flight training in an privileges to provide training
additional category or class of light- in an additional category or
sport aircraft? class of light-sport aircraft?
129. How do I obtain privileges Not adopted in final rule.
authorizing me to provide flight
training in an additional make and
model of light-sport aircraft?
131. Do I need to carry my logbook with Sec. 61.51 Pilot logbooks.
me in the aircraft?
133. What privileges do I have if I Sec. 61.413 What are the
hold a flight instructor certificate privileges of my flight
with a sport pilot rating? instructor certificate with a
sport pilot rating?
135. What are the limits of a flight Sec. 61.52 Use of
instructor certificate with a sport aeronautical experience
pilot rating? obtained in ultralight
vehicles.
Sec. 61.415 What are the
limits of a flight instructor
certificate with a sport pilot
rating?
137. Are there any additional Sec. 61.415 What are the
qualifications for training first-time limits of a flight instructor
flight instructor applicants? certificate with a sport pilot
rating?
139. May I give myself an endorsement?. Sec. 61.421 May I give myself
an endorsement?
Transitioning to a Flight Instructor
Certificate With a Sport Pilot Rating
151. What if I already hold a flight Sec. 61.429 May I exercise
instructor certificate issued under 14 the privileges of a flight
CFR part 61 and want to exercise the instructor certificate with a
privileges of a flight instructor sport pilot rating if I hold a
certificate with a sport pilot rating? flight instructor certificate
with another rating?
153. What if I am only a registered Sec. 61.52 Use of
ultralight instructor with an FAA- aeronautical experience
recognized ultralight organization? obtained in ultralight
vehicles
Sec. 61.431 Are there special
provisions for obtaining a
flight instructor certificate
with a sport pilot rating for
persons who are registered
ultralight instructors with an
FAA-recognized ultralight
organization?
155. What if I've never provided flight Subpart K--Flight Instructors
or ground training in an aircraft or with a Sport Pilot Rating
an ultralight vehicle? establishes all requirements.
Pilot Logbooks
171. How do I log training time and Sec. 61.51 Pilot logbooks.
aeronautical experience?.
173. How do I log pilot-in-command Sec. 61.51 Pilot logbooks.
flight time?.
175. May I use training time and Sec. 61.51 Pilot logbooks.
aeronautical experience logged as a Sec. 61.52 Use of
sport pilot toward a higher aeronautical experience
certificate or rating issued under 14 obtained in ultralight
CFR part 61? vehicles.
177. May I credit training time and Sec. 61.52 Use of
aeronautical experience logged as an aeronautical experience
ultralight operator toward a sport obtained in ultralight
pilot certificate? vehicles.
179. May I use aeronautical experience Sec. 61.52 Use of
I got as the operator of an ultralight aeronautical experience
vehicle to meet the requirements for a obtained in ultralight
higher certificate or rating issued vehicles.
under 14 CFR part 61?
Recent Flight Experience Requirements
for a Sport Pilot Certificate or a
Flight Instructor Certificate With a
Sport Pilot Rating
191. What recent flight experience Existing Sec. 61.57 contains
requirements must I meet for a sport the same requirements as the
pilot certificate? proposed rule.
193. What are the flight review Existing Sec. 61.56 contains
requirements for a sport pilot the same requirements as the
certificate? proposed rule.
195. How do I renew my flight Sec. 61.425 How do I renew my
instructor certificate?. flight instructor certificate?
197. What must I do if my flight Sec. 61.427 What must I do if
instructor certificate with a sport my flight instructor
pilot rating expires? certificate with a sport pilot
rating expires?
Ground Instructor Privileges
211. What are the eligibility Sec. 61.213 Eligibility
requirements for a ground instructor requirements.
certificate?
213. What additional privileges do I Sec. 61.215 Ground instructor
have if I hold a ground instructor privileges.
certificate with a basic ground
instructor rating?
215. What additional privileges do I Sec. 61.215 Ground instructor
have if I hold a ground instructor privileges.
certificate with an advanced ground
instructor rating?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
V.5.A.ii. Medical Provisions
Under Section 15 of SFAR No. 89, the FAA proposed to require sport
pilot certificate holders; student pilots operating within the
limitations of a sport pilot certificate; and higher-rated pilots who
elect to exercise only sport pilot privileges to hold and possess
either a current and valid U.S. driver's license or a current and valid
airman medical certificate issued under part 67. These provisions, as
revised in the final rule, are located under Sec. Sec. 61.3, 61.23,
and 61.303 in the operating rules where medical certificate
requirements for all pilots are found.
Under Section 111 of SFAR No. 89, the FAA proposed to require
individuals exercising the privileges of a flight instructor
certificate with a sport pilot rating and acting as pilot in command of
a light-sport aircraft other than a glider or balloon, to hold and
possess a current and valid U.S. driver's license or a current and
valid airman medical certificate issued under part 67. These
provisions, as revised in the final rule, are located under Sec. Sec.
61.3 and 61.23 in the operating rules where medical
[[Page 44815]]
certificate requirements for all flight instructors are found.
Under Section 17 of SFAR No. 89, the FAA set forth circumstances
under which a medical deficiency would preclude operators from
exercising sport pilot privileges. In the final rule, these provisions
are located under Sec. 61.53 where medical deficiency provisions are
found. These provisions are also found in Sec. Sec. 61.23 and 61.303.
Comments received on the proposed medical provisions were mainly
supportive. A minority of commenters opposed the rule. Several
commenters, however, raised questions or offered other alternatives.
Some requested that the FAA extend sport pilot medical provisions to
recreational, and even private, pilots. A few commenters recommended
minor editorial changes.
The FAA has reconsidered the circumstances in which a current and
valid U.S. driver's license should be allowed in lieu of a valid airman
medical certificate and has made substantive revisions to the medical
provisions in the final rule. These revisions are based on the FAA's
concern that pilots whose airman medical certificates have been denied,
suspended, or revoked or whose Authorization for Special Issuance of a
Medical Certificate (Authorization) has been withdrawn would be allowed
to operate light-sport aircraft other than gliders and balloons under
the proposed rule. Therefore, possession of a current and valid U.S.
driver's license alone is not enough to dispel this concern. For this
reason, this final rule permits using a current and valid U.S. driver's
license as evidence of medical qualification based on certain
conditions. If a person has applied for an airman medical certificate,
that person must have been found eligible for the issuance of at least
a third-class airman medical certificate. If a person has held an
airman medical certificate, that person's most recently issued airman
medical certificate must not have been revoked or suspended. If a
person has been granted an Authorization, that Authorization must not
have been withdrawn.
These provisions apply only to persons who have held or applied for
an airman medical certificate or who have been granted an
Authorization. It does not require the pilot of a light-sport aircraft
to apply for an airman medical certificate. The words ``most recent
application'' refer to the latest medical application that is on file
with the FAA and on which action was taken. In addition, the words
``most recently issued airman medical certificate'' refer to the latest
airman medical certificate on file with the FAA.
In addition, the FAA has determined that the rule should explicitly
provide that a pilot may not use a current and valid U.S. driver's
license in lieu of a valid airman medical certificate if the pilot
knows or has reason to know of any medical condition that would make
that person unable to operate a light-sport aircraft in a safe manner.
This reiterates the requirement of Sec. 61.53, but ensures that a
person using a driver's license to exercise sport pilot privileges
focuses on it. This does not require a pilot to qualify for an airman
medical certificate, but if an individual has any question about his or
her medical capacity to fly, that person should consult his or her
personal physician. The individual still has the responsibility to
determine whether he or she meets the provisions of Sec. 61.53.
An applicant for a student pilot certificate seeking sport pilot
privileges may be asked whether:
He or she was found eligible for the issuance of at least
a third-class airman medical certificate (if he or she recently applied
for an airman medical certificate).
His or her most recently issued airman medical certificate
has been suspended or revoked.
His or her most recent Authorization has been withdrawn.
The applicant may also be asked whether he or she knows or has
reason to know of any medical condition that would make that person
unable to operate a light sport aircraft in a safe manner. If the
applicant answers ``yes'' to any of these questions, the applicant will
be reminded that while he or she may be issued a student pilot
certificate, he or she may not use a driver's license as evidence of
medical qualification.
By incorporating these provisions, the FAA confirms that persons
who would exercise sport pilot privileges must consider their medical
fitness before operating. If a person should not be exercising airman
privileges for medical reasons, that person should not be conducting
sport pilot privileges unless and until it is safe for that person to
do so.
Comments that supported the proposed medical provisions: The
majority of the comments received on the proposed medical provisions
were supportive. Supporting commenters regarded these proposed sections
as the most critical part of the action and stated that if the FAA
publishes a final rule with more restrictive medical requirements, they
would withdraw support for the entire proposal. They stated that using
a current and valid U.S. driver's license as proof of general medical
qualification would permit older pilots no longer qualifying for an
airman medical certificate to continue flying. In addition, commenters
indicated that operators of light-sport aircraft are less likely to
jeopardize the safety of surrounding individuals than motorists driving
vehicles on public roadways. Commenters indicated that driving a motor
vehicle is often more demanding and stressful than piloting an aircraft
and that the overall incidence of crashes related to medical
incapacitation is very low. According to commenters, most pilots are
conscientious enough to take their own health into consideration when
making the decision on whether to fly.
Numerous supporters of proposed medical provisions mentioned the
financial and time burden placed on pilots to maintain an airman
medical certificate, noting specifically the backlog for special-
issuance medical certificates. Commenters stated that many pilots
cannot obtain a third-class airman medical certificate and that some
pilots, while medically capable of flying, cannot afford the medical
testing needed to maintain an airman medical certificate.
Many commenters viewed this proposal as a means to allow
individuals who have lost their third-class airman medical certificates
to operate light-sport aircraft. Commenters identifying themselves as
senior citizens commonly shared this view and welcome the opportunity
to return to flying after being unable to obtain an airman medical
certificate for many years.
Other comments in support may be summarized generally as follows:
The FAA airman medical certificate is aimed at more
stressful tasks like those performed by commercial pilots who often fly
IFR.
FAA airman medical certificates do not provide a guarantee
about how a person will feel 2 hours later and do not prevent in-flight
health hazards.
Sport pilots, in particular, do not have that ``must get
there'' attitude.
As long as the process of Sec. 61.53 remains in place,
there is no reason to require a non-commercial pilot to hold an airman
medical certificate.
The additional requirement of a driver's license covers
the increase in risk that the public may perceive and is appropriate
for the weight and speed of light-sport aircraft.
The current regime probably leads pilots to avoid doctors
and treatments for certain medical conditions (e.g., depression), thus
decreasing safety.
[[Page 44816]]
FAA Response to Supporting Comments
As stated in the NPRM, the FAA believes that the level of health
evidenced by a current and valid U.S. driver's license is a necessary,
minimum prerequisite to safely operate light-sport aircraft other than
gliders and balloons. The FAA chose to use state driver standards
because they require a minimum level of health to be met before
issuance. The FAA recognizes that these standards are sufficient
minimum standards for drivers operating their automobiles at high
speeds and in close proximity to other automobiles. They also are
sufficient as minimum standards for pilots of light-sport aircraft
other than gliders and balloons, absent evidence of a medical condition
that would make the pilot otherwise unsafe to fly. Further, a state
driver's license may be revoked or suspended for certain offenses that
also may impact the license holder's ability and fitness to fly a
light-sport aircraft, thus providing an added level of protection. If
the U.S. driver's license of a person holding a sport pilot certificate
or rating (who does not possess a valid airman medical certificate) is
revoked or rescinded for any offense--including, among others,
substance abuse, excessive speeding, careless and reckless operation of
a vehicle, numerous traffic violations--the individual will not be able
to exercise sport pilot privileges until the license is reinstated or
the person obtains a valid airman medical certificate.
While pilots of light-sport aircraft will be required to hold and
possess at least a current and valid U.S. driver's license, meeting
this requirement alone does not equate to fitness to fly. The FAA
cannot over-emphasize the crucial responsibility placed on those
exercising sport pilot privileges to carefully consider fitness to fly
before every flight. The FAA has always understood that pilots' own
judgment regarding their fitness to fly is their most basic and
important safety responsibility and that no level of airman medical
certification will ever alleviate this responsibility. Those who would
exercise sport pilot privileges must understand that, by taking control
of an aircraft as pilot in command, they have made an unequivocal
declaration as to their belief in their fitness to fly. To ensure that
pilots focus on this responsibility, the final rule, as adopted,
specifically provides that a pilot may not use a current and valid U.S.
driver's license as evidence of medical qualification if he or she
knows or has reason to know of any medical condition that would make
that person unable to operate a light-sport aircraft in a safe manner.
The FAA believes that these minimum standards constitute only one
aspect of the overall determination as to fitness to fly light-sport
aircraft. The possession of a current and valid U.S. driver's license
is not in and of itself sufficient to establish the fitness of the
pilot. Therefore, it must be clear that a U.S. driver's license is not,
for the purposes of this action, an FAA airman medical certificate. The
FAA cautions that reference to a sport pilot ``driver's license
medical'' should be avoided because a current and valid U.S. driver's
license does not become a sport pilot certificate holder's airman
medical certificate.
Moreover, the FAA is concerned that a number of commenters believe
that the proposed rule would have presented an avenue for pilots who
have been denied an airman medical certificate under part 67 to
continue to fly. The FAA believes that most pilots who become aware
through an airman medical examination of a condition that could prevent
them from flying safely would not continue to fly. The commenters
reveal, however, that a number of pilots might not give sufficient
weight to the evidence of their medical conditions in deciding whether
they are fit to fly. The FAA has determined, therefore, that the best
course of action for aviation safety is to not allow a current and
valid U.S. driver's license as evidence of medical qualification if a
person's most recent application for an airman medical certificate has
been denied or most recently issued airman medical certificate has been
suspended or revoked.
The possession of a current and valid U.S. driver's license in no
way constitutes a certification by the FAA that the holder of that
license is fit to fly light-sport aircraft-that certification is
provided by the pilot alone. It merely allows that the holder has met
minimum FAA requirements and is permitted to operate a light-sport
aircraft subject to the requirements of part 61 and the pilot's own
determination of his or her fitness to fly.
Comments That Supported the U.S. Driver's License Proposal for
Ultralight Operations But Not for More Complex Light-Sport Aircraft
Operations
One commenter agreed that a U.S. driver's license is acceptable for
ultralights and powered parachutes, but indicated that ``all pilots of
powered flight (single-engine aircraft) should undergo initial and
periodic medical examinations.'' According to this commenter, since a
third-class airman medical certificate is the current FAA standard for
general aviation, it should be the same standard for sport pilots
flying within the single-engine category.
One commenter had no objection to those exercising sport pilot
privileges being able to use a U.S. driver's license to verify health.
According to this commenter, this proposal can benefit those who cannot
pass an FAA medical examination for whatever reason, but the commenter
points out that a certain level of physical ability is required for
safe flight. This commenter has compiled data that indicates that
medical issues are virtually no problem when considering ultralight
flight and therefore it strongly objects to a medical physical
requirement for those pilots and instructors. Pilot medical data
specifically relating to the operation of the significantly heavier and
faster aircraft (up to 130 mph) as now proposed by the FAA, however, is
not so clear. Therefore, the commenter could not comment on the safety
of allowing pilots of heavier, faster aircraft which fly over congested
areas and into controlled airspace to fly without a medical
examination.
FAA Response to Commenters Who Supported the Proposal in Part
Commenters seem to be suggesting that the FAA adopt separate sets
of standards; a two-tiered approach for this rulemaking action that
would require airman medical certification for certain sport pilot
certificate holders. The FAA did not propose such an approach because,
by doing so, the regulations basically would remain as they are today.
By establishing new rules and creating a new sport pilot certificate
the FAA intends to allow for limited operations in a safe manner that
will bring pilots operating ultralight-like aircraft into a more
uniform regulatory system. Because the commenters do not describe how
the FAA could implement their proposals other than to essentially
maintain current regulatory parameters, the FAA could not consider
them.
Comments That Opposed the Proposed Medical Provisions
One medical organization commented that its general membership was
``overwhelmingly against'' the NPRM's recommended use of a driver's
license. According to this organization, the FAA desire for not
``creating a significant financial barrier'' is without merit with
respect to the airman medical certificate. The organization indicated
that a 2001 survey of airmen medical examiners with at least a 66%
response rate indicates the average cost of a third-
[[Page 44817]]
class medical is $66.69. Annualized for those under 40, the cost is
$22.23 and for those over 40, $33.35, which can hardly be considered a
financial burden.
In addition, this organization stated that the NPRM's conclusion
that driving fast in close proximity to other automobiles is safe and
achieved by the varied medical clearances for driver's licenses, as
applied across states, is misleading and supporting statistics are
glaringly absent. Using only fatal crashes where a driver was
reportedly ``ill, passed out/blacked out'' as a percent of total fatal
crashes for just the year 2000 shows 0.9%. This percentage goes up if
other driver factors such as medication reaction, not using medication,
or other physical impairment are also considered. In 1 year, this
figure is nearly five times that of the NPRM-quoted 7-year period where
an airman medical certificate is required in aviation. According to
this organization, ``[t]he FAA's belief that the medical standards that
permit an individual to drive * * * provides an adequate level of
safety to operate * * * aircraft is not supported. Actually the
opposite is true in that the numbers indicate an unreasonable risk to
aviation safety for any level of piloting.''
FAA Response to Comments That Opposed the Proposed Medical Provisions
The FAA concurs that, in the case of some applicants for airman
medical certification, the cost of an airman medical examination is not
cost-prohibitive. If the AME directs an applicant to undergo further
testing beyond a standard physical, however, the cost to obtain an
airman medical certificate can become more expensive. Under this
action, individuals will have to obtain an airman medical certificate
if they do not have or do not want to obtain a U.S. driver's license.
The intent of this action, however, is not to recommend a practical fee
or to analyze the cost factors for obtaining an airman medical
certificate; it is to assure that, for sport pilot operations, an
applicant can meet a basic level of health. The 2001 survey the
commenter referenced was a compilation of information obtained from
3,800 individuals over a 4-year period who filled out a questionnaire
at FAA-sponsored airman medical examiners periodic training seminars
about their familiarity with and use of the Federal Air Surgeon's
Bulletin. It was not specifically a questionnaire aimed at performing
an analysis of AME fees.
The FAA does not intend to imply that driving an automobile and
piloting an aircraft are exactly similar or that driving fast and in
close proximity to other automobiles is safe. The FAA makes the
comparison to driving to indicate only that, when compared to sport
pilot operations, driving can be more stressful and can require more
skill sometimes than flying a light-sport aircraft. For the NPRM, the
FAA reviewed accident data relating to the medical condition(s) of a
pilot not required to hold an airman medical certificate as a causal
factor in general aviation accidents and not accident data relating to
a driver's medical condition as causal factors in fatal automobile
accidents. Therefore, the FAA cannot respond to the commenter regarding
the 0.9% rate of total fatal automobile crashes in 2000 relating to a
certain medical condition of the driver. Further, the FAA does not have
enough accidents related to medical causes to be able to assign a
yearly accident rate for fatal general aviation accidents. It should be
noted, as stated in the NPRM, that the NTSB will investigate any
accidents or incidents involving certificated sport pilots, light-sport
aircraft, or persons exercising the privileges of a sport pilot. The
FAA anticipates working closely with the NTSB to analyze light-sport
aircraft accidents suspected of being caused by a pilot's medical
condition.
General Opposing Comments
Opposing commenters also addressed the following:
The ease with which a U.S. driver's license may be
obtained in most states.
The variation in standards among the states.
The lack of serious medical testing during the application
process for a U.S. driver's license.
Inconsistent and inadequate vision tests.
The process for obtaining a U.S. driver's license differs
from that involved with obtaining an airman medical certificate and
that driver's license medical standards and FAA airman medical
standards differ.
The FAA did not enact its 1995 proposal to allow
recreational pilots to exercise privileges without an airman medical
certificate for many reasons, including safety concerns, and there have
been no substantial changes in need or requirements for safety since
that ruling.
FAA response to general opposing comments: The FAA reiterates that
the intent of this action is not to reduce safety or to encourage those
experiencing medical problems, including vision problems, to exercise
any type of sport pilot operation. Individuals with medical conditions
that would prevent them from flying safely must not exercise sport
pilot privileges. Additionally, individuals using a driver's license to
exercise sport pilot privileges whose most recent application for an
airman medical certificate has been denied or whose most recently
issued airman medical certificate has been suspended or revoked must
not exercise sport pilot privileges.
This action requires a basic level of health for sport pilot
operations, if that basic level cannot be met then sport pilot
privileges must not be exercised. The intent of this action is not to
encourage those who have medical conditions or who may develop a
medical condition(s) to become lax about their health and take chances
piloting a light-sport aircraft. As it does with all pilots, the FAA
recommends that persons holding a sport pilot certificate or rating
consult with their private physician routinely and especially if they
have any indication of adverse health. The FAA recommends routine
vision screening.
The FAA acknowledges that the process to obtain and maintain an
airman medical certificate versus that to obtain and maintain a U.S.
driver's license is different and that U.S. driver's license standards
vary from state to state. Even though the process for applying for and
renewing a U.S. driver's license varies throughout the United States,
U.S. issuing authorities require applicants to verify some basic level
of health on their various driver's license applications. Each state
requires an applicant to meet minimum vision standards. Many
authorities require applicants to reveal any medical condition(s) that
might preclude them from obtaining a U.S. driver's license in that
jurisdiction. If any of these applicants affirm having received
treatment for a medical condition (e.g., stroke or paralysis, brain
disorder, heart disorder, seizures) on an application, a licensed
physician must further evaluate whether that person should be allowed
to drive a motor vehicle. The same is true for an individual who
applies for an airman medical certificate who indicates that he or she
has a medical condition. That individual's Aviation Medical Examiner
(AME) must further evaluate whether that person should be issued an
airman medical certificate. Individuals who are not medically fit to
operate a motor vehicle should not exercise the privileges of a sport
pilot certificate. It is true that an individual who holds either a
U.S. driver's license or an airman medical certificate could choose to
operate a motor vehicle or conduct sport pilot
[[Page 44818]]
operations when not medically fit to do so. If sport pilots choose to
do so, however, they are violating not only the terms of their U.S.
driver's license or airman medical certificate but also the long-
standing provisions of Sec. 61.53 that pertain to prohibition on
operations during medical deficiency. Sport pilots using a driver's
license must also comply with the provisions of Sec. Sec. 61.3, 61.23,
and 61.303.
The FAA rescinded its 1995 proposal to allow recreational pilots to
self-evaluate under the provisions of Sec. 61.53 because it had no
experience allowing recreational pilots, who may pilot more
sophisticated and faster aircraft, to fly without FAA airman medical
certification. Conversely, the FAA has had many years of experience
allowing pilots of what are considered ultralight vehicles today to fly
without medical certification and, based on this experience, believes
this rule provides an equivalent level of safety for those being
brought into compliance. Validating this experience is the accident
data that the FAA has received under the terms of exemptions that have
been granted to operate a two-seat ultralight vehicle for training
purposes.
Comments That Favored Extending Sport Pilot Medical Provisions to Other
Pilots
Several commenters favored extending proposed sport pilot medical
provisions to pilots with higher-level certificates. These commenters
contended that the same reasoning and justification proposed for sport
pilots should apply to other pilots, recreational pilots in particular,
who are subject to many of the same limitations such as those on
carrying passengers, use of aircraft not having fixed gear, night
flight, and visibility restrictions. It is suggested that the FAA
review sport pilot data over time to provide for private pilots to use
the sport pilot medical provisions that will be adopted under this
rule.
According to commenters it has been adequately proven that existing
medicine cannot predict heart attacks or strokes, so elimination of the
FAA airman medical examination would have no adverse affect on safety.
FAA Response to Comments That Favored Extending Sport Pilot Medical
Provisions to Other Pilots
The medical provisions the FAA proposed under this action were
proposed for sport pilot operations only. The FAA has never considered
expanding these provisions nor would it be within the scope of this
action to consider doing so. The FAA agrees with commenters that it
must gain experience with sport pilot medical provisions.
Commenters' General Remarks and Questions About Proposed Medical
Provisions
Some commenters who expressed support for the proposal in principle
and for the option of a U.S. driver's license over an airman medical
certificate raised the following issues:
Question: What ``known medical conditions'' would prevent a person
from exercising sport pilot privileges?
Response: The FAA has not established a list of disqualifying
medical conditions under Sec. 61.53. That could prevent a person from
relying on a driver's license as the sole evidence of medical
qualification. If a person chooses to exercise sport pilot privileges
using an airman medical certificate, the FAA's disqualifying medical
conditions set forth under part 67 apply. The ability to certify no
known medical conditions becomes a matter between the pilot and his or
her AME. If an individual's most recent application for an airman
medical certificate has been denied after examination by an AME, that
person would not be able to use a driver's license as evidence of
medical qualification.
If an individual chooses to medically qualify for light-sport
aircraft operations using a current and valid U.S. driver's license,
then the restrictions and limitations listed on the U.S. driver's
license apply, as do those imposed by judicial or administrative order
for the operation of a motor vehicle. The determination as to whether a
pilot has a medical condition that would make him or her unable to
operate the aircraft in a safe manner is the sole responsibility of the
pilot. The ability to certify no known medical conditions that would
prohibit the safe operation of an aircraft is a matter about which a
pilot should consult his or her personal physician.
Those experiencing medical symptoms that would prevent them from
safely exercising the privileges of their sport pilot certificate, or
that raise a reasonable concern, however, cannot claim to have no known
medical deficiencies.
The FAA acknowledges that those interested only in exercising sport
pilot privileges may not seek airman medical certification or may allow
their current airman medical certificate to expire. This is acceptable
under this rule. Depending on the FAA's experience under this rule,
however, it could choose to establish a list of disqualifying medical
conditions or even revert to requiring airman medical certification if
it becomes apparent that those exercising sport pilot privileges are
not exercising reasonable judgment with regard to their medical fitness
to fly.
Question: Is the special issuance of a medical certificate under
Sec. 67.401 considered a denial of an application for an airman
medical certificate?
Response: No. A pilot who has received a special issuance of a
medical certificate may also exercise sport pilot privileges using a
U.S. driver's license, provided he or she is medically fit to fly.
Remark: The proposed medical provisions discriminate against the
following:
Those who live in rural Alaska who do not drive and
therefore cannot take advantage of the option of using a driver's
license.
Those who hold foreign pilot certificates or foreign
driver's licenses.
Those who could qualify for a third-class airman medical
certificate but do not choose or otherwise have the need, desire, or
money to have a U.S. driver's license.
Those pilots other than sport pilots who are required to
hold an FAA airman medical certificate.
It is not the FAA's intention to discriminate against anyone or to
disadvantage those who do not have or cannot obtain a current and valid
U.S. driver's license. This action provides an alternate means of
compliance with full FAA airman medical certification for sport pilot
certificate holders only and for those who are able to obtain and
maintain a current and valid U.S. driver's license only. Standards for
those who wish to maintain higher-level pilot certificates and ratings
remain unaffected by this action; therefore this action cannot be
considered discriminatory against them because operations they would
conduct do not fall within the scope of this action.
The FAA understands that there may be individuals in the United
States who may have difficulty traveling to their licensing entities to
acquire a U.S. driver's license. The FAA notes that it may be similarly
difficult for some individuals to obtain an FAA airman medical
certificate. While the FAA appreciates that requiring those holding a
sport pilot certificate or rating to hold and possess either a current
and valid U.S. driver's license or a valid airman medical certificate
does place a disproportionately higher burden on those individuals who
live some distance from the appropriate certification resources, no
regulation can have an entirely uniform effect on all entities subject
to its requirements and limitations. The FAA believes that
[[Page 44819]]
these minimum standards are necessary and that it would not be in the
interest of safety to alter them because they may place a slightly
greater hardship on certain individuals over others.
Because this rule requires a current and valid U.S. driver's
license, a foreign driver's license would not be acceptable. Because of
the events of September 11, 2001 and ongoing harmonization efforts,
guidance on issuing U.S. pilot certificates and airman medical
certificates based on foreign certificates continues to evolve. Current
guidance can be found in FAA Order 8700.1 ``General Aviation
Inspector's Handbook,'' chapter 29, ``Issue of a U.S. Pilot Certificate
on the Basis of a Foreign-Pilot License.''
Remark: Many drivers operate motor vehicles while taking narcotics
and tranquilizers even when counseled not to do so. Also, individuals
who have been advised by their physician not to drive due to a medical
condition may continue to drive anyway.
Response: The FAA acknowledges that people may choose to continue
to drive and even fly against medical advice or while taking certain
medications. What is more, some may not even consult with a private
physician about a medical condition or before taking medication.
Unfortunately, there are those who will take chances and any action the
FAA may take would not dissuade these individuals. Further, this
situation can apply not only to drivers and pilots, but to operators of
any kind of transport vehicle, machinery, or equipment. Fortunately,
however, aviation accident statistics rarely indicate medical factors
as probable cause. This would seem to indicate that, for the most part,
pilots do not take chances flying when they know they are not medically
fit to do so.
Question: Why are the requirements for operating light-sport
aircraft higher than requirements to operate gliders?
Response: Today's technological advances in light-sport aircraft
call for a set of standards that could no longer be served by those set
forth for balloons and gliders. The FAA is adopting this rule to
increase safety in the light-sport aircraft community by closing gaps
in existing regulations and accommodating new advances in technology.
Therefore, requirements for light-sport aircraft and sport pilot
certificate holders are necessarily more rigid than those for glider
operations. The FAA believes that a permanent and appropriate level of
regulation is necessary. Because the FAA has added more requirements
for certification and training for light-sport aircraft, it also
determined that some medical provisions for sport pilot certificate
holders would be necessary. While airman medical certification is
optional for light-sport operations, some minimum level of proof of
general good health is warranted. The FAA determined that the ability
to meet the medical requirements necessary to obtain a U.S. driver's
license would be appropriate.
Question: Can deaf individuals obtain a sport pilot certificate?
Response: Yes. Deaf individuals are eligible to apply for pilot
certificates. Deaf individuals interested in piloting should consult
the FAA Web site at http://www2.faa.gov/avr/afs/deaffaq.htm.
Question: Will flight instructors and employees of flight schools
be required to adhere to DOT drug-testing policies?
Response: For sport pilot operations, flight instructors and
employees of flight schools are not considered ``employees who must be
tested'' as defined under part 121, appendix I. Flight instructors with
a sport pilot rating acting as pilot in command of a light-sport
aircraft other than a glider or balloon, however, must adhere to the
provisions of existing Sec. Sec. 61.15, 91.17, and 91.19 regarding
offenses involving alcohol or drugs.
Other Suggested Modifications From Commenters
Many commenters provided suggested alternatives to the proposed
medical provisions. Among others, these suggestions included the
following:
Institute a fourth-class airman medical certificate;
Require a third-class airman medical certificate for those
with no, or no recent, appreciable flight time;
Require a third-class airman medical certificate for night
flight and IFR flight;
Require an eye examination at a local clinic in lieu of a
U.S. driver's license;
Have the option of having an evaluation from a private
physician once every 5 years in lieu of a U.S. driver's license;
Allow a written medical declaration or certificate of good
health to replace the driver's license for those who do not want to get
a U.S. driver's license or an airman medical certificate;
Do not allow by-mail or on-line renewals of a U.S.
driver's license for sport pilot operations;
Have a ``grandfather clause'' to allow pilots, who might
lose airman medical certification but who have a lifetime of flying
experience and flying time, to continue to fly the aircraft they have
flown all their lives even if that aircraft would not meet the weight
restrictions laid out in the proposal.
FAA Response to Other Suggested Modifications From Commenters
The FAA considered several viable alternatives to airman medical
certification. As discussed in the proposed rule, the ARAC also
proposed many alternatives. The FAA proposed to allow either airman
medical certification as currently set forth under part 67 or a current
and valid U.S. driver's license as a means for holders of sport pilot
certificates and ratings to meet medical qualifications because it
wanted to avoid creating a new class of airman medical certificate that
might not be viable. The FAA already has an elaborate airman medical
certification program for higher-rated pilots. If sport pilots do not
want to choose airman medical certification then they choose to be
subject to the medical protocols established by U.S. driver's licensing
entities. The FAA wanted a viable, proven means of certification such
as that already established within the FAA and among U.S. driver's
licensing entities. Creating a new class of airman medical certificate
would involve more comprehensive regulations (e.g., amendments to parts
61, 67, and 183) because it would involve new airman certification
rules, new medical standards, and perhaps new designees or an expansion
of the role of existing designees. It would require a new, special
category of disqualifying medical conditions, new forms, new
certificates, and further paperwork and recordkeeping requirements that
light-sport operations do not appear to warrant. Any of these
alternatives proposed by commenters, ARAC, or considered by the FAA
would be difficult to regulate and a burden to implement.
While many of these comments for alternatives and additions to the
proposed sport pilot medical provisions may have merit, the commenters
did not provide cost justification or any detailed discussion of how
the FAA could propose adopting and implementing them.
Editorial Comments on Proposed Medical Provisions
One organization recommended that proposed Section 111 be entitled
``Must I hold an airman pilot and medical certificate as a Sport Pilot
Flight Instructor?'' rather than ``Must I hold an airman medical
certificate?'' It recommended that proposed Section 111 be reworded to
bring the requirement of this regulation in line with the requirements
of Sec. 61.183,
[[Page 44820]]
which is to hold a pilot certificate in order to be flight instructor.
Another commenter suggested that the word ``requirement,'' used in
SFAR No. 89 section 3(b), should be replaced with the word ``reasons.''
According to this commenter, ``requirements'' is not the correct word
because ``requirements'' never prevented anyone from speaking, reading,
or understanding English. Using the word ``reasons'' would allow for
consistent usage of the term under current regulations.
FAA Response to Editorial Comments on Proposed Medical Provisions
The comments requesting editorial changes have merit. The FAA
adopts medical provisions that more clearly define requirements for
flight instructors and that avoid the incorrect use of the terminology
``medical requirements.'' The terminology the FAA uses under existing
Sec. Sec. 61.123, 61.153, 61.183, and 61.213 is ``medical reasons,''
which is correct.
Other Editorial Change
The FAA is changing the words ``current and valid'' when referring
to an airman medical certificate to ``valid'' to avoid redundancy. An
airman medical certificate is ``valid'' provided it has not expired as
set forth under existing Sec. 61.23. Because there are no recency-of-
experience requirements associated with an airman medical certificate,
the word ``current'' is redundant and therefore not necessary.
Future Rulemaking on Private Pilots With Weight-Shift-Control or
Powered Parachute Ratings
During the process of drafting the final rule, the FAA recognized
that it did not specifically propose medical eligibility requirements
for private pilots with a weight-shift-control or powered parachute
rating. This would have inadvertently defaulted these pilots to a
requirement to hold at least a third-class airman medical certificate
to exercise the privileges associated with those ratings. This was not
the FAA's intent. However, because the FAA did not propose and seek
public comment on allowing private pilots with a weight-shift-control
or powered parachute rating to operate those aircraft without holding a
third-class airman medical certificate, the FAA must initiate future
rulemaking action. It should be noted that persons wishing to operate
weight-shift-control aircraft or powered parachutes while exercising
sport pilot privileges, but not private pilot privileges, may do so
under this rule. In addition, under current rules, a weight-shift-
control aircraft can be operated as an experimental powered glider,
with an endorsement for self-launching, without an airman medical
certificate.
V.5.A.iii. Flight Training and Proficiency Requirements
As a result of this rulemaking action, the new sport pilot
certificate has been established with training, experience, and testing
requirements commensurate with the privileges and limits associated
with this certificate level. This pilot certificate will fall between
the part 103 regulations that address ultralight pilot privileges and
those that address the recreational pilot certificate. Two of the key
privileges a sport pilot will be granted are: (1) The ability to
operate a simple, non-complex light-sport aircraft, defined in Sec.
1.1, that exceed the parameters of an ultralight vehicle; and (2)
permission to carry a passenger. Light-sport aircraft comprise the
following categories of aircraft--airplane, gyroplane, glider, balloon,
airship, powered parachute, and weight-shift-control aircraft.
Several commenters wished to see the minimum number of hours
required to obtain a sport pilot certificate raised, while a few
commenters wished to see the number of hours required lowered.
The FAA expects that the 20-hour minimum flight time requirement
for all aircraft (except gliders, balloons, and powered parachutes) is
adequate to train a person to exercise the privileges of a sport pilot.
Sport pilots are limited in the types of aircraft they may operate and
the operations they may conduct. The flight time and flight training
are minimum requirements that an applicant for a sport pilot
certificate must meet and even if satisfied, there are several
additional checks before a sport pilot certificate is issued.
Importantly, the applicant must be recommended by an authorized
instructor who endorses the applicant's logbook indicating that he or
she is prepared to take and pass the practical test. The applicant must
also have been recommended for and passed a knowledge test on the
general knowledge requirements necessary to exercise sport pilot
privileges and operate a light-sport aircraft in the NAS. Once
recommended by the authorized instructor, the applicant must
demonstrate to the FAA, or FAA designated examiner, that the practical
test standards can be met before the certificate is issued.
The knowledge and flight training requirements, established for a
sport pilot, requires the ability to comply with the operating rules in
part 91, the certification rules in part 61, and NTSB rules in 14 CFR
part 830. After satisfying all of these requirements for a pilot
certificate, a sport pilot may--
Operate an aircraft that meets the definition of light-
sport aircraft that does not exceed 87 knots VH and carry
only one passenger
Fly only between sunrise and sunset, below 10,000 feet
MSL, with visual reference to the surface, and when the visibility is 3
miles or greater
Operate in class E and G airspace, but not in class A, B,
C, and D airspace where you need to communicate with ATC, and fly
cross-country
Not tow any object, not conduct sales demonstration rides
if an aircraft salesman, not fly for compensation or hire, or carry a
passenger for compensation or hire.
Additionally, to accommodate the approach originally proposed by
the ultralight industry, the FAA established a building-block approach
to permit a sport pilot to obtain additional privileges. After meeting
the requirements for a sport pilot certificate, the pilot must obtain
additional experience, training, and/or testing to receive an
endorsement allowing the pilot to--
Operate a new category or class of light-sport aircraft
Operate a make and model of light-sport aircraft within a
different set of aircraft
Operate a light-sport aircraft that exceeds 87 knots
VH (but does not exceed 120 knots VH)
Operate in Class B, C, and D airspace and other airspace
in which communication with ATC is required.
One commenter suggested that the training and proficiency
requirements be made commensurate with the complexity of aircraft on
which the training is being given. The FAA believes that the rule does
this. All student pilots, regardless of the certificate levels they are
seeking, or the complexity of the aircraft, are trained to safely
operate the aircraft in which they are receiving training in order to
conduct solo operations. The FAA does not set a minimum time to meet
the solo requirement, although an endorsement from an authorized flight
instructor and continued supervision during solo training is required.
A student pilot then continues training that is specific to the pilot
certificate he or she is seeking.
The minimum training required for a sport certificate will be
appropriate for a light-sport aircraft, in the category the student
wishes to fly, and in an aircraft that operates at an airspeed below 87
knots CAS VH (100 mph). Although, the student does have the
option to operate
[[Continued on page 44821]]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
]
[[pp. 44821-44870]] Certification of Aircraft and Airmen for the Operation of Light-
Sport Aircraft
[[Continued from page 44820]]
[[Page 44821]]
a light-sport aircraft that exceeds 87 knots VH this will
require training beyond the minimums set forth for a sport pilot
certificate. How much additional training will depend on the complexity
of the light-sport aircraft and the skills of the pilot.
An important factor to remember when comparing the training
requirements of an ultralight pilot, a sport pilot, a recreational
pilot, and a private pilot is that the rules do consider the type of
aircraft operated (category, class, weight, speed, and complexity), and
the operating privileges and limitations. Reference the charts under
``IV. Comparative Tables'' for an overview of these factors.
Additionally, some commenters raised concerns about the minimum
training requirements for a sport pilot who would have the authority to
operate an experimental, primary, or standard category aircraft that
currently can only be operated by a recreational pilot or higher
certificate level. The FAA believes that pilot training, and subsequent
privileges and limitations of the pilot certificate, are based on an
aircraft's operating characteristics, speed, weight, and complexity.
They are not based on how the aircraft was manufactured and the type of
airworthiness certificate the aircraft has been issued. The FAA
believes that any aircraft that meets the definition of a light-sport
aircraft can be safely operated by a sport pilot with the required
training, testing, and endorsements. How the aircraft is operated and
maintained is dependent on the type of airworthiness certificate
issued. A sport pilot is trained and tested to ensure that he or she
can make those determinations.
The FAA received numerous comments recommending that cross-country
distances for weight-shift-control aircraft training be decreased to
distances similar to those required for gyroplane training. The FAA
proposed that the training requirements for weight-shift-control
aircraft be identical to those for powered fixed-wing requirements. The
commenters pointed out that a weight-shift-control aircraft have an
open fuselage and fly at much slower speeds than fixed-wing aircraft.
They stated that speeds of weight-shift-control aircraft are rarely in
excess of 87 knots CAS, which are similar to speeds achieved by
gyroplanes. The FAA agrees that weight-shift-control aircraft have
similar operating speeds to gyroplanes; therefore, the FAA is reducing
the training requirements for cross-country distances at the sport
pilot and private pilot certificate levels to reflect the lower
operating speeds of these aircraft.
The FAA also received numerous comments on the flight training
requirements in a powered parachute for sport pilot and private pilot
certificates. Most commenters said that powered parachute training
requirements should parallel the training requirements for gliders and
balloons, as opposed to paralleling the training requirements for
fixed-wing aircraft, which was proposed. After gaining operational
experience in powered parachutes during the development of the
practical test standards, the FAA agrees, and, therefore, in the final
rule the training requirements for powered parachutes are modified to
parallel those for gliders and balloons. This change to the final rule
reflects the need for training in the critical takeoff and landing
phases of flight, as well as ground handling during set-up and after
landing. The powered parachute minimum flight time and flight training
time for sport pilots and private pilots is decreased. For a sport
pilot, the decrease is from 20 hours to 12 hours for total flight time,
which must include 10 hours of flight training time. Even though the
minimum time requirement is decreased, the training time must now
include an additional requirement for at least 20 takeoffs and landings
with an authorized instructor and 10 solo takeoffs and landings to a
full stop. For a private pilot, the decrease is from 40 hours to 25
hours of total time, and from 20 hours to 10 hours of flight training
time. However, the training time must now include at least 30 takeoffs
and landings with an authorized instructor to a full stop and 20 solo
takeoffs and landings to a full stop. These revised flight times are in
excess of what is required for a glider or balloon pilot at the sport
pilot and private pilot certificate levels.
In addition, although cross-country and night training is not
required for a glider or balloon rating at the private pilot level, the
FAA is requiring this training at the private pilot level for a powered
parachute rating. Night training is not required at the sport pilot
level because sport pilots are not authorized to fly at night; however,
cross country training is required at the sport pilot level with a
powered parachute rating. These additional training requirements for a
powered parachute rating are necessary because powered parachutes,
unlike gliders and balloons, are powered aircraft. The cross-country
requirements were changed to reflect the significantly slower speeds of
powered parachutes, generally 30 mph, as opposed to the proposed
requirements that were applicable to much faster fixed wing aircraft.
For sport pilots, the requirement for 2 hours cross-country flight
training is reduced to 1 hour, and the solo cross-country flight
requirements are reduced to require only one solo flight with a
straight-line distance of 10 NM between the take off and landing
locations.
The FAA received comments on powered parachute and weight-shift-
control navigational training requirements. In addition to considering
those comments, while developing practical test standards for these
aircraft, the FAA became more familiar with the characteristics of
these aircraft. During that process, the FAA realized that weight-
shift-control aircraft and powered parachutes typically navigate by
dead reckoning, which requires the aid of a magnetic compass, as
opposed to pilotage, which does not require one. Most powered
parachutes and weight-shift-control aircraft do not have a magnetic
compass. This is also the case with many of other open-cockpit, slower
light-sport aircraft such as gyroplanes and some fixed-wing aircraft.
In the final rule, therefore, the FAA is adding words such as ``as
applicable'' or ``as appropriate'' to Sec. Sec. 61.1, 61.93, and
61.309 when addressing the use of navigation systems. This means that
training is required only on the navigation systems appropriate for the
kind of aircraft flown. The practical test standards will provide
specific guidelines for meeting this training requirement.
Additionally, the FAA reviewed the proposed solo cross-country flight
requirement for persons seeking weight-shift-control aircraft
privileges and is revising the proposal to require the flight to
include a full-stop landing at a minimum of two points. This change is
also being made to the proposed requirements for persons seeking
airplane and rotorcraft privileges. It is being made to preclude cross-
country flights that include only a takeoff and landing at the original
point of departure.
The Administrator's Safer Skies Program reviews general aviation
accidents and determines new methods to prevent future accidents. One
program recommendation was that the FAA review part 61 for how it
addresses training and testing pilot judgment. As a result of that
review, the FAA will require sport pilot training that is specifically
aimed at aeronautical decision making and risk management. This
training will provide a way of evaluating whether a sport pilot
adequately uses risk management techniques in conjunction with
[[Page 44822]]
aeronautical decision making. The FAA and industry are currently
developing new training and certification materials to meet these new
requirements. Accordingly, the FAA is changing references in
aeronautical knowledge requirements that refer to ``judgment'' to
``risk management.''
Several commenters noted that the FAA proposed to require solo
cross-country training to obtain a sport pilot certificate to operate a
balloon, but not to obtain other pilot certificates to operate a
balloon. The commenters noted that this proposed requirement in the
regulatory text conflicted with the discussion in the preamble. This
was an error in the regulatory language, and Sec. 61.313(f) is changed
to reflect the FAA's intent that solo cross-country training for
balloons is not required.
There were several commenters who noted that certain proposed
flight training and proficiency maneuver requirements would have been
inappropriate for training in powered parachutes and weight-shift-
control aircraft. The maneuvers the commenters cited for powered
parachutes were meta-stable stalls and partial canopy collapses. The
commenters said that meta-stable stalls are a result of a design and
rigging issue not a flight training issue. They recommended that meta-
stable stall avoidance is one of ensuring proper rigging of the canopy
and should be addressed during the training segments on proper rigging.
For weight-shift-control aircraft, the commenters cited spins, and
tumble entry and avoidance techniques. In addition, a few commenters
suggested eliminating the powered parachute training requirement for
crosswind takeoffs and landings because a powered parachute does not
have rudder or aileron control surfaces, and a pilot cannot compensate
for crosswinds on takeoffs and landings. Many commenters suggested that
the rule be revised to either require recognition and avoidance
training for those areas of operation or to eliminate those training
requirements. The FAA agrees. While it is crucial that pilots of
powered parachutes and weight-shift-control aircraft be capable of
recognizing and avoiding such emergencies, it is not safe for pilots to
experience them in training. The FAA is therefore revising the rule as
follows.
In SFAR No. 89 sections 33, 53, and 115 and Sec. 61.107, the FAA
proposed flight proficiency training requirements for student pilots
seeking a sport pilot certificate, sport pilots, private pilots, and
persons seeking a flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot
rating in the areas of stalls, meta-stable stalls, and partial canopy
collapses in powered parachutes. Flight proficiency training
requirements are now included in Sec. Sec. 61.87, 61.107, 61.311, and
61.409. However, in the final rule, the requirements for flight
proficiency in crosswind takeoffs and landings, meta-stable stalls, and
partial canopy collapses are removed for the reasons cited in the
previous paragraph. Those subjects will be covered in the aeronautical
knowledge sections of the final rule and addressed in the practical
test standards.
Proposed SFAR No. 89 section 51 would have required sport pilots to
receive ground training in stall awareness, spin entry, spins, and spin
recovery techniques (if applicable). It also would have required sport
pilots seeking to operate weight-shift-control aircraft to receive
training in tumble entry, and tumble avoidance techniques. Proposed
section 53 of SFAR No. 89 would have required a sport pilot to receive
ground and flight training in slow flight and stalls, except when
seeking privileges in a lighter-than-air aircraft or a gyroplane.
In the final rule, the FAA is removing the requirement to receive
training in tumble entry and tumble avoidance techniques for a sport
pilot seeking to operate a weight-shift-control aircraft. The FAA is
also removing the requirements for both a sport pilot and a private
pilot seeking to operate a powered parachute to receive training in
slow flight and stalls. In addition, the FAA is also removing the
requirement for sport pilots seeking to operate a lighter-than-air
aircraft to receive training in slow flight. Sport pilots will be
required to receive ground training in stall awareness, spin entry,
spins, and spin recovery techniques. This training should provide
applicants with a general understanding of these aeronautical knowledge
areas and include specific training applicable to the category and
class of aircraft in which privileges are sought.
For flight instructors seeking a sport pilot rating, the FAA is
revising proposed section 115 of SFAR No. 89 by not requiring an
applicant to receive training in slow flight if the person is seeking
to operate a lighter-than-air aircraft or a powered parachute. The rule
also does not require an applicant to receive training in stalls if the
person is seeking to operate a lighter-than-air aircraft, a powered
parachute, or a gyroplane. In addition, the final rule removes the
proposed requirements for spin training for those individuals seeking
flight instructor privileges in weight-shift-control aircraft because a
weight-shift-control aircraft does not spin. In the final rule, the FAA
is adding a requirement for training in tumble entry and avoidance
techniques for those persons seeking flight instructor privileges in
weight-shift-control aircraft. A flight instructor must be
knowledgeable about this particular maneuvering characteristic and have
the skills to provide proper instruction on tumble entry and avoidance
techniques.
Similarly, proposed Sec. 61.107 (b)(9)(viii) would have contained
a requirement to conduct slow flight in a powered parachute. During the
development of the practical test standards, the FAA determined that
since powered parachutes only fly no more than 30 mph, this training
requirement is not applicable for this category of aircraft. In the
final rule, this requirement is removed. This requirement is also
removed from Sec. 61.311.
A few commenters noted that in proposed SFAR No. 89 section 55, the
FAA did not address the aeronautical experience required for a class
privilege for land or sea in the airplane, powered parachute, and
weight-shift-control aircraft categories. Although the FAA did not
specifically address requirements for land and sea privileges, the
requirements set forth in that section applied to both classes of
aircraft. The FAA is revising the final rule in Sec. Sec. 61.311 and
61.313(a), (g), and (h) to differentiate between land and sea
privileges. The final rule requires specific endorsements for the
exercise of either set of privileges.
Additionally, the commenters were not sure if the proposed rule
addressed the requirements for the addition of class privileges. For
the addition of class privileges, refer to Sec. 61.321, which requires
that the appropriate ground and flight training specified in Sec. Sec.
61.309 and 61.311 for the new class of aircraft. This training and
recommendation must be accomplished with an authorized instructor with
a different authorized instructor completing a proficiency check.
V.5.A.iv. Make and Model Logbook Endorsements, and Sets Of Aircraft
In proposed section 61 of SFAR No. 89 (now Sec. 61.319), the FAA
proposed that the holder of a sport pilot certificate must have a
logbook endorsement from an authorized flight instructor for each
category, class, or make or model of light-sport aircraft that he or
she wished to operate. In addition, proposed SFAR No. 89 section 125
(now Sec. Sec. 61.413 and 61.415), stated that a flight instructor
with a sport pilot rating could provide training only in a category and
class and make and model of light-sport aircraft in which he or she is
authorized to provide
[[Page 44823]]
training. These proposed requirements were intended to ensure that any
sport pilot flying in, or any flight instructor with a sport pilot
rating instructing in, one of the unique light-sport aircraft that fall
into the broad categories and classes of aircraft established in Sec.
61.5 would receive additional flight training that was make-and-model
specific.
The FAA notes that the preamble to the NPRM (under ``Proposed
Sections 59 and 61'') stated that the FAA would work with industry to
develop procedures to allow flight instructors with a sport pilot
rating to issue logbook endorsements ``for a particular group of make
and model aircraft having similar operating characteristics.'' The
agency recognized then that grouping aircraft having similar
performance and operating characteristics could reduce the
administrative burden of obtaining logbook endorsements for all make
and models of aircraft. The agency asked for comments, both in the NPRM
and in the on-line public forum, on whether make and model endorsements
for sport pilots would be in the public interest.
Nearly all of the numerous comments addressing this issue
criticized the make and model endorsement requirement as overly
burdensome and unnecessary. Several commenters noted the particular
burden the endorsement requirement would place on flight instructors
with a sport pilot rating, who would be required to obtain a logbook
endorsement for every make and model of light-sport aircraft they
wished to use for training. Many commenters noted that this proposed
requirement might have the unintended effect of discouraging a current
ultralight instructor from becoming a flight instructor with a sport
pilot rating because that instructor would be required to obtain
specific training for each aircraft on which he or she wished to
provide training. Many commenters also noted that, in some remote areas
of the United States, obtaining training for a specific make and model
of light-sport aircraft might require a prospective flight instructor
with a sport pilot rating to travel some distance and incur relatively
high expenses to gain an endorsement. This could make qualified
instructors hard to find and consequently make their services more
expensive, the commenters said. The commenters also pointed out that,
if a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating had difficulty
obtaining the appropriate logbook endorsement to train on a specific
make or model of light-sport aircraft, a student pilot seeking a sport
pilot certificate or a sport pilot might have difficulty finding an
instructor in his or her area qualified to offer training on the
aircraft he or she wishes to fly.
Most commenters felt that the differences between various makes and
models of light-sport aircraft were minor and generally would not
affect the ability of a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating to
safely provide training in various makes and models of light-sport
aircraft, nor would those minor differences affect a sport pilot's
ability to operate them. Many commenters suggested removing the
requirement completely for these reasons. Commenters also suggested the
FAA organize light-sport aircraft of similar performance and handling
characteristics into broad groups and allow flight instructors with a
sport pilot rating to receive logbook endorsements within each group,
rather than obtain one endorsement for each make and model of aircraft.
Most commenters felt this modification would reduce the cost to flight
instructors with a sport pilot rating, consequently reducing the cost
passed to sport pilots and student pilots seeking a sport pilot
certificate.
An industry organization suggested that it would be reasonable to
allow for the operation of an additional make and model of light-sport
aircraft if the sport pilot became familiar with the operating
limitations, emergency procedures, operating speeds, and weight and
balance for the particular make and model of aircraft. Additionally,
the sport pilot would be required to perform the following flight
operations prior to carrying a passenger, accomplishing a cross-country
flight, or operating solo in Class B or C airspace--take-offs and
landings (minimum of 3 to a full stop), power-off stalls (as
appropriate), and 1 hour of pilot-in-command flight time. The sport
pilot would then endorse his or her logbook specifying that these
actions had been completed. The endorsement would permit the sport
pilot to operate that make and model of aircraft.
After reviewing the comments and gaining a better understanding of
the technical similarities between certain makes and models of light-
sport aircraft, the FAA agrees that the proposed rule could have been
administratively and economically burdensome. Although the FAA does not
believe the requirements should be completely eliminated, the FAA is
changing the final rule as discussed below.
The FAA now recognizes that grouping makes and models of light-
sport aircraft that have very similar performance and operating
characteristics as a set of aircraft would be an effective means to
permit sport pilots to operate any aircraft within that set once an
endorsement to operate any aircraft within that set has been received.
The FAA now believes that it is possible to group light-sport aircraft
into sets of aircraft, as defined in current Sec. 61.1. Section 61.1
states that the term ``set of aircraft'' refers to aircraft that
``share similar performance characteristics, such as similar airspeed
and altitude operating envelopes, similar handling characteristics, and
the same number and type of propulsion systems.'' This concept of
grouping aircraft having similar operating characteristics, or using
sets of aircraft, has been used successfully for many years through the
National Designated Pilot Examiner Registry (NDPER) program for
training and checking pilots operating warbirds and other vintage
aircraft.
A working group of FAA and industry representatives, including
pilots, flight instructors and manufacturers, will be established to
develop standards for defining and establishing sets of aircraft. Sets
of light-sport aircraft will be established according to the definition
of ``set of aircraft'' in Sec. 61.1 and made available to the public.
The parameters to establish sets of aircraft will be referenced in the
advisory material, and a list of aircraft that meet the parameters for
a specific set of aircraft will be available on the FAA's website. All
experimental, primary, and standard category light-sport aircraft will
be grouped into sets. In addition, newly manufactured light-sport
aircraft will be required to have ``flight training supplements'' to
identify the sets of aircraft to which they belong. As a member of the
working group, the FAA will recommend that sets of aircraft include
experimental aircraft with modifications and single-seat aircraft.
The FAA is revising the rule (under Sec. Sec. 61.319 and 61.323)
to require that, before conducting flight operations, the holder of a
sport pilot certificate--
Must receive training from an authorized instructor in a
make and model of light-sport aircraft that is in the same set as the
aircraft in which the pilot intends to conduct flight operations.
Must record a make and model logbook endorsement from an
authorized instructor for the make and model of light-sport aircraft in
which flight privileges are desired.
May operate any additional make and model of light-sport
aircraft within a set of light-sport aircraft under a single make and
model logbook endorsement issued by an authorized flight instructor.
[[Page 44824]]
Under the final rule (under Sec. 61.415), the FAA is not requiring
an additional make and model endorsement for a flight instructor with a
sport pilot rating. The FAA recognizes that such a requirement would be
superfluous. Also, as discussed in the following paragraph, if a flight
instructor with a sport pilot rating holds a higher pilot certificate,
a make and model endorsement is not required under the final rule.
The FAA received several comments from individuals and industry
organizations that stated that the FAA should reconsider the proposed
requirement that the holder of a recreational pilot certificate or
higher who is exercising sport pilot privileges be required to receive
flight training and a make and model logbook endorsement from an
authorized instructor before being permitted to fly a specific make and
model light-sport aircraft. The FAA recognizes that the holder of a
recreational pilot certificate or higher pilot certificate with the
applicable rating has received more training than a sport pilot, which
in most cases was in more complex and larger aircraft. Therefore, the
FAA is revising the final rule under Sec. 61.303 to establish that the
holder of a recreational pilot certificate or higher is not required to
obtain a make and model logbook endorsement from an authorized
instructor to operate a light-sport aircraft while exercising the
privileges of a sport pilot certificate.
Several commenters said it would be burdensome to require a flight
instructor with a sport pilot rating to have at least 5 hours of
required pilot-in-command time in each make and model of light-sport
aircraft in which he or she is authorized to provide flight training.
This was proposed in SFAR No. 89 section 135(c). After gathering
additional technical information and considering the comments, the FAA
still believes that flight instructors with a sport pilot rating must
become familiar with the light-sport aircraft on which they intend to
provide training and must have at least 5 hours of flight time in the
make and model of aircraft within a set of aircraft. The ability to
satisfy the make and model requirement within the set of aircraft
provisions discussed above partially relieves the burden. Additionally,
the FAA no longer believes it necessary for a flight instructor to
receive this training from another flight instructor. The final rule is
changed to provide the level of safety intended under the proposed rule
and to reduce the administrative burden and possibly the economic
burden. In the final rule (Sec. 61.415(e)), before conducting flight-
training operations, a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating must
log at least 5 hours of flight time in a make and model of light-sport
aircraft within the same set of aircraft in which flight-training
operations are to be conducted.
Although the final rule does not require endorsements for each
individual make and model flown within a set of aircraft, the FAA
believes, and will recommend through advisory material, that all pilots
and flight instructors should consider a familiarization flight in each
light-sport aircraft in which flight operations will be conducted.
Guidelines for the familiarization flights will be established in the
standards for the aircraft training supplement and in advisory material
provided by the FAA. Make and model familiarization training should
address the aircraft's performance envelope, preflight, cockpit
orientation, use of flaps, takeoff, climb, cruise, required maneuvers,
slow flight, stalls, approach, landing, aircraft operating
instructions, and aircraft flight training supplement.
V.5.A.v. Changes to Airspace Restrictions
As described in the proposed rule, with additional training, a
sport pilot may operate in Class B, C, or D airspace with a U.S.
driver's license or an airman medical certificate. Currently ultralight
pilots operating under part 103 are permitted to operate within Class
B, C, or D airspace with prior air traffic control authorization. They
may not, however, operate over any congested area of a city, town, or
settlement. Ultralight pilots have had the authority to operate any
type of ultralight vehicle (i.e., fixed wing, powered parachute,
weight-shift-control) in Class B, C, and D airspace without an airman
medical certificate for approximately 20 years. Additionally, the FAA
has allowed balloon and glider pilots to operate in this airspace
without an airman medical certificate since 1945. In consideration of a
sport pilot's limited privileges within this airspace, and after
analyzing relevant accident data, the FAA has determined that, as
proposed in the NPRM, it is appropriate to allow sport pilots to
operate in Class B, C, and D airspace with a U.S. driver's license or
an airman medical certificate. For further discussion on medical
provisions, see ``V.5.A.ii. Medical Provisions.''
Some commenters, including the NTSB, expressed concern about the
slower light-sport aircraft operating in close proximity to faster
general aviation and commercial aircraft in Class B, C, and D airspace,
and said that this could pose difficulty for air traffic controllers
and present a potentially dangerous situation. A few commenters,
including the NTSB, expressed concern that training requirements for
sport pilots may not be sufficient to permit sport pilots to operate in
the same airspace as transport category aircraft. The FAA also received
comments expressing concern over the lack of experience of sport pilots
operating light-sport aircraft in Class B, C, or D airspace, or at
major airports located in Class B airspace, as listed in 14 CFR part
91, appendix D, section 4. The commenters said that this would pose a
burden on other pilots in those classes of airspace and for ATC
facilities.
The FAA has considered these comments and maintains the position it
took in the NPRM regarding operations in Class B, C, and D airspace.
See the discussions of proposed SFAR No. 89 sections 37, 81, 121, and
135, and Sec. 61.101 in the preamble to the NPRM. However, the FAA
agrees with the commenters who felt that some airspace is too busy and
congested, not only for sport pilots, but also for recreational pilots,
and has reconsidered sport pilot and recreational pilot operations at
the major airports located in Class B airspace, as listed in 14 CFR
part 91, appendix D, section 4. The FAA is changing Sec. 91.131(b)(2)
to provide that, like all student pilots, a sport pilot or a
recreational pilot is not authorized to take off or land at the major
airports located in Class B airspace, as listed in 14 CFR part 91,
appendix D, section 4. It should also be noted that sport pilots and
recreational pilots are prohibited from operations in Class B, C, and D
airspace unless they have received the required training and an
endorsement, in accordance with Sec. Sec. 61.325 and 61.101(d). Those
sections establish equivalent training requirements to those that a
private pilot must receive for operating in those classes of airspace.
Furthermore, a sport pilot may not fly above 10,000 feet, at night, or
when flight or surface visibility is less than 3 statute miles. Basic
VFR weather minimums specified in Sec. 91.155 also apply to sport
pilots. A private pilot, however, has more privileges than a sport
pilot in airspace that transport category aircraft operate in.
Specifically a private pilot is authorized to land at the major
airports located in Class B airspace, as listed in 14 CFR part 91,
appendix D, section 4, and a private pilot may operate in Class A, B,
C, D, E, and G airspace without any additional training.
The FAA notes that, in the final rule under Sec. 61.89, the FAA
defines the limitations for a student pilot seeking a
[[Page 44825]]
sport pilot certificate. The rule provides that a student pilot seeking
a sport pilot certificate is prohibited from operations in Class B, C
and D airspace; at an airport located in Class B, C, or D airspace; and
to, from, through, or on an airport having an operational control
tower. Therefore, he or she is not required to receive training on
procedures for operations in these classes of airspace. If, however, he
or she wishes to operate in Class B, C, or D airspace; at an airport
located in Class B, C, or D airspace; or to, from, through, or on an
airport having an operational control tower, under Sec. 61.94, that
student pilot seeking a sport pilot certificate is required to receive
airspace and airport-specific training and an endorsement.
A recreational pilot is prohibited from operations in Class B, C
and D airspace; at an airport located in Class B, C, or D airspace; and
to, from, through, or on an airport having an operational control
tower, unless he or she wishes to receive the additional training
specified in Sec. 61.101(d). Therefore, a student pilot seeking a
recreational pilot certificate is prohibited from operating in this
airspace unless receiving the additional training specified under Sec.
61.94.
The FAA is also modifying Sec. 61.95 to exclude a student pilot
seeking a sport pilot or recreational pilot certificate from the
requirements of this rule because new Sec. 61.94 will apply to
persons. Section 61.94 parallels the requirements of Sec. 61.95,
although it is more restrictive. The required training in Sec. 61.94
encompasses training on Class B, C, D airspace and airport-specific
training, as opposed to the training requirements in Sec. 61.95 that
is limited to only Class B airspace and airport-specific training and
the required endorsement.
In the proposed rule, the FAA would have prohibited a sport pilot
from operating in Class B, C, and D airspace without additional
training and an endorsement, and would have revised the rule for the
recreational pilot to parallel the new sport pilot rule language.
Currently, recreational pilots are prohibited from operating in
airspace that requires communication with ATC.
The FAA intended the proposed language to prohibit sport pilots and
recreational pilots without appropriate ground and flight training from
conducting light-sport aircraft operations in airspace that has an
operational control tower. Upon further review, the FAA realized that
this would not have prohibited operations as described in Sec. Sec.
91.126(d) and 91.127(e), which prohibit operations in Class E and G
airspace that have an operational control tower. Pilots operating in
airspace and at airports with operational control towers must receive
training and have appropriate equipment. Therefore, in the final rule,
Sec. Sec. 61.94, 61.101(d), and 61.325 address not only how student
pilots seeking a sport pilot and recreational pilot certificate and
sport pilots and recreational pilots, respectively, obtain privileges
to operate a light-sport aircraft at airports within, or in airspace
within, Class B, C, and D airspace, but also at other airspace with an
airport having an operational control tower. The headings of those
sections are revised, and within the regulatory text the words ``* * *
and to, from, through, or at an airport having an operational control
tower'' are added. In addition, Sec. 61.425 includes parallel language
to describe endorsement records that must be kept by flight instructors
with a sport pilot rating.
For further discussion of equipment required for operating light-
sport aircraft in these classes of airspace, see ``V.7.A. Part 91--
General Issues'' below.
V.5.A.vi. Changes to Altitude Limitations
Proposed section 73(b)(6) of SFAR No. 89 (now Sec. 61.315(c)(11))
would have restricted the operation of a light-sport aircraft to
altitudes of no more than 10,000 feet above MSL or 2,000 feet above
ground level (AGL), whichever is higher. The FAA received several
comments on this proposed restriction, and nearly all of them opposed
it. Most stated that allowing pilots to fly at higher altitudes would
enhance safety.
Several commenters noted that higher altitudes permit safer stall
and spin recovery training because of the increased margin for error.
One commenter specifically noted that visibility is often better above
10,000 feet MSL, which enhances safety. Another commenter offered a
similar observation, noting that pilots often choose to fly at higher
altitudes to avoid flying through dangerous weather systems. Many
commenters also noted that glider pilots often need to fly at altitudes
greater than 10,000 feet MSL to take full advantage of areas of rising
warm air, called thermals, which help to keep gliders aloft.
The FAA does not believe that these commenters provided valid
justification for amending the rule. After considering these comments
and other comments expressing concern about sport pilots operating in
congested, high-altitude airspace, the FAA has revised Sec.
61.315(c)(11) to be more restrictive. The rule now prohibits operations
above 10,000 feet MSL, and the latitude that was proposed for
operations up to 2,000 feet AGL, if higher, is removed. The FAA is
making this revision for the following reasons.
First, operations above 10,000 feet MSL require that a pilot have
skills and training on oxygen requirements and medical factors, reduced
aircraft performance, and the other risks associated with operations at
higher altitudes. The minimum training that a sport pilot receives does
not encompass these additional training requirements.
Second, given that the aircraft that typically operate above 10,000
feet MSL are often much larger than light-sport aircraft and usually
cruise at considerably higher speeds, the FAA is concerned about
permitting light-sport aircraft to operate at the same altitudes as
these aircraft.
Third, light-sport aircraft typically do not have position or
anticollision lights to help other pilots see and avoid these aircraft,
which would be beneficial at higher speeds.
Lastly, there are still many areas in the United States where
operations above 10,000 feet MSL do not require communication with ATC
or the equipment required to be easily identified on radar by ATC, such
as transponders. Most light-sport aircraft do not have transponders or
the capability to conduct radio communications, reducing their ability
to coordinate their operations with ATC and be easily identified to
ensure collision avoidance.
Several commenters disagreed with the limit of 2,000 feet AGL,
arguing that most pilots would prefer, in the interest of safety, to
clear mountains by more than 2,000 feet AGL. The FAA agrees with these
commenters in that there could be circumstances in which a sport pilot
would need more than 2,000 feet AGL to safely clear a mountain.
However, as discussed above regarding training and equipment required
for high-altitude operations, the FAA does not believe it is necessary
to permit operations above 10,000 feet MSL solely for the purpose of
crossing mountainous terrain. The pilot must determine whether it is
safe to clear mountainous terrain and remain below 10,000 feet MSL.
The FAA is revising Sec. 61.311(c), and limiting sport pilot
operations at all times to below 10,000 feet MSL. The FAA believes that
this revision will simplify the altitude restrictions and increase the
level of safety.
The FAA maintains that any pilot who wishes to exercise the
privilege of operating above 10,000 feet MSL must gain the necessary
experience and receive the additional training required
[[Page 44826]]
for at least a private pilot certificate, or, in limited cases, a
recreational pilot certificate.
V.5.G.vii. Gyroplanes
Most gyroplanes historically have not been designed and
manufactured to a specific regulatory standard. These aircraft are
typically issued experimental certificates, which prohibit them from
being used to conduct flight training operations for compensation or
hire. Under the existing regulations, gyroplanes can be issued a
standard category or primary category airworthiness certificate, which
will permit such use; however, very few manufacturers have chosen this
certification path. Today most of the gyroplanes that fit under the
definition of a light-sport aircraft are certificated as experimental
amateur-built aircraft or are being operated under part 103. Those
gyroplanes that exceed the limits of part 103 will need to be
certificated as experimental light-sport aircraft to continue operating
under this rule.
The FAA has issued exemptions to permit gyroplanes without standard
category airworthiness certificates to be operated for compensation or
hire while conducting flight training. The three FAA-recognized
ultralight organizations, the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA),
Aero Sports Connection (ASC), and the United States Ultralight
Association (USUA) hold exemptions that permit its members to conduct
flight training in a two-place ultralight-like gyroplane, and the
Popular Rotorcraft Association (PRA) holds an exemption for gyroplanes
issued an experimental amateur-built certificate.
The FAA received numerous comments, including comments from an
industry association, regarding the inclusion of gyroplanes and
helicopters in the proposed rule. The comments reflected two general
areas of concern. A primary concern was whether gyroplanes would be
manufactured under a consensus standard and issued special
airworthiness certificates, permitting these aircraft to conduct
training operations for compensation or hire. Commenters expressed the
need for appropriate training aircraft to be available for gyroplane
flight instruction. The ability to manufacture a gyroplane under a
consensus standard would provide new training aircraft that meet a
design standard.
Secondly, many expressed significant concern about the lack of
pilot training and the lack of qualified flight instructors available
for gyroplanes. The gyroplane industry submitted comments requesting
that the FAA consider the importance of ensuring that flight
instructors with a sport pilot rating have the ability to instruct in
light-sport gyroplanes. FAA and industry analysis and data supports the
conclusion that a lack of training, flight experience, and flight
proficiency account for about half of all gyroplane accidents. Lack of
proficiency or poor judgment under which a pilot flies a gyroplane
beyond the aircraft's or the pilot's own safe limits are often factors
in many gyroplane accidents.
The FAA acknowledges that the gyroplane training infrastructure is
less developed than other traditional aircraft training networks, owing
in part to historical and cultural influences within the gyroplane
community, the scarcity of training aircraft, gyroplane instructors and
DPEs, the lack of gyroplane knowledge training resources, and even to a
widespread inconsistent and often inadequate understanding and
appreciation of gyroplane control and stability issues, by both
instructors and pilots and the general aviation community. These
factors, coupled with an inappropriate reliance on the use of fixed-
wing training methodologies by students and instructors, sometimes
leave less experienced pilots unaware of the limits of a particular
gyroplane. This lack of consistent, comprehensive, and gyroplane-
specific training often leaves new gyroplane pilots unaware of their
aircraft's handling characteristics, and ill-prepared to make sound
flight decisions, particularly when they encounter the limits of the
aircraft flight envelope.
The FAA notes that there are a total of approximately 35 gyroplane
instructors throughout the U.S. who are either certificated by the FAA
or who are operating under a part 103 training exemption. Many of these
instructors provide training only part-time. Further, those gyroplanes
used for training possess flight handling and stability characteristics
that are often very different from the characteristics of the small,
single-place gyroplanes into which a student pilot might later
transition. Additionally, the scarcity of both instructors and
qualified FAA aviation safety inspectors and DPEs provide further
discouragement for an individual attempting to undertake training for a
gyroplane rating. All of these impediments to an individual becoming a
gyroplane pilot are compounded by existing night and night cross-
country training requirements, which most gyroplane training aircraft
are not equipped to accomplish. Further, many gyroplane instructors are
often not willing to endure the risk and difficulty of conducting night
cross-country flights in open cockpit experimental aircraft.
Many individuals presented such reasoning in their comments,
arguing that, given the existing obstacles to an individual obtaining
gyroplane flight instruction, the FAA should avoid exacerbating the
problem and allow light-sport gyroplanes to obtain special
airworthiness certificates under this rule. These commenters stated
that, without the availability of special light-sport gyroplanes, or
the ability of gyroplane instructors to use existing two-place
gyroplanes to conduct training for compensation or hire, a significant
percentage of gyroplane instructors (currently ultralight flight
instructors) will not be able to continue instructing.
Based on these concerns, the gyroplane industry identified numerous
general training issues it felt should be addressed in the final rule
regarding light-sport gyroplane aircraft. Many of the comments
addressed have been considered for all categories of aircraft and
discussed elsewhere in this preamble. Specific gyroplane-only issues
included:
Removal of the mandatory requirement for night training at
all pilot certificate levels and the addition of a limitation on the
pilot certificate;
Elimination of the requirement that a single-place
ultralight gyroplane pilot take a check ride in a two-place light-sport
aircraft;
Extension of the training exemptions or issuance of
Letters of Deviation Authority for an indefinite period if gyroplanes
can not be certificated under Sec. 21.186 (now Sec. 21.190);
Review of current exemptions and practical test standards
to incorporate more stringent training requirements that flight
instructors understand pitch and stability, and recognize departure
from controlled flight and apply appropriate recovery techniques.
With regard to the gyroplane industry's request for revisions to
the training requirements, the FAA is making changes to the rule, not
only for sport pilots and flight instructors with a sport pilot rating,
but also for recreational pilots and private pilots flying gyroplanes.
The new two-place experimental light-sport gyroplanes certificated
under Sec. 21.191(i)(1), consisting of the existing fleet of two-place
ultralight-like gyroplanes, will be permitted to be used for training
for compensation or hire for a 5-year period, similar to all other
categories of light-sport aircraft. Experimental light-sport
gyroplanes, as well as any experimental amateur-built
[[Page 44827]]
light-sport gyroplanes, will be authorized to be operated by a sport
pilot to carry a passenger and to receive flight training. If the
gyroplane industry develops an industry consensus standard through the
ASTM process (as discussed under Sec. 21.190), the FAA can examine the
safety performance of gyroplanes that are built according to that
standard. If there are positive safety benefits for gyroplanes built to
the consensus standard, the FAA may consider future rulemaking that
would permit gyroplanes built to the consensus standard to receive a
special light-sport aircraft airworthiness certificate under Sec.
21.190 and also allow light-sport kit-built manufactured to a consensus
standard to receive an experimental light-sport aircraft certificate
under Sec. 21.191(i)(2). The FAA may favorably consider petitions for
exemption to allow flight training in an aircraft built to this
standard to gain operational data to support future rulemaking.
If the gyroplane industry is unable to agree on a consensus
standard, the FAA will decide at that time whether to favorably
consider petitions for exemption to allow training in experimental
light-sport gyroplanes for compensation or hire or alternative
arrangements. In addition, the FAA will need to evaluate the safety of
continuing the current exemption issued to the Popular Rotorcraft
Association to conduct training for compensation or hire in
experimental gyroplanes.
V.5.A.viii. Demonstration of Aircraft to Prospective Buyers
Commenters suggested that the FAA consider allowing aircraft
salespersons who are sport pilots, flight instructors with a sport
pilot rating, or recreational pilots to demonstrate aircraft in flight
to prospective buyers after meeting experience requirements similar to
those for a private pilot under Sec. 61.113(f). The commenters also
requested the FAA consider allowing a recreational pilot who is not an
aircraft salesperson to demonstrate a light-sport aircraft to a
prospective buyer because a similar privilege was proposed for sport
pilots.
In section 75 of SFAR 89 (now Sec. 61.315(c)(9)), the FAA proposed
that a sport pilot who is not an aircraft salesperson would be
permitted to demonstrate a light-sport aircraft in flight to a
prospective buyer. The proposal, however, would not have allowed a
sport pilot who is an aircraft salesperson to demonstrate a light-sport
aircraft in flight to a prospective buyer. The FAA did not propose this
privilege for a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating because
these types of privileges are typically addressed by the underlying
pilot certificate. Additionally, Sec. 61.101(d)(12) currently states
that a recreational pilot is prohibited from demonstrating an aircraft
in flight to a prospective buyer.
The FAA maintains that aircraft salespersons must hold at least a
private pilot certificate to demonstrate an aircraft in flight to a
perspective buyer. With the addition of ratings at the private pilot
certificate level for weight-shift-control aircraft and powered
parachutes, the regulations will now permit appropriately rated private
pilots who are aircraft salespersons to demonstrate these categories of
aircraft in flight to prospective buyers.
The FAA maintains that, for sales demonstrations that are not
conducted by an aircraft salesperson, a sport pilot or a recreational
pilot can conduct this activity. Therefore, to ensure that recreational
pilots have at least the same privileges as sport pilots, the FAA is
revising Sec. 61.101(d)(12) to allow a recreational pilot to conduct
sales demonstration flights as long as the pilot is not acting as an
aircraft salesperson.
V.5.A.ix. Category and Class Discussion: FAA Form 8710-11 Submission
After further consideration of the NPRM, the FAA is adding a
requirement to Sec. 61.321 (proposed as SFAR No. 89 section 63) to
require that the holder of a sport pilot certificate seeking to operate
in an additional category or class of light-sport aircraft complete an
application for those privileges on a form and in a manner acceptable
to the FAA. The FAA expects that FAA Form 8710-11, Sport Pilot
Certificate and/or Rating Application, will be used for this process.
Since the sport pilot certificate does not list category and class
privileges, this form will be used to provide a record of the completed
proficiency check and will provide a record available to the FAA and
the NTSB when conducting accident and incident investigations or
enforcement actions. Also it can provide a method for an airman to
reconstruct a lost logbook, document endorsements that establish
additional category and class privileges, or establish proof of
required endorsements for insurance purposes.
This requirement will also provide a method to gather additional
data. Although this will require that additional paperwork be completed
by airmen and authorized instructors, the FAA believes that the
requirement is necessary, considering the previously discussed benefits
to the public and the government. To facilitate compliance with this
requirement, the FAA has modified the automated procedure, through
Integrated Airman Certificate and/or Rating Application (IACARA), for
completing FAA Form 8710-11.
Pursuant to Sec. 61.423, FAA Form 8710-11 must be signed by the
recommending instructor. The applicant must present this form to the
authorized instructor conducting the proficiency check. In accordance
with Sec. 61.423, the authorized instructor conducting the proficiency
check must complete, sign and submit FAA Form 8710-11 within 10 days to
the FAA upon satisfactory completion of the proficiency check. The
authorized instructor must retain a copy of the form and retain it for
three years in accordance with the recordkeeping requirements of Sec.
61.423.
V.5.B. Part 61--Section-by-Section Discussion
Section 61.1 Applicability and Definitions
The FAA received comments on the definition of ``cross-country'' in
Sec. 61.1(b)(3). They also commented on the provisions for pilotage,
dead reckoning, electronic navigation aids, radio aids, and other
navigation systems, which were not revised under the proposal.
Commenters pointed out that the regulation would require training on
each of these navigation techniques and systems. The commenters said
that training on each of these requirements could not be accomplished
for weight-shift-control aircraft and powered parachutes. After
considering the comments and becoming more familiar with powered
parachute and weight-shift-control aircraft during the development of
the practical test standards, the FAA recognizes that training on each
of these navigation techniques and systems should be required when
appropriate. Most of these aircraft do not have any electronic
navigation equipment or radio aids and are not required to demonstrate
this for the issuance of a sport pilot certificate. Therefore, the FAA
is changing the final rule to add the words, ``as applicable''
paragraph (b)(3)(iii)(B) and (iv)(B). This is also discussed above
under ``V.5.A.iii. Flight Training and Proficiency Requirements.''
The FAA also is adding a definition of ``student pilot seeking a
sport pilot certificate'' to Sec. 61.1. This definition is added to
differentiate these student pilots from other student pilots. The
definition specifies that a student pilot seeking a sport pilot
certificate either receives an endorsement from a certificated flight
instructor with a sport pilot rating or an endorsement from a
certificated flight instructor with other
[[Page 44828]]
than a sport pilot rating, which includes a limitation for the
operation of a light-sport aircraft as specified Sec. 61.89(c). See
discussion of Sec. 61.89(c) below.
Changes
The proposed amendments to Sec. 61.1 are adopted with formatting
and wording changes for improved readability. In addition, the
following changes are made.
The proposed amendment to paragraph (b)(2)(iii) is not adopted in
the final rule. As proposed, the amendment would have added a reference
to SFAR No. 89, the provisions of which are now incorporated into part
61. Since existing Sec. 61.1(b)(2)(iii) already contains a reference
to part 61, the amendment is no longer necessary.
In the final rule, paragraph (b)(3)(ii) introductory text is
revised to add the words ``(except for a powered parachute category
rating)'' after the words ``for a private pilot certificate.'' This
revision is made because the definition of cross-country time in
paragraph (b)(3)(iv) addresses persons seeking a private pilot
certificate with a powered parachute category rating.
Proposed paragraphs (b)(3)(iii)(A) and (b)(3)(iv)(A) have been
included in the introductory language of (b)(3)(iii) and (b)(3)(iv)
respectively. Proposed paragraphs (b)(3)(iii)(B) and (b)(3)(iv)(B) are
therefore adopted as (b)(3)(iii)(A) and (b)(3)(iv)(A) respectively.
Proposed paragraphs (b)(3)(iii)(C) and (b)(3)(iv)(C) are adopted as
(b)(3)(iii)(B) and (b)(3)(iv)(B) respectively, and each is amended by
adding the words ``as applicable.''
Paragraph (b)(15) is added to define the term ``student pilot
seeking a sport pilot certificate.''
Section 61.3 Requirements for Certificates, Ratings, and Authorizations
(Proposed as SFAR No. 89 Sections 15 and 111)
The FAA received numerous comments on the topic of medical
provisions. For a complete discussion of the comments and the FAA's
responses, see ``V.5.A.ii. Medical Provisions.''
In the final rule, the provisions of proposed SFAR No. 89 sections
15 and 111 are found in Sec. Sec. 61.3(c)(2) and 61.23(a), (b), and
(c). Current Sec. Sec. 61.3(c)(2) excepts persons from having to meet
the airman medical certificate requirements of the section in certain
circumstances. That paragraph is amended in the final rule to include
the medical provisions found in proposed SFAR No. 89 section 15 for
student pilots seeking a sport pilot certificate and for sport pilots.
In addition, the paragraph is further amended to require that persons
using a current and valid U.S. driver's license meet certain
requirements. If a person has applied for an airman medical
certificate, that person must have been found eligible for the issuance
of at least a third-class airman medical certificate at the time of his
or her most recent application. If a person has been issued an airman
medical certificate, his or her most recently issued airman medical
certificate must not have been suspended or revoked. If a person has
been granted an Authorization, that Authorization must not have been
withdrawn. Further, a person must not know or have reason to know of
any medical condition that would make him or her unable to operate a
light-sport aircraft in a safe manner.
Proposed SFAR No. 89 section 111 set forth medical provisions for
flight instructors with a sport pilot rating. The provisions of current
Sec. 61.3(c)(2)(ii) through (c)(2)(iv) address these flight
instructors, and a rule change to incorporate proposed section 111 is
not therefore required.
See the discussion under ``V.5.A.ii. Medical Provisions.'' In
addition, Sec. 61.23, which describes what a person needs to satisfy
medical eligibility requirements, is discussed below.
Changes
The medical provisions proposed in SFAR No. 89 sections 15 and 111
are transferred to Sec. 61.3(c)(2) with the following change. New
language is added to provide that persons may not use a current and
valid U.S. driver's license as evidence of medical qualification if his
or her most recent application for an airman medical certificate has
been denied based on being found not eligible for the issuance of at
least a third-class airman medical certificate, his or her most
recently issued airman medical certificate has been suspended or
revoked, or his or her most recent Authorization has been withdrawn.
Further, that person must not know or have reason to know of any
medical condition that would make him or her unable to operate a light-
sport aircraft in a safe manner.
Section 61.5 Certificates and Ratings Issued Under This Part
Several commenters noted that the proposed rule made no provisions
for a powered parachute-sea class rating. The FAA assumed that it was
only necessary to establish a powered parachute category rating and not
establish separate land and sea class ratings because the FAA was not
aware that a powered parachute capable of water operations existed. The
FAA is now aware that design innovation and new use of existing
technologies has allowed manufactures to design a powered parachute
with an inflatable wing that is suitable for water operations.
Therefore, the FAA is establishing both powered parachute-land and
powered parachute-sea class ratings in Sec. 61.5.
Several commenters suggested adding additional categories of
aircraft to this section. All of these suggestions were to add
ultralight vehicles that the FAA has stated will remain under part 103.
Some examples are paramotors, paragliders, and unpowered foot-launched
parachute aircraft. The FAA has been working closely with the
ultralight industry to establish common definitions and common industry
standards for these vehicles. Additional categories and classes of
aircraft may be addressed in future rulemaking. Existing exemptions for
tandem ultralight training vehicles under part 103 may also be revised
to address these new categories and classes of aircraft. See the
discussion under ``III.5.A. Comments on Ultralight Vehicles'' and
``III.5.B. Future Rulemaking on Ultralight Vehicles.''
Several other commenters requested that the FAA consider commercial
pilot certificates with category ratings for powered parachutes and
weight-shift-control aircraft. They thought that this level of pilot
certification would be required when the FAA was ready to consider some
limited commercial operations for these new categories of aircraft. The
commenters pointed out that powered parachutes and weight-shift-control
aircraft are ideal for sightseeing, crop dusting, pipeline and
powerline patrols, aerial photography, and traffic reporting. The FAA
agrees that limited types of commercial operations may need to be
considered in the future. If there is a need to require a commercial
pilot certificate for those types of operations, the FAA may initiate
rulemaking for that purpose. However, the FAA is not adding training
and certification requirements that will permit a person to add a
powered parachute or weight-shift-control category rating to a
commercial or airline transport pilot (ATP) certificate.
Changes
In Sec. 61.5, new paragraphs (b)(6)(i) and (ii) are added to
include class ratings for powered parachute land and powered parachute
sea, respectively.
In the final rule also corrects a typographical error in the body
of the rule text. The paragraph designated ``(i) * * * (5) Sport pilot
rating'' should
[[Page 44829]]
have read ``(c) * * * (5) Sport pilot rating.''
Section 61.23 Medical Certificates: Requirement and Duration (Proposed
as SFAR No. 89 Sections 15, 35, and 111)
The FAA received numerous comments on the topic of medical
provisions. For a complete discussion of the comments and the FAA's
responses, see ``V.5.A.ii. Medical Provisions.''
As noted above, in the final rule, the provisions of proposed SFAR
No. 89 sections 15 and 111 are found in Sec. Sec. 61.3(c)(2) and
61.23(a), (b), and (c). Among other things, Sec. 61.23 describes which
operations do and do not require an airman medical certificate. In the
final rule, the FAA is adding new paragraph (c) to describe operations
that require either an airman medical certificate or a U.S. driver's
license. The FAA notes that the final rule includes a provision that
all restrictions listed on a current and valid U.S. driver's license,
as well as those imposed by judicial and administrative order, apply at
all times when a U.S. driver's license is used to meet the requirements
of this section. This is also established under the privileges and
limits for a sport pilot in Sec. 61.315(c)(17). This intent was
discussed in the preamble of the NPRM for proposed SFAR No. 89 sections
15 and 35.
In addition, paragraph (c)(2) is further amended to require that
persons using a current and valid U.S. driver's license meet certain
requirements. A person using a driver's license who has recently
applied for an airman medical certificate must have been found eligible
for the issuance of at least a third-class airman medical certificate.
If a person has been issued an airman medical certificate, his or her
most recently issued airman medical certificate must not have been
suspended or revoked. If a person has been granted an Authorization,
his or her most recent Authorization must not have been withdrawn.
Further, a person must not know or have reason to know of any medical
condition that would make him or her unable to operate a light-sport
aircraft in a safe manner.
Changes
The medical provisions proposed in SFAR No. 89 sections 15, 35, and
111 are transferred to Sec. Sec. 61.3 and 61.23. Under Sec.
61.23(c)(2)(i), a requirement is added that each restriction and
limitation, including those imposed by judicial and administrative
order on a current and valid U.S. driver's license, apply at all times
when a U.S. driver's license is used to meet the requirements of this
section.
In addition, language is added to paragraph (c)(2) to provide that
persons may not use a current and valid U.S. driver's license as
evidence of medical qualification if his or her most recent application
for an airman medical certificate has been denied based on being found
not eligible for the issuance of at least a third-class airman medical
certificate, his or her most recently issued airman medical certificate
has been suspended or revoked, or his or her most recent Authorization
has been withdrawn. Further, that person must not know or have reason
to know of any medical condition that would make him or her unable to
operate a light-sport aircraft in a safe manner.
Section 61.31 Type Rating Requirements, Additional Training, and
Authorization Requirements
Paragraph (k)(1) is amended in the final rule to incorporate
powered parachutes and weight-shift-control aircraft in the list of
aircraft for which a category and class rating is not required if the
aircraft is not type-certificated. The FAA recognized this oversight
and is correcting it. Additionally, the FAA is making an editorial
change to remove a reference to the class rating for gliders because
this class rating no longer exists.
Under Sec. 61.31(k)(2)(iii), the FAA proposed that, when
conducting an operation while carrying passengers, the holder of a
pilot certificate must have a category and class rating when operating
an aircraft with an experimental certificate or provisional type-
certificate. A few commenters said that this change would be
unnecessary. They believed that if a person is qualified to fly an
experimental aircraft, he or she should be qualified to carry
passengers, regardless of whether he or she holds a category and class
rating.
The FAA disagrees with these comments. The operation of
experimental aircraft by pilots without appropriate category and class
ratings was previously allowed under Sec. 61.31(k)(2)(iii), and the
operating limitations for those aircraft permitted the carriage of
passengers. However, the FAA believes that, in the interest of safety,
a category and class rating is necessary when carrying a passenger,
regardless of the aircraft's airworthiness certificate. This is because
there is an increase in the number of experimental aircraft being
operated in the NAS, and increased numbers of accidents have been
attributed to a lack of category and class ratings.
A few commenters, including the NTSB, suggested that a sport pilot
should be required to hold a category and class privilege when
operating an experimental light-sport aircraft regardless of whether he
or she is carrying a passenger. The FAA agrees with these comments and
proposed that a sport pilot, regardless of whether he or she is
carrying a passenger, must hold a specific category and class privilege
prior to operating any light-sport aircraft. If a sport pilot wishes to
exercise category and class privileges in an aircraft with an
experimental certificate, for which a category or class has not been
established, the FAA will specify in the aircraft's operating
limitations the specific category and class rating required to operate
that aircraft. The category and class specified will be based on the
category and class of an aircraft that has operating characteristics
similar to that new aircraft. The FAA has the authority to limit the
carriage of a passenger in the aircraft's operating limitations if this
is necessary for safe operation.
The FAA also considered whether a pilot holding a recreational
pilot certificate or higher, while operating an experimental aircraft
without a passenger, should be required to hold a category and class
rating. The FAA does not believe that this is necessary at this time.
The FAA did not receive any information from commenters to support
requiring a category and class rating while operating an experimental
aircraft without a passenger. For operations without a passenger, the
FAA will continue to address on a case-by-case basis the specific
requirements for category and class ratings through the operating
limitations issued for each experimental aircraft.
To ensure that pilots currently operating under the existing Sec.
61.31(k)(2)(iii) comply with its revised provisions, the FAA is
establishing a method for giving credit for previous experience gained
in an experimental aircraft. This is established in the amendments to
Sec. Sec. 61.63(k) and 61.165(f). Certificated pilots holding a
recreational pilot certificate or higher who do not have a category and
class rating to operate the experimental aircraft, may apply for a
category and class rating with the limitation ``experimental aircraft
only,'' and a designation for the make and model aircraft authorized to
be operated. Pilots seeking this privilege must have logged at least 5
hours of pilot-in-command time in the same category, class, make, and
model of aircraft issued an experimental certificate. The applicant is
required to receive a logbook endorsement from an authorized flight
instructor who has determined that he or she is proficient to act as
pilot in
[[Page 44830]]
command of the same category and class of aircraft. Finally, the 5
hours of flight time must be logged between September 1, 2004 and
August 31, 2005. Upon satisfaction of these requirements, the FAA will
issue the applicant a new pilot certificate with the additional
category and class rating and the limitation ``experimental aircraft
only'' without any further testing.
The FAA believes that the 5 hours of pilot-in-command time received
within the 12-month window ensures recent experience in the category
and class of experimental aircraft that the applicant intends to
operate. This, combined with an endorsement from a flight instructor,
gives the FAA confidence that the applicant has the necessary skills to
continue operating that make and model of experimental aircraft safely.
The FAA believes this is sufficient to allow these pilots who have been
previously operating without a category and class rating under the
current regulation to continue operations safely. The FAA believes that
it would be an unnecessary additional burden in these cases to require
fulfilling the otherwise applicable testing requirements for a category
and class rating.
A few commenters, including the NTSB, noted that in the proposed
rule language for Sec. 61.31(k)(2), the FAA did not recognize that the
holder of a sport pilot certificate may operate an aircraft without
having the appropriate category or class rating on the sport pilot
certificate. This was an oversight. A sport pilot has category and
class privileges that are authorized through endorsements and annotated
in the pilot's logbook; therefore, an exception must be made in this
section for a sport pilot. Accordingly, the FAA is adding Sec.
61.31(k)(2)(vi).
Changes
Paragraph (k)(1) is amended in the final rule to incorporate
powered parachutes and weight-shift-control aircraft in the list of
aircraft for which a category and class rating is not required if the
aircraft is not type-certificated. Additionally, the FAA is making an
editorial change to remove the class rating for gliders because this
class rating no longer exists. In paragraph (k)(2)(iii), the words
``experimental or provisional aircraft type certificate, unless the
operation involves carrying passengers'' are designated as paragraphs
(A) and (B) and corrected to read ``(A) A provisional type certificate;
or (B) An experimental certificate, unless the operation involves
carrying a passenger.''
New paragraph (k)(2)(vi) is added.
Section 61.45 Practical Tests: Required Aircraft and Equipment
Currently, an applicant for a certificate or rating must furnish an
aircraft of U.S. registry with an airworthiness certificate and in a
category specified in Sec. 61.45(a) to conduct a practical test.
Commenters noted that the FAA did not propose a change to this section
to allow use of light-sport category aircraft. The FAA is therefore
adding references to ``light-sport category'' to paragraphs (a)(1)(ii)
and (a)(2)(i) to correct this oversight.
First, in paragraph (a)(1)(ii), the FAA will allow an applicant to
use a light-sport category aircraft for a practical test because light-
sport category aircraft are designed and manufactured to an FAA-
accepted consensus standard. Therefore, for the purpose of conducting
the entire flight segment of a practical test, these aircraft are
considered equivalent to an aircraft issued a standard, limited, or
primary category certificate.
Second, to address the addition of light-sport category aircraft to
paragraph (a)(1)(ii), the FAA is providing in paragraph (a)(2)(i),
that, at the discretion of the examiner, an applicant may also use an
aircraft other than one in the standard, limited, or primary category,
which are currently required by (a)(1)(ii), or a light-sport category
aircraft. This makes it possible for an applicant to use an aircraft
with an airworthiness certificate other than that specified in
paragraph (a)(2)(i) for a practical test. An examiner could, therefore,
permit the use of an experimental aircraft for a practical test. The
FAA is leaving use of such an aircraft to the discretion of the
examiner because experimental aircraft are not designed or manufactured
to a specific regulatory standard.
Several commenters stated that the FAA should modify the
regulations to allow the practical test to be administered in a single-
seat aircraft. They indicated that there are many existing single-seat
gyroplanes, fixed-wing aircraft, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-
control unregistered ultralight-like aircraft that will be operated
under this rule. The commenters said that revising Sec. 61.45 to allow
practical tests in these aircraft would help many pilots that are
flying single-seat unregistered ultralight-like aircraft to obtain
their sport pilot certificates without incurring the cost of training
and testing in a two-seat aircraft with which they are not familiar.
The FAA agrees with the commenters and is establishing in Sec.
61.45(f) specific requirements to allow a practical test to be
conducted in a light-sport aircraft that has a single seat. The FAA
notes that an ultralight pilot who is currently operating a single-seat
ultralight-like aircraft that does not meet the definition of an
ultralight vehicle will need to take a practical test to be issued a
sport pilot certificate to operate that light-sport aircraft. According
to information the FAA received from manufacturers, there are a number
of pilots who intend to purchase single-seat light-sport aircraft,
rather than ultralight vehicles, and this provision will allow them to
take the practical test for the sport pilot certificate in these
aircraft without incurring the cost of additional training and testing
in a two-seat light-sport aircraft.
In the past, the FAA has encountered situations where pilots sought
type ratings or letters of authorization in lieu of type ratings in
aircraft not designed for two occupants. Testing in those aircraft has
been accomplished in accordance with established FAA guidance. In these
cases, testing procedures include observation from the ground or from
chase airplanes.
The FAA believes that with certain limitations, it is appropriate
to allow the practical test for a sport pilot certificate to be
conducted from the ground by a DPE or an FAA inspector. An examiner
must agree to conduct the practical test in a single seat aircraft and
must ensure that the practical test is conducted in accordance with the
sport pilot practical test standards for single seat aircraft. The
pilot will have a limitation placed on his or her sport pilot
certificate limiting operations to a single-seat light-sport aircraft,
and he or she will not be authorized to carry passengers. Only a DPE or
an FAA inspector is authorized to remove the limitation. This can be
accomplished when the sport pilot takes a practical test in a two-place
light-sport aircraft and conducts additional tasks identified in the
practical test standards. It can also be accomplished if the sport
pilot completes the certification requirements for a higher
certificate, rating, or privilege in a two-place aircraft.
The FAA received several comments asking how a flight review
required by Sec. 61.56 would be accomplished in a single-seat
aircraft. A sport pilot who is issued a certificate with a single-seat
limitation must complete a flight review every 24 calendar months, as
required by Sec. 61.56. The flight review is required to establish
that a sport pilot still maintains the knowledge and skills to exercise
sport pilot privileges. There are several methods for accomplishing a
flight review under Sec. 61.56. If the flight review will be
accomplished in an aircraft, it must be in an aircraft with a
[[Page 44831]]
minimum of two seats, in which the pilot is rated, and with an
authorized instructor. In addition, the flight review must be conducted
with a current and qualified authorized instructor who must act as
pilot in command during the conduct of the flight. Therefore, a flight
review cannot be conducted in a single seat aircraft.
Changes
Paragraphs (a)(1)(ii) and (a)(2)(i) are revised to add the words
``light-sport category.''
Paragraph (b)(1)(iii) is revised to add an exception to new
paragraph (f).
Paragraph (f) is added to allow practical tests in a single-seat
light-sport aircraft.
Section 61.51 Pilot Logbooks (Proposed SFAR No. 89 Sections 67, 131,
171, 173, and 175)
In the final rule, requirements proposed in SFAR No. 89 sections
67, 131, 171, 173, and 175 are transferred to Sec. 61.51 with minor
wording changes. Several commenters expressed concern about the ability
to carry a logbook in an open-cockpit aircraft. They suggested that the
FAA not require this. The FAA agrees with the commenters' concerns and
notes that the proposed rule permitted pilots to carry either their
logbooks or documented proof of all required endorsements on all
flights. See the discussion of proposed SFAR No. 89 section 67 in the
NPRM for a complete discussion on what the FAA intended by ``documented
proof.'' In the final rule, the FAA is changing the words ``documented
proof of all required endorsements'' to ``other evidence of required
authorized instructor endorsements.'' This language more closely
corresponds to language contained in current Sec. 61.51(i). In
addition, the FAA is not adopting the sentence in the NPRM that read,
``Documented proof includes a photocopy of the logbook endorsements or
a pre-printed form that includes the endorsements.'' Instead, the FAA
will issue guidance material that will provide examples of what
documents will be considered acceptable as evidence.
Changes
The provisions of proposed SFAR No. 89 sections 67, 131, 171, 173,
and 175 are transferred to Sec. 61.51 with the following changes. The
words ``documented proof of all required endorsements'' are changed to
``other evidence of required authorized instructor endorsements.'' In
addition, the FAA is not adopting the sentence in proposed section 67
that would have described the kinds of documents that would have been
accepted as documented proof.
Section 61.52 Use of Aeronautical Experience Obtained in Ultralight
Vehicles (Proposed SFAR No. 89 Sections 135, 153, 175, 177, and 179)
The proposed requirements in SFAR No. 89 sections 135, 153, 175,
177 and 179 for using aeronautical experience obtained in ultralight
vehicles (to include two-seat ultralight trainers) and for logging
aeronautical experience to meet the requirements for a sport pilot
certificate or for a flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot
rating are moved to new Sec. 61.52.
The FAA received one comment that stated that the agency should not
allow the crediting of ultralight flight time towards higher
certificate levels. That commenter, however, provided no justification
to support this comment. The FAA does not agree with this commenter,
and the final rule will permit aeronautical experience obtained in an
ultralight vehicle to be credited towards a sport pilot certificate, a
flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating, and a private
pilot certificate with a weight-shift-control or powered parachute
category rating. It will also permit aeronautical experience obtained
in a two-seat ultralight trainer to be credited toward these
certificates and ratings.
The FAA received many other comments that suggested the FAA should
allow crediting of flight time towards other certificate levels and
additional privileges. The FAA partially agrees with these commenters
and is changing the final rule to allow crediting of ultralight
aeronautical experience not only toward a sport pilot certificate, as
proposed in the NPRM, but also toward a flight instructor certificate
with a sport pilot rating, and a private pilot certificate with a
weight-shift-control or powered parachute category rating. This will
allow individuals who have gained experience in ultralight vehicles
while operating with an FAA-recognized ultralight organization to
receive credit for that experience.
In the NPRM, the FAA allowed crediting of ultralight experience to
meet the requirement that, before providing flight training, a flight
instructor with a sport pilot rating must log at least 5 hours of
flight time in the make and model of light-sport aircraft in which
flight training is to be conducted. The FAA is now establishing the
provisions to credit this experience to meet the requirements of Sec.
61.415(e) in Sec. 61.52(b).
In addition, the FAA is also now allowing crediting of ultralight
experience to qualify for glider or unpowered ultralight towing under
Sec. 61.69. The experience must be properly documented. This section
permits the experience gained in an ultralight vehicle to be credited
only toward a certificate, rating, or privilege when that experience
was obtained in a category and class of vehicle corresponding to the
rating or privileges sought. It does not allow crediting of time toward
private pilot privileges other than weight-shift-control and powered
parachute.
Many commenters suggested that the FAA allow sport pilots to
conduct towing operations. The FAA believes that this privilege should
be limited to individuals with at least a private pilot certificate.
This portion of the rule remains unchanged.
The FAA recognizes that towing of light-sport aircraft is done
almost exclusively by weight-shift-control and fixed-wing ultralights.
Larger aircraft are not used because of the speed differential between
the towing aircraft and the aircraft being towed. The FAA also
recognizes that limiting towing to pilots with a private pilot
certificate or higher may inhibit towing operations. This rule provides
partial relief because of the ability of current weight-shift-control
and powered parachute pilots to credit their time in ultralight
vehicles toward the new categories of private pilot certificates.
Further, such pilots will be able to credit their time towards that
needed to qualify for towing under Sec. 61.69 in accordance with Sec.
61.52.
The FAA has considered allowing the same sort of credit for fixed-
wing ultralight pilots to meet the requirements of a private pilot
certificate with aircraft category ratings. However, this crediting was
viewed as a significant change to the aeronautical experience
requirements for this certificate. The FAA considered such a change
outside the scope of the original proposal and significant enough to
justify full public notice and comment. The FAA expects to address this
issue in a separate future rulemaking and may favorably consider
exemptions to this rule. See also the more detailed discussion of
towing by persons with at least a private pilot certificate under Sec.
61.69.
Under new Sec. 61.52, the FAA will allow experience obtained in
ultralight vehicles to meet the requirements of Sec. 61.69. Much of
this experience has been gained under an exemption that has been
managed successfully by the USHGA for the last 20 years. Crediting of
this experience will allow most
[[Page 44832]]
ultralight pilots currently conducting towing operations in weight-
shift-control ultralights under that exemption to meet most of the
minimum requirements for a private pilot certificate with a weight-
shift-control aircraft category rating and the additional towing
experience requirements under Sec. 61.69. Additionally, those who hold
at least a private pilot certificate will be eligible to credit their
ultralight towing experience in a weight-shift-control ultralight
vehicle towards the towing experience requirements of Sec. 61.69. For
more information on crediting flight time obtained in ultralight
vehicles, refer to the discussion of Sec. 61.329.
Changes
The proposed requirements in SFAR No. 89 sections 135, 153, 175,
177, and 179 are moved to new Sec. 61.52 with the following change.
In paragraph (a)(3), language is added to establish that a person
may use aeronautical experience obtained in an ultralight vehicle to
meet the requirements for a private pilot certificate with a weight-
shift-control or powered parachute category rating.
Section 61.53 Prohibition on Operations During Medical Deficiency
(Proposed as SFAR No. 89 Section 17)
The FAA received numerous comments on the topic of medical
provisions. For a complete discussion of the comments and the FAA's
responses, see ``V.5.A.ii. Medical Provisions.''
Changes
The applicable medical provisions proposed in SFAR No. 89 section
17 are transferred to Sec. 61.53(c) without substantive change.
Section 61.63 Additional Aircraft Ratings (Other Than on an Airplane
Transport Pilot Certificate)
The FAA is adding a new paragraph (k) to Sec. 61.63 to assist
pilots currently operating under Sec. 61.31(k)(2)(iii) without a
category and class rating to comply with the new provisions of that
paragraph. The revision to Sec. 61.31(k)(2)(iii) and (k)(2)(vi)
require a category and class rating for the holder of a recreational
pilot certificate or higher when that pilot operates an aircraft with
an experimental certificate and carries a passenger. To receive a
category and class rating to operate these aircraft, a person must log
at least 5 hours of flight time while acting as pilot in command in the
same category, class, make, and model of experimental aircraft and
receive an appropriate endorsement. Other aeronautical knowledge,
flight proficiency, and aeronautical experience requirements for the
issuance of the rating do not apply. This flight time must be logged
between September 1, 2004 and August 31, 2005. Similar provisions are
enacted for persons holding airline transport pilot certificates in
Sec. 61.165(f). A pilot who meets these requirements will be issued an
appropriate category and class rating limited to a specific make and
model of experimental aircraft. See the discussion of Sec. 61.31.
Changes
Existing paragraph (k) is redesignated as (l), and a new paragraph
(k), Category class ratings for the operation of aircraft with
experimental certificates, is added for certificated pilots holding a
recreational pilot certificate or higher who do not have a category and
class rating to operate a specific make and model of experimental
aircraft. They may apply for a category and class rating limited to a
specific make and model of experimental aircraft.
Section 61.69 Glider and Unpowered Ultralight Vehicle Towing
One of the most common issues addressed by commenters was the
towing of hang gliders, paragliders, and gliders by either ultralight
vehicles or light-sport aircraft. Of the approximately 4,700 comments
received, 691 related to eliminating exemptions from Sec. Sec. 91.309
and 103.1(b). These exemptions allow ultralight pilots to use
ultralight vehicles to tow hang gliders. In addition, 607 comments
related to proposed SFAR No. 89 section 73 (b)(12), which would have
prohibited the towing of any object, including a hang glider,
paraglider, or glider towing by a light-sport aircraft. The vast
majority of these commenters opposed the proposed rule.
Most commenters stated that the proposed rule would adversely
affect the safety of training in unpowered ultralights, such as hang
gliders and paragliders. Without the availability of hang glider and
paraglider towing by ultralights, most commenters noted that the only
way to learn to fly a hang glider or paraglider is to perform a foot
launch from an elevated location. Many commenters also noted that these
flights usually would be conducted without an instructor, unlike
flights in which towing is involved. Therefore, many commenters argued,
that without the benefits of being towed by an ultralight and the
ability to receive tandem instruction while airborne, few people would
endeavor to learn how to fly hang gliders or paragliders. These
commenters stated that the proposed rule would have a crippling
economic effect on hang glider and paraglider training.
Similarly, many commenters noted that prohibiting hang glider and
paraglider towing by ultralights would eliminate the sport of hang
gliding and paragliding in areas of the country without elevated
terrain. In areas with a relatively flat topography, such as Florida,
towing by ultralights is the only means of launching a hang glider or
paraglider. Many commenters who are hang glider and paraglider
instructors and ultralight tow pilots in Florida were concerned that
the proposed rule would permanently curtail their operations.
Many commenters noted that hang glider and paragliding towing by
ultralights has contributed to the growth of the sport, and that the
proposed rule would jeopardize the future of the sport. They also noted
that eliminating hang glider and paraglider towing by ultralights would
prohibit the display of hang gliders and paragliders at airshows, where
foot launches usually cannot be accomplished. Commenters added that
this would further reduce the exposure of the sport and limit its
growth potential.
The FAA agrees with the commenters' suggestions that light-sport
aircraft should be permitted to be used for towing operations. The FAA
recognizes that towing operations have been conducted safely for over
20 years using ultralight-like aircraft, which now will be certificated
as light-sport aircraft. These same aircraft have been operated safely
under an exemption from Sec. Sec. 91.309 and 103.1(b) held by the
USHGA since 1984.
The existing fleet of ultralights conducting towing operations
consists of fixed-wing ultralight-like aircraft, which the industry
refers to as ``tugs,'' and weight-shift-control aircraft, both of which
are specifically designed and equipped to withstand the load of towing
hang gliders, gliders, and paragliders. These aircraft must meet the
requirements of Sec. 91.309. The FAA will issue additional guidance
material to ensure that the aircraft are designed, equipped, and
maintained, and operated safely. The FAA has not limited the period
during which the small existing fleet of experimental light-sport
aircraft that will be used for this purpose. These aircraft may be used
for towing unless the FAA issues an operating limitation prohibiting
this activity.
Newly manufactured aircraft issued a special airworthiness
certificate in the light-sport category that will be used for towing
will be designed and manufactured to meet criteria established in the
consensus standard. If
[[Page 44833]]
the FAA determines that the aircraft was not manufactured in accordance
with a consensus standard that identifies aircraft requirements for
towing, the aircraft will be issued an operating limitation prohibiting
the conduct of towing operations. The FAA will not authorize
experimental light-sport kit aircraft to be used to conduct these types
of operations. When an experimental or a special light-sport aircraft
is used in towing operations for compensation or hire, these aircraft
must also meet the 100-hour condition inspection requirement
established for experimental and special light-sport aircraft in
Sec. Sec. 91.319(g) and 91.327(c), respectively.
While a substantial number of commenters suggested that sport and
recreational pilots be allowed to conduct towing operations for
compensation or hire, the FAA maintains that only private pilots or
higher should be permitted to conduct these types of operations. Under
Sec. 61.69, only a private pilot or higher can tow a glider and is
authorized to conduct towing operations for compensation or hire under
Sec. 61.113. The FAA is revising the final rule to allow ultralight
vehicle pilots, qualified under an FAA-recognized ultralight
organization, to credit experience under Sec. 61.52 towards a private
pilot certificate and towards the experience requirements of Sec.
61.69. With the addition of a rating at the private pilot certificate
level for weight-shift-control aircraft, the regulations will now
accommodate these types of aircraft that will be used for towing
operations under this new regulatory framework.
The FAA notes that for towing operations that are not conducted for
compensation or hire, a pilot is still required to meet the minimum
requirements established in Sec. 61.69. Therefore, the FAA does not
believe it is necessary to allow a sport or recreational pilot to
conduct towing operations.
See discussions under Sec. Sec. 61.113, 91.319, and 91.327 for
more information on changes made regarding private pilots using powered
ultralight vehicles to tow.
Changes
Section 61.69 is revised to permit towing of unpowered ultralight
vehicles by holders of at least a private pilot certificate. In
addition, all references to ``gliders'' are changed to ``gliders or
unpowered ultralight vehicles.''
Section 61.87 Solo Requirements for Student Pilots (Proposed as SFAR
No. 89 Section 33(a), (b), and (c))
Under section 33 of SFAR No. 89, the FAA proposed solo and solo-
cross country requirements for student pilots operating light-sport
aircraft. In the final rule, the pre-solo flight training provisions
are located in Sec. 61.87. Also, the FAA has moved the cross-country
flight training requirements for student pilots seeking a sport pilot
certificate with privileges in a weight-shift-control aircraft and a
powered parachute to Sec. 61.93. Student pilots, student pilots
seeking a sport pilot certificate, and other pilots seeking privileges
or a rating in a weight-shift-control aircraft or a powered parachute
will be trained to the same standard prior to conducting solo or solo
cross-country flight operations. This is consistent with the solo and
solo cross-country flight-training requirements for all student pilots
training in other categories of aircraft.
After considering the comments and becoming familiar with powered
parachutes during the development of the practical test standards, the
FAA recognizes that the requirements for student pilots training on
meta-stable stalls and partial canopy collapses should be revised.
In addition, to specify that the maneuvers and procedures for pre-
solo flight training listed in this section also apply to student
pilots seeking sport pilot privileges in single-engine airplanes,
gyroplanes, gliders, airships, and balloons, the FAA is adding the
words ``or privileges'' after the word ``rating'' in the introductory
text of paragraphs (d), (g), (i), (j), and (k).
For a complete discussion on specific changes to training and
proficiency requirements please refer to ``V.5.A.iii. Flight Training
and Proficiency Requirements.''
Changes
The proposed provisions of SFAR No. 89 section 33(a), (b), and (c)
are transferred to new paragraphs (l) and (m) of Sec. 61.87. The
provisions are modified to remove the powered parachute pre-solo flight
training requirements pertaining to recovery from partial canopy
collapse, meta-stable stalls and avoidance.
In addition, the words ``or privileges'' are added after the word
``rating'' in the introductory text of paragraphs (d), (g), (i), (j),
and (k).
Section 61.89 General Limitations (Proposed as SFAR No. 89 Section 35)
The proposed general limitations in SFAR No. 89 section 35 for
student pilots seeking a sport pilot certificate are moved to Sec.
61.89.
Proposed section 35(e) of SFAR No. 89 would have limited the
maximum speed a student pilot could operate a light-sport aircraft to
87 knots CAS. There were many comments on this issue, and they
criticized the proposed requirement as not being in the interest of
safety and being unnecessarily restrictive of the manner in which a
student pilot can learn to fly a light-sport aircraft. Nearly all of
the commenters disagreed with the need for such a limit, and many
commenters suggested that stall speed has a far greater impact on
safety than maximum speed. One commenter noted that this section would
require instructor pilots to use two sets of aircraft for instruction,
thus increasing the cost of training. Several commenters suggested that
it is safer for a student to train in the same aircraft he or she will
later fly.
The FAA agrees with commenters and is eliminating this limitation.
Each student pilot must have a specific make and model endorsement on
his or her student pilot certificate authorizing solo flight,
appropriate to the aircraft being operated. For each category, class,
and make and model of light-sport aircraft a student pilot operates
that exceeds 87 knots CAS, he or she will get additional training.
Therefore, imposing a speed limit of 87 knots CAS on student pilot
seeking a sport pilot certificate is unnecessary. The FAA is
identifying the specific limitations that only apply to a student pilot
seeking a sport pilot certificate in paragraph (c) of Sec. 61.89. All
other limitations on student pilots are noted in current paragraphs (a)
and (b) of Sec. 61.89. These limitations also apply to student pilots
seeking a sport pilot certificate.
New paragraph (c) of Sec. 61.89 identifies those restrictive
privileges and limitations that distinguish a student pilot seeking a
sport pilot certificate from other student pilots. This paragraph
specifies that a student pilot seeking a sport pilot certificate may
fly only a light-sport aircraft and is prohibited from flying at night
and above 10,000 feet MSL. The paragraph also restricts the classes of
airspace and types of airports a sport pilot seeking a sport pilot
certificate may use without receiving additional training and an
endorsement. Training for a sport pilot certificate does not include
training for operating in Class B, C, and D airspace and airports, and
in other airspace and airports with operational control towers because,
unlike other student pilots, sport pilots do not have those additional
privileges. These are additional privileges that are granted with the
[[Page 44834]]
appropriate additional training and endorsements established in Sec.
61.94 for student pilots seeking a sport pilot certificate and in Sec.
61.325 for a sport pilot.
For a complete discussion of changes made to training and
proficiency requirements, refer to ``V.5.A.iii. Flight Training and
Proficiency Requirements.''
Changes
The FAA is transferring the provisions of proposed SFAR No. 89
section 35 to new paragraph (c) of Sec. 61.89. Other limitations from
SFAR No. 89 section 35 are found in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the
existing rule. Also, the 87-knot CAS speed restriction on student
pilots seeking a sport pilot certificate is removed from the final
rule.
Section 61.93 Solo Cross-Country Flight Requirements (Proposed as SFAR
No. 89 Section 33(d), (e), and (f))
Under section 33 of SFAR No. 89, the FAA proposed solo and solo
cross-country flight training requirements for student pilots. In the
final rule, the solo cross-country flight training provisions are
located under Sec. 61.93. By moving the solo cross-country flight
training requirements into the existing sections of part 61, both sport
pilots and private pilots seeking either privileges or a rating in a
weight-shift-control aircraft or a powered-parachute will be trained to
the same standard prior to conducting solo cross-country operations.
This is consistent with the solo cross-country flight training
requirements for all other categories of aircraft.
After considering the comments and becoming familiar with powered
parachute and weight-shift-control aircraft during the development of
the practical test standards, the FAA recognized that dead reckoning
should require the aid of a magnetic compass, although one is still not
required for pilotage. The FAA is therefore adding the words ``as
appropriate'' to paragraph (l) to allow latitude in determining when
this requirement must be met.
Upon further consideration, the FAA realizes it should have
included different solo cross-country training requirements for weight-
shift-control aircraft and powered parachutes that were consistent with
the solo cross-country flight training requirements for all other
categories of light-sport aircraft. When the FAA began incorporating
these requirements into the section, the agency determined that the
solo cross-country flight training requirements for operations in a
weight-shift-control aircraft for takeoff, approach, and landing
procedures, including crosswind approaches and landings was not
addressed in the NPRM. Therefore, these provisions are added to
paragraph (m) of Sec. 61.93. In addition, a new solo cross-country
flight training requirement for takeoff, approach, and landing
procedures in a powered parachute (without a requirement for crosswind
approaches and landings) is added to paragraph (l) of Sec. 61.93. The
crosswind takeoff and landing requirements were not addressed in this
section because powered parachutes are not designed for crosswind
takeoffs and landings.
For a complete discussion on specific changes to training and
proficiency requirements please refer to ``V.5.A.iii. Flight Training
and Proficiency Requirements.''
Changes
The proposed provisions of SFAR No. 89 section 33(d), (e), and (f)
are transferred to paragraphs (l) and (m) of Sec. 61.93 with the
following changes. The requirement for training with the aid of a
magnetic compass has been revised, and the words ``as appropriate'' are
added to (l)(1) and (m)(1).
In paragraph (l)(11), a provision for takeoff, approach, and
landing procedures is added.
In paragraph (m)(11), a provision for takeoff, approach, and
landing procedures, including crosswind approaches and landings, is
added.
Section 61.94 Student Pilot Seeking a Sport Pilot Certificate or a
Recreational Pilot Certificate: Operations at Airports Within, and in
Airspace Located Within, Class B, C, and D Airspace, or at Airports
With an Operational Control Tower in Other Airspace (Proposed as SFAR
No. 89 Section 37)
The FAA is adopting this section with minor wording changes. The
FAA recognizes that operational control towers may be located in other
than Class B, C, or D airspace. To ensure that a student pilot seeking
a sport pilot certificate or a recreational pilot has adequate training
to safely operate within such airspace and at airports located within
that airspace, the FAA is adding language to require that the training
specified within Sec. 61.94 be completed before such operations are
conducted.
To facilitate changes made to Sec. 61.101, which permit
recreational pilots with sufficient training to operate in Class B, C,
and D airspace, at an airport located in Class B, C, or D airspace, or
to, from, through, or at an airport having an operational control
tower, the requirements of Sec. 61.94 will also apply to recreational
pilots. Although the requirements of Sec. 61.94 are more stringent
than those found in Sec. 61.95, the requirements to permit the conduct
of operations in Class B airspace are equivalent for pilots affected by
either section. For complete discussion of changes made to this
section, see ``V.5.A.v. Changes to Airspace Restrictions.''
Changes
The proposed provisions of SFAR No. 89 section 37 are transferred
to new Sec. 61.94 with the words ``to, from, through, or at an airport
having an operational control tower'' added, and with other minor
wording changes. In addition, the heading and paragraph (a) are revised
to include the words ``or recreational pilot.''
Section 61.95 Operations in Class B Airspace and at Airports Located
Within Class B Airspace
The FAA did not propose to amend Sec. 61.95; however, the FAA is
amending this section to exclude a student pilot seeking a sport pilot
certificate or a recreational pilot certificate. New Sec. 61.94 is
added that contains requirements for a student pilot seeking a sport
pilot certificate or a recreational pilot certificate wishing to obtain
privileges to operate in Class B airspace or at an airport located in
Class B airspace. See discussion under ``V.5.A.v. Changes to Airspace
Restrictions.''
Changes
Paragraph (c) is added to Sec. 61.95 to provide that the section
does not apply to a student pilot seeking a sport pilot certificate or
a recreational pilot certificate.
Section 61.99 Aeronautical Experience
The FAA did not receive any comments on this section.
Changes
The proposed amendment is adopted without change.
Section 61.101 Recreational Pilot Privileges and Limits
There were several comments requesting that the FAA expand the
privileges for holders of a recreational pilot certificate. Most of
these comments suggested expanding the distance recreational pilots may
fly without meeting the requirement of Sec. 61.101 (c) and allowing
recreational pilots to meet the same medical certification requirements
as sport pilots.
Several commenters favored extending proposed sport pilot medical
provisions to holders of higher-level
[[Page 44835]]
pilot certificates. These commenters contended that the same reasoning
and justification proposed for sport pilots should apply to other
pilots. They noted that recreational pilots are subject to many of the
same operating limitations as sport pilots. These include limits on
carrying passengers, use of other than fixed-gear aircraft, and
prohibitions on flight between sunrise and sunset, and when flight or
surface visibility is less than 3 statue miles. Therefore, the
commenters believe recreational pilots should not be subject to current
medical requirements that are more stringent than those for sport
pilots. They suggested that the FAA review sport pilot data over time
and consider allowing recreational pilots to meet the sport pilot
medical requirements that are adopted under this rule.
The FAA did not consider expanding the applicability of the
proposed sport pilot medical requirements in this rulemaking action,
nor would it be within the scope of this action to do so. The FAA
agrees with commenters that the agency must gain experience with sport
pilot medical requirements, but the FAA will not consider extending
these provisions beyond sport pilots and will not grant any petitions
for exemption or rulemaking requesting that it do so at this time.
The FAA notes that it is not within the scope of this rulemaking to
make substantive changes to the privileges of a recreational pilot,
except where such changes are necessary to maintain consistency with
the privileges for sport pilots provided under the final rule. The FAA
also notes that, because recreational pilots are permitted to operate
larger aircraft, the training requirements for recreational pilots are
more extensive than for sport pilots.
Specifically, commenters suggested allowing recreational pilots to
demonstrate aircraft to prospective buyers, as is allowed for sport
pilots who are not aircraft salespersons. The FAA agrees and is adding
a provision permitting holders of a recreational pilot certificate to
demonstrate aircraft to prospective buyers, provided the recreational
pilot is not an aircraft salesperson. For a discussion of the privilege
of demonstrating aircraft to prospective buyers, please refer to
``V.5.A.viii. Demonstration of Aircraft to Prospective Buyers.'' In
addition, several commenters suggested that recreational pilots be
allowed to conduct towing operations. The FAA still maintains that only
a pilot with at least a private pilot certificate should be authorized
to conduct towing operations. For a discussion of comments suggesting
that the privilege of conducting towing operations be added to
recreational pilot certificate, see the discussion of Sec. 61.69.
Finally, many commenters suggested that recreational pilot be
allowed to exercise the privileges of sport pilots. The FAA is revising
the final rule under Sec. 61.303 to allow a recreational pilot to
exercise sport pilot privileges if he or she has received the cross-
country training required in Sec. 61.101(c) and holds any other
endorsements required by subpart J of part 61. The cross-country
training required in Sec. 61.101(c) will provide a recreational pilot
with at least the same minimum cross-country training that a sport
pilot must meet to be eligible for this certificate. For a discussion
of the changes related to this, see Sec. 61.303.
When drafting the NPRM, the FAA did not establish aeronautical
knowledge, flight proficiency, and aeronautical experience requirements
for recreational pilots to obtain category and class ratings in powered
parachutes and weight-shift-control aircraft. The proposal, however,
did not revise Sec. 61.101(d)(2) to prohibit recreational pilots from
acting as pilot in command of these aircraft. As the FAA will not issue
ratings for recreational pilots to operate these aircraft, the FAA is
adding a limitation to Sec. 61.101(d)(2) to specifically prohibit
recreational pilots from acting as pilot in command of a powered
parachute or a weight-shift-control aircraft.
In drafting the NPRM, the FAA did not consider the fact that
operational control towers may, on occasion, be located in Class G or E
airspace. To address this omission and therefore require a recreational
pilot to receive appropriate training prior to conducting operations at
an airport that has an operational control tower in Class G or E
airspace, the FAA is revising paragraphs (d) and (e)(7) to add the
words ``to, from, through, or at an airport having an operational
control tower.'' For a discussion of the changes related to operations
in Class B, C, and D airspace, see ``V.5.A.v. Changes to Airspace
Restrictions.''
Changes
In the final rule, paragraph (e)(2) is revised to prohibit
recreational pilots from operating powered parachutes and weight-shift-
control aircraft.
In addition, paragraph (e)(12) is added to permit holders of a
recreational pilot certificate to demonstrate aircraft to prospective
buyers, provided the recreational pilot is not an aircraft salesperson.
Finally, the FAA is revising paragraphs (d) and (e)(7) to add the
words ``to, from, through, or at an airport having an operational
control tower.''
Section 61.107 Flight Proficiency
As discussed in Sec. 61.5 above, based on several comments, the
FAA is adding a powered parachute--sea rating. Therefore, the FAA is
changing Sec. 61.107 to establish the appropriate flight proficiency
training necessary for seaplane base operations.
In addition, the FAA is removing proposed paragraph (b)(9)(viii),
which would have required a person to receive and log ground and flight
training in slow flight and stalls for a powered parachute rating. See
discussion under ``V.5.A.iii. Flight Training and Proficiency
Requirements.''
Changes
In the final rule, paragraph (b)(9)(iii) is changed to require
flight proficiency training in seaplane base operations for a powered
parachute--sea rating. In addition, proposed paragraph (b)(9)(viii) is
not adopted, and paragraphs (ix) through (xi) are redesignated as
(viii) through (x) respectively.
Section 61.109 Aeronautical Experience
Several commenters noted that powered parachutes are not properly
equipped to engage in operations at night. These commenters suggested
that the requirement for night flight training be eliminated. The FAA
agreed with these commenters and although the FAA will not remove the
requirement for this training, the final rule will provide for a new
exception to this training requirement in Sec. 61.110. This exception
will permit a person who does not receive the required night training
to be issued a certificate with a night flying limitation. See Sec.
61.110 for a discussion of night flying exceptions.
A few commenters also suggested that, given the slow speeds at
which powered parachutes travel, the cross-country training distances
required under the proposed rule would be excessive. The commenters
also suggested that the flight proficiency requirements should more
closely parallel glider and balloon training. The FAA agrees and
therefore is making changes in the final rule to address these
comments. For a complete discussion on specific changes to training and
proficiency requirements refer to ``V.5.A.iii. Flight Training and
Proficiency Requirements.''
The FAA notes that in the NPRM, in proposed paragraph (i), in the
aeronautical experience table describing the training necessary for a
weight-shift-
[[Page 44836]]
control rating, a paragraph was incorrectly formatted, therefore making
the table misleading. Under the list of items included under ``(iv) Ten
hours solo flight time in a weight-shift-control aircraft consisting of
at least--,'' the requirement for three takeoffs and landings (with
each landing involving a flight in the traffic pattern) at an airport
with an operating control tower should have been designated as ``(C)''
in the list, rather than as a separate paragraph ``(v).'' In the final
rule, the FAA is correctly designating that list to indicate that the
requirement for three takeoffs and landings in a weight-shift-control
aircraft at an airport with an operating control tower must be
accomplished as solo flight.
Changes
The FAA is reformatting proposed paragraph (i) and adopting it with
the following changes for a powered parachute rating:
The total flight time requirement is reduced from 40 hours to 25
hours in a powered parachute.
The requirement for total flight training with an authorized
instructor is reduced from 20 to 10 hours, and an additional
requirement for 30 takeoffs and landings with an authorized instructor
is being added.
The requirement for 10 hours of solo flight training is not being
changed, but the solo takeoff and landing requirement is increased from
10 to 20.
A reference to the night flying exceptions specified in Sec.
61.110 is included in the night flight training requirements, and the
requirement to conduct one night cross-country flight over 25 NM total
distance is removed.
The 3-hour solo cross-country requirement is reduced to 1 hour, and
the solo cross-country flight distance requirement is reduced from 50
NM to 25 NM.
In addition, requirements for a weight-shift-control rating are
moved to new paragraph (j).
In paragraph (j), for weight-shift-control aircraft, the FAA is
reducing the night cross-country flight requirement for a private pilot
certificate from 100 NM to a required distance of at least 75 nautical
miles, and the requirement for a solo cross-country flight from 150
nautical miles to 100 NM. Additionally, the FAA is revising the
proposal to clarify that the requirement for three takeoffs and
landings in a weight-shift-control aircraft at an airport with an
operating control tower must be accomplished as solo flight.
Section 61.110 Night Flying Exceptions
The FAA did not propose to amend Sec. 61.110, however, the FAA
received many comments suggesting that a private pilot who wants to
obtain a weight-shift-control, powered parachute, or gyroplane rating
should not be required to fly at night if the aircraft is not equipped
for that operation, or the pilot chooses not to seek those privileges.
Most aircraft in those three categories are not equipped with the
aircraft instruments or lighting required under part 91 for night
operations. Those aircraft are primarily suited for daytime operations
under visual flight rules.
The FAA is modifying Sec. 61.110 to permit a person seeking a
private pilot certificate with a gyroplane, powered parachute, or
weight-shift-control aircraft rating to obtain that rating without
complying with the night flying requirements specified in Sec.
61.109(d)(2), (i)(2), or (j)(2). A private pilot who does not complete
these requirements for night operations will have a limitation placed
on his or her pilot certificate stating ``night flying prohibited.''
This limitation can be removed at any time by a designated examiner or
an FAA inspector when the pilot completes the night flying requirements
established under the appropriate section of part 61.
Changes
The FAA is adding paragraph (c) to Sec. 61.110 to permit a person
who does not meet the night flying requirements in Sec. 61.109(d)(2),
(i)(2), or (j)(2) to be issued a private pilot certificate with the
limit ``Night flying prohibited.'' This limitation may be removed by an
examiner if the holder complies with the requirements of Sec.
61.109(d)(2), (i)(2), or (j)(2), as appropriate.
Section 61.113 Private Pilot Privileges and Limitations: Pilot in
Command
The FAA is revising Sec. 61.113(g) to allow a private pilot to act
as pilot in command while towing an unpowered ultralight vehicle for
compensation or hire. This change conforms to the revisions made to
Sec. 61.69. For a discussion of those changes, see Sec. 61.69 above.
Changes
Paragraph (g) is revised.
Section 61.165 Additional Aircraft Category and Class Ratings
The FAA is adding a new paragraph (f) to Sec. 61.165 to assist
airline transport pilots currently operating under Sec.
61.31(k)(2)(iii) without a category and class rating to comply with the
new provisions of that paragraph. The revision to Sec. 61.31
(k)(2)(iii) requires a category and class rating for the holder of a
pilot certificate when that pilot operates an aircraft with an
experimental certificate and carries a passenger. To receive a category
and class rating to operate these aircraft, a person must log at least
5 hours of flight time while acting as pilot in command in the same
category, class, make, and model of experimental aircraft and receive
an appropriate endorsement. Other aeronautical knowledge, flight
proficiency, and aeronautical experience requirements for the issuance
of the rating do not apply. This flight time must be logged between
September 1, 2004 and August 31, 2005. Similar provisions are enacted
in Sec. 61.63(k) for persons holding other pilot certificates. An
airline transport pilot who meets these requirements will be issued an
appropriate category and class rating limited to a specific make and
model of experimental aircraft. See the discussion of Sec. 61.31.
Changes
A new paragraph (f), Category class ratings for the operation of
aircraft with experimental certificates, is added for airline transport
pilots who do not have a category and class rating to operate the
experimental aircraft. They may apply for a category and class rating
limited to a specific make and model of experimental aircraft.
Subpart H--Flight Instructors Other Than Flight Instructors With a
Sport Pilot Rating
The FAA is revising the heading of subpart H to include the words
``other than flight instructors with a sport pilot rating.'' Because of
the unique requirements that apply to flight instructors with a sport
pilot rating, the FAA is placing those requirements into a new subpart
K, rather than into existing subpart H.
Changes
The heading for subpart H is revised.
Section 61.181 Applicability
In the final rule, the FAA is revising Sec. 61.181 to make the
applicability of the section consistent with the newly revised subpart
H heading (discussed above).
Changes
Section 61.181 is revised to add the words ``except for flight
instructor certificates with a sport pilot rating.''
[[Page 44837]]
Section 61.213 Eligibility Requirements (Proposed as SFAR No. 89
Sections 211 and 213)
The FAA did not receive any comments on sections 211 and 213 of
proposed SFAR No. 89. The provisions are therefore transferred to Sec.
61.213 without substantive change.
Changes
Paragraphs (a)(4)(i) and (a)(4)(ii) are revised to include the
requirements of sections 211 and 213 of proposed SFAR No. 89.
Section 61.215 Ground Instructor Privileges (Proposed as SFAR No. 89
Section 215)
The FAA did not receive any comments on sections 215 of proposed
SFAR No. 89. The provisions are therefore transferred to Sec. 61.215
without substantive change.
Changes
Paragraph (a) is revised to include the requirements of section 215
of proposed SFAR No. 89.
Subpart J--Sport Pilots
The FAA concluded that the certification rules pertaining to sport
pilots merited their own subpart in part 61. The rules originally
proposed in SFAR No. 89 pertaining to sport pilots are moved into
subpart J. A table cross-referencing those sections of proposed SFAR
No. 89 with corresponding sections of part 61 appears at the beginning
of this section-by-section analysis for part 61.
Section 61.301 What Is the Purpose of This Subpart? (Proposed as SFAR
No. 89 Section 1)
The FAA did not receive any comments on section 1 of proposed SFAR
No. 89. The provisions applicable to sport pilots and persons seeking
to exercise sport pilot privileges are therefore transferred to Sec.
61.301 without substantive change. Section 61.301 provides the user
with an overview of the requirements prescribed in this subpart.
Changes
The provisions of section 1 of proposed SFAR No. 89 applicable to
sport pilots and persons seeking to exercise sport pilot privileges are
transferred to Sec. 61.301 without substantive change.
Section 61.303 What Operating Limits and Endorsement Requirements of
This Subpart Apply to My Operation of a Light-Sport Aircraft for the
Certificates and Ratings I Hold? (Proposed as SFAR No. 89 Section 91)
The FAA is adding Sec. 61.303 to clarify which operating limits
and endorsement requirements apply to the operation of a light-sport
aircraft, depending on the type of certificate or rating a pilot holds
and the medical eligibility requirements the pilot meets.
Many comments expressed confusion about the ability to exercise
sport privileges while holding a higher-level pilot certificate. Many
commenters also were not certain what privileges they could exercise
based on their medical eligibility or what privileges they could
exercise when operating a light-sport aircraft. To clarify the
operating limits and endorsement requirements for pilots exercising
sport pilot privileges, the FAA has included a table in Sec. 61.303.
The FAA has revised the final rule to allow a recreational pilot
who does not have an airman medical certificate to exercise sport pilot
privileges if that person has received the cross-country training
required in Sec. 61.101(c). Proposed SFAR No. 89 section 91 excluded
recreational pilots from exercising sport pilot privileges because they
did not have the cross-country training required for a sport pilot. The
cross-country training required in Sec. 61.101(c) is equivalent to the
cross-country requirements for sport pilots. See the discussion in
Sec. 61.101 for more information.
The FAA is not requiring a pilot who holds a recreational pilot
certificate or higher who wants to exercise sport pilot privileges to
have make and model training and a corresponding endorsement. See the
discussion under ``V.5.A.iv. Make And Model Logbook Endorsements, and
Sets of Aircraft.''
In addition, the FAA is requiring persons who hold a recreational
pilot certificate or higher but not a rating for the category and class
of light-sport aircraft they seek to operate to comply with the
limitations in Sec. 61.315, except paragraph (c)(14), and, if a
private pilot or higher, paragraph (c)(7). Paragraph (c)(14) addresses
aircraft that have a VH in excess of 87 knots CAS, and paragraph (c)(7)
addresses requirements for training to operate in Class B, C, and D
airspace, at an airport located in Class B, C, or D airspace, and to,
from, through, or at an airport having an operational control tower. As
these pilots have been trained to operate these aircraft and in these
types of airspace, the FAA sees no need to require additional
endorsements.
Paragraph (b) is added to require that persons using a current and
valid U.S. driver's license meet certain requirements. A person using a
U.S. driver's license must comply with each restriction and limitation
imposed by that license and any judicial or administrative order for
the operation of a motor vehicle. Also, if a person has applied for an
airman medical certificate, that person must have been found eligible
for the issuance of at least a third-class airman medical certificate
at the time of his or her most recent application. If a person has been
issued an airman medical certificate, his or her most recently issued
airman medical certificate must not have been suspended or revoked. If
a person has been granted an Authorization, his or her most recent
Authorization must not have been withdrawn. Further, a person must not
know or have reason to know of any medical condition that would make
him or her unable to operate a light-sport aircraft in a safe manner.
See discussion under ``V.5.A.ii. Medical Provisions.''
Changes
Section 61.303 is added to set forth operating limitations and
endorsement requirements for persons seeking to operate light-sport
aircraft. This new section is derived from the proposed provisions of
SFAR No. 89 section 91. It provides a more detailed description, in a
table, of the privileges a person may exercise based upon his or her
medical eligibility and the certificates and endorsements he or she
holds.
In the final rule, the introductory text of paragraph (a) prohibits
a recreational pilot from exercising sport pilot privileges unless that
person has complied with the cross-country training requirements in
Sec. 61.101(c).
In addition, the proposed requirement in SFAR No. 89 section 91
paragraph 2 for a person holding at least a private pilot's certificate
and seeking to exercise sport pilot privileges is deleted. That
provision would have required that person to receive specific training
for any make and model of light-sport aircraft in which the person has
not acted as pilot in command is deleted.
The requirements in paragraphs (a)(1)(iii) and (a)(2)(iii) of the
final rule reflect the exceptions to the endorsement requirements
discussed above.
In addition, paragraph (b) is added to indicate that a person using
a current and valid U.S. driver's license must meet the applicable
requirements specified in Sec. 61.23(c)(2).
[[Page 44838]]
Section 61.305 What Are the Age and Language Requirements for a Sport
Pilot Certificate? (Proposed as SFAR No. 89 Section 3)
Several commenters suggested lowering the age requirement for
powered parachute pilots to be equivalent with the age requirements for
the operation of gliders and balloons because of the simplicity of the
aircraft. Other commenters suggested lowering the age to solo in all
categories of light-sport aircraft. These commenters suggested that the
minimum age requirement to solo in a light-sport aircraft be the same
as the minimum age requirement to solo in a glider or a balloon. The
commenters believed that the simple nature of light-sport aircraft
justified such a change.
The FAA disagrees with this suggestion. Balloon and glider pilots
typically operate as part of an organized activity requiring other
participants; therefore younger pilots are rarely operate these
aircraft without some level of supervision. Pilots of powered
parachutes and other categories of light-sport aircraft may frequently
operate these aircraft without any support personnel or supervision by
other more experienced pilots. The FAA contends that capabilities of
these aircraft and the fact that they are frequently operated by a
single pilot without direct supervision precludes the agency from
lowering the age limit for solo operations in these aircraft.
Changes
The provisions of section 3 of proposed SFAR No. 89 addressing the
eligibility requirements for a sport pilot certificate are transferred
to Sec. 61.305 without substantive change.
Section 61.307 What Tests Do I Have To Take To Obtain a Sport Pilot
Certificate? (Proposed as SFAR No. 89 Section 57)
The FAA received a few comments on the proposed provisions of this
section. The commenters recommended that the practical tests be
conducted in accordance with the procedures specified in current
Sec. Sec. 61.43, 61.45, 61.47, and 61.49. By incorporating the
provisions of proposed SFAR No. 89 into part 61, the procedures
specified in those sections apply to practical and knowledge tests
administered to sport pilot applicants.
The commenters also recommended that the testing be conducted in
accordance with FAA Order 8710.3, Pilot Examiner's Handbook. The FAA
notes that all testing should be done in accordance with applicable FAA
orders. Such a provisions would be inappropriate for inclusion in this
rule.
One commenter recommended that a student pilot be required to pass
the knowledge test prior to being issued a student pilot certificate.
This action was not proposed, and the FAA considers such an action to
be outside the scope of this rulemaking.
Another commenter recommended that the holder of a private pilot
certificate or higher be exempt from taking a knowledge test addressing
the subjects specified in proposed SFAR No. 89 section 51. The FAA
notes that the holder of a private pilot certificate or higher is not
required to take a test on the aeronautical knowledge areas specified
in Sec. 61.309 to exercise the privileges of a sport pilot
certificate.
Two commenters recommended that applicants be permitted to take the
practical test in a single-seat aircraft with the examiner observing
the test from the ground. This comment is addressed in the discussion
of Sec. 61.45.
Changes
The provisions of section 57 of proposed SFAR No. 89 are
transferred to Sec. 61.307 without substantive change.
Section 61.309 What Aeronautical Knowledge Must I Have To Apply for a
Sport Pilot Certificate? (Proposed as SFAR No. 89 Section 51)
The FAA received a few comments on the proposed provisions of this
section.
One commenter objected to requiring extensive training for pilots
who will be permitted to fly ``fat'' ultralights. This comment, the
removal of tumble entry and tumble avoidance technique training, and
additional training in risk management are discussed under ``V.5.A.iii.
Flight Training and Proficiency Requirements.''
Another commenter suggested that training not be required in
electronic navigation, while an additional commenter suggested that, if
the FAA wishes to specifically mandate training in electronic
navigation systems, the reference to navigation systems should refer to
electronic navigation systems. The prevalence of electronic navigation
systems in light-sport aircraft necessitates the aeronautical knowledge
training be required in these systems. Although most navigation systems
are electronic, the FAA has retained the generic reference to
``navigation system.'' to conform to other requirements in part 61.
Changes
The provisions of section 51 of proposed SFAR No. 89 are
transferred to Sec. 61.309 with the following modifications.
The words ``as appropriate'' are added to paragraph (d) regarding
the use of aeronautical charts for VFR navigation using pilotage, dead
reckoning, and navigation systems.
In paragraph (j), the term ``if applicable'' is changed
``applicable to airplanes and gliders'' to clarify that this
requirement is only applicable to persons seeking privileges to operate
those aircraft.
The requirement in paragraph (k) of proposed SFAR No. 89 section 51
for tumble entry and tumble avoidance technique training for weight-
shift-control aircraft category privileges is removed.
The word ``judgment'' is replaced with the words ``risk
management'' in new paragraph (k).
Section 61.311 What Flight Proficiency Requirements Must I Meet To
Apply for a Sport Pilot Certificate? (Proposed as SFAR No. 89 Section
53)
Upon further consideration of the proposal, the FAA is revising
ground and flight training requirements pertaining to slow flight and
stalls. See discussion under ``V.5.A.iii. Flight Training and
Proficiency Requirements.''
In addition, the incorporation of proposed SFAR No. 89 into part 61
necessitates the inclusion of an exception to the flight proficiency
requirements of this section for registered pilots with FAA-recognized
ultralight organizations. References to land and sea classes are also
included for those categories of aircraft for which those classes
exist.
Changes
The provisions of section 53 of proposed SFAR No. 89 are
transferred to Sec. 61.311, with changes.
In the final rule, the section is revised to include an exception
for persons who are registered pilots with an FAA-recognized ultralight
organization and to refer to both land and sea classes for airplane,
weight-shift-control, and powered parachute categories of light-sport
aircraft.
Proposed paragraph (i) is changed to no longer require applicants
for sport pilot privileges in lighter-than-air aircraft and powered
parachutes to receive and log slow flight training. It has also been
changed to no longer require applicants for sport pilot privileges in
powered parachutes to receive and log stall training. In addition, in
the final rule, the training requirement for slow flight and stalls is
split into separate paragraphs (i) and (j),
[[Page 44839]]
specifying those aircraft for which the training is not required.
Section 61.313 What Aeronautical Experience Must I Have To Apply for a
Sport Pilot Certificate? (Proposed as SFAR No. 89 Section 55)
See discussion under ``V.5.A.iii. Flight Training and Proficiency
Requirements.''
Changes
The provisions of section 55 of proposed SFAR No. 89 are
transferred to Sec. 61.313, with the following changes.
References to land and sea classes of aircraft are added to
paragraphs (a), (g), and (f).
References to a ``full-stop landing'' are revised to read ``full-
stop landing at a minimum of two points'' in paragraphs (a)(1)(iii),
(d)(1)(iii), and (h)(1)(iii).
In paragraph (b), the term ``solo flight time'' is changed to
``solo flight training.''
In paragraph (f), the aeronautical experience requirements for
lighter-than-air category and balloon class privileges, are changed by
deleting the requirement for one solo cross-country flight of at least
25 NM.
In paragraph (g), the aeronautical experience requirements for
powered parachute category privileges, are changed as follows:
The requirement for 20 hours total flight time is reduced to 12
hours.
The requirement for 15 hours of flight training is reduced to 10
hours, which must include 20 takeoffs and landings to a full stop in a
powered parachute with each landing involving flight in the traffic
pattern at an airport.
The requirement for 2 hours of cross-country flight training is
reduced to 1 hour.
The requirement for 5 hours of solo flight training is reduced to 2
hours and must include 10 solo takeoffs and landings, and one solo
flight with a 10-NM leg with a landing at a different airport in lieu
of the requirement for one solo flight of 25 NM with one 15-NM leg.
In paragraph (h), the aeronautical experience requirements for
weight-shift-control aircraft category privileges, is changed by
reducing the 75 NM solo cross-country requirement to 50 NM.
Section 61.315 What Are the Privileges and Limitations of My Sport
Pilot Certificate? (Proposed as SFAR No. 89 Sections 73, 75, 77 and 79)
A few commenters noted that, in many states, a U.S. driver's
license may be revoked for failure to pay certain taxes, failure to pay
child support, or other circumstances that do not pertain to flying
ability. These commenters believed that a person's ability to obtain a
driver's license may not be related to poor health. The FAA, however,
maintains the position it took in the proposed rule, that all
limitations imposed on a driver's license apply to the use of that
license to establish medical eligibility for a sport pilot certificate.
To further clarify its position on this issue, the FAA is adding
the language in Sec. 61.315(c)(17) stating: ``* * * or any limit
imposed by judicial or administrative order when using your driver's
license to satisfy a requirement of this part.'' As stated in the
proposed rule, it is the FAA's intent that, if an individual's driving
privileges have been suspended, revoked, or restricted for any reason
by an administrative or judicial body, those same limitations apply to
the use of that individual's driver's license to establish medical
eligibility for a sport pilot certificate, regardless of whether the
terms of those limitations are printed on the individual's driver's
license or other document, and regardless of whether the restrictions
imposed were the result of an infraction unrelated to an individual's
driving or flying ability. If an individual's driving privileges have
been suspended, revoked, or in any way limited by a court or
administrative order, the license holder may no longer use his or her
driver's license to establish medical eligibility for a sport pilot
certificate.
A commenter proposed that sport pilots be limited to single-place
aircraft, and a private pilot certificate be required to fly a two-
place aircraft. The FAA disagrees. The FAA believes that the training
provided to a sport pilot is sufficient to permit that person to safely
operate a simple, non-complex aircraft. The FAA believes that carrying
a passenger does not increase the complexity of the aircraft to warrant
the additional training required for a higher level certificate. One of
the stated objectives of the sport pilot certificate is to permit, for
personal use, the holder of such a certificate to operate a light-sport
aircraft that has the capability of carrying only two occupants--the
pilot and one passenger.
The FAA is also adding language to Sec. 61.315(b)(7) to require
additional training to operate in Class B, C, and D airspace. For a
complete discussion of all issues related to operations in class B, C,
and D airspace, refer to ``V.5.A.v. Changes to Airspace Restrictions.''
Several commenters suggested that the FAA allow a sport pilot to
conduct search and rescue operations and said that the aircraft now
being certificated as light-sport aircraft would be well suited for
that activity. Although the FAA agrees that these aircraft are well
suited for the activity, it still believes that this activity should be
conducted by at least a private pilot who has accomplished the
additional training and testing requirements at that certificate level.
For a discussion of demonstrating aircraft to prospective buyers,
please refer to ``V.5.A.viii. Demonstration of Aircraft to Prospective
Buyers.''
For a discussion of comments received requesting towing privileges
for sport and recreational pilots, see the discussion of Sec. 61.69
above.
Section 73 of proposed SFAR No. 89 stated that a sport pilot would
be limited to sport and recreational flying only. Sport and
recreational flying, however, was not specifically defined in the NPRM.
That limitation is removed in the final rule and replaced with
prohibitions against acting as pilot in command of a light-sport
aircraft when carrying a passenger or property for compensation or
hire, for compensation or hire, or in the furtherance of business. This
change better describes those types of operations it intended to
restrict when it proposed that a sport pilot would be limited to sport
and recreational flying only.
The authority to operate up to 2,000 AGL when above 10,000 feet MSL
is removed. For further information on this change, see ``V.5.A.vi.
Changes to Altitude Limitations.''
Additionally, since light-sport aircraft operated by sport pilots
are intended to be simple and non-complex, the FAA is adding a
provision in paragraph (c)(19) to specifically prohibit a sport pilot
from acting as a pilot flight crewmember on any aircraft for which more
than one pilot is required by the type certificate of the aircraft or
the regulations under which the flight is conducted. A similar
provision currently exists in Sec. 61.101(e) for recreational pilots.
The two exceptions contained in that paragraph, however, are not
included in Sec. 61.315.
Changes
The provisions of sections 73, 75, 77, and 79 of proposed SFAR No.
89 are transferred to Sec. 61.315, with the following changes.
In paragraph (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3), prohibitions that a person
may not act as pilot in command of a light-sport aircraft when carrying
a passenger or property for compensation or hire, for compensation or
hire, or in the furtherance of business are added. These provisions are
added because the FAA is not including in the final rule the limitation
on sport and recreational
[[Page 44840]]
flying proposed in SFAR No. 89 section 73 paragraph (a).
In paragraph (c)(7), the words ``or to, from, through, or at an
airport having an operational control tower'' are added.
In paragraph (c)(11), the authority to operate up to 2,000 AGL when
above 10,000 feet MSL is removed.
In paragraph (c)(17), a provision is added to require a sport pilot
to comply with any limit imposed by judicial or administrative order
when using his or her U.S. driver's license to satisfy a requirement of
part 61.
Paragraph (c)(19) is added to prohibit a sport pilot from acting as
a pilot flight crewmember on any aircraft for which more than one pilot
is required by the type certificate of the aircraft or the regulations
under which the flight is conducted.
Section 61.317 Is My Sport Pilot Certificate Issued With Aircraft
Category and Class Ratings? (Proposed as SFAR No. 89 Section 59)
The FAA did not receive any comments on section 59 of proposed SFAR
No. 89.
Changes
The provisions of section 59 of proposed SFAR No. 89 are
transferred to Sec. 61.317 without substantive change.
Section 61.319 Can I Operate a Make and Model of Aircraft Other Than
the Make and Model Aircraft for Which I Have Received an Endorsement?
(Proposed as SFAR No. 89 Section 61)
The FAA made changes to this section to incorporate the concept of
make and model endorsements providing privileges to operate any
aircraft within a set of aircraft. For a discussion of the comments and
more information on this issue, see ``V.5.A.iv. Make and Model Logbook
Endorsements, and Sets of Aircraft.''
Changes
The provisions of section 61 of proposed SFAR No. 89 are
transferred to Sec. 61.319 and revised to allow the holder of a sport
pilot certificate with an endorsement to operate a specific make and
model of light-sport aircraft to operate any other aircraft belonging
to the same set of aircraft.
Section 61.321 How Do I Obtain Privileges To Operate an Additional
Category or Class of Light-Sport Aircraft? (Proposed as SFAR No. 89
Section 63)
Generally, for a discussion of the comments and changes made to
this section, see ``V.5.A.iv. Make and Model Logbook Endorsements, and
Sets of Aircraft.''
For a discussion of the comments and the changes to the
requirements in Sec. 61.321 (c) for an applicant to complete an
application and present this application to the authorized instructor,
see ``V.5.A.ix. Category and Class Discussion: FAA Form 8710-11
Submission.''
Changes
The provisions of section 63 of proposed SFAR No. 89 are
transferred to Sec. 61.321 with an additional requirement in paragraph
(c) for sport pilot seeking to operate an additional category or class
of light-sport aircraft to complete an application for those privileges
on a form and in a manner acceptable to the FAA. The person must
present this application to the authorized instructor who conducted the
proficiency check specified in paragraph (b) of the section.
Section 61.323 How Do I Obtain Privileges To Operate a Make and Model
of Light-Sport Aircraft in the Same Category and Class Within a
Different Set of Aircraft? (Proposed as SFAR No. 89 Section 65)
The FAA made changes to this section to incorporate the concept of
make and model endorsements providing privileges to operate any
aircraft within a set of aircraft. For a discussion of the comments and
changes made to this section, see ``V.5.A.iv. Make and Model Logbook
Endorsements, and Sets of Aircraft.''
Changes
The provisions of section 65 of proposed SFAR No. 89 are
transferred to Sec. 61.323 with changes. The FAA is revising this
section to allow the holder of a sport pilot certificate with an
endorsement for a specific make and model light-sport aircraft to
operate any other aircraft within the same set of aircraft.
Section 61.325 How Do I Obtain Privileges To Operate a Light-Sport
Aircraft at an Airport Within, or in Airspace Within, Class B, C, and D
Airspace, or in Other Airspace With an Airport Having an Operational
Control Tower? (Proposed as SFAR No. 89 Section 81)
For a discussion of comments and changes to this section, see
``V.5.A.v. Changes to Airspace Restrictions.''
Changes
The provisions of section 81 of proposed SFAR No. 89 are
transferred to Sec. 61.325 with the following change. The FAA is
adding the words ``at an airport located in Class B, C, or D airspace,
or to, from, through, or at an airport having an operational control
tower.''
Section 61.327 How Do I Obtain Privileges To Operate a Light-Sport
Aircraft That Has a VH Greater Than 87 Knots CAS? (Proposed as SFAR No.
89 Section 83)
The FAA received a few comments on proposed section 83 of SFAR No.
89. The commenters recommended that the FAA eliminate the proposed
requirement that sport pilots seeking to operate an aircraft with a
VH greater than 87 knots CAS receive an endorsement from an
authorized instructor. For the reasons stated in the proposed rule, and
also because the FAA is eliminating the proposed requirement for a
specific make and model endorsement for each aircraft a sport pilot
operates, the FAA has retained this requirement in the final rule.
Changes
The provisions of section 83 of proposed SFAR No. 89 are
transferred to Sec. 61.327 without substantive change.
Section 61.329 Are There Special Provisions for Obtaining a Sport Pilot
Certificate for Persons Who Are Registered Ultralight Pilots With an
FAA-Recognized Ultralight Organization? (Proposed as SFAR No. 89
Section 93)
The FAA received comments suggesting that other organizations not
mentioned specifically in the preamble of the proposal should be
considered for crediting of ultralight experience. At the time of the
NPRM, the FAA stated that it considered only ASC, EAA, and USUA to be
FAA-recognized ultralight organizations. One commenter specifically
requested that USHGA be considered an FAA-recognized ultralight
organization. Some commenters also thought that State associations that
have required that ultralight pilots meet their requirements should
have been addressed. Both the final rule and the NPRM do not limit
those organizations that can be considered as FAA-recognized ultralight
organizations. The FAA agrees that USHGA should be considered an FAA-
recognized ultralight organization and recognizes it as such. The FAA
also recognizes that many State associations have now affiliated
themselves with FAA-recognized ultralight organizations. Ultralight
pilots in these State associations will be able to become sport pilots
using the transition provisions of Sec. 61.329, provided they are
recognized pilots with one of the
[[Page 44841]]
four current FAA-recognized ultralight organizations.
The FAA originally proposed that any registered ultralight pilot
with an FAA-recognized ultralight organization would have up to 24
months after the effective date of the final rule to apply for a sport
pilot certificate and receive credit for experience and training
successfully completed with that ultralight organization. Although
there were no comments on this proposal, the FAA concluded that it
would be in the interest of safety, fairness, and ease of
administration to revise the provisions of the proposal in the final
rule. The final rule permits an ultralight pilot registered with an
FAA-recognized ultralight organization on or before September 1, 2004
to obtain a sport pilot certificate without meeting the aeronautical
knowledge and flight proficiency requirements of Sec. Sec. 61.309 and
61. 311 provided that person obtains the sport pilot certificate no
later than January 31, 2007. Ultralight pilots registered with these
organizations after September 1, 2004 will be required to meet these
aeronautical knowledge and flight proficiency requirements but may
credit experience obtained while a member of an FAA-recognized
ultralight organization in accordance with Sec. 61.52.
The purpose of Sec. 61.329 is to provide a means of transition for
those pilots who receive training with FAA-recognized ultralight
organizations to obtain sport pilot certificates. Under current
ultralight training programs, it is possible for an ultralight pilot to
be eligible for a sport pilot certificate with as little as 10 hours of
flight time. These ultralight pilots need not meet the aeronautical
experience requirements specified in Sec. 61.313. The FAA has
determined that this is acceptable for ultralight pilots registered
with an FAA-recognized organization on or before September 1, 2004 who
pass both a knowledge and practical test before January 31, 2007. But
after September 1, 2004, all pilot applicants must meet the
aeronautical experience requirements of Sec. 61.313. Registered pilots
with FAA-recognized ultralight organizations, however, may credit
ultralight aeronautical experience toward meeting these requirements in
accordance with Sec. 61.52. These requirements will ensure that all
applicants meet the same standards and receive adequate training. They
will also provide a single measure for assessing an applicant's
qualifications, as all applicants must demonstrate proficiency and
satisfactorily complete both FAA knowledge and practical tests.
An ultralight pilot registered with an FAA-recognized ultralight
organization before September 1, 2004, who completes a practical test
no later than January 31, 2007, will be issued a sport pilot
certificate with a logbook endorsement permitting that person to
exercise sport pilot privileges in each category, class, make, and
model for which the FAA-recognized ultralight organization has found
him or her proficient to operate. Registered ultralight pilots with an
FAA-recognized ultralight organization who were not registered on or
before September 1, 2004 and successfully complete the practical test
for the sport pilot certificate will receive a logbook endorsement
permitting them to exercise sport pilot privileges in the category,
class, make and model of aircraft in which the practical test was
taken; however, they will not receive a logbook endorsement for each
category, class, make, and model of aircraft they were recognized by an
the organization to operate.
The FAA received many comments regarding the requirement for
notarized documentation of experience from the FAA-recognized
ultralight organization. The commenters were concerned about the added
cost and burden this will present. The ultralight organizations
indicated that they would have to put notaries on their staffs or take
the documents to a notary, adding cost and burden to the process.
The FAA agrees with the comments and has replaced the requirement
for a notarized document with a requirement that an applicant provide
the FAA with a certified copy of his or her ultralight pilot records
from the FAA-recognized ultralight organization. The FAA has
historically allowed other organizations to certify graduation
certificates and similar documents and the FAA concluded that is
sufficient for this regulatory requirement.
Many commenters suggested that the FAA allow an applicant who is
concurrently seeking both a sport pilot certificate and a flight
instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating to take only one
knowledge test to meet both aeronautical knowledge requirements. The
FAA agrees with these commenters and will permit a person seeking a
sport pilot certificate under paragraph (a)(1) to take either the
knowledge test for a sport pilot certificate or the flight instructor
certificate with a sport pilot rating to satisfy the requirements of
this section. The FAA believes that the applicant will demonstrate a
higher level of knowledge by taking the knowledge test for a flight
instructor certificate for a sport pilot rating.
Proposed paragraphs (a)(3)(ii), which would have required documents
from an FAA-recognized ultralight organization to list each category
and class of ultralight vehicle that the organization recognizes a
person as being qualified to operate, is changed in paragraph (a)(1) of
the final rule to require that the documents indicate that person is
recognized to operate the category and class of aircraft for which
sport pilot privileges are sought. As a result of this change, the
documentation provided by an applicant under paragraph (a)(1) of the
rule need not show all categories and classes that the organization
considers the applicant qualified to operate, only the category and
class of aircraft for which sport pilot privileges are sought.
Documentation submitted by an applicant under paragraph (a)(2),
however, must show each aircraft a person is recognized to operate.
This requirement enables the FAA to provide the applicant with a
logbook endorsement permitting operation of each category, class, make
and model listed without further testing.
The FAA has also revised the final rule by adding paragraph (b).
This paragraph clarifies that the FAA will provide a person who meets
the provisions of paragraph (a)(1) of this section with a logbook
endorsement for each category, class, make, and model of aircraft
listed on the ultralight pilot's records provided to the FAA,
regardless of the aircraft in which the practical test is taken.
Changes
The provisions of section 93 of proposed SFAR No. 89 are
transferred to Sec. 61.329 with minor reformatting. Also, the
following changes are made.
In paragraph (a)(1) (proposed as paragraph (a)), the words ``not
later than 24 months after the effective date of the final rule'' are
changed to ``on or before September 1, 2004.''
In paragraph (a)(1)(i)(B), the FAA is adding a provision that
permits a registered ultralight pilot seeking a sport pilot certificate
to pass either the knowledge test for a sport pilot certificate (as set
forth in the proposal), or the knowledge test for a flight instructor
certificate with a sport pilot rating.
In paragraphs (a)(1)(i)(D) and (a)(2)(iv), the word ``notarized''
is changed to ``certified.''
Proposed paragraph (b)(4)(ii) is changed in paragraph (a)(2)(iv)(B)
of the final rule to require that a person who is a registered
ultralight pilot on or after
[[Page 44842]]
September 1, 2004 and is seeking a sport pilot certificate to provide
documents provided by an applicant for a sport pilot certificate
indicate that the person is recognized to operate only the category and
class of aircraft for which sport pilot privileges are sought.
Proposed paragraph (c) is removed.
New paragraph (b) is added as discussed above.
Subpart K--Flight Instructors With a Sport Pilot Rating
The FAA concluded that the certification rules pertaining to flight
instructors with a sport pilot rating merited their own subpart in part
61. Most of the rules originally proposed in SFAR No. 89 pertaining to
flight instructors were moved into subpart K without change. A table
with cross-references to the proposed SFAR No. 89 appears at the
beginning of this section-by-section analysis for part 61.
Section 61.401 What Is the Purpose of This Subpart? (Proposed as SFAR
No. 89 Section 1)
The FAA did not receive any comments on section 1 of proposed SFAR
No. 89. The provisions applicable to flight instructors with a sport
pilot rating are therefore transferred to Sec. 61.401 without
substantive change. Section 61.401 provides the user with an overview
of the requirements prescribed in this subpart.
Changes
The provisions of section 1 of proposed SFAR No. 89 applicable to
flight instructors with a sport pilot rating are transferred to Sec.
61.401 without substantive change.
Section 61.403 What Are the Age, Language, and Pilot Certificate
Requirements for a Flight Instructor Certificate With a Sport Pilot
Rating? (Proposed as SFAR No. 89 Section 3)
The FAA created this section to incorporate the eligibility
requirements originally contained in SFAR No. 89 section 3. Section 3
would have required that a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating
hold a sport or private pilot certificate. Although a number of
commenters agreed with the FAA's proposal to permit flight instructors
with a sport pilot rating to possess only a sport pilot certificate,
the FAA received several comments expressing concern that persons
holding no more than a sport pilot certificate could serve as flight
instructors. Commenters noted that the FAA traditionally requires a
flight instructor to hold a commercial pilot certificate. These
commenters were specifically concerned that the FAA would be
certificating flight instructors with an inappropriately low level of
experience and training, thereby decreasing safety. The FAA believes
that the training and experience required for a flight instructor
certificate with a sport pilot rating is appropriate for the types of
instruction that these flight instructors will provide. The FAA notes
that these persons will be providing instruction in simple, non-complex
aircraft with limited operational characteristics. The FAA also notes
that it has established minimum aeronautical experience requirements in
Sec. 61.411 for flight instructors with a sport pilot rating that
exceeds that specified for a sport pilot certificate.
In the final rule, the FAA revised the language requiring a person
to ``hold a current and valid sport pilot certificate or a current and
valid private pilot certificate'' to ``hold a current and valid pilot
certificate.'' This change permits persons holding recreational,
commercial, and airline transport pilot certificates to obtain a flight
instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating. Since the FAA intends
to permit a person with a sport pilot certificate to obtain a flight
instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating, the FAA believes that
persons with higher-level pilot certificates should not be precluded
from obtaining a flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot
rating.
Changes
The provisions of section 3 of proposed SFAR No. 89 addressing the
eligibility requirements for flight instructors with a sport pilot
rating are transferred to Sec. 61.403 with the following change. In
paragraph (c) of the final rule, the language requiring a person to
``hold a current and valid sport pilot certificate or a current and
valid private pilot certificate'' is changed to ``hold a current and
valid pilot certificate.''
Section 61.405 What Tests Do I Have To Take To Obtain a Flight
Instructor Certificate With a Sport Pilot Rating? (Proposed as SFAR No.
89 Section 119)
The FAA created this section to incorporate the testing
requirements originally contained SFAR No. 89 section 119. The FAA
received a comment from a national organization representing flight
instructors recommending changes regarding spin training instructional
competency and proficiency in weight-shift-control aircraft. In
addition, several commenters noted, while it is crucial that pilots of
weight-shift-control aircraft be capable of recognizing and avoiding
spins, it is not safe for pilots to learn these techniques by actually
performing them. The FAA supports these recommendations and is removing
the proposed requirement that a person seeking to provide instruction
in a weight-shift-control aircraft possess both competency and
instructional proficiency in stall awareness, spin entry, spins, and
spin recovery procedures. These requirements are still applicable to
persons seeking to provide instruction in airplanes and gliders. For
more information, see ``V.5.A.iii. Flight Training and Proficiency
Requirements.''
Changes
The provisions of section 119 of proposed SFAR No. 89 are
transferred to Sec. 61.405 with the following changes.
The section is reworded and reorganized for clarity.
In paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of the final rule (proposed as paragraph
(b)(3)), the requirement for a person to receive a logbook endorsement
indicating competency and instructional proficiency in stall awareness,
spin entry, spins, and spin recovery procedures has been deleted for
persons seeking privileges to provide instruction in weight-shift-
control aircraft.
In paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of the final rule (proposed as paragraph
(b)(4)) is modified as follows.
A person seeking privileges to provide instruction in a weight-
shift-control aircraft is not required to demonstrate an ability to
teach stall awareness, spin entry, spins, and spin recovery procedures.
The term ``practical'' is added before the word ``test.''
The term ``instructional procedures'' is replaced with
``instructional competency and proficiency.''
The term ``applicable light-sport aircraft'' is replaced with
``applicable category and class of aircraft.''
Section 61.407 What Aeronautical Knowledge Must I Have To Obtain a
Flight Instructor Certificate With a Sport Pilot Rating? (Proposed SFAR
No. 89 Section 113)
The FAA did not receive any comments on this section and is
adopting the section as proposed except for minor revisions to improve
clarity.
Changes
The provisions of section 113 of proposed SFAR No. 89 are
transferred to Sec. 61.407 with the following changes. Proposed
paragraphs (b) and (c) are adopted as paragraphs (c) and (b)
respectively, and in paragraph (c) of the final rule, the words ``for
the aircraft category and class in which you seek
[[Page 44843]]
flight instructor privileges'' are added after ``applicable to a sport
pilot certificate.''
Section 61.409 What Flight Proficiency Requirements Must I Meet To
Apply for a Flight Instructor Certificate With a Sport Pilot Rating?
(Proposed as SFAR No. 89 Section 115)
For a discussion on this section, see ``V.5.A.iii. Flight Training
and Proficiency Requirements.''
Changes
The provisions of section 115 of proposed SFAR No. 89 are
transferred to Sec. 61.409 with the following changes.
In the introductory text of the section, the words ``for airplane
single-engine, glider, gyroplane, airship, balloon, powered parachute,
and weight-shift-control privileges'' are replaced with the words ``for
the aircraft category and class in which you seek flight instructor
privileges'' are added.
Paragraph (k) (proposed as paragraph (a)(11)) is changed to no
longer require applicants for a flight instructor certificate seeking
instructional privileges in lighter-than-air aircraft and powered
parachutes to receive and log slow flight training. It is also changed
to no longer require applicants seeking instructional privileges in
powered parachutes to receive and log stall training. In addition, in
the final rule, the training requirement for slow flight and stalls is
split into separate paragraphs (k) and (l), specifying those aircraft
for which the training is not required.
Paragraph (m) (proposed as paragraph (a)(12)) is changed to remove
the requirement for spin training in a weight-shift-control aircraft,
requiring it for airplanes and gliders only.
Paragraph (o) is added to require ``tumble entry and avoidance
techniques'' maneuvers for weight-shift-control aircraft only.
Section 61.411 What Aeronautical Experience Must I Have To Apply for a
Flight Instructor Certificate With a Sport Pilot Rating? (Proposed as
SFAR No. 89 Section 117)
The FAA received several comments to this section. One commenter
stated that the FAA should decrease the aeronautical experience
requirements for flight instructors seeking instructional privileges in
powered parachutes to 50 hours. Other commenters questioned the need
for flight instructors to obtain 15 hours of cross-country flight time
in powered parachutes. Another commenter questioned the need for flight
instructors to have 15 hours of pilot-in-command time in a weight-
shift-control aircraft. A number of commenters recommended that the FAA
decrease the requirements for flight instructors seeking instructional
privileges in airplanes, weight-shift-control aircraft, and powered
parachutes to 55 hours. One commenter stated that until 2 years ago,
all three national ultralight organizations required only 55 hours of
flight time to qualify as an ultralight flight instructor. The
commenter further noted that two of these three organizations now
require flight instructors to possess a minimum of 100 hours of flight
time. A number of commenters stated that the proposed requirements for
flight instructors should mirror the requirements of these two
organizations. However, another commenter recommended that all flight
instructors have at least 250 hours of flight experience. This
commenter was concerned that sport pilots would be trained by
instructors who have very little experience themselves.
The FAA has considered the commenters' concerns and notes that
there may be legitimate reasons to either increase or decrease the
aeronautical experience requirements set forth in the NPRM. The FAA
believes that the aeronautical experience requirements set forth in the
NPRM establish a reasonable level of minimum aeronautical experience
for the issuance of flight instructor certificates with a sport pilot
rating. As the sport pilot rating is a new rating to be added to the
flight instructor certificate, the FAA will monitor the implementation
of the rule and may revise aeronautical experience requirements for the
rating, if the FAA deems such action appropriate.
Changes
The provisions of section 117 of proposed SFAR No. 89 are
transferred to Sec. 61.411 with no substantive change.
Section 61.413 What Are the Privileges of My Flight Instructor
Certificate With a Sport Pilot Rating? (Proposed as SFAR No. 89 Section
133)
The FAA identified several privileges that a flight instructor with
a sport pilot rating would be permitted to exercise that were omitted
in SFAR No. 89 section 133 of the proposed rule. This omission is being
corrected in the final rule.
In addition to the privileges listed in the NPRM, under the final
rule, the holder of a flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot
rating is authorized, within the limits of his or her certificate and
rating, to provide training and logbook endorsements for the following:
(1) A flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating;
(2) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft rating;
(3) An operating privilege for a sport pilot;
(4) A practical test and knowledge test for a private pilot
certificate with a powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft
rating or a flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating.
Although the FAA received a few comments on this section that
addressed towing and the ability to demonstrate light-sport aircraft
for sale, these privileges are not based upon an individual's flight
instructor certificate, but rather on that individual's underlying
pilot certificate. Comments on towing and the demonstration of aircraft
for sale are discussed in those sections that address the privileges of
a person's underlying pilot certificate.
Changes
The provisions of section 133 of proposed SFAR No. 89 are
transferred to Sec. 61.413 and reorganized for clarity. Also, the
following changes are made.
In paragraph (a), the words ``a student pilot certificate to
operate light-sport aircraft'' are changed to ``a student pilot seeking
a sport pilot certificate''.
Paragraph (c) is added to include training and logbook endorsements
for a flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating.
Paragraph (d) is added to include training and logbook endorsements
for a powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft rating.
Paragraph (f) is changed by including training and logbook
endorsements for an operating privilege.
Paragraphs (g) and (h) (proposed as paragraphs (e) and (f)) are
amended by adding, after ``for a sport pilot,'' the words
``certificate, a private pilot certificate with a powered parachute or
weight-shift-control aircraft rating or a flight instructor certificate
with a sport pilot rating.''
Section 61.415 What Are the Limits of a Flight Instructor Certificate
With a Sport Pilot Rating? (Proposed as SFAR No. 89 Section 135)
Several commenters questioned the need for make and model
endorsements for flight instructors. Many commenters believed that this
requirement is unnecessary because of the simple nature of the aircraft
in which instructors will be providing training. Additionally, many
commenters questioned the need for flight instructors to obtain 5 hours
of pilot-in-command time in a specific make and
[[Page 44844]]
model of aircraft prior to providing flight instruction in that
aircraft. The FAA recognizes that under current Sec. 61.195(f), a
flight instructor may not provide training required for the issuance of
a certificate or rating in a multi-engine airplane, helicopter, or
powered lift unless that instructor has at least 5 hours of pilot-in-
command time in that specific make and model of aircraft. This
requirement is therefore not applicable to the majority of aircraft in
which flight instruction is conducted. The FAA notes however that the
final rule permits a person to serve as a flight instructor if that
person holds only a sport pilot certificate. In view of the limited
experience of these certificate holders, the FAA deems it prudent that
flight instructors with a sport pilot rating obtain at least 5 hours
pilot-in-command time before conducting flight instruction in a make
and model of light-sport aircraft within the same set of aircraft as
that in which the training is provided. For additional discussion, see
``V.5.A.iv. Make and Model Logbook Endorsements, and Sets of
Aircraft.''
Commenters stated that the FAA should allow training to be
conducted in single-place aircraft. The FAA does not agree that all
training provided by flight instructors with a sport pilot rating be
permitted in single-place aircraft. Under current Sec. 61.195(g)(2),
the FAA requires pre-solo flight training for single-place aircraft to
be provided in an aircraft that has two pilot stations and is of the
same category and class applicable to the certificate and rating
sought. The FAA believes that the commenters did not provide sufficient
justification to remove this long-standing requirement. The final rule
requires that pre-solo flight training must be given in an aircraft
that has two pilot stations and is of the same category and class
applicable to the certificate, rating, or privilege sought. Section
61.195(g) ensures that pre-solo fight training is provided by an
authorized instructor in an aircraft with two pilot stations. Section
61.415 will apply a similar requirement to persons receiving flight
instruction from flight instructors with a sport pilot rating. Similar
to Sec. 61.195(g), pilots being trained by flight instructors with a
sport pilot rating will have the latitude under Sec. 61.415 to meet
all other experience and solo training requirements in a single-place
aircraft.
As the provisions of proposed SFAR No. 89 have been included in new
subpart K of part 61, and the applicability of subpart H has been
revised to exclude flight instructors with a sport pilot rating, the
limitations that previously applied to all flight instructors in
subpart H must be included in subpart K for them to apply to flight
instructors with a sport pilot rating. Therefore, the FAA is now
including in Sec. 61.415 specific regulatory language to address the
limits referred to Sec. 61.195(a), (d)(1) through (d)(3), and (d)(5).
Changes
The FAA is transferring the provisions of proposed SFAR No. 89
section 135 to Sec. 61.415 and reorganizing them with the following
revisions.
In paragraph (a), the description of the limits for providing
ground or flight training is clarified by addressing training provided
by a person holding a pilot certificate other than a sport pilot
certificate.
Paragraph (e) is revised to incorporate the concept of ``set of
aircraft,'' and the requirement to obtain aeronautical experience as a
registered pilot with an FAA-recognized ultralight organization is
removed. The concept of ``set of aircraft'' is discussed under
``V.5.A.iv. Make and Model Logbook Endorsements, and Sets of
Aircraft.'' The use of aeronautical experience obtained in ultralight
vehicles is addressed in Sec. 61.52 of the final rule.
Paragraph (f) is revised to incorporate operations to, from,
through, or at an airport having an operational control tower. (See
``V.5.A.v. Changes to Airspace Restrictions.'')
Paragraph (h) is added to require that all training be performed in
an aircraft that complies with the requirements of Sec. 91.109. This
corrects an inadvertent omission of a reference to Sec. 61.195(g) in
the NPRM.
Paragraph (i) is added to require that flight training must be
provided in an aircraft that has at least two pilot stations and is of
the same category and class appropriate to the certificate rating or
privilege sought. Pre-solo flight training for single-place aircraft
needs to be provided in an aircraft that has two pilot stations and is
of the same category and class appropriate to the certificate rating or
privilege sought.
Section 61.417 Will My Flight Instructor Certificate With a Sport Pilot
Rating List Aircraft Category and Class Ratings? (Proposed as SFAR No.
89 Section 123)
The FAA did not receive any comments on this section. Although it
was proposed that a person receiving a flight instructor certificate
with a sport pilot rating receive logbook endorsements for the
category, class, and make and model aircraft in which the person is
authorized to provide training, the FAA is removing provisions
specifying that a person would receive a make and model endorsement.
The FAA is removing these provisions because the authority to operate
any make and model of aircraft within a specific set of aircraft is a
privilege of the person's underlying pilot certificate and not the
flight instructor certificate. See the discussion ``V.5.A.iv. Make and
Model Logbook Endorsements, and Sets of Aircraft.''
Changes
The provisions of section 123 of proposed SFAR No. 89 are
transferred to Sec. 61.417 with the following change. The words ``make
and model'' are removed.
Section 61.419 How Do I Obtain Privileges To Provide Training in an
Additional Category or Class of Light-Sport Aircraft? (Proposed as SFAR
No. 89 Section 127)
The FAA received a few comments on this section. One commenter was
concerned that there will not be enough instructors to provide
endorsements for instructors seeking to provide training in additional
categories and classes of aircraft. Another commenter proposed that
instructors certificated under subpart H of part 61 should not be
required to complete the proposed proficiency check. The FAA believes
that the ``grandfathering'' provisions of the final rule will result in
sufficient numbers of instructors being able to provide the required
endorsements. The FAA notes that the proficiency check required by
Sec. 61.419(b) will only apply to flight instructors exercising the
privileges of a sport pilot rating. The FAA also notes that instructors
certificated under subpart H are not subject to this requirement.
For information on changes related to filing applications and
endorsements, refer to the discussion under ``V.5.A.ix. Category and
Class Discussion: FAA Form 8710-11 Submission.'' For discussion of make
and model endorsements, refer to the discussion under ``V.5.A.iv. Make
and Model Endorsements, and Sets of Aircraft.''
In addition, the FAA made a minor editorial change to the title and
the introductory text by deleting the word ``flight'' to be more
accurate. This change reflects that flight instructors provide both
ground and flight training.
Changes
The provisions of section 127 of proposed SFAR No. 89 are
transferred to Sec. 61.419 with the following changes.
The title of this section is changed by removing the word
``flight.'' The word ``flight'' is also removed from the introductory
text.
[[Page 44845]]
In paragraph (a), the term ``aeronautical and knowledge experience
requirements'' is changed to ``aeronautical knowledge and flight
proficiency requirements.'' This change properly refers to the
requirements an applicant must meet in Sec. Sec. 61.407 and 61.409.
Proposed paragraph (b) is split into paragraphs (b) and (d) in the
final rule for clarity. The logbook endorsement requirement is now in
paragraph (d) of the final rule. The term ``light-sport aircraft
privilege'' is changed to ``category and class flight instructor
privilege'' in paragraphs (b) and (d) of the final rule.
Paragraph (c) in the final rule is added to require a person to
complete and present an application to obtain the privileges sought.
Section 61.421 May I Give Myself an Endorsement? (Proposed as SFAR No.
89 Section 139)
The FAA received comments noting an error made in the proposed rule
omitting the word ``not.'' The FAA is correcting the error.
Changes
The provisions of section 139 of proposed SFAR No. 89 are
transferred to Sec. 61.421 with the following changes.
The phrase ``you may give yourself an endorsement'' is changed to
``you may not give yourself an endorsement,'' as was originally
intended.
The FAA is also adding the word ``rating'' to the list of
endorsements a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating is not
permitted to give him or herself. This conforms to the list of
prohibitions specified in Sec. 61.195(i).
Section 61.423 What Are the Recordkeeping Requirements for a Flight
Instructor With a Sport Pilot Rating? (Proposed as SFAR No. 89 Section
121)
The FAA received no comments on this section.
The FAA notes that the NPRM only referred to the endorsement of a
person's logbook. Under current rules, a flight instructor is required
to sign the logbook of any person to whom he or she provides training.
To clarify that flight instructors with a sport pilot rating must sign
the logbook of each person to whom they have given flight or ground
training, the FAA is revising paragraph (a)(1) accordingly.
The NPRM did not specifically require a flight instructor to retain
a record of the type of endorsement provided to a person who received
training. The final rule corrects this omission in paragraph (a)(2).
The FAA is revising paragraph (a)(2)(iii) to include the words
``to, from, through, or at an airport having an operational control
tower.'' This change is discussed under ``V.5.A.v. Changes to Airspace
Restrictions.''
The FAA is adding (b) to include a requirement for an instructor to
complete, sign, and submit to the FAA the application presented to him
or her by a person seeking to operate or provide training in an
additional category and class of light-sport aircraft. This application
must be submitted within 10 days of providing the endorsement. For a
discussion of this provision, see ``V.5.A.ix. Category and Class
Discussion: FAA Form 8710-11 Submission.''
Changes
The provisions of section 121 of proposed SFAR No. 89 are
transferred to Sec. 61.423 with the following changes.
The section heading is revised, and the text of the section is
reorganized for improved readability.
In paragraph (a)(1) the FAA is clarifying that a flight instructor
with a sport pilot rating must sign the logbook of each person to whom
he or she has given training.
In paragraph (a)(2), a requirement to retain a record of the type
of endorsement is added.
Paragraph (a)(2)(iii) is revised to include the words ``to, from,
through, or at an airport having an operational control tower.''
Paragraph (b) is added to include a requirement for an instructor
to complete, sign, and submit to the FAA the application presented to
him or her by a person seeking to obtain additional category and class
privileges.
Section 61.425 How Do I Renew My Flight Instructor Certificate?
(Proposed as SFAR No. 89 Section 195)
The FAA received no comments requesting changes to this section.
However a few commenters expressed concerns that current Flight
Instructor Refresher Clinics (Courses) (FIRCs) may not be a suitable
means for flight instructors with a sport pilot rating to renew their
flight instructor certificates. The commenters asked if persons
providing FIRCs would be given latitude to develop courses specifically
designed for flight instructors with a sport pilot rating. The FAA
notes that persons providing FIRCs may specifically tailor those
courses to the needs of flight instructors with sport pilot ratings.
Further guidance will be available to FIRC sponsors at a later date.
Changes
The provisions of section 195 of proposed SFAR No. 89 are
transferred to Sec. 61.425 without substantive change.
Section 61.427 What Must I Do if My Flight Instructor Certificate With
a Sport Pilot Rating Expires? (Proposed as SFAR No. 89 Section 197)
The FAA received no comments on this section.
Changes
The provisions of section 197 of proposed SFAR No. 89 are
transferred to Sec. 61.427. The section is modified to note that a
person may pass a practical test as prescribed in Sec. 61.405(b) or
Sec. 61.183(h). This change reflects the separation of flight
instructor requirements into subparts H and K of part 61.
Section 61.429 May I Exercise the Privileges of a Flight Instructor
Certificate With a Sport Pilot Rating if I Hold a Flight Instructor
Certificate With Another Rating? (Proposed as SFAR No. 89 Section 151)
The FAA received several comments on this section. The majority of
the commenters recommended that the FAA delete or reduce the proposed
requirement for a person exercising the privileges of a flight
instructor with a sport pilot rating to have at least 5 hours of pilot-
in-command time in a specific make and model of light-sport aircraft in
which that person provides training. Other commenters recommended that
the FAA delete the proposed requirement that a flight instructor
receive specific training in any make and model of light-sport aircraft
in which that person has not acted as pilot in command prior to
providing training. The FAA is retaining the proposed requirement that
a person exercising the privileges of a flight instructor certificate
with a sport pilot rating have at least 5 hours of pilot-in-command
time in a specific make and model of light-sport aircraft prior to
providing flight training. However, the rule will permit a person with
this experience to provide flight training in any aircraft within the
same set of light-sport aircraft as the make and model of aircraft in
which that person has 5 hours of pilot-in-command time.
The FAA found that section 151 of proposed SFAR No. 89 did not
reference commercial pilots with an airship or a balloon rating. As
these pilots may provide flight instruction under current rules, and
therefore may be considered authorized instructors, the FAA believes it
is appropriate to permit these persons to exercise the privileges of a
flight
[[Page 44846]]
instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating in the classes of
aircraft in which they are currently authorized to provide training.
This omission is corrected in the final rule.
Proposed paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) would have established
requirements for a person transitioning to a flight instructor
certificate with a sport pilot rating to receive specific training or
have 5 hours of pilot-in-command time in any make and model of light-
sport aircraft prior to providing training in that aircraft. This
requirement to have 5 hours of pilot-in-command time is now set forth
in Sec. 61.415(e). Training requirements for the operation of makes
and models of light-sport aircraft are addressed in those sections that
apply to a person's underlying pilot certificate.
Paragraph (b) is added in the final rule. This paragraph clarifies
that the requirements of Sec. Sec. 61.415 and 61.423 also apply to
flight instructors with other than a sport pilot rating, commercial
pilots with an airship rating, or commercial pilots with a balloon
rating, when those persons exercise the privileges of a flight
instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating.
Paragraph (c) (proposed as paragraph (b)) is changed to state that,
to exercise privileges of a flight instructor certificate in a
category, class, or make and model of light-sport aircraft for which
one is not currently rated, a person must meet all applicable
requirements specified in Sec. 61.419 to provide training in an
additional category or class of light-sport aircraft. In the NPRM, SFAR
No. 89 section 151(b) referenced sections 127 and 129; however, section
129 is not being adopted and therefore paragraph (c) only pertains to
Sec. 61.419, which corresponds to SFAR No. 89 section 127.
Changes
The provisions of section 151 of proposed SFAR No. 89 are
transferred to Sec. 61.429 with changes.
In the introductory text of the section, the words ``a commercial
pilot certificate with an airship rating, or a commercial pilot
certificate with a balloon rating issued under this part'' are added.
In paragraph (a) (proposed as paragraph (a)(1)), the words ``* *
*on your existing pilot certificate and flight instructor certificate
when exercising your flight instructor privileges'' are changed to
read, ``* * *on your flight instructor certificate, commercial pilot
certificate with an airship rating, or commercial pilot certificate
with a balloon rating, as appropriate, when exercising your flight
instructor privileges and the privileges specified in Sec. 61.413.''
Paragraph (b) is added in the final rule to require persons subject
to this section to comply with the limits specified in Sec. 61.415 and
the recordkeeping requirements of Sec. 61.423.
Paragraph (c) (proposed as paragraph (b)) is changed to state that
persons subject to this section must meet all applicable requirements
specified in Sec. 61.419 to provide training in an additional category
or class of light-sport aircraft.
Section 61.431 Are There Special Provisions for Obtaining a Flight
Instructor Certificate With a Sport Pilot Rating for Persons Who Are
Registered Ultralight Flight Instructors With an FAA Recognized
Ultralight Organization? (Proposed as SFAR No. 89 Section 153)
The provisions of this section were intended to encourage and
assist ultralight instructors registered with FAA-recognized ultralight
organizations to obtain flight instructor certificates with a sport
pilot rating. The final rule will allow an ultralight flight instructor
who is registered with an FAA-recognized ultralight organization before
September 1, 2004 to apply for a flight instructor certificate with a
sport pilot rating and receive credit for experience and training
successfully completed with the ultralight organization. The FAA
believes that the provisions of this section respond to commenters'
requests to make the transition from basic and advanced ultralight
flight instructors to flight instructors with a sport pilot rating
simple and reasonable.
One commenter stated that the FAA should not require ultralight
instructors who have thousands of flight hours of ultralight flight
time to obtain additional training. The FAA believes that this section
addresses the commenter's concern, as it provides registered ultralight
instructors with FAA-recognized ultralight organizations a means to
obtain flight instructor certificates with a sport pilot rating without
meeting the requirements specified for other applicants.
A number of commenters recommended that ultralight instructors not
take knowledge tests for both the sport pilot certificate and a flight
instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating. Other commenters
recommended that transitioning ultralight flight instructors not be
required to take any knowledge test. To ensure standardization, the FAA
requires all applicants for an underlying pilot certificate to take the
specific knowledge test applicable to that certificate, and is
therefore requiring that an applicant pass a knowledge test for both
his or her underlying pilot certificate and a flight instructor
certificate with a sport pilot rating.
Some commenters recommended that ultralight flight instructors
transitioning to flight instructors with a sport pilot rating not be
required to pass an ``initial flight check.'' In the interest of safety
and standardization, the FAA will not issue an initial flight
instructor certificate without the applicant passing a practical test.
A number of commenters recommended that the FAA permit ultralight
instructors to become flight instructors without first obtaining a
sport pilot certificate. As the privilege to operate an aircraft is
based upon a person's underlying pilot certificate and not his or her
flight instructor certificate, the FAA is not adopting the commenter's
recommendation.
One commenter recommended that current ultralight instructors with
specific make and model experience be permitted to provide themselves
with an endorsement certifying their own proficiency in a particular
make and model of light-sport aircraft. As this recommendation goes
against the FAA's long-standing policy against self-endorsements, the
FAA is also not adopting this commenter's recommendation.
Other commenters questioned the ability of the FAA to effectuate a
transition from operations conducted under training exemptions to
operations conducted in accordance with subpart K. In the final rule,
the FAA is establishing an effective date for compliance, which will
permit current ultralight flight instructors to become flight
instructors with a sport pilot rating and exercise the privileges of
that certificate in appropriately certificated aircraft without
disrupting current training programs.
The FAA originally proposed that any registered ultralight
instructor with an FAA-recognized ultralight organization would have up
to 36 months after the effective date of the final rule to apply for a
flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating and receive
credit for experience and training successfully completed with the
ultralight organization. Upon further consideration, the FAA concluded
that it would be in the interest of safety, fairness, and ease of
administration to limit this provision to ultralight instructors
registered with those organizations on or before September 1, 2004, but
provide them with a period of 36 months to avail themselves of the
[[Page 44847]]
provisions of this section. Once the rule is effective, the minimum
requirements established in Sec. 61.411 must be met by all applicants
for a flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating who were
not registered ultralight instructors on or before September 1, 2004.
The FAA believes it is both unnecessary and not in the interest of
safety to permit these ultralight instructors to meet the provisions of
this section in lieu of the more stringent requirements of other
sections in subpart K.
As proposed, ultralight flight instructors who are registered with
an FAA-recognized ultralight organization on the effective date of the
rule would have had 36 months after the effective date of the final
rule to apply for a flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot
rating and receive credit for meeting the aeronautical knowledge,
flight proficiency, and aeronautical experience requirements of subpart
K. The final rule continues to extend this privilege to ultralight
flight instructors registered with an FAA-recognized ultralight
organization on or before September 1, 2004, but not to those
registered after that date. All applicants must satisfactorily complete
both FAA knowledge tests and practical tests.
Consistent with the change in Sec. 61.303, the words ``a current
recreational pilot certificate and meet the requirements of Sec.
61.101 (c)'' are added to paragraph (a). As recreational pilots who
meet the requirements of Sec. 61.101(c) have met aeronautical
knowledge, flight proficiency, and aeronautical experience requirements
equal to or greater than those required of sport pilots, the FAA
contends it would be inappropriate to preclude these pilots from
obtaining a flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating.
In the final rule, the FAA is clarifying the reference to
``experience requirements'' in paragraph (b). The revision specifies
that an applicant need not meet the aeronautical experience requirement
specified in Sec. 61.407, the flight proficiency requirements
specified in Sec. 61.409, and the aeronautical experience requirements
specified in Sec. 61.411. The FAA notes that an applicant is still
required to meet the minimum flight time requirements in the category
and class of light-sport aircraft for which privileges are sought. This
revision is consistent with terminology used in part 61.
As discussed in Sec. 61.329, the FAA received many comments
regarding the requirement for notarized documentation of experience
from the FAA-recognized ultralight organization. Many commenters were
concerned about the added cost and burden this requirement would
present. The FAA again agrees with the comments and is replacing the
requirement for a notarized document with a requirement that an
applicant provide the FAA with a certified copy of his or her
ultralight pilot records from the FAA-recognized ultralight
organization.
Proposed paragraph (e)(2) is changed in paragraph (d)(2) of the
final rule to require that documents provided by an applicant for a
flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating indicate that
the person is recognized to operate and provide training in the
category and class of aircraft for which instructional privileges are
sought. This change corresponds to a similar change made in Sec.
61.329.
Changes
The provisions of section 153 of proposed SFAR No. 89 are
transferred to Sec. 61.431. The section is reorganized for clarity,
and the following changes are made.
In the introductory text, the words ``not later than [Date 36
months after the effective date of the final rule], and you want to
apply for a flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating''
are changed to ``on or before September 1, 2004, and you want to apply
for a flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating, not
later than January 31, 2008.''
In paragraph (a) of the final rule, the words ``a current
recreational pilot certificate and meet the requirements of Sec.
61.101(c)'' are added.
In paragraph (b), the reference to ``experience requirements'' is
changed in the final rule to include ``the aeronautical knowledge
requirements specified in Sec. 61.407, the flight proficiency
requirements specified in Sec. 61.409, and the aeronautical experience
requirements specified in Sec. 61.411.''
In paragraph (d) (proposed as paragraph (e)), the requirement to
``obtain and present upon application a notarized copy'' is changed to
``submit a certified copy.''
Proposed paragraph (e)(2) is changed in paragraph (d)(2) of the
final rule to require that documents provided by an applicant for a
flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating indicate that
the person is recognized to operate and provide training in the
category and class of aircraft for which flight instructor privileges
are sought.
V.6. Part 65--Certification: Airmen Other Than Flight Crew Members
Section 65.85 Airframe Rating; Additional Privileges; and Section 65.87
Powerplant Rating; Additional Privileges
The FAA did not propose to amend Sec. Sec. 65.85 and 65.87. They
are amended in the final rule to allow appropriately certificated
mechanics with an airframe or powerplant rating the additional
privilege of performing and inspecting major repairs and major
alterations to light-sport aircraft issued a special airworthiness
certificate in the light-sport category and approving them for return
to service. This privilege to perform and inspect major repairs and
major alterations and approve a product or part for return to service
on a light-sport aircraft is limited to products and parts that are not
produced under an FAA approval, such as those built under a light-sport
aircraft manufacturer's consensus standard. This rule change gives the
airframe- or powerplant-rated mechanic the same privilege to perform
and inspect major repairs and major alterations on special light-sport
aircraft that this rule grants a repairman (light-sport aircraft) with
a maintenance rating.
This privilege is not extended to major repairs and major
alterations performed on products produced under an FAA approval. A
mechanic with an airframe or powerplant rating cannot approve a product
or part for return to service after performing and inspecting a major
repair or major alteration on a product produced under an FAA approval.
This work must be performed in accordance with part 43 and other
applicable provisions of part 65.
The rule also requires that any major repair or major alteration
performed on a product or part not produced under an FAA approval
installed on a special light-sport aircraft be performed in accordance
with the manufacturer's instructions or instructions developed by a
person acceptable to the FAA.
Changes
Sections 65.85 and 65.87 are each amended by designating the
existing text as paragraph (a), inserting the words, ``Except as
provided in paragraph (b) of this section'' at the beginning of
paragraph (a), and adding new paragraph (b) to permit appropriately
certificated mechanics to perform and inspect major repairs and major
alterations on products not produced under an FAA approval installed on
a special light-sport aircraft, as discussed above.
[[Page 44848]]
Section 65.101 Eligibility Requirements: General
The FAA did not receive any comments on this section.
Changes
The proposed rule is adopted without substantive change.
Section 65.103 Repairman Certificate: Privileges and Limitations
The FAA did not propose any amendments to this section. The NPRM,
however, included a proposed exception to this section in Sec.
65.107(d). It provides that Sec. 65.103 does not apply to the holder
of a repairman certificate (light-sport aircraft) while that repairman
is performing work under that certificate. The more appropriate
location for this exception is in a new paragraph (c) of Sec. 65.103.
Placing this exception as new paragraph (c) of Sec. 65.103 parallels
the structure of paragraph (b) in Sec. 65.101, which includes a
provision stating that the section does not apply to the issuance of
repairman certificates (experimental aircraft builder) under Sec.
65.104. The FAA is making this editorial revision in this final rule.
Changes
The provisions of proposed Sec. 65.107(d) are added as new
paragraph (c) of Sec. 65.103 in the final rule.
Section 65.107 Repairman Certificate (Light-Sport Aircraft):
Eligibility, Privileges and Limits
Under Sec. 65.107, the FAA proposed requirements for acquiring a
repairman (light-sport aircraft) certificate. The FAA received numerous
comments on this proposed section.
A few commenters felt that the lack of clear guidelines for this
section made it difficult to comment on its viability. One organization
reserved opinion on this section, stating that it could not properly
comment until reviewing the consensus standards that would control
implementation of this rule. The FAA addresses this comment in the
discussion of the definition of ``consensus standard'' under Sec. 1.1.
Several commenters expressed concern that the FAA has been allowing
repairman standards to steadily decline over the years, and that the
proposed rule would only further compromise safety. The FAA disagrees
and points out that the privileges and limitations for repairmen found
in part 65 have not changed since 1980.
Some commenters felt that the maintenance training course hour
requirements were excessive and would inhibit owners of light-sport
aircraft from performing preventive maintenance on their aircraft. This
rule establishes a repairman certificate (light-sport aircraft) with
two ratings--inspection and maintenance. The rule sets the training
required to qualify for a repairman certificate (light-sport aircraft)
with an inspection rating at 16 hours. The training required for a
repairman (light-sport aircraft) certificate with a maintenance rating,
as adopted in this final rule, depends on the class of aircraft the
individual repairman wants to maintain. The FAA had to establish a
training requirement for light sport aircraft repairman certificates
because, unlike a builder of an amateur-built aircraft, the light-sport
aircraft owner cannot show that he or she manufactured the major
portion of the aircraft, and therefore cannot show that he or she would
have the skills necessary to inspect and maintain the light-spo