[Federal Register: February 6, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 25)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 7033-7167]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06fe08-8]
[[Page 7033]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Department of Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Aviation Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14 CFR Parts 61, 91, and 135
Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 108--Mitsubishi MU-2B Series
Airplane Special Training, Experience, and Operating Requirements;
Final Rule
[[Page 7034]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 61, 91, and 135
[Docket No. FAA-2006-24981; Amendment Nos. 61-117, 91-298, and 135-111]
RIN 2120-AI82
Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 108--Mitsubishi MU-2B
Series Airplane Special Training, Experience, and Operating
Requirements
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) creates new
pilot training, experience, and operating requirements for persons
operating the Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplane (MU-2B). These
requirements follow an increased accident and incident rate in the MU-
2B and are based on a Federal Aviation Administration safety evaluation
of the MU-2B. This SFAR mandates additional training, experience, and
operating requirements to improve the level of operational safety for
the MU-2B.
DATES: This final rule is effective April 7, 2008. Affected parties,
however, do not have to comply with the information collection
requirements until the FAA publishes in the Federal Register the
control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for these information collection requirements. Publication of the
control number notifies the public that OMB has approved these
information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of April 7, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron Baker, General Aviation and
Commercial Division, Commercial Operations Branch, AFS-800, Federal
Aviation Administration, Room 835, 800 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-8212; facsimile (202) 267-
5094.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Authority for This Rulemaking
The Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA's) authority to issue
rules on aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States
Code. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA to
issue, rescind, and revise the rules. This rulemaking is promulgated
under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, Part
A, Air Commerce and Safety, Subpart III, Safety, section 44701, General
Requirements. Under section 44701 the FAA is charged with prescribing
regulations setting the minimum standards for practices, methods, and
procedures necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is
within the scope of that authority because it will set the minimum
level of safety to operate the Mitsubishi MU-2B.
Background
In response to the increasing number of accidents and incidents
involving the Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) MU-2B series airplane,
the FAA performed a safety evaluation of the MU-2B starting in July
2005. The safety evaluation provided an in-depth review and analysis of
MU-2B accidents, incidents, safety data, pilot training requirements,
and maintenance. During the safety evaluation, the FAA also convened an
FAA Flight Standardization Board (FSB) to evaluate proposed training,
checking, and currency requirements for pilots operating the MU-2B.
The notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on September 28,
2006 (71 FR 56905) was based on the recommendations of the safety
evaluation and the FSB report. A copy of both the safety evaluation and
the FSB report are in the Rules Docket (FAA-2006-24981) for this
rulemaking action. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed new requirements for
ground and flight training that would apply to all persons who
manipulate the controls or act as pilot-in-command (PIC) of the MU-2B.
The proposed SFAR also would apply to those persons who provide pilot
training for the Mitsubishi MU-2B. Operational requirements, such as a
requirement for a functioning autopilot for single pilot instrument
flight rules (IFR) and night visual flight rules (VFR) operations, a
requirement to obtain and carry a copy of the latest available revision
of the airplane flight manual, and a requirement to use a new pilot
checklist were part of the proposal. The requirements of the proposed
SFAR would be in addition to the requirements in 14 CFR parts 61, 91,
and 135.
The FAA proposed that all training conducted in the Mitsubishi MU-
2B be done using the standardized MHI training program and a checklist
accepted by the FAA's MU-2B FSB. Copies of a training program and a
checklist were placed in the Rules Docket for this rulemaking so that
interested persons could comment on them. In addition, the FAA
requested comment on additional paperwork requirements of the proposed
rule.
The FAA proposed a 180-day compliance date for the final rule.
However, when published in the Federal Register a printing error
indicated the compliance date would be March 27, 2007. This date is
incorrect. The FAA intended that operators comply with this rule within
180 days of the final rule's publication.
On January 3, 2007 (72 FR 55) the FAA published a supplemental NPRM
(SNPRM). The FAA had been monitoring implementation of the MHI MU-2B
training program and determined that some pilots with little or no
experience flying the MU-2B were requesting training at the
requalification level when it was the FAA's intention that these pilots
receive training at the initial/transition level. The FAA needed to
clarify our intent with regard to the phrase ``operating experience''
as used in the training program. A lack of specificity led to the
public not being properly advised as to the circumstances under which
the FAA expected a pilot to undergo initial/transition training,
requalification training, or recurrent training. In the SNPRM, the FAA
proposed experience qualifications for initial/transition training,
requalification training, and recurrent training. The comment period
for the SNPRM closed on February 2, 2007.
Comments on the Proposed Rule
The FAA received over 90 comments on the proposed SFAR. Commenters
included commercial operators, general aviation pilots, organizations
representing owners and operators of the MU-2B, and the manufacturer.
Most commenters applauded the FAA's requirement for additional pilot
training in the MU-2B airplane, but also took issue with the total
number of program hours required for pilot training or qualification as
a flight instructor. Several commenters noted that the MU-2B, by the
FAA's own admission, is a safe airplane and questioned why pilots of
other makes and models of airplanes are not required to receive
additional training. In general, commenters noted that the MU-2B
airplane is safe if ``flown by the book.''
Several commenters stated that the SFAR is well thought out and
will address the majority of MU-2B accidents that have arisen out of
the lack of pilot training or inadequate pilot training. Other
commenters stated that the additional training will not address
accidents that occur from bad pilot judgment, such as the two recent
[[Page 7035]]
accidents involving pilots who flew into severe thunderstorms. Others
commented that the SFAR enhanced the regulatory environment and will
improve safety within the population of MU-2B operators.
The Aircraft Owners and Pilot Association (AOPA) supported the idea
of an SFAR to address the special challenges of flying an MU-2B, but
stated that the proposed requirements are burdensome and go beyond what
is reasonable for safety. The National Air Transportation Association
(NATA) commended the FAA for the course of action the agency took in
developing the NPRM, but expressed concern that the narrow compliance
window and burdensome aeronautical experience requirements would reduce
available instructors. The National Business Aviation Association
(NBAA) praised the FAA for maintaining a data-driven safety focus.
After reviewing the FAA's proposal, NBAA concluded that the issuance of
an SFAR is the most appropriate regulatory solution in light of a
number of possible options. The Regional Air Cargo Carriers Association
(RACCA) applauded the FAA's efforts to take a measured approach
involving the manufacturer, the operators, and the FAA in developing
means to address perceived safety issues with the aircraft. There was a
general consensus among many of the commenters that the rulemaking
effort benefited from the collaborative process prior to the NPRM that
involved the airplane's users, manufacturer, and regulators.
The FAA received 20 comments to the SNPRM. Numerous comments on the
SNPRM addressed issues on language in the NPRM. All comments are
summarized in this preamble by issue.
Applicability
The FAA proposed that this rule apply to a PIC, second in command
(SIC), or any other person who manipulates the controls of the MU-2B
airplane. The FAA received many comments asking who would be allowed to
manipulate the controls of the Mitsubishi MU-2B airplane. The
commenters argued that there are legitimate reasons why a person who is
not the PIC and who does not meet the training requirement of the
proposed SFAR should be allowed to manipulate the controls. Some of
these reasons included flights for the purposes of providing pilot
training, maintenance flights, pre-employment pilot proficiency
evaluations, and demonstration flights related to aircraft sales. One
commenter was concerned that the rule would prohibit a ``pinch hitter''
from manipulating the controls. Pinch hitter courses are often given to
provide non-certificated persons with basic piloting skills in order to
assist in an emergency, such as the medical incapacitation of the PIC.
The FAA agrees that the proposed restrictions would make it
difficult to receive flight training in the MU-2B. The FAA did not
intend to prohibit the use of the MU-2B during flight training if the
PIC had successfully completed the flight training requirements of the
proposed rule.
Some commenters provided valid reasons for a less restrictive
regulation. The FAA recognizes that certain maintenance test flights
are best performed with two pilots or a pilot and a mechanic. For
example, the level of safety when performing an in-flight Negative
Torque Sensor Check is greatly enhanced when done by a two-pilot crew
or a pilot and mechanic. The FAA has revised the rule language to allow
manipulation of the controls by certain persons who have not received
the SFAR's required training. The revised rule requires that the PIC
must have completed the required MU-2B training and occupy a pilot
station, and the flight may not be conducted with passengers or cargo
onboard. A nonqualified pilot may manipulate the controls in the three
circumstances described in section 2, paragraph (b) of the SFAR.
The FAA considers a pinch hitter course to be a form of flight
instruction. The FAA also considers pre-employment pilot proficiency
evaluations to be a function of flight training if such evaluations are
conducted by qualified instructors meeting the training and experience
requirements of this SFAR. The FAA notes that the responsibility and
authority of a PIC allows the PIC to deviate from the rules to the
extent required in an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action.
Time Allowed for Compliance With the Rule
The FAA proposed that all persons who operate the MU-2B airplane or
train in the airplane would meet the requirements of the rule within
180 days of the effective date of the final rule. We felt that an
expedited compliance period was necessary because of the potential
safety risk identified by the safety evaluation. Based on comments and
other actions that have mitigated these risks, such as voluntary
compliance with the training program, the FAA has extended the
compliance period to 1 year.
Many commenters expressed concern that 180 days is too short a time
period for compliance. Two commercial training providers (SIMCOM and
Howell Enterprises) and the airplane manufacturer (MHI) suggested 365
days as an alternative. One commenter noted the scarcity of flight
instructors for the large number of pilots who would need training,
stating that there are only three qualified instructors in the United
States and only one simulator. Another commenter noted that some pilots
are delaying recurrent training to see what the final rule will
mandate; thus there will be a rush to training. Most persons commenting
on this issue suggested a 365-day compliance period. Commenters also
noted that if all pilots are trained in the proposed 180 days, the
instructors would have nothing to do the other half of the year. They
also posited that a one-time compliance window would make everyone's
recurrent training in following years fall within the same 180 days.
Many commenters noted that commercial operators and most general
aviation pilots are already receiving some sort of annual training. The
commenters believe a longer (1 year) implementation period will allow
these pilots to retain their current training cycle. The NATA believes
a 1-year compliance time is more economically efficient, as it will
allow MU-2B pilots flying under part 135 to complete the training
defined in the SFAR in conjunction with currently required part 135
checks. They also argued that longer compliance time will have a
minimal impact on safety.
The FAA agrees that a 180-day implementation period is too short.
The SFAR will allow pilots to match existing annual training cycles
whenever possible to reduce compliance costs. The final rule will take
effect 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. The
compliance period will be 305 days from the effective date. Therefore,
the operators and trainers for the MU-2B will have 365 days from the
date of publication of the final rule to comply.
Pilot Training
Many commenters agreed with the need for specialized training but
raised concerns with the type and length of training. Some commenters
felt that the SFAR did not go far enough, especially for initial
training and part 135 operations.
Minimum Program Hours
The FAA proposed to adopt the hours of training determined by the
FSB and incorporated in the MU-2B Training Program. We have decided to
reformat the proposed training program and include it as Appendices A
through D
[[Page 7036]]
to the SFAR. We have not added any additional requirements to the
training program in the appendix, and it is fundamentally the same as
the training program that we placed in the rules docket for comment.
One commercial training provider commented that the training
program reduces ground training hours below what is currently provided
and should be increased. Another commenter asserted that 8 hours of
recurrent training is excessive for already proficient pilots. Several
persons commented that 6, rather than 8, hours of requalification
training is more reasonable. One commenter stated that a PIC should
have at least 10 hours of in-flight training in the MU-2B before taking
a check ride. Two commenters stated that the required training hours
are arbitrary.
The FAA established the minimum required ground and flight training
program hours after carefully reviewing all FAA-approved training
programs and the proposed MHI training program. A team of pilots
representing a cross section of the airplane's user demographics
received the training. Proficiency levels and completion times were
closely tracked. Additionally, the FAA has monitored the completion
times for training conducted using the MHI training program since its
approval. This monitoring has validated the number of training hours
proposed. Accordingly, the FAA has determined that the program hour
requirements represent the minimum number of hours required to reach an
acceptable level of safety and proficiency. The FAA notes that training
providers can add additional hours to the program if they feel it is
needed.
A commenter stated that the 4 hours of recurrent training, followed
by a check ride, is too exhausting. This person suggested that the
training be broken into two, 2-hour training sessions, each 6 months
apart. The FAA clarifies that the recurrent training requirement must
be completed annually. The SFAR does not prohibit the division of the
training into segments. Thus, the requirement may be met in two or more
training sessions in order to align with existing training cycles.
Training to Proficiency
The FAA proposed to adopt the hours of training determined by the
FSB and incorporated in the MU-2B training program, which vary
depending on whether the pilot is receiving initial/transition,
requalification, recurrent, or differences training.
Several commenters suggested training to proficiency rather than
imposing a set number of hours of training. The commenters also noted
that the number of hours proposed is too much training for some and too
little for others.
The FAA points out that the MU-2B training program requires that
the student complete a minimum number of program hours and that the
student is trained to an acceptable level of proficiency as defined in
the training program. Additionally, although the training program
addresses pilot proficiency and skill, the training program also
provides a body of knowledge addressing best practices, procedures, and
operational techniques, as learned throughout the safety evaluation and
the FSB process. Therefore, the FAA has determined that the program
hours represent the minimum amount of training time needed. The FAA
will continue to monitor the time required for completion of the
training and may adjust the required training program hours if
necessary.
Credit for Part 135 Training
The FAA stated in the proposed rule that the hours of training in
the MU-2B training program are in addition to other training required
by parts 61 and 135. Based on comment, we realize that some training
maneuvers may be redundant. In this case, the maneuver is only
performed once, but credit is given in both training programs.
A commenter stated that the FAA should recognize part 135 training
that is already required (i.e., Sec. 135.293 aircraft competency
check, Sec. 135.297 instrument proficiency check, Sec. 135.299 line
check). Part 135 operators already receive a total of 3 hours of in-
flight testing each year, plus the training that will be required by
the SFAR. The commenter does not think the SFAR considered the part 135
training.
In drafting the NPRM, the FAA did consider training already
conducted under part 61 and part 135. Maneuvers covered under the Final
Phase Check required by the training program may not satisfy all the
requirements of a Sec. 135.293, Sec. 135.297, or Sec. 135.299 check.
Many maneuvers listed on the FAA Form 8410-3, Airman Competency/
Proficiency Check, are not required under the final phase check of the
training program. In the event that maneuvers or other training
requirements appear in both training programs, credit should be given
for the training under both programs. To the extent the training is
conducted in an MU-2B airplane, and the maneuvers are identical, credit
will be given for both program hours and completion of maneuvers. Such
actions should be well documented, as this allowance does not eliminate
any of the recordkeeping requirements within either training program.
Operators must ensure that all requirements of part 135 are met.
However, operators are not required to perform the same maneuvers twice
(i.e., once for the Final Phase Check and again during a Sec. 135.293
proficiency check). All items for both programs must be completed, even
if that results in exceeding the minimum number of program hours.
Credit for Prior Training
The FAA did not allow credit for prior training in the proposed
rule because it determined that much of the training lacked
standardization and had differing procedures.
Some commenters felt that pilots with a high level of experience,
previous factory training, or `third party annual training' for
insurance purposes, should be exempt (grandfathered) or have a reduced
number of training hours. The FAA also received comments that the
proposed training program as presently defined is the only approved
training program. This single program means the entire MU-2B community
is required to use the proposed training program. Another commenter
suggested that existing approved training programs are adequate.
Several commenters requested exemption from the SFAR training
requirements because of participation in other approved training
programs.
During the MU-2B safety evaluation, the FAA reviewed 23 approved
training programs. There was little standardization among these
training programs. Many taught techniques and procedures that were
contrary to those published in the airplane flight manual (AFM).
Therefore it was the conclusion of the safety evaluation and the FSB,
that in order for training to be effective, there must be one
standardized training program. The FAA will not allow persons to be
grandfathered from the SFAR based on previous training. However, as
explained later in this document, training conducted between July 27,
2006, and the effective date of this rule, using Mitsubishi Heavy
Industries MU-2B Training Program, Part number YET 05301, Revision
Original, dated July 27, 2006, or Revision 1, dated September 19, 2006,
is considered to be compliant with this SFAR.
Demonstration of Proficiency
The FAA's safety evaluation and the FSB both recommended that
[[Page 7037]]
standardized training conclude with a demonstration of proficiency.
This demonstration was a part of the proposed training program and
allows for simultaneous training and checking during requalification
and recurrent training.
The AOPA believes that pilots should not be required to pass a
formal checkride at the end of their training. Instructors should be
allowed to evaluate or ``check'' a pilot's performance during the
course of training.
The final phase check of the training program is different from a
formal checkride. During a formal checkride, where the pilot has made
application for a certificate or rating, the inability to
satisfactorily demonstrate proficiency will result in a failed
checkride. During a final phase check required by the MU-2B training
program, if the pilot cannot satisfactorily demonstrate proficiency he
or she has not failed a checkride. Those pilots that do not perform to
an acceptable level of proficiency may need additional training in
order to complete the training program. The requirement of a final
phase check ensures that all pilots not only receive the training, but
also have acquired the skills and proficiency necessary to safely
operate the airplane. The final phase check is also different from a
formal checkride because the training program allows for simultaneous
training and checking during requalification or recurrent training.
Students can be given credit for successfully completing maneuvers
while receiving the training. However, simultaneous training and
checking is not allowed by the training program during initial/
transition training.
Training Satisfying a Flight Review
The proposed rule did not specifically address the part 61 flight
review in conjunction with the proposed training program. The final
rule accommodates part 61 flight training, but only if the training is
done in the MU-2B airplane.
The AOPA commented that the recurrent training should satisfy the
requirements for a flight review as described in 14 CFR 61.56. The FAA
notes that Sec. 61.56(a) requires a flight review that includes at
least 1 hour of flight time. The MU-2B training program requires a
minimum of 6 hours of flight training in the MU-2B airplane for
initial/transition training. Those pilots that opt to conduct
requalification or recurrent training in the MU-2B airplane instead of
a flight training device are required to receive a minimum of 4 or 8
hours respectively of flight training in the MU-2B airplane. Those
pilots that attend initial/transition training, or conduct
requalification or recurrent training in the airplane, easily satisfy
the minimum amount of flight training required by Sec. 61.56(a).
Additionally, the ground training requirements for initial,
requalification, and recurrent training covers the subjects required in
Sec. 61.56 (a)(1) and (a)(2). Therefore, the FAA agrees that
successful completion of the flight and ground training requirements
for initial/transition, requalification, or recurrent training meets
the requirements of Sec. 61.56 provided that at least 1 hour of the
flight training was conducted in the Mitsubishi MU-2B airplane.
Therefore, the FAA will recognize those persons that document
successful completion of the applicable portions of the training
program in the Mitsubishi MU-2B airplane as having met the applicable
requirements of Sec. 61.56. In this circumstance, no separate
endorsement for the flight review will be required.
Grace Month for Training
The AOPA and two other commenters asked that we allow training
conducted in the month before or after (a grace month) it is due to be
considered as accomplished in the month it was due (the base month).
The FAA agrees that completing training in the month before or after
the month in which compliance is required can be considered as
completed in the month it is due. However, this allowance does not re-
establish a pilot's base month. This practice is allowed in other
training requirements, such as in part 135 training. The rule language
has been adjusted to reflect this allowance. The FAA notes that the
grace month only applies to the training required by this SFAR.
Training Profiles
The FAA proposed incorporating by reference the training profiles
in the proposed MU-2B training program. These were developed by the
manufacturer while working with the FSB. Commenters expressed concern
with some of the profiles.
One commenter felt that the engine inoperative non-precision and
missed approach procedure, as published in the proposed training
profiles, is dangerous. The commenter stated that requiring the pilot
to extend the landing gear only when landing is assured invites
training accidents, and if performed during actual instrument
conditions, is contrary to the accepted instrument procedures of having
the aircraft configured and stabilized inside of the final approach fix
(FAF). The FAA recognizes that the profile as published, for a single-
engine non-precision approach, deviates from common practices. However,
during the FSB's evaluation, FAA test pilots flew a variety of makes
and models of the MU-2B. They flew the MU-2B at various weights
positioned throughout the airplane's center-of-gravity (CG) envelope.
This included the maximum allowable take-off weight at the rearward
limits of CG envelope. The drag penalty induced by configuring the
airplane for landing at the FAF made it difficult to maintain a number
of non-precision approach profiles. Airspeed often deteriorated below a
safe speed while trying to maintain the profile in the landing
configuration. Maintaining adequate airspeed became especially
difficult when a circle-to-land maneuver was required. As a result of
these findings, the FAA modified the single-engine non-precision
approach procedures to delay deployment of the landing gear until
landing is assured. This procedure has been included in the MU-2B
training program in the applicable MU-2B model checklists.
The FAA notes that several elements of the training program have
been revised since the training program was placed in the docket. The
MU-2B Training Program now provides the profile for Take-Off Engine
Failure Flaps 5[deg] or Flaps 20[deg] and the profile for the One
Engine Inoperative Non-precision and Missed Approach. Corresponding
changes were also made to the training program checklist to reflect the
changes to the maneuver profiles. The FAA has determined that these
changes are within the scope of the notice. There are no other
substantive changes to the MU-2B Training Program except as modified by
the proposal in the SNPRM.
Simulator Training
A commenter suggested a one-time training requirement in a
simulator for those failures that cannot be safely simulated in the
airplane. This training would include engine failure at rotation and
the in-flight Negative Torque Sensor Check. The FAA considered this
option but recognizes that there are no FAA-approved MU-2B simulators
in operation and only two FAA-approved, Level 5, flight training
devices (FTD). Both of these devices are located at a single facility
in Florida. The FAA determined that it would pose an economic hardship
to make the entire MU-2B community travel to Florida to train at this
facility. Additionally, although the FAA embraces the use of simulators
and FTD, not all training providers have them available, nor are
[[Page 7038]]
they the only method for delivering effective training.
A commenter also posited that the annual recurrent training should
include three takeoffs and landings in the actual MU-2B airplane under
the supervision of a qualified check airman or flight instructor. The
FAA notes that safety can be enhanced by use of FTD during recurrent
training. Therefore, the SFAR allows recurrent training to be conducted
in an FTD or the MU-2B airplane.
In-House Training
Another commenter stated that part 135 companies should not be
allowed to train in-house but should require their pilots to attend
professional training companies to satisfy the SFAR requirements. The
commenter also stated that there is too much latitude when part 135
companies conduct the training. The FAA considered this option but we
are not changing existing part 135 regulations and guidance that allow
commercial operators to conduct in-house training. Since there are no
FAA-approved part 142 training centers for the MU-2B airplane,
requiring commercially provided training for part 135 operators is not
possible. Commercial operators can contract with training facilities to
provide some types of instruction if the curriculum is approved by
their Principal Operations Inspector, but this is not a requirement.
Monitoring Training Implementation and Training Quality
A commenter asked if the FAA will ensure that all MU-2B owners and
pilots are trained to at least the proposed levels. The commenter also
asked where the FAA plans to get the personnel to do surveillance on
the SFAR training. The FAA is confident that pilots will be trained to
at least the proposed levels. The FAA determined that successful
completion of the training program requires a demonstration of
proficiency to carefully defined performance standards. The FAA's
Commercial Pilot Practical Test Standards are used as a guide to
determine the pilot's level of proficiency under the MU-2B training
program. Successful completion will be documented by a flight
instructor meeting the experience requirements of the SFAR. A
substantial amount of training has already been conducted using the
FAA-approved MHI training program. Many pilots have voluntarily
attended this training in anticipation of the issuance of the SFAR. The
FAA has monitored this training and is satisfied with the quality and
effectiveness of the program and its instructors. At the time of
closure of the public comment period for the NPRM, approximately 6
percent of the MU-2B pilot community had received the new training. The
FAA also held a workshop to ensure a smooth implementation of the FSB
report for commercial training providers and part 135 operators.
The FAA will continue to monitor the training and SFAR
implementation and conduct surveillance as part of its annual work
program for field inspectors. Additionally, FAA guidance material was
updated to assist inspectors and operators.
A commenter asked how the increase in training will prepare pilots
for a loss-of-control of the airplane during an emergency. The FAA has
determined that the mandatory training will provide the pilot with the
knowledge and skill to fly the airplane safely within its designed
operational limits under normal, abnormal, and emergency conditions,
including operations with one engine inoperative. Many of the MU-2B
accidents involved loss of directional control or stalling the airplane
due to poor airspeed management or excessive bank angles when
maneuvering. The training program emphasizes proper airspeed
management, low-speed maneuvering, and the risks associated with
excessive bank angles. The training also specifically addresses the
loss-of-control accidents that have occurred in the MU-2B.
Additionally, pilots must annually demonstrate proficiency in the
flight maneuvers to commercial pilot practical test standards.
Therefore, the training program focuses on prevention of unsafe
conditions while also providing instruction for recovery from them.
Pilot Experience
The FAA proposed that a pilot must have logged 100 hours of PIC
experience in multi-engine airplanes in order to operate the MU-2B
airplane. That requirement is retained in the final rule.
One commenter questioned why the FAA would require a pilot to
receive 100 hours experience in a multi-engine airplane prior to being
able to serve as PIC of the MU-2B. This commenter believes that such an
experience requirement would be confusing during the MU-2B training.
The FAA finds that a pilot needs to have a basic level of experience
and understanding of multi-engine airplanes prior to advancing to more
complex airplanes. This threshold is consistent with experience
requirements of SFAR 73, which describes additional operating
experience requirements for the Robinson R-22/44.
Credit for Previous Operating Experience
In the SNPRM the FAA proposed that a person have a minimum level of
previous operating experience of 50 hours within the previous 24 months
to be exempt from initial/transition training. Based on comments, the
FAA has modified this experience requirement in the final rule to also
exempt pilots from initial training pilots who have a total of 500
hours previous operating experience. Most of the commenters requested
that the FAA consider prior operating experience in the MU-2B. Some
commenters noted that the proposed definitions in the SNPRM treat a
pilot with significant, but not recent experience (i.e., last 24
months), the same as one with no experience. The AOPA and seven other
commenters recommended that the FAA exempt experienced pilots from the
initial training requirement if that pilot has at least 500 hours of
documented MU-2B PIC experience. Other commenters also requested an
exemption from initial training based on experience, although they
suggested different determining thresholds. Two commenters suggested a
threshold of 250 hours, and one commenter suggested 1,000 hours. One
commenter stated that forcing an otherwise qualified pilot to attend
initial training on the basis of the last 24 months flying is unfair.
The commenter recommended a further qualification be added that states:
``or has logged a total of 500 hours of PIC in the MU-2.'' The
commenter added that a pilot meeting this criteria should be able to
re-qualify with the training specified in the requalification course.
The FAA agrees that pilots with significant previous experience
should be exempt from participating in initial training. These pilots
would instead be allowed to attend requalification training. The FAA
also agrees that by allowing a form of the above proposed language, the
original intent of the proposed rule is retained without penalizing
those that have not flown the MU-2B within the past 24 months.
Therefore, pilots with at least 500 hours of documented flight time
manipulating the controls while serving as PIC of an MU-2B will not be
required to attend initial/transition training, but will be required to
satisfactorily complete requalification training.
Operating Experience in the Previous 24 Months
In the SNPRM, the FAA proposed that pilots with less than 50 hours
of operating experience within the
[[Page 7039]]
previous 24 months would be required to attend initial training even if
that pilot had already successfully completed initial training in the
past. We have modified the final rule to make completion of initial
training a one-time requirement.
The NATA commented that the association is in agreement with the
FAA that pilots with little or no recent experience in the MU-2B should
be required to train in the aircraft in order to obtain sufficient
proficiency and experience. The association was not opposed to the
FAA's proposed requirement for at least 50 hours of operating
experience within the previous 24 months in order to bypass initial
training. The NATA stated that with the existing part 135 currency and
training requirements, and the level of on-demand charter activity, the
50-hour limit should not be cumbersome or add costly training to the
typical part 135 operator. The NATA was sensitive to the fact that some
part 91 operators do not support this requirement, and stated that they
have no specific position on this requirement as it would apply to that
industry segment. The NATA also stated that they appreciate the FAA's
efforts to respond to MU-2B concerns with a rational, methodic, and
participatory approach.
One commenter asked that we clarify that the 50 hours in the
previous 24 months is not a continuing qualification limitation, but is
intended to determine the pilot's level of entry into this new program.
Another commenter stated the 50-hour requirement in the original NPRM
was only intended for new entrants into the training program.
The FAA notes the SNPRM did propose a continuing look-back
requirement of 50 hours within the preceding 24 months. Many commenters
did not support this requirement, finding it unnecessary and
burdensome. The FAA agrees with the comments that a continuing look-
back requirement is not needed. The FAA has reviewed the FAA-approved
training program and determined that the NPRM did not include such a
provision. Furthermore, the FAA notes that after completing initial or
requalification training, a pilot must still satisfactorily complete
recurrent training annually, which includes an annual demonstration of
proficiency. Therefore, the FAA has concluded that a continuing look-
back requirement is not necessary.
In response to the comments and further FAA review, the FAA has
revised the MU-2B training program and the rule language to include the
following operating experience thresholds for determining pilot
qualification for the various training options:
A person is required to complete ``Initial/transition training'' if
that person has fewer than:
(i) 50 hours of documented flight time manipulating the controls
while serving as pilot-in-command of an MU-2B in the preceding 24
months; or
(ii) 500 hours of documented flight time manipulating the controls
while serving as pilot-in-command of an MU-2B.
A person is eligible to receive Requalification training in lieu of
initial/transition training if that person has at least:
(i) 50 hours of documented flight time manipulating the controls
while serving as pilot-in-command of an MU-2B in the preceding 24
months; or
(ii) 500 hours of documented flight time manipulating the controls
while serving as pilot-in-command of an MU-2B.
A person is required to complete Recurrent training within the
preceding 12 months. Successful completion of initial/transition or
requalification training within the preceding 12 months satisfies the
requirement of recurrent training. A person must successfully complete
initial/transition training or requalification training before being
eligible to receive recurrent training.
Successful completion of initial/transition training or
requalification training is a one-time requirement. A person may elect
to retake initial/transition training or requalification training in
lieu of recurrent training and receive credit for recurrent training
for that year.
These definitions have been included in the Compliance and
Eligibility section of the SFAR.
Type Rating vs. SFAR
In the NPRM, the FAA discussed why it determined that an SFAR is
more appropriate for the safe operation of the MU-2B than a type rating
alone. This decision was based on the recommendations of the safety
evaluation and the FSB.
Bankair, Inc. did not agree that it is necessary to mandate
training that goes beyond the requirements of a type rating for this
airplane. Another commenter said the FAA has failed to adequately
consider a type rating for the aircraft or to adequately justify having
an entirely special and new pilot competency program.
The MU-2B safety evaluation and the FSB found that a portfolio of
corrective actions are required that go well beyond the reach of a type
rating or pilot training alone are needed to significantly reduce the
accident rate of the MU-2B. The SFAR allows the FAA to mandate actions
that are far more stringent and broader in scope than what would be
achieved through a type rating alone.
The FAA has determined that there is a need for annual recurrent
training and an annual demonstration of proficiency. A type rating
would not require recurrent training or additional checks because the
aircraft is not required to be operated by a two-pilot crew as part of
its certification basis. However, the FAA notes that some part 135
operations do require a two-pilot crew. An SFAR can mandate the
conditions under which the aircraft may be operated, such as, in
compliance with the new manufacturer's data (including new checklists
or use of an autopilot), or other operational requirements determined
necessary by the FSB. None of these requirements would be addressed by
the issuance of a type rating. An SFAR can also impose higher
experience requirements for those instructing or administering tests in
the MU-2B than is presently required by existing regulations.
Therefore, this SFAR provides a higher level of safety than would be
achieved by issuance of a type rating alone.
Training Monopoly
A commenter stated that it does not make sense that he should
forego all other flight training except at a flight school A commenter
also suggested the FAA was supporting a commercial training monopoly.
The FAA does not agree. This standardized training can be provided by
any instructor or commercial training organization that meets the
experience requirements for instructors as described within this SFAR.
This rule does not require that all SFAR compliant training be
conducted at a commercial training center or flight school.
Availability of Training Program
One commenter expressed concern about access and availability of
the training program. Another commenter requested that the FAA reopen
the comment period, claiming that Mitsubishi will not release the
training program to the public and the public cannot comment on the
proposal without evaluating it. This commenter requested that the FAA
have Mitsubishi publish all of their information and then re-open the
comment process. A commenter also noted the manufacturer requires a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to be signed by the recipient before
being provided a
[[Page 7040]]
copy of the training program. This commenter felt that he should not be
required to sign the MOU.
The FAA posted a copy of the MHI training program to Rules Docket
FAA-2006-24981 prior to the NPRM comment period opening. This training
program remains in the Rules Docket and may be downloaded by interested
parties. As previously noted, the FAA has decided to place the
requirements of the MU-2B Training Program in Appendices A through D to
the SFAR. The SFAR will be published in the Code of Federal Regulations
making the MU-2B Training Program publicly available. The FAA has
determined that the public has reasonable access to the training
program.
Procedures Not Covered by the Training Program
One commenter noted that a pilot cannot operate the MU-2B contrary
to the training program and wondered about other procedures not in the
training program such as IFR holds, GPS approaches and DME arcs. With
this SFAR, the FAA does not intend to change operational procedures
that are not contained in the MU-2B training program. The FAA notes
that such procedures are already covered by existing FAA regulations
and guidance.
Revisions to the Training Program
Although no comments were received about the proposed rule
provisions related to future training program revisions, the FAA notes
that absent future rulemaking that makes a later revision of the
training program exclusive and mandatory, operators must use the MU-2B
Training Program contained in the SFAR The FAA has added a new section
8 to the SFAR to give credit for use of certain prior versions of the
MHI training program for a specific time period. Section 8 states that
``Initial/transition or requalification training conducted between July
27, 2006, and the effective date of this rule, using Mitsubishi Heavy
Industries MU-2B Training Program, Part number YET 05301, Revision
Original, dated July 27, 2006, or Revision 1, dated September 19, 2006,
is considered to be compliant with this SFAR, if the student met the
eligibility requirements for the applicable category of training and
the student's instructor met the experience requirements of this
SFAR.'' This addition was made to allow those pilots who have already
completed the MHI training program during the rulemaking process to
receive credit for initial/transition training.
Requirements for Flight Instructors
The FAA proposed a variety of experience requirements for flight
instructors who conduct training in the MU-2B airplane, depending on
whether the instruction is in the airplane, in a simulator, or in an
FTD.
One commenter stated that the SFAR adequately addresses the need
for flight instructors to be trained and current in the MU-2B airplane.
One training provider suggested that the experience requirements for
pilot examiners and check airmen be increased from 100 hours to 300
hours. Another commenter felt that the experience requirements for
instructors, pilot examiners, and check airmen should be increased to
500 hours. The FAA notes that existing regulations allow instruction
and checking in the MU-2B to be conducted with as little as 5 hours PIC
time in make and model. The requirement that this be increased to 300
hours for instructors and 100 hours for examiners is a substantial
increase over what is now required. The experience requirements in this
SFAR are also consistent with thresholds established by other prior
rulemaking for certain aircraft, such as SFAR 73 for the Robinson R-22/
R-44 helicopter (62 FR 16298), and the recommendations of the FSB
Report.
Another commenter stated that the 50 hours of operating experience
within the previous 12 months for instructors, whether in the airplane
or simulator, is not enough experience for someone who provides
training in the MU-2B. The FAA notes that existing regulations allow
flight instruction in the MU-2B to be conducted with as little as 5
hours PIC time in make and model. The increase to 50 hours within the
previous 12 months significantly increases the experience requirements
for MU-2B instructors. Furthermore, this 50-hour requirement is just
one of many experience requirements for MU-2B instructors. Other
experience requirements for an instructor such as the currency
requirement of Sec. 61.57, the flight review of Sec. 61.56, the 2,000
hours of PIC time, and 800 hours PIC in multi-engine airplanes, combine
to set a high experience level for MU-2B instructors. The specific
purpose of the 50-hour requirement is to ensure that instructors have
recent experience in the MU-2B airplane, training device, or simulator.
The 50 hours must be obtained within the past 12 months.
A commenter also found that the 100 hours of PIC time required for
a designated pilot examiner was too little time. The FAA notes this is
only part of the total requirement. That examiner is also required to
have the training required by this SFAR and to maintain currency in the
MU-2B. The 100 hours is based on the FSB recommendations, other
aircraft training requirements, a previous SFAR, and the FAA's
experience in checking and evaluation.
A commenter noted that under part 135, a flight instructor does not
have to hold a valid and current certificated flight instructor
certificate (CFI). The commenter commented that, for part 135
operations, a flight instructor should hold a valid CFI certificate
with multi-engine and instrument ratings for at least 2 years. In
addition, the check airman or CFI should have 300 hours as PIC acquired
while the sole manipulator of the controls as described in 14 CFR
61.51(e)(1)(i).
The FAA does not intend to change the general qualification
requirements for part 135 flight instructors, but rather to establish
minimum experience requirements for all instructors who provide
training in an MU-2B. Additionally, requiring 300 hours as PIC as sole
manipulator of the controls or requiring that instructors for part 135
operations hold a certificated flight instructor certificate would be
beyond the scope of the FAA's proposal.
A commenter stated it will be difficult for an instructor to have
50 hours of PIC MU-2B time annually, that 50 hours is not useful if it
is only flown in ``straight and level'' flight, and that proficiency is
what is useful for a flight instructor. The FAA has determined that the
recency of experience and the amount of flight time in the airplane are
important qualifications for a flight instructor who provides
instruction in the MU-2B. This level of experience was also recommended
by the FSB Report.
The NATA commented that the total flight time and PIC flight time
requirements for instructors are burdensome and could significantly
limit the number of instructors qualified to provide training to MU-2B
pilots. Additionally, the proposed rule would require designated pilot
examiners to have an excessive amount of aeronautical experience in the
MU-2B but would not require the same of FAA inspectors.
The FAA has determined that although the rule will increase the
experience requirements for MU-2B instructors, the rule will not
significantly reduce the number of instructors that are presently
teaching in the MU-2B. In order to maximize the number of instructors
available to provide training in the airplane, the FAA revised section
5 to allow the Flight Instructor Airplane experience requirements to be
met using a
[[Page 7041]]
combination of PIC time and experience acquired while providing
instruction in a FAA-approved MU-2B flight training device or
simulator. The FAA has also extended the compliance period by 6 months
to allow a more orderly implementation of this rule. The training and
checking requirements for FAA inspectors are the same as for the public
when the inspector is acting as the PIC, administering check rides, or
otherwise manipulating the controls.
One commenter stated that safety would be diminished because local
instructors would no longer be allowed to conduct an Instrument
Competency Check (ICC) for the MU-2B. This SFAR does not require that
instrument currency be maintained exclusively in the MU-2B. Also, the
SFAR does not prohibit local instructors from giving an ICC. The only
requirement is that the instructor meets the qualifications of the SFAR
in order to give instruction in an MU-2B.
One operator commented that part 135 pilots, in commercial
operations, do not carry logbooks or present logbooks during training.
The logbook requirement is only applicable to part 91 operators. The
commenter also stated a part 135 operator keeps records in compliance
with 14 CFR 135.63(c) to include the completion date and result of
every phase of training and checking for 5 years after the pilot's
employment ends. Logbook endorsements are generally used as provided in
part 61 at the student and private pilot level. The commenter requested
that the references to pilot logbooks should be changed to ``logbook or
other permanent pilot record.''
The FAA notes that Sec. 135.63(c) addresses the recordkeeping
requirement for multiengine load manifest and does not address
documentation of pilot training. Section 135.63(a)(vi) addresses
recordkeeping requirements for initial and recurrent competency tests,
proficiency, and route checks required by Sec. Sec. 135.293, 135.297,
and 135.299. Section 135.63(a)(vii) addresses recordkeeping
requirements for determining compliance with flight time limitations
found within part 135. However, none of the above referenced rules
address the documentation requirements of part 61. Additionally, 14 CFR
61.51 requires that all pilots, regardless of which regulations of 14
CFR under which they operate, keep a logbook and within it, document
and record training and experience used to meet the requirements for a
certificate, rating, flight review, aeronautical experience, or recent
flight experience. This SFAR does not change the applicability or
requirements of the existing Sec. 61.51 rule. The requirements of this
SFAR are not limited to part 135 operations. Pilots that operate the
MU-2B will need to be able to demonstrate compliance with this SFAR
whether or not they are employed by a part 135 operator. This
documentation is best accomplished through a logbook endorsement, which
is consistent with existing regulations.
A commenter stated that the proposed SFAR requires endorsement of
the pilot logbook by a ``certificated flight instructor.'' The
commenter posited that this text should be changed to ``instructor'' or
``flight instructor'' since part 135 does not require the use of a CFI.
The FAA notes that the eligibility, requirements, and privileges of a
flight instructor are described in detail by existing rules under 14
CFR parts 61 and 135. The FAA also acknowledges these requirements may
be different for training conducted under part 61 as compared to part
135. Part 135 operators can use a CFI but can also use an instructor
authorized by the FAA in lieu of a CFI. The FAA has changed this
language accordingly.
Autopilot Requirement
The FAA proposed that no one could operate the MU-2B airplane under
IFR, IFR conditions (i.e., instrument meteorological conditions (IMC)),
or night VFR unless that airplane has a functional autopilot. That
requirement is retained in the final rule. However, the FAA has
described the requirement in a simplified form. The final rule does not
require a functional autopilot for day VFR or when operating under IFR
in daytime VMC conditions when maintenance of an inoperable autopilot
has been deferred using an approved minimum equipment list (MEL).
Most persons commenting on the autopilot requirement did not see
the need for this requirement. Some persons commented that the
autopilot is unnecessary and rarely used; one cited that no other
airplane is restricted when the autopilot is nonfunctioning.
Experienced pilots commented that they prefer to ``hand fly'' the
airplane. Another commented that, if the autopilot is mandated, a pilot
may become dependent on it.
Several of the MU-2B accidents involved single pilot night-time VFR
and IFR operations in high-density terminal areas with high pilot
workloads. The flight training profiles flown by FSB members during the
safety evaluation included a human factors workload evaluation. One
airplane was equipped with several cameras that allowed post-flight
evaluation of the pilot's workload. The FSB pilots completed numerous
questionnaires developed by human factors specialists to measure task
saturation. Questionnaires and flight video reviews were completed
during post-flight interviews with a human factors specialist. Using
techniques developed by the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, testing showed a significant reduction in single pilot
workload and stress and improved performance when an autopilot was used
in actual flight conditions. The FAA recognizes that in some conditions
use of the autopilot may be inappropriate or even prohibited, such as
during flights into icing conditions. The FAA also recognizes some
pilots routinely hand-fly the airplane. The SFAR does not mandate the
use of the autopilot during any particular phase of flight. That
decision remains solely with the PIC. The SFAR does require that a
functioning autopilot be installed for certain types of operations
(IFR, IFR conditions, and night VFR). This requirement provides the
pilot with access to a significant safety enhancing tool if he or she
should need it to reduce pilot work load, during normal, abnormal, and
emergency conditions.
The AOPA requested that the FAA eliminate the requirement to have a
functioning autopilot for night VFR and for IFR in visual
meteorological conditions (VMC) and allow an instrument and multiengine
rated pilot to act as the safety pilot for an MU-2B PIC flying in IMC.
Flightline/AmeriCheck, Inc., also requested that operators be allowed
to conduct operations with two pilots, either two PICs or one PIC and
one SIC in lieu of a functioning autopilot. Instead of grounding the
airplane when the autopilot is not functioning, one commenter suggested
the flight be limited to two qualified pilots; one of which meets the
part 135 training and checking requirements as a SIC. In addition, one
person commented that safety would be enhanced by a person in the right
seat who could assist the PIC with minor duties even though he or she
may not be MU-2B qualified.
The MU-2B safety evaluation and the FSB recommended that all
operators of the MU-2B attend standardized pilot training. Therefore,
the FAA has determined that a second pilot must meet the training
requirements of this SFAR in order to provide the equivalent level of
safety of a functional autopilot. Operators can conduct IFR and night
VFR operations without a functioning autopilot when using a properly
trained second-in-command meeting the applicable requirements of this
SFAR.
[[Page 7042]]
We also received comments that requested relief from the autopilot
through the use of a minimum equipment list (MEL). The NBAA commented
they have long held that two qualified and trained pilots are one of
the best safety investments in an aircraft and thus support the
autopilot requirement. But, the NBAA also stated that FAA should
consider allowing the use of an MEL for a nonfunctioning autopilot.
Flightline/AmeriCheck, Inc. requested that they be allowed to maintain
their authorization to defer repair of an inoperative autopilot by
using their existing FAA-approved MEL.
The FAA notes that experience has shown the normal operation of
every system or installed component may not be necessary when the
remaining operative equipment or other mitigating conditions can
provide an acceptable level of safety. The FAA also acknowledged that
operations with inoperative equipment are possible while maintaining an
acceptable level of safety by requiring appropriate conditions and
limitations.
Therefore, the FAA will allow, when provided by existing rules,
single pilot IFR in VMC conditions under the SFAR with the autopilot
inoperative under certain conditions. The deferred maintenance and
repair of the autopilot must be completed in accordance with the repair
category and provisions specified in the operator's FAA-approved
Mitsubishi MU-2B MEL, and the operator must obtain FAA approval to use
a MEL for his or her airplane. This relief does not supersede any
existing crew requirements for an SIC, including but not limited to
operations described in 14 CFR 135.99, 135.105, and 135.111. This
relief will allow operators time to locate parts and facilities for
repairs, ferry aircraft to repair stations, and complete trips. Under
certain conditions, the aircraft with an approved MEL will not be
immediately grounded due to an inoperative autopilot, and operators
will have a reasonable period of time to make repairs. The FAA has
changed the rule language to specifically allow for the use of an MEL
under the SFAR.
One person stated that if IFR flight is not an option due to a non-
functioning autopilot, the pilot may push the limits of VFR rules to an
unsafe situation. Another person noted that on long trips, one leg of
the flight may be delayed if the airplane without a functioning
autopilot must wait for good weather to avoid flying in IFR conditions.
The FAA does not agree with the comments that pilots will fly in
marginal VFR weather (scud run), or delay their trips when their
autopilots are inoperative. Deferred maintenance and repair of the
autopilot using an approved MEL will provide an alternative to choosing
to fly in marginal VFR weather.
Additional commenters noted that parts for installed autopilots are
difficult to obtain. The FAA recognizes that parts for the autopilots
are becoming increasingly scarce and support for the existing
autopilots may someday end. However, to date, the FAA is unable to
identify autopilots that cannot be repaired. Additionally, the FAA
notes new autopilots are under development for the MU-2B.
One commenter suggested that requiring a functioning autopilot
modifies the airplane type certification basis. Another commenter
stated that to require an autopilot defies the certification basis for
the MU-2B because the airplane was type certificated for single pilot
operations.
The FAA notes that the autopilot requirement is an operational
requirement and not a certification requirement. Furthermore, in most
of today's modern cockpits, aircraft that are permitted to be operated
with a single pilot are required to have a functional autopilot
installed. Requiring an autopilot does not change or modify the
airplane's original type certification basis.
Some commenters asked which aspects of the autopilot must be
functional or, if one facet is not functioning, how the airplane could
be flown to a repair facility. A commenter said grounding the airplane
due to a non-functioning autopilot is excessive. The FAA disagrees. A
functional autopilot is one in which the system and components are
operative and working properly to accomplish the intended purpose. That
autopilot is consistently functioning within its approved operating
limits and design tolerances. Operators have many ways to verify that
their autopilot is functioning properly including conducting the
preflight check as described by the manufacturer. Operators can find
this information in the Supplemental AFM.
Another pilot recommended additional specific instruction in
autopilot inoperative strategies during recurrent training.
The MU-2B training program provides instruction for operation of
the airplane with and without the autopilot operational. The training
program requires the pilot to demonstrate proficiency while hand-flying
the airplane.
Airplane Flight Manual
The FAA proposed that operators of the MU-2B airplane have on board
the most recent revision to the AFM. One commenter noted that an out-
of-date AFM is a common problem for many MU-2B airplanes, and was
confident that the SFAR solves this problem. The SFAR requires the
operator to have the appropriate AFM on board the airplane and
accessible during the flight.
The FAA notes there may be differences between checklist,
procedures, and techniques found in the MU-2B training program required
by this SFAR and procedures found in the AFM procedures sections
(Normal, Abnormal, and Emergency). Until the AFM is updated, a person
operating the MU-2B must operate the airplane in accordance with the
required pilot training specified in section 3, paragraphs (a), (b),
and (g) and the operating requirements of section 7, paragraphs (d) and
(e). If the AFMs are updated, the FAA may initiate additional
rulemaking. At that time the FAA may mandate that the operators obtain
and use the latest version of the AFM. The chart below shows the
current versions of the AFMs as of the date of publication of the
SNPRM.
MHI Document Number and Revision Level for MU-2B Series Airplane--Airplane Flight Manual
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable AFM revision level
Model Marketing designation Type certificate ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Document No. Revision No. Date issued
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MU-2B-60........................ Marquis................ A10SW.................. MR-0273-1.............. 14 July 11, 2005.
MU-2B-40........................ Solitaire.............. A10SW.................. MR-0271-1.............. 12 July 11, 2005.
MU-2B-36A....................... N...................... A10SW.................. MR-0196-1.............. 14 July 11, 2005.
MU-2B-36........................ L...................... A2PC................... YET 74122A............. 12 August 9, 2004.
MU-2B-35........................ J...................... A2PC................... YET 70186A............. 13 August 9, 2004.
MU-2B-30........................ G...................... A2PC................... YET 69013A............. 13 August 9, 2004.
[[Page 7043]]
MU-2B-26A....................... P...................... A10SW.................. MR-0194-1.............. 12 July 11, 2005.
MU-2B-26........................ M...................... A2PC................... YET 74129A............. 12 August 9, 2004.
MU-2B-26........................ M...................... A10SW.................. MR-0160-1.............. 10 July 11, 2005.
MU-2B-25........................ K...................... A10SW.................. MR-0156-1.............. 10 July 11, 2005.
MU-2B-25........................ K...................... A2PC................... YET 71367A............. 12 August 9, 2004.
MU-2B-20........................ F...................... A2PC................... YET 68034A............. 12 August 9, 2004.
MU-2B-10........................ D...................... A2PC................... YET 86400.............. 12 August 9, 2004.
MU-2B........................... B...................... A2PC................... YET 67026A............. 12 August 9, 2004.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Checklist
The FAA proposed and the final rule requires that all operators of
the MU-2B have a copy of an MU-2B checklist appropriate for the MU-2B
model being operated on board the airplane, accessible for each flight
at the pilot station, and used by the flight crewmembers when operating
the airplane. These checklists must be accepted by the FAA's MU-2B FSB.
The manufacturer has developed make and model specific checklists for
each MU-2B model. These checklists have been already accepted by the
FAA's MU-2B FSB and are appropriate for unmodified versions of the
models listed. A list of the checklists for the various models of the
MU-2B series airplane are in section 3 (g), table 1, of this final
rule.
A commenter was pleased to see a standardized checklist and added
that it will result in improved safety. Another commenter stated that
the checklist should be aircraft specific, which could be accomplished
by providing a checklist template to be customized to fit the specific
aircraft.
During the safety evaluation, FAA test pilots evaluated a
standardized checklist developed by MHI and found it to be a
significant safety improvement. A standardized cockpit checklist that
emphasizes proper operational procedures is critical to the safe
operation of the MU-2B. The FAA and MHI engineers and test pilots
carefully considered cockpit layout, flow patterns, crew resource
management, and pilot work load when determining the checklist items.
This rule requires that any MU-2B checklist used be accepted by the
FAA's MU-2B FSB. Operators with airplane configurations different from
the airplane as originally delivered, or later modified, may submit
other checklists for review by the FSB.
Another commenter who has installed an aural checklist in his MU-2B
asked if this would be prohibited under the SFAR. Yet another suggested
that the checklist be customized to allow for individual
configurations.
In accordance with existing FAA guidance and procedures, the MU-2B
FSB is responsible for reviewing, and accepting or rejecting any
checklists submitted by the manufacturer or the public. For the purpose
of this rule, the term ``approved or accepted'' means the FAA has
received the proposed checklist, reviewed the checklist content, and
determined it to be safe for use while operating the MU-2B airplane.
The MU-2B FSB will review all submitted checklists, including aural
checklists or those not produced by the manufacturer, if an operator
has an airplane configuration that is different from that originally
delivered. This review will conclude with a determination of whether
the submitted checklist can be accepted. An operator may submit their
proposed checklist to the MU-2B FSB at the address in the footnote and
request that the FSB review the checklist for acceptance.\1\ The rule
language has been changed to reflect this process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The MU-2B FSB is located at FAA Central Region Headquarters,
Aircraft Evaluation Group MKC-AEG, Room 332, 901 Locust, Kansas
City, MO 64106; telephone 816-329-3233.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One commenter said he had reviewed the checklist, and at 162 pages
it is too long for a pilot to run through before takeoff. Another
commenter said that the checklist should flow from system to system,
not as things are arranged in the cockpit.
The FAA posted to Rules Docket FAA-2006-24981 a sample of the
manufacturer's checklist for comment. This is one, but not the only,
possible format that the FAA may accept. This 162-page document
includes checklists for normal, abnormal, and emergency procedures, but
also includes instructions for checklist use, an expanded section that
describes in greater detail the actions required, warnings, notes, and
cautions. In the back of the binder, there are also performance charts
that were not previously contained in the AFM. These charts include the
following: ``Weight for Positive Gradient After Takeoff with Flaps at 5
or 20 degrees'' and ``Single Engine Rate of Climb with Flaps at 5 or 20
Degrees.'' These charts are important pre-flight decision making tools
and using them can enhance safe operation of the airplane. The FAA
notes that the manufacturer's checklist is comparable in size to those
of airplanes of similar complexity.
The FAA stated in the NPRM that we would publish specific
checklists for each MU-2B model and seek public comment. A checklist
for each model of the MU-2B airplane has been approved by the FSB.
These are listed in section 3(g) of the rule.
Costs of the Rule
Some commenters indicated the costs of the proposed rule are higher
than those estimated by the FAA. These comments are discussed below by
issue. For a more complete discussion of costs and benefits, see the
Final Regulatory Evaluation, which has been placed in Rules Docket FAA-
2006-24981.
Compliance Date
As discussed earlier in this document, compliance with this final
rule is required 1 year after publication in the Federal Register.
Extending the compliance date decreases the requalification
training for all MU-2B pilots currently receiving training. The
baseline training cost is the cost of the existing recurrent training
(rather than zero). In addition, the actual final cost estimate of
requalification training for those pilots currently getting training is
reduced by the travel costs and value of travel time to the training
facility. As a result of extending the compliance date to 1 year, the
total cost estimate for this SFAR decreases $3 million to $4 million.
Although some part 135 operators send their MU-2B pilots to
commercial training providers, many part 135 operators have in-house
training
[[Page 7044]]
programs and would not incur any travel, lodging, or per diem costs.
The analysis in the final regulatory evaluation does not reflect this
potential lower cost, but recognizes that the cost estimate is a
potential overestimate of the actual costs because many MU-2B pilots
flying under part 135 would not incur travel, lodging, or per diem
costs.
Value of Aircraft
One commenter stated the FAA will ``kill'' the value of the MU-2B,
and he could not afford to walk away from a $400,000 investment he
could not use or sell. In related comments, other persons stated the
loss of value could be more than $100,000 per airplane. In contrast,
another commenter stated he ``welcomed the FAA intervention'' in hope
that we might be able to put the safety issue behind us and restore
lost value to the MU-2B fleet.
The FAA is requiring MU-2B pilots (with a minimum of either 50
hours PIC time in the MU-2B in the last 2 years or 500 total hours in
the MU-2B) to receive requalification training. This will entail a
total additional cost including lodging, meals, incidental expenses,
and value of time of approximately $5,000 for pilots currently getting
training, or $13,000 for pilots not currently getting training. Pilots
will also be required to receive annual recurrent training in the
future, at a total additional cost of about $2,000 per year for pilots
currently getting training or $10,000 per year for pilots not currently
getting training. Such a safety expense is very small compared with a
$400,000 airplane.
The MU-2B price was falling before the proposed rule was issued.
Several factors, including the poor MU-2B safety record, higher
maintenance costs, less availability of parts, and newer products with
better capabilities, may help explain the falling price of MU-2Bs.
Impact of Aircraft Value Loss on Business
A commenter complained, ``Our fleet value has dropped
significantly. Our MU-2Bs are a standalone division of the company. If
the MU-2B division can not turn a profit, the business division will be
shut down. Pilots and mechanics will be let go.''
The decision to shut down a certain division is a business decision
that is not based on the value of the MU-2B. The value of existing
capital is not relevant in the decision to continue to provide current
services. The value of capital is relevant in the determination of the
shutdown value of a business. The FAA does not believe this rule will
force companies out of business. As shown in Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis, found in the Final Regulatory Evaluation, the pilot training
cost is estimated to be greater than 2 percent of annual revenues for
one small entity operator, and greater than 1 percent of annual
revenues for five small entity operators. (Refer to Table RF-5 in the
Final Regulatory Evaluation in Rules Docket FAA-2006-24981.)
Recurrent Training Cost
A commenter stated that the cost of recurrent training should be
reviewed. He found the price of recurrent training not $1,937 per pilot
as estimated in the NPRM, but $4,100 at SimCom.
In the NPRM, the FAA estimated that the average additional cost per
pilot for recurrent training would be $1,937. This is in addition to
the current cost the pilot is paying for recurrent training. ($4,100 +
$1,937 = $6,037) The existing 3-day recurrent training course at SimCom
costs $4,100 (refer to Table 3 in the Regulatory Evaluation of the
NPRM). The FAA estimated that the future recurrent training cost at
SimCom would be $4,600 and that the training would spill over into a
4th day (refer to Table 4 in the NPRM's Initial Regulatory Evaluation).
So the total additional cost for the recurrent training course alone is
$500 ($4,600-$4,100 = $500). The average per diem costs (i.e., lodging,
meals, and incidental expenses) in Orlando, FL is $137 per day based on
the 2006 federal government per diem rates (refer to Tables 5 and 6).
The total additional cost for the recurrent training course plus the
additional day of lodging, meals, and incidental expenses would be $637
($500 + $137 = $637). The additional costs due to travel (round trip
travel costs and the value of travel time) are zero because the student
would incur the same travel costs to attend the training. Since student
pilots would be spending an additional day in recurrent training, the
estimated value of time for the additional day is $288.51 (8 hours x
$36.06 average hourly value of time = $288.51). The $36.06 average
hourly value of time is an average of the hourly value of travel time
savings for general aviation purposes \2\ and the mean annual wage of
Commercial Pilots of small fixed or rotary winged aircraft.\3\ Hence,
the total additional cost for an existing student in the recurrent
training program at SimCom would be about $925 ($637 + $288.51 =
$925.51).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Economic Values for FAA Investment and Regulatory
Decisions--A Guide, Draft Final Report, December 31, 2004.
\3\ Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and
Wages, May 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA conducted a similar analysis for existing students at
Howell Enterprises and at Professional Flight Training, and then
conducted a weighted average of the additional costs per pilot at these
3 training facilities and arrived at an average additional cost of
$1,937 per pilot. The total per pilot costs of training at Howell
Enterprises and at Professional Flight Training are higher than at
SimCom because these training facilities conduct the training in the
customer's airplane. Hence, the FAA included the additional MU-2B
variable operating cost of $900 per hour, which is based on a cost
study of the Mitsubishi Marquise conducted by Howell Enterprises. In
contrast, SimCom provides recurrent training in simulators, and
students at SimCom would not incur any additional MU-2B operating
costs.
Training Cost Estimates
Several commenters stated that the estimates in the SFAR are
unrealistic. They said the real costs for requalification training will
be in excess of $20,000 and the annual recurrent training cost would be
in excess of $8,000.
The estimates in the initial regulatory evaluation were the
additional costs that a pilot would incur due to this rule. If a pilot
has been getting recurrent training, the FAA estimated that his
additional cost for recurrent training due to this rule would be
$1,937. If a pilot has not been getting recurrent training, and will be
forced to do so now, the FAA estimates that the cost of recurrent
training for this pilot would be $9,889. Hence, the existing cost of
recurrent training is approximately $8,000 ($9,889-$1,937 = $7,952).
The FAA estimated in the NPRM that the average total costs for
requalification training would be $12,604. (Refer to Table 8 in the
NPRM's Initial Regulatory Evaluation.) Requalification training is more
expensive than recurrent training, but it is not 2.5 times the cost of
recurrent training. The commenters have not provided any supporting
justification to show that the cost of requalification training is
really $20,000 plus.
After accounting for the increased compliance time and other
revisions to the rule, the FAA estimates that the additional cost of
requalification training for pilots currently getting training would be
around $5,000 per pilot. (Refer to Table 8 in the Final Regulatory
Evaluation of the Final Rule.)
[[Page 7045]]
Instructor Costs
A commenter stated MU-2B instructors cost $100 per hour, not $50
per hour. Also this commenter claimed there were costs associated with
fuel, related airplane costs, and housing related to the training.
The FAA agrees that MU-2B instructor rates are approximately $100
per hour. However, the additional costs for pilots to attend the
training program are not based on an instructor hourly rate. Instead,
they are based on the costs of the training programs. (Refer to Table 3
in the Regulatory Evaluation.) As explained above, the FAA estimated
total per pilot costs including training costs, MU-2B operating costs
(if training is done in the airplane), lodging, food and incidental
expenses, transportation to the training venue, the value of training
time, and the value of travel time. The FAA estimated the MU-2B
variable operating costs to be $900 per hour. This figure includes the
cost of fuel, maintenance, avionics, engine reserve for overhaul and
hot section, and propeller reserve. This figure does not include fixed
costs and other costs such as hangar rent, crew costs, interest, or
insurance costs.
The $50 per hour instructor rate used on page 24 in the Initial
Regulatory Evaluation of the NPRM is the average instructor rate for an
inexpensive multi-engine airplane, such as a Piper Seneca. This rate
was used to estimate the costs of the proposed rule requiring pilots to
log at least 100 hours of pilot-in-command (PIC) time in multi-engine
airplanes. Because the operating cost of the MU-2B is $900 per hour and
the rental rate for a Piper Seneca is about $200 per hour, the FAA
estimated that any pilot who needed to meet the requirement of 100
hours of PIC time in multi-engine airplanes could do so in a lower cost
Piper Seneca, and also pay a lower Piper Seneca instructor rate of $50
per hour.
The FAA notes that the $50 per hour instructor rate was used
incorrectly in the Paperwork Reduction Act Assessment, and has made the
appropriate changes to reflect the MU-2B instructor rate of $100 per
hour in the PRA Assessment.
Autopilot Cost
Some commenters found the autopilot costs to be underestimated.
They stated that maintaining an autopilot would cost $18,000 per 1,500
flight hours. Other commenters stated the cost of an autopilot would be
between $50,000 and $120,000 per airplane. MU-2 Aircraft Owners and
Pilots Association and other commenters stated the average cost of an
autopilot would be $75,000. The FAA received a single comment from one
operator who stated he does not have an autopilot installed.
In the Initial Regulatory Evaluation, the FAA estimated the
proposed rule would impose no additional costs with regard to the
purchase or maintenance of autopilots. Based on information from
industry, all MU-2Bs currently had functioning autopilots, and the FAA
estimated these MU-2B owners would continue to maintain their
autopilots in the future. The FAA was unaware that one part 135
operator did not have an autopilot, and would need to install and
maintain an autopilot in order to fly single pilot IFR. The FAA has
made the appropriate changes to reflect this new information in the
Final Regulatory Evaluation and in the Regulatory Flexibility
Assessment using an average autopilot cost of $75,000 and maintenance
costs of $18,000 per 1,500 flight hours. The FAA also states that this
operator still has the option of flying with two MU-2B pilots or not
flying single pilot IFR or night VFR.
One commenter (a part 135 operator) stated that the FAA did not
include an economic impact analysis of the cost (and weight penalty) of
a second crewmember.
Under the existing part 135 regulations, a second crewmember is
required for passenger-carrying operations. In contrast, only one
crewmember is required to carry cargo. This new rule would require that
an airplane flown under part 135 regulations have an autopilot, which
is less expensive than the cost of a second crewmember. A part 135
operator may choose to have a second crewmember for a cargo operation,
but the FAA is not requiring it.
Other commenters stated autopilots and parts will not be supported
by the manufacturer for much longer, certain parts are in short supply,
and a replacement autopilot is very expensive.
The FAA believes if the supply of replacement parts for autopilots
were to become extremely scarce, a new company would produce
replacement parts to meet the increased demand.
Some commenters stated that without being able to use existing MEL
relief when autopilots must be deferred, the associated additional
costs could easily make continued operation of these aircraft
economically unfeasible.
The FAA is clarifying that MU-2B owner/operators will still have
the ability to MEL the autopilot.
Discounting Method
One commenter stated the 7% discounting method used in the SFAR
economic impact analysis does not work in the real world where
companies adjust their cost for inflation.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) permits benefit-cost
analyses to be conducted in either nominal/current dollars or in
constant dollars of a particular year.\4\ Effects of inflation are
excluded by choosing either nominal/current dollars or constant dollars
and avoiding mixing-up both in the same analysis and by using a nominal
discount rate if the analysis is conducted in nominal dollars and a
real discount rate if the analysis is conducted in constant dollars.
OMB implies a preference for the use of constant dollars unless most of
the underlying values are initially available in nominal dollars.
Because we use constant dollars in this Regulatory Evaluation, we apply
a real discount rate of 7 percent (in accordance with OMB Circular A-
94).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ ``OMB Circular A-94'' (Revised--October 29, 1992) p. 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The present value methodology accounts for the characteristic that
benefits and costs occur over a number of years. It explicitly
recognizes that otherwise equal benefits or costs which occur at
different points in time will not be equal when viewed from a common
point in time. Generally, the present value of a benefit will be worth
more the sooner it is received, and the present value of a cost will be
less the longer it is deferred.
Part 135 Checks (Sec. Sec. 135.293, 135.297, and 135.299)
One commenter stated that the 135 pilot qualified in a single
aircraft type receives a minimum of 3 hours of in-flight testing a
year, and the number of hours of training as needed. Part 135
operations require one Sec. 135.293 aircraft competency check within
the preceding 12 months, two Sec. 135.297 instrument proficiency
checks in a 12-month period, and one Sec. 135.299 line check within
the preceding 12 months. Credit for the successful completion of the
Sec. 135.293 check is not allowed in the proposed rule (although Sec.
135.351(c) allows it to satisfy the recurrent flight training
requirement). This creates an unnecessary economic burden for
businesses that make their living flying the MU-2B.
The FAA agrees with the commenter and will allow checks for
Sec. Sec. 135.293, 135.297, and 135.299 to count also for the
corresponding requirements under this SFAR. Up to 3 hours can be
double-counted as training under this SFAR. However, the checker must
sign those elements of the MU-2B Final Phase
[[Page 7046]]
Check in accordance with the training program requirements in order for
those hours to count. In addition, the pilot must still meet all of the
other training requirements under this SFAR, even if that pilot exceeds
the minimum number of training hours required.
Simultaneous Training and Checking
Several commenters wanted the FAA to allow for simultaneous
training and checking, and to allow all SFAR training to satisfy
requirements for the biennial flight review.
The FAA will allow for simultaneous training and checking in
requalification and recurrent training. Regarding the biennial flight
review, SFAR training completed in an MU-2B airplane would satisfy
requirements for the biennial flight review. The Regulatory Evaluation
states that there are no additional costs for the flight review
requirement because pilots are already required to comply with 14 CFR
61.56. Furthermore, Howell Enterprises already provides a flight review
as part of the recurrent training course.
Training to Proficiency
Many commenters wanted to train to proficiency instead of training
to a set number of hours of training. The commenters also noted that
the number of hours proposed is too much for some pilots and too little
for others.
The FAA recognizes that for current and proficient MU-2B pilots,
the proposal could be more expensive than training to proficiency.
However, the FAA is adopting the proposal for these reasons. (1) After
carefully reviewing existing training programs and the proposed MHI
training program, the FAA determined that the training program hour
requirements represent the minimum number of hours required to reach an
acceptable level of safety and proficiency. (2) The MU-2B training
program requires that the student complete a minimum number of program
hours and that the student is trained to commercial pilot practical
test standards (the FAA's Commercial Pilot Practical Test Standards is
used as a guide to determine pilot proficiency under the MU-2B training
program). (3) The FAA has monitored the completion times for training
conducted using the MHI training program since it was approved, and
this monitoring validated the number of training hours proposed.
A commenter stated although he can continue to receive training in
the simulator (FTD), none of the approved training providers will
provide training in a self-insured aircraft. This commenter finds
completion of a Sec. 61.56 flight review in an MU-2B will impose a
significant additional economic cost on self-insured operators as they
will be forced either to rent a commercially insured aircraft for the
flight review or to insure their aircraft in the commercial market at a
cost that may well render it economically unfeasible to continue to own
an MU-2B.
The FAA is not requiring that MU-2B owners/operators buy insurance.
It is the MU-2B owner/operator's choice to obtain insurance or not. A
self-insured MU-2B owner/operator can still obtain a Sec. 61.56 flight
review in that owner/operator's MU-2B from a flight instructor, a
designated pilot examiner, a check airman, or a FAA FSDO Principal
Operations Inspector that is MU-2B current. The commenter is not
limited to using the services of the three training providers named in
the regulatory evaluation.
New Training Program Costs
A commenter noted Reece Howell's requalification tuition is
currently $4,000. SimCom's new initial course is 9 days long.
The FAA has verified this new information on the Web sites for
Howell Enterprises and SimCom. The FAA also notes that Howell
Enterprises is charging $7,000 for a 7-day initial training course,
$3,000 for a 3-day recurrent training course, and $4,000 for a 4-day
requalification course. The FAA has revised the cost estimates
accordingly in the Regulatory Evaluation, and costs increased about
$600,000 due to these revisions.
One commenter thinks the SFAR would have prevented approximately 4
accidents in the past 20 years, would cause an additional 2 accidents
over the next 20 years, and would have a net reduction of 2 fatal
accidents over the next 20 years.
The FAA disagrees. FAA safety inspectors, pilots, and mechanics
examined the MU-2B accident history along with root causes and
determined that 15 MU-2B accidents over 10 years could have been
prevented if this SFAR had been in place.
Effect of the SFAR on the Environment
One commenter noted that each additional hour of mandated flight
training would burn valuable jet fuel. A qualified MU-2B pilot can fly
the new procedures in a little over 2 hours. This SFAR mandated
training would mean that 600+ pilots would burn 324,000 gallons of jet
fuel with accompanying jet fumes unnecessarily entering our
environment. Part 91 pilots and an unknown number of MU-2B qualified
check airmen could double this number. This commenter finds such a
large misuse of any fuel in an age of dependency on foreign oil absurd,
and believes that the FAA has not addressed this problem.
FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically
excluded from the National Environmental Policy Act for preparation of
an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement in the
absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has reviewed paragraph
304 of this Order, Extraordinary Circumstances, before deciding to
categorically exclude this rulemaking. During this review, the FAA
determined that there are no extraordinary circumstances that would
prevent a categorical exclusion. The FAA has determined this rulemaking
action qualifies for the categorical exclusion identified in paragraphs
307a, 312d, and 312f. The FAA also notes that all part 135 operators
and most part 91 operators are already receiving annual pilot training.
The training required by this SFAR standardizes this training and
experience requirements of those conducting the training but does not
significantly increase the amount of training already being done.
Expiration Date
One commenter said the FAA should make the SFAR expire in 5 years
and review the SFAR after 4 years to see if it is effective and still
needed. The FAA will monitor the implementation of the SFAR and its
effectiveness on a regular basis and at intervals much shorter than the
4 years proposed by the commenter.
Airworthiness Directives
Three commenters questioned whether it makes sense to add the
economic costs of this training rule to the recently imposed financial
burden that the MU-2B operators will incur from the 7 ADs issued in
2006. The FAA's 2005 Safety Evaluation concluded that the existing ADs
were not issued to address the training and operational experience
requirements that the FAA found necessary to lower the accident rate.
Comments Not Directly Related to the Proposed Rule
Several comments were submitted that did not address the proposed
requirements in the NPRM. Some commenters offered suggestions that are
outside the scope of the proposal and cannot be adopted without a
reopening of the comment period in a new NPRM.
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries of America (MHIA) stated its opposition
to descriptions of emergency procedures that compared their airplane to
other
[[Page 7047]]
airplane models contained in the preamble of the NPRM. The final rule
preamble omits this general comparison.
A commenter submitted questions about a workshop held for
commercial MU-2B operators addressing implementation of the FSB report
for part 135 operations. The FAA responded only to the portions of this
letter that directly addressed the content of the proposed rule.
One commenter stated that the FAA should do an ``unintended
consequences study'' for the proposed rule, considering such issues as
devaluing the airplane, change in pilot population, forcing flights
into low level VFR environment, and oversight costs. The FAA has
addressed these issues within various sections of the preamble. The FAA
is not aware of any unintended consequences and the commenters did not
raise any. The FAA does not intend to conduct a specific study.
Economic Assessment, Regulatory Flexibility Determination, Trade Impact
Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment
Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency
shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second,
the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires
agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small
entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits
agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to
the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S.
standards, this Trade Act requires agencies to consider international
standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S.
standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L.
104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs,
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of
1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of
the economic impacts of this final rule. We suggest readers seeking
greater detail read the full final regulatory evaluation, a copy of
which we have placed in the rules docket for this rulemaking (FAA-2006-
24981).
In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined that this final
rule: (1) Has benefits that justify its costs, (2) is not an
economically ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, (3) is not ``significant'' for the OMB
but is ``significant'' for the DOT because of its impact on small
entities; (4) will have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities; (5) will not have a significant effect on
international trade; and (6) will not impose an unfunded mandate on
state, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector by
exceeding the threshold identified above. These analyses are summarized
below.
Total Costs and Benefits of This Rule
The estimated cost of this final rule is about $25.9 million ($17.4
million in present value terms), and the estimated benefit is about
$76.0 million ($49.3 million in present value terms). More detailed
benefit and cost information is provided below.
Who Is Potentially Affected by This Rule
All pilots and operators of the Mitsubishi MU-2B are affected by
this rulemaking. (This also includes flight instructors, designated
pilot examiners, training center evaluators, and check airmen.)
Assumptions:
Discount rate--7%. Sensitivity analysis was performed on
3% and 7%.
Period of Analysis--2008 through 2017.
Benefits of This Rule
We estimate the final rule will provide benefits of $76.0 million
($49.3 million in present value) from 2008 through 2017. In the absence
of the requirements contained in this final rule, future accidents will
occur on MU-2B airplanes in a manner similar to what has happened in
the past. A key benefit of the final rule will be the avoidance of
these accidents. Details of the benefit analysis are found in Section V
of the Final Regulatory Evaluation in Rules Docket FAA-2006-24981.
Costs of This Rule
The FAA estimates the compliance costs of this final rule to be
about $25.9 million ($17.4 million in present value). The table below
shows a breakdown of these total costs by category.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pilot Training Costs.................................... $24,978,000
Aeronautical Experience................................. 755,000
Instruction, Checking and Evaluating.................... 0
Currency Requirements and Flight Review................. 0
Operating Requirements.................................. 157,000
---------------
Grand Total Costs (undiscounted).................... 25,890,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-354) (RFA)
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities,
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must
prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis.
The FAA believes that this final rule will result in a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The purpose
of this analysis is to provide the reasoning underlying the FAA
determination.
Under Section 604 of the RFA, each final regulatory flexibility
analysis (FRFA) shall contain:
(1) A succinct statement of the need for, and objectives of, the
rule;
(2) A summary of the significant issues raised by the public
comments in response to the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, a
summary of the assessment of the agency of such issues, and a statement
of any changes made in the proposed rule as a result of such comments;
(3) A description of and an estimate of the number of small
entities to which the rule will apply or an explanation of why no such
estimate is available;
(4) A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping and
other compliance requirements of the rule, including an estimate of the
classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement and
the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report
or record; and
(5) A description of the steps the agency has taken to minimize the
[[Page 7048]]
significant economic impact on small entities consistent with the
stated objectives of applicable statutes, including a statement of the
factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative
adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other significant
alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which affect the
impact on small entities was rejected.
In accordance with section 604, we address each component for this
FRFA.
(1) A succinct statement of the need for, and objectives of, the
rule
Under Title 49 of the United States Code, the FAA Administrator is
required to consider the following matters, among others, as being in
the public interest:
Assigning, maintaining, and enhancing safety and security
as the highest priorities in air commerce. [See 49 U.S.C. 40101(d)(1).]
Promoting the safe flight of civil aircraft in air
commerce by prescribing regulations that are necessary for safety. [See
49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5).]
Additionally, it is the FAA Administrator's statutory duty
to carry out his or her responsibilities ``in a way that best tends to
reduce or eliminate the possibility or recurrence of accidents in air
transportation.'' [See 49 U.S.C. 44701(c).]
This Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) creates new pilot
training, experience, and operating requirements for persons operating
the Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplane (MU-2B). These requirements follow
an increased accident and incident rate in the MU-2B and are based on a
Federal Aviation Administration safety evaluation of the MU-2B. This
SFAR mandates additional training, experience, and operating
requirements to improve the level of operational safety for the MU-2B.
(2) A summary of the significant issues raised by the public
comments in response to the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, a
summary of the assessment of the agency of such issues, and a statement
of any changes made in the proposed rule as a result of such comments
1. Almost all commenters stated that the proposed compliance date
of 180 days after the effective date of the final rule would adversely
impact all pilots and training providers, and requested that the
compliance date be extended to one year from the date of the final
rule.
The FAA agrees and has made the appropriate changes in the final
rule. A one-year compliance date provides a substantially longer
transition period for both pilots and training providers, which reduces
compliance costs.
2. One commenter stated that the FAA will kill the value of the MU-
2B, and that he could not afford to walk away from a $400,000
investment that he could not use or sell. In related comments, other
people stated that the loss of value could be more than $100,000 per
airplane.
The commenter's concern would be completely valid if the FAA
grounded the MU-2B because of the high accident rate. While that was
seriously considered, we concluded that the training program will solve
the accident problem.
The training program contained in this final rule includes ground
and flight training for four different categories: Initial/transition,
requalification, recurrent, and differences training. The estimated
cost for Initial/transition training is approximately $25,000.
Requalification cost for pilots currently getting training is roughly
$5,000, and $13,000 for pilots not currently getting training. The
recurrent training is about $2,000 per year additional for pilots
currently getting training or $10,000 per year for pilots not currently
getting training. Such an expense is very small compared with a
$400,000 airplane and the accident rates that accompany the current
deficiencies.
Lastly, the MU-2B price was falling before the rule was proposed.
Several factors including the MU-2B safety record, higher maintenance
costs, less availability of parts, and newer products with better
capabilities may help explain the falling price of MU-2Bs.
3. A commenter indicated that the fleet value dropped significantly
and that the MU-2Bs are a standalone division of the company. If the
MU-2B division can not turn a profit, the business division will be
shut down. Pilots and mechanics will be let go.
Again, the training costs are substantially lower than the value of
the aircraft. The decision to shut down a certain division is a
business decision that is not based solely on the value of the MU-2B.
Although the value of a piece of capital equipment is useful in
determining the assets of a business, the value of existing capital
equipment is not relevant in a firm's decision to continue operations.
The FAA does not believe this rule will force companies out of
business.
4. A commenter stated that although we can continue to receive
training in the simulator (FTD), none of the approved training
providers will provide training in a self-insured aircraft. Requiring
completion of a Sec. 61.56 flight review in a MU-2B will, at best,
impose a significant additional economic cost on self-insured operators
as they will be forced either to rent a commercially insured aircraft
for the flight review or to insure their aircraft in the commercial
market at a cost that may well render it economically unfeasible to
continue to own an MU-2B.
The FAA is not requiring that MU-2B owner/operators get insurance.
It is the MU-2B owner/operator's choice to get insurance or not. A
self-insured MU-2B owner/operator can still obtain a Sec. 61.56 flight
review in that owner/operator's MU-2B from a flight instructor, a
designated pilot examiner, a check airman, or a FAA FSDO Principal
Operations Inspector that is MU-2B current.
(3) A description of and an estimate of the number of small
entities to which the rule will apply or an explanation of why no such
estimate is available
In conducting this final regulatory flexibility analysis we
incorporate the most recent data from the aircraft registry (December,
2007). The size standards from the Small Business Administration for
Air Transportation and Aircraft Manufacturing, specifies companies as
small entities if they have fewer than 1,500 employees.
In conducting our analysis, we considered the economic impact on
small-business entities. While there are no scheduled commercial
operators (part 121) of the MU-2B airplane, there are small business
owners of MU-2Bs who operate under part 91 or 135.
The part 91 operations of the MU-2B are either as a personal-use
airplane or are for companies that operate them where aviation is not
their primary business. Part 91 operations are not for hire or flown
for profit. Part 135 operations are commuter or ``on demand''
operations.
In many cases employee data for owners and operators of aircraft
(especially the aircraft operated in part 91), affected by this rule is
not public.
Using publicly available data, there are 14 U.S. MU-2B operators,
with less than 1,500 employees, who operate 61 airplanes. This equates
to roughly 4 aircraft per operator.
Corporations are the registered owners of 306 MU-2Bs. Based upon
the publicly available data, the total number of affected small
entities ranges from 77 (4 airplanes/firm) to 245. The majority of the
corporations operate the MU-2B in part 91 service, meaning aviation is
not the primary business, and the airplane is not for hire. Publicly
available information is scarce about these corporations. For this
analysis we
[[Page 7049]]
assume the worst case scenario that each of these firms are small
businesses and will incur compliance costs as a result of this final
rule.
In addition to the owners of the affected aircraft, companies that
train pilots will themselves have to train their current MU-2B
instructors to this new standard. The FAA has determined that it is
essential that all flight training be conducted per a single
standardized training program that reflects piloting procedures as
found in the MU-2B training program. Based on our discussions with MU-
2B pilot training centers we established that they will continue
providing their MU-2B instructors with the latest training available.
We believe that most MU-2B pilot training centers are small businesses
but this final rule will result in offsetting training revenue
exceeding their training costs.
(4) A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping and
other compliance requirements of the rule, including an estimate of the
classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement and
the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report
or record
Reporting & Recordkeeping Requirements: A flight instructor must
complete the form ``Training Course Final Phase Check'' at the end of
each training course. The FAA estimates that it will take an instructor
five minutes per pilot to complete the form.
An instructor must endorse a MU-2B pilot's logbook upon successful
completion of training. The FAA estimates that it will take an
instructor five minutes per pilot to endorse a pilot's logbook.
A copy of the airplane checklist must be accessible during each
flight at the pilot station. The FAA estimates that the cost of a
checklist will be about $200 and that the checklist will be ordered
over a 2-year period.
Training Requirements: Depending on a pilot's current training, the
rule will require a training program that includes ground and flight
training in different categories. The following table summarizes
potential per pilot costs and the associated categories:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial training Requalification Recurrent cost
Pilot category cost training cost per year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional Costs for MU-2 pilots with training......... ................. $4,930 $1,875
Costs for MU-2 pilots without training................. ................. 12,882 9,826
Costs for Initial/Transition pilots.................... $25,376 ................. 9,826
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5) A description of the steps the agency has taken to minimize the
significant economic impact on small entities consistent with the
stated objectives of applicable statutes, including a statement of the
factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative
adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other significant
alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which affect the
impact on small entities was rejected
We considered the following alternatives:
Alternative One: This alternative would prohibit all operations of
the MU-2B series airplane within the National Airspace System. Although
legislation requiring this alternative was not passed, it was an
alternative explored by Congress. Upon our examination, we have
determined that there is not sufficient justification to ground the
airplane if the requirements contained in the rule become final. The
airplane meets its original type certification basis as found in three
type certification analyses (Special Certification Reviews conducted in
1984, 1997, and the Safety Evaluation of 2005 that found that the
airplane complies with the applicable certification regulations).
Alternative Two: This alternative would have kept the requirements
contained in the final rule, except that it would require an aircraft
type rating for the MU-2B, but remove requalification training. This
alternative would not fully accomplish our safety objective and would
not meet the FAA's goal of ensuring that all MU-2B pilots receive
continued training in the accepted procedures for normal, abnormal, and
emergency operations.
Alternative Three: This alternative would have kept the proposed
SFAR, and in addition, require a second pilot. Requiring a second pilot
for all MU-2B airplanes would be a substantially more costly option
than the SFAR training and autopilot requirements (single-pilot IFR
operations and night VFR operations will be required to have a
functioning autopilot). In addition, the FAA has determined that use of
an autopilot provides a level of safety comparable to a two-pilot crew
and therefore does not propose requiring a second crew member. An
operator has the option of running a two-pilot crew to enhance safety,
but the FAA will not require it.
International Trade Impact Assessment
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related
activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of
the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are
not considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires
consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that
they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed the
potential effect of this final rule and determined that it responds to
a domestic safety objective and is not considered an unnecessary
barrier to trade.
Unfunded Mandates Assessment
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(adjusted annually for inflation with the base year 1995) in any one
year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by
the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a ``significant
regulatory action.'' The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value
of $128.1 million in lieu of $100 million.
One commenter stated that ``taken as a whole'' the requirements of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 did apply. The FAA
disagrees because the rule involves a value less than $128.1 million.
This final rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore, the
requirements of Title II do not apply.
Paperwork Reduction Act
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3507(d)), the FAA has submitted a copy of the new (or amended)
information collection requirements(s) in this final rule to the Office
of Management and Budget for its review. Affected parties, however, do
not have to comply with the information collection requirements until
the FAA publishes in the Federal Register the control number assigned
by
[[Page 7050]]
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for these information
collection requirements. Publication of the control number notifies the
public that OMB has approved these information collection requirements
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
A certificated flight instruction (CFI) must complete the
form ``Training Course Final Phase Check'' at the end of each training
course. The FAA estimates that it will take a CFI 5 minutes per pilot
to complete the form. Since there are about 600 MU-2B pilots, this will
take a total of 50 hours per year. At an average MU-2B CFI hourly rate
of $100 and an average value of time at $36.06 per hour, the total
yearly cost of this requirement is $6,806 (600 pilots x 5/60 hours x
($100 per hour + $36.06 value of time per hour) = $6,806).
A CFI must endorse an MU-2B pilot's logbook upon
successful completion of training. The FAA estimates that it will take
a CFI 5 minutes per pilot to endorse a pilot's logbook. Since there are
about 600 MU-2B pilots, this will take a total of 50 hours per year. At
an average MU-2B CFI hourly rate of $100 and an average value of time
at $36.06 per hour, the total yearly cost of this requirement is $6,806
(600 pilots x 5/60 hours x ($100 per hour + $36.06 value of time per
hour) = $6,806).
A copy of the airplane checklist must be accessible during
each flight at the pilot station. The FAA estimates that the cost of a
checklist will be about $200 and that the checklist will be ordered
over a 2-year period. We assume it takes an operator 10 minutes to
order a checklist, and the cost of the checklist will be about $64,069
(311 MU-2B airplanes x $200/checklist x ($36.06 hourly value of time x
10/60 hours)). Annually, this cost would be $32,031 ($64,069 / 2
years).
Total PRA Results for the Final Rule:
Average Total Annual Cost Burden: Approximately $45,641.
Average Total Annual Hour Burden: Approximately 101 hours.
An agency may not collect or sponsor the collection of information,
nor may it impose an information collection requirement unless it
displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
control number.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We determined that this
action would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, and therefore would not have federalism implications.
Regulations Affecting Intrastate Aviation in Alaska
Section 1205 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat.
3213) requires the FAA, when changing regulations in title 14 of the
CFR in manner affecting intrastate aviation in Alaska, to consider the
extent to which Alaska is not served by transportation modes other than
aviation, and to establish such regulatory distinctions as he or she
considers appropriate. The FAA received no comments specific to Alaska.
Environmental Analysis
FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has
determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical
exclusion identified in paragraph 312f of the Order and involves no
extraordinary circumstances.
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use
The FAA has analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We have determined that it is not
a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order because it is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866,
and it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.
Availability of Rulemaking Documents
You can get an electronic copy of rulemaking documents using the
Internet by--
1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov
);
2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/
; or
3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html
.
You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Make
sure to identify the amendment number or docket number of this
rulemaking.
Anyone is able to 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, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit
http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996 requires the FAA to comply with small entity requests for
information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations
within its jurisdiction. If you are a small entity and you have a
question regarding this document, you may contact a local FAA official,
or the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. You can
find out more about SBREFA on the Internet at: http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/
.
List of Subjects
14 CFR Part 61
Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation Safety, Incorporation by reference,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Safety measures.
14 CFR Part 91
Aircraft, Airmen, Airports, Aviation safety, Freight, Incorporation
by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
14 CFR Part 135
Air taxis, Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The Amendment
0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
PART 61--CERTIFICATION: PILOTS, FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS, AND GROUND
INSTRUCTORS
0
1. The authority citation for part 61 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44703, 44707, 44709-
44711, 45102-45103, 45301-45302.
0
2. Add SFAR No. 108 to part 61 to read as follows: Special Federal
Aviation Regulation No 108.
[[Page 7051]]
Note: For the text of the SFAR No. 108, see part 91 of this
chapter.
PART 91--GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES
0
3. The authority citation for part 91 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 1155, 40103, 40113, 40120, 44101,
44111, 44701, 44704, 44709, 44711, 44712, 44715, 44716, 44717,
44722, 46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506-46507, 47122, 47508, 47528-
47531, articles 12 and 29 of the Convention on International Civil
Aviation (61 stat. 1180).
0
4. Amend part 91 by adding SFAR No. 108.
Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) No. 108--Mitsubishi MU-2B
Series Special Training, Experience, and Operating Requirements
1. Applicability. After February 5, 2009, this Special Federal
Aviation Regulation (SFAR) applies to all persons who operate the
Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplane including those who act as pilot-in-
command, act as second-in-command, or other person