[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 20 (Monday, February 1, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5204-5223]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-2056]
[[Page 5203]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Department of Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 43, 61, 91, and 141
Certification of Aircraft and Airmen for the Operation of Light-Sport
Aircraft; Modifications to Rules for Sport Pilots and Flight
Instructors With a Sport Pilot Rating; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 75 , No. 20 / Monday, February 1, 2010 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 5204]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 43, 61, 91, and 141
[Docket No. FAA-2007-29015; Amdt. Nos. 43-44, 61-125, 91-311, and 141-
13]
RIN 2120-AJ10
Certification of Aircraft and Airmen for the Operation of Light-
Sport Aircraft; Modifications to Rules for Sport Pilots and Flight
Instructors With a Sport Pilot Rating
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FAA is amending its rules for sport pilots and flight
instructors with a sport pilot rating to address airman certification
and operational issues that have arisen since regulations for the
certification of aircraft and airmen for the operation of light-sport
aircraft were implemented in 2004. These changes will update those
regulations to reflect operational experience that has been gained
since the original regulations became effective.
DATES: These amendments become effective April 2, 2010. Affected
parties, however, do not have to comply with the information collection
requirement in Sec. 91.419 until the FAA publishes in the Federal
Register the control number assigned by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for this information collection requirement. Publication
of the control number notifies the public that OMB has approved this
information collection requirement under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this proposed rule, contact Larry L. Buchanan, Light-Sport Aviation
Branch, AFS-610, Regulatory Support Division, Flight Standards Service,
Federal Aviation Administration, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd, Oklahoma
City, OK 73169; telephone (405) 954-6400; Mailing address: Light-Sport
Aviation Branch, AFS-610; P.O. Box 25082; Oklahoma City, OK 73125.
For legal questions concerning this proposed rule, contact Paul
Greer, Regulations Division, AGC-200, Federal Aviation Administration,
800 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-
3073.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Authority for This Rulemaking
The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in
Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator, including the authority to
issue, rescind, and revise regulations. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Chapter 447--Safety Regulation. Under section
44701, the FAA is charged with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft
in air commerce by prescribing regulations necessary for safety. Under
section 44703, the FAA issues an airman certificate to an individual
when we find, after investigation, that the individual is qualified
for, and physically able to perform the duties related to, the position
authorized by the certificate. In this final rule, the FAA is amending
the training, qualification, certification, and operating requirements
for sport pilots and flight instructors with a sport pilot rating.
These changes will ensure that these airmen have the training and
qualifications necessary to enable them to operate light-sport aircraft
safely. For this reason, the changes are within the scope of the FAA's
authority and are a reasonable and necessary exercise of our statutory
obligations.
Guide to Terms and Acronyms Frequently Used in This Document
AGL--Above ground level
AOPA--Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
ASC--AeroSports Connection
CAS--Calibrated airspeed
CFI--Certificated Flight Instructor
DPE--Designated pilot examiner
EAA--Experimental Aircraft Association
MSL--Mean sea level
NAFI--National Association of Flight Instructors
NPRM--Notice of proposed rulemaking
SLSA--Special light-sport aircraft
USUA-- U.S. Ultralight Association
VFR--Visual flight rules
VH--Maximum airspeed in level flight with maximum
continuous power
I. Summary of the NPRM
On April 15, 2008, the FAA published a Notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) entitled, ``Certification of Aircraft and Airmen for
the Operation of Light-Sport Aircraft; Modifications to Rules for Sport
Pilots and Flight Instructors With a Sport Pilot Rating'' (73 FR
20181). The NPRM proposed to address airman certification issues that
have arisen since regulations for the operation of light-sport aircraft
were first implemented in 2004. The FAA sought comment on changes
intended to align the certification requirements for sport pilots and
flight instructors with a sport pilot rating with those requirements
currently applicable to other airmen certificates.
Specifically, the FAA proposed to--
1. Replace sport pilot privileges with aircraft category and class
ratings on all pilot certificates.
2. Replace sport pilot flight instructor privileges with aircraft
category ratings on all flight instructor certificates.
3. Remove current provisions for the conduct of proficiency checks
by flight instructors and include provisions for the issuance of
category and class ratings by designated pilot examiners.
4. Place all requirements for flight instructors under a single
subpart (subpart H) of part 61.
5. Require 1 hour of flight training on the control and maneuvering
of an airplane solely by reference to instruments for student pilots
seeking a sport pilot certificate to operate an airplane with a
VH greater than 87 knots CAS and sport pilots operating
airplanes with a VH greater than 87 knots CAS.
6. Remove the requirement for persons exercising sport pilot
privileges and flight instructors with a sport pilot rating to carry
their logbooks while in flight.
7. Remove the requirement that persons exercising sport pilot
privileges have an aircraft make-and-model endorsement to operate a
specific set of aircraft while adding specific regulatory provisions
for endorsements for the operation of powered parachutes with
elliptical wings and aircraft with a VH less than or equal
to 87 knots CAS.
8. Remove the requirement for all flight instructors to log at
least 5 hours of flight time in a make and model of light-sport
aircraft before providing training in any aircraft from the same set of
aircraft in which that training is given.
9. Permit persons exercising sport pilot privileges and the
privileges of a student pilot seeking a sport pilot certificate to fly
up to an altitude of not more than 10,000 feet mean sea level (MSL) or
2,000 feet above ground level (AGL), whichever is higher.
10. Permit private pilots to receive compensation for production
flight testing powered parachutes and weight-shift-control aircraft
intended for certification in the light-sport category under Sec.
21.190.
11. Revise student sport pilot solo cross-country navigation and
communication flight training requirements.
12. Clarify cross-country distance requirements for private pilots
seeking to operate weight-shift-control aircraft.
[[Page 5205]]
13. Revise aeronautical experience requirements at towered airports
for persons seeking to operate a powered parachute or weight-shift-
control aircraft as a private pilot.
14. Remove the requirement for pilots with only a powered parachute
or a weight-shift-control aircraft rating to take a knowledge test for
an additional rating at the same certificate level.
15. Revise the amount of hours of flight training an applicant for
a sport pilot certificate must log within 60 days prior to taking the
practical test.
16. Remove expired ultralight transition provisions and limit the
use of aeronautical experience obtained in ultralight vehicles.
17. Add a requirement for student pilots to obtain endorsements
identical to those proposed for sport pilots in Sec. Sec. 61.324 and
61.327.
18. Clarify that an authorized instructor must be in a powered
parachute when providing flight instruction to a student pilot.
19. Remove the requirement for aircraft certificated as
experimental aircraft under Sec. 21.191(i)(3) to comply with the
applicable maintenance and preventive maintenance requirements of part
43 when those aircraft have been previously issued a special
airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category under Sec.
21.190.
20. Require aircraft owners or operators to retain a record of the
current status of applicable safety directives for special light-sport
aircraft.
21. Provide for the use of aircraft with a special airworthiness
certificate in the light-sport category in training courses approved
under part 141.
22. Revise the minimum safe-altitude requirements for powered
parachutes and weight-shift-control aircraft.
The comment period closed on August 13, 2008. See ``III. Discussion
of Public Comments'' elsewhere in this preamble.
II. Summary of the Final Rule
As discussed in further detail under ``III. Discussion of Public
Comments and Decisions on Final Rule,'' the FAA is withdrawing or
modifying certain changes proposed in the 2008 NPRM. In the final rule,
the following proposals are withdrawn or modified. (Note: Proposal
numbers refer to the list above.)
Withdrawn: Replace sport pilot privileges with aircraft
category and class ratings on all pilot certificates (proposal 1)
Withdrawn: Replace sport pilot flight instructor
privileges with aircraft category ratings on all flight instructor
certificates (proposal 2)
Withdrawn: Remove current provisions for the conduct of
proficiency checks by flight instructors and include provisions for the
issuance of category and class ratings by designated pilot examiners
(proposal 3)
Withdrawn: Place all requirements for flight instructors
under a single subpart (subpart H) of part 61 (proposal 4)
Withdrawn: Require 1 hour of flight training on the
control and maneuvering of an airplane solely by reference to
instruments for student pilots seeking a sport pilot certificate to
operate an airplane with a VH greater than 87 knots CAS and
sport pilots operating airplanes with a VH greater than 87
knots CAS (proposal 5)
Withdrawn: Remove the requirement for persons exercising
sport pilot privileges and flight instructors with a sport pilot rating
to carry their logbooks while in flight (proposal 6)
Withdrawn: Remove specific regulatory provisions (under
proposed Sec. 61.324) for endorsements for the operation of powered
parachutes with elliptical wings (portion of proposal 7)
Withdrawn: Add a requirement for student pilots to obtain
endorsements identical to those proposed for sport pilots in Sec.
61.324 (portion of proposal 17)
Modified: Revise the amount of hours of flight training an
applicant for a sport pilot certificate must log within the preceding 2
calendar months from the month of the practical test (proposal 15)
III. Discussion of Public Comments and Decisions on Final Rule
The FAA received approximately 150 comments on the NPRM. Most were
from individual pilots and flight instructors. In addition, the
Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), the Aircraft Owners and Pilots
Association (AOPA), the National Association of Flight Instructors
(NAFI), the U.S. Ultralight Association (USUA), and AeroSports
Connection (ASC) commented.
A. Proposals 1-4: Replace sport pilot and sport pilot flight instructor
privileges with aircraft category and class ratings; require issuance
of category and class ratings by designated pilot examiners; and place
all requirements for flight instructors under part 61 subpart H
(Sec. Sec. 61.1, 61.3, 61.5, 61.7, 61.23, 61.31, 61.51, 61.52, 61.63,
61.87, 61.181, 61.183, 61.185, 61.187, 61.191, 61.195, 61.303, 61.309,
61.311, 61.313, 61.317, 61.321, 61.413, and subparts H and K)
Currently, for a holder of a pilot certificate to obtain additional
aircraft category and class privileges at the sport pilot level, that
person must complete a proficiency check administered by an authorized
instructor. Upon successful completion of that proficiency check, the
person receives a logbook endorsement from the instructor. That
endorsement permits the person to exercise sport pilot privileges in
the category and class of aircraft in which the proficiency check was
administered.
Similarly, for a flight instructor to obtain privileges to provide
instruction leading to the issuance of a sport pilot certificate in an
additional category or class of light-sport aircraft, or to the
issuance of a private pilot certificate in a powered parachute or a
weight-shift-control aircraft, the flight instructor must complete a
proficiency check administered by an authorized instructor. Upon
successful completion of the proficiency check, the flight instructor
receives a logbook endorsement from the instructor who administered the
proficiency check. That endorsement permits the person completing the
proficiency check to provide instruction as a flight instructor with a
sport pilot rating in the category and class of aircraft in which the
proficiency check was administered.
The FAA initiated the proposals as a result of concerns that the
agency may not be receiving documentation from authorized instructors
after proficiency checks have been successfully completed. This led to
concerns that--(1) In the event of an accident or incident, it may not
be possible to determine if an individual was authorized and qualified
to operate the aircraft; (2) if a person lost his or her logbook, it
could hinder that person's ability to demonstrate that he or she had
privileges to operate a specific category and class of aircraft; and
(3) if the FAA does not know which airmen are authorized to exercise
additional category and class privileges through logbook endorsements,
the agency cannot provide safety information to affected airmen.
[[Page 5206]]
With these concerns in mind, the FAA proposed that--
Holders of sport pilot (or higher level) certificates with category
and class privileges obtained through instructor endorsements be issued
pilot certificates with the category and class ratings corresponding to
the privileges previously granted through instructor endorsements; and
Flight instructors with a sport pilot rating receive flight
instructor certificates with appropriate category and class ratings
indicating those aircraft in which flight instruction could be
provided.
Under the NPRM, there would not have been any additional burden on
current certificate holders if the FAA had a record of their
endorsements. However, those persons whose records were not on file
with the FAA would have had to complete an Airman Certificate and/or
Rating Application--Sport Pilot (FAA Form 8710-11) and present it,
along with evidence of their endorsements, to an FAA designated pilot
examiner (DPE) or FAA inspector before the FAA would issue that person
a pilot or flight instructor certificate with corresponding category
and class ratings.
Further, the FAA proposed that the practice of obtaining privileges
to operate a light-sport aircraft after completion of a proficiency
check by an authorized instructor would be discontinued. Instead,
ratings (indicated on a person's pilot certificate rather than by
endorsement in a logbook) would be issued after the completion of a
practical test, typically administered by a DPE. The FAA's rationale
for proposing to require applicants take a practical test was that DPEs
typically conducting these tests receive initial and recurrent training
in administering practical tests, and they are directly supervised by
an aviation safety inspector (ASI). Also, a DPE's designation can be
terminated if the FAA determines that person cannot administer a
practical test in accordance with the Practical Test Standards (PTS).
In contrast, authorized instructors are generally not trained to
administer tests leading to the issuance of certificate privileges, and
the FAA does not have procedures in place to oversee that activity.
In a related proposal the FAA sought comments on whether to move
the requirements for flight instructors with a sport pilot rating
currently found in part 61 subpart K to part 61 subpart H so that all
flight instructor requirements would be standardized and located in one
subpart. As stated in the NPRM, if the proposed changes for issuing
sport pilot flight instructor certificates were adopted, the privileges
and limitations of those flight instructors and the methods by which
they are certificated would be so similar to those of flight
instructors currently certificated under subpart H that separate
subparts for the certification of all flight instructors would no
longer be necessary.
A few commenters supported the proposals, or certain aspects of
them. Those commenters said the changes would reduce confusion, and
make the regulations clearer and more uniform among different pilot
ratings and aircraft categories. One said adopting the changes would
help matters in the future as more sport pilots are licensed.
Many commenters, however, opposed the changes. The Experimental
Aircraft Association and NAFI stated that the FAA did not show any
safety reasons for the proposed changes. They and others also said
there is a shortage of sport pilot examiners and DPEs qualified in
categories and classes of light-sport aircraft such as powered
parachutes, weight-shift-control aircraft, and gyroplanes. Furthermore,
many commenters said, these examiners are not evenly dispersed
throughout the country.
Commenters also expressed concern that the proposed changes would
create burdens for existing sport pilots and flight instructors who
would have to spend time and money traveling to a DPE to take a
practical test. Further, the commenters were concerned that affected
persons would not have a means of examining their FAA records prior to
the issuance of the new certificates and that they may have to visit
their Flight Standards District Offices (FSDOs) to correct lapses in
the FAA's airmen registry database. The commenters believed the problem
was an internal FAA problem that should be fixed using mechanisms
already in place, such as better training for instructors in how to
comply with the existing rule, and access to electronic filing methods
such as the Integrated Airman Certification and Rating Application
(IACRA). Another suggestion was to provide instructors with an
expedited process to become sport pilot DPEs, thereby increasing their
availability and providing a less costly alternative to the proposal.
Upon further consideration, the FAA agrees with the commenters that
the potential burden does not justify adoption of the proposal. The FAA
is therefore withdrawing those portions of the NPRM related to
replacing sport pilot and sport pilot flight instructor privileges with
aircraft category and class ratings. In addition, the FAA is
withdrawing the proposed requirement that proficiency checks be
conducted by DPEs instead of authorized instructors, as well as the
proposal to move all requirements for flight instructors with a sport
pilot rating from subpart K to subpart H.
The FAA, however, is retaining that portion of the proposal that
would require holders of a commercial pilot certificate with an airship
or balloon rating to obtain privileges to provide instruction in an
additional category and class of aircraft only after completion of a
practical test and not after completion of a proficiency check.
Although the FAA, in the 2004 final rule, intended to permit these
airmen to be treated in a manner similar to other authorized
instructors when seeking privileges to provide instruction in an
additional category and class of aircraft, the FAA no longer considers
such action appropriate. The agency has determined that when seeking to
obtain privileges to provide instruction in an additional category and
class of aircraft, these airmen should be tested to the same standards
as other pilots who do not hold flight instructor certificates and are
seeking similar instructional privileges. These airmen currently are
not required to pass a test on the fundamentals of instructing or
possess equivalent instructional experience. All other flight
instructors currently certificated under subpart K of part 61 are
required to pass this test or possess equivalent instructional
experience. The FAA notes that for a commercial pilot with an airship
or balloon rating to obtain additional privileges to provide flight
instruction under subpart H of part 61, that person must pass a
practical test for the issuance of a flight instructor certificate,
even though that person is already considered an authorized instructor.
The FAA is therefore revising current Sec. 61.429(c) to remove
provisions that would permit the holder of a commercial pilot
certificate with an airship or balloon rating to obtain a flight
instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating without taking a
practical test for the issuance of that certificate.
Additionally, when the FAA proposed to include all requirements for
flight instructors with a sport pilot rating in subpart H, the FAA
clarified the limitations set forth in current Sec. 61.415 by
proposing to revise Sec. 61.195 to indicate that a flight instructor
with a sport pilot rating may only provide flight instruction in a
light-sport aircraft. Although the FAA is not adopting the proposal to
place all requirements for flight instructors with a sport pilot rating
in part 61 subpart H, the FAA is
[[Page 5207]]
revising the introductory text of Sec. 61.415 to specify that a flight
instructor with a sport pilot rating may only provide flight training
in a light-sport aircraft. This change clarifies the original intent of
the 2004 final rule.
While the FAA is not adopting its proposal to remove provisions for
the conduct of proficiency checks by flight instructors and include
provisions for the issuance of category and class ratings by DPEs, the
agency remains concerned that it may not have a complete record of
those individuals who have received sport pilot privileges as a result
of satisfactory completion of a proficiency check conducted by an
authorized instructor. Accordingly, the FAA is implementing non-
regulatory procedures, which will improve its ability to obtain a
record of all proficiency checks conducted by flight instructors.
The FAA has included information on its Light Sport Aviation
Branch's (AFS-610's) Web site (http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/afs/afs600/afs610/) regarding proper
procedures for filling out and submitting FAA Form 8710-11. The agency
has taken action to ensure that all attendees at Flight Instructor
Refresher Clinics receive instruction on how to properly fill out and
submit this form. In addition, the FAA is taking action to ensure that
sport pilot privileges are now specifically listed on an airman's
certificate. The FAA is also conducting outreach at major aviation
events to better inform flight instructors on how to file required
documentation.
In order to improve the FAA's ability to receive the required
documentation indicating that an airman has been endorsed for a
specific sport pilot privilege, the agency has posted on the Light
Sport Aviation Branch's website (referenced in the previous paragraph)
a link to the Airman Registry Web site. This action will permit sport
pilots and flight instructors to determine whether the FAA has a record
of those airmen having obtained additional category and class
privileges through proficiency checks. If an individual has
successfully completed a proficiency check and received an endorsement
authorizing him or her to operate, or provide training in, an
additional category and class of light-sport aircraft but that
individual's name is not listed on the website, the individual can
contact the FAA to ensure that the agency has the appropriate records.
However, if a person's name is not listed with appropriate category and
class privileges, it does not automatically disqualify that person from
exercising those privileges if a proper endorsement has been received.
B. Proposal 5: Require 1 hour of flight training on the control and
maneuvering of an airplane solely by reference to instruments for
student pilots seeking a sport pilot certificate to operate an airplane
with a VH greater than 87 knots CAS and sport pilots operating
airplanes with a VH greater than 87 knots CAS
(Sec. Sec. 61.89, 61.93, and 61.327)
Current regulations require student pilots seeking a sport pilot
certificate to receive and log flight training in the control and
maneuvering of an airplane solely by reference to flight instruments.
This training must be received before conducting a solo cross-country
flight or any flight greater than 25 nautical miles from the airport
from where the flight originated. It also must be received prior to
making a solo flight and landing at any location other than the airport
of origination. These requirements are detailed in Sec. 61.93 and are
applicable to persons seeking a student pilot certificate to operate
any category and class of airplane. That section, however, does not
specify any minimum flight training time to meet these requirements. In
addition, current regulations for the issuance of a sport pilot
certificate do not require an applicant to receive flight training on
the control and maneuvering of any airplane solely by reference to
instruments.
The FAA proposed to require student pilots seeking a sport pilot
certificate and sport pilots operating an airplane with a maximum
airspeed in level flight with maximum continuous power (VH)
greater than 87 knots calibrated airspeed (CAS) to receive and log 1
hour of flight training on the control and maneuvering of an aircraft
solely by reference to instruments. The rationale for the proposal was
the agency's concern that persons exercising student or sport pilot
privileges in airplanes with a VH greater than 87 knots CAS
may not be adequately trained to maintain control of the airplanes they
are operating if they inadvertently encounter conditions less than
those specified for visual flight rules (VFR) operations. The FAA was
particularly concerned that conditions less than those specified for
VFR operations could be more readily encountered by persons operating
airplanes with a VH greater than 87 knots CAS due to the
greater speed and potentially greater range of the aircraft.
A few commenters supported this proposed change, but did not
provide substantive reasons for their support. Many commenters,
however, objected to the proposed change. They asserted that--(1) the
proposal would go beyond the intent of the 2004 rule because sport
pilots may only fly in day VFR conditions; (2) the FAA did not offer
any data to suggest that there is a safety problem that would
necessitate such training; and (3) flight instructors with a sport
pilot rating typically receive only 1 hour of instrument training and
therefore do not have necessary instrument training to adequately train
other airmen.
Although the FAA contends that inadvertent flight into instrument
conditions by pilots not appropriately rated to conduct such flight
constitutes a significant safety hazard, the FAA agrees with the
commenters' concern that flight instructors with a sport pilot rating
would not have necessary instrument training to adequately train other
pilots for flight by reference to instruments. Additionally, the
proposal could have required a student pilot seeking a sport
certificate or a sport pilot to obtain instruction in an aircraft
equipped for instrument flight when the aircraft in which he or she
normally conducts flight operations is not equipped for instrument
flight. Based upon these concerns and the potential burden the proposed
requirement would have placed on the sport pilot community, the FAA is
withdrawing the proposed change.
C. Proposal 6: Remove the requirement for persons exercising sport
pilot privileges and flight instructors with a sport pilot rating to
carry their logbooks while in flight
(Sec. 61.51)
This proposal was related to the proposals to replace privileges
with aircraft category and class ratings on sport pilot and flight
instructor certificates with a sport pilot rating (proposals 1 and 2
listed above). If those proposals had been adopted, sport pilots and
flight instructors with a sport pilot rating would have received
certificates specifically listing category and class privileges. As a
result, there would no longer have been a need for these airmen to
carry logbooks to demonstrate that they were authorized to exercise
category and class privileges.
Many commenters supported the proposed change, regardless of
whether proposed items 1 and 2 were adopted. However, a few commenters
indicated that the proposed change was unnecessary because Sec.
61.51(i)(3) permits a sport pilot to carry other evidence of existing
endorsements. Similar provisions exist for flight
[[Page 5208]]
instructors with a sport pilot rating under Sec. 61.51(i)(5). These
commenters said it should be sufficient for airmen to carry photocopies
of their logbook endorsements.
Several commenters opposed the change because they opposed the
proposals to replace privileges with aircraft category and class
ratings on sport pilot and flight instructor certificates with a sport
pilot rating.
As a result of the FAA's decision to withdraw the proposals to
replace sport pilot and flight instructor privileges with aircraft
category and class ratings on certificates, the agency is withdrawing
this proposed change. Persons exercising sport pilot privileges and
flight instructors with a sport pilot rating therefore will need to
continue to carry their logbooks or other evidence of required
endorsements while in flight. The commenters are correct that Sec.
61.51 currently allows for ``other evidence'' of instructor
endorsements; therefore the FAA will continue to allow sport pilots and
flight instructors with a sport pilot rating to carry photocopies of
required authorized instructor endorsements in lieu of carrying their
logbooks.
D. Proposal 7: Remove the requirement that persons exercising sport
pilot privileges have an aircraft make-and-model endorsement to operate
an aircraft within a specific set of aircraft while adding specific
regulatory provisions for endorsements for the operation of powered
parachutes with elliptical wings and aircraft with a VH less than or
equal to 87 knots CAS
(Sec. Sec. 61.315, 61.319, 61.324, 61.327, 61.413, 61.415, and 61.423)
To operate any aircraft within a set of aircraft, a sport pilot
must have a logbook endorsement from an authorized flight instructor
for a specific category, class, and make and model of aircraft within
that set of light-sport aircraft. At the time the current rules were
adopted, the FAA believed that grouping makes and models of light-sport
aircraft that have similar performance and operating characteristics as
a set of aircraft was an effective means to permit persons exercising
sport pilot privileges to operate any aircraft within that set once an
endorsement had been received.
In implementing the 2004 final rule, the FAA developed standards
for defining and establishing sets of aircraft within each category of
aircraft (airplanes, weight-shift-control aircraft, powered parachutes,
gyroplanes, and lighter-than-air aircraft). The FAA believed that
incorporating a requirement for a specific endorsement based on a set
of aircraft would ensure that any person exercising sport pilot
privileges would receive additional flight training appropriate to the
aircraft in which operations would be conducted.
As stated in the proposal, the FAA believes that the duplicative
nature of currently required endorsements and proficiency checks makes
a specific requirement for a make-and-model endorsement to operate any
aircraft within a set of aircraft redundant.
Several commenters, including ASC, EAA, and NAFI, supported the
proposal to eliminate the requirement for a make-and-model endorsement
to operate a specific set of aircraft. The FAA is adopting this change
as proposed for sport pilots. As the FAA's proposal to remove subpart K
and incorporate the requirements for flight instructors with a sport
pilot rating in subpart H is being withdrawn, the FAA is revising
Sec. Sec. 61.413, 61.415, and 61.423 to eliminate provisions in those
sections that refer to the issuance of make-and-model endorsements to
operate a specific set of aircraft by flight instructors with a sport
pilot rating. These amendments are necessary to implement the changes
as originally proposed.
The agency believes that safety concerns can be adequately
addressed using existing endorsements and the additional endorsement
proposed in the NPRM for holders of a sport pilot certificate seeking
to operate a light-sport aircraft that has a VH less than or
equal to 87 knots CAS. The FAA notes that although it has removed the
requirement for persons exercising sport pilot privileges to have
aircraft make-and-model endorsements, the additional training
requirements of Sec. 61.31 are applicable to all pilots, to include
both sport pilots and student pilots. Furthermore, while Sec.
61.31(l)(2) excepts both holders of student pilot certificates and
holders of sport pilot certificates when operating a light-sport
aircraft from the rating limitations of that section, it does not
except those pilots from the additional training requirements specified
in that section, such as the additional training requirements for the
operation of tailwheel airplanes and gliders. Sport pilots and student
pilots seeking a sport pilot certificate therefore must continue to
ensure that they have received the applicable training and endorsements
required for the operation of those aircraft prior to acting as pilot
in command.
Based on comments received, the FAA does not believe that an
additional endorsement for the operation of a powered parachute with an
elliptical wing is justified. A few commenters, including EAA and NAFI,
objected to the proposal to add specific regulatory provisions for
endorsements for the operation of powered parachutes with elliptical
wings. The Experimental Aircraft Association and NAFI said elliptical
wings on the market today fly essentially the same as square wings, and
therefore said no additional endorsement is required, nor would it add
any safety value. An individual commenter agreed that the fundamentals
of inflating, taxiing, maneuvering, and landing the wings are
identical, and added pilots wishing to transition from square to
elliptical wings can do so with instruction without a costly
endorsement from a certified flight instructor (CFI). Another commenter
said without a solid definition of what constitutes an elliptical wing,
it makes no sense to require a specific endorsement to fly them. One
commenter, however, said that the elliptical wing for powered
parachutes is a significant performance issue that should be addressed
as proposed.
Although the FAA believes that an elliptical wing has different
performance characteristics than a square wing, the agency agrees with
the commenters that the differences are not so different that they
warrant additional training and an endorsement. The FAA is therefore
withdrawing this proposed change.
Regarding the proposal to require an endorsement for aircraft with
a VH less than or equal to 87 knots CAS, EAA, NAFI, and an
individual commenter raised objections. The Experimental Aircraft
Association and NAFI said they essentially agreed with the concept, but
said that initial certification in a single-engine land airplane should
be sufficient to fly other single-engine airplanes within the
definition of light-sport aircraft. The individual commenter did not
believe accident data support the 87-knot-CAS division any longer and
suggested the distinction be withdrawn from this proposal and removed
throughout other light-sport regulations.
The FAA does not believe that receiving training in an airplane
with a VH greater than 87 knots CAS will adequately prepare
a sport pilot to operate a low-speed, high-drag airplane with a
VH less than or equal to 87 knots CAS without additional
training. The agency maintains the proposed endorsement to operate an
aircraft with a VH less than or equal to 87 knots CAS is
justified and is adopting this change.
[[Page 5209]]
E. Proposal 8: Remove the requirement for all flight instructors to log
at least 5 hours of flight time in a make and model of light-sport
aircraft before providing training in any aircraft from the same set in
which that training is given
(Sec. 61.415)
The FAA proposed to eliminate the requirement for flight
instructors with a sport pilot rating to have logged 5 hours of flight
time in order to provide flight instruction in a make and model
aircraft within a specific set of aircraft. The FAA believes that the
aeronautical experience requirements for the issuance of a flight
instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating and the endorsements
necessary to exercise those privileges are sufficient for an instructor
to safely provide flight instruction in any aircraft for which that
instructor has privileges. An additional requirement to obtain 5 hours
of aeronautical experience therefore imposes an unnecessary burden on
the flight instructor and should not be required to safely provide
instruction in that aircraft. In addition, the requirement would also
not be consistent with the adoption of the proposal (included in item 7
above) to eliminate the requirement in Sec. 61.319 for a person
exercising sport pilot privileges to have a make and model endorsement
to operate any aircraft within a specific set of aircraft.
Many commenters, including EAA, NAFI, and AOPA, supported this
proposed change. Some individuals, however, objected to it.
One commenter said the change seemed ``out of place,'' considering
that the FAA also requires examiners to have the same 5 hours before
administering practical exams (in accordance with FAA Order 8710.7
Sport Pilot Examiner's Handbook (Oct. 14, 2004)). The commenter said if
this proposal is adopted, the same restriction should be removed from
examiners.
The FAA notes that after the NPRM was published, FAA Order 8710.7
was superseded by FAA Order 8900.2 General Aviation Airman Designee
Handbook (Sept. 30, 2008). FAA Order 8900.2 removed the requirement for
a DPE to have 5 hours in a make and model of aircraft within a set of
aircraft prior to exercising DPE privileges. The commenter's concern
has therefore been addressed by the issuance of FAA Order 8900.2.
A gyroplane CFI said it would be impossible for an endorsing
instructor to ensure that a sport pilot applicant would be safe to fly
any gyroplane. The commenter said there needs to be some way that an
endorsing instructor and/or the DPE could provide additional
limitations on what new gyroplanes a new pilot could fly.
The FAA recognizes that flight instructors and DPEs cannot place
additional limitations on newly certificated pilots, which would
restrict those persons from exercising the privileges of those
certificates. A flight instructor, however, may issue an endorsement
that provides restrictions on a student pilot, and the student pilot
may not act in any manner contrary to any limitations placed in his or
her logbook by an authorized instructor, as set forth in Sec.
61.89(a)(8). The FAA did not propose to establish additional authority
for flight instructors and DPEs that would permit them to issue
endorsements for a sport pilot that would contain limitations more
restrictive than the privileges granted by that person's certificate.
Such action would be outside the scope of this rulemaking.
An individual commenter said an instructor should have at least 5
hours of time in the aircraft in which he or she will be instructing.
The commenter said a person should not be teaching in an aircraft with
which he or she is not familiar. The FAA agrees that a person providing
instruction in an aircraft should be familiar with that aircraft's
operating characteristics. However, due to the variety of operating
characteristics of individual aircraft, the agency does not believe
that mandating a minimum aeronautical experience requirement is
appropriate for instructors to provide flight training in light-sport
aircraft. The agency believes that the aeronautical experience
requirements for the issuance of a flight instructor certificate with a
sport pilot rating and the endorsements necessary to exercise those
privileges are sufficient for an instructor to safely provide flight
instruction in any aircraft for which that instructor has privileges.
The FAA notes that flight instructors certificated under part 61
subpart H, like those certificated under subpart K, may provide flight
instruction in light-sport aircraft that are airplanes, powered
parachutes, weight-shift-control aircraft, gyroplanes, gliders, and
lighter-than-air aircraft. However, flight instructors certificated
under the provisions of part 61 subpart H are not required to have 5
hours of flight time in a specific make and model of aircraft (except
for a multi-engine airplane, helicopter, or powered lift) prior to
providing flight instruction in these aircraft. The FAA has determined
that the individual flight characteristics of all makes and models of
light-sport aircraft within a specific category of aircraft are not
sufficiently different to warrant imposition of a requirement on flight
instructors with a sport pilot rating to obtain 5 hours of aeronautical
experience in each make and model of aircraft prior to providing flight
instruction. Such a requirement imposes an unnecessary burden on these
flight instructors that is not correspondingly imposed in Sec. 61.195
on flight instructors with other than a sport pilot rating. The agency
has determined that 5 hours of aeronautical experience in a particular
make and model of light-sport aircraft therefore should not be required
to safely provide flight instruction in these relatively simple, non-
complex aircraft. The FAA is adopting this change as proposed.
F. Proposal 9: Permit persons exercising sport pilot privileges and the
privileges of a student pilot seeking a sport pilot certificate to fly
up to an altitude of not more than 10,000 feet mean sea level (MSL) or
2,000 feet above ground level (AGL), whichever is higher
(Sec. Sec. 61.89 and 61.315)
Current Sec. 61.89 (c)(3) states that student pilots seeking a
sport pilot certificate may not act as pilot in command of an aircraft
at an altitude of more than 10,000 feet mean sea level (MSL). Section
61.315 (c)(11) places the same limitation on sport pilots. The FAA
proposed to add the words ``or 2,000 feet AGL [above ground level],
whichever is higher'' to allow sport pilots and student pilots seeking
a sport pilot certificate to operate in mountainous areas higher than
10,000 feet MSL when such operations are less than 2,000 feet AGL.
Many commenters, including AOPA and ASC, supported this change.
Several commenters, including EAA and NAFI, generally supported the
proposal but recommended extending the limits even higher.
The Experimental Aircraft Association, NAFI, and others recommended
the FAA align the rule with Sec. 91.211 (a)(1), which allows persons
to operate civil aircraft that are not equipped with supplemental
oxygen up to 12,500 feet MSL and 14,000 feet MSL for 30 minutes or
less. Some commenters suggested raising the maximum altitudes to 10,500
feet MSL and 2,500 feet AGL, whichever is higher, to conform to VFR
altitude requirements. Other commenters suggested raising the maximum
altitudes to as much as 18,000 feet MSL, noting that glider pilots are
permitted to fly at that altitude. One commenter suggested that
training in the effects of high-altitude flight should be required if
[[Page 5210]]
flights are permitted to higher altitudes. In addition, some commenters
pointed out that private pilots with instrument ratings are permitted
to fly up to 25,000 feet MSL without a high-altitude endorsement.
Others proposed raising both the minimum altitudes requirements
applicable to both sport pilots and recreational pilots, while other
commenters proposed eliminating the altitude restrictions entirely.
In addition, commenters pointed out that the higher altitudes would
provide greater safety because they would allow greater flexibility in
dealing with in-flight issues such as wind, glide distance, density
altitude, and alternate airports and safe landing areas. Commenters
also said higher altitudes would allow sport pilots to safely operate
over mountains and large bodies of water, such as the Great Lakes. The
commenters said that additional altitude would allow sport pilots to
fly over noise-sensitive mountainous areas such as wildlife refuges,
national parks, etc. where pilots are asked to maintain a minimum
altitude of 2,000 feet AGL.
Further, EAA and NAFI said they are not aware of any engine or
airframe or ASTM F37 standard that would prevent a sport pilot from
operating a light-sport aircraft at the altitudes permitted by Sec.
91.211(a)(1).
The FAA agrees that the current regulations unnecessarily burden
sport pilots and student pilots seeking sport pilot certificates who
operate light-sport aircraft in mountainous areas. The FAA notes that
sport pilots and student pilots seeking a sport pilot certificate are
trained in proper preflight preparation procedures, which include
training in aeromedical factors, such as the effects of hypoxia. In
addition, these pilots receive training in reduced aircraft performance
at high-density altitudes and in the effect of operations at higher
altitudes. These pilots are required to demonstrate knowledge of these
factors during the practical test.
Additionally, many of the new light-sport aircraft are capable of
operating above 10,000 feet MSL. By providing sport pilots with the
ability to better utilize the capabilities of these aircraft and
operate at higher altitudes in mountainous terrain, the revision should
assist in reducing the risks associated with mountain flying. By
restricting operations above 10,000 feet MSL to no more than 2,000 feet
AGL, sport pilots operating light-sport aircraft should not impose a
hazard to high-performance aircraft that routinely operate at higher
altitudes.
The primary purpose of the proposal was to increase the safety of
operations conducted in mountainous areas and eliminate unnecessary
burdens imposed by the current rule. By permitting persons exercising
sport pilot privileges to operate at 10,000 feet MSL or 2,000 feet AGL,
whichever is higher, the FAA is eliminating significant restrictions on
the operation of light-sport aircraft in all mountainous areas
regardless of the height of the terrain. Additionally, the new altitude
restrictions would correspond to those restrictions for recreational
pilots set forth in Sec. 61.101 (e)(8).
Many of the commenters' suggestions to permit a uniform maximum MSL
altitude would not provide relief for operations over all mountainous
terrain. Additionally, some of the higher maximum MSL altitudes
suggested by commenters would place light-sport aircraft at altitudes
typically occupied by significantly higher-performance aircraft even
though operations at such altitudes are not necessary to ensure safe
and adequate terrain clearance in most portions of the United States.
Operations at these higher altitudes would also unnecessarily expose
sport pilots to harsher physiological conditions for which their
aircraft may not be properly equipped. The FAA therefore is adopting
this change as proposed.
G. Proposal 10: Permit private pilots to receive compensation for
production flight testing of powered parachutes and weight-shift-
control aircraft intended for certification in the light-sport category
in Sec. 21.190
(Sec. 61.113)
The FAA proposed to allow a private pilot to act as pilot in
command for compensation or hire when conducting a production flight
test in a powered parachute or a weight-shift-control aircraft intended
for certification in the light-sport category under Sec. 21.190.
The 2004 final rule created two new categories of aircraft--powered
parachutes and weight-shift-control aircraft--and permitted their
manufacture for certification in the light-sport category under Sec.
21.190. During the manufacturing process, these aircraft must undergo a
production flight test. The 2004 final rule, however, did not create
ratings at the commercial pilot level for the operation of these two
new categories of aircraft. Since private pilots under the current rule
cannot receive compensation when conducting production flight tests,
there is not a means for a pilot conducting production flight tests of
powered parachutes or weight-shift-control aircraft to be compensated
for that activity unless an exemption is obtained.
Virtually all of the commenters who addressed this proposal
supported it. Some commenters, however, were concerned about the level
of experience that private pilots possess, and therefore recommended
the FAA create an aircraft category rating at the commercial pilot
certificate level for powered parachutes and weight-shift-control
aircraft. Some commenters pointed out that these aircraft have numerous
commercial uses for which a pilot could receive compensation if
appropriate aircraft category ratings were created at the commercial
pilot level (i.e., search and rescue, use as camera platforms, wildlife
management, etc.). Such action however, is outside the scope of this
rulemaking.
Three commenters suggested that CFIs be allowed to perform
production flight testing, whether they have a private pilot
certificate or not. Some of the commenters pointed out that CFIs must
have three times the experience of a private pilot to become an
instructor. The FAA notes, though, that flight instructor privileges
consist of providing training and endorsements that are required for,
and relate to, certificates, ratings, privileges, tests, recency-of-
experience requirements, flight reviews, and proficiency checks.
Privileges to conduct flight operations for compensation or hire are
granted through the issuance of pilot certificates. The FAA considers
revising flight instructor certificate privileges to permit the conduct
of commercial operations outside the scope of this rulemaking.
In its comments to this proposal, EAA recommended that the FAA
permit gyroplanes to be certificated as special light-sport aircraft
under Sec. 21.190 and that private pilots be permitted to act as
pilots in command of these aircraft for the purpose of conducting a
production flight test. The FAA considers EAA's recommendation to
certificate gyroplanes as special light-sport aircraft under Sec.
21.190 to be outside the scope of the NPRM. Accordingly, the agency
also considers any recommendation for private pilots to act as pilots
in command of these aircraft for the purpose of conducting a production
flight test to be outside the scope of the NPRM.
The FAA is adopting this change with modification. In response to
commenters' concerns the FAA is including a requirement that persons
conducting production flight testing be familiar with the processes and
procedures applicable to those operations to include those conducted
under a special flight permit and any associated operating limitations.
[[Page 5211]]
H. Proposal 11: Revise student sport pilot solo cross-country
navigation and communication flight training requirements
(Sec. 61.93)
This proposal addressed those maneuvers and procedures that a
student pilot seeking a sport pilot certificate should receive training
in prior to conducting solo cross-country flight in single-engine
airplanes, gyroplanes, and airships. Since student pilots seeking a
sport pilot certificate frequently conduct solo cross-country flights
in aircraft that are not equipped with radios for VFR navigation and
two-way communications, the FAA does not believe that all student
pilots seeking a sport pilot certificate should be required to receive
training in those procedures prior to conducting solo cross-country
flight. However, if this equipment is installed in the aircraft used
for the solo cross-country flight, the student pilot must receive and
log flight training on the use of those radios. Additionally, since
sport pilots are not required to be trained in the control and
maneuvering solely by reference to flight instruments, the FAA does not
believe that student pilots seeking a sport pilot certificate should be
required to receive training in those maneuvers and procedures prior to
conducting solo cross-country flight, unless the student is receiving
training for cross-country flight in an airplane with a VH
greater than 87 knots CAS. Current Sec. 61.93 requires such training
to be received prior to the operation of single-engine airplanes and
airships in cross-country flight.
Many commenters, including EAA, NAFI, AOPA, and ASC, supported this
proposal. An individual commenter agreed with the FAA's proposal, but
did not want the FAA to retain the requirement for student pilots
seeking a sport pilot certificate to receive and log flight training on
control and maneuvering solely by reference to flight instruments when
receiving training for cross-country flight in an airplane that has a
VH greater than 87 knots CAS. Another commenter noted that
the regulations for a recreational pilot do not require flight training
in the control and maneuvering of an aircraft solely by reference to
instruments. In addition, a commenter did not want the FAA to require
testing on radio navigation or radio communications for the issuance of
a sport pilot certificate.
The FAA is adopting this change as proposed. It is removing the
training requirement for student pilots seeking a sport pilot
certificate to receive training in the control and maneuvering of an
airplane solely by reference to flight instruments prior to conducting
solo cross-country flight in aircraft other than airplanes with a
VH greater than 87 knots CAS. The agency is retaining the
requirement for this training to be received if the student pilot will
be conducting cross-country flight in an airplane that has a
VH greater than 87 knots CAS because such airplanes
generally have greater range than airplanes with a VH less
than or equal to 87 knots CAS. These faster aircraft with greater range
capability are generally more frequently used for cross-country flights
of extended duration where potential instrument meteorological
conditions (IMC) may be encountered. The FAA maintains that the change
is consistent with the intent of the 2004 sport pilot rule, as it
removes certain requirements that are not appropriate for the operation
of airplanes with a VH equal to or less than 87 knots CAS
and airships.
The FAA recognizes that the regulations for the issuance of a
recreational pilot certificate contained in part 61 subpart D do not
require flight training in the control and maneuvering of an aircraft
solely by reference to instruments. However, any change in the
regulations for recreational pilots would be outside the scope of this
rulemaking.
Further, in response to the comment requesting that the FAA
eliminate testing on radio navigation or radio communications for the
issuance of a sport pilot certificate, the FAA notes that such testing
is required to ensure that a sport pilot applicant meets applicable
flight-proficiency requirements for airport, seaplane base, and
gliderport operations, as applicable.
I. Proposal 12: Clarify cross-country distance requirements for private
pilots seeking to operate weight-shift-control aircraft
(Sec. 61.109)
Current Sec. 61.109(j)(2)(i) specifies that a person applying for
a private pilot certificate with a weight-shift-control rating must log
``one cross-country flight over 75 nautical miles total distance'' at
night with an authorized instructor. Although Sec. 61.109 uses the
term ``cross-country flight,'' persons applying for this rating
frequently have overlooked the provisions of Sec. 61.1(b)(3)(ii)(B),
which states that for purposes of meeting the aeronautical experience
requirements for a private pilot certificate with a weight-shift-
control rating, cross-country time includes a point of landing at least
a straight-line distance of more than 50 nautical miles from the
original point of departure. To ensure that persons applying for a
private pilot certificate with a weight-shift-control rating complete a
cross-country flight that meets the requirements of both Sec. Sec.
61.1 and 61.109, the FAA proposed to make Sec. 61.109 consistent with
Sec. 61.1 by indicating that the cross-country flight must include a
point of landing that is a straight-line distance of more than 50
nautical miles from the original point of departure.
Several commenters, including EAA, NAFI, and ASC, supported this
proposal. One commenter, however, said the FAA's revision would not
clarify Sec. 61.109. The commenter suggested adopting the requirement
for an airplane single-engine rating (one solo cross-country flight of
at least 150 nautical miles total distance, with full-stop landings at
a minimum of three points, and one segment of the flight consisting of
a straight-line distance of at least 50 nautical miles between the take
off and landing locations). If the total distance is too great to allow
a person seeking a private pilot certificate with a weight-shift-
control aircraft rating to accomplish the flight without refueling, the
commenter believed that reducing the flight to 100 miles total distance
with full stop landings at a minimum of three points would be
appropriate.
The FAA notes that the proposal merely clarified the existing
regulation and did not add any new requirement. The agency believes the
current requirement provides adequate training and experience for
private pilots seeking to operate weight-shift-control aircraft. The
agency did not intend in the NPRM to create identical requirements for
private pilots seeking to operate weight-shift-control aircraft and
private pilots seeking to operate single-engine airplanes. The FAA
therefore is adopting the change as proposed.
J. Proposal 13: Revise the aeronautical experience requirements at
towered airports for persons seeking to operate a powered parachute or
weight-shift-control aircraft as a private pilot
(Sec. 61.109)
The aeronautical experience requirements for a private pilot
certificate with a powered parachute rating and weight-shift-control
aircraft rating are found in Sec. 61.109 (i) and (j) respectively.
These paragraphs state that the training required for these aircraft
ratings must include at least three takeoffs and landings (with each
landing involving a flight in traffic pattern) at an airport with an
operating control tower. These paragraphs also require the takeoffs and
landings to be performed in
[[Page 5212]]
solo flight in the specific category of aircraft for which a rating is
sought.
Currently, many persons seeking to obtain ratings in powered
parachutes or weight-shift-control aircraft experience difficulty
conducting operations at tower-controlled airports. These aircraft
frequently experience difficulty operating in the traffic pattern with
other categories and classes of aircraft due to their slower speeds,
flight characteristics, and operating limitations. The FAA proposed to
allow persons seeking these ratings to conduct operations at tower-
controlled airports without the burden of having to conduct them in a
powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft while in solo
flight. The proposal was intended to provide applicants with additional
flexibility in obtaining the aeronautical experience necessary to
conduct operations at tower-controlled airports. An applicant would not
only be permitted to obtain the necessary aeronautical experience in
the category of aircraft for which a rating is sought while in solo
flight, but also in dual flight in any category of aircraft.
Several commenters, including EAA, NAFI, and ASC, supported this
proposal. One of those commenters said the proposal makes sense because
it focuses on the primary value of the training--communication with the
tower. Another commenter supported the change, noting that a person who
is already a private pilot already has the type of experience to safely
operate at a towered airport, so the requirements should be decreased.
As stated in the preamble to the NPRM, the intent of the proposal
was to allow persons seeking to operate a powered parachute or weight-
shift-control aircraft as a private pilot to conduct operations at
tower-controlled airports without the burden of having to conduct these
operations in a powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft
while in solo flight. The change will provide applicants with
additional flexibility in obtaining the aeronautical experience
necessary to conduct operations at tower-controlled airports.
The FAA is adopting the change as proposed.
K. Proposal 14: Remove the requirement for pilots with only powered
parachute and weight-shift-control aircraft ratings to take a knowledge
test for an additional rating at the same certificate level
(Sec. 61.63)
Knowledge tests for applicants for category or class ratings for
powered aircraft at the same certificate level address identical
aeronautical knowledge areas. Persons who hold a category rating for a
powered aircraft (other than powered parachutes and weight-shift-
control aircraft) are not currently required to take a knowledge test
when applying for an additional category or class rating for a powered
aircraft at their certificate level. The 2004 final rule created two
additional categories and classes of powered aircraft. In that rule,
applicants who hold category ratings for powered parachutes or weight-
shift-control aircraft seeking additional category and class ratings
were not provided the same relief as that provided to persons who hold
category and class ratings for other powered aircraft. The FAA
therefore proposed to provide applicants who hold category ratings for
powered parachutes or weight-shift-control aircraft with this relief.
All persons who commented on this issue, including EAA, NAFI, and
ASC, supported the proposal, some ``strongly.'' The FAA is adopting the
change as proposed, except that in the final rule, the proposed
revisions to paragraphs (b)(5) and (c)(5) of Sec. 61.63 are adopted as
paragraphs (b)(4) and (c)(4) respectively. This modification is being
made because after the proposed rule was published, Sec. 61.63 was
revised in the ``Pilot, Flight Instructor, and Pilot School'' final
rule, (74 FR 42500, Aug. 21, 2009). The modification, therefore, aligns
the changes with the current structure of Sec. 61.63.
L. Proposal 15: Revise the amount of hours of flight training an
applicant for a sport pilot certificate must log within the preceding 2
calendar months from the month of the practical test
(Sec. 61.313)
Currently Sec. 61.313 requires an applicant for a sport pilot
certificate to log at least ``3 hours of flight training with an
authorized instructor on those areas of operation specified in Sec.
61.311 in preparation for the practical test, within the preceding 2
calendar months from the month of the test.'' In developing the 2004
rule, the FAA based this requirement on the corresponding aeronautical
experience requirements for the issuance of higher-level pilot
certificates. Those certificates, however, require applicants to log
more flight time than is required for the issuance of a sport pilot
certificate and to prepare for testing on a higher number of tasks. Due
to the lower number of hours required for a person to apply for a sport
pilot certificate and the lower number of tasks for which preparation
is necessary, the number of hours currently required to be logged
within 2 calendar months prior to the date of the practical test is
proportionately higher than that required for other certificates.
Accordingly, the FAA proposed to reduce the number of hours that must
be logged in preparation for the practical test from 3 hours to 2
hours, for aircraft other than gliders. For gliders, the FAA proposed
to reduce the aeronautical experience that must be logged in
preparation for the practical test from 3 hours to 3 training flights.
Many commenters, including EAA, NAFI, AOPA, and ASC, supported this
proposal. Two commenters were concerned, though, that the reduction in
flight training could allow people who are not current or have not had
adequate practice within the allotted time to test and become sport
pilots when they may not have the recent experience necessary to
operate the aircraft. The FAA notes, however, that an applicant cannot
take a practical test unless that person has received an endorsement
from an instructor certifying that he or she is prepared for the
practical test.
One commenter did not believe the proposal went far enough for
powered parachutes. He said the flight portion of a sport pilot
practical test for powered parachutes takes less than one half hour in
flight. Therefore, the commenter said, a flight instructor should be
able to fly with a student and determine that person's readiness for a
check ride in one hour or less. The commenter believed that requiring
more than one hour of flight training in preparation for the practical
test is a burden since often flight windows for operating a powered
parachute are little more than one hour in the morning or evening. The
commenter recognized that if the student needs more training, it will
remain the flight instructor's decision as to whether the instructor
will endorse that pilot for a practical test.
The FAA agrees with the commenter. In addition, the agency notes
that the proposed uniform reductions in the numbers of hours of flight
training in preparation for the practical test for all aircraft
categories did not take into account the varying amounts of flight time
required to be logged for the issuance of a sport pilot certificate
with differing aircraft category and class privileges. An applicant
for--(1) powered-parachute category land- or sea-class privileges; or
(2) lighter-than-air category and balloon-class privileges need only
log 12 and 7 hours of flight time, respectively, to meet the applicable
aeronautical experience requirements for the issuance of a sport pilot
certificate. An applicant for--(1)
[[Page 5213]]
airplane category and single-engine land- or sea-class privileges; (2)
rotorcraft category and gyroplane-class privileges; (3) lighter-than-
air category and airship class privileges; and (4) weight-shift-control
category land- or sea-class privileges must log at least 20 hours of
flight time to meet applicable aeronautical experience requirements for
the issuance of a sport pilot certificate. Due to the fewer hours of
flight time required to be logged for the issuance of a sport pilot
certificate with--(1) powered-parachute category land- or sea-class
privileges; and (2) lighter-than-air category and balloon-class
privileges, the FAA is revising its proposal to require that applicants
for a sport pilot certificate with these privileges must only log 1
hour of flight training on those areas of operation specified in Sec.
61.311 in preparation for the practical test.
M. Proposal 16: Remove expired ultralight transition provisions and
limit the use of aeronautical experience obtained in ultralight
vehicles
(Sec. Sec. 61.52, 61.301, 61.309, 61.311, 61.313, 61.329, and 61.431)
Current Sec. Sec. 61.329 and 61.431 describe special provisions
for obtaining sport pilot certificates and flight instructor
certificates with a sport pilot rating for persons who are registered
with FAA-recognized ultralight organizations. These rules were intended
to provide a means for pilots and flight instructors who received
training from an FAA-recognized ultralight organization to transition
to sport pilot certificates and flight instructor certificates with a
sport pilot rating. As provided in the rules, the transition period for
obtaining a sport pilot certificate expired on January 31, 2007, and
the transition period for obtaining a flight instructor certificate
with a sport pilot rating expired on January 31, 2008. Because January
31, 2007, and January 31, 2008, have passed, the FAA proposed to remove
Sec. Sec. 61.329 (except for the ultralight pilot record provisions of
paragraph (a)(2)(iv), which will be transferred to Sec. 61.52) and
61.431. The FAA also proposed to amend Sec. Sec. 61.309, 61.311, and
61.313 to remove references to Sec. 61.329. In addition, the agency
proposed to remove the reference to the expired transition provisions
in Sec. 61.301 (a)(7).
Several commenters, including USUA and EAA, supported this proposal
to remove expired ultralight transition provisions from the
regulations. The FAA is adopting the changes affecting Sec. Sec.
61.301, 61.309, 61.311, 61.313, 61.329, and 61.431 as proposed.
Additionally, the FAA proposed to change Sec. 61.52(a) and (b) to
limit the use of aeronautical experience obtained in ultralight
vehicles. The proposal was intended to permit persons to use
aeronautical experience obtained in ultralight vehicles to meet the
requirements for certain airman certificates and ratings and also to
meet the provisions of Sec. 61.69 (for glider and unpowered ultralight
towing) until January 31, 2012. The FAA originally adopted the
provisions of current Sec. 61.52 to facilitate the process for
operators of ultralight vehicles to obtain airman certificates
established by the 2004 rule and to meet the requirements of Sec.
61.69. The FAA did not intend for these transition provisions to be
indefinite in duration. Since operators of ultralight vehicles should
have transitioned to the new airman certificates prior to the date of
the proposal, or have used their aeronautical experience to meet the
provisions of Sec. 61.69, the agency determined that retaining the
provisions for the use of aeronautical experience in Sec. 61.52 is no
longer warranted. The agency recognizes, however, that operators of
ultralight vehicles may have acquired aeronautical experience in
ultralight vehicles with the intent of obtaining airman certificates
established by the 2004 rule, or to meet the experience requirements of
Sec. 61.69. To provide these persons with a sufficient amount of time
to use this aeronautical experience to obtain the new certificates, or
meet the requirements of Sec. 61.69, the FAA proposed a date of
January 31, 2012, after which the provisions of Sec. 61.52 may no
longer be used.
Some commenters did not believe the proposal would have a safety or
efficiency benefit. Although the FAA recognizes the benefits of
aeronautical experience obtained in ultralight vehicles, the agency
believes the rule will increase safety by promoting training in
aircraft that have characteristics closer to those of the specific
aircraft that sport pilots will be authorized to operate. The rule will
also encourage training in certificated aircraft that meet
airworthiness standards.
A few commenters were concerned with the higher costs associated
with training in 2-place light-sport aircraft as opposed to ultralight
vehicles. Many commenters said the proposal would discourage new flight
instructor applicants and pilots. The commenter noted that, even though
FAA-recognized ultralight organizations still exist, there are no
longer any formal flight training programs for ultralight vehicles that
meet the definition of a ``light-sport aircraft.'' The FAA agrees that
the rule may increase the cost that applicants for flight instructor
and sport pilot certificates may incur as a result of requiring that
aeronautical experience be obtained in light-sport aircraft as opposed
to ultralight vehicles.
Many commenters, including EAA, NAFI, ASC, and USUA, opposed
limiting the use of aeronautical experience obtained in ultralight
vehicles. The Experimental Aircraft Association and NAFI pointed out
that the FAA said in the preamble to the 2002 proposed sport pilot rule
that it intended to allow Sec. 61.329 (a)(2) provisions to continue
without setting an end date.
The FAA acknowledges that at the time of the 2002 NPRM, the agency
did not consider limiting the time period in which a person could
credit aeronautical experience obtained in an ultralight vehicle toward
the requirements in Sec. Sec. 61.309, 61.311 and 61.313. However, the
agency proposed to limit the time period in this rulemaking action
because the agency believed that operators of ultralight vehicles have
been provided sufficient time to obtain airman certificates using
aeronautical experience gained in ultralight vehicles. The agency
recognizes that certain operators of ultralight vehicles may not have
already obtained sport pilot certificates and will therefore allow the
provisions of Sec. 61.52 to remain in effect until January 31, 2012.
One commenter said many ultralight vehicle operators are still
planning to use their ultralight experience to obtain sport pilot
certificates, but have not done so because of the shortage of flight
instructors and DPEs.
The FAA recognizes that in certain circumstances, persons seeking
to obtain sport pilot certificates may experience difficulties in
obtaining the services of appropriately rated flight instructors or
authorized DPEs, especially when seeking certification in powered
parachutes and weight-shift-control aircraft. The FAA notes, however,
that the withdrawal of the proposal to replace sport pilot and flight
instructor privileges with aircraft category and class ratings and the
retention of current provisions permitting additional aircraft category
and class privileges to be obtained after completion of a proficiency
check by an authorized instructor (discussed in III.A. above) should
assuage the commenters' concerns regarding the shortage of DPEs.
Some individual commenters, urging the FAA not to modify Sec.
61.52, said that many individuals who provide training
[[Page 5214]]
to persons who are seeking a sport pilot certificate are unable to
obtain adequate insurance for students to fly a light-sport aircraft
solo. However, the commenters said, a student could fly an ultralight
vehicle solo under the same insurance historically available for
ultralight flying. The commenters believed withdrawing this proposed
rule change would relieve flight instructors of being forced to allow
students to fly solo without insurance.
Another commenter, referring to other comments in the docket
regarding the inability of flight instructors to obtain insurance for
their students while conducting solo flights, noted that he had no
problem obtaining insurance for his registered light-sport airplanes;
rather, he found that obtaining insurance for an ultralight vehicle is
more difficult. The commenter went on to say that if the proposal were
adopted, persons providing instruction would have until January 31,
2012, to alter their training structure, which should be enough time.
The commenter noted that after the 2012 deadline, the net effect of the
change could be to establish a more definitive dividing line between
ultralight training and sport pilot training.
The FAA notes that persons providing flight instruction in light-
sport aircraft are able to obtain insurance for their students to
conduct solo operations in certain categories and classes of light-
sport aircraft, such as airplanes. The FAA recognizes that obtaining
insurance for students to conduct solo operations in other categories
of aircraft, such as powered parachutes and weight-shift-control
aircraft, is often difficult to obtain or is unavailable in certain
areas. In addition, the agency recognizes that insurance to conduct
solo operations in ultralight vehicles is also not readily available.
Although these difficulties in obtaining insurance limits the ability
of certain persons to provide flight instruction, the FAA does not
believe that continuing to permit the use of aeronautical experience in
ultralight vehicles to meet the requirements for certain certificates
and ratings would improve the ability of the persons conducting those
operations (or operations in powered parachutes and weight-shift-
control aircraft) to obtain adequate insurance. The FAA believes that
the benefits of conducting solo flight in a light-sport aircraft that
meets specified airworthiness standards support adoption of the
proposal.
The FAA is adopting this change to Sec. 61.52(a) and (b) to limit
the use of aeronautical experience obtained in ultralight vehicles as
proposed.
N. Proposal 17: Add a requirement for student pilots to obtain
endorsements identical to those proposed for sport pilots in Sec. Sec.
61.324 and 61.327
(Sec. 61.89)
The FAA proposed to require student pilots seeking sport pilot
certificates to obtain endorsements identical to those specified for
sport pilots in proposed Sec. Sec. 61.327 (to operate a light-sport
aircraft based on VH) and 61.324 (to operate a powered
parachute with an elliptical wing), respectively. By proposing to
require student pilots seeking a sport pilot certificate to receive
these identical endorsements prior to the issuance of a sport pilot
certificate, the FAA sought to ensure that newly certificated sport
pilots would be able to continue to operate those aircraft in which
they exercised pilot-in-command privileges as student pilots.
Currently, sport pilots are required to obtain specific make-and-model
endorsements for the operation of a particular set of light-sport
aircraft. These endorsements, including the endorsements to operate a
light-sport airplane based on VH, have not been required for
student pilots seeking a sport pilot certificate because student pilots
are required to have a make-and-model endorsement for each particular
aircraft they operate. If a student pilot does not obtain an
endorsement to operate a light-sport airplane based on VH,
that person is precluded from operating any airplane within the range
of airspeeds that would have been covered by that endorsement upon
issuance of the sport pilot certificate. The FAA proposed similar
requirements for student pilots seeking to operate powered parachutes
with elliptical wings.
Several commenters, including ASC, supported the proposal. The
Experimental Aircraft Association and NAFI opposed the change to add a
specific endorsement for operating powered parachutes with elliptical
wings for student pilots. In addition, two commenters did not want the
FAA to require all students to get an extra endorsement to operate an
aircraft with a VH of 87 knots or greater. One of the
commenters said student pilots are endorsed for a specific make and
model already; therefore an endorsement for VH is redundant.
As stated in the preamble to the NPRM, the rule will ensure that
newly certificated sport pilots will be able to continue to operate
aircraft in which they have exercised pilot-in-command privileges as
student pilots. The FAA therefore has decided to adopt the change as
proposed with regard to those endorsements addressing VH.
Since the FAA has decided to withdraw the proposed elliptical-wing
endorsement for sport pilots, the agency is withdrawing the proposal to
require a corresponding endorsement for student pilots. See discussion
in III.D.
O. Proposal 18: Clarify that an authorized instructor must be in a
powered parachute when providing flight instruction to a student pilot
(Sec. 61.313)
In Sec. 61.313(g)(1), which describes the requirements for logging
aeronautical experience to obtain powered parachute category land or
sea class ratings, the FAA proposed to add the words ``from an
authorized instructor in a powered parachute aircraft'' to clarify that
an authorized instructor must be in the aircraft for a student pilot to
log flight training time. The FAA was concerned that there is confusion
in the sport pilot community whether the 2004 rule allows for ``radio
flight training'' (i.e., flight training when an authorized instructor
is not in the aircraft). ``Radio flight training'' is not permitted.
The intent of the proposed change was to make the rule consistent with
other provisions for logging the aeronautical experience necessary to
apply for a sport pilot certificate and clarify that all flight
training must be received from an authorized instructor in flight in an
aircraft, as specified in Sec. 61.1(b)(6).
In addition, the FAA proposed to change the words ``at least 2
hours of solo flight training'' to ``at least 2 hours of solo flight
time.'' Although the FAA stated that the word ``training'' implies that
an instructor should be in the aircraft, the agency notes that it has
consistently used the term ``solo flight training'' to refer to solo
flight conducted by an applicant for an airman certificate that is
conducted under the supervision of an authorized instructor. In
accordance with this convention, the agency is not adopting this change
as proposed.
Several commenters, including ASC, supported the proposed change to
clarify that an authorized instructor must be in a powered parachute
when providing flight instruction to a student pilot. The Experimental
Aircraft Association and NAFI opposed the change, however. They said a
structured professional training program for powered parachutes
benefits from including supervised solo flight with an authorized
instructor using established radio communications as he or she observes
from the ground. For instruction in powered parachutes, the commenters
said, this training ideally
[[Page 5215]]
takes place during the first few lessons prior to the instructor being
on board the aircraft. Once the student has reached an acceptable level
of competency with the added cushion of single-pilot aircraft
performance, then the instructor continues the training syllabus with
several lessons of actual (in the aircraft) dual instruction.
One commenter said that powered parachute instruction has been
successfully done for years using established radio communications
where the instructor on the ground supervises a soloing student pilot.
Although the FAA recognizes the benefits of solo flight training,
the agency has never recognized radio flight training as ``dual flight
instruction.'' The FAA notes that neither the current regulation nor
the proposed change permits radio flight training to be logged as
training time to meet the flight training requirements necessary for
the issuance of an airman certificate. The FAA is therefore adopting
the change to Sec. 61.313(g)(1), with a minor non-substantive
revision, to clarify that an authorized instructor must be in a powered
parachute when providing instruction to a student pilot.
The Experimental Aircraft Association and NAFI also said the FAA
needs to clarify what constitutes loggable time when powered parachute
dual flight instruction is being conducted. The Experimental Aircraft
Association stated that loggable time begins when the instructor and
student start to prepare to taxi the aircraft with the intent to fly,
and ends with the completion of the last pilot-in-command duties. This,
EAA said, would include any taxi to the final take-off area, setting up
and inspecting the wing (chute), the takeoff, the flight, the landing,
and the post flight inspection/stowage of the wing.
An individual commenter said that the problem with the proposed
change is that a large part of the take-off procedure is done on the
ground with the instructor coaching the student in how to properly lay
out a canopy before flight. That coaching, the commenter said, is done
on the runway, often after the aircraft is taxied into position for
takeoff. The commenter pointed out that powered parachuting is the only
form of powered flight that requires the pilot to get out of the
aircraft and position a wing on the runway surface before flight, but
currently that time is logged as part of the dual training by most
instructors since it is one-on-one instruction. The proposal, the
commenter believed, would preclude that time from being logged and
effectively lengthen the experience requirements for those obtaining a
powered parachute rating. The commenter concluded that it would not be
a bad idea to limit the amount of time that could be logged as dual
training, but it should not be eliminated unless the FAA reduced the
total amount of dual flight time received for a rating.
These comments are outside the scope of this rulemaking. The agency
notes that the time spent inspecting the general condition of the
canopy of a powered parachute is part of the preflight inspection of
the aircraft. The agency does not consider the time spent by a pilot
performing this inspection to constitute flight time. Section 1.1
defines ``flight time'' as ``pilot time that commences when an aircraft
moves under its own power for the purpose of flight and ends when the
aircraft comes to rest after landing.''
P. Proposal 19: Remove the requirement for aircraft certificated as
experimental aircraft under Sec. 21.191(i)(3) to comply with the
applicable maintenance and preventive maintenance requirements of part
43 when those aircraft have been previously issued a special
airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category under Sec.
21.190
(Sec. 43.1)
Currently, aircraft that have been issued a special airworthiness
certificate in the light-sport category under Sec. 21.190 must
continue to meet the applicable maintenance and preventive maintenance
requirements of part 43 when those aircraft are subsequently
certificated as experimental light-sport aircraft under Sec.
21.191(i)(3) or as experimental aircraft certificated for any other
purpose.
A manufacturer may produce a special light-sport aircraft for
certification under the provisions of Sec. 21.190, and the maintenance
provisions of part 43 will apply to that aircraft. The manufacturer may
continue to produce that same aircraft model as an aircraft kit under
the provisions of Sec. 21.191(i)(2), and part 43 will not apply to the
maintenance of that aircraft. However, that same aircraft model, when
originally certificated under Sec. 21.190 and subsequently re-
certificated as an experimental light-sport aircraft under the
provisions of Sec. 21.191(i)(3) (or any other paragraph of Sec.
21.191) must continue to comply with the provisions of part 43.
Additionally, currently part 43 precludes non-certificated persons
from approving an aircraft for return to service after the performance
of maintenance when that aircraft was originally certificated under
Sec. 21.190 and subsequently re-certificated under Sec. 21.191, even
though these experimental aircraft are restricted to personal use. This
procedure, however, unnecessarily burdens operators of aircraft
certificated under Sec. 21.191(i)(3) because it requires aircraft
certificated under that paragraph, but previously certificated under
Sec. 21.190, to be maintained in accordance with part 43.
The FAA proposed to amend Sec. 43.1 to remove the requirement for
experimental aircraft to comply with the requirements of part 43 when
those aircraft have previously been issued a special airworthiness
certificate in the light-sport category under Sec. 21.190. The
agency's intent was to conform the maintenance requirements for
aircraft certificated under Sec. 21.191(i) to the original intent of
the 2004 final rule. The proposed change to Sec. 43.1 was intended to
permit any aircraft originally certificated in the light-sport category
under Sec. 21.190, and subsequently issued an experimental certificate
under Sec. 21.191(i)(3), to be maintained in a manner identical to any
experimental aircraft that previously has not been issued a different
kind of airworthiness certificate.
Two commenters wanted the FAA to consider allowing sport pilots to
perform preventive maintenance on aircraft not certificated in the
light-sport category, such as the Ercoupe 415. These comments are
outside the scope of this rulemaking.
Most other commenters who addressed this proposal, including ASC,
EAA, and NAFI, supported it.
The FAA is adopting the change with modifications. The proposal
would have permitted an aircraft issued an experimental certificate for
any purpose specified in Sec. 21.191 to be excepted from the
requirements of part 43 if it had previously been issued an
airworthiness certificate in the special light-sport category under
Sec. 21.190. The FAA did not intend to provide this relief to all
aircraft issued experimental certificates regardless of the purpose for
which the certificates were issued. As discussed in the preamble to the
NPRM, the FAA only intended to provide this relief to an aircraft
issued an experimental certificate under the provisions of Sec.
21.191(i)(3) when that aircraft has previously been issued an
airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category under Sec.
21.190. Proposed Sec. 43.1(b) is therefore modified in the final rule
to include the current provisions of that paragraph as new paragraph
(b)(1) and the additional provisions as paragraph (b)(2).
[[Page 5216]]
Q. Proposal 20: Require aircraft owners or operators to retain a record
of the current status of applicable safety directives for special
light-sport aircraft
(Sec. 91.417)
Currently Sec. 91.327 specifies that no person may operate an
aircraft that has a special airworthiness certificate in the light-
sport category unless the owner or operator complies with each safety
directive applicable to the aircraft that corrects an existing unsafe
condition. Although owners and operators must comply with these safety
directives, there currently is no requirement to retain a record of the
current status of applicable safety directives or transfer that
information at the time of aircraft sale.
Without a requirement to retain and transfer this information,
owners, operators, and FAA safety inspectors are not able to easily
determine whether maintenance actions critical to flight safety have
been accomplished on special light-sport aircraft. The FAA therefore
proposed to require owners or operators to retain these records. These
records must be transferred in accordance with the provisions of Sec.
91.419.
All but one of the commenters who addressed this proposal,
including ASC, AOPA, and EAA, supported it. The Aircraft Owners and
Pilots Association said the change would help ensure that light-sport
aircraft remain airworthy and allow aircraft owners and operators to
better track the current status of applicable safety directives. The
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association went on to say the change also
would help ensure that people buying a light-sport aircraft would have
a complete record of all the safety directives complied with on the
aircraft.
One commenter said even through the manufacturer says some item
must be completed, the owner should have the final say on whether the
upgrade is needed; otherwise the light-sport aircraft owner would be at
the mercy of the manufacturer. The FAA did not propose to revise
current Sec. 91.327 to permit an owner or operator to independently
decide whether to comply with a safety directive that corrects an
existing unsafe condition. However, the FAA notes that an owner or
operator may use the procedures specified in current Sec. 91.327(b)(4)
to obtain an FAA waiver from the provisions of a manufacturer's safety
directive.
The commenter went on to say that the FAA should avoid creating
another Airworthiness Directive (AD) compliance system for light-sport
aircraft. The FAA did not propose to create another AD compliance
system or propose any revisions to the process by which safety
directives are issued or accomplished.
The Experimental Aircraft Association requested that the FAA also
include regulatory language addressing the applicability of safety
directives and airworthiness directives. The EAA also requested the FAA
revise Sec. 39.1 to address the applicability of part 39 to
experimental light-sport and amateur-built aircraft. The FAA considers
these recommendations to be outside the scope of this rulemaking.
The FAA is adopting the change as proposed.
R. Proposal 21: Provide for use of aircraft with a special
airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category in training
courses approved under part 141
(Sec. 141.39)
When the 2004 final rule was issued, the FAA did not amend part 141
to provide for the use of light-sport aircraft in courses approved
under that part. Since that time, the FAA has received requests that
special light-sport aircraft be used in courses approved under part
141. Although special light-sport aircraft are not type-certificated
aircraft, they are designed, manufactured, and certificated in
accordance with consensus standards that have been accepted by the FAA.
When part 141 was originally adopted, the FAA did not contemplate the
use of aircraft manufactured in accordance with consensus standards.
Since these aircraft are manufactured in accordance with FAA-accepted
consensus standards, the FAA believes that these aircraft provide an
acceptable level of safety for use in part 141 training courses. To be
used in a course approved under part 141, the aircraft also would have
to be properly equipped for performing the tasks specified in the
training course in which the aircraft would be used. We therefore
proposed to revise Sec. 141.39(b) to permit the use of special light-
sport aircraft in training courses that are approved under part 141.
All of the commenters who responded on this proposal, including
ASC, EAA, and AOPA, supported it. The FAA is adopting the change as
proposed for training facilities located within the United States. The
FAA is revising paragraph (a)(2) because after the proposed rule was
published, Sec. 141.39 was revised in the ``Pilot, Flight Instructor,
and Pilot School'' final rule, (74 FR 42500, Aug. 21, 2009) to
separately address training facilities located within the United States
and outside the United States. The agency is not revising Sec.
141.39(b)(2) to specifically permit SLSAs to be used in training
facilities located outside the United States due to the limitations
that certain foreign countries may have on the operation of these
aircraft within their airspace.
S. Proposal 22: Revise minimum safe-altitude requirements for powered
parachutes and weight-shift-control aircraft
(Sec. 91.119)
Currently pilots of powered parachutes and weight-shift-control
aircraft must remain at least 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle
within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet when operating over any
congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open-air
assembly of persons. When operating over other-than-congested areas,
powered parachutes and weight-shift-control aircraft must be operated
at an altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except when operating
over open water or sparsely populated areas. When operating over these
areas, these aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any
person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. The restrictions specified for
operations over congested areas and other than congested areas are not
applicable when necessary for the takeoff or landing of the aircraft.
While the FAA believes that current operating restrictions for
powered parachutes and weight-shift-control aircraft over congested
areas are appropriate, the agency also believes that current
restrictions on the operation of powered parachutes and weight-shift-
control aircraft over other-than-congested areas are overly
restrictive.
The FAA recognizes that the operational characteristics (lower
maximum gross weights, slower speeds, and lower climb rates) of powered
parachutes and weight-shift-control aircraft enable them to safely
operate over other-than-congested areas at altitudes lower than those
at which other aircraft are routinely operated. In the event of a
forced landing, the slower speeds, lower weights, and greater
maneuverability of these aircraft allow for shorter landing distances
and lower impact forces. Requiring these aircraft to operate at
altitudes more appropriate to other categories and classes of aircraft
significantly decreases their utility to owners and operators. The FAA
proposed, therefore, to amend Sec. 91.119 to allow powered parachutes
and weight-shift-control aircraft to be
[[Page 5217]]
operated over other-than-congested areas at less than 500 feet above
the surface, provided the operation is conducted without hazard to
persons or property on the surface.
All commenters agreed with the proposed change; however some
suggested further changes. The Experimental Aircraft Association and
NAFI agreed with the proposed change for powered parachutes and weight-
shift-control aircraft, but recommended that the FAA grant powered
parachutes the same minimum safe altitude authorization as helicopters
in both congested and other-than-congested areas. A number of
individuals made similar comments, with one commenter recommending that
no minimum altitude restrictions apply to the operation of powered
parachutes. In addition, EAA, NAFI, and other commenters, argued that
all light-sport aircraft that have a VH equal to or less
than 87 knots CAS have the same flight safety parameters and therefore
should be provided similar relief. One said there are several fixed-
wing aircraft that also exhibit the same flight characteristics
discussed in the NPRM, and many weight-shift-control aircraft can
outperform many of the slower (``ultralight-like'') fixed-wing
aircraft, yet the FAA did not propose to grant those fixed-wing
aircraft the same privilege. The commenter suggested using ``max
speeds'' or another generic description, so the proposed revision would
apply to all types of aircraft, not just powered parachutes and weight-
shift-control aircraft. Another commenter asked why other aircraft of
similar weights and speeds are not also encompassed by the proposed
change.
The FAA is adopting the change as proposed. Although a number of
commenters suggested that the FAA further revise Sec. 91.119 to permit
powered parachutes and weight-shift-control aircraft to operate over
congested areas with the same limitations applicable to helicopters,
the agency considers a further expansion of the proposal to be outside
the scope of the original NPRM. Similarly the FAA considers commenters'
suggestions to permit all light-sport aircraft that have a
VH equal to or less than 87 knots CAS and aircraft with
weights and speeds similar to those of powered parachutes and weight-
shift-control aircraft to operate over congested areas with the same
limitations applicable to helicopters to be outside the scope of the
NPRM.
Lastly, EAA noted that the FAA titled the discussion of these
changes ``22. Revise minimum safe-altitude requirements for powered
parachutes and weight-shift-control aircraft, and balloons (Sec.
91.119)''; however, EAA pointed out, the FAA did not discuss balloons
or add balloons to its proposed change to Sec. 91.119. The FAA
acknowledges that the heading was incorrect. No reference to balloons
should have been included in the caption.
T. Miscellaneous
Section 61.303: The FAA proposed to revise paragraphs (a)(1)(ii)
and (a)(2)(ii) to include the words ``at that certificate level or
higher.'' The FAA has determined that inclusion of the proposed
language would be redundant and therefore is withdrawing those proposed
amendments.
Section 61.413: In the proposal, the provisions of current Sec.
61.413 were incorporated into current Sec. 61.193. Although the FAA is
withdrawing its proposal to merge the provisions of subpart K with
subpart H, the agency is revising the introductory text of Sec. 61.413
to mirror the introductory text of current Sec. 61.193. This action
will correct a typographical error and revise the introductory text to
indicate that a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating may provide
endorsements related to various certificates, ratings, and privileges
that may be found in places other than a pilot's logbook.
Section 61.109: The FAA is also correcting an inadvertent oversight
in Sec. 61.109(j) introductory text by adding the words ``of
operation'' after the words ``solo flight training in the areas.''
IV. Paperwork Reduction Act
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3507(d)), the FAA submitted a copy of the new information collection
requirements in this final rule to the Office of Management and Budget
for its review. Affected parties do not have to comply with the
information collection requirements until the FAA publishes in the
Federal Register the control number assigned by OMB for these
information 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 FAA has determined that there are no new information collection
requirements associated with posting pilots' names on the Light-Sport
Standardization Branch's Web site, as that action is being taken to
verify compliance with the 2004 final rule. That information collection
requirement previously was approved under OMB Control Number 2120-0690.
Further, airmens' names are already publicly available on the FAA's Web
site.
Information collection requirements associated with the amendment
to paragraph (a) of Sec. 91.417 Maintenance records to require owners
and operators of special light-sport aircraft (SLSAs) to retain a
record of the current status of applicable safety directives and
transfer that information at the time of the sale of that aircraft is a
new information collection requirement. Virtually all of the comments
received on this change were favorable. However, one commenter opposed
the proposed change. The commenter did not object to keeping a record
of the status of applicable safety directives, but opposed the FAA's
enforcing compliance. The FAA notes that paragraph (b)(4) of Sec.
91.327 Aircraft having a special airworthiness certificate in the
light-sport category: Operating limitations requires operators of SLSAs
to comply with all applicable safety directives. The FAA is taking
action to ensure that owners and operators of SLSAs can readily
determine the current status of safety directives applicable to their
aircraft. The FAA is therefore adopting the change as proposed.
A summary of the new information collection requirement under Sec.
91.417 is as follows.
Use: The information will be used by owners and operators of SLSAs
to determine the current status of safety directives applicable to
their aircraft. In addition, the information will be used to enable
safety inspectors, in situations such as accident investigations, to
determine whether required maintenance actions were accomplished on
SLSAs.
Respondents: There are currently 953 registered SLSAs (expected to
increase by 2.86 percent per year). However, the FAA does not know the
exact numbers of owners and operators. The FAA expects the number of
owners and operators would be fewer than 953.
Frequency: Owners and operators of SLSAs would retain and transfer
records on the status of safety directives only when safety directives
have been issued on their SLSAs. The FAA estimates that it would take
an owner operator 2 hours per year to comply with the requirement.
Annual Burden Estimate
There would be no annualized cost to the Federal government. For
owners and operators, the total hour burden would be 21,688 hours over
a 10-year period. The average number of hours each year would be 2,169,
computed as follows:
[[Page 5218]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Hours per Total hour
Year SLSA aircraft aircraft burden
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010............................................................ 953 2 1906
2011............................................................ 980 2 1960
2012............................................................ 1008 2 2016
2013............................................................ 1037 2 2074
2014............................................................ 1066 2 2132
2015............................................................ 1096 2 2192
2016............................................................ 1127 2 2254
2017............................................................ 1159 2 2318
2018............................................................ 1192 2 2384
2019............................................................ 1226 2 2452
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... .............. .............. 21688
===============================================
Average..................................................... .............. .............. 2169
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The total cost burden, assuming the value of an owner or operator's
time is $31.50 per hour, would be $683,200 ($472,400 discounted) over a
10-year period.
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.
V. International Compatibility
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has
determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices
that correspond to these regulations.
VI. Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination,
International Trade Impact Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment
A. Regulatory Evaluation Summary
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 proposed rule. We suggest readers seeking
greater detail read the full regulatory evaluation, a copy of which we
have placed in the docket for this rulemaking.
In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined that this 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'' as defined in DOT's
Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; (5) will not
create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States; 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.
Costs and Benefits
The total cost of this rule will be approximately $683,000
($472,000 discounted). This cost is due to the provision of the rule
that will require owners and operators to retain a record of the
current status of applicable safety directives and to transfer that
information at the time of sale of the aircraft. This rule will benefit
sport pilots by establishing more appropriate training requirements and
eliminating unnecessary endorsements. It will also benefit pilots of
powered parachutes and weight-shift-control aircraft by allowing them
to fly at lower altitudes, enabling them to more fully utilize the
operational characteristics of their aircraft. Additionally, this rule
will increase the maximum altitude at which sport pilots (or student
pilots seeking sport pilot privileges) may fly, up to a maximum of
10,000 ft MSL or 2,000 ft AGL, whichever is higher.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 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 regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so
certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The
certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for
this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.
This final rule will impose negligible costs on individuals who are
or are in the process of becoming sport pilots.
[[Page 5219]]
While owners of special light-sport aircraft may experience a small
cost with regard to the final rule's requirement to hold and transfer
applicable safety directives at the time of an aircraft's sale, these
costs are minimal. Moreover, most of these individuals fly for sport or
recreation, and therefore the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply
to them. However, the rule will also affect flight instructors with a
sport pilot rating who provide instruction as a business endeavor, and
in this case the Regulatory Flexibility Act does apply. Still, this
final rule will impose only negligible costs on flight instructors with
a sport pilot rating. Therefore as the FAA Administrator, I certify
that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
C. International Trade Impact Assessment
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic
objective, such the protection of safety, and does not operate in a
manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. 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
will have only a domestic impact and therefore will not create
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States.
D. 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
(in 1995 dollars) 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 $136.1 million in lieu of $100
million. This final rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore,
the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.
VII. 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 will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the
relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, and, therefore, does not have federalism implications.
VIII. 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 307(k) and involves no extraordinary
circumstances.
IX. Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution,
or Use
The FAA 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, and it is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy.
X. 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. Be 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 19477-19478) or you may
visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
XI. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996 requires 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 your local FAA official, or
the person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at
the beginning of the preamble. 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 43
Aircraft, Aviation safety.
14 CFR Part 61
Aircraft, Airmen, Teachers.
14 CFR Part 91
Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
14 CFR Part 141
Airmen, Educational facilities, Schools.
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 43--MAINTENANCE, PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE, REBUILDING, AND
ALTERATION
0
1. The authority citation for part 43 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44703, 44705, 44707,
44711, 44713, 44717, 44725.
0
2. Amend Sec. 43.1 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 43.1 Applicability.
* * * * *
(b) This part does not apply to--
(1) Any aircraft for which the FAA has issued an experimental
certificate, unless the FAA has previously issued a different kind of
airworthiness certificate for that aircraft; or
[[Page 5220]]
(2) Any aircraft for which the FAA has issued an experimental
certificate under the provisions of Sec. 21.191 (i)(3) of this
chapter, and the aircraft was previously issued a special airworthiness
certificate in the light-sport category under the provisions of Sec.
21.190 of this chapter.
* * * * *
PART 61--CERTIFICATION: PILOTS, FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS, AND GROUND
INSTRUCTORS
0
3. 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
4. Amend Sec. 61.52 by revising paragraphs (a) introductory text, (b),
(c)(2) and (c)(3), and adding paragraph (c)(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 61.52 Use of aeronautical experience obtained in ultralight
vehicles.
(a) Before January 31, 2012, a person may use aeronautical
experience obtained in an ultralight vehicle to meet the requirements
for the following certificates and ratings issued under this part:
* * * * *
(b) Before January 31, 2012, a person may use aeronautical
experience obtained in an ultralight vehicle to meet the provisions of
Sec. 61.69.
(c) * * *
(2) Document and log that aeronautical experience in accordance
with the provisions for logging aeronautical experience specified by an
FAA-recognized ultralight organization and in accordance with the
provisions for logging pilot time in aircraft as specified in Sec.
61.51;
(3) Obtain the aeronautical experience in a category and class of
vehicle corresponding to the rating or privilege sought; and
(4) Provide the FAA with a certified copy of his or her ultralight
pilot records from an FAA-recognized ultralight organization, that --
(i) Document that he or she is a registered ultralight pilot with
that FAA-recognized ultralight organization; and
(ii) Indicate that he or she is recognized to operate the category
and class of aircraft for which sport pilot privileges are sought.
0
5. Amend Sec. 61.63 by revising paragraphs (b)(4) and (c)(4) to read
as follows:
Sec. 61.63 Additional aircraft ratings (other than on an airline
transport pilot certificate).
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) Need not take an additional knowledge test, provided the
applicant holds an airplane, rotorcraft, powered-lift, weight-shift-
control aircraft, powered parachute, or airship rating at that pilot
certificate level.
(c) * * *
(4) Need not take an additional knowledge test, provided the
applicant holds an airplane, rotorcraft, powered-lift, weight-shift-
control aircraft, powered parachute, or airship rating at that pilot
certificate level.
* * * * *
0
6. Amend Sec. 61.89 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (c)(3);
0
b. Removing the period from the end of paragraph (c)(4) and adding a
semi-colon in its place; and
0
c. Adding paragraph (c)(5).
The revision and addition read as follows:
Sec. 61.89 General limitations.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(3) At an altitude of more than 10,000 feet MSL or 2,000 feet AGL,
whichever is higher;
* * * * *
(5) Of a light-sport aircraft without having received the
applicable ground training, flight training, and instructor
endorsements specified in Sec. 61.327 (a) and (b).
0
7. Amend Sec. 61.93 by revising paragraphs (e)(9), (e)(12), (h)(9),
(k)(9), and (k)(11) to read as follows:
Sec. 61.93 Solo cross-country flight requirements.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(9) Use of radios for VFR navigation and two-way communication,
except that a student pilot seeking a sport pilot certificate must only
receive and log flight training on the use of radios installed in the
aircraft to be flown;
* * * * *
(12) Control and maneuvering solely by reference to flight
instruments, including straight and level flight, turns, descents,
climbs, use of radio aids, and ATC directives. For student pilots
seeking a sport pilot certificate, the provisions of this paragraph
only apply when receiving training for cross-country flight in an
airplane that has a VH greater than 87 knots CAS.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(9) Use of radios for VFR navigation and two-way communication,
except that a student pilot seeking a sport pilot certificate must only
receive and log flight training on the use of radios installed in the
aircraft to be flown; and
* * * * *
(k) * * *
(9) Use of radios for VFR navigation and two-way communication,
except that a student pilot seeking a sport pilot certificate must only
receive and log flight training on the use of radios installed in the
aircraft to be flown;
* * * * *
(11) Control of the airship solely by reference to flight
instruments, except for a student pilot seeking a sport pilot
certificate; and
* * * * *
0
8. Amend Sec. 61.109 by:
0
a. Amending paragraph (j) introductory text by adding the words ``of
operation'' after the words ``solo flight training in the areas;''
0
b. Removing the word ``and'' at the end of paragraphs (i)(3) and
(j)(3);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (i)(4)(ii) and (j)(2)(i);
0
d. Adding the word ``and'' to the end of paragraph (j)(4)(i);
0
e. Removing paragraph (j)(4)(iii); and
0
f. Adding paragraphs (i)(5) and (j)(5).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 61.109 Aeronautical experience.
* * * * *
(i) * * *
(4) * * *
(ii) Twenty solo takeoffs and landings to a full stop (with each
landing involving a flight in a traffic pattern) at an airport; and
(5) Three takeoffs and landings (with each landing involving a
flight in the traffic pattern) in an aircraft at an airport with an
operating control tower.
(j) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) One cross-country flight of over 75 nautical miles total
distance that includes a point of landing that is a straight-line
distance of more than 50 nautical miles from the original point of
departure; and
* * * * *
(5) Three takeoffs and landings (with each landing involving a
flight in the traffic pattern) in an aircraft at an airport with an
operating control tower.
* * * * *
0
9. Amend Sec. 61.113 by:
0
a. Amending paragraph (a) by removing the words ``paragraphs (b)
through (g)'' and adding in their place the words ``paragraphs (b)
through (h)''; and
0
b. Adding paragraph (h) to read as follows:
[[Page 5221]]
Sec. 61.113 Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in
command.
* * * * *
(h) A private pilot may act as pilot in command for the purpose of
conducting a production flight test in a light-sport aircraft intended
for certification in the light-sport category under Sec. 21.190 of
this chapter, provided that--
(1) The aircraft is a powered parachute or a weight-shift-control
aircraft;
(2) The person has at least 100 hours of pilot-in-command time in
the category and class of aircraft flown; and
(3) The person is familiar with the processes and procedures
applicable to the conduct of production flight testing, to include
operations conducted under a special flight permit and any associated
operating limitations.
Sec. 61.301 [Amended]
0
10. Amend Sec. 61.301 by removing paragraph (a)(7).
0
11. Amend Sec. 61.303 by:
0
a. Removing the words ``light sport'' adding the words ``light-sport''
in their place in the introductory text of paragraphs (a)(1)(ii)(A),
(a)(1)(iii)(A), (a)(2)(i)(A), (a)(2)(ii)(A), and (a)(2)(iii)(A); and
0
b. Revising the introductory text of paragraphs (a)(1)(i)(A),
(a)(2)(i)(A), (a)(3)(i)(A), (a)(3)(ii)(A), and (a)(3)(iii)(A), and
paragraph (a)(3)(ii)(A)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 61.303 If I want to operate a light-sport aircraft, what
operating limits and endorsement requirements in this subpart must I
comply with?
(a) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you hold And you hold Then you may operate And
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) * * *......................... (i) * * *............ (A) Any light-sport aircraft for * * * * *
which you hold the endorsements
required for its category and class.
(2) * * *......................... (i) * * *............ (A) Any light-sport aircraft for * * * * *
which you hold the endorsements
required for its category and
class.
(3) * * *......................... (i) * * *............ (A) Any light-sport glider or * * * * *
balloon for which you hold the
endorsements required for its
category and class.
(ii) * * *........... (A) Any light-sport glider or (1) You do not have to hold any of the endorsements
balloon in that category and class. required by this subpart, nor do you have to comply
with the limitations in Sec. 61.315.
(iii) * * *.......... (A) Any light-sport glider or * * * * *
balloon, only if you hold the
endorsements required in Sec.
61.321 for its category and class
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Sec. 61.309 [Amended]
0
12. Amend Sec. 61.309 introductory text by removing the words ``Except
as specified in Sec. 61.329, to'' and adding the word ``To'' to the
beginning of the sentence.
Sec. 61.311 [Amended]
0
13. Amend Sec. 61.311 introductory text by removing the words ``Except
as specified in Sec. 61.329, to'' and adding in their place the word
``To'' to the beginning of the sentence.
0
14. Amend Sec. 61.313 by:
0
a. Removing the words ``Except as specified in Sec. 61.329, use'' from
the introductory text and adding the word ``Use'' to the beginning of
the sentence;
0
b. Removing the numeral ``3'' and adding in its place the numeral ``2''
in paragraphs (a)(1)(iv), (d)(1)(iv), (e)(1)(iv), and (h)(1)(iv);
0
c. Removing the numeral ``3'' and adding in its place the numeral ``1''
in paragraphs (f)(1)(ii), (g)(1)(v);
0
d. Revising paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) and (c)(1)(ii); and
0
e. Revising paragraph (g)(1) introductory text.
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 61.313 What aeronautical experience must I have to apply for a
sport pilot certificate?
* * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you are applying for a sport
pilot certificate with . . . Then you must log at least . . . Which must include at least . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
(b) * * *.......................... (1) * * *............................ * * * * *
(ii) at least 3 training flights
with an authorized instructor on
those areas of operation specified
in Sec. 61.311 in preparation for
the practical test within the
preceding 2 calendar months from
the month of the test.
(c) * * *.......................... (1) * * *............................ * * * * *
(ii) at least 3 training flights
with an authorized instructor on
those areas of operation specified
in Sec. 61.311 in preparation for
the practical test within the
preceding 2 calendar months from
the month of the test.
* * * * * * *
(g) * * *.......................... (1) 12 hours of flight time in a * * * * *
powered parachute, including 10
hours of flight training from an
authorized instructor in a powered
parachute, and at least 2 hours of
solo flight training in the areas of
operation listed in Sec. 61.311.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 5222]]
0
15. Amend Sec. 61.315 by revising paragraphs (c)(11), (c)(14), and
(c)(16) to read as follows:
Sec. 61.315 What are the privileges and limits of my sport pilot
certificate?
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(11) At an altitude of more than 10,000 feet MSL or 2,000 feet AGL,
whichever is higher.
* * * * *
(14) If the aircraft has:
(i) A VH greater than 87 knots CAS, unless you have met
the requirements of Sec. 61.327 (a).
(ii) A VH less than or equal to 87 knots CAS, unless you
have met the requirements of Sec. 61.327 (b) or have logged pilot-in-
command time in an aircraft with a VH less than or equal to
87 knots CAS before March 3, 2010.
* * * * *
(16) Contrary to any limit on your pilot certificate or airman
medical certificate, or any other limit or endorsement from an
authorized instructor.
* * * * *
Sec. 61.319 [Removed and reserved]
0
16. Remove and reserve Sec. 61.319.
Sec. 61.323 [Removed and reserved]
0
17. Remove and reserve Sec. 61.323.
0
18. Revise Sec. 61.327 to read as follows:
Sec. 61.327 Are there specific endorsement requirements to operate a
light-sport aircraft based on VH?
(a) Except as specified in paragraph (c) of this section, if you
hold a sport pilot certificate and you seek to operate a light-sport
aircraft that has a VH less than or equal to 87 knots CAS
you must--
(1) Receive and log ground and flight training from an authorized
instructor in an aircraft that has a VH less than or equal
to 87 knots CAS; and
(2) Receive a logbook endorsement from the authorized instructor
who provided the training specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section
certifying that you are proficient in the operation of light-sport
aircraft with a VH less than or equal to 87 knots CAS.
(b) If you hold a sport pilot certificate and you seek to operate a
light-sport aircraft that has a VH greater than 87 knots CAS
you must--
(1) Receive and log ground and flight training from an authorized
instructor in an aircraft that has a VH greater than 87
knots CAS; and
(2) Receive a logbook endorsement from the authorized instructor
who provided the training specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section
certifying that you are proficient in the operation of light-sport
aircraft with a VH greater than 87 knots CAS.
(c) The training and endorsements required by paragraph (a) of this
section are not required if you have logged flight time as pilot in
command of an aircraft with a VH less than or equal to 87
knots CAS prior to March 3, 2010.
Sec. 61.329 [Removed]
0
19. Remove Sec. 61.329.r
Sec. 61.401 [Amended]
0
20. Amend Sec. 61.401 by removing paragraph (a)(6).
0
21. Amend Sec. 61.413 by revising the introductory text and paragraph
(i) to read as follows:
Sec. 61.413 What are the privileges of my flight instructor
certificate with a sport pilot rating?
If you hold a flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot
rating, you are authorized, within the limits of your certificate and
rating, to provide training and endorsements that are required for, and
relate to--
* * * * *
(i) A proficiency check for an additional category or class
privilege for a sport pilot certificate or a flight instructor
certificate with a sport pilot rating.
0
22. Amend Sec. 61.415 by revising the introductory text and paragraphs
(a)(1) and (g), removing paragraph (e), redesignating paragraph (f) as
paragraph (e), and adding new paragraph (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 61.415 What are the limits of a flight instructor certificate
with a sport pilot rating?
If you hold a flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot
rating, you may only provide flight training in a light-sport aircraft
and are subject to the following limits:
(a) * * *
(1) A sport pilot certificate with applicable category and class
privileges or a pilot certificate with the applicable category and
class rating; and
* * * * *
(f) You may not provide training in a light-sport aircraft with a
VH less than or equal to 87 knots CAS unless you have the
endorsement specified in Sec. 61.327 (a), or are otherwise authorized
to operate that light-sport aircraft.
(g) You may not provide training in a light-sport aircraft with a
VH greater than 87 knots CAS unless you have the endorsement
specified in Sec. 61.327 (b), or are otherwise authorized to operate
that light-sport aircraft.
* * * * *
0
23. Amend Sec. 61.423 by removing paragraph (a)(2)(iii)(B),
redesignating paragraph (a)(2)(iii)(C) as (a)(2)(iii)(B) and removing
the word ``and'' from the end of the paragraph, adding new paragraph
(a)(2)(iii)(C), and revising paragraph (a)(2)(iv) to read as follows:
Sec. 61.423 What are the recordkeeping requirements for a flight
instructor with a sport pilot rating?
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) * * *
(C) A light-sport aircraft with a VH less than or equal
to 87 knots CAS; and
* * * * *
(iv) Each person whose logbook you have endorsed as proficient to
provide flight training in an additional category or class of light-
sport aircraft.
* * * * *
0
24. Amend Sec. 61.429 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 61.429 May I exercise the privileges of a flight instructor
certificate with a sport pilot rating if I hold a flight instructor
certificate with another rating?
* * * * *
(c) If you want to exercise the privileges of your flight
instructor certificate in a category or class of light-sport aircraft
for which you are not currently rated, you must meet all applicable
requirements to provide training in an additional category or class of
light-sport aircraft specified in Sec. 61.419.
Sec. 61.431 [Removed]
0
25. Remove Sec. 61.431.
PART 91--GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES
0
26. 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,
[[Page 5223]]
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
27. Amend Sec. 91.119 by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
* * * * *
(d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control
aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or
property on the surface--
(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums
prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each
person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes
specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and
(2) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft may be
operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) of this
section.
0
28. Amend Sec. 91.417 by revising paragraph (a)(2)(v) to read as
follows:
Sec. 91.417 Maintenance records.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(v) The current status of applicable airworthiness directives (AD)
and safety directives including, for each, the method of compliance,
the AD or safety directive number and revision date. If the AD or
safety directive involves recurring action, the time and date when the
next action is required.
* * * * *
PART 141--PILOT SCHOOLS
0
29. The authority citation for part 141 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44703, 44707, 44709,
44711, 45102-45103, 45301-45302.
0
30. Amend Sec. 141.39 by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 141.39 Aircraft.
(a) * * *
(2) Is certificated with a standard airworthiness certificate, a
primary airworthiness certificate, or a special airworthiness
certificate in the light-sport category unless the FAA determines
otherwise because of the nature of the approved course;
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, DC, on January 22, 2010.
J. Randolph Babbitt,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2010-2056 Filed 1-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P