Faa Mosaic 2023-14425
Faa Mosaic 2023-14425
Faa Mosaic 2023-14425
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Parts 1, 21, 22, 36, 43, 45, 61, 65, 91, and 119
RIN 2120-AL50
(DOT).
SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to amend rules for the manufacture, certification,
would enable enhancements in safety and performance and would increase privileges
under a number of sport pilot and light-sport aircraft rules. These enhancements include
increasing suitability for flight training, limited aerial work, and personal travel. This
proposed rule would expand what aircraft sport pilots may operate. This NPRM also
includes proposals to amend the special purpose operations for restricted category
aircraft; amend the duration, eligible purposes, and operating limitations for experimental
Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Room W12-140, West
140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE,
regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions for accessing the docket or go
to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
this action, contact James Newberger, Aircraft Certification Service (AIR-632), Federal
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
A. Overview of the Proposed Rule
B. Summary of Costs and Benefits
II. Background
A. History
B. Related Actions
III. Authority for this Rulemaking
IV. Discussion of the Proposal
A. General
B. Revision of Definitions Applicable to the Certification and Operation of Light-Sport
Category Aircraft
C. Expansion of Eligibility for Light-Sport Category Aircraft and Sport Pilots
D. Certification of Light-Sport Category Aircraft
E. Sport Pilot Certification and Privileges
F. Repairman (Light-Sport) Certificates
G. Maintenance
H. Operations
I. Experimental Airworthiness Certificates
J. Restricted Category
K. Noise Certification of Aircraft that Do Not Conform to a Type Certificate
L. Proposed Effective and Compliance Dates
M. Amendments Concerning Import and Export of Aircraft
N. Conforming Amendments
V. Regulatory Notices
A. Regulatory Impact Analysis
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. International Trade Impact Assessment
D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
F. International Compatibility
G. Environmental Analysis
VI. Executive Order Determinations
A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
B. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments
C. Executive Order 13211, Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
D. Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperarion
VII. Additional Information
A. Comments Invited
B. Confidential Business Information
C. Electronic Access and Filing
D. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
I. Executive Summary
The FAA proposes to amend rules related to the certification and operation of
light-sport category aircraft. This rule would modernize the regulatory approach to light-
technology and use cases for this type of aircraft. The proposal is designed to respond to
the evolving needs of this sector and provide for future growth and innovation without
compromising safety.
In 2004, the FAA published the final rule titled “Certification of Aircraft and
Airmen for the Operation of Light-Sport Aircraft,” which established rules for the
(69 FR 44771; July 27, 2004) (hereafter “the 2004 final rule”). That rule provided for the
operation and manufacture of aircraft weighing less than 1,320 pounds (or 1,430 pounds
for aircraft intended for operation on water). These “light-sport” aircraft included
gyroplanes. The FAA bases the rigor of certification requirements and operational
limitations on a safety continuum that assesses the exposure of the public to risk for each
aircraft and operation; as the risk increases due to increased operating privileges and
In establishing the 2004 final rule, the FAA intentionally established a rigor of
certification for light-sport category aircraft between normal category aircraft and aircraft
holding experimental certificates in view of intended operating privileges and aircraft
capability. This preamble uses experimental amateur-built aircraft for the safety
continuum discussions since they are similar to light-sport category aircraft in this
proposal. Amateur-built aircraft are largely used for recreational purposes, are flown by
sport pilots and pilots with higher grade certificates, and generally have the same flight
envelope and occupancy limits. Amateur-built aircraft are below light-sport category
aircraft on the safety continuum because of their lower safety assurance for aircraft
design and being subject to stringent operating limitations. Amateur-built aircraft have no
instruments, equipment, and systems. This proposed rule would prescribe design
requirements for light-sport category aircraft for these items. This proposed rule would
also allow light-sport aircraft to conduct aerial work operations that have been authorized
by the manufacturer for compensation or hire. Amateur-built aircraft are limited to non-
Since the 2004 rule, light-sport category aircraft have shown a lower accident rate
than experimental amateur-built airplanes. The FAA considers that the successful safety
the 2004 final rule and provides support for expanding the scope of certification for light-
sport category aircraft and operations. As a result, the FAA identified this proposed rule
as an opportunity to expand the 2004 final rule to include a wider variety of aircraft,
increase performance, and increase operating privileges to extend these safety benefits to
more aircraft. The FAA intends for these expansions to increase safety by encouraging
category aircraft, to choose aircraft higher on the safety continuum and, therefore, meet
operations for restricted category aircraft that the FAA has previously approved under
discretion provided in § 21.25(b)(7). In addition, this rule would amend the duration,
eligible purposes, and operating limitations for special airworthiness certificates issued
The FAA has identified proposals to improve both the safety and functionality of
light-sport category aircraft and light-sport category kit-built aircraft. This rule would
amend aircraft, pilot, maintenance, and operational requirements to increase both the
safety and performance of these aircraft while mitigating risk. The FAA recognizes that
this is a balancing act – where the risk is increased due to greater capability in one area,
sport certificated aircraft. As a fundamental matter, the proposal would restructure how
certification requirements for light-sport category aircraft are presented in the FAA’s
light-sport category aircraft, sport pilot certificates under part 61, subpart J, and
design limitations included in the definition of light-sport aircraft in § 1.1. This proposal
would remove that definition and, in its place, write performance-based standards for
aircraft and airman certification into 14 CFR parts 21, 61, and 65, where these
requirements for other types of aircraft and airman certification reside. This would make
the FAA’s regulatory approach to light-sport category aircraft more consistent with its
Another important change proposed under this rule would eliminate the weight
limits for light-sport category aircraft. To enable the design and manufacture of
light-sport category aircraft that are safe to fly with increased capacity and ability, this
proposal would apply new design and manufacturing requirements. This would allow
growth and innovation within performance-based safety parameters. This proposal also
expands aircraft that sport pilots can operate. Under this proposal, sport pilots could
operate airplanes designed with up to four seats, even though they would remain limited
to operating with only one passenger. Finally, the proposal would change the name of the
certificate would apply to existing and new types of aircraft certificated in the light-sport
category, such as rotorcraft and powered-lift. Related provisions would update the
The FAA is also proposing regulations related to noise for light-sport aircraft,
expanding applicability of part 36 noise limits. To provide flexibility and reduce burdens
of compliance with these noise limits, the FAA is proposing options for compliance:
industry consensus standards. The FAA expects that any consensus standards would not
be limited to physical measurements of noise taken during test flights. They might instead
proposes to expand the kinds of operations that can be performed by light-sport category
aircraft. Specifically, this proposal would permit light-sport category aircraft to be used in
certain aerial work operations for aircraft that meet the applicable consensus standard for
that operation.
regulations. The proposed regulations create new operating purposes for former military
and kit-built aircraft and amend the operating purpose for market survey. The proposed
regulations also include new operating limitations, an increased certificate duration, and
new noise requirements. The FAA is further proposing amendments related to restricted
category aircraft. This NPRM also includes proposed changes to right of way and
The proposed rule largely expands opportunities for light-sport category aircraft.
These expansions may result in safety and recreational benefits; there may also be
associated design and production costs. The FAA expects requirements to comply with
noise standards would be minimal using industry consensus standards. The FAA also
does not anticipate more than minimal incremental costs for other provisions of the
proposed rule, such as training, and does not have data to estimate any cost savings, such
as those that could result from operating certain light-sport category aircraft in aerial
II. Background
A. History
In the 2004 final rule, the FAA reasoned that new rules for light-sport category
aircraft were necessary to address advancing sport and recreational aviation technology,
the lack of regulations for existing aircraft, and several petitions for exemptions and
rulemaking. The 2004 final rule provided for the manufacture of safe and economical
certificated aircraft beyond the weight limit permitted by part 103; established the sport
pilot certificate; and allowed certificated pilots to operate light-sport category aircraft for
sport and recreation, carry one passenger, and conduct flight training and towing in a safe
manner. The resulting regulations also placed restrictions on light-sport category aircraft
design and performance requirements including an aircraft weight limit of less than 1,320
pounds (1,430 pounds for aircraft intended for operation on water). Light-sport aircraft
include airplanes, gliders, balloons, powered parachutes, weight-shift-control aircraft, and
gyroplanes.
The FAA has granted multiple exemptions for light-sport aircraft based on safety
• Retractable landing gear to enable takeoffs and landings from land and
water;
and
The FAA also amended rules on two occasions for light-sport aircraft and airmen.
In 2007, the FAA amended the definition of light-sport aircraft to permit development of
lighter-than-air light-sport aircraft and allow retractable landing gear for light-sport
aircraft intended for operation on water. In 2010, the FAA also amended rules for persons
holding a sport pilot certificate and flight instructors with a sport pilot rating to address
airman certification and operational issues that arose since the 2004 final rule. Detailed
(LSAMA) Final Report, dated May 17, 2010 (the LSAMA Final Report), following its
the 2004 final rule. On June 28, 2012, the FAA published a notification in the Federal
Register (77 FR 38463) (the “LSAMA Notification”) describing its concerns identified in
the aircraft for which they had issued a statement of compliance did, in
Considering these concerns, the FAA established an audit program under FAA
Order 8130.36, Special Light-Sport Aircraft Audit Program, for conducting regular audits
safety enhancements under this NPRM for new training requirements for manufacturer’s
employees who are responsible for compliance findings and compliance statements are
based on concerns described in the LSAMA Notification and are discussed in sections
aircraft. According to FAA Registry data as of January 2023, over 200 models and 5,321
aircraft have been designed and manufactured under the 2004 final rule, distributed
• 4,459 airplanes.
• 70 gliders.
sport pilots, 1,000 sport pilot instructors, 1,500 repairman (light-sport aircraft) with a
maintenance rating, and 10,000 repairman (light-sport aircraft) with an inspection rating
The FAA views the safety record of light-sport category aircraft operations as
eligibility for aircraft certification, airmen certifications, and related operating privileges.
From working with applicants for certification of aircraft, pilots, and repairman of light-
sport aircraft since the 2004 final rule took effect, the FAA has identified many proposals
for amending those rules to enhance safety, performance, and privileges for operating
certification and operations of other aircraft that hold special airworthiness certificates.
Detailed discussion of the safety record of light-sport category aircraft and these
B. Related Actions
As previously stated, the FAA granted multiple exemptions to the 2004 final rule
• Retractable landing gear to enable takeoffs and landings from land and
water.
pounds.
Data, arguments, and findings that enabled the FAA to grant these exemptions are used as
On April 19, 2007, the FAA published the final rule “Changes to the Definition of
landing gear for light-sport aircraft intended for operation on water. To date, the FAA has
NPRM proposes to permit retractable landing gear for all operations to enhance safety
more broadly within the light aircraft community by making light-sport category aircraft
and Airmen for the Operation of Light-Sport Aircraft; Modifications to Rules for Sport
Pilots and Flight Instructors with a Sport Pilot Rating” (75 FR 5204; Correction
published on March 30, 2010, 75 FR 15609) (hereinafter the 2010 final rule). The
purpose of the 2010 final rule was to amend rules for sport pilots and flight instructors
with a sport pilot rating to address airman certification and operational issues that arose
since regulations for the certification of aircraft and airmen for the operation of light-
On December 12, 2022, the FAA hosted a listening session with representatives
of the light-sport aircraft industry. A record of that meeting, including participants and
their feedback, is included on the docket for this proposed rule, which is available at
FAA-2023-1377. Importantly, that feedback replicated what the FAA has learned about
The FAA’s authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in title 49 of the
United States Code (U.S.C.). Subtitle I, section 106 describes the authority of the FAA
Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the
U.S.C. 106(f) and (g), which establishes the authority of the Administrator to promulgate
and revise regulations and rules related to aviation safety. This rulemaking is also
promulgated under 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(2)(A) and (a)(5), which provides that the FAA
Administrator shall promote safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations and minimum standards: (1) in the interest of safety for inspecting, servicing,
and overhauling aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, and appliances, and (2) that the
FAA finds necessary for safety in air commerce and national security; 49 U.S.C. 44703,
which provides the general authority of the Administrator to prescribe regulations for the
issuance of airman certificates when the Administrator finds, after investigation, that an
individual is qualified for, and physically able to perform the duties related to, the
position authorized by the certificate; 49 U.S.C. 40103(b)(1) and (2), which directs the
FAA to issue regulations: (1) To ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of
airspace; and (2) to govern the flight of aircraft for purposes of navigating, protecting and
identifying aircraft, and protecting individuals and property on the ground; and 49 U.S.C.
44715, which provides the Administrator the authority to prescribe regulations to control
and abate aircraft noise and sonic boom. These proposed regulations are within the scope
of those authorities because they are proposing to amend rules for the manufacture,
certification, and to amend rules related to sport pilot and repairman certification.
section 581 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-254), which authorizes
certain aircraft holding experimental certificates to conduct space support vehicle flights.
Section 581 amends 49 U.S.C. 44737 to allow the operator of an aircraft with a special
airworthiness certification in the experimental category to operate the aircraft for the
purpose of conducting a space support vehicle flight and conduct such flight under such
A. General
changes would enhance the safety, performance, and operating privileges of light-sport
category aircraft. This proposal would also expand the types and characteristics of
aircraft that sport pilots may operate. The proposed changes would increase the suitability
of light-sport category aircraft for flight training, limited aerial work, and personal travel.
Additionally, the proposal would further enable the manufacture of safe and economical
light-sport category aircraft. The FAA also proposes to update the list of approved
operations for restricted category aircraft; amend the duration, eligible purposes, and
The FAA acknowledged in the 2004 final rule that “there are areas where only
time and experience will determine whether these regulatory provisions meet the FAA’s
published that rule, the FAA has increased its understanding of these aircraft. The 2004
final rule was successful in encouraging innovation in light-sport aircraft; over 200
models and 5,300 aircraft have been designed and manufactured under the 2004 final
rule. The FAA has also considered several requests for exemption from the light-sport
aircraft rules, granting eleven of them. This proposal would amend the rules for these
aircraft to improve safety and performance and increase the scope of operations that may
2. A Safety Continuum
The FAA bases the rigor of certification requirements and operational limitations
on a safety continuum that looks at the exposure of the public to risk for each aircraft and
operation; as the risk increases due to increased operating privileges and aircraft
capability, the requirements and corresponding rigor of requirements and procedures for
aircraft and airman certification increase. In establishing the 2004 final rule, the FAA
intended operating privileges and aircraft capability. Normal category airplanes can
weigh up to 19,000 lbs. and carry 19 persons. Accordingly, their certification rigor is
going to be greater than an aircraft that has two to four seats because an accident would
result in greater fatalities. However, to mitigate this risk, the part 23 airplane must be
more stringent airworthiness standards, the FAA grants greater operating privileges.
Therefore, since light-sport category aircraft subject fewer people to risk and have fewer
operating privileges when compared to part 23 airplanes, the 2004 final rule and this
aircraft in the 2004 final rule, the FAA expected that light-sport category aircraft fatal
accident rates would fall between experimental and normal category aircraft. To validate
this expectation against fatal accident data, the FAA compared data for light-sport
category airplanes and other aircraft categories or types that were most similar to light-
engines, and fixed landing gear; and small normal category airplanes with single,
reciprocating engines, and fixed landing gear. The fatal accident rate data compiled since
2011 for these aircraft1 show that light-sport category aircraft fatal accident rates fall
between experimental and normal category aircraft, validating that the rigor of
certification requirements and procedures of the 2004 final rule falls, as intended,
between experimental and normal category aircraft. This validation also supports
proposals described in this NPRM for modest expansions of eligibility for certification of
light-sport category aircraft, performance limitations for sport pilots, eligibility for
1Light aircraft fatal accident trends are included on the docket at FAA-2023-1377. These trends are shown beginning in 2011 because
of limitations on available data and since ten-year trends seem sufficient for this proposal.
certification of repairman (light-sport), and corresponding operating privileges for
additional but similar operating privileges and risks. As described in section IV.C, the
FAA has also identified other opportunities to improve the safety of light-sport category
to experimental amateur-built airplanes has led the FAA to examine opportunities for
expanding the 2004 final rule to include a wider variety of aircraft, increase performance,
and increase operating privileges. The FAA intends for these expansions to increase
owners to choose, aircraft higher on the safety continuum and, therefore, meet higher
The FAA used the safety continuum to analyze other aircraft as well; in addition
to modifying the requirements for light-sport category aircraft and experimental light-
sport category kit-built aircraft, this rule would also address the operation of other aircraft
that hold special airworthiness certificates. Specifically, the FAA proposes to codify
additional special purpose operations for restricted category aircraft that the FAA has
previously approved under the discretion provided in part 21. In addition, this rule would
amend the duration, eligible purposes, and operating limitations for special airworthiness
new experimental purpose for former military aircraft, and codifying a statutory provision
for space support vehicle flights. The FAA has referred to this combined set of proposals
proposals primarily concern the regulation of aircraft that operate under special
airworthiness certificates.
3. Expanding Light-Sport Category Aircraft and Related Provisions for Airman,
the definition affects the scope of certification for light-sport category aircraft, sport
pilots, and repairman (light-sport aircraft). Section 21.190 applies this definition to limit
the scope of aircraft that may be issued a special airworthiness certificate for light-sport
category aircraft. Part 61 uses this definition to specify which aircraft a sport pilot may
operate. The FAA notes that, per part 61, a sport pilot may operate any aircraft that meets
the definition of light-sport aircraft, including certain normal category, primary category,
light-sport category, and experimental aircraft. This proposal would eliminate this
definition of light-sport aircraft in § 1.1 and would instead specify separate requirements
for aircraft, pilot, and repairman certification in 14 CFR part 21, 61, or 65, respectively.
Although the FAA considered retaining and expanding this definition, deleting the
definition and establishing separate certification requirements in part 21, 61, or 65 would
better align with the location of such requirements for other categories of aircraft and for
other airmen.
Aircraft
light-sport category aircraft with weights that exceed those in the definition of light-sport
aircraft. These grants of exemption were based on FAA findings that relieving weight
limits would enable significant safety enhancements not contemplated in the original
regulations, reduce the likelihood of fatal accidents, and foster innovation in light-sport
category aircraft. Consistent with the FAA’s analysis of the safe operations accomplished
under those exemptions, this proposal would eliminate the weight limits for light-sport
category aircraft. As discussed in section IV.C.2, eliminating weight limits for light-sport
• Design airframes that are more rugged for the flight-training environment,
• Allow for greater cabin size to enable greater occupant heights and
weights,
work.2
This proposal would apply new design and manufacturing requirements for light-
sport category aircraft so that light-sport category aircraft are able to fly safely with
increased capacity and ability. The FAA is further proposing to increase airplane stalling
speed to enable increased aircraft weights to enable more robust airframes, installation of
safety enhancing equipage, higher fuel capacity, and more seating capacity. The FAA
gear; allow airplanes with up to 4 seats for increased utility and improved flight training
opportunities; and increase the maximum airspeed for more practical personal travel. This
proposal would require training for manufacturer employees who are responsible for
safety findings and for signing a statement of compliance. This NPRM does not propose
to amend requirements that limit manufacture of kits for light-sport category aircraft for
make and model aircraft that were previously certificated as light-sport category aircraft.
Accordingly, most of the proposals for expanding the eligibility for certification of light-
2The FAA does not explicitly define aerial work; however, the FAA broadly interprets the term to mean work done from the air for
compensation that does not involve the carriage of persons or property.
sport category aircraft would carry over to light-sport category kit-built aircraft. This
proposal would remove the requirement to display the mark “Light-Sport” on light-sport
category aircraft. These proposed changes are discussed in greater detail in section
IV.D.20.
This proposal would also expand what aircraft sport pilots can operate. Under this
proposal, sport pilots could operate heavier aircraft than currently allowed under the § 1.1
definition and airplanes with up to four seats, even though they would remain limited to
carrying only one passenger. This one passenger limitation would also apply to a flight
instructor with a sport pilot rating conducting flight training in a four-seat airplane.
Additionally, this proposal includes expansions to certain proposed sport pilot privileges
through training and endorsements for airplanes that hat have a controllable pitch
propeller, for aircraft with a retractable landing gear, and to conduct night operations.
This proposal would also make corresponding changes to regulations affecting the
privileges and limitations of a flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating. These
This proposal would revise the name of the “repairman certificate (light-sport
repairman certificate (light-sport) for the new, proposed classes of aircraft that could be
certificated in the light-sport category (i.e., helicopter and powered-lift). Additionally, the
proposal would remove the hours-based training requirements for a light-sport repairman
maintenance rating and instead require that applicants complete a training course,
accepted by the FAA, that aligns with the Aviation Mechanic General, Airframe, and
Powerplant Airman Certification Standards (Mechanic ACS). The training course would
be required to include only those subject areas and knowledge, risk management, and
skill elements of the Mechanic ACS that are appropriate to the category of aircraft the
training course covers. The proposal would also codify existing policy for repairman
students with a certificate of completion, and require facilities, equipment, materials, and
instructors that are appropriate to the training course content being taught. These
This proposal would require all repairs performed on light-sport category aircraft
to meet applicable consensus standards, allow minor alterations to be accepted under the
provisions of 14 CFR part 43, and remove the restriction that the Administrator approve
aircraft-towing devices installed on these aircraft. These proposed changes are discussed
certificates for light-sport category aircraft and experimental light-sport aircraft and
aircraft that sport pilots may operate, the FAA proposes to expand the kinds of operations
that can be performed by light-sport category aircraft. Specifically, this proposal would
permit light-sport category aircraft to be used in certain aerial work operations for aircraft
that meet the applicable FAA-accepted consensus standard for that operation. This
proposal would also remove the requirement for owners/operators of light-sport category
aircraft to comply with safety directives issued by the aircraft manufacturer; mandatory
a. Duration
from one to three years. These proposed changes are discussed in greater detail in
section IV.I.1.
aircraft are currently authorized under other experimental certificates. These proposed
This proposal would codify the statutory language in 49 U.S.C. 44740 permitting
category to operate the aircraft for the purpose of conducting a space support vehicle
flight while carrying persons or property for compensation or hire. These proposed
changes are discussed in greater detail in section IV.H.3. Such operations would be
limited to aircraft that takeoff and land at a single launch or reentry site that is operated
by an entity licensed to operate the launch or reentry site under 51 U.S.C. chapter 509;
under 51 U.S.C. chapter 509; and is either a launch vehicle, reentry vehicle, or a
component thereof. These operations would only be allowed to simulate space flight
and development tasks, which require the unique capabilities of the aircraft conducting
the flight.
5. Changes for Restricted Category Aircraft
This proposal would enhance the requirements for the certification of former-
military aircraft in the restricted category by requiring the aircraft to have a service
history with the U.S. Armed Forces. Under the provision in § 21.25(b)(7), the FAA has
approved additional special purpose operations for which restricted category aircraft may
be certificated. Currently, those additional purposes are only listed in FAA policy
documents for type and airworthiness certification of these aircraft. This proposal would
amend § 21.25 to expand the list of special purpose operations for which restricted
This proposal would apply 14 CFR part 36 noise standards to light-sport category
aircraft and experimental light-sport category aircraft certificated after the effective date
of the rule, or that are altered in a manner that changes the noise profile of light-sport
category aircraft and certain experimental light-sport category aircraft. This proposal
would require light-sport category aircraft and certain experimental light-sport category
for the aircraft seeking an airworthiness certificate for a light-sport category aircraft or an
experimental light-sport category aircraft. The FAA anticipates the industry developing
acceptable and appropriate consensus standards for noise that would provide simple, low-
cost methods of compliance with part 36. For example, a modeling-based consensus
standard would be expected to significantly reduce the cost of noise compliance. Not only
would there not be a need to physically test every model (or aircraft) but the proposal
would also allow manufacturers to use predictive analysis to guide and support aircraft
design decisions in earlier phases, avoiding costly future redesign or modifications. The
Category Aircraft
OMB Circular A-119 establishes policy for the Federal use and development of
voluntary consensus standards and conformity assessment activities. Federal goals for
standards that serve national needs, encouraging long-term growth for U.S. enterprises,
with broad participation of interested stakeholders, including manufacturers and the FAA.
Because of the general acceptance and use of consensus standards throughout the
aviation community, this rule proposes a broader definition for consensus standards than
that currently found in § 1.1. The current definition was adopted as part of the 2004 final
rule. As such, the definition for consensus standards currently is only applicable for
certificating light-sport aircraft. The proposed definition would apply to a wider variety
better aligns with the provisions of OMB Circular A-119. The proposed rule would
establish the characteristics that a consensus standard must have to meet the definition of
proposed rule, a consensus standard would need to have been adopted under procedures
which provide an opportunity for input by persons interested and affected by the scope or
provisions of the standard. These persons would also have had to reach substantial
After a consensus standard has been adopted by a consensus standards body, the
FAA would review the standard for acceptance. The FAA typically advises the public of
which is published in the Federal Register. This review and acceptance process is not
intended to restrict industry’s ability to develop consensus standards, but rather to enable
the FAA to advise the public when an industry-developed consensus standard for aircraft
category aircraft that have been developed by ASTM International (ASTM) and accepted
for use by the FAA would meet the proposed definition.3 The current process for
The FAA notes that consensus standards have also been developed to comply
found in amendment 64 of 14 CFR part 23. They serve as a means of compliance to the
regulatory requirements contained in part 23 and have been accepted by the FAA.4
Consensus standards have also been used as a means of compliance for operation of small
unmanned aircraft systems (small UAS) over people under part 107 and remote
3 For example, the FAA published a notice titled “Consensus Standards, Light-Sport Aircraft, Notice No. NOA–21–01” (87 FR 10275;
February 23, 2022) in which the FAA designated ASTM Designation F2245–20, “Standard Specification for Design and Performance
of a Light Sport Airplane” (F2245-20) as a consensus standard that is available and acceptable for use. F2245-20 applies to aircraft
design and, as described in ASTM’s “The Handbook for Standardization,” has been developed with input by a broad array of
interested stakeholders.
4 See 71 FR 12771, 75 FR 58016, 79 FR 78553 concerning electric wiring systems before part 23, amendment 61. For part 23,
performance-based regulations and has also proposed their use as part of the special
airworthiness certification process to comply with the noise requirements in part 36.
Accordingly, the agency determined that it would be appropriate to broaden the current
The revised definition would require that the consensus standards process include
participants that are impacted by the consensus standards. For the development of these
development process could consist of, but not be limited to, aircraft manufacturers, pilots,
maintainers, aviation associations, and government regulators. The FAA contends that
performance-based regulations should provide both the FAA and industry with a means
to rapidly adapt to changing technology and better respond to market conditions while
standard from § 1.1. Consensus standard is a commonly accepted term used by industry
and across5 the Federal Government and may not require a definition in § 1.1 to be
definition of consensus standard is limited to the context of light sport aircraft and does
not recognize the breadth of using consensus standards in aviation today. The FAA
requests comment on whether the FAA should remove the definition of consensus
5Such as pursuant to the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995, and OMB Circular A-119, Federal
Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities.
2. Removal of Definition of Light-Sport Aircraft from 14 CFR 1.1
helicopter or powered-lift that, since its original certification, has continued to meet
several designated parameters (for example, aircraft weight, seating, stalling speed,
maximum speed, engine type, propeller type, etc.). Uniquely, the definition affects the
scope of certification for light-sport category aircraft, sport pilots, and repairman (light-
sport aircraft). Section 21.190 applies this definition to limit the scope of aircraft that may
be issued a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category. Part 61 uses this
definition to specify which aircraft a sport pilot may operate. Because of the common
definition, all aircraft certificated under § 21.190 are light-sport aircraft and thus can be
flown by sport pilots. However, a sport pilot is not limited to only § 21.190 aircraft and
may operate any aircraft that meets the definition of light-sport aircraft, including certain
The FAA is proposing to remove the definition of light-sport aircraft from § 1.1
definition should define a term used in a particular title, chapter, or part of the CFR.
aircraft would be relocated with modifications into proposed § 21.190 and part 22, while
requirements establishing the parameters for the aircraft in which a sport pilot may act as
consensus standards, as well as to identify aircraft that can be safely operated by pilots
exercising the privileges of a sport pilot certificate. Currently, under § 61.315, sport pilots
are only permitted to operate aircraft that meet the definition of a light-sport aircraft as
defined in § 1.1. Replacing the § 1.1 definition with separate certification requirements
for aircraft, pilots, and repairman would allow more flexibility using the proposed
proposed rule would decouple certification requirements for light-sport category aircraft
certification and sport pilot certification. One effect of placing the proposed requirements
requirements is that an aircraft certificated in the light-sport category under § 21.190 may
exceed the parameters of an aircraft that a sport pilot may act as PIC of under the separate
certificate with a sport pilot rating would no longer be restricted to operating light-sport
aircraft as defined in § 1.1. In this proposed rule, these airmen would be able to exercise
the privileges of their certificate in any aircraft that does not exceed the aircraft
performance limitations derived from the current § 1.1 definition and set forth in the
proposed new § 61.316. The FAA's proposal concerning airmen certification is discussed
in section IV.E.
powered-lift from being considered as light-sport aircraft. The FAA proposes to allow the
under § 21.190, provided these aircraft are certificated in accordance with the proposed
a means of compliance. This proposed rule would allow any class of aircraft6 to be
eligible for certification in the light-sport category, so long as the aircraft meets the
6See 14 CFR 1.1, which defines class, for purposes of the certification of aircraft, as a broad grouping of aircraft having similar
characteristic of propulsion, flight, or landing.
proposed performance-based requirements of part 22 and the eligibility criteria in
proposed §§ 21.190 and 22.100. The FAA anticipates that industry would develop
requirements in part 22. The FAA contends that such action would maintain a level of
aircraft. The FAA considered expanding the scope of the proposed eligibility
unmanned and manned aircraft, the FAA chose not to address unmanned aircraft
proposal does not apply to the certification of unmanned aircraft in the light-sport
category.
The FAA also chose not to consider powered lift privileges for sport pilots, given
the complexity and ongoing development of those aircraft designs and associated pilot
certification and operational rules that the FAA is considering. However, the FAA
expects that future rulemaking may consider these aircraft and associated operations if
they can fit within the constraints of sport pilot operations and aircraft certification
requirements.
As discussed later in the preamble, the FAA is also proposing to expand sport
Section 1.1 currently limits the maximum takeoff weight for light-sport category
aircraft to 1,320 lbs., or 1,430 lbs. for aircraft intended for operation on water. This
proposal would eliminate the maximum takeoff weight limitations for light-sport
category aircraft. Although this proposal removes the specific weight limits for light-
sport category aircraft, this proposed rule would indirectly limit aircraft weight via
stalling speed limitations, as discussed in sections IV.C.2 and IV.C.4. As noted in those
sections, the stalling speed limit would indirectly limit the weight at around 3,000
pounds. Although still limiting aircraft weight, the proposed VS1 stalling speed would
enable aircraft with heavier weights than the definition permits for light-sport aircraft.
designs and equipment such as advanced stall resistant airframes, increased load factor
parachutes, passenger airbags, stronger and more durable landing gear, and greater fuel
capacity.
From its work with manufacturers, flight schools, and individual aircraft owners
since the 2004 final rule took effect, the FAA anticipates that allowing heavier aircraft
would result in more robust airframe designs to meet the needs of aircraft owners. A
“robust airframe design” is more reliable, resilient, and does not fail as easily under a
given load as a less robust airframe would. In addition, an aircraft in motion with more
mass requires more force to disrupt its current flight path. Accordingly, heavier aircraft
tend to be more stable during turbulent or windy conditions and, in turn, reduce the
workload on the pilot attempting to maintain control and a desired course. Specifically,
lighter aircraft get jostled around more in turbulence, which causes the pilot to work
these design and safety features and is representative of why the FAA has granted 11
exemptions to the weight limit for certain light-sport category aircraft with safety features
sport category aircraft to enable improved airframe designs and the installation of various
on what aircraft sport pilots may fly. Sport pilots would be permitted to operate these
heavier aircraft if the aircraft satisfy the performance limitations in the proposed § 61.316
including the Vs1 limitation that will indirectly limit the weight to around 3,000 pounds.
The FAA does not find that this increased weight would appreciably alter a sport pilot’s
ability to fly the aircraft, provided the aircraft satisfies the design and performance
more than 120 knots CAS under standard atmospheric conditions at sea level. A VH speed
limit would not be retained for the airplanes or gliders in the proposed § 61.316
performance and design limitations for aircraft that a sport pilot could operate. Although
four times the aircraft’s VS1 under ideal conditions, proposed § 22.100(a)(4) would
include a VH limit of 250 knots CAS for light-sport category aircraft to account for
potential advances in technology and manufacturing practices that could enable higher
light-sport category aircraft, the FAA has not noted any definitive data that links cruise
experience informs the FAA’s current rulemaking proposal, including its proposal to
7 See section IV.E of this preamble for a discussion of the design and performance limitations proposed in § 61.316, which would limit
the aircraft that a sport pilot could fly to an aircraft that requires skill comparable to the skill required to fly an LSA today.
Analysis of performance data for 117 type-certificated, light-sport category, and
amateur-built airplanes with stalling speeds less than or equal to the proposed 54 knots
CAS stalling speed limit shows a maximum speed of 220 knots CAS, with the majority
below 190 knots CAS. Allowing a maximum speed of 250 knots CAS is intended to
provide an upper limit appropriate for a category of aircraft intended for recreation, flight
training, and limited aerial work while providing sufficient margin to avoid practical
For pilot certification purposes, the FAA does not propose to retain or include a
the FAA determined that, the proposed maximum stalling speed VS1 of 54 knots (as
explained in section IV.C.4) for airplanes and the existing maximum stalling speed VS1 of
45 knots for gliders, will indirectly limit the cruise airspeeds9 for the aircraft that sport
pilots may fly under the proposed performance limitations in part 61. The FAA
recognizes helicopter design and aerodynamic flight limitations inherently limit the VH
speed. The existing fleet of two seat helicopters do not exceed 150 knots in cruise flight.
Therefore, the FAA does not propose or need a prescriptive speed limit for two seat
In 2018, the FAA codified additional training and endorsement privileges for
flight instructors with a sport pilot rating.10 This provision authorized these flight
instructors to provide additional training and endorsements for sport pilot applicants who
knots CAS.11 These amendments reinforce that additional training and a subsequent flight
8 Given that the vast majority of light-sport category aircraft operations would occur below 10,000 feet mean sea level (MSL), where
part 91 limits airspeed below 250 knots indicated airspeed, the maximum 250 knot CAS limitation is appropriate for the light-sport
category.
9 As previously stated, an airplane's maximum airspeed is generally limited to three to four times the aircrafts V under ideal
s1
conditions. If the maximum stalling speed is 54 knots, then the airplane's maximum airspeed would be limited to a maximum airspeed
of 216 knots (54 multiplied by 4).
10 Regulatory Relief: Aviation Training Devices; Pilot Certification, Training, and Pilot Schools; and Other Provisions, 83 FR 30232
Additionally, the FAA notes that student pilots, who receive training and a
validating flight instructor endorsement, can operate aircraft at speeds greater than 120
knots as pilot-in-command. The FAA contends that, since the implementation of the
airplanes up to the current VH speed limitation of 120 knots, instructor training and
that sport pilots can safely operate faster aircraft in the national airspace system, just as is
allowed for student pilots with a lower grade of pilot certificate. This reflects the
incongruities between the allowed operations for student pilots and sport pilots. For
example, student pilots can operate aircraft at faster speeds than individuals that hold a
sport pilot certificate, even though a sport pilot certificate is a higher grade of pilot
certificate than a student pilot certificate. Thus, the FAA reasons that sport pilots can be
permitted to operate faster aircraft safely in the national airspace system using instructor
The light-sport aircraft definition in § 1.1 limits the maximum VS1 for light-sport
aircraft to 45 knots CAS at the aircraft’s maximum certificated takeoff weight and most
critical center of gravity. The proposal would retain the 45 knots CAS maximum VS1 for
gliders and weight-shift-control aircraft. The FAA is proposing to increase the maximum
VS1 to 54 knots CAS for airplanes. Regulatory provisions addressing VS1 would remain
inapplicable to rotorcraft and lighter-than-air aircraft (e.g., balloons and airships), and
The 45-knot limitation indirectly prohibits the use of heavier airplanes due to the
correlation between stalling speed and aircraft weight. Because the FAA is seeking to
accommodate greater airplane weights to enable more robust airframe designs and
availability of safety enhancements, the FAA selected this proposed VS1 speed limit at
nine knots above the current limitation for light-sport aircraft. The FAA determined that
an airplane with a maximum VS1 limitation of 54 knots would permit airplane designs up
stalling speed limitation would apply to airplanes at the maximum certificated takeoff
weight.
In the absence of a specific weight limitation in the proposed rule, the new VS1
limit would provide flexibility for aircraft manufacturers to build more robust airframes
and include desirable safety enhancements. This proposed change would expand aircraft
that sport pilots may operate to include any existing aircraft that meets the sport pilot
VS1 limit is not more than 54 knots CAS for sport pilots.
The FAA has monitored the accident history of light-sport category aircraft since
2004. As of 2021, there have been 984 accidents or incidents involving light-sport
category aircraft, with approximately half of those accidents or incidents occurring during
the landing phase. Of the 501 landing accidents, seven resulted in a fatality. The second
The FAA chose a VS1 of 54 knots CAS to strike a balance between allowing heavier
aircraft to accommodate increased safety features, while increasing the stalling speed no
more than necessary to retain low speeds during approach and landing. While the FAA
recognizes that low stalling speeds will reduce kinetic energy levels and serve to improve
occupant survivability in the event of an aircraft accident, enabling the addition of safety
enhancing designs commensurate with increased weight could also improve occupant
survivability.
The FAA has determined that retaining the current VS1 restriction of 45 knots
CAS for light-sport category airplanes would overly restrict the ability of aircraft
manufacturers to produce heavier airplanes with additional safety features that this rule is
intending to enable. A maximum VS1 of 54 knots CAS for airplanes would facilitate the
production of heavier, more robust airplanes without unduly compromising the ability of
these airplanes to be safely operated. Although the FAA considered increasing the
proposed maximum stalling speed of airplanes above 54 knots CAS, the agency’s review
of current aircraft performance data showed that this proposal would be sufficient to
Although the FAA proposes to permit the certification of rotorcraft under the
proposal, stall speed restrictions, such as a maximum VS1, are inapplicable for aircraft that
depend principally for their support in flight by the lift generated by one or more rotors.
Rotorcraft have the ability to hover or remain in place in the air with no horizontal
movement. In the event of engine failure, they can autorotate in a controlled descent to
the ground. Accordingly, rotorcraft are not subject to a maximum stall speed in this
proposed rule.
Stalling speed restrictions are also not being proposed for powered-lift due to their
similar to a rotorcraft. The designs of lighter powered-lift typically do not have large
wing surface areas and therefore have higher stalling speeds during wing-borne (airplane)
flight mode. However, these aircraft also can transition to semi-thrust borne mode where
the powerplant shares the responsibility of producing lift as airspeed transitions between
enroute airspeeds and hover. Therefore, as discussed under proposed § 22.115 and
consistent with the airworthiness criteria from Federal Register notifications for the Joby
Aero Inc., Model JAS4-1 and Archer Aviation Inc., Model M001 powered-lift, this
NPRM proposes to require the determination of minimum safe speeds for various flight
As discussed, the proposed stalling speed would generally limit the weight of
airplanes. However, similar proposed limits would not have the same effect for other
classes of aircraft. The FAA recognizes that while restrictions on maximum seating
capacity and limitations on aerial work may effectively limit a manufacturer’s interest in
building larger aircraft, the absence of any aerodynamic or other prescriptive design
restriction would not otherwise limit the potential weight of these aircraft. The FAA
maximum seating capacity of no more than two persons, including the pilot. This
requirement from the 2004 rule provided for a low-risk design that would be appropriate
for operation by a sport pilot. With the performance expansions proposed in this rule for
the design of light-sport category aircraft and the intention to decouple these aircraft from
sport pilot restrictions, there is no longer a need to restrict all light-sport category aircraft
to two seats. This proposed rule, in § 22.100, would keep the maximum seating capacity
of not more than two persons, including the pilot, for all classes of light-sport aircraft
except airplanes. This proposal would allow airplanes to have a maximum seating
When the 2004 final rule published, the FAA was focused on allowing a flight
instructor in the aircraft to provide flight instruction and, eventually, allowing sport pilots
to carry a single passenger.13 At that time, the FAA did not foresee an expanded market
12 Airworthiness Criteria: Special Class Airworthiness Criteria for the Joby Aero, Inc. Model JAS4–1 Powered-Lift (87 FR 67399;
November 8, 2022), and Airworthiness Criteria: Special Class Airworthiness Criteria for the Archer Aviation Inc. Model M001
Powered-Lift (87 FR 77749; December 20, 2022).
13 See 69 FR 44820.
for light-sport category aircraft that could be operated by pilots with a higher grade of
certificate who can exercise the privilege of carrying more passengers. For example, an
individual with a private pilot certificate may operate an aircraft that has more than two
seats and can carry more than one passenger. In this proposed rule, the performance
limits of § 61.316 would allow four-seat airplanes but maintain the restriction for sport
pilots to carry one passenger, keeping the intent of the 2004 final rule restriction for sport
pilots. For this proposal, the holder of a higher grade of pilot certificate at the private
pilot level or above could operate a four-seat light-sport category airplane and carry up to
three passengers.
Allowing four seats for light-sport category airplanes would increase the utility of
these aircraft for recreational and personal use. With the increased utility because of four-
seat designs, light-sport category airplane operations by pilots holding higher levels of
certification would likely increase. The FAA anticipates an increase to the overall
experience level of pilots that operate light-sport category airplanes, and this generally
The increased utility of light-sport category airplanes may also improve safety by
aircraft. In this proposed rule, all light-sport category aircraft would be built to FAA-
design, production, and airworthiness, unlike amateur-built aircraft, which do not have
The four-seat design for light-sport category airplanes in this proposal would
match the seating limit of primary category airplanes certificated under § 21.24. Primary
category rules and the proposals for light-sport category airplanes would result in these
categories sharing similar weight and seating limitations for aircraft built for the purpose
of personal use.
nearly all such aircraft have four or fewer seats. Of the 27,486 amateur-built aircraft in
the FAA Registry, only 131 have more than four seats.14 Accordingly, the light aircraft
community has shown overwhelming support for recreational and personal use aircraft
Increasing the allowed number of seats above four for light-sport category aircraft
with the proposed stalling speed limit and adding increased complexity to the aircraft and
powerplant. In establishing a prescriptive limit for the number of seats, four seats strikes
a balance between risk and utility that is appropriate for a category of aircraft intended
The proposed rule would retain the current maximum seating capacity of not more
than two persons for other classes of light-sport aircraft, including, gyroplanes, gliders,
weight-shift control aircraft, powered parachutes, balloons, and airships. These classes of
light-sport category aircraft are operated strictly for recreation. With weight and balance
of aircraft would increase risk and not be appropriate for certification as light-sport
category aircraft.
category aircraft such as rotorcraft and powered lift, this proposal would limit these
aircraft to two seats. The FAA has little experience on the safety metrics associated with
seating capacity of two is appropriate. The FAA may consider future rulemaking to
increase the proposed two seat limitation for these classes of aircraft as experience
Regarding pilot certification, the FAA is proposing to allow sport pilots to operate
airplanes that have a maximum seating capacity of four persons under § 61.316(c).
However, sport pilots will continue to be limited to carrying only one passenger under
§ 61.315(c)(4).15 The FAA contends that the piloting skills necessary to operate a four-
seat airplane do not differ from those skills required to operate a two-seat airplane if the
airplane satisfies the sport pilot design and performance limitations listed in proposed
§ 61.316. The number of seats (two versus four) does not affect the skill necessary to
control an airplane. The FAA proposes to increase the seating capacity for airplanes that
sport pilots may operate because the revised maximum stalling speed, as previously
described, would permit sport pilots to operate additional existing and future certificated
single-engine production airplanes with four seats.16 Per the safety continuum concept,
increasing the number of persons aboard should require an increased rigor of certification
including a higher grade of pilot certificate. Allowing sport pilots to operate four-seat
airplanes (even with only two persons aboard) would ease barriers in flight training for
sport pilots given the availability of legacy, four-seat airplanes in flight schools. This
proposed amendment is like that imposed on recreational pilots that can operate four-seat
airplanes but can only carry one passenger,17 equating the risk associated with these
operations to the appropriate level of pilot privileges, consistent with the FAA’s safety
continuum.
15 “You may not act as pilot in command of a light-sport aircraft … [w]hile carrying more than one passenger.” See: 14 CFR
61.315(c)(4).
16 For example, this proposed amendment would permit sport pilots to operate existing certificated single-engine production aircraft.
17 See 14 CFR 61.101(a)(1) and (e)(1)(i).
The FAA contends that the proposed maximum seating capacity requirements
would provide appropriate utility for recreation, training, personal travel, and certain
The current § 1.1 light-sport aircraft definition limits light-sport aircraft to those
with a single reciprocating engine if the aircraft is powered. This requirement from the
2004 rule provided for a simple engine design that would be appropriate for operation by
a sport pilot. With the performance expansions proposed in this rule for the design of
light-sport category aircraft and the intention to decouple from sport pilot limitations,
engine. This proposed rule would omit the single reciprocating engine limitation as an
light-sport category aircraft to be built with any number and type of engines or motors.
The performance limitations for aircraft that a sport pilot may act as pilot in command of
would not include the limitation on a single reciprocating engine if the aircraft is
powered.
Since this powerplant limitation was established in 2004, full authority digital
engine control (FADEC) technology has evolved significantly. FADEC18 automates and
small turbine engines in a variety of aircraft, including self-launching gliders. The FAA
18FADEC combines throttle, prop, and mixture controls into a single control. With a FADEC system, there is no direct pilot control
over the engine or manual control mode. FADEC systems are autonomous, self-monitoring, self-operating, and redundant. These
systems can decrease pilot workload and provide engine monitoring capability that can alert operators of certain mechanical problems.
recognizes that because of automation, many modern turbine powerplants are now easier
reduce the complexity previously associated with piloting aircraft that use powerplants
The FAA also reasons that removal of a specific engine requirement will
powerplants for aircraft. The FAA seeks to encourage flexibility for aircraft
benefits to include reduced cost, ease of operation, and reduced emissions—especially for
electric-powered aircraft. In summary, limiting the number and type of powerplants for
light-sport category aircraft is no longer necessary and any risk associated with their use
adjustable propeller if the aircraft is a powered aircraft other than a powered glider. The
light-sport aircraft definition also requires that powered gliders have a fixed or feathering
propeller system. These requirements from the 2004 rule provided for simple designs that
With the performance expansions proposed in this rule for the design and
certification of light-sport category aircraft, as well as the decoupling from sport pilot
aircraft limitations tied to the light-sport aircraft § 1.1 definition, there would no longer
be a need to restrict propeller designs for light-sport category aircraft. This proposed rule
would omit propeller limitations from the light-sport category eligibility requirements in
§ 22.100. Accordingly, this proposed rule would allow light-sport category aircraft to be
built with any type of propeller design that meets an FAA-accepted consensus standard.19
19 ASTM standard F2506 - Standard Specification for Design and Testing of Light Sport Aircraft Propellers.
Although the operation of controllable-pitch propellers and their associated
systems can impose some additional workload on pilots, the FAA considers these
propeller designs to be safe and reliable, as they have been used in general aviation
aircraft for decades. While controllable-pitch propeller designs can increase workload
because they require attention and adjustment by the pilot, the FAA considers the overall
design of these systems to be relatively simple to operate and appropriate for inclusion in
However, proposed § 61.316, which would provide the performance and design
limitations for aircraft that may be flown by sport pilots, would retain some propeller
limitations and training requirements for sport pilots. Specifically, for powered aircraft
other than powered gliders, proposed § 61.316 would permit sport pilots to fly aircraft
with a fixed or ground-adjustable propeller, but also allow those with an automated
would enable pilots to take advantage of the improved performance associated with these
aircraft without imposing additional workload. The current requirement for powered
Due to the significant increase in climb and cruise performance, the FAA is also
proposing to permit sport pilots who receive additional training and an instructor
endorsement to operate airplanes designed with controllable-pitch propellers that are not
automated. The FAA contends that permitting the design and use of a controllable-pitch
performance associated with that propeller system design to avoid and clear obstacles
§ 61.316(e). First, the FAA proposes that, for powered aircraft other than powered
gliders, the airplane may also be equipped with an automated controllable-pitch propeller.
These propellers are easy to use and increase airplane performance and efficiency.
Second, under the proposed § 61.331, sport pilots would be required to obtain
additional flight training and a flight instructor endorsement validating sport pilot
automated. The FAA contends that additional training and instructor endorsements would
appropriately validate that sport pilots can safely operate airplanes with a manually
fixed-pitch, semi-rigid, teetering two blade rotor systems. This proposal would omit this
gyroplane rotor systems. However, under proposed § 61.316(a)(6), the FAA would
continue to limit sport pilots to operate gyroplanes that have a fixed-pitch, semi-rigid,
Per the current light-sport aircraft definition in § 1.1, a light-sport aircraft, except
for an aircraft intended for operation on water or a glider, must have a fixed landing gear.
The proposed rule would remove this limitation as an eligibility requirement in § 22.100.
Accordingly, this rule would allow light-sport category aircraft to be designed with fixed
or retractable landing gear, or with floats for aircraft intended for operation on water.
In the 2004 rule, the requirement for fixed landing gear was intended to enable
aircraft designs that would be simple to operate by persons exercising the privileges of a
sport pilot certificate. With the performance expansions proposed in this rule for the
design of light-sport category aircraft and the decoupling from sport pilot restrictions,
there is no longer a need to restrict light-sport category aircraft to fixed landing gear. This
rule would provide for more robust structures and greater weight allowances that would
The FAA recognizes that additional training and instructor endorsements can
validate that sport pilots can operate aircraft with retractable landing gear safely. The
FAA is proposing to permit sport pilots to operate aircraft with a retractable landing gear
and aircraft certification requirements, manufacturers would be provided with the ability
to create a wider range of aircraft designs that may be operated by any appropriately rated
pilot. Pilots could then pursue the appropriate level of pilot certification necessary to
operate light-sport category aircraft and any other aircraft. This would enable greater
standards accepted by the FAA. The proposal would provide the regulatory authority to
requirements in § 21.190(c) or part 22 have not been met. The proposed performance-
of aircraft in the light-sport category. The FAA would evaluate any proposed consensus
standard against the regulatory requirement to determine whether the consensus standard
means of compliance to meet regulatory requirements. The FAA expects that this
proposal should not only facilitate the more rapid development of these consensus
standards, but also result in more comprehensive consensus standards that are better able
to address the design, production, and airworthiness of aircraft intended for certification
technologies and encourage innovation. This proposed rule would allow manufacturers to
incorporate new technologies in their aircraft due to the removal of a prescriptive weight
limit that previously limited the installation of safety equipment. This proposed rule
would also encourage innovation, such as aircraft designed with simplified flight controls
discussed in proposed § 22.180. The requirements proposed in this section would provide
safety requirements appropriate for the light-sport category within the context of the
follows.
Aircraft
a. General
The proposed expansion of the classes of aircraft eligible for certification under
the proposal and the increase in the size and performance of these aircraft requires the
adoption and use of more detailed performance-based requirements. These new
consensus standards that would be acceptable to the FAA for the expanded certification
airworthiness requirements proposed in this NPRM is necessary for the safety of the wide
range of light-sport category aircraft to be certificated under this proposal. The FAA
expects that compliance with these requirements would reduce the occurrence of design
and production defects, resulting in aircraft that are safe for their intended operations.
aircraft would be subject to a certification process more stringent than that applicable to
experimental amateur-built aircraft, but less rigorous than that used for the certification of
normal category aircraft. When comparing current certification requirements for light-
level on the safety continuum with a lesser demand for safety assurance than light-sport
meet airworthiness standards contained in part 23, 25, 27, 29, or 31 and must be produced
aircraft are subject to fewer operating restrictions than light-sport category aircraft. As
proposed § 91.327.
manufacturers. Like certification rigor, the rigor of FAA oversight of light-sport category
aircraft manufacturers would be consistent with the safety continuum. Policies and
procedures for that oversight are included in FAA Order 8130.36.20 To support this
proposed rule, the FAA would expand its oversight to verify successful accomplishment
of training by the manufacturer’s compliance staff per proposed § 22.190, as well as the
training and certification of manufacturer’s staff who sign its statements of compliance in
proposed § 21.190(d)(1).
The FAA does not believe it would be appropriate to include the proposed
requirements within subpart B of part 22. By placing these new design, production, and
aircraft. Additionally, the proposed part would not be applicable to aircraft operating
under a special flight permit. Although those permits are issued to aircraft that are safe
for flight, aircraft operating under a special flight permit do not have to meet applicable
the proposed requirements would address the design, production, and airworthiness of
aircraft used to carry passengers and would not be appropriate to address the design of an
aircraft that could be remotely operated. Requirements for manned aircraft, for example,
would need to address occupant protection and egress while proposed requirements for
unmanned aircraft would need to address certain flight control system requirements that
would be inapplicable to manned aircraft. The FAA notes, however, that requirements for
The FAA has accepted a variety of ASTM consensus standards for the
certification of light-sport category aircraft. The FAA has found these consensus
standards to be sufficient for the certification of aircraft that meet current eligibility
requirements. The FAA has also reviewed currently accepted ASTM consensus standards
and evaluated them against the proposed performance expansions and new aircraft
designs that would be eligible for certification as light-sport category aircraft. Currently
accepted consensus standards would not be sufficient for the certification of the wide
range of aircraft with enhanced performance capabilities that could be certificated under
this proposal. The FAA anticipates that industry would develop acceptable and
the underlying regulatory requirements for the development of new or revised consensus
standards.
other aircraft, most notably normal category airplanes certificated under the requirements
of part 23. The FAA recognizes that the performance-based requirements it is proposing
for certificating light-sport category aircraft are not of the same scope and detail as those
standards. The FAA contends, however, that the greater specificity contained in the
part 23 standards reflects the increased rigor of the type certification process and resultant
need to develop more detailed consensus standards to comply with those more detailed
the need to apply a set of broad-based requirements to a wider range of aircraft that
would not be required to meet the more exacting design requirements of type
certification. They also provide industry with the flexibility to develop consensus
Under the proposed rule, a consensus standard would have to meet the following
performance-based requirements before the FAA would accept that standard as a means
controllable and maneuverable through the normal use of primary flight controls at all
loading conditions, during all phases of flight. Additionally, the aircraft would not have a
alertness, or strength.
The proposed rule is necessary because if the aircraft’s design prevents the pilot
attitudes, loss of control of the aircraft, or aircraft structural damage would be reduced. A
requirement for control and maneuverability would assist with the consistency and
entire flight envelope. The aircraft would not have a tendency to depart controlled flight,
meaning that it should be inherently stable. Additionally, the FAA considers that this
requirement would result in aircraft that operate in repeatable, smooth transitions between
such as flap extension and retraction, or landing gear extension and retraction would also
have to result in safe, controllable, and predictable handling characteristics. The proposed
performance requirement would also enable stability, ease of flight, and consistent
outcomes of control inputs for light-sport category aircraft throughout their center of
gravity limits and flight envelope. The FAA considers that if an aircraft meets these
The FAA has accepted consensus standards for current light-sport category
aircraft that address the controllability and maneuverability of aircraft intended for
maneuverability standards vary across the consensus standards for the different classes of
light-sport category aircraft, the general provisions of these standards align closely with
controllability and maneuverability, applicable phases of flight, pilot strength and skill,
and normal use of flight controls. Proposed § 22.105 would meet the level of rigor the
FAA considers appropriate for light-sport category aircraft and its place on the safety
characteristics would mean the aircraft would be consistently and predictably controllable
and maneuverable and would not have a tendency to inadvertently depart controlled
flight.
21ASTM F2245 Standard Specification for Design and Performance of a Light Sport Airplane; ASTM F2564 Standard Specification
for Design and Performance of a Light Sport Glider; ASTM F2317/F2317M Standard Specification for Design of Weight-Shift-
Control Aircraft, ASTM F2244 Standard Specification for Design and Performance Requirements for Powered Parachute Aircraft, and
ASTM F2355 Standard Specification for Design and Performance Requirements for Lighter-Than-Air Light Sport Aircraft.
The FAA expects that some existing consensus standards would need to be
updated to account for the proposed expansion of eligibility for aircraft to be certified as
updated to address the specific requirement that aircraft control and maneuverability be
The proposed rule would facilitate the manufacture of simple designs that result in
the stable, predictable, and controllable operation of the aircraft through the use of
primary flight controls. Primary flight controls consist of “traditional” flight controls,
such as an aircraft yoke, stick, control column, collective, throttle, or rudder pedals.
excessive control loading, such as high lift devices, slats, flaps, flight spoilers, and
aircraft trim systems, would not be considered primary flight controls. The proposed rule
would also contain specific provisions for the certification of aircraft that may be
designed and constructed without primary flight controls, but rather with “simplified
flight controls.” Specific requirements for aircraft with simplified flight controls are
The proposed rule would require that existing consensus standards be revised to
account for the requirement that operation of the aircraft not require exceptional piloting
stable enough to be easily flown by pilots with a minimum of flight experience and
would not have handling characteristics that would cause undue pilot fatigue or
distraction. Accordingly, these aircraft would provide a more stable platform than other
loss of control accidents. Although some consensus standards specifically address the
forces necessary to pilot the aircraft, not all existing consensus standards meet this
requirement. The proposed rule would require that aircraft certificated in the light-sport
category have aerodynamic and handling qualities that would not result in unstable flight
characteristics or require exceptional pilot skill to keep the aircraft within its flight
envelope.
category aircraft a viable alternative for use in the flight training environment and
provide both student pilots and flights schools with a potentially lower cost, alternate
fight training platform. Although the proposed rule would permit the use of technology to
enhance the flying qualities of the aircraft, the technology should also not increase the
pilot’s workload to the detriment of the goal to have simple and easy to fly aircraft. The
Proposed § 22.105 would help prevent inadvertent unusual attitudes and loss of
control accidents. Per National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) accident statistics,
the largest number of fatal accidents for general aviation aircraft result from inflight loss
of control; the proposed standard would result in the development of consensus standards
for light-sport category aircraft that would assist in mitigating this risk.
asymmetric thrust would need to be designed with safe, controllable, and predictable
characteristics that permit a pilot with limited flight experience from becoming task-
saturated while maintaining control of the aircraft. The aircraft could also be designed
and constructed to include an automated system or provide for some combination of pilot
action and automation that would enable the pilot to maintain effective aircraft control.
The provisions of this proposed requirement would be consistent with proposed § 22.145,
which would require that any propulsion system thrust asymmetry be automatically
compensated for, or be capable of being readily compensated for, with no adverse effect
Proposed § 22.110 would require that the design and construction of the aircraft
provide sufficient structural integrity to enable safe operations within the aircraft’s flight
envelope and intended lifecycle. It would also require that the aircraft be able to
withstand all anticipated flight and ground loads when operated within its operational
limits.
category aircraft are designed and constructed to withstand any foreseeable flight and
ground loads that may be experienced throughout the aircraft’s flight envelope and
intended lifecycle. Failure to establish and validate adequate strength, stiffness, and
category aircraft to the certification of amateur-built aircraft, the FAA notes that amateur-
Amateur builders may experiment with different materials and construction techniques in
the design and construction of their aircraft. In contrast, type-certificated aircraft must
meet the extensive airworthiness standards for structures in parts 23, 25, 27, 29, and 31
that address areas such as strength, durability, design envelope, loads, aeroelasticity,
materials, protection, fabrication processes, and performance. The level of rigor proposed
for the structural integrity of light-sport category aircraft would not be as extensive as
that required for aircraft intended for type-certification yet would establish minimum
requirements for structural integrity that are not applicable to the certification of amateur-
built aircraft.
FAA-accepted consensus standards currently used for the certification of light-
sport category aircraft have provisions addressing structures that generally include
provisions for items such as loads, factors of safety, strength and deformation, proof of
structure, flight loads, design airspeeds, specialized structures, and emergency landing
that would be certificated as light-sport category aircraft under the proposal, the proposed
requirements would require consensus standards for light-sport category aircraft designs
deterioration or loss of structural strength due to any cause likely to occur throughout the
The proposed rule would require the aircraft to have the ability to withstand all
interference with the safe operation of the aircraft. The inclusion of a requirement to
address structural integrity in light-sport category aircraft designs would improve the
capable of safely conducting intended operations throughout the aircraft’s lifecycle. The
proposed requirements would enable aircraft design and manufacturing processes used in
construction to attain structural integrity of aircraft with the use of adequate material
strength and properties that can accommodate anticipated loads when operated within
establish the minimum safe speed for each flight condition encountered in normal
safe flight. The minimum safe speed determination would be required to account for the
sport category aircraft, the FAA has proposed this specific requirement for powered-lift
aircraft. The proposed rule is necessary for pilots of these aircraft to be aware of the
specific minimum safe speeds at which their specific model of powered-lift aircraft can
determined would provide pilots with the essential knowledge to avoid operating these
aircraft below minimum safe speeds, thereby reducing the potential for aircraft loss of
control.
aircraft addresses all modes of flight (wing-borne, thrust-borne, and semi-thrust borne) in
which these aircraft may be operated and the various modes in which lift supporting the
aircraft is produced. In the wing-borne flight mode, the wing produces the aircraft’s lift.
In thrust-borne flight, commonly called hover mode, the powerplant produces the
aircraft’s lift. In the semi-thrust borne mode, the aircraft is in a transition stage between
thrust-borne and wing-borne modes of flight with both the wings and powerplant
providing aircraft lift. Although most powered-lift aircraft are designed with the ability to
flight or hover, the proposed requirement would further the pilot’s understanding of the
handling qualities of the aircraft and facilitate their ability to make a smooth change from
one configuration to another without exceeding the limitations of the aircraft’s flight
envelope.
The FAA does not consider the imposition of a limiting stalling speed or
minimum steady flight speed such as VS1 to be practical for application to the design of
powered-lift aircraft that would be eligible for certification as light-sport category
aircraft. Many of the designs for these smaller powered-lift aircraft have wing sizes that
do not provide significant lift in wing-borne flight. As a result of this small wing area and
other design features, these aircraft may have stalling or minimum steady flight speeds
that are much higher than comparably sized aircraft of other classes that rely primarily on
wings to produce lift. Accordingly, the FAA considers the use of a maximum stalling
FAA considers the determination of a minimum safe flight speed for each flight condition
to be essential. Similar requirements for the determination of minimum flight speeds have
also been proposed in two Federal Register notices of proposed airworthiness criteria for
more extensive requirements set forth in the airworthiness criteria for these powered-lift
aircraft subject to this proposal would be certificated as light-sport category aircraft and
minimum safe speed flight characteristics in all flight conditions with a clear and
distinctive minimum safe speed warning that provides sufficient margin to prevent
inadvertent deceleration below minimum safe speed. Production acceptance flight testing
would verify that the minimum safe speeds account for the most adverse conditions, such
as operating at maximum gross weight, in the determination of the minimum safe speeds
23Airworthiness Criteria: Special Class Airworthiness Criteria for the Joby Aero, Inc. Model JAS4–1 Powered-Lift (87 FR 67399;
November 8, 2022), and Airworthiness Criteria: Special Class Airworthiness Criteria for the Archer Aviation Inc. Model M001
Powered-Lift (87 FR 77749; December 20, 2022).
4. Special Requirements for Light-Sport Category Aircraft Used for Aerial Work
Operations
manufacturer as suitable for the performance of any aerial work operation, the design and
construction of the aircraft must provide sufficient structural integrity to enable safe
operation of the aircraft during the performance of that operation and ensure that the
The FAA broadly interprets the term aerial work to mean work done from the air
for compensation that does not involve the carriage of persons or property.25 Aerial work
activities, aerial photography, surveying, observation and patrol, search and rescue, and
aerial advertisement. Patrolling of powerlines or railroad tracks, for example is a task that
could be readily accomplished by a light-sport category aircraft that meets the proposed
requirements. However, patrolling over long distances and at low altitudes can put
increased stresses on aircraft structures due to the greater prevalence of turbulence at low
altitude. The proposal would require manufacturers to design and construct aircraft to be
able to withstand potentially greater stresses when engaged in designated aerial work
conduct aerial work operations are designed and constructed to withstand foreseeable
flight and ground loads that may be experienced during those operations. Failure to
establish and validate adequate material strength and design properties to accommodate a
24 The FAA does not define construction or manufacture in § 1.1. The terms are used interchangeably in this section and mean the
same.
25 FAA Order 8900.1, Volume 2, Chapter 2, Section 2, Paragraph 2-127C Aerial Work Operations. While 14 CFR does not define
“aerial work,” the FAA has consistently interpreted the term to mean work done from the air where: the aircraft must depart and arrive
at the same point; no property of another may be carried on the aircraft; and only persons essential to the operation may be carried on
board. See Legal Interpretation to Jeffrey Hill, from Rebecca B. MacPherson, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations, (March 10,
2011). See 14 CFR 119.1(e)(4).
designated aerial work operation could cause structural failure resulting in loss of aircraft
control.
The proposed requirement would only apply to those light-sport category aircraft
with the principles of the FAA’s safety continuum, the proposed requirement is intended
to apply a level of certification rigor appropriate to provide for the airworthiness of light-
structural integrity of the aircraft to enable safe aerial work operations. These aircraft are
built solely for the purpose of education or recreation and are issued operating limitations
which limit their use to education or recreation. Accordingly, aircraft issued these
operating limitations are prohibited from aerial work operations by § 91.9, which
prohibits the operation of a civil aircraft contrary to its operating limitations. In contrast,
type-certificated aircraft meeting the airworthiness standards for structures in part 23, 25,
27, 29, or 31 may be used to conduct aerial work operations since these aircraft are issued
standard airworthiness certificate and are not restricted by operating limitations that
ability to carry persons or property for compensation or hire as set forth in § 91.319(a)(2).
vehicle or to conduct flight training. As the proposal would enable aerial work
operations, the proposal would revise § 91.327 to permit the conduct of any aerial work
applicable, and specified in the manufacturer’s statement of compliance for that aircraft.
The aircraft’s design and construction would need to be sufficient to protect
against deterioration or loss of strength and prevent structural failures due to foreseeable
causes of strength degradation that would be likely to occur throughout the aircraft’s
flight envelope during aerial work operations. Additionally, the aircraft would need to be
able to withstand all anticipated flight and ground loads during these operations without
development and production of parts or using materials not suitable or lacking durability
for in-service environmental conditions in aerial work operations could result in loss of
Accordingly, these concerns would be appropriately addressed in the aircraft’s design and
5. Environmental Conditions
intended operations.
and constructed to conduct safe ground and flight operations in the specific operating
environments for which the aircraft is designated to operate in. Manufacturers would
need to account for weather extremes encountered within the United States and the
designed maximum altitude of the aircraft to comply with this requirement. Aircraft
systems and structures may not function as intended if all operating conditions are not
conditions (IMC) as specified in its operating manual, the aircraft would be issued an
operating limitation under the regulatory authority of § 91.319(i) specifying that it must
set forth in part 23, 25, 27, or 29 are subject to specific design and installation
requirements for systems and equipment. Installed systems and equipment must perform
their intended function throughout the operating and environmental limits for which the
aircraft is certificated. Based on the performance level of the aircraft, other environmental
airworthiness requirements are required to be met such as for flight in icing conditions,
cockpit and external lighting for night operations, and flight in turbulent or gusty wind
Proposed § 22.105 would meet the level of rigor the FAA considers appropriate
for light-sport category aircraft and its place on the safety continuum between amateur-
built aircraft and normal category aircraft. Currently accepted consensus standards for
accommodate environmental conditions. This is largely the result of these aircraft being
limited to operating in day, visual meteorological conditions (VMC). The single major
exception can be found in ASTM standard F2245, “Standard Specification for Design
and Performance of a Light Sport Airplane,” for light-sport category airplanes, which
provides for the installation of internal and external lights for the conduct of night
operations in VMC.
would be certificated as light-sport category aircraft under the proposal, the FAA would
require light-sport category aircraft designs, structures, and systems to account for the
design include heat, cold, precipitation, sunlight, darkness, gusty winds, and turbulence.
equipped with engines and systems capable of flight under instrument flight rules (IFR)
which would require aircraft designs to provide for the necessary heating and cooling of
this electronic equipment. Aircraft designs that fail to accommodate extreme temperature
limits of systems may lead to operations outside the environmental limits of critical
environmental conditions within the aircraft that could significantly affect their well-
being or adversely affect pilot performance. While the effects of heat and cold are well
known, designs should also consider other factors such as reducing the effects of
windshield glare that could impair pilot vision both inside and outside the aircraft.
requirements are proposed for the safe operation of the aircraft within the environmental
Proposed § 22.130 would require that the suitability and durability of materials
used for products and articles account for likely environmental conditions expected in
service, the failure of which could prevent continued safe flight and landing.26
Materials used for aircraft components and structures would need to meet the
rigors of all operations within the aircraft’s flight envelope for the life of the aircraft, or
for the specified life limit of the product or article in which the material is used. Pursuant
to proposed § 22.130, aircraft would be designed and manufactured with materials that
permit its structure and components to withstand those stresses likely to be encountered
within the aircraft’s flight envelope. Such stresses could include high load factors
resulting from gusts or temperature and humidity extremes. Compliance with material
suitability and durability requirements is especially important for critical structures and
components whose failure could prevent continued safe flight and landing.
Manufacturer design data defines the configuration of each product or article, its
design features, and any materials and processes used in its manufacture. In the selection
of materials used for the aircraft’s manufacture, manufacturers would have to account for
the full range of conditions likely to be encountered within aircraft’s design flight
envelope for compliance with the proposed § 22.130. Design data would include a
determination of the suitability and durability of materials used for the production of each
product or article for the full range of the aircraft’s authorized operations. Additionally,
materials selected for the manufacture of the aircraft’s structure and components would
need to be sufficient to protect those items against deterioration or loss of strength due to
26As defined in part 21, product means an aircraft, aircraft engine, or propeller. Article means a material, part, component, process, or
appliance. Appliance is defined in § 1.1 and means any instrument, mechanism, equipment, part, apparatus, appurtenance, or
accessory, including communications equipment, that is used or intended to be used in operating or controlling an aircraft in flight, is
installed in or attached to the aircraft, and is not part of an airframe, engine, or propeller.
Amateur-built aircraft issued experimental airworthiness certificates have no
regulatory requirement to address the suitability and durability of materials to account for
23, 25, 27, 29, and 31. In accordance with the principles set forth in the FAA’s safety
continuum, the proposed requirements have been designed to meet the level of rigor the
agency considers appropriate to address the suitability and durability of materials used in
states that materials shall be suitable and durable for the intended use.27 Those consensus
standards specify that design values for strength must be chosen so that no structural part
standards for all classes of aircraft eligible for certification as light-sport category aircraft
also include protection of the aircraft’s structure.28 These consensus standards generally
address the protection of the structure against weathering, corrosion, and wear, as well as
provisions for suitable ventilation and drainage. As the suitability and durability of
materials used for products and articles would be required to account for likely
environmental conditions expected in service, the FAA expects that revisions to these
consensus standards would need to be made to account for the significant increase in the
performance, capabilities, and classes of aircraft that could be certificated under the
proposal. Accordingly, revised consensus standards would need to address aircraft with
significantly larger flight envelopes. This would result in materials being used in the
Proposed § 22.135 would require that the aircraft have all instruments and
equipment necessary for safe flight, including those instruments necessary for systems
control and management. It would also require that the aircraft include all instruments
and equipment required for the kinds of operations for which it is authorized. All
functions under all operating conditions specified in the pilot’s operating handbook. The
proposal would also require that a failure or malfunction of a system or component that is
likely to occur would not cause loss of control of the aircraft. All systems and
consensus standard for all required equipment, pursuant to the definition of consensus
standard in § 1.1. This proposal would remove reference to equipment from the definition
of consensus standard and place that requirement in § 22.135. The proposed equipment
requirements are necessary so that light-sport category aircraft would have installed
equipment that enables the pilot to accomplish tasks such as monitoring, managing,
controlling, or responding to the aircraft and its systems under all operating conditions.
regulatory requirement exists for the aircraft’s installed instruments and equipment to
meet specific design requirements. However, amateur-built aircraft must comply with
required by the applicable operating rules. For example, amateur-built aircraft designed
and equipped for flight at night or under IFR may be issued an operating limitation
stating that the aircraft must comply with the applicable instrument and equipment
requirements of § 91.205. Operating in certain airspace requires that the aircraft meet the
standards in parts 23, 25, 27, 29, and 31 for the types of operations for which certification
is requested. Type-certificated aircraft must also comply with the instrument and
equipment requirements in §§ 91.205, 91.215, and 91.225 for operations at night, in IMC,
The level of rigor specified for the design of the instrumentation and equipment
installed in light-sport category aircraft would not be as extensive as that required for
aircraft intended for type-certification, yet more extensive than that specified for amateur-
built aircraft. Proposed § 22.135 would account for the fact that necessary
instrumentation and equipage for light-sport category aircraft will vary by the class of
aircraft and type of operation. Specifically, § 22.135, as proposed, states that aircraft must
include all instruments and equipment required for the kinds of operations for which it is
powerplant instruments, and other miscellaneous equipment necessary for the operation
aircraft. Such equipment associated with the aircraft’s electrical system, for example,
The FAA expects that light-sport category aircraft possessing significantly more
with these increased operational capabilities. Aircraft would be able to conduct IFR flight
in IMC and be more likely to be exposed to adverse weather conditions and operations at
night. The FAA does note, however, that flight in IMC would have to be authorized by
the manufacturer in the pilot’s operating handbook and the aircraft would be subject to an
operating limitation requiring the aircraft to be equipped to meet the equipment and
would also be more prone to fly in airspace requiring transponders and ADS-B
equipment as aircraft designers may be more willing to install this equipment. This
equipment enhances safety of the national airspace system by making an aircraft visible
to air traffic control and to other appropriately equipped aircraft, promoting the
All classes of light-sport category aircraft would need to be properly equipped for
operate at night, the requirement to have all instruments and equipment necessary for safe
flight would necessitate the aircraft be equipped with internal cockpit lighting that would
provide the pilot with unrestricted visibility of all required instruments. It would also be
required to have external lighting to make the aircraft visible to both operators of other
aircraft and to personnel on the ground while operating on or within the vicinity of the
airfield.
equipment technology into their aircraft designs. The proposed rule is intended to address
both the functionality of instruments and equipment, as well as their interface with the
other instruments and equipment installed in the aircraft. The FAA particularly
encourages the installation of advanced electronic avionics systems that can be used by
Accordingly, this proposal would facilitate the design and production of technologically
advanced aircraft with instruments and equipment that could be used to support both safe
The proposed requirement would also require that the equipment, instruments,
and systems function properly under all operating conditions and that the failure or
not cause loss of aircraft control. Manufacturers could comply with this requirement by
could be met would be the installation of a back-up attitude indicator, using a power
source other than that used for the primary attitude indicator, in an aircraft that is
authorized to fly in IMC. Attitude indicators are the primary instrument pilots use to
maintain proper aircraft attitude and bank angles when ground references are no longer
visible. A secondary attitude indicator would prevent a loss of control situation in the
event the primary attitude indicator or its power system failed while the aircraft was
The FAA anticipates that compliance with the proposed requirements would
require analysis of the aircraft’s instruments and equipment to consider each separately
and in relation to each other as failures resulting from equipment incompatibility may
result in an accident. Manufacturers could use various methods to comply with this
The integrity of the aircraft design, equipage, and systems, and the quality of aircraft
Proposed § 22.140 would require that the aircraft be designed and constructed so
that the pilot can reach all controls and displays in a manner that provides for smooth and
human factors designs in light-sport category aircraft that result in these aircraft being
simple to operate. A flightdeck or pilot station not designed to account for ergonomic and
human factors may result in controls and displays located in locations that do not allow
for their efficient and timely operation by the pilot. Aircraft designs that do not provide
the pilot with the ability to effectively activate, operate, or otherwise interface with the
aircraft’s controls and display information could significantly affect the pilot’s ability to
safely operate the aircraft resulting in loss of control. The proposal would support
would not unduly distract a pilot from maintaining proper control of the aircraft. The
FAA encourages aircraft designers to use the flexibility of this proposal to prioritize the
placement of controls and displays based on their criticality to maintaining safe ground
regulatory requirement to incorporate design and construction features where the pilot
must reach all controls and displays in a manner that provides for smooth and positive
operation of the aircraft. Type-certificated, normal category airplanes must comply with
the airworthiness standards found in subpart G of part 23 that specify flightcrew interface
category rotorcraft must comply with part 27 airworthiness standards that require cockpit
inadvertent operation.
The level of rigor for the accessibility of controls and displays in light-sport
category aircraft would not be as extensive as the § 25.777 cockpit control requirements
for type-certificated aircraft. Although § 25.777 requires that each cockpit control be
operation, it contains further requirements for the turning direction and effectivity of
controls, prevention of interference from structures and pilot clothing, specific locations
for the controls of lifting devices (e.g., flaps) and landing gear, and shapes and color
contrast of control knobs. The extent of requirements in § 25.777 far exceed the simpler
requirement for light-sport category aircraft that its controls and displays be reached by
the pilot without disrupting smooth and positive operation of the aircraft.
The proposal, consistent with the FAA’s safety continuum, would establish
requirements for the accessibility of controls and displays in light-sport category aircraft
that are not necessary for amateur-built aircraft. Amateur-built aircraft have no regulatory
requirements for the pilot to reach all controls and displays so builders can design their
own instrument panel and locate controls and displays wherever they prefer. Because
light-sport category aircraft have fewer operational restrictions and may conduct aerial
work, the certification rigor for light-sport category aircraft would be greater.
Accordingly, light-sport category aircraft would have to have controls and displays where
the pilot can reach in a manner that provides for smooth and positive operation of the
aircraft. This requirement would help prevent distractions and loss of control accidents.
consensus standards.
aircraft (balloons and airships) certificated under current rules, ASTM standards F2245,
for light-sport airplanes, F2244, “Standard Specification for Design and Performance
Requirements for Powered Parachute Aircraft,” and F2355, “Standard Specification for
Design and Performance Requirements for Lighter-Than-Air Light Sport Aircraft,” state
that for the pilot compartment, accessibility and the ability to reach all controls for
smooth and positive operation shall be provided. For weight-shift-control aircraft and
Shift-Control Aircraft,” and F2564, “Standard Specification for Design and Performance
of a Light Sport Glider,” state that there must be a control or means accessible to the pilot
while wearing a seat belt by which the pilot can effectively shut off the flow of fuel.
As the proposal would expand the scope of aircraft that may be certificated as
light-sport category aircraft, revised consensus standards submitted to the FAA for
acceptance would need to address the pilot’s ability to reach all controls and displays in a
manner that provides for smooth and positive operation in a much wider range of aircraft.
Activation or manipulation of aircraft controls and displays could not require a level of
attention significant enough to cause the pilot to shift focus, create a distraction, or
otherwise interfere with the operation of the aircraft. Such loss of attention or focus could
To comply with the provisions of the proposed rule, a manufacturer would design
and install controls and displays that would permit the pilot to readily monitor and
perform defined tasks associated with the intended functions of systems and equipment.
These provisions would reduce the potential for pilot error and minimize the risk of
inadvertent unusual attitudes and loss of control accidents due to poor ergonomics and
cockpit design. The proposed requirement would also have the benefit of reducing pilot
workload and fatigue since controls and displays would be reached in a manner that
provides for smooth and positive operation of the aircraft. These design features would
further the conduct of safe operations by minimizing pilot distraction when a control or
display is operated.
9. Propulsion System
propulsion systems. Propulsion systems would be required to have controls that are
intuitive, simple, and not confusing and be designed so that the failure of any product or
article would not prevent continued safe flight and landing or, if continued safe flight and
systems would not be permitted to exceed safe operating limits under normal operating
conditions and would be required to have the necessary reliability, durability, and
endurance for safe flight without failure, malfunction, excessive wear, or other
anomalies.
with propulsion systems that do not require excessive pilot skill or training to operate.
The proposal would enhance safety in the event of any failure of the propulsion system
such that safe control of the aircraft could be readily maintained by the pilot, aircraft
automation, or their combined action. The ability to maintain safe control of the aircraft
in the event of a partial or complete failure of the propulsion system would significantly
The FAA considers that continued safe flight and landing means an aircraft is
capable of continued controlled flight and landing, possibly using emergency procedures,
without requiring exceptional pilot skill or strength. For aircraft designed with simplified
flight controls, this may be accomplished through automation. Upon landing, some
sport category aircraft, have also been specifically designed to meet the level of rigor the
agency considers appropriate for the certification of these aircraft in accordance with the
FAA’s safety continuum concept. When comparing the proposed requirements for the
certification of light-sport category aircraft to the certification requirements of amateur-
built aircraft, the FAA notes that amateur-built aircraft have no regulatory requirements
may experiment with a wide range of propulsion system designs and may incorporate a
variety of design features for the control, operation, reliability, durability, or endurance of
their propulsion systems into their aircraft. Comparatively, light-sport category aircraft
propulsion systems would be required to meet the § 22.145 requirements because they
could conduct aerial work and have fewer operational restrictions than amateur-built
certification rigor for the propulsion system. The requirements for the design of the
propulsion system would allow for easy, reliable, and consistent operations. These
qualities would allow for safe operations and minimize hazards associated with engine
consensus standards.
standards for propulsion system in parts 23, 25, 27, and 29. Type-certificated engines
installed in these aircraft must comply with the airworthiness standards for engines found
in part 33, and the fuel venting and exhaust emission requirements found in part 34, if
standards of part 35 must also be complied with. The level of rigor of the standards
proposed for the propulsion systems of light-sport category aircraft would not be as
extensive as that required for aircraft intended for type-certification yet would provide
and reciprocating spark and compression ignition engines exist in current FAA-accepted
ASTM consensus standards.29 These standards address data, designs, testing and
manufacturing of these products. ASTM Standard 2245 for light-sport category airplanes
Additionally, the FAA notes that ASTM Standard F2840, “Standard Practice for
Design and Manufacture of Electric Propulsion Units for Light Sport Aircraft,” provides
a basis for the development of electric propulsion units for electric-powered aircraft that
currently cannot be certificated as light-sport category aircraft. While this proposal would
allow for the use of electric propulsion in light-sport category aircraft, this standard
would need to be evaluated and revised to account for electric propulsion units that could
be installed on additional classes of aircraft and those aircraft with increased performance
speed and backward to reduce speed in level flight, similar to the instinctive use of a
legacy power control (throttle), is one way to achieve this. This control, as well as all
achieved without considerable effort for the pilot throughout the aircraft’s flight envelope
in all flight conditions. While the FAA encourages the automation of propulsion system
controls, the continued use of non-confusing legacy propulsion system controls, such as
the blue lever for propeller control and red lever for mixture control, would still meet the
29ASTM standard F2339, “Practice for Design and Manufacture of Reciprocating Spark Ignition Engines for Light Sport Aircraft;”
ASTM standard F2538, “Practice for Design and Manufacture of Reciprocating Compression Ignition Engines for Light Sport
Aircraft;” ASTM standard F2840, “Practice for Design and Manufacture of Electric Propulsion Units for Light Sport Aircraft;” and
ASTM standard F2506, “Specification for Design and Testing of Light Sport Aircraft Propellers.”
The proposal would also require that the propulsion system be designed so that
the failure of any product or article does not prevent continued safe flight and landing or,
if continued safe flight and landing cannot be ensured, the hazard has been minimized.
The results of this proposed requirement would not permit a partial or complete loss of
power to adversely affect the handling qualities of an aircraft. For single-engine aircraft,
this requirement would ensure the aircraft is controllable after the loss of engine power so
that an engine-out descent and landing could be readily accomplished. For multi-engine
compensated automatically by the aircraft or by the pilot with no resulting adverse effect
aircraft, if not handled properly, can result in loss of control. Propulsion system failures
departure.
for the certification of normal category airplanes, be conducted. This assessment would
address the likely failure of any product or article so that it would not prevent continued
safe flight and landing or, if continued safe flight and landing cannot be ensured, the
hazard has been minimized. For example, if manufacturers install propellers on twin
engine airplanes that can be feathered in the event of an inflight engine shutdown, this
would help to minimize the hazard of drag. In this instance, decreased drag would benefit
The proposal would require that the propulsion system be designed to preclude
operation outside safe operating limits under normal operating conditions and that the
propulsion system would be required to be designed with safety features to prevent the
occurrence of operations such as the operation of propellers or rotors outside design RPM
limits.
The propulsion system would also be required to have the necessary reliability,
durability, and endurance for safe flight without failure, malfunction, excessive wear, or
other anomalies. Defects, such as cracks or leaks that could result in the loss or
proposal. These proposed requirements for durability and endurance address the safety of
system designs and construction methods, as well as the use of materials suited for the
operational life of the propulsion system. The proposal would permit light-sport category
Proposed § 22.150 would establish requirements for aircraft fuel systems. Fuel
systems would be required to provide a means to safely remove or isolate the fuel stored
in the system from the aircraft and be designed to retain fuel under all likely operating
conditions.
Fuel would include both liquid aviation fuel (e.g., avgas) and electrical energy, whether
devices. Removal or isolation of aviation fuel under such circumstances would prevent
damage to the aircraft’s engine and fuel system components used to transport fuel from
the aircraft’s fuel storage tank or other storage means to the aircraft’s propulsion system.
The inability to isolate or remove contaminated aviation fuel from the aircraft’s fuel
system could lead to engine failure and an emergency landing. Additionally, the ability to
remove or drain aviation fuel from fuel tanks may be necessary for aircraft maintenance
or repairs.
motors or other power generation devices, having the ability to remove or isolate
be isolated or removed from the electrical system to prevent overheating and subsequent
fire which could result in significant structural damage or loss of aircraft control.
retain fuel under all likely operating conditions, such as during all authorized maneuvers,
descent and landing. The FAA considers that this requirement would be necessary for the
safe and continuous operation of the aircraft’s propulsion system. The proposed
requirement for the aircraft to retain fuel under all likely operating conditions is
necessary for a variety of purposes. For example, these purposes could include preventing
fuel from being a source of ignition or feeding an existing fire, maintaining the aircraft’s
center of gravity within prescribed limits, providing structural support, preventing loss of
aircraft range and endurance, preventing corrosion and equipment damage, and
The proposed fuel retention requirement would also apply to the storage of
powering the aircraft could result in emergency situations that could lead to structural
fires, corrosion that results in structural damage, loss of essential electrical equipment
retention of fuel for light-sport category aircraft would not be as extensive as that
required for aircraft intended for type-certification. Type-certificated aircraft are required
to comply with extensive airworthiness standards in parts 23, 25, 27, and 29 for the
However, the FAA is proposing requirements for light-sport category aircraft that,
in accordance with the safety continuum, would not be imposed on amateur-built aircraft.
Amateur-built aircraft fuel system design is not regulated which allows amateur-builders
to experiment with how they retain and distribute fuel from their fuel tanks to their
engine, or for electric powered aircraft, from their electric power source to a motor.
Amateur-builders may install fuel isolation and shut-off valves, filters, pumps, drains,
and fuel lines as they deem necessary for the normal and emergency operation of their
aircraft. However, because light-sport category aircraft operate with fewer restrictions
than amateur-built aircraft, this rule would require light-sport category aircraft fuel
systems to provide a means to safely remove or isolate the fuel stored in the system from
the aircraft and be designed to retain fuel under all likely operating conditions. These
requirements would provide for fuel removal or isolation of contaminated fuel, irregular
an engine or motor. Light-sport category aircraft fuel systems would also have to retain
fuel throughout the system which would allow for the mitigation of hazards and safe
For light-sport category aircraft, the current fuel removal, isolation, and retention
provisions specified in the applicable consensus standards vary based on the class of
aircraft. For instance, current FAA accepted consensus standards for light-sport category
airplanes, gliders, and weight-shift-control aircraft, specify that these aircraft have at least
one drain or other available method to allow safe drainage of fuel from tanks.30
Consensus standards for all light-sport category aircraft except balloons and powered
parachutes specify that the aircraft have a control to shut-off fuel as a means of
the standards specify that the battery installation must withstand all applicable inertia
parachutes, airships, and weight-shift control aircraft specify that their fuel tanks be able
to withstand all applicable inertia loads or prescribed load factors.33 The FAA anticipates
that industry would develop acceptable and appropriate consensus standards for all
classes of light-sport category aircraft to comply with the proposed requirement for the
Proposed § 22.155 would require that the hazards of fuel or electrical fires
to sustain static and dynamic deceleration loads without structural damage to fuel or
electrical system components or their attachments that could leak fuel to an ignition
Fuel and electrical system components need to maintain their connectivity and
structural integrity to prevent leakage, fumes, and electrical wiring from igniting a
necessary to minimize the risk of additional injuries due to fire and create sufficient time
incident.
their attachments. The ability of an amateur-built aircraft to minimize the hazards of fuel
or electrical fires is largely dependent upon the manufacturer’s design, although amateur
builders can assist by using recommended methods, techniques, and practices when
installing fuel and electrical components and attachments. Light-sport category aircraft,
however, may be more complex and could engage in work for compensation or hire;
therefore, the FAA is proposing a heightened requirement that fire sources be minimized.
Requiring fire sources be minimized following an impact is consistent with the location
of light-sport category aircraft on the safety continuum. Therefore, this proposed rule
would direct this through the requirements of § 22.155. Compliance with these
Type-certificated aircraft have airworthiness standards in parts 23, 25, 27, 29, and
31 where fuel tanks, fuel lines, electrical wires, and electrical devices must be designed,
aircraft must retain fuel to minimize hazards to the occupants during any survivable
emergency landing. There are multiple ways for manufacturers to minimize the ignition
of fluids and vapors. Retention methods to minimize the probability of ignition of the
fluids and vapors include, but are not limited to, stopping the flow of fluids, shutting
certificated aircraft also undergo drop testing to demonstrate their ability to withstand
attachments.
The FAA considers that drop testing and the more prescriptive elements of the
fire safety rules applicable to type-certificated aircraft would not be preferable because of
the lower risk and certification rigor, and fewer operating privileges of light-sport
category aircraft. Since light-sport category aircraft subject fewer people to risk per
flight, and have fewer operating privileges when compared to part 23 airplanes, this rule
would not impose the prescriptive elements of the fire safety rules for type-certificated
aircraft subject to part 23, 25, 27, 29, or 31. Although the FAA does not consider it
currently necessary to require light-sport category aircraft to undergo drop testing, these
aircraft would likely undergo either drop testing or some alternate testing procedure to
For light-sport category aircraft, the current fuel retention methods in the FAA-
accepted consensus standards vary based on the class of aircraft. For instance, during
emergency landing scenarios for light-sport category airplanes, powered parachutes, and
gliders, the aircraft design must be strong enough to protect occupants from fuel
concentrated above or behind their seating location.34 Light-sport category airplanes and
gliders may mitigate the risks of fires with the use of heat shielding, electrical isolation,
aircraft designs protect fuel lines by using fire resistant lines or a fire-resistant covering
on the lines.36 For these three aircraft classes, battery installations must be able to
withstand all applicable inertia loads. All light-sport category aircraft except balloons and
powered parachutes have a control to shut-off fuel as a means of isolation under the
current FAA-accepted consensus standards.37 Finally, for light-sport category gliders, the
FAA-accepted consensus standards specify that fuel leaking from any system lines or
fittings must not either directly hit hot surfaces or equipment causing a fire risk, or
would be certificated as light-sport category aircraft under the proposal, the FAA
anticipates that industry would develop acceptable and appropriate consensus standards
for all classes of light-sport category aircraft to comply with the proposed requirements
of § 22.155. The design features must be capable of preventing the ignition of fuel or
allowing electrical power to become an ignition source for a fire. The integrity of the fuel
or electrical systems and their storage elements, to include structures, tanks, lines, pumps,
valves, wirings, and electrical components must be accounted for in this proposed
requirement. The design must be capable of stopping or isolating fuel, electrical power,
12. Visibility
Proposed § 22.160 would require that the aircraft be designed and constructed so
that the pilot has sufficient visibility of controls, instruments, equipment, and placards.
Additionally, the proposal would require that the aircraft provide the pilot with sufficient
Poorly designed pilot compartments and aircraft designs that fail to optimize the
pilot’s ability to see controls, instruments, and equipment could lead to inadvertent
unusual attitudes, stalls, or loss of control of the aircraft. Likewise, structures that block
the pilot’s ability to see their surroundings, both inside and outside the aircraft, can be a
hazard for the pilot and other personnel on the ground and in the air. Pilots need to be
able to visually clear areas around their aircraft during aircraft start-up and while
conducting ground movements, just as they need to visually assess that the airspace in
which they operate is clear of aircraft and other hazards when operating in visual
controls, or on the ability of both the pilot and other occupants to see required aircraft
placards, could affect the safety of the flight, as aircraft warnings and operational limits
might not be heeded and the pilot’s ability to respond to adverse flight conditions could
The proposed requirement for the pilot to have sufficient visibility of controls,
instruments, equipment, and placards within the aircraft and of the aircraft’s exterior
environment would meet the level of rigor the FAA considers appropriate for light-sport
category aircraft and its place on the safety continuum between amateur-built aircraft and
normal category aircraft. For amateur-built aircraft, there are no specific regulatory
earlier, amateur builders may design their own instrument panels and locate controls,
instruments, and equipment wherever they prefer. Because light-sport category aircraft
could be used for aerial work, have fewer operational restrictions, and require a higher
level of certification rigor, the FAA is proposing the requirements in § 22.160. These
hazards that could lead to loss of control or loss of the aircraft due to collision with
aircraft, wildlife, or structures in the air or on the ground. The requirement would also
allow system warning and caution lights and annunciators to be easily seen by the pilot
However, normal category aircraft must comply with even more stringent
airworthiness standards in part 23, 25, 27, or 29 for the pilot compartment view. In parts
25, 27, and 29, these standards require the pilot compartment view to provide a
sufficiently extensive, clear, and undistorted view for safe operation that is free of glare
and reflection that could interfere with the pilot's view. For airplanes certificated in
accordance with part 23 requirements, the pilot compartment, its equipment, and its
arrangement, to include pilot view, must allow the pilot to readily perform their duties
accepted consensus standards. Current consensus standards in ASTM Standard F2245 for
light-sport airplanes, ASTM Standard F2244 for powered parachutes, and ASTM
Standard F2355 for lighter-than-air light-sport aircraft state that the pilot compartment
needs to provide appropriate visibility of instruments, placards, and the area outside the
aircraft. The consensus standards in ASTM Standard F2564 for a light-sport glider state
that the cockpit view must be designed so that the pilot’s vision is sufficiently extensive,
clear, and undistorted for safe operation and that rain shall not unduly impair the pilot’s
view. For weight-shift control aircraft, there are no consensus standards for the pilot
compartment’s internal and external views due to the open-air design of these aircraft.
The FAA anticipates that industry would develop acceptable and appropriate consensus
standards for applicable classes of light-sport category aircraft to comply with the
The proposed rule would require the pilot to be able to easily see all aircraft
controls and instruments necessary to safely operate the aircraft and its equipment and
systems under all conditions and would be applicable to all aircraft that would be eligible
for certification as light-sport category aircraft under the proposal. Pilots and other
occupants of all classes of light-sport category aircraft must be able to readily see
warning placards that would aid in identifying hazards, prevent damage to the aircraft,
The aircraft must provide pilots with sufficient visibility to readily identify other
aircraft or potential hazards such as structures and icing conditions and aid the pilot in
Except water operations,” and § 91.155, “Basic VFR weather minimums,” while in flight.
For example, aircraft that are not designed to enable the pilot to visually detect ice
accumulations on the aircraft could result in a stall and loss of control. Improper
placement of structural supports could also result in an accident or incident if the pilot’s
visibility is blocked or impeded. A pilot should not have to make unnecessary or unusual
head movements inflight to clear for traffic and other hazards as this could lead to spatial
disorientation and unusual attitudes. Additionally, the pilot compartment must also
provide the pilot with sufficient visibility to safely conduct ground operations by enabling
the aircraft to remain clear of other aircraft, structures, vehicles, and ground personnel
while simultaneously providing adequate visibility for the pilot to read applicable airfield
signs and markings. Sufficient visibility is necessary to prevent situations such as runway
Additionally, the design of the aircraft should provide the pilot with sufficient
forward, aft, and side visibility to allow the pilot to avoid hazards both in the air and on
the ground. The proposed requirements would enable the placement of items essential to
safe aircraft operations to be visible to the pilot, provide for the avoidance of obstacles,
and allow compliance with regulatory requirements while in flight and conducting
ground operations.
Proposed § 22.165 would require that aircraft be designed and constructed so that
all occupants can rapidly conduct an emergency evacuation. The aircraft’s design would
be required to account for all conditions likely to occur following an emergency landing,
designs that do not consider the ability of the pilot and passengers to rapidly evacuate the
aircraft during an emergency can significantly increase the likelihood of serious risk of
injuries or fatalities if exiting the aircraft is impeded by a poor design. The proposed
requirement would reduce injuries and save lives by requiring aircraft design and
scoped for the position of light-sport category aircraft on the FAA’s safety continuum.
For amateur-built aircraft, there are no specific regulatory requirements for emergency
egress, whereas for type-certificated aircraft, parts 23, 25, 27, and 29 contain
requirements for emergency evacuation. For example, for the type certification of normal
category rotorcraft under part 27, there are requirements in §§ 27.805 and 27.807 for the
location and size of emergency exits for the flight crew as well as provisions for the exits
cabin emergency exits include items such as location, number available, type, operation,
and marking.
standards are currently included in certain consensus standards and vary according to the
design of the aircraft. For some classes of light-sport category aircraft, such as weight-
shift control aircraft and powered parachutes, emergency evacuation standards do not
exist since the pilot and passenger are not situated in a fully enclosed compartment. For
evacuation that states the pilot compartment shall provide the ability to conduct an
emergency escape. For light-sport gliders, ASTM Standard F2564 provides standards for
emergency exit that state the cockpit must be designed so that unimpeded and rapid
escape in emergency situations is possible, and, on closed canopies, the opening system
must be designed for simple and easy operation. The opening system must function
rapidly and be designed so that it can be operated by each occupant strapped in his seat
(doors, windows, hatches) or easily accessible mechanisms both inside and outside the
aircraft to open escape exits (which should be marked for easy identification and use in
compliance with proposed § 22.170). Multiple escape doors or hatches could also be used
to enable egress in situations where the aircraft may not be upright. Aircraft intended for
operation on water would be required to address emergency water landings. Although the
FAA would encourage consensus standards to address ditching, the FAA would not
imposing such a requirement would be a more extensive requirement than that currently
excludes a consideration of ditching for level 1, level 2, and single engine level 3
airplanes.
stalling speed or another fixed airspeed. Instead, the proposal would permit applicants to
take varied approaches to address aircraft crashworthiness. For example, the FAA
and innovations from other industries, such as the automotive industry, to provide
The FAA encourages consensus standards bodies to strive for the highest level of
the evaluation of the entirety of a crashworthiness system, namely, the interaction of all
parameters for occupant safety. An aircraft’s ability to protect occupants and facilitate an
emergency exit can be better understood by evaluating the aircraft as a complete system.
The understanding gained from a systems evaluation can be used to develop and
implement new technologies and methods to enable more rapid and safer aircraft
emergency evacuations with fewer occupant injuries. Such an evaluation could include
analysis of important survivability factors identified by the NTSB, including occupant
restraints, survivable volume, energy absorbing seats, and seat retention. Consideration
given to these crashworthiness requirements may not necessarily prevent accidents, but
should improve occupant safety, which would lead to decreased occupant injuries in the
The FAA is proposing few specific crashworthiness requirements within part 22.
The proposed performance requirement for emergency evacuation and other proposed
airworthiness requirements would allow for the use of many varied technologies and
methods for occupant safety in the event of an emergency landing or other situations
where rapid aircraft egress is required. The proposed requirement would promote
innovation and encourage the introduction of new occupant protection technologies such
as those that have been introduced by the automotive industry. The FAA encourages
consensus standards bodies to develop consensus standards that will promote the
introduction and rapid integration of these and other solutions into light-sport category
aircraft designs.
Proposed § 22.170 would require that the aircraft display all placards and
instrument markings necessary for safe operation and occupant warning. Markings or
graphics would be required to clearly indicate the function of each control, other than
aircraft maintenance and servicing personnel, and first responders. Instrument markings
provide safe operating parameters for aircraft equipment and systems. Moreover,
compliance with placards and markings is currently required by § 91.9. Not conducting
aircraft operations in accordance with installed placards and markings could lead to
equipment or system failures that could negatively impact other systems, leading to an
emergency that could put both the aircraft and occupants at significant risk.
The FAA contends that the proposed requirement for aircraft certificated as light-
sport category aircraft to display all placards and instrument markings necessary for safe
that is in accord with the position of these aircraft within the FAA’s safety continuum.
For most experimental aircraft, there are no specific regulatory requirements for placards
and instrument markings. However, some have operating limitations requiring display of
placards. Type-certificated aircraft, which occupy the opposite end of the FAA’s safety
requirements that are contained in the airworthiness standards found in parts 23, 25, 27,
29, and 31. Placards provide information for the safe operation of the aircraft while
standards.
instrument markings are addressed in FAA-accepted consensus standards for each class
of aircraft. Because of the various classes of light-sport category aircraft, the placarding
and instrument marking consensus standards vary according to the complexity of the
aircraft. Some of those standards apply generally, while others address specific situations
that may apply only to more complex aircraft, such as placards for unusual design,
ASTM Standard F2245 contains standards for instrument markings on the aircraft’s
airspeed indicator.
aircraft under this proposal. Proposed § 22.170 is necessary so that the pilot and other
aircraft occupants can clearly see any placards or instrument markings that provide
necessary warnings for their safety or for the safe operation of equipment or systems.
Markings or graphics provide a clear indication of the function of the marked control to
the pilot and aircraft occupants. The FAA notes that primary flight controls would not be
Markings and graphics indicating the function of each control prevent confusion
and inadvertent operation of equipment and systems by the pilot or other occupants.
Improper or confusing placards, often due to poor wording, poor contrast, or poor
location, can also prevent the timely actuation of systems or equipment necessary for safe
provide appropriate warnings to help prevent errors that could lead to a loss of control or
a serious accident or injury. The proposal would ensure that these potentially hazardous
situations are properly accounted for and addressed. The FAA also notes that, for aircraft
15. Noise
Proposed § 22.175 would require that aircraft meet the applicable noise standards
of part 36 of this chapter. The proposed noise requirements are discussed in section IV.K.
designated as having simplified flight controls, it would be required to meet three criteria.
First, the pilot could only control the flight path of the aircraft or intervene in its
of the available power. Second, the aircraft would be required to be designed to prevent
loss of control, regardless of pilot input. Finally, the aircraft would need to have a means
to enable the pilot to discontinue the flight quickly and safely. This feature would also
Proposed § 22.180 for aircraft designed with simplified flight controls would only
The FAA recognizes that rapid advances are occurring in aircraft automation and
flight control technology. Aircraft are being designed and constructed with pilot
interfaces and flight controls that no longer resemble those found in traditional aircraft
cockpits. These aircraft have highly automated systems for controlling the flight path,
speed, and configuration of the aircraft while simultaneously providing protection from
aerodynamic hazards such as asymmetric thrust and excessive structural loading. These
aircraft also have cockpits or pilot compartments where primary flight controls such as
sticks, control columns, throttles, and rudder pedals may have been replaced by simpler
individual aircraft control surfaces would not qualify an aircraft as being designed with
simplified flight controls. However, a joystick controller that is used to select flight
control design.
aircraft by providing a certification path that would enable light-sport category aircraft to
pilots who may not have received the flight training or possess the aeronautical
experience necessary to operate more traditional forms of aircraft, but nonetheless meet
the specific requirements proposed for the operation of these highly automated aircraft.
For aircraft having simplified flight controls, the aircraft design would be required
to inherently prevent loss of control regardless of pilot input. The FAA considers that a
design inherently prevents loss of control if the design includes built-in features such as
automation which prevent the pilot from inputting a flight command that would be
hazardous to the aircraft or its occupants. Additionally, the aircraft design would need to
include features so that the aircraft could only be operated within its designated flight
envelope and within its prescribed operational limitations. These parameters would be
preprogrammed and would include boundaries such as airspeed, altitude, vertical speeds,
and lateral displacements. For aircraft equipped with multiple engines or rotor systems,
the aircraft would need to be able to safely respond, using the aircraft’s automation, to
asymmetric power situations due to loss of engine power. If used in the design,
automation would have to prevent loss of control of the aircraft under all circumstances,
even to the point of overriding erroneous or hazardous pilot inputs or only permitting the
The aircraft design would, however, be required to include a means to permit the
pilot to discontinue or suspend the flight quickly and safely and prevent inadvertent
activation of this feature. A pilot could choose to discontinue or suspend a flight for a
malfunction, or the presence of other hazards such as a flock of birds or an aircraft near,
options such as an immediate landing, a return flight to the aircraft’s point of departure, a
diversion to an alternate landing site, a course change, or initiation of a low altitude orbit
or in-place hover until any hazards have passed. The aircraft design must include a means
discontinuance or suspension of flight. This would prevent the aircraft from entering an
Proposed § 22.185 would require aircraft to have been designed, produced, and
tested under a documented quality assurance system to ensure each product and article
The 2004 final rule specifically recognized the necessity for aircraft certificated as
system. The current definition of consensus standards in § 1.1 states that consensus
standards used for the certification of light-sport aircraft may include “manufacturer
that aircraft and aircraft kits meet applicable design, production, and airworthiness
requirements and are manufactured and tested in accordance with identified consensus
FAA-accepted consensus standards would reduce the use of obsolete design drawings or
procedures that could jeopardize the safe operation of an aircraft. A quality assurance
certification as experimental aircraft are the only experimental aircraft that have a
by the holder of a production certificate for that kit. Production certificate holders must
Persons currently seeking certification of experimental aircraft built from kits that
§ 21.193(e). These aircraft are certificated under the provisions of § 21.191(i)(2) and the
quality assurance system. Additionally, aircraft built from those kits must have been
applicable consensus standard. These aircraft are built under a quality assurance system
as specified in ASTM Standard F2972, “Standard Specification for Light Sport Aircraft
writing a quality system that includes the 15 elements specified in § 21.137, obtain FAA
approval of its quality manual under § 21.138, and show compliance with quality system
requirements to the satisfaction of the FAA as part of applying for and obtaining a
production certificate. For light-sport category aircraft, ASTM Standard F2972 currently
addresses quality assurance systems for light-sport category aircraft. The FAA anticipates
that industry would develop acceptable and appropriate consensus standards for light-
The FAA retains its ability to inspect the manufacturer’s facility and quality system.
Proposed § 22.190 would require the aircraft to have been found compliant with
the provisions of the applicable consensus standards by individuals who have been
Accordingly, the FAA considers inclusion of a requirement that the aircraft be found
The FAA notes that experimental aircraft are generally not required to meet
for the training of individuals who assess the suitability of the design or production of
set forth in part 23, 25, 27, 29, or 31, however, are required to show compliance with
manufacturer in which the manufacturer shows, and the FAA finds, compliance with
applicable airworthiness standards. A type certificate is not issued for an aircraft design
until the FAA finds compliance with all applicable airworthiness standards through a
specific requirements for the certificate holder’s organization and quality system.
critical that individuals making these compliance findings would be trained in finding
would require, for example, engineers, pilots, and maintenance experts who make
standards.
previously mentioned LSAMA Final Report. The LSAMA Final Report noted that a
significant number of aircraft manufacturers could not fully demonstrate their ability to
meet certain consensus standards. As a result, the report recommended that industry
develop training so that manufacturers fully understand FAA regulatory requirements and
policies applicable to the certification of light-sport category aircraft and the means
necessary to meet applicable requirements. In view of the criticality of this need and the
proposing this requirement so that all individuals with responsibility for making
compliance findings are trained to understand how to make complete and correct findings
of compliance.
light-sport category aircraft has been ground and flight tested under documented
production acceptance test procedures. This testing would be required to validate aircraft
performance data; ensure the aircraft has no hazardous operating characteristics or design
features; ensure the aircraft is in a condition for safe operation; and ensure the aircraft can
safely conduct any aerial work operation designated by the manufacturer. The
manufacturer will ensure each aircraft can safely conduct any aerial work operation by
conducting flight testing of the that aerial work operation. If successful, the manufacturer
standards that would be the means of compliance for this proposed requirement.
for air racing, operating amateur-built aircraft, operating primary kit-built aircraft, and
operating light-sport aircraft have flight testing requirements imposed by their operating
limitations, yet no specific ground testing requirements. For these experimental aircraft,
the flight testing is typically conducted for a set time (e.g., 40 hours) to show compliance
with § 91.319(b). The FAA notes that amateur-built aircraft may instead use an FAA-
sourced task-based flight test plan as a substitute for the flight hour requirement. Aircraft
development or showing compliance with regulations must also undergo flight testing to
determine the suitability of the design for the issuance of a design or airworthiness
approval, as applicable.
All aircraft manufactured in accordance with the airworthiness standards set forth
in part 23, 25, 27, 29, or 31 are subject to ground and flight-testing requirements as part
of the type-certification process. The flight testing of aircraft intended for type
certification is much more rigorous than that of other aircraft, as the flight testing is
conducted for the aircraft to show compliance to the airworthiness standards used in the
plan is used to conduct ground and flight testing in the development of a type-certificated
aircraft.
The level of rigor for the ground and flight testing of light-sport category aircraft
would not be as extensive as that required for aircraft intended for type certification, yet
more extensive than that specified for experimental aircraft. Ground and flight testing of
light-sport category aircraft would not require that the aircraft only be flown for a
specified number of hours, as is done for certain experimental aircraft. It would also not
require the flight testing necessary to achieve a showing of compliance with extensive
verifying that the initial production aircraft meets certain operational performance
requirements that have been specified by the manufacturer in the pilot’s operating
handbook (POH). ASTM Standard F3035, “Standard Practice for Production Acceptance
in the Manufacture of a Fixed Wing Light Sport Aircraft,” contains standards for ground
and flight testing fixed-wing aircraft. ASTM standard F3035 addresses several
the aircraft has no hazardous operating characteristics, and ensuring the aircraft is in a
condition for safe operation. The FAA notes that FAA-accepted production acceptance
testing consensus standards exist for all classes of light-sport category aircraft.39 Since
this proposal would expand the classes of aircraft that could be certificated as light-sport
category aircraft and include a provision to allow aerial work as designated by the
39ASTM F2356, Standard Specification for Production Acceptance Testing System for Lighter-Than-Air Light Sport Aircraft;
ASTM F2242, Standard Specification for Production Acceptance Testing System for Powered Parachute Aircraft; and
ASTM F2447, Standard Practice for Production Acceptance Test Procedures for Weight-Shift-Control Aircraft.
manufacturer, the FAA anticipates that industry would develop acceptable and
§ 22.195.
Manufacturer ground and flight testing of each aircraft intended for certification
as light-sport category aircraft would be necessary to verify the aircraft meet the
performance data (e.g., airspeeds, fuel flow, fuel burn rate, range, endurance, load factors
(g-limits), engine-out (if applicable), etc.) and validate that the design and material used
in the construction of the aircraft provides sufficient strength and durability for the
conduct of all authorized operations. Ground and flight testing using production
acceptance test procedures also would verify that each aircraft does not have any
unforeseen hazardous flight characteristics and that the aircraft was properly constructed.
This testing ensures that the aircraft’s structure is of sufficient strength for its intended
operations and that aircraft controls are not binding, rubbing, or showing unexpected
wear. Aircraft designed with simplified flight controls must be ground and flight tested to
validate compliance with the requirements of § 22.180. Aircraft that have not undergone
adequate environmental testing in a ground and flight test program may experience
to receive a complete aircraft that conforms to the manufacturer’s design data and
provides the manufacturer with an opportunity to detect and fix any missing, broken,
The FAA also notes that if the aircraft has been authorized for the performance of
procedures would verify that the aircraft has been designed and constructed to validate
that the aircraft can be used to safely conduct those designated aerial work operations.
Ground and flight testing of the aircraft would be required to ensure that those aerial
work operations could be safely conducted. The FAA notes that if the manufacturer’s
statement of compliance indicated that an aircraft was authorized to conduct aerial work
that included patrolling operations, for example, the aircraft could be used for the
patrolling of any structure or area such as pipelines, transmission lines, harbors, railroad
tracks, farmland, forests, etc. Specific testing of the aircraft’s ability to safely patrol these
patrolling flight testing at low altitude to verify the aircraft can safely conduct that aerial
work operation. The FAA anticipates that industry will develop appropriate consensus
standards to document specific ground and flight testing used to validate aerial work
The FAA notes that some aerial work operations may place additional stresses
and loads on an aircraft if operated outside normal flight profiles. Flight testing would
validate any specific limitations necessary to conduct those designated aerial work
operations. Additionally, it would confirm that other applicable requirements can still be
met during the conduct of those operations, such as validating that the pilot has proper
visibility from the flight compartment. The proposed requirement would validate that the
aircraft has been demonstrated to be capable of safely performing those aerial work
Proposed § 21.190(c) would revise the list of documents that an applicant would
The proposed rule would require that additional information be contained in that
authorized aerial work operations, and a statement regarding compliance with part 36
and inspection program. Similar to the existing airworthiness certification processes for
light-sport category aircraft, the FAA would not approve or accept any of the documents
submitted. The approach is aligned with the FAA’s safety continuum where aircraft
higher on the safety continuum have greater privileges but also go through more rigorous
The proposal would provide applicants with clarification regarding the contents of
the pilot’s operating handbook by specifying that it include operating instructions and
that should be included in these instructions and limitations include guidance for
operations in, or the avoidance of, certain weather phenomenon such as freezing
precipitation, moderate or severe turbulence, takeoff or landing crosswinds, and hot and
By specifying in the proposal that the flight training supplement enable safe
operation of the aircraft within the intended flight envelope under all foreseeable
conditions, the FAA would codify its expectation that the flight training supplement
provide enhanced guidance to pilots regarding those methods and procedures necessary
to safely operate the aircraft within its intended flight envelope under all foreseeable
conditions. The flight training supplement should also provide aircraft operators with
appropriate information to understand the operation of the aircraft and its systems.
of any aerial work operations for which the manufacturer designated the aircraft as
designated aerial work operations to be readily available to the pilot. In accordance with
the proposal, the manufacturer would be required to provide any aircraft instructions and
limitations that effect the safe conduct of any manufacturer-designated aerial work
operations. Instructions and limitations that apply to all operations would not need to be
The pilot’s operating handbook would also be required to include a statement that
the aircraft has demonstrated compliance with part 36 to include the tested noise levels
and a statement regarding the acceptability of those noise levels for aircraft operations.
Per proposed per § 21.190(c)(2)(iv), the statement would assert that, “No determination
has been made by the Federal Aviation Administration that the noise levels of this aircraft
are or should be acceptable or unacceptable for operation in any location.” This statement
would provide operators with awareness that they are solely responsible for compliance
with any operational noise abatement procedures and requirements for the locations
where the aircraft is operated. An explanation of noise testing requirements and their
section IV.K.
Currently, an applicant must provide the FAA with the aircraft’s maintenance and
inspection procedures as part of the process for an airworthiness certificate for a light-
sport category aircraft. This proposal would require the applicant to instead provide a
maintenance and inspection program. Maintenance and inspection procedures detail the
steps involved in performing a maintenance task, such as changing a tire, or performing
for the conduct of inspections, tests, and checks that includes the airframe, engine,
propeller, rotor, and appliances. It also includes a schedule for performing the inspections
that must be accomplished under the inspection program expressed in time in service,
certificate under this section to provide the FAA with evidence that its aircraft has
demonstrated compliance with the applicable requirements of part 36. Such evidence may
include a statement from the manufacturer concerning compliance with part 36, the
means of compliance used, and the resultant noise levels. Section IV.K provides a
detailed discussion of proposed noise requirements for aircraft that do not conform to a
type certificate.
statement by the aircraft’s manufacturer that an aircraft complies with the applicable
Because of the significant expansion in the types and performance of aircraft that
that the manufacturer’s statement of compliance would take on an even greater level of
further strengthen its effect by requiring the manufacturer to provide greater detail
regarding the aircraft and the processes and procedures used in its design and production.
Those proposed changes are discussed in the paragraphs that follow. The proposed
validity and reliability of the statement. The proposed requirements would serve to
further implement the recommendations made in the previously discussed LSAMA Final
Report.
The FAA notes that light-sport category aircraft are not produced pursuant to an
FAA type or production certificate. The information and data typically provided for type-
certificated aircraft is not provided to the FAA during the certification process for light-
responsibility for making compliance statements would adopt a recommendation from the
LSAMA Final Report. The LSAMA Final Report noted that the statement of compliance
for certain aircraft may have been made that did not meet applicable consensus standards.
applicable requirements. In view of the criticality of this need and the FAA’s primary
reliance on the manufacturer’s statement of compliance (SOC), the FAA is proposing this
requirement to help assure that all individuals with responsibility for making compliance
statements are trained and certified to understand how to make complete and correct
statements.
meets the design and performance requirements specified in proposed § 61.316 for the
aircraft that a sport pilot would be permitted to operate. This proposal would significantly
expand the types of aircraft that could be certificated as light-sport category aircraft
beyond those aircraft that a sport pilot would be permitted to operate under proposed
§ 61.316. Accordingly, the proposed requirement would provide persons exercising sport
pilot privileges with a readily available means to determine whether a particular aircraft
Additionally, since the proposal would permit the manufacturer to designate those
types of aerial work that may be conducted using the aircraft, the statement of
operations which the manufacturer has designated as being able to be safely conducted
using the aircraft. Inclusion of this information in the statement of compliance provides
the owner with a readily available source to determine which aerial work operations are
authorized to be conducted in the aircraft. The list of aerial work operations that may be
safely conducted using the aircraft should match those listed in the POH. Proposed
§ 21.190(d)(4) would also assist in validating that the appropriate ground and flight
testing of the aircraft has been conducted in accordance with proposed § 22.195(d) to
determine that the aircraft can safely conduct those authorized aerial work operations in
whether the aircraft meets the requirements for aircraft having simplified flight controls
(see preamble for proposed § 22.180). This proposal would permit manufacturers to
controls if the applicable requirements are met. The proposed requirement would provide
pilots with a readily available means to determine whether a particular aircraft can be
Proposed § 21.190(d)(6) would retain the current requirement that the statement
would include a reference to proposed subpart B of part 22, which would contain the
applicable design, production, and airworthiness requirements for which the consensus
A manufacturer would need to identify each consensus standard used for the
Compliance. The FAA notes that consensus standards organizations typically publish a
first issue or specific revision to a consensus standard before acceptance by the FAA. A
consensus standard must be accepted by the FAA before it may be used for the
consensus standards effective on the aircraft’s date of manufacture are acceptable for use
interested person the following documents that meet the identified consensus standard:
the aircraft's operating instructions, the aircraft's maintenance and inspection procedures,
and the aircraft's flight training supplement. Proposed § 21.190(d)(8) would require that
the statement of compliance include a statement that the manufacturer will make
available to any interested person the documents specified in § 21.190(c) which consist of
those documents required to be provided to the FAA for certification of the aircraft. In
addition to the currently required documents, this proposal would require the
statement that the aircraft has demonstrated compliance with noise requirements in
part 36.
FAA, the proposal would also make a wider range of documents available to interested
persons. The FAA contends that broadening the scope of information required to be made
available would better assist current and prospective owners, operators, and maintenance
§ 21.190(c)(5), which requires a statement that the manufacturer will monitor and correct
airworthiness system that meets the identified consensus standard. The proposed
statement that the manufacturer will support the aircraft by implementing and
resolves in-service safety of flight issues, includes provisions for the issuance of safety
directives, and includes a process for notifying the FAA and all owners before
and maintain a comprehensive continued operational safety programs for their products.
effectively monitor and resolve in-service safety of flight issues. When such issues arise,
manufacturers may take appropriate action to resolve those issues. Such action could
include, but not be limited to, the issuance of safety directives to address unsafe
conditions for their products. As discussed later in this preamble, the FAA anticipates
that manufacturers would still issue safety directives when necessary to resolve a safety
can be rapidly disseminated. The proposal would require the statement of compliance to
include a statement from the manufacturer that its continued operational safety program
would include a process for notifying the FAA and all owners of all safety of flight issues
associated with the aircraft. Notification to both the FAA and owners would increase
awareness of potential safety issues and better enable the FAA to carry out its oversight
segment of the aviation industry. The proposal would facilitate increased communication
of safety of flight issues to the community, and better enable subsequent owners and
operators to become aware of, and take appropriate corrective actions to address, safety
of flight issues.
advance, to the FAA and all aircraft owners of continued operational safety program
40ASTM F3198, “Standard Specification for Light Sport Aircraft Manufacturer’s Continued Operational Safety (COS) Program,”
directs the aircraft manufacturer to issue safety directives to correct safety of flight conditions.
service provider changes or discontinuance. Such changes could result from a merger,
would provide notice to the FAA and to the owners and operators of affected models. In
the event of program cessation, this advanced notification would alert the FAA to the
increased chance for potential unsafe conditions on the affected aircraft and the need to
take prompt action to mitigate risks should the need arise. The FAA seeks comment
send the design information regarding the affected aircraft to the FAA prior to
discontinuing their continued operational safety program, so that the FAA can better
require a statement from the manufacturer that it will monitor and correct safety of flight
issues with one important difference. The proposal would require the manufacturer to
monitor and correct safety of flight issues through safety directives and a continued
operational safety program that meets the specified consensus standard. This would
replace the current requirement that the manufacturer monitor and correct through a
designed to provide support throughout the service lives of their products. The program
would include, but not be limited to, processes and procedures to monitor the
airworthiness of the fleet and prevent the occurrence of safety of flight issues, and the
management and use of feedback processes to improve a product’s design and
production.
Current § 21.190(c)(6) requires a statement that, at the request of the FAA, the
manufacturer will provide unrestricted access to its facilities. The FAA might require
access to conduct oversight, audit compliance with applicable standards, take those
actions necessary to verify unsafe conditions have been properly addressed, or respond to
to include a statement by the manufacturer that it will provide unrestricted access to all
data necessary to determine compliance with the provisions of this section and other
applicable requirements. By only specifying that a manufacturer will provide the FAA
with access to its facilities, the current rule does not provide assurance that the FAA will
be able to obtain access to the technical data. The proposal recognizes that obtaining
access to only a manufacturer’s facility may not be sufficient for the FAA to carry out its
regulatory responsibilities and that access to data may be necessary to conduct oversight.
compliance to include a statement that the manufacturer has established and maintains a
quality assurance system that meets the requirements of § 22.185. The specific
requirements that a quality assurance system must meet and the need for aircraft
assurance system are discussed in the section IV.D.16 of this proposed rule addressing
contain a statement that the manufacturer has established and maintains such a system,
the proposal further emphasizes the specific importance that the FAA attaches to
producing light-sport category aircraft under a quality assurance system. Establishing and
documenting a quality assurance system is critical in assuring that aircraft and aircraft
kits meet applicable design, production, and airworthiness requirements and are
proposed rule would be able to continue to operate under the provisions of its
airworthiness certificate. However, these aircraft would not be able to take advantage of
the expanded capabilities in this proposed rule, to include conducting aerial work.
Proposed § 21.190(e) would contain special provisions for aircraft certificated as light-
sport category aircraft before the effective date of the final rule that would enable these
aircraft to conduct aerial work operations. The proposed § 21.190(e) would permit the
the effective date of the final rule to submit an amended manufacturer’s statement of
compliance which would permit the conduct of certain aerial work operations designated
statement would need to identify the aircraft by make, model, serial number, and date of
manufacture. The statement would also be required to be made by the original aircraft
manufacturer, as the original manufacturer is the source of the design and compliance
data used to make the original statement and determine whether the aircraft’s design and
construction can withstand the expected or known loads associated with the designated
aerial work operation. Unlike type-certificated aircraft designs, the FAA does not engage
in showing and finding activities using the aircraft manufacturer’s design and compliance
data for light-sport category aircraft and therefore cannot make any determinations on the
appropriateness of specific aerial work operations, even those that may be benign in
compliance or provide the data to a third party, the aircraft will not be authorized to
conduct aerial work operations. For an amended statement of compliance, the original
manufacturer would be responsible for creating the document and listing those authorized
A light-sport category aircraft certificated before the effective date of this rule
would not have to meet the proposed part 22 requirements to obtain an amended
statement of compliance. Instead, the statement would need to reference and reaffirm the
statements made in the original manufacturer’s statement of compliance and specify the
manufacturer would be reaffirming that the aircraft configuration still conforms to the
manufacturer’s design data and still complies with the original consensus standards,
unless the aircraft was modified by the manufacturer or under the manufacturer’s
in effect at the time of manufacture. The manufacturer would also be reaffirming that any
safety of flight issues identified through the issuance of safety directives or a continued
manufacturer approved procedure. To make these reaffirmations, the aircraft and its
determine that the aircraft continues to meet the consensus standards referenced in the
original statement of compliance. The FAA notes that such action may be cost
validation that the aircraft continues to meet the standards identified in the original
could not occur without the manufacturer’s data since the data supports compliance with
design and construction of the aircraft provides sufficient structural integrity to enable
safe operation of the aircraft during the performance of the specified aerial work
operations and that the aircraft is able to withstand any foreseeable flight and ground
loads. The manufacturer could accomplish this task while simultaneously evaluating the
The FAA notes that to comply with this provision, manufacturers would use consensus
standards for performing aerial work. The proposal would require the amended statement
of compliance to identify the consensus standards the aircraft complies with. The FAA
anticipates that industry members will begin developing those standards after this
proposal is published.
The proposal would also require that the amended statement of compliance be
work operations that may be safely conducted. It would also require applicable revisions
be made to the aircraft’s maintenance and inspection program and flight training
supplement necessary to accomplish any aerial work operations. These revisions could
include, for example, any necessary maintenance tasks or inspections in preparation for,
or because of, aerial work operations. If an aerial work operation could be accomplished
using standard operational procedures, the aircraft’s operating instructions should state
this for each aerial work operation for which use of those procedures is appropriate.
mark light-sport category aircraft with “light-sport.” This rule would not require owners
to remove existing marks. However, aircraft owners would be allowed to remove the
marks any time after the effective date of the final rule.
The FAA originally imposed the “light-sport” marking requirement in the 2004
final rule to clearly identify aircraft certificated in the light-sport category. As the
proposal would significantly expand the parameters of those aircraft that could be
certificated in the light-sport category, the proposal would eliminate the “light-sport”
marking requirement. Previously, all aircraft certificated in the light-sport category could
be operated by sport pilots and the marking readily identified those aircraft. As certain
aircraft certificated in the light-sport category under the proposal may no longer meet the
privileges, retaining the “light-sport” marking requirement would no longer serve the
purpose of identifying those light-sport category aircraft that persons exercising sport
pilot privileges could operate. As such, the FAA is concerned that retaining the “light-
sport” marking requirement would be a source of confusion for persons exercising sport
pilot privileges. As with other aircraft, a person exercising sport pilot privileges would
need to evaluate an aircraft to determine whether the aircraft meets the parameters of
those aircraft they are authorized to operate. In addition, information related to the
aircraft certification category is included on the airworthiness certificate for each aircraft
and is required per § 91.203(b) to be displayed at the cabin or cockpit entrance so that it
Part 61 of title 14 prescribes the requirements for pilot and flight instructor
certificates and ratings.41 Pursuant to part 61, the FAA issues six grades of pilot
certificates: student, sport, recreational, private, commercial, and airline transport pilot
(ATP).42 These grades of pilot certificates require increasing levels of pilot experience,
testing, and associated privileges. Additionally, the FAA issues flight instructor
41 14 CFR 61.1(a)(1).
42 14 CFR 61.5(a)(1).
certificates under subpart H of part 61 and flight instructor certificates with a sport pilot
The sport pilot certificate differs from higher grades of pilot certificates because the
FAA does not issue category and class ratings on a sport pilot certificate. Upon the
successful completion of the practical test for a sport pilot certificate, the FAA issues the
applicant a sport pilot certificate without any category and class ratings and provides the
pilot with a logbook endorsement for the category and class of aircraft for which the pilot
is authorized to act as PIC (i.e., the category and class of aircraft in which the practical
light-sport aircraft, the sport pilot must receive training and an endorsement from an
authorized instructor for the additional privilege, pass a proficiency check from an
authorized instructor (other than the instructor who trained them), and receive a logbook
endorsement from the instructor who conducted the proficiency check.44 The logbook
endorsement from the authorized instructor who conducted the proficiency check certifies
that the sport pilot is authorized for the additional category and class light-sport aircraft
privilege.45An airmen application, known as FAA Form 8710-11, is also submitted to the
The flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating under subpart K differs
from the flight instructor certificate issued under subpart H because it has limited
privileges compared to a subpart H flight instructor. For example, a flight instructor with
a sport pilot rating may only provide training and endorsements that qualify applicants
for sport pilot certificates and privileges.47 A flight instructor qualified under subpart H
43 14 CFR 61.317.
44 14 CFR 61.321.
45 14 CFR 61.321(d).
46 FAA Form 8710-11, Airman Certificate and/or Rating Application Supplemental Information and Instructions.
47 14 CFR 61.413, 61.415.
may provide training and endorsements to persons seeking a higher-grade of pilot
Currently, a sport pilot may only operate an aircraft that meets the definition of
light-sport aircraft in § 1.1. As previously discussed, the FAA is proposing to remove the
definition of light-sport aircraft from § 1.1 and relocate the substantive requirements,
regulation, in § 61.316, that would prescribe performance and design limitations for the
aircraft sport pilots can operate. Additionally, the FAA is proposing amendments that
would modernize the sport pilot and sport pilot instructor regulations. These amendments
would expand the types of aircraft a sport pilot may operate, expand sport pilot
operational privileges, revise some testing requirements, and permit the use of FAA-
qualified aviation training devices (ATD) and flight simulation training devices (FSTD)
for sport pilot training credit. Additionally, the FAA proposes training and instructor
endorsement requirements for persons seeking to operate aircraft with simplified flight
control designations to ensure the safe operation of these new aircraft. These proposals
capacity of no more than two persons, including the pilot. Thus, sport pilots are limited to
operating aircraft with two seats. Sport pilots are also limited under § 61.315(c)(4) to
carrying one passenger. The FAA is proposing to increase the maximum seat capacity for
airplanes that a sport pilot can operate to four seats but would retain the operational
limitation for sport pilots that limits them to carrying a single passenger.
In considering whether to expand this two-seat limitation, the FAA reviewed the
privileges and limitations that apply to recreational pilots, which are contained in
§ 61.101, because a recreational pilot certificate is the next higher grade of pilot
certificate and has very similar operating limitations to sport pilots. Currently,
acting as PIC of an aircraft that is certificated for more than four occupants. The FAA
adopted this requirement in 1989.48 In the final rule that adopted the four-seat limitation
for recreational pilots, the FAA determined that limiting recreational pilots to two-seat
aircraft was unnecessarily restrictive notwithstanding that a recreational pilot, like a sport
pilot, is limited to carrying a single passenger.49 The FAA explained that the two-seat
limitation was based on the premise that a recreational pilot certificate is intended for
recreational purposes rather than transportation.50 However, there are many basic aircraft
with seating capacities of four seats and these general aviation aircraft are often used for
student training or recreational flying.51 At the time of the 1989 final rule, the FAA
received overwhelming support for the four-seat occupancy limitation for recreational
pilots.52 Since then the NTSB has only recorded 49 accidents with a recreational pilot
acting as PIC and only six of those accidents involved a fatality over a 30-year period.
Additionally, like recreational pilot certificates, the two-seat limitation for sport
pilots is consistent with the premise that a sport pilot certificate is used for recreational
purposes and not for carrying persons or property for compensation or hire. However,
airplanes with seating capacities of four seats are often used for flight training and
The FAA contends that the skill necessary to operate two seat airplanes versus
four seat airplanes does not appreciably differ due to the similarity in design, weight and
48 Certification of Recreational Pilots and Annual Flight Review Requirements for Recreational Pilots and Non-Instrument-Rated
Private Pilots with Fewer than 400 Flight Hours, Final Rule, 54 FR 13028 (Mar. 29, 1989).
49 14 CFR 61.101(a)(1).
50 Id.
51 The FAA also recognizes that primary category aircraft certificated under § 21.24(a)(1) have a maximum seating capacity of not
more than four persons, including the pilot. These aircraft are also purposed for personal use and recreation and use for flight training.
The aircraft certification regulations and the associated operating limitations for primary category aircraft are similar but more
restrictive (i.e., have higher standards) than the § 21.190 consensus standards certification process for light-sport aircraft.
52 As stated in the 1989 final rule, approximately 100 commenters supported the proposal to expand occupancy limitations from two-
the training and testing requirements for recreational pilot certificates and compared
those with the requirements for sport pilot certificates. In this comparison, the FAA
determined that sport pilots are largely trained and tested to the same standards as
recreational pilots.53 Specifically, based on the Practical Test Standards (PTS) for sport
pilots and for recreational pilots, the FAA finds that the knowledge and skills that a sport
pilot must demonstrate on a practical test are virtually identical to the knowledge and
skills that a recreational pilot must demonstrate on a practical test. Considering these
testing similarities and that recreational pilots have been safely operating four-seat
airplanes with only one passenger since 1989, the FAA finds that permitting sport pilots
to operate airplanes with four seats would not adversely affect safety. Furthermore, based
on an evaluation of the tasks a person must demonstrate to obtain a sport pilot certificate
and the similar aircraft characteristics of a two-seat airplane and a four-seat airplane (e.g.,
design, weight, and operational capabilities), the FAA finds that the minimum pilot skills
that are currently required for sport pilots to operate an airplane with two seats are
The FAA recognizes that there may be airplanes that meet all elements of
proposed light-sport category aircraft certification (e.g., those characteristics set forth by
proposed § 22.100, except proposed paragraph (a)(2)) that have a maximum seating
capacity of more than four seats. In this proposal, the FAA declines to expand sport pilot
privileges as applicable to those airplanes with more than four seats. First, the FAA notes
that part 61 provides different grades of pilot certificate. With each higher grade of pilot
certificate comes expanded privileges. Considering this regulatory framework and the
privileges provided to recreational pilots and private pilots, the FAA finds that it would
53See Sport Pilot PTS for Airplane, Gyroplane, Glider, and Flight Instructor (FAA-S-8081-29 with Change 3) and Recreational Pilot
PTS for Airplane, Rotorcraft/Helicopter, and Rotorcraft/Gyroplane (FAA-S-8081-3A).
be inappropriate to permit a sport pilot to operate an airplane with more than four seats.
Doing so would provide a sport pilot with a greater operational privilege than a
recreational pilot, which is a higher grade of pilot certificate than the sport pilot
certificate. In other words, doing so would permit a sport pilot to be afforded a privilege
that is reserved for a private pilot certificate holder without requiring the sport pilot to
receive the additional training and experience that a private pilot applicant must receive
and without requiring the sport pilot to be tested to same standards as a private pilot
applicant.
The FAA expects that, without a maximum seating capacity set forth in the
proposed regulation, the other proposed aircraft limitations in § 61.316 would indirectly
prevent aircraft that sport pilots may fly from having more than four seats. The FAA
recognizes; however, that it might be possible that some airplanes to have more than four
seats and still meet the proposed aircraft limitations. As a general matter, airplanes with
more than four seats become larger and more complex and require increasing pilot skills
to operate safely. The FAA finds that permitting sport pilots to operate an airplane with
more than four seats would introduce an unacceptable increase in risk to operations in the
national airspace system (NAS). An airplane with 5, 6, or 7 seats would have a longer
fuselage, a significant increase in weight, and need for a more powerful powerplant
compared to a two- or four-seat airplane. As a result, the control pressures to operate the
airplane would be greater and increase workload on the pilot. Additionally, the larger
powerplants would create significantly more torque and affect directional control of the
airplane. For example, increased torque would impose increased demand on the pilot to
maintain directional control during the takeoff and climb. Upon evaluating the
characteristics of larger airplanes that have more than four seats, the FAA finds that those
larger airplanes have significantly different handling characteristics than an airplane with
just two- or four-seats. Those different handling characteristics require more demanding
operational skills than those skills required to operate a two- or four-seat airplane. The
FAA finds that the skills required to safely operate an airplane that has more than four
seats require a higher grade of pilot certificate that includes additional experience,
training, and testing that is greater than what a sport pilot is required to accomplish. For
these reasons, the FAA is proposing a four-seat limitation for the airplanes that a sport
pilot seeks to operate. Accordingly, the FAA is proposing a limitation in § 61.316(c) that
would permit sport pilots to operate airplanes with a maximum seating capacity of four
persons. However, the FAA proposes to retain the current operational limitation for sport
pilots to carry no more than one passenger in any aircraft that a sport pilot can operate.
The FAA finds that this limitation is consistent with sport pilot operations today and with
the use of the FAA’s safety continuum, which the FAA uses to assess risk.
Currently, the light-sport aircraft definition does not expressly require an aircraft
to have the capability to maintain directional control and a controlled descent in the event
of a powerplant failure. The omission of this requirement in the regulations does not
present a safety concern at this time because this control requirement is inherent in
airplane manufacture and design and the light-sport aircraft definition excludes
helicopters and powered-lift. For example, airplanes have the ability to maintain
directional control and a controlled descent in the event of a partial or total powerplant
failure. Given the aerodynamics, a pilot can normally glide the airplane to a safe landing
sport pilots to operate certain kinds of helicopters. However, the ability to maintain
directional control and a controlled descent in the event of a powerplant failure is not
inherent in all new helicopter designs (specifically multicopters). Some new helicopters
may not possess the ability to autorotate to a safe landing in the event of a powerplant
failure.
To fit the construct of the FAA safety continuum, as well as the expectation for
the use of new aircraft that can be safely operated by sport pilots, the FAA has
determined that any aircraft (except balloons and airships) that a sport pilot operates must
have the capability to establish a controlled descent and directional control in the event of
a partial or complete power plant failure. Therefore, the FAA proposes in § 61.316(h)
that a person with a sport pilot certificate may only act as PIC for those powered aircraft
(which could include multicopters) whereby the loss of partial power would not adversely
affect the directional control of the aircraft. Specifically, § 61.316 describes the sport
pilot aircraft performance limitations and would require in proposed paragraph (h) that
powered aircraft must provide the pilot an ability to maintain directional control and
controlled descent in the event of a powerplant failure. As proposed, if the aircraft does
not possess these capabilities (excluding balloons and airships), a sport pilot would not be
able to act as PIC of the aircraft. This requirement would ensure that any aircraft a sport
pilot operates is simple to control in the event of a powerplant failure, consistent with the
aircraft that sport pilots are currently permitted to operate. Therefore, while the FAA
proposes to expand the types of aircraft that sport pilots may operate, the FAA intends to
permit sport pilots to operate only those aircraft that would require skills commensurate
Notably, despite the implicit inclusion of this feature for airplanes, the FAA is not
proposing to limit this requirement to helicopters. The FAA reasons that manufacturers
may contemplate future airplane or other aircraft designs that do not include an inherent
aerodynamic ability for the pilot to maintain directional control and a controlled descent
in the event of a powerplant failure. The FAA proposes to impose this requirement for all
powered aircraft that a sport pilot may seek to operate as PIC so advancements in
airplane technology would include this feature. This requirement would appropriately
mitigate the risk to persons both on board the aircraft and on the ground that may be
Section 61.315 currently specifies the privileges and limitations of a sport pilot
certificate. Currently, under § 61.315(c)(5), sport pilots are prohibited from conducting
night operations. Also, the § 1.1 light-sport aircraft definition currently prohibits sport
pilots from operating aircraft equipped with retractable landing gear (except for
amphibious aircraft and gliders) and aircraft with a controllable pitch propeller. However,
the FAA contends that, with the completion of additional training and obtaining a flight
instructor qualifying endorsement, sport pilots can safely conduct these types of flight
would permit a sport pilot to conduct night operations if the sport pilot meets certain
training, endorsement, and experience requirements, which the FAA is proposing in new
§ 61.329. These provisions are discussed in greater detail in the next section. Likewise,
the FAA is proposing to add a new provision, in § 61.315(c)(20), that would prohibit
sport pilots from acting as PIC of an airplane with a retractable landing gear or a
controllable pitch propeller unless a sport pilot meets the training and endorsement
high altitude, and tailwheel airplanes.54 These instructor endorsements are used today and
are a proven method to validate pilot proficiency and qualifications. The following
night operations. Section 1.1 defines “night” as the time between the end of evening civil
twilight and the beginning of morning civil twilight, as published in the Air Almanac,
converted to local time. In support of the proposal to permit sport pilots to conduct night
operations, the FAA acknowledges that many states in the U.S. have reduced daylight
hours during the winter months. During those days with reduced daylight, sport pilots
may be under pressure to complete a flight even after sunset due to weather or delays
from unexpected events. A sport pilot who conducts an operation at night, as defined in
emphasizes that non-compliance with the FAA’s regulations is unacceptable and subject
to compliance or enforcement action. The FAA recognizes, however, that the reduced
daylight hours in many northern states may result in sport pilots experiencing pressure to
conduct flights before night. Due to unforeseen circumstances, these flights may become
marginally non-compliant as they near the end of evening civil twilight. Because a sport
pilot is not currently required to receive training for operating at night, any sport pilot
operations that occur after the end of evening civil twilight create a safety risk. To
mitigate that risk, the FAA proposes to permit sport pilots to qualify to operate at night
endorsement from an authorized instructor. The FAA finds that, with this added training,
the window of time during which sport pilots may conduct operations would be expanded
Specifically, to validate that sport pilots possess the necessary skill to safely
navigate at night, the FAA proposes the following risk-mitigation training requirements
in new § 61.329. Under proposed § 61.329(a) a sport pilot must receive at least three
hours of flight training at night from an authorized instructor and receive a logbook
endorsement certifying that they are proficient in the operation of the aircraft at night. In
addition, proposed § 61.329(b) requires that the sport pilot conduct at least one cross-
country night flight, with a landing at an airport of at least 25 nautical miles from the
departure airport, except for powered parachutes. Proposed § 61.329(c) would require the
sport pilot to accomplish at least ten takeoffs and landings at night with an authorized
instructor. Proposed § 61.329(d) would also set forth certain medical requirements: the
PIC must either hold a medical certificate issued under part 67, subpart D, Third-Class
person holds a valid U.S. driver’s license. Additionally, the operation would be required
A sport pilot may receive the night training and endorsement specified in § 61.329
from a person who holds either a flight instructor certificate issued under subpart H of
part 61 or a flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating. However, before a flight
instructor with a sport pilot rating may provide the night training and endorsement to a
sport pilot seeking night privileges, the flight instructor must first receive the training and
endorsement themselves. The FAA is, therefore, proposing to amend § 61.415, which
prescribes the limits of a flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating, by adding
new paragraph (n) to state that a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating may not provide
training in an aircraft at night unless they have completed the night training and
endorsement requirements specified in proposed § 61.329. The FAA notes that, upon
publication of the final rule, there would be no sport pilot instructors who satisfy the new
night training and endorsement requirements of § 61.329. Thus, as an initial matter, sport
pilot instructors would receive the night training and endorsement from a subpart H flight
instructor.
The FAA notes that the requirements in proposed § 61.329 largely mirror those
required of private pilots who conduct operations at night as set forth by § 61.109, as well
as current sport pilot experience requirements under § 61.313. The FAA recognizes that
these training requirements are appropriate for private pilots to obtain the knowledge and
skills necessary to conduct night operations safely and reasons that a sport pilot should
conduct the same night training requirements before acting as PIC at night. After this
training has been completed, the sport pilot would receive the endorsement from the
authorized instructor, at which point they would be able to conduct night operations.
adding an exception for sport pilots who seek privileges to operate an aircraft at night.
§ 61.329, which would contain the night operation training, experience and endorsement
requirements. The FAA notes that a sport pilot seeking to act as PIC of an aircraft
carrying a passenger at night would be required to satisfy the recent flight experience
Gear
The FAA proposes to allow sport pilots to operate an airplane with a controllable
pitch propeller or an aircraft equipped with retractable landing gear. The FAA contends
that, similar to obtaining the privileges to conduct night operations, additional training
and flight instructor endorsements would adequately qualify sport pilots to operate these
aircraft safely. Assumptions made in the 2004 final rule suggesting that allowing a
55Section 61.57(b)(1) states that, except as provided in § 61.57(e), no person may act as PIC of an aircraft carrying passengers during
the period beginning 1 hour after sunset and ending 1 hour before sunrise, unless within the preceding 90 days that person has made at
least three takeoffs and three landings to a full stop during the period beginning 1 hour after sunset and ending 1 hour before sunrise,
and (i) that person acted as sole manipulator of the flight controls, and (ii) the required takeoffs and landings were performed in an
aircraft of the same category, class, and type (if a type rating is required).
retractable landing gear would add unnecessary complexity and would not provide a
safety benefit conflicted with other allowable privileges.56 Subsequent amendments were
made to the light-sport aircraft definition to permit retractable landing gear for
amphibious light-sport airplanes and gliders.57 The FAA contends that additional training
and endorsements would allow sport pilots to operate airplanes with a controllable pitch
propeller or aircraft with retractable landing gear even when not intended for water
operations.
Currently, there is a population of sport pilot certificate holders who have never
with retractable landing gear. The FAA finds that permitting these sport pilots to operate
aircraft with these new capabilities without first receiving training would introduce an
unacceptable safety risk to the NAS. To mitigate this risk, the FAA proposes to require
the sport pilot to receive training and an endorsement from an authorized instructor
validating proficiency. The FAA finds that requiring training in the operation of an
airplane with a controllable pitch propeller or an aircraft with retractable landing gear
would allow the sport pilot to become proficient with the use of these specific designs
and capabilities before acting as PIC in the aircraft. Additionally, requiring the sport pilot
to receive an endorsement from an authorized instructor certifying that the sport pilot is
proficient in the operation of the aircraft that contains either a controllable pitch propeller
or retractable landing gear would provide assurance that the pilot has acquired the skills
aircraft with a retractable landing gear safely, the FAA finds it necessary to propose
several new provisions. First, the FAA is proposing to amend current § 61.315, which
56 See e.g., 69 FR 44800 (“The FAA reiterates its original position that for aircraft other than gliders, retractable landing gear is
inconsistent with the simplicity of the light-sport aircraft, and the training requirements for the sport pilot.”).
57 72 FR 19661.
contains the operational limitations of a sport pilot certificate, by adding new paragraph
(c)(20). Proposed § 61.315(c)(20) would prohibit a sport pilot from operating an airplane
with a controllable pitch propeller or an aircraft with retractable landing gear unless the
sport pilot meets the requirements specified in proposed § 61.331. The FAA proposes to
Additionally, because controllable pitch propellers and retractable landing gear are design
characteristics of an aircraft and the FAA would permit sport pilots to operate aircraft
with those characteristics only if certain conditions are met, the FAA finds it necessary to
carry those characteristics over to newly proposed § 61.316. Specifically, the FAA
proposes in § 61.316(b) to permit a sport pilot to act as PIC of an aircraft that, since its
original certification, has retractable landing gear or a controllable pitch propeller if the
sport pilot meets the training and endorsement requirements specified in proposed
§ 61.331.
the FAA recognizes that a controllable pitch propeller and retractable landing gear are
airplane that has retractable landing gear, flaps, and a controllable pitch propeller.
Notably, however, airplanes may contain only one of these three features (e.g., only a
controllable pitch propeller or only retractable landing gear). For the reasons explained
above, the FAA finds it necessary to require sport pilots to receive training and an
endorsement from an authorized instructor for the operation of an airplane that has only
one of these features. It is possible, however, for a sport pilot to receive training and an
In this event, the FAA finds that the endorsement certifying that the pilot is proficient in
the operation of a complex airplane should also count towards the endorsement that is
proposed in § 61.331 for an airplane that has only a controllable pitch propeller or an
aircraft that has only retractable landing gear. Therefore, the FAA proposes rule language
in § 61.331(a)(1) and (b)(1) to ensure that a sport pilot who has received the endorsement
The FAA notes that it is not proposing a minimum number of hours of training,
similar to the lack of mandated training hours required in § 61.31(e) for the operation of a
complex airplane.58 Rather, the authorized instructor is tasked with determining the
to proficiency with an endorsement. The FAA has permitted training and instructor
endorsements for all other grades of pilot certificate for these same privileges, including
student pilots, and contends that this is also appropriate for sport pilots.
to address the night training and endorsement for sport pilot instructors, the FAA finds it
necessary to amend § 61.415 by adding proposed (l), which would require a sport pilot
flight controls design and designation would not have traditional flight controls available
to the pilot. Currently, the FAA does not have a regulatory mechanism to require flight
58 Section 61.1 defines complex airplanes. Section 61.31(e) specifies the training and endorsement requirements.
The FAA recognizes that simplified flight control designs will vary from one
aircraft to another (i.e., model to model). As such, piloting would not involve the
Therefore, it is important that a pilot be qualified and validate competency for each
simplified flight control make and model60 of aircraft to validate competency in that
unique design.61 Furthermore, aircraft with simplified flight control designations may be
operated by pilots other than sport pilots, resulting in the same safety concerns for pilots
address the simplified flight control systems must apply broadly to persons who hold
pilot certificates issued under part 61. Thus, the FAA proposes this qualification for
simplified flight controls be attained by a training and endorsement and, in some cases, a
practical test.
This section describes the requirements for pilots to act as PIC of an aircraft with
pertaining to practical tests where (1) a person seeks a pilot certificate in an aircraft with
simplified flight controls, (2) a person has a pilot certificate with a simplified flight
controls model-specific limitation and seeks to operate another model of aircraft category
and class with a simplified flight controls designation, and (3) a person has a pilot
certificate not limited to simplified flight controls (i.e., the person can act as PIC of an
aircraft with traditional flight controls) but seeks to obtain privileges to act as PIC of a
Due to the differing characteristics, as previously discussed, the FAA finds that
additional training specific to the particular make and model of aircraft with a simplified
59 Unlike aircraft with simplified flight controls designation, there is commonality with traditional flight control systems. For example,
airplanes have a control yoke, rudder pedals, trim, and a throttle. Helicopters have a cyclic, collective, throttle and anti-torque pedals.
60 The FAA proposes to use the terms “make and model” in § 61.31(l) consistent with the manner in which they are used throughout
part 61. Therefore, as a general matter, “make” refers to the manufacturer of the aircraft (e.g., Cessna, Piper, Cirrus, etc.). “Model”
refers to the specific aircraft model (e.g., C152, C172, PA28-112, SR20, etc.).
61 This is similar to the current requirement for student pilots to receive a model-specific endorsement under § 61.87(n) before
operation of that aircraft. Therefore, the FAA proposes to amend § 61.31 by adding new
paragraph (l) to contain the qualification requirements for persons seeking to act as PIC
§ 61.31(l)(1) would require pilots seeking to act as PIC of aircraft certificated with a
pilot to receive a logbook endorsement from an authorized instructor who has found the
pilot proficient in the safe operation of that model-specific aircraft and the associated
simplified flight control system. The FAA’s proposal would permit any certificated pilot,
regardless of certificate level, who holds the appropriate category and class to operate a
training and endorsement from an authorized flight instructor specific to the safe
a sport pilot instructor. Before an instructor may provide flight training in an aircraft with
a simplified flight controls designation, the instructor would be required to first receive
the model-specific training and the accompanying endorsement to validate that the
instructor is proficient in the safe operation of the aircraft. Because this would be a
limitation in the sport pilot instructor logbook until the sport pilot instructor meets certain
conditions, the FAA is proposing to amend current § 61.415 by adding new paragraph
(m). Proposed § 61.415(m) would expressly limit the sport pilot instructor from providing
training in an aircraft with simplified flight controls design and designation unless the
sport pilot has received the model-specific training and endorsement required under
61.429, which contains the requirements for a subpart H instructor seeking to exercise the
privileges of a flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating. Specifically, the FAA
is proposing to add new paragraph (d) to current § 61.429 to state that a subpart H
model-specific aircraft that has a simplified flight controls designation must meet the
Initially, there would be no flight instructors who are qualified to provide flight
training in an aircraft that has a simplified flight controls designation because the training
and endorsement requirements in proposed § 61.31(l) are new. Thus, no one has yet
received the training or endorsement necessary to act as PIC. The FAA is proposing to
add new paragraph (m) to current § 61.195 to address this issue. The FAA intends for
proposed § 61.195(m) to provide the initial cadre of flight instructors with an alternative
build the initial cadre of flight instructors who could provide the training and
Specifically, proposed § 61.195(m) would permit instructor pilots that work with
the manufacturer of aircraft with the simplified flight controls designation to provide
training and endorsements to the initial cadre of authorized instructors and pilot
examiners. This proposed provision would allow for the initial operation of aircraft with
the simplified flight controls designation during and after the aircraft certification process
for these new aircraft. An instructor pilot at the manufacturer for the aircraft would be
one of the only individuals with significant experience operating the model-specific
aircraft with simplified flight controls. Additionally, the instructor pilots are generally
tasked with developing and validating training for the aircraft for the manufacturer. The
FAA finds that the duties of an instructor pilot establish intricate knowledge of the
aircraft’s systems and components. The FAA has determined that it would be beneficial
to leverage the experience these instructor pilots have to create the initial cadre of
To mitigate any safety risk that may result from allowing an instructor pilot to
provide training in a model-specific aircraft, the FAA has decided to narrowly confine the
training population to include only subpart H instructors. Thus, the FAA is proposing the
provisions as a limitation to the flight instructor certificate pursuant to § 61.195 and not
to sport pilot instructors. Because an instructor pilot would have significant experience in
the model-specific aircraft and the training population would be narrowly confined, the
FAA finds that proposed § 61.195(m) would not adversely affect safety.
In developing this proposal, the FAA recognized that any aeronautical experience
obtained in an aircraft with a simplified flight controls designation would not be equal to
the aeronautical experience obtained piloting aircraft with traditional flight controls.
However, because aircraft with simplified flight controls designation would fall within
the same category and class of aircraft as aircraft with traditional flight controls, pilots
could seek to build flight time for higher certificates and ratings in much more simplistic
aircraft. The FAA finds that aeronautical experience in aircraft with simplified flight
equipped aircraft. With that understanding, the FAA is proposing that any pilot time
acquired while operating an airplane or helicopter with a simplified flight controls design
and designation may not be used to satisfy certain pilot-in-command flight time
requirements for a higher-grade certificate. Those pilot time experience limitations can be
found in newly proposed § 61.9. For example, under proposed § 61.9(b), a person
seeking a commercial pilot certificate with a rotorcraft category helicopter class rating
may not use pilot time acquired in a helicopter with simplified flight control designation
to meet the PIC flight time experience requirement in § 61.129(c)(2)(i), which requires
35 hours of PIC flight time in a helicopter. PIC experience in a helicopter with a
simplified flight controls does not provide the same skills and experience a commercial
controls that include unique skills like the conduct of an autorotation. Once a pilot
obtains a helicopter class rating on their commercial pilot certificate, that pilot has
certificate to continue to obtain the class-specific PIC flight time in a helicopter that has
Section 61.43 provides the general procedures for conducting a practical test. The
completion of a practical test for a certificate or rating consists of performing the tasks
specified in the areas of operation applicable to the airman certificate or rating sought.
These tasks and maneuvers are contained in the ACS or the PTS, as appropriate. Current
production aircraft, as well as those that obtain a simplified flight control designation in
the future, may not be able to accomplish all the tasks required during the conduct of a
practical test. For example, these aircraft may be unable to perform an aerodynamic stall
or steep turns during a practical test, which are typically tested as an area of operation in
the practical test. To account for these operational limitations, current § 61.45(b)(2)
permits an applicant to use an aircraft with operating characteristics that preclude the
applicant from performing all of the tasks required for the practical test; however, the
The FAA recognizes that those aircraft having simplified flight controls may not
be able to perform all of the tasks required by the ACS or PTS, as applicable. Applicants
would be able to use the provision of § 61.45(b)(2) to complete the practical test in such
an aircraft; however, they would receive a limitation on their certificate specific to the
make and model of aircraft with simplified flight controls that they tested in. Because the
current rule language in § 61.45(b)(2) already provides for the issuance of a limitation in
this instance, the FAA finds it unnecessary to propose an amendment to the provision.
The FAA would, however, develop guidance to explain that, in the event an applicant
uses an aircraft with simplified flight controls designation that is not capable of
performing all the required tasks for a practical test, the aircraft limitation would be
limitation to effectively identify the aircraft the test was accomplished in and limit the
pilot from operating another aircraft that may be able to perform tasks and maneuvers
Further, because simplified flight control characteristics may vary among aircraft
due to rapid advances in aircraft automation and flight control technology, the FAA
believes that additional safeguards are necessary for those practical tests taken in aircraft
with simplified flight controls. Specifically, the FAA proposes new paragraph (g), which
would set forth the requirements for an applicant taking a practical test for an initial pilot
First, the examiner would have to agree to conduct the test in proposed § 61.45(g)(1).
Additionally, the FAA proposes in § 61.45(g)(2) that the examiner also hold the
appropriate category and class rating or privilege, the appropriate simplified flight
the test. It is important that the examiner is familiar with the make and model of the
simplified flight control-designated aircraft before issuing a practical test to conduct the
test safely and is familiar with the standards that an applicant must meet so as to
demonstrate competency. The FAA finds that examiners must become familiar with the
make and model through the training and endorsement requirements themselves before
conducting a practical test in the same aircraft. Proposed § 61.45(g)(3) would require the
examiner to have the ability to assume control of the aircraft at any time to enable the
safe conduct of the test, should the applicant perform poorly during the test and possibly
Pilot applicants that successfully complete a practical test in one of these aircraft
would explicitly limit a pilot who receives a category and class rating or privilege with a
simplified flight controls limitation to operation of only that make and model of aircraft.
Proposed § 61.45(h) would also detail the requirements under which a pilot could operate
a different aircraft. First, if the pilot seeks to operate another make and model of aircraft
with a simplified flight controls designation in the same category and class, then the
person would be required to only receive training and an endorsement in accordance with
proposed § 61.31(l). The person would not be required to take another practical test
because the similarities between classes of aircraft are such that a training and
flight controls designs. However, should the pilot seek to operate a different category and
class of aircraft with a simplified flight controls designation, the person would be
required to successfully complete a practical test for that category and class of aircraft
under proposed § 61.45(h)(2). This proposal is no different to the current status quo
whereby a person holds a certificate with a category and class rating and seeks to operate
an aircraft in a different category and class rating. Additionally, should a pilot who holds
category and class ratings and is limited to acting as PIC of aircraft with simplified flight
62Model-specific refers to the make and model of light-sport category aircraft that the applicant uses to test to receive a sport pilot
certificate.
controls (i.e., has taken a practical test for those category and class ratings in only an
aircraft with simplified flight controls) seek to act as PIC of an aircraft without a
simplified flight controls designation, the person would also be required to successfully
complete a practical test for that category and class of aircraft with traditional flight
controls under proposed § 61.45(h)(2).63 A practical test would be required to address the
more significant operational differences between, first, different categories and classes of
aircraft and, second, aircraft with a simplified flight controls designation and those with
63 Because sport pilots are limited already to acting as PIC of rotorcraft-helicopters with simplified flight controls, a sport pilot
seeking to act as PIC of another make and model of rotorcraft-helicopter with simplified flight controls would need only complete the
training and endorsement in proposed § 61.31(l). By contrast, a sport pilot who holds airplane-single engine ratings limited to a make
and model of airplane with simplified flight controls would be required to take a practical test if seeking to operate a single engine
airplane with traditional flight controls. Likewise, a private pilot who took the private pilot practical test for single engine airplane
ratings in a § 21.190 airplane with a simplified flight controls designation would be required to complete another practical test in an
aircraft with traditional flight controls.
Rotorcraft helicopter with required by
Category and simplified flight proposed § 61.31(l).
Helicopter Class controls
Rating, Simplified
Flight Controls
Model Specific
Limitation
Private Pilot To operate a A practical test. Proposed §
Certificate with a Rotorcraft- 61.45(h)(2)
Rotorcraft Helicopter without
Category and Simplified Flight
Helicopter Class Controls
Rating, Simplified
Flight Controls
Limitation
Private Pilot To operate an The requirements to Proposed §
Certificate with a airplane with add another 61.45(2) & part 61,
Rotorcraft simplified flight category and class subpart E
Category and controls rating on a private
Helicopter Class pilot certificate, to
Rating, Simplified include a practical
Flight Controls test.
Limitation
Private Pilot To operate a The training and Proposed § 61.31(l)
Certificate with a Rotorcraft endorsement
Rotorcraft Helicopter with required by
Category and Simplified Flight proposed § 61.31(l).
Helicopter Class Controls.
Rating (no
simplified flight
controls model
limitation)
8. New Rotorcraft-Helicopter Privilege for Sport Pilots and Sport Pilot Instructors
Sport pilots and flight instructors with a sport pilot rating are currently unable to
privilege because helicopters are excluded from the definition of light-sport aircraft.64
The FAA did not include helicopters within the light-sport aircraft definition in 2004
operate, low-performance helicopters that fit within the scope of the privileges afforded
The FAA recognizes that manufacturers now have access to new technology
manufacturers have developed multicopters66 with flight controls that would satisfy the
simplified flight controls criteria during the aircraft certification process, as previously
discussed. Aircraft with simplified flight controls may lack a typical helicopter cyclic or
collective control and instead could use a joystick or steering wheel and push button
the piloting skills necessary to fly the aircraft. As discussed more fully in the discussion
of proposed § 22.180, the aircraft certification process would establish the criteria for the
simplified flight controls designation, which would include standards for the pilot
interface, the loss of control prevention, and the ability for the pilot to safely discontinue
flight.
The FAA proposes to amend part 61, subpart J, to allow sport pilots to operate
certain simple-to-fly helicopters. Specifically, the FAA proposes to permit sport pilots to
operate new helicopters certificated under the proposed § 21.190 that include the
§ 61.316(a)(9) that would limit the kinds of helicopters that sport pilots may operate to
those helicopters that have been certificated with a simplified flight controls design and
operations under this subpart, the FAA also proposes amendments to §§ 61.311 and
66 A multicopter is a rotorcraft that can have more than one rotor providing lift. Although multicopters are helicopters by definition,
multicopters differ from the conventional helicopter models originally considered during the 2004 rulemaking because the takeoff and
landing are intended to be automated and not require extensive pilot training and skill.
67 For example, as previously discussed, a joystick controller that is used to select flight commands or move a cursor on a display
intent of the 2004 final rule promulgating the sport pilot certificate and light-sport aircraft
To facilitate helicopter operations for sport pilots, the FAA proposes in § 61.311
apply and to add helicopter-specific areas of operation and tasks that would apply to sport
operation are key to attaining competency in the operation of helicopters and are not
simplified flight controls privilege will still need to accomplish the other areas of
operation listed in current § 61.311, as appropriate. Therefore, the FAA would require
that a sport pilot applicant log ground and flight training from an authorized instructor on
helicopters (e.g., takeoffs, landings, performance maneuvers). While these proposed areas
conversely, the FAA recognizes that there are areas of operation that are inherently
stalls. Therefore, the FAA proposes to except helicopters from these areas of operation in
because the practical test for a sport pilot certificate for a rotorcraft-helicopter rating
would include these areas of operation, training should involve proficiency for the tasks
listed under the applicable areas of operation in the regulation, which are reflected in the
68The FAA notes that the paragraph designations of the areas of operation in § 61.311 would change based on the addition of
helicopter-specific areas of operation.
Because of the unique operations and tasks associated with helicopter operations
in the national airspace system, applicants must obtain certain and specialized training
and experience, as with any person seeking a certificate, rating, or privilege. These
unique operating characteristics include the ability to hover over specific locations,
operate in confined spaces and land in unique locations such as sloped terrain, buildings,
or other man-made structures. As a result, the FAA contends that helicopter operations
impose an unacceptable risk to the general public and other aircraft operating in the
First, with the proposed addition of flight simulation training device and aviation
through (h) would become § 61.313(a)(1) through (8). As subsequently discussed, the
FAA proposes to establish the aeronautical experience requirements for the newly
an applicant for a sport pilot certificate who seeks to obtain a helicopter rating would be
required to log at least 30 hours of helicopter flight time, 15 hours of flight training, and 5
hours of solo flight. The FAA proposes these minimum experience requirements because
the minimum recreational pilot grade of pilot certificate seeking a helicopter rating
The FAA contends that the minimum experience requirements for a recreational
pilot to obtain a helicopter rating would also be appropriate for a sport pilot certificate
because the operational limitations for sport pilots are virtually identical to those for
recreational pilots. For example, both sport pilots and recreational pilots are limited to
carrying only one passenger, operations below 10,000 feet MSL, a minimum of 3 miles
of visibility, prohibition to operate in class A/B/C/D airspace, and a prohibition for night
operations. One substantive difference is that recreational pilot applicants are required to
obtain 10 more total hours of experience. Another difference is that recreational pilots
have unique operating capabilities and limitations and additional risks to mitigate
including those associated low altitude operations, the FAA contends that the minimum
training and experience requirements for recreational pilots seeking an initial helicopter
• three takeoffs and landings at the airport located more than 25 nautical
• three hours of solo flying in the aircraft for the rating sought on the
For the reasons explained in the preceding paragraphs, the FAA proposes these
privileges because of the unique operational capability of helicopters and the experience
requirements listed for a recreational pilot with almost identical operating privileges.
In addition to proposing to allow sport pilots to hold privileges for helicopters, the
FAA is likewise proposing to allow sport pilot instructors to obtain or add helicopter
privileges to their instructor privileges. Upon reviewing the current flight proficiency
§ 61.411, the FAA finds that a sport pilot instructor seeking a helicopter privilege should
meet similar flight proficiency and experience requirements as a sport pilot instructor
section IV.E.10, a person seeking to add a helicopter privilege to a sport pilot instructor
consistent with the FAA’s proposal to require a person seeking a sport pilot instructor
practical test.
Under proposed § 61.409, flight instructors would be required to log ground and
flight training on the areas of operation that apply to other categories of aircraft, as
appropriate, and on the newly proposed areas of operation that are applicable only to
helicopters. Specifically, the FAA proposes to add areas of operation that would require a
person seeking a sport pilot instructor certificate with a helicopter privilege to receive
training on heliport operations and hovering maneuvers. The FAA notes that these two
additional areas of operation are consistent with the areas of operation that the FAA
§ 61.311 for a person seeking a sport pilot certificate with a helicopter privilege. Finally,
the FAA also proposes to add a “special operations” area of operation for helicopters.
The base tasks under “special operations” are contained with the Sport Pilot Helicopter
ACS under the area of operation labeled “takeoffs, landings, and go-arounds”; therefore,
sport pilot to a sport pilot flight instructor pertaining to these special operation tasks.
Rather, the FAA is simply aligning the formatting and organization of the Sport Pilot
Flight Instructor Helicopter ACS (as it pertains to special operations) with that of the
While these proposed areas of operation and their applicable tasks would be
applicable specifically to helicopters, conversely, the FAA recognizes that there are areas
of operation that are inherently inapplicable to helicopters: specifically, ground reference
maneuvers, slow flight, and stalls. Therefore, the FAA proposes to except helicopters
discussed in the following section, because the practical test for a sport pilot certificate
for a rotorcraft-helicopter rating would include these areas of operation, training should
involve proficiency for the tasks listed under the applicable areas of operation in the
regulation, which are reflected in the Sport Pilot Flight Instructor Helicopter ACS (see
section IV.E.9).
current § 61.411 for applicants seeking a sport pilot instructor certificate with a helicopter
privilege. The FAA has determined that the aeronautical experience required for
require an applicant for a flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating seeking a
The FAA reasons that helicopter experience requirements for a sport pilot
instructor should be consistent with the airplane experience requirements for a sport pilot
69The FAA notes that the paragraph designations of the areas of operation in § 61.409 would change based on the addition of
helicopter-specific areas of operation. Additionally, during the pendency of this rulemaking, the FAA noted a technical omission in
the area of operation “soaring techniques.” Specifically, soaring techniques are only applicable to gliders, yet this specificity is not
present in the regulatory text. Therefore, the FAA proposes to add applicability language indicating this area of operation is only for
gliders.
instructor for the following reasons. Helicopters and airplanes are the predominant
aircraft that operate in the NAS. With the helicopter privilege being a new privilege to be
added to the sport pilot instructor certificate, the FAA finds it reasonable to take a
conservative approach and mirror the aeronautical experience requirements that apply to
aeronautical experience since 2004. The FAA does not find any reason to adopt lesser
experience requirements for a helicopter privilege at this time given that both airplanes
and helicopters have broad access to the NAS, extensive operational capabilities, and are
The FAA recognizes that, initially, there would be no sport pilot instructors who
are qualified to provide training for a sport pilot helicopter privilege. To provide flight
training to a sport pilot seeking a helicopter privilege, the sport pilot instructor must first
obtain the helicopter privilege on their sport pilot certificate before being eligible to
obtain the necessary privileges on their sport pilot instructor certificate. In addition,
because sport pilots would be limited to operating helicopters with simplified flight
control designations, a sport pilot instructor would also be required to obtain the training
and endorsement for aircraft with a simplified flight controls designation required by
proposed § 61.31(l).
To address the initial lack of qualified sport pilot instructors, the FAA is
proposing to rely on subpart H instructors who already hold rotorcraft category helicopter
class ratings on their flight instructor certificates. As discussed in the previous section,
the FAA is proposing an amendment to § 61.195(m) that would enable these subpart H
with simplified flight controls. Upon obtaining the training and endorsement from an
instructor pilot at the manufacturer, the subpart H instructor would be qualified to provide
flight training to a sport pilot instructor or a sport pilot who seeks to obtain a helicopter
privilege and the § 61.31(l) training and endorsement. This initial reliance on subpart H
flight instructors would establish the initial groups of sport pilots and sport pilot
In summary, the FAA seeks to facilitate the operation of certain simple to fly
helicopter (i.e., those with simplified flight controls design and designation) for sport
pilots and sport pilot flight instructors. The FAA’s proposed amendments to §§ 61.311,
61.313, 61.409, and 61.411 would validate that sport pilots seeking to operate simplified
flight control rotorcraft-helicopters and flight instructors who instruct in these aircraft are
sufficiently trained and tested. As a result, the FAA’s proposals balance the demand to
enable these helicopter operations while maintaining a rigorous level of training and
checking to enable safe operations in the NAS. Sport pilots or flight instructors with a
sport pilot rating will not be permitted to operate helicopters without the simplified flight
9. Sport Pilot and Sport Pilot Flight Instructor for Rotorcraft-Helicopter; Incorporation
by Reference
Currently, the required tasks, criteria, and standards for successful completion of a
practical test are outlined for sport pilots in three published PTS.70 However, because
light-sport aircraft, a PTS does not currently exist for sport pilots seeking a rotorcraft
70Sport Pilot and Sport Pilot Flight Instructor Rating Practical Test Standards for Airplane Category, Rotorcraft Category, and Glider
Category; Sport Pilot and Sport Pilot Flight Instructor Rating Practical Test Standards for Lighter-Than-Air Category; Sport Pilot and
Sport Pilot Flight Instructor Rating Practical Test Standards for Powered Parachute Category and Weight-Shift-Control Category.
In collaboration with the aviation industry and the FAA's routine review
processes, the FAA previously identified the need for a new, systematic approach to
testing that would (1) provide clearer standards, (2) consolidate redundant tasks, and (3)
connect the standards for knowledge, risk management, and skills to the knowledge and
practical tests. Therefore, the FAA began to establish the ACSs in 2011 to enhance the
testing standard for the knowledge and practical tests. The goal in creating the ACS was
test question development and the conduct of the practical test. In cooperation with the
ACS Working Group, established through the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee
elements into the existing areas of operations and tasks set forth in the PTS. Therefore,
the ACS is a comprehensive presentation integrating the standards for what an applicant
must know, consider, and do to demonstrate proficiency to pass the tests required for
Because the FAA is actively converting all PTSs to ACSs in collaboration with
the ACS Working Group, the FAA does not find it appropriate to draft a Sport Pilot PTS
for Rotorcraft-Helicopter, as the other Sport Pilot testing standards are situated. Rather,
the FAA has drafted two new ACSs for helicopters with simplified flight controls: (1)
Sport Pilot for Helicopter – Simplified Flight Controls ACS, FAA-S-ACS-26 (Sport Pilot
Helicopter ACS) and (2) Sport Flight Instructor for Helicopter – Simplified Flight
Controls ACS (Sport Flight Instructor Helicopter ACS). Each ACS establishes the
aeronautical knowledge, risk management, and flight proficiency standards for sport pilot
practical tests and flight instructor proficiency checks for light-sport category aircraft in
the rotorcraft-helicopter class for sport pilots and for sport pilots with a flight instructor
71The ARAC is a body established under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. 5 U.S.C. app. 2. The ARAC ACS Working Group is
comprised of the FAA, advocacy groups, instructor groups, training providers, academic institutions, and labor organizations.
rating. The Sport Pilot Helicopter ACS contains the following areas of operation:
emergency operations; and post-flight procedures. Similarly, the Sport Flight Instructor
Similar to the current practical test and PTS/ACS framework for sport pilots, the
FAA proposes to incorporate the two ACSs into the regulations to delineate what an
applicant must demonstrate on a practical test to attain privileges for a sport pilot
pilot rating and rotorcraft-helicopter privilege. First, the FAA proposes to revise
§ 61.307, which sets forth the required tests an applicant must take to obtain a sport pilot
standards that a person must successfully demonstrate on a practical test for a sport pilot
skill elements for each area of operation on the Sport Pilot Helicopter ACS. Proposed
how the Sport Pilot Helicopter ACS is made readily available to the public. Similarly, the
FAA proposes to revise § 61.405, which sets forth the required tests an applicant must
obtain to obtain a flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating. Proposed new
§ 61.405(b)(3) would precisely reflect the standards that a person must successfully
demonstrate on a practical test for a flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot
and how the Sport Flight Instructor Helicopter ACS is made available to the public.
with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to publish rules in the
Federal Register and the CFR by referring to material published elsewhere.72 Material
that is incorporated by reference has the same legal status as if it were published in full in
the Federal Register. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51,73 the FAA
makes the Sport Pilot ACS for Rotorcraft-Helicopter reasonably available to interested
parties by providing free online public access to view on the FAA Training and Testing
the provided web address. The FAA will continue to provide the ACS to interested
parties in this manner. In addition to the free online material on the FAA's website,
printable versions are available from the FAA. Additionally, all ACSs proposed to be
incorporated by reference are contained in the docket for this NPRM for inspection.
The FAA recognizes that on December 12, 2022, the FAA published the Airman
Reference (ACS IBR) NPRM.74 As it pertains to this NPRM, the ACS IBR NPRM
PTSs into the requirements for sport pilots (see footnote 70). The FAA will reconcile this
72 5 U.S.C. 552(a), which states, “except to the extent that a person has actual or timely notice of the terms thereof, a person may not
in any manner be required to resort to, or be adversely affected by, a matter required to be published in the Federal Register and not so
published. For the purpose of this paragraph, matter reasonably available to the class of persons affected thereby is deemed published
in the Federal Register when incorporated by reference therein with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register.”
73 5 U.S.C. 552(a) requires that matter incorporated by reference be “reasonably available” as a condition of its eligibility. Further, 1
CFR 51.5(a)(2) requires that agencies seeking to incorporate material by reference discuss in the preamble of the proposed rule the
ways that the material it proposes to incorporate by reference is reasonably available to interested parties and how interested parties
can obtain the material.
74 87 FR 75955.
10. Require Sport Pilots and Flight Instructors with a Sport Pilot Rating Seeking to Add
sport pilot rating, a person must pass a practical test with an examiner in the category and
class of aircraft for the initial privileges for that certificate.75 Once a person possesses a
sport pilot certificate or flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating and wishes to
add privileges to their certificate, the person must pass a proficiency check with an
authorized instructor rather than a practical test with an examiner.76 This proficiency
check requirement currently applies to a person seeking to add an airplane single engine
must (1) receive a logbook endorsement validating they received training on certain
check; and (3) receive an endorsement certifying they are proficient in the applicable
areas of operation and aeronautical knowledge areas; and (4) complete an application.
Similarly, under the current framework of § 61.419, a certificated flight instructor with a
sport pilot rating seeking to provide training in an additional category or class of aircraft
must meet the same qualifying conditions (i.e., training, endorsements, and a proficiency
check).
sport pilot may operate and the addition of rotorcraft-helicopters as light-sport category
aircraft, the FAA contends that a proficiency check with an authorized instructor is no
flight instructor with a sport pilot rating to operate or provide training in an airplane or
§§ 61.321 and 61.419 to require sport pilots and flight instructors with a sport pilot rating
seeking to add an airplane or helicopter privilege to their existing sport pilot certificate or
flight instructor certificate, to accomplish a knowledge test and practical test under
With the expansion of the aircraft models, weight, and speed that a sport pilot
may operate under proposed § 61.316, performance and design limitations and the
and practical test is necessary to appropriately validate that a sport pilot can conduct these
airplane and helicopter operations safely. The rigor of an FAA knowledge and practical
proficiency check conducted by a flight instructor. FAA examiners are trained and
qualified annually to validate that the conduct of a practical test meets specific standards
and criteria during the evaluation of an applicant. The FAA believes that the use of the
airmen certification standards qualifying a pilot for a certificate, rating, or privilege will
appropriately mitigate the risk associated with the expansion of flight operations by sport
pilots in the NAS. In other words, the aircraft may now vary and perform in such an
extensive way such that a proficiency check can no longer adequately validate that a pilot
Therefore, the proposed knowledge and practical test requirement would validate
currently permit the conduct of a proficiency check to obtain a new airplane or helicopter
privilege for sport pilots and other pilots who hold a higher grade of certificate who want
to add that category and class privilege at the sport pilot level.77 Specifically, proposed
§ 61.321(e) would require a person who seeks to add an airplane single-engine land or
knowledge and practical test for that category privilege, as specified in § 61.309.
Similarly, proposed § 61.419(e) would require a person who seeks to add an airplane
single engine land or sea or rotorcraft-helicopter land or sea privilege to their sport pilot
flight instructor certificate to accomplish a knowledge and practical test for that category
§§ 61.307 and 61.419, the practical tests would be aligned to the Sport Pilot Helicopter
helicopter privilege. As previously noted, the ACS IBR rulemaking would address the
material on practical tests for an airplane single engine privilege in the light-sport
category, and the FAA will reconcile the proposals as the respective rulemakings
progress. The FAA notes that it is retaining §§ 61.321(a) and (c) and 61.419(a) and (c);
therefore, these pilots must complete the required training and obtain an authorized
11. Aviation Training Device or Flight Simulation Training Device Credit, Removal of
sport pilot regulations. Currently, the FAA does not permit the use of FSTDs or ATDs to
meet sport pilot experience requirements for a certificate or rating. First, the FAA
ATD (basic or advanced) to meet some of the experience requirements for a sport pilot
certificate through the proposed § 61.313(b). Specifically, the FAA would permit sport
77The FAA notes that the provision would apply if a pilot held a higher grade certificate as well. For example, if a pilot held a
commercial pilot certificate with rotorcraft category and helicopter class ratings and sought to operate a light sprot category airplane
single engine land, the pilot would be required to take the practical test under this proposal.
pilots to use up to 2.5 hours of training credit in an FSTD and ATD representing the
appropriate category and class of aircraft to meet the experience requirements of part 61.
The FAA notes that the time in an FSTD or an ATD may be combined to meet the 2.5
hours of training, but the proposed regulation does not permit 2.5 hours in each device
The FSTD and ATD credit allowance proposal is consistent with the FAA’s long-
standing regulations throughout part 61 that allow simulation credit under certain
circumstances. Furthermore, for those part 61 flight schools or those flight school
operators who possess a part 141 air agency certificate, this proposal provides training
device credit for pilots pursuing an initial pilot certificate or rating. In support, the FAA
reasons that permitting the use of FAA evaluated, qualified, and approved FSTDs and
doing those same tasks in an aircraft, thereby reducing the risk of making mistakes during
the flight portion of the training and when practicing emergency procedures. Allowing
pilot time credit in an FSTD and ATD reduces risk for those students or pilots in training,
who then will accomplish those same tasks or maneuvers in an aircraft. Moreover,
conducting training in FSTDs and ATDs reduces cost, teaches safe operational
without undue risk, and ultimately reduces risk during pilot training.
sport aircraft in §§ 61.45, 61.313, and 61.325. The removal of the reference to light-sport
aircraft in subpart J is consistent with the FAA’s proposal to remove the definition for
these aircraft in § 1.1. Where appropriate, the FAA proposes that the reference to light-
sport aircraft will be replaced with a reference to newly proposed § 61.316, which sets
78For example, a person may complete 1 hour of training in an FSTD and 1.5 hours in an ATD to meet the 2.5 hours
comprehensively. However, a person may not count 2.5 hours in an FSTD and 2.5 hours in an ATD.
forth the performance limitations for the aircraft a sport pilot may operate. As explained
broadening some of the limitations that currently exist in the definition of light-sport
aircraft in § 1.1.
Section 61.3 speaks to pilot certificates, ratings, and authorizations that are
required to operate aircraft in the United States. Currently, the privileges provided in
§ 61.313 are not codified in § 61.3. The FAA also proposes a conforming amendment to
§ 61.3 that adds a new paragraph requiring that a sport pilot exercising the privileges
listed in § 61.313 receives a qualifying logbook endorsement for the appropriate category
and class privilege, as applicable. This clarification to § 61.3 is required because sport
pilots do not obtain a rating issued on a sport pilot certificate, but instead they receive an
endorsement in their logbook facilitating the appropriate category and class “privilege,”
as referenced in § 61.317.
Finally, during this rulemaking, the FAA noted that § 61.305 is improperly
formatted, as it sets forth a paragraph (a) but no corresponding paragraph (b). Therefore,
the FAA is proposing to redesignate existing paragraph (a) as introductory text, existing
paragraph (a)(1) as new paragraph (a), and existing paragraph (a)(2) as new paragraph
(b). There are no substantive changes proposed for this section; these are only formatting
corrections.
Part 65 provides the requirements for certification of airmen other than flight
addition to meeting the general eligibility requirements (e.g., age, language) set forth by
a combination thereof).80
aircraft for which the person intends to exercise the privileges of this rating. For a
maintenance rating, instructional hours are dependent on the class of aircraft on which the
repairman intends to exercise the privileges of the certificate and rating. The specific
hours for each class of aircraft are the minimum required to demonstrate a person is
sufficiently knowledgeable about the class of aircraft they perform work on. For example,
a repairman certificate (light-sport aircraft) with a maintenance rating and airplane class
owned by the holder, that has been issued an experimental certificate for operating light-
sport aircraft under § 21.191 and that is in the same class of aircraft for which the holder
has completed training. The holder of a repairman certificate (light-sport aircraft) with a
for return to service, aircraft issued a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport
category under § 21.190, performing the annual condition inspection on aircraft that have
79 As discussed in the 2004 final rule, the FAA established training requirements for a repairman (light-sport aircraft) certificate
because owners of these aircraft cannot show that the owner manufactured the major portion of the aircraft, unlike a builder of an
experimental amateur-built aircraft, and therefore cannot show that the owner would have the skill necessary to inspect and maintain
the light-sport aircraft. 69 FR 44848.
80 A person must meet the eligibility requirements set forth by § 65.107(a)(1) for a repairman certificate (light sport aircraft) before the
person is eligible for an inspection rating or maintenance rating pursuant to § 65.107(a)(2)(i) and (3)(i).
81 Section 65.107(a)(3)(ii) also provides training course instruction hour requirements for powered parachute class privileges, lighter
the same class of aircraft for which the holder has completed training.
held and the appropriate privileges/limitations of each rating by class, which are set forth
by § 65.107(b) through (d), as applicable. For example, if the applicant meets the
eligibility requirements and has completed the applicable training for conducting
maintenance on the glider class of light-sport aircraft, the repairman certificate would list
“Maintenance – glider” in the privileges and limitations section of the airman certificate.
Therefore, that person could only exercise the privileges and limitations set forth by
maintenance rating is not permitted to approve for return to service an aircraft (or any
part thereof) unless that person has previously performed the work concerned
satisfactorily. If the person has not previously performed such work, then the person may
show the ability to do the work by performing it to the satisfaction of the FAA or under
sufficiently experienced and knowledgeable on the aircraft and the specific work being
performed.
with the subsequently discussed substantive proposals. Currently, the term “light-sport
aircraft” is defined in § 1.1; however, because the FAA is proposing to remove the
82These persons include an appropriately rated mechanic, or a certificated repairman, who has previous experience in the operations
concerned, as provided in § 65.107(d).
definition of “light-sport aircraft” from § 1.1, as discussed in section IV.B.2, the FAA
First, the FAA proposes to change the certificate title from “repairman certificate
certificated in the light-sport category will not necessarily conform to the current
definition of light-sport aircraft, the FAA seeks to reduce confusion as to the designation
of current light-sport aircraft versus future aircraft with a special airworthiness certificate
The FAA notes that, should this proposal be adopted, repairman certificates
issued before an effective date specified in the final rule would be valid without
additional training or reissuance to account for the broader scope of light-sport category
the effective date of the final rule, despite the expansion of aircraft upon which the holder
of the certificate may perform work, would not result in a reduction in safety for several
reasons. The repairman certificate extends privileges only for the category83 of aircraft
that a person has received training and testing on, regardless of time of issuance.
Additionally, the limitations found in current § 65.107(d) are retained in this proposal.84
Thus, a certificated light-sport repairman with a maintenance rating is, and would
continue to be, restricted from approving for return to service any aircraft or part thereof
unless the repairman previously performed the work satisfactorily, shows the ability to do
the work by performing it to the satisfaction of the FAA or performs the work under
direct supervision of certain defined persons. The FAA is not proposing changes to
existing privileges or limitations of either rating. The FAA finds the existing
83 The term “category” in this instance is used in the context of airman certification as defined in § 1.1. As subsequently discussed, the
FAA is proposing to replace the term “class” as used in § 65.107 with “category.”
84 As subsequently discussed, current § 65.107(d) would relocate to new § 65.109(c) under this proposal.
requirements, as discussed, adequately address the expansion of aircraft that could be
Second, the FAA proposes to remove the term “light-sport aircraft” to indicate the
“aircraft” in these instances. Rather, the regulations would directly cross-reference the
appropriate aircraft as provided in part 21 that a repairman (light-sport) could inspect and
maintain. For example, proposed § 65.109(a) (which would be a new section as part of a
certificate (light-sport) with an inspection rating and would set forth the type of aircraft a
“category” of aircraft in the proposed amendments to §§ 65.107 and 65.109.85 Section 1.1
sets forth definitions for category and class. Both terms are defined, first, as used with
respect to the certification, ratings, privileges, and limitations of airmen and, second, as
used with respect to the certification of aircraft. Under § 65.107, the references to “class”
are used in the context of classes of aircraft certification, not airmen certification. For
example, § 65.107(a)(3)(ii) sets forth the training course hours of instruction required for
airplanes, weight-shift control aircraft, powered parachutes, lighter than air aircraft, and
gliders, which are labeled as classes. These aircraft are, in fact, classes under the
definition provided in § 1.1 for class as used with respect to aircraft certification.
The FAA has determined using the term “category” in the context of airman
85 As subsequently discussed, the FAA proposes to bifurcate § 65.107 into two sections; therefore, proposed § 65.109 is a new section,
but contains largely the same information as set forth in current § 65.107(b) through (d).
86 Section 1.1 defines category, as used with respect to the certification, ratings, privileges, and limitations of airmen, as a broad
The term “class” as used in current: …is replaced with “category” as used in proposed:
§ 65.107(a)(2)(ii) § 65.107(c)
§ 65.107(a)(3)(ii) § 65.107(d)
§ 65.107(b)(3) § 65.109(a)(3)
§ 65.107(c)(3) § 65.109(b)(3)
the term “particular” as a modifier to “class.” The FAA has received numerous inquiries
FAA’s proposal to replace the term class with the term category, the FAA finds the
category” and a category. Accordingly, the FAA proposes to remove the term
Finally, where existing § 65.107(c)(1)88 uses the term “approve and return to
service” in the context of repairman certificate privileges, the FAA is proposing to revise
to “approve for return to service.” Because an aircraft is not in service until it is flown or
operated, the holder of a repairman or mechanic certificate cannot “return” the aircraft to
service under the privileges of that certificate as flying an aircraft is not a privilege
bestowed by any regulation in part 65. The FAA acknowledged the problem with the
phrasing and its inconsistency with the language in the part 43 maintenance regulations in
a legal interpretation,89 where the FAA stated that the wording of the phrase could be
improved by removing the word “and” and replacing it with “for.” Accordingly, the FAA
87 The FAA notes that part 65 designation of category and class aligns with the aircraft category and classes as specified in
§ 61.5(b)(1).
88 As subsequently discussed, current § 65.107(c) would relocate to new § 65.109(b) under this proposal.
89 Legal Interpretation to Wayne A. Forshey (July 9, 2010).
is proposing to revise the language in §§ 65.81(a), 65.85(a) and (b), and 65.87(a) and (b),
of the certificate. Additionally, the FAA proposes to revise certain gender references
§ 65.107 sets forth a table establishing the general applicability requirements, as well as
the specific requirements to obtain an inspection rating and a maintenance rating. After
two decades of implementation and receiving stakeholder feedback, the FAA recognizes
that the section is difficult to navigate. Therefore, the FAA proposes to reorganize the
table into paragraphs, which the FAA believes will improve readability and
Specifically, proposed § 65.107 would set forth only the eligibility and training
course requirements, while new proposed § 65.109 would set forth the privileges and
limitations. Within § 65.107, proposed paragraph (a) would provide the ratings that may
paragraph (c) would set forth the training course requirement for an inspection rating;
proposed paragraph (d) would set forth the training course requirement for a maintenance
rating, and proposed paragraph (e) would set forth certain parameters that training course
providers are expected to meet. Within new § 65.109, proposed paragraph (a) would set
forth the privileges and limitations of an inspection rating, proposed paragraph (b) would
90This paragraph is new to explicitly state the ratings that the FAA may issue on a repairman (light-sport) certificate. Current § 65.107
only implies that the FAA may issue these ratings.
set forth the privileges and limitations of a maintenance rating, and proposed paragraph
(c) would set forth additional limitations for repairman certificate (light-sport). Table 2 is
Table 2
requirements
requirements
limitations
limitations
holders
91The FAA notes a minor change in the proposed regulatory text pertaining to the eligibility requirement to read, speak, write, and
understand English for a repairman certificate (light-sport). Currently, § 65.107(a)(1)(ii) states that if a person is prevented from
reading, speaking, writing, or understanding English due to a medical reason, the FAA may place a limitation on the repairman
certificate, as necessary, to ensure safe performance of the actions authorized by the certificate and rating. However, in practice, the
FAA issues an exemption to the repairman applicant in conjunction with the application (on FAA Form 8610-3) and temporary airman
certificate (FAA Form 8060-4). The temporary certificate (and subsequent permanent certificate) would then list the conditions and
limitations from the requirement to read, speak, write, and/or understand English (as applicable) as granted under the part 11
exemption. This practice is in alignment with the treatment of all other persons certificated under part 65 who have an identified
obstacle to meeting the English requirements. Therefore, the FAA is removing the limitation direction as superfluous in proposed
§ 65.107(b)(2).
3. Training Course Content for Maintenance Rating & Incorporation by Reference
As discussed, current § 65.107 sets out the training requirements for a repairman
certificate (light-sport aircraft) for maintenance and inspection ratings. Currently, the
requirements set forth training course instruction hours for these ratings (i.e., a 16-hour
training course under § 65.107(a)(2) for an inspection rating and/or varied hours of
instruction under § 65.107(a)(3) for a maintenance rating, which as noted depend on the
aircraft class for the privileges sought). In the 2004 final rule, the FAA declined to align
the curriculum content for a repairman certificate (light-sport aircraft) with a maintenance
rating with the training and curriculum subjects for maintenance in part 147 (aviation
because many of the technical subjects set forth at that time were not relevant to light-
sport aircraft.92 Therefore, the FAA implemented varied training hour requirements
dependent on the class of aircraft after finding that differing training hours were required
to address distinct knowledge elements between classes.93 The FAA no longer believes
this is the best approach for maintenance training courses for repairman (light-sport) and
proposes the revisions described in this section, which would require repairman to have
the appropriate knowledge and skills to maintain light-sport category aircraft and
condition for safe operations. The FAA does not propose changes, however, to the
Since the 2004 final rule, the FAA has published the Aviation Mechanic General,
Airframe, and Powerplant ACS (Mechanic ACS). The Mechanic ACS is required as the
training curriculum for aviation maintenance technician schools certificated under part
9269 FR 44849.
93Id. Distinct knowledge elements between classes could include part 39 and part 43 requirements; type-certificated engines, floats,
and composite structures; and two- and four-cycle engines and electrical systems.
14794 and as the testing standard (as of the implementation date of August 1, 2023) for all
that integrates standards for what an applicant must know, consider, and do to
demonstrate proficiency to pass the tests required for the issuance of a certificate or
rating. The Mechanic ACS includes high-level subjects (e.g., Fundamentals of Electricity
and Electronics, Flight Controls, Engine Inspection), which are broken down into
components that include knowledge, risk management, and skill elements relevant to that
subject.
category aircraft and light-sport kit-built aircraft, as well as being limited to the aircraft
category on which they have received the requisite training, a repairman nevertheless
applicable to the aircraft category they will work on). The FAA proposes that the
Mechanic ACS would most efficiently and effectively set forth the important knowledge
and skill elements that should be included in a training course for a maintenance rating on
standard for repairman training, but limited in scope as appropriate to the category of
aircraft for which the repairman intends to exercise the privileges of the certificate,
For these reasons, the FAA is proposing to replace the currently specified aircraft
class and training hour requirements for a maintenance rating with a performance-based
standard for repairman (light-sport) training that will support existing and future
94 14 CFR 147.17.
95 14 CFR 65.75(a) and 65.79(b).
categories of aircraft. As such, the FAA is proposing to require training courses to, at a
minimum, include the knowledge, risk management, and skill elements for each subject
contained in the Mechanic ACS, as appropriate to the category of aircraft being taught.
Additionally, the FAA is removing the hours requirement for a maintenance rating
training course in each category of aircraft. Similar to the training curriculum for part 147
comprehensive set of standards such that allows a training course provider to offer a
training timeline that is best suited to that particular training course and that category of
aircraft, while requiring that the applicant receives training on all important subject areas
includes the knowledge, risk management, and skill elements for each subject contained
in the Mechanic ACS appropriate to the category of aircraft for which the person intends
to exercise the privileges of the rating (in addition to meeting the general eligibility
requirements in proposed § 65.107(a), which are largely unchanged from the current
requirements of § 65.107(a)(1)).97
In 2022, the Mechanic ACS was incorporated by reference98 into part 65 as the
testing standard for issuance of a mechanic certificate under part 65, subpart D.99 As a
result of the proposal to use the Mechanic ACS as a standard under proposed § 65.107(d),
the FAA proposes to amend § 65.23(a)(2) to add § 65.107 in the referenced regulations
for which the incorporation by reference of the Mechanic ACS applies. In accordance
96 The FAA believes the hours of training maintenance rating course providers are required to design their courses to under the
existing regulations would be similar to the hours training course providers would include in new/revised courses meeting the proposal
because those courses should already be teaching students the required information on how to maintain their class of aircraft.
However, the level of detail offered by each course provider could add or remove hours from the course.
97 The changes to § 65.107(a) are described in section V.F.2.
98 Incorporation by reference is a mechanism that allows Federal agencies to comply with the requirements of the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA) to publish rules in the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations by referring to material published
elsewhere. Material that is incorporated by reference has the same legal status as if it were published in full in the Federal Register.
Because 5 U.S.C. 552(a) requires the Director of the Federal Register to approve material to be incorporated by reference,
incorporation by reference is governed by the Office of the Federal Register and as promulgated in its regulations: 1 CFR part 51.
Specifically, 1 CFR part 51 provides certain requirements that a regulatory incorporation by reference must contain.
99 Aviation Maintenance Technician Schools, Interim Final Rule, 87 FR 31391 (May 24, 2022).
with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51,100 the FAA makes the Mechanic ACS
reasonably available to interested parties by providing free online public access to view
Mechanic ACS is available for download, free of charge, at the provided web address.
The FAA notes that it is not proposing any revisions to the current training course
content for an inspection rating. Applicants for a repairman certificate (light-sport) with
an inspection rating must complete a 16-hour training course acceptable to the FAA on
inspecting the particular class of aircraft for which the applicant intends to exercise the
of the inspection rating training course, the 16-hour course is designed to train an
based on that inspection, make a determination if that aircraft is safe to fly. Given this
limited scope of privileges of the inspection rating (i.e., annual condition inspections
only) compared to the broad scope of privileges of a maintenance rating (i.e., all
inspections and maintenance), the FAA is not proposing any changes to this requirement
maintenance rating, existing course providers would need to review their existing training
management, and skill elements from the Mechanic ACS. If revision is necessary, the
course provider would have to submit the revised course to the FAA for acceptance. To
allow for a transition period between the current and proposed training standards, the
100Section 552(a) of title 5, United States Code, requires that matter incorporated by reference be ‘‘reasonably available’’ as a
condition of its eligibility. Further, 1 CFR 51.5(b)(2) requires that agencies seeking to incorporate material by reference discuss in the
preamble of the final rule, the ways that the material it incorporates by reference are reasonably available to interested parties, and
how interested parties can obtain the material.
FAA would delay the compliance requirement for having a training course containing the
knowledge, risk management, and skill elements of the Mechanic ACS. The FAA will
During that time period, both an hours-based training course (developed under current
may be accepted by the FAA for issuance of the maintenance rating on a repairman
with a maintenance rating who seeks privileges for one of the new categories of aircraft
(i.e., rotorcraft or powered-lift), would only be eligible for the certificate if the training
was an ACS-based training course, since hours-based training courses developed under
The FAA notes that the agency will continue its current practice of accepting
these training courses, providing an acceptance letter to the course provider, and
available to both industry and FAA personnel.101 However, the FAA currently issues
course acceptance with a 24-month expiration. Current practice mandates that the FAA
will notify a training course provider 60 days before the end of the acceptance period, at
which time the training provider must reapply for continuing authority to provide the
training. Because these training courses will now be aligned with the ACS, the FAA does
not see a need to limit the course acceptance timeframe for light-sport repairman
provider’s training course content. Therefore, a training course that is found acceptable to
the FAA will no longer require a 24-month re-application process and will continue to be
acceptable, until such time as it is found to be not acceptable (see section IV.F.5 for
In 2004, the NTSB commented on the FAA’s proposal pertaining to the training
required of repairman (light-sport aircraft) applicants and suggested that the FAA
examination nor the 80% passing standard are codified within the regulation. In
alignment with the NTSB, the FAA continues to believe that a test is an important step
within the airman certification process; specifically, the written exam serves as a
privileges of a repairman certificate. In other words, the FAA finds that a written test
such, the FAA is proposing to add a requirement in proposed § 65.107(b), which is the
new section for the general eligibility requirements, to require an applicant for an
course provider that covers the content of the training course. Rather than memorializing
an 80% pass rate as dictated by FAA policy, the minimum passing grade requirement (70
percent) that applies to all part 65 tests in § 65.17(b) would apply to § 65.107(b).
to the FAA. When the FAA implemented these training courses, the 2004 final rule
indicated that the FAA would look at five areas in the determination of acceptability.
These areas included: passing grade, adherence to training guidance in FAA advisory
material, the provider’s training course outline, and the final written test. Additionally,
the FAA referenced the appendices, curriculum subjects, and level 3 training standard, as
69 FR 44848. As discussed in the 2004 final rule, the FAA stated that a training course should contain a written test that the
102
regarding the provider, the course outline, a description of training aids used in the
instructors qualifications, a schedule of where and when training will be provided, and a
description of the facilities if the course is provided at a fixed location. However, these
The FAA believes it is crucial to set minimum standards for training course
providers to provide quality training for those persons seeking a repairman certificate
(light-sport) with associated ratings. FAA Advisory Circular 65-32A provides guidance
to stakeholders on the acceptability of a training course, among other topics related to the
AC 65-32A to add a requirement in new § 65.107(e) that requires the training course
provider to deliver the course (1) using facilities, equipment, and materials appropriate to
the training course content being taught and (2) by instructors who are appropriately
qualified to teach the course content. The FAA interprets “appropriate” facilities,
equipment, and materials to mean those elements are sufficiently suited to instruct in the
curriculum the training course offered.104 Similarly, the FAA interprets “appropriately
experience that aligns with the subject matter that the instructor teaches.
For either an inspection or maintenance rating, the training course which must be
103 69 FR 44849.
104 To illustrate, if the training course includes a skill requirement that an applicant must perform on a specific piece of equipment (as
listed in the Mechanic ACS), the course provider must have that piece of equipment (e.g., where the course requires a student to be
able to perform a skill requirement to service a battery, the course provider must have an aircraft battery in a condition that will allow
a student to demonstrate the appropriate servicing requirements to be considered to have equipment appropriate to the training course
content being sought).
FAA, including evaluation of these elements. Because the FAA uses these training
courses as the basis for issuance of a repairman certificate, the FAA has determined each
course must be reviewed and accepted by the FAA to facilitate issuance of repairman
how to submit training course materials to the FAA for acceptance. The FAA maintains a
list of accepted courses that it makes available to the public. FAA personnel who issue
repairman certificates use this this list to verify an applicant for a repairman certificate
(light-sport aircraft) has attended a training course found acceptable to the FAA.
is that a person complete a training course, the current regulatory text lacks the explicit
steps between completing the training and receiving the certificate. Therefore, the FAA
proposes two clarifying amendments. First, proposed § 65.107(c) and (d), which set forth
training provider.105 Therefore, the FAA proposes to require in § 61.107(e) that training
course providers issue each student a certificate of completion after the student has
completed the training and passed the test. This documentation will ensure that an
applicant has the means to demonstrate to the FAA that they have met the requirements
for the certificate or rating. The training provider would be required to issue a certificate
of completion that includes, at least, the name of the training provider, the FAA course
acceptance number, the rating applicable to the training course (i.e., inspection rating or
maintenance rating), the category of aircraft the training was based on, and the date of
105The FAA notes that the regulatory text would not limit acceptable demonstration of completion to only a certificate of completion.
While the FAA prefers an applicant to present a certificate of completion to demonstrate completion of the training program, the FAA
intends to permit flexibility by accepting other documentary evidence without having to seek an exemption (e.g., in a case where a
person has lost their certificate).
On November 28, 2017, the FAA published Notice N8900.444, “Meaning of the
Terms ‘Acceptable to’ and ‘Accepted by’ for Use by Aviation Safety Inspectors,” to
explain how each of the terms are used, which has since been incorporated into FAA
Order 8900.1.106 Where the term “accepted by the FAA” is used, it means the item at
issue must be submitted to the FAA for review and acceptance before use. Where the
term “acceptable to the FAA” is used, it means the item is not normally privy to the
FAA’s active review and acceptance before its use, although the FAA will exercise its
oversight responsibilities. While the current regulation requires the training course to be
“acceptable to” the FAA, the FAA finds that in practice these training courses are instead
“accepted by” the FAA through the previously discussed process. As such, the FAA
proposes to change the term “acceptable to” to “accepted by” in proposed § 65.107(c) for
inspection rating training courses and § 65.107(d) for maintenance rating training
courses. The FAA notes that should a training course change, it would no longer be
considered to be accepted by the FAA and, therefore, the training course provider would
Under current regulations the FAA may issue a repairman certificate (light-sport
aircraft) with an inspection rating for aircraft in the gyroplane class; however, the FAA
does not currently issue a maintenance rating applicable to gyroplanes. In the 2004 final
rule, gyroplanes were included in the light-sport aircraft definition to permit a sport pilot
to fly the small gyroplanes that were then available on the market. At the time, the FAA
did not intend to certificate gyroplanes under § 21.190.107 Because the primary purpose of
with § 21.190, the FAA concluded it would be unnecessary to issue a maintenance rating
certificate (light-sport aircraft). The FAA currently only issues the inspection rating with
repairman certificate in the rotorcraft category and powered-lift category, which are not
Under this proposal, the new rotorcraft category encompasses both gyroplanes and
helicopters. Because the FAA proposes to expand the aircraft certification parameters for
a light-sport category aircraft, the FAA recognizes that both the gyroplane and helicopter
would be able to enter the light-sport market in greater numbers,108 and there would be a
corresponding demand for the ability to safely maintain and inspect these aircraft.
Therefore, the FAA proposes to permit the issuance of maintenance ratings to the
The FAA has determined that a rotorcraft category training course is sufficient,
rather than establishing mutually exclusive helicopter and gyroplane courses. From a
and helicopters. For example, both gyroplanes and helicopters utilize an aircraft engine
and main rotor system which, from a maintenance perspective, are of similar design and
operation. Although there are other differences in operation and in design, such as use of
a tail rotor or propeller, the FAA believes these differences can be covered in a single
108Refer to preamble section IV.C. for discussion on the expansion of eligibility requirements (proposed § 22.100) providing for the
certification of additional classes of aircraft.
training course that includes both types of aircraft. Additionally, because these training
courses require FAA acceptance, the FAA would verify in its review process that the
training includes the class-specific differences within the rotorcraft category. Therefore,
all persons seeking repairman certificates (light-sport) with a maintenance rating for
permit the issuance of inspection ratings to the rotorcraft category (i.e., gyroplane, which
could already be issued, and helicopter). The FAA has determined existing holders of a
gyroplane inspection rating would already have the knowledge and skills for performing
the annual condition inspection on aircraft in the rotorcraft category due to the
aforementioned similarities and limited scope of privileges with the inspection rating.
The FAA notes that current holders of a repairman certificate (light-sport aircraft) with an
inspection rating with gyroplane class privileges would not need to be reissued a
additional aircraft category privileges for the same certificate, the FAA would amend the
“gyroplane” class privilege to a “rotorcraft” category privilege at the time the permanent
certificate is issued.
sport aircraft) with an inspection rating. Specifically, under § 65.107(b)(2), a person may
perform the annual condition inspection if the aircraft has been issued an experimental
certificate under § 21.191(i), with certain conditions.109 Should this proposal be adopted
109The aircraft must also be owned by the holder and must be in the same class of light-sport aircraft for which the holder completed
the requisite training.
as a final rule, the FAA finds that the language in § 65.107(b)(2) could result in a
situation where an individual was issued a repairman certificate (light-sport aircraft) with
purpose under proposed § 21.191(i)), and the aircraft could later be re-certificated as a
scenario, if the aircraft was later re-certificated in accordance with § 21.190, that
repairman’s certificate, which states the aircraft N-number and serial number could allow
the repairman to continue to conduct the annual condition inspection on that aircraft. The
FAA did not intend to allow for repairman with an inspection rating to conduct an annual
Therefore, the FAA proposes to remove the phrase “been issued” to clarify that to
experimental certificate for the certain operating purposes, as set forth in § 65.109(a)(2)
discussed). This change would require that to exercise the privileges of the repairman
certificate (light-sport) inspection rating, the aircraft must have the appropriate
experimental certificate.
from these duration parameters. Section 65.15(b) provides the duration for repairman
certificates, which includes those issued in accordance with §§ 65.101, 65.104, and
revoked, until the holder is relieved from the duties for which the holder was employed
and certificated.
Employment is a requirement specific to repairman certificates issued in
for a specific job, and § 65.103(a) limits a repairman to conducting work only in
connection with duties for the certificate holder by whom the repairman was employed
certificates (light-sport aircraft). Section 65.101(b) excepts those certificates from the
because eligibility, privileges, and limitations of these two types of repairman certificate
The FAA proposes to revise § 65.15(a) and (b) to distinguish the effective period
of repairman certificates issued under § 65.101 from that of certificates issued under
§§ 65.104 and 65.107. Specifically, proposed § 65.15(a) would except only those
repairman certificates issued in accordance with § 65.101 from the stated duration. In
other words, repairman certificates issued in accordance with §§ 65.104 and 65.107
accordance with § 65.101 to be the effective until the repairman is relieved from the
duties for which the repairman was employed and certificated (unless the certificate is
The FAA also proposes to remove the reference to March 31, 2013, in § 65.15.
That date referenced a compliance date that has since passed and, as such, is no longer
necessary. In July 2003, the FAA discontinued issuing paper airman certificates and
under 14 CFR part 65) from exercising the privileges of a paper certificate five years
from the effective date of the final rule.110 After the five-year period (i.e., March 31,
2013), only an FAA-issued plastic airmen certificate could be used to exercise these
privileges. Since March 31, 2013, has passed, the FAA is removing this grace period
from the regulations as superfluous. Therefore, except for temporary certificates issued
under § 65.13, the holder of a paper certificate issued under part 65 may not exercise the
privileges of that certificate. Removing the March 31, 2013, date from the regulation
simplifies the regulation and removes a date that no longer has significance; in other
Section 65.103 provides the privileges and limitations for a repairman certificate
(light-sport aircraft) from this requirement while that repairman is performing work under
that certificate. Section 65.103(a) provides certificate privileges appropriate to the job for
which the repairman was employed and certificated, limiting that repairman to duties
only in connection with the certificate holder who employed and recommended the
supervising duties for which the repairman understands the current instructions of the
certificate holder by whom the repairman is employed. This language indicates that
paragraphs (a) and (b) are only applicable to repairman certificates issued in accordance
with § 65.101, which is the only repairman certificate type that has requirements relating
to employment.111 However, the FAA notes that § 65.103 also does not apply to a
110 Drug Enforcement Assistance, Final Rule, 73 FR 10662, (Feb. 28, 2008).
111 See § 65.101(a)(2).
repairman). Accordingly, the FAA is proposing to amend § 65.103(c) to state that
§ 65.103 does not apply to the holder of a repairman certificate issued in accordance with
G. Maintenance
§ 91.327. This rule would revise the maintenance requirements for light-sport category
aircraft in § 91.327 regarding safety directives and major and minor repairs and
1. Safety Directives
Section 91.327(b)(4) states 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
therefore the FAA proposes to remove this requirement. The FAA expects that
would continue to direct the aircraft manufacturer to issue safety directives to correct
civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition.112 The FAA considers that where a
condition would need to be corrected before the aircraft could be considered in airworthy
112For example, see F3198-18 - Standard Specification for Light Sport Aircraft Manufacturer’s Continued Operational Safety (COS)
Program and F2483-18e1 Standard Practice for Maintenance and the Development of Maintenance Manuals for Light Sport Aircraft
and F2483-18e1 - Standard Practice for Maintenance and the Development of Maintenance Manuals for Light Sport Aircraft.
condition. Similarly, if there is a safety-of-flight condition that has not been corrected, the
records that must be kept by each registered owner or operator of an aircraft. Specifically,
§ 91.417(a)(2)(v) requires that records contain the current status of applicable safety
directives, including, for each, the method of compliance, the safety directive number and
revision date. If the safety directive involves recurring action, the record must also state
the time and date when the next action is required. The safety directive record keeping
and operators to comply with safety directives. Therefore, the FAA proposes to remove
Section 91.327(b)(5) currently requires that each alteration accomplished after the
aircraft’s date of manufacture meets the applicable and current consensus standard and
has been authorized by either the manufacturer or a person acceptable to the FAA.113
The FAA has determined that the language in § 91.327(b)(5) does not allow for a
rated part 145 certificated repair station to perform minor alterations as otherwise
11369 FR 44854. As discussed in the 2004 final rule, the FAA stated, for the purpose of § 91.327, “a person acceptable to the FAA”
includes: (1) the manufacturer that issued the statement of compliance, (2) any person who has assumed, and is properly exercising,
the original manufacturer’s responsibility for carrying out the continued airworthiness procedures described in the consensus standard,
(3) The holder of an FAA-approved technical standard order (TSO) authorization, parts manufacturer approval (PMA), type certificate
(TC), or supplemental type certificate (STC) for a product or part installed on the aircraft, and (4) Any person authorized by the
manufacturer to produce modification or replacement parts in accordance with the applicable consensus standard addressing
‘‘qualification of third-party modification or replacement parts.’’
permitted in § 91.327(b)(1) without the authorization of the manufacturer or person
acceptable to the FAA. Certificated persons who are already authorized under
§ 91.327(b)(1) and part 43 to perform minor alterations, may be prevented from doing so
The FAA proposes to revise § 91.327(b)(5) to require that minor repairs and
minor alterations meet the applicable design and performance requirements, and allow
the persons listed in § 91.327(b)(1) to perform minor repairs and minor alterations
FAA.
This proposed change is consistent with part 43 governing minor repairs or minor
alterations. For example, 14 CFR part 43 prescribes rules governing the maintenance,
applicable to any light-sport category aircraft. Under this proposal, minor repairs and
minor alterations would not require specific authorization of the manufacturer or other
person acceptable to the FAA, but rather must meet the performance requirements of part
43, including § 43.13. Additionally, since minor repairs and minor alterations must
person acceptable to the FAA, the FAA considers it unnecessary to require additional
authorization before minor repairs or minor alterations can be performed. Finally, this
proposal provides some relief to aircraft owners and operators because they would not
have to receive authorization from the aircraft manufacturer, or another person acceptable
The proposed § 91.327(b)(5) would also require that each minor repair and minor
compliance submitted to the FAA for the aircraft. Part 43 prescribes performance rules
for these aircraft. Specifically, § 43.13(b) requires work to be performed in such a
manner and use materials of such a quality, that the condition of the aircraft, airframe,
aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance worked on will be at least equal to its original or
to vibration and deterioration, and other qualities affecting airworthiness). Requiring the
aircraft meet the applicable and current consensus standards listed on the aircraft’s
consistent with § 43.13(b). Finally, the FAA proposes that § 91.327(b)(5) would no
longer contain language concerning alterations being “accomplished after the aircraft’s
date of manufacture.” By definition, an aircraft could only be operated after it has been
manufactured. As such, including the phrase “accomplished after the aircraft’s date of
The FAA notes that this rule also proposes two changes to § 43.13. First, the FAA
Second, the FAA proposes to remove the paragraph heading that exists in current
§ 43.13(c) to ensure consistency with § 43.13(a) and (b), which do not use headings. The
FAA also proposes minor editorial changes to § 43.13(c). These proposed changes would
or a person acceptable to the FAA. The FAA is proposing to revise this section by adding
the term “major repair,” removing the statement “to an aircraft produced under a
consensus standard,” and adding language to clarify that the required authorization to
perform a major repair or major alteration must be provided by the manufacturer or a
The proposed § 91.327(b)(6) text will require that each major repair or major
retain the existing requirement that each major alteration be performed and inspected in
or a person acceptable to the FAA. The proposal will add that same requirement to major
major repairs. The FAA is proposing to add “major repairs” to this provision to require
major repairs also be authorized by the manufacturer or a person acceptable to the FAA.
The proposed rule would also require that major repairs be performed and inspected in
or a person acceptable to the FAA. The proposal is consistent with how major repairs are
type-certificated aircraft must be done in accordance with technical data approved by the
Administrator (§ 65.95(a)(1)), such Administrator approved data does not exist for a
light-sport category aircraft and so a major repair on a light-sport category aircraft built to
a consensus standard that meets the requirements of part 22 should be done only after
authorization from the manufacturer. Therefore, the proposal requires the major repair
must be authorized by the manufacturer and performed and inspected in accordance with
acceptable to the FAA. Additionally, related provisions in part 65, specifically §§ 65.85
Second, the FAA proposes to remove the language “to any aircraft produced
state that these aircraft are built to a consensus standard. Therefore, reading
§ 91.327(b)(6) and the proposed § 21.190 together, it is clear that aircraft in the light-
sport category must be built to a consensus standard. As a result, the language referencing
have to be produced under a consensus standard. Therefore, the FAA proposes to remove
Third, regarding the manufacturer authorizing major alterations, the FAA finds
that current language could be clearer. Read strictly, the current § 91.327(b)(6) requires
that each major alteration to an aircraft is authorized in accordance with maintenance and
and inspection procedures. A major repair or major alteration must be authorized by the
consensus standard that meets the requirements of part 22. The manufacturer is best
suited to determine if the aircraft will continue to meet the means of compliance with the
approve for return to service an airframe (or related part or appliance) of an aircraft with
a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category, after a major repair or major
alteration, provided the work done was performed in accordance with instructions
developed by the manufacturer or a person acceptable to the FAA.114 Similarly, under
§ 65.87(b), the same privileges apply to a certificated mechanic with a powerplant rating
special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category unless each major repair or
major alteration is authorized by the manufacturer or a person acceptable to the FAA and
developed by the manufacturer or a person acceptable to the FAA. Sections 65.85(b) and
65.87(b) currently do not align with the proposed § 91.327(b)(6) in a way that would
require that a mechanic does not approve an airframe or powerplant for return to service
with an unauthorized major repair or alteration. Performing the major repair or major
acceptable to the FAA may not sufficiently verify the aircraft or engine meet the
regarding instructions, the mechanic determine the major repair or major alteration is
H. Operations
In general, § 91.327 does not currently allow a person to operate an aircraft with a
However, § 91.327(a) does include two exceptions to this general prohibition against
operations for compensation and hire: conducting flight training and towing a glider or an
114 69 FR 44847. This rule change gives the airframe or powerplant-rated mechanic the same privilege to perform and inspect major
repairs and major alterations on special light-sport aircraft that this rule grants a repairman (light-sport aircraft) with a maintenance
rating.
115 See section V.F.1 for additional changes, technical in nature, proposed to §§ 65.85 and 65.87.
The FAA has received several petitions for exemptions and numerous industry
requests related to increased opportunities for using light-sport category aircraft for
expanding the use of light-sport category aircraft for compensation or hire.117 Industry
groups argue that light-sport category aircraft for certain aerial work for compensation
and hire would be in the interest of public safety. For example, industry groups state that
some of the public safety interests involve the safety of people and structures on the
ground due to light-sport category aircraft being generally quieter, slower, and more agile
than aircraft with standard airworthiness certificates. The FAA has considered industry
requests, as well as the use of FAA-accepted consensus standards that can provide an
appropriate level of safety, and the FAA agrees that limited expansion of the use of light-
sport category aircraft for compensation and hire is in the public interest.
As previously stated, the FAA does not explicitly define aerial work. The FAA
broadly interprets the term to mean work done from the air for compensation that does
not involve the carriage of persons or property.118 The FAA proposes to add a new
paragraph in § 91.327 to allow for operation of light-sport category aircraft for aerial
work for compensation or hire. The proposed amendment will allow light-sport category
aircraft to conduct limited aerial work operations. Additionally, the proposed changes to
the rule would not waive or provide exception from any of the provisions required by 14
CFR part 119 or any other rule requiring an air operator certificate. To be allowed to
operate under the proposed amendment, light-sport category aircraft would be required to
116 See Exemption granted to Operation Migration from 14 CFR §§ 61.113(a), 91.319(e), and 91.327(a), April 30, 2014, Exemption
No. 10984, Docket No. FAA-2013-1075, available online at https://www.regulations.gov/document/FAA-2013-1075-0004.
117 Dan Johnson & Roy Beisswenger. Modernizing Rules for Sport Pilots and Light Sport Aircraft:1.0 Aerial Work for Light-sport
proposes the addition of § 21.190(c)(3), which requires the manufacturer to include a list
in the pilot’s operating handbook of any aerial work operations that may be safely
conducted using the aircraft. The proposed § 21.190(c)(3) requires the aforementioned
amendments applicable to light-sport category aircraft will result in aircraft that must
meet consensus standards for aerial work operations. When a light-sport category aircraft
aircraft that undergo the type-certification processes that are currently allowed to conduct
aerial work. As such, this proposed change will allow aerial work to be conducted in
aircraft.
The FAA recognizes that this is an ever-evolving field and seeks to not inhibit
future innovation. As such, the proposed approach would not prescribe types of aerial
work but would rather provide a path for a proven risk-based assessment of current and
future aerial tasks. The agency does not propose relaxation of any of the existing
regulatory safeguards that relate to aerial work operations, such as the minimum safe
altitude, minimum safe distance, and minimum safe speed restrictions in part 91 and
conduct aerial work operations that exceed existing rules, operators must obtain
exemption.
The FAA anticipates that the proposed expansion of aerial work, along with the
increased interest in aerial work that involves carrying higher numbers of occupants. The
FAA is proposing the addition of § 91.327(f)(1) and (2) to address these concerns. The
proposed language states that no person may operate an airplane certificated as a light-
sport category aircraft when carrying more than four occupants, including the pilot.
Additionally, the proposed language states that no person may operate a light-sport
category aircraft other than an airplane when carrying more than two occupants,
including the pilot. The FAA does not have sufficient data for expanding the number of
§ 91.327(f)(1) and (2) does not change the restriction on certificated sport pilots not
carrying more than two persons, including the pilot. Pilots with higher grades of
certification will be able to operate light-sport category aircraft with the higher number of
The current definition of light-sport aircraft in 14 CFR 1.1 limits the seating
capacity to no more than two persons, including the pilot. The proposed rules would
category aircraft and a two-person occupancy for light-sport category aircraft other than
airplanes. The proposed rules are expected to lead to larger light-sport category aircraft.
The larger size, along with the proposed expansion of aerial work, could result in
situations where there are occupants who do not require a seat. The FAA has decided that
a measured approach that limits the number of occupants on an aircraft is safest in the
near term, as it will prevent situations where operators attempt to carry as many
passengers that will physically fit in the aircraft. In light of the safety continuum, as
discussed in section IV.C.5, the FAA has proposed a limit of four-person occupancy for
light-sport category airplanes and two-person occupancy for light-sport category aircraft
other than airplanes because that is consistent with the maximum seating capacity in
proposed § 22.100(a)(1) and (2). This is not a prohibition of persons being carried who
are not in seats, but rather a limitation on the total number of occupants, including both
those who are in seats and those who are otherwise restrained.
conduct takeoffs and landings over densely populated areas or in congested airways. The
terms and conditions specified in the authorization must be in the interest of safety in air
commerce. The regulation only applies to takeoffs and landings; it does not currently
authorize operating limitations to cover other flight segments. The current regulation
presents difficulties for operators, as they can obtain special operating limitations for
takeoff and landing, but not for any operations between takeoff and landing. Due to urban
sprawl, it has become increasingly difficult for operators to avoid operating over densely
populated areas.
all flight segments, the FAA proposes to amend § 91.319(c) to allow the Administrator to
operations over densely populated areas or in congested airways, including, but not
limited to, takeoffs and landings. This proposed amendment will allow the Administrator
to issue special operating limitations that allow all phases of flight and expands the types
operating over densely populated areas or in congested airways will continue to apply
operating limitations. When issuing such operating limitations, the FAA will consider
question is one of proven design and has records for continued operational safety.
certificates, there are several reasons why an operator may seek special operating
limitations for their aircraft to conduct operations over densely populated areas or in
congested airways, including, but not limited to, takeoffs and landings. One example
involves operators conducting flights and other operations to show compliance with
airworthiness regulations under § 21.191(b). An operator may need to takeoff, land, and
operate over densely populated areas or in congested airways to show compliance for the
issuance of type and supplemental type certificates and to show compliance with the
when operators may seek these operating limitations over densely populated areas or in
aircraft uses may seek special operating limitations to conduct those operations over
The Administrator will consider many factors when determining which aircraft,
certificated under § 21.191, may be issued the operating limitations to operate over a
densely populated area or in congested airways. The Administrator may grant operating
safety attributes and records for continued operational safety, which enable them to
operate over densely populated areas. Even though there is a broad variety of
experimental aircraft with differing levels of safety and risk, the process of issuing
experimental aircraft airworthiness certificates is an established process for all
experimental aircraft. Not all aircraft that hold experimental certificates are true
used to describe these aircraft, that does not automatically mean they lack evidence of
hold experimental airworthiness certificates and, while some of these aircraft lack
records. For instance, there are large manufacturing companies performing market survey
oversight.
certificates pose overly significant risk to the general public and will not consider
extending the proposed operating limitations to those aircraft. At a minimum, the FAA
expects that all aircraft who are issued the proposed operating limitations, including any
airworthiness directives. Additionally, the FAA anticipates that the proposed operating
limitations would not be issued to experimental aircraft that have had alterations or
appliances that have not been adequately tested by the original manufacturer. In order to
determine whether an aircraft with alterations or appliances would be able to obtain this
operating limitation, the FAA would consider all facts presented by the operator, as well
as procedures described in FAA guidance, including FAA Order 8130.2. This is similar
to the process used for issuing operating limitations currently. Such procedures would be
developed following this rulemaking and would be made available for public comment
prior to adoption.
Some amateur and kit-built aircraft may be able to obtain the proposed operating
limitations to operate over densely populated areas or in congested airways, although the
FAA currently has no intention of considering original or plans-built designs for issuance
of these operating limitations. Depending upon the type of kit and the aircraft’s similarity
to its kit model, the FAA may consider granting these operating limitations to certain kit-
built aircraft because of the high level of consistency among kit-built aircraft.
There are specific aircraft features that the FAA may consider before issuing
First, the FAA is concerned about the increased risk that results from an aircraft that has a
single point of failure. When an experimental aircraft has a single point of failure, such as
the loss of a single hydraulic in an aircraft that uses that system for flight controls, flight
will become unrecoverable. Such aircraft will not be eligible for the proposed operating
limitations, as they have a higher risk to persons and property on the ground. Having
redundant systems increases safety for persons and property on the ground. Second, the
FAA is concerned about the increased risk from allowing aircraft with ejection seats or
equipped with an ejection seat, deployment of that seat over a densely populated area
external store fails and detaches from the aircraft while operating over densely populated
areas, there would be significant risk to persons on the ground. The aforementioned
examples are some attributes that would cause the FAA to consider not issuing the
proposed operating limitations, but the examples are not an exhaustive list.
adequately tested alterations and appliances, the FAA may also consider actions taken by
the operator to decrease risk. For example, the FAA views an aircraft that has completed
a structured, task-based phase I testing process as potentially posing a lower risk over
densely populated areas and in congested areas. Therefore, these aircraft could be
recipients of the proposed operating limitations. Phase I flight testing is the initial flight-
testing period for a newly assembled aircraft. All experimental aircraft seeking an
testing provides the operator and the agency with consistent and reliable data for these
aircraft. Several methods of phase I testing are available. One method is to develop and
Completing a successful task-based phase I flight test plan process results in a document
specific to the aircraft, as compared to an aircraft that has not completed a structured
phase I flight test plan process and has only completed the minimum required flight time
option and maintenance record entry. Additionally, the completion of a task-based phase
I flight test plan is one action the operator can take that may decrease risk to persons and
property on the ground during operations over densely populated areas.120 The FAA
anticipates that aircraft granted the proposed operating limitations may be subject to
This rule would implement language in Section 581 of the FAA Reauthorization
Act of 2018 (the Act), which authorizes certain aircraft holding experimental certificates
to conduct space support vehicle flights. The Act provides definitions for “space support
vehicle” and “space support vehicle flight.” The Act also adopted 49 U.S.C. 44737,
which provides the rules for space support vehicle flights. To maintain consistency with
the congressional language, the FAA proposes to adopt the same language used in
120 See FAA Order 8130.2J, Airworthiness Certification of Aircraft, Appendix D, Table D-1, Operating Limitations (July 21, 2017).
See FAA Advisory Circular 90-89C, Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook. (February 14, 2023).
section 44737. The FAA is also proposing regulatory amendments necessary to integrate
statute, only aircraft holding experimental certificates that are also a launch vehicle, a
support vehicles. Under this proposed rule, the definitions from the statute will be added
to 14 CFR part 1 to facilitate implementation of that law. The FAA does not intend to
create a new experimental purpose for space support vehicles to operate under in this
rule. Instead, space support vehicles would conduct space support vehicle flights under an
training. Additionally, the Act requires that space support vehicles must be owned by or
Space support vehicle flights are distinct from licensed launch or reentry
operations. Per the Act, an operator may conduct space support vehicle flights only to
simulate space flight conditions in support of training for potential space flight
flight; or research and development tasks, which require the unique capabilities of the
aircraft conducting the flight. Additionally, the aircraft conducting the space support
vehicle flight is required to take off and land at a single site that is licensed for operation
Per the Act, the operator of an aircraft may conduct space support vehicle flights
compensation or hire. These flights may include carriage of persons or property for
The FAA proposes to amend § 91.319 in two ways in order to integrate space
support vehicle flights into the operations regulations for aircraft holding experimental
certificates. First, to implement the statutory authorization for space support vehicles, the
FAA proposes the addition of § 91.319(k). This proposed addition will allow the operator
of an aircraft with an experimental airworthiness certificate to operate the aircraft for the
purpose of conducting a space support vehicle flight. Second, the FAA proposes to
To implement the statutory mandate in the Act, the FAA also proposes the
addition of a new section addressing operating limitations for space support vehicle
flights. This proposed new section, § 91.331, provides general operating requirements
applicable to aircraft holding experimental certificates that will conduct space support
vehicle flights. Section 91.331 would establish the same operating requirements as
provided in the Act, which includes the requirements related to where takeoff and landing
are to occur; who can conduct the operation; which vehicle can be used; and the purposes
for which the vehicles can be used for. There will be only one change, as
section 44740(b)(1)(A) refers to “a single site that is operated by an entity licensed for
operation under chapter 509 of title 51.” Since the only sites licensed by the FAA under
title 51 of the United States Code are launch and reentry sites, proposed § 91.331(a)(2)(1)
would instead refer to “a single launch or reentry site that is operated by an entity
licensed to operate the launch or reentry site under 51 U.S.C. chapter 509.”
vehicle flight, the FAA would consider whether the requirements of proposed § 91.331
are met. While it would be relatively easy to determine if certain elements of proposed
§ 91.331 are met (such as whether the location of takeoff and landing is a qualifying
launch or reentry site), others would require a more intensive, fact-specific approach. For
example, if the operator wants to conduct space support vehicle flights for the purpose of
research and development tasks, the FAA will analyze the specific facts proffered by the
operator to determine whether the research and development tasks require the unique
capabilities of the aircraft conducting the flight, as required by the proposed § 91.331. If
the operator wants to conduct a space support vehicle flight for the purpose of training
potential space flight participants, government astronauts, or crew, the operator would
need to demonstrate that such persons have taken sufficient steps towards becoming
space flight participants, government astronauts, or crew. The FAA would develop
guidance to assist operators in developing their space support vehicle flight proposals,
such as guidance related to what constitutes a unique capability of the aircraft and what
government astronaut, or crew. The FAA also proposes to amend § 119.1(e) by adding a
new paragraph, paragraph (e)(12), to allow for the operation of such aircraft for the
purpose of conducting a space support vehicle flight under the requirements of the
exclude space support vehicle flights from the requirements of part 119 relating to air
4. Right-of-Way Rules
Section 91.113 provides the right-of-way rules for operations other than those
conducted on water. The right-of-way rules instruct pilots on how they must respond to
other aircraft they encounter and are based on the category of aircraft or the operational
scenario. Pilots must be vigilant to see and avoid other aircraft; and as always, aircraft in
distress have the right-of-way over all other air traffic. The current regulation outlines
specific categories of aircraft that a balloon, a glider, or an airship have right-of-way over
when converging at approximately the same altitude (except head-on, or nearly so). By
explicitly naming specific categories of aircraft, the current § 91.113(d)(2) and (3) do not
provide information for how operators of other categories of aircraft not listed in
§ 91.113 are expected to comply with the intent of the rule. This may lead to confusion,
especially for those operators of aircraft that are not explicitly included in the current
§ 91.113.
The FAA proposes to amend § 91.113(d)(2) and (3) to update the language by
replacing the lists of aircraft in paragraphs (d)(2) and (3) with the broader term “powered
powered aircraft not included in the existing rule, as the current rule is too narrow. The
new language uses the term “powered aircraft” to include those categories. These
amendments clarify the language in § 91.113(d) where aircraft are categorized for the
purpose of describing which aircraft has the right-of-way when approaching another
maneuverable aircraft to safely proceed with priority over more maneuverable aircraft in
the NAS. The proposed § 91.113(d)(2) continues to give gliders right-of-way over
right-of-way over all other powered aircraft, except for those powered aircraft that are
towing or refueling another aircraft. Balloons will continue to have the right-of-way over
Finally, for consistency and clarity, the proposed language updates the previous
FAA chooses the term “powered aircraft” instead of “engine driven” to better convey the
inclusion of aircraft that may have non-traditional forms of propulsion, including electric
propulsion.
5. Operations at Airports in Class G Airspace
airport in Class G airspace, including the direction of turns when approaching the airport,
flap settings, and communications with air traffic control towers. Currently, § 91.126(b)
requires that, when approaching to land at an airport without an operating control tower
in Class G airspace, each pilot of a helicopter or a powered parachute must avoid the flow
parachutes. It does not currently consider other types of aircraft that may require access
to these airports. Since its adoption, the current regulation has become inadequate in this
regard, as it only addresses specific aircraft and does not consider emerging aircraft
To address all other aircraft under these requirements, the FAA proposes to
amend § 91.126(b)(1) to state that each pilot of a powered fixed-wing aircraft and
powered-lift aircraft operating in wing-borne flight mode must make all turns of that
aircraft to the left unless the airport displays approved light signals or visual markings
indicating that turns should be made to the right, in which case the pilot must make all
turns to the right. The FAA is also proposing to amend § 91.126(b)(2) to require that each
pilot of any other aircraft must avoid the flow of the types of aircraft listed in proposed
operating in wing-borne flight mode. The term “any other aircraft” in proposed
§ 91.126(b)(2) would include, but would not be limited to, weight-shift aircraft,
helicopters, and powered parachutes. When powered-lift aircraft are operating in wing-
borne flight mode, they have similar flight characteristics as fixed-wing aircraft. As such,
lift flight mode are not equivalent to fixed-wing aircraft and will therefore not be treated
the same. The purpose of this proposed amendment is to address all aircraft that could be
The proposed change would improve aircraft separation in the interest of safety
avoidance of dissimilar aircraft. While there are many kinds of aircraft that are now
grouped together under the proposed rule, those aircraft have similar flight and
maneuvering characteristics and therefore should be kept separate from powered fixed-
parachutes and helicopters, which are kept separate under the current rule) are expected
powered fixed-wing aircraft from all other aircraft, this proposal intends to reduce risk to
all aircraft by limiting all non-powered, non-fixed-wing aircraft from operating in the
6. Towing
installed in a manner, which is approved by the Administrator. When the FAA issued the
2004 final rule, the FAA stated in the preamble that towing operations by light-sport
aircraft would be allowed. However, the 2004 final rule failed to actually amend the
clarify the addition of light-sport category aircraft for towing operations and remedy the
that aircraft was issued a type certificate. Additionally, each paragraph of the proposed
FAA uses the terms “approved by the Administrator,” “authorized by the Administrator,”
Acceptable to the FAA This term means the tow-hitch or installation is not
necessarily privy to the FAA’s review before its
installation or use.
First, for those aircraft that hold a standard airworthiness certificate, the proposed
language requires that the tow-hitch is approved by the Administrator. Additionally, the
airworthiness certificates.
certificate, and for which the aircraft has been previously issued a type certificate,121 the
proposed language would require the tow-hitch be of a kind that is approved or otherwise
authorized by the Administrator. Although these aircraft may have been issued a special
airworthiness certificate, the fact that the aircraft was issued a type certificate means that
the aircraft must continue to meet its type design after an alteration to install a tow-hitch.
A tow-hitch installation for an aircraft issued a type certificate may be done after the
installation is FAA approved. This is the same requirement that is currently imposed on
certificate and are issued associated operating limitations, the FAA is proposing an
alternative to the tow-hitch and/or the installations having FAA approval. Under the
proposal, these aircraft may have a tow-hitch and/or installation that is authorized by the
Administrator using some other manner, such as in the operating limitations issued to the
aircraft.122 In these instances, the FAA will verify that there will be an equivalent level of
Third, for those aircraft that hold a special airworthiness certificate, for which the
aircraft has not been previously issued a type certificate, the proposed language would
FAA-approved tow-hitch, the tow-hitch may instead be one that is acceptable to the
121For example, this could include aircraft in the limited, primary, restricted, or provisional category, or aircraft issued an experimental
certificate for a purpose under § 21.191(a) through (f), when that aircraft has been previously issued a type certificate.
122 For example, if a person were using an aircraft that had been issued a TC to test a tow-hitch design, the aircraft could be issued an
experimental certificate for the purpose of showing compliance with the regulations. The FAA would authorize the installation of the
tow-hitch in the operating limitations issued to the aircraft.
FAA, the tow-hitch must be installed in a manner acceptable to the FAA. As noted in the
2004 final rule, there is historical precedent for towing operations by light-sport aircraft.
The FAA has determined that such operations can be conducted safely when using a tow-
acceptable to the Administrator. The proposed language allows the option to install a
tow-hitch that does not have FAA approval because the aircraft itself was never subject to
an FAA approval process, as were those aircraft that were issued a type certificate.
requirements in § 91.309(a)(2).
airworthiness certificate; or or
airworthiness certificate; or
§ 91.409(c)(1) by removing the first “or” and adding the words “airworthiness
certificate” following the word “light-sport” within the list of special airworthiness
certificates. The proposed § 91.409(c)(1) states that an aircraft that carries a special flight
readability, and understanding for the operator for proper use of the exception.
sport category will remain effective as long as the aircraft meets the definition of a light-
sport aircraft and the aircraft conforms to its original configuration, except for those
the aircraft must not have any unsafe condition and not be likely to develop an unsafe
the light-sport category would have to meet the eligibility criteria specified in proposed
§ 21.190(b) for its airworthiness certificate to remain effective. The specific eligibility
requirements would reflect the expanded scope and performance of aircraft that could be
certificated in the light-sport category and are discussed in detail in sections IV.C. and
effective date of the final rule may not be able to meet the requirements in proposed
§ 21.190(b), as these aircraft would have been designed and produced before the
allow these aircraft to maintain their special airworthiness certificates. The duration of
airworthiness certificates issued for these aircraft would remain unaffected provided the
aircraft still meet the parameters of the definition of light-sport aircraft found in current
§ 1.1 and the other applicable requirements discussed in this section. The parameters that
these aircraft would be required to meet would be specifically listed in the proposed
paragraphs (a)(3)(iv)(A) through (M) and are identical to those contained in the current
definition of light-sport aircraft found in § 1.1. They would be specifically listed in the
proposed regulation since the current definition of light-sport aircraft containing those
for an airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category to be effective the aircraft must
specify the aircraft must conform to its original or properly altered configuration. The
proposal in this NPRM which would revise § 91.327 to no longer require that the
acceptable to the FAA. Accordingly, minor repairs and minor alterations performed in
accordance with acceptable methods, techniques and practices that meet the provisions of
the applicable consensus standards and part 43 would result in an aircraft that would
conform to a properly altered configuration. Any minor repair or minor alteration not
performed in accordance with applicable consensus standards would result in the aircraft
that for the airworthiness certificates of aircraft certificated in the light-sport category to
remain effective the aircraft must have no unsafe condition and not be likely to develop
registered in the United States for their airworthiness certificates to remain effective
would also continue to remain applicable; however, since that requirement applies to all
aircraft issued airworthiness certificates, the FAA proposes that the requirement is better
In this proposed rule, the regulatory wording of § 21.191 would be revised from
certificates” to clarify that experimental certificates are airworthiness certificates and that
they are issued for the experimental purposes listed in § 21.191. The term “purposes”
would be revised to “experimental purposes” to clarify that the purposes in § 21.191 are
experimental. These changes are also being proposed to align with a change in § 21.175,
which proposes to clarify that special airworthiness certificates are issued for aircraft
This rule proposes to retain § 21.191(a) through (h), revise § 21.191(i), and add
Each section was created for a particular type of aircraft. The first section, identified in
§ 21.191(i)(1), applies to aircraft that have not been issued a U.S. or foreign airworthiness
certificate and do not meet the provisions of 14 CFR 103.1. These aircraft are commonly
will not be issued under this paragraph for these aircraft after January 31, 2008. As such,
the FAA is proposing to delete this requirement. The second section, identified in
§ 21.191(i)(2), applies to light-sport aircraft that have been assembled from a kit in
section IV.I.3. The third section, identified in § 21.191(i)(3), applies to aircraft previously
issued an airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category. This last section would be
retained in § 21.191(i).
This rule proposes to revise the heading of § 21.191(i) from “Operating light-
sport aircraft” to “Operating former light-sport category aircraft.” This section would
contain the same experimental purpose as the current § 21.191(i)(3), which includes
aircraft that have previously been issued a special airworthiness certificate in the light-
sport category under § 21.190. Aside from the relocation from § 21.191(i)(3) to
§ 21.191(i) and the revision of the heading, this proposal would not further materially
This rule would eliminate § 21.191(i)(1) that allows for airworthiness certification
of “fat ultralights.” These aircraft have not been issued a U.S. or foreign airworthiness
certificate and do not meet the provisions of 14 CFR 103.1. These aircraft were provided
a small timeframe in which they could be issued an airworthiness certificate under this
experimental purpose and that timeframe closed on January 31, 2008, pursuant to
§ 21.191(i)(1). As such, this paragraph would be eliminated from this revised rule since
these aircraft can no longer be issued an airworthiness certificate under this section.
4. Operating Light-Sport Category Kit-Built Aircraft
aircraft that are currently being certificated under § 21.191(i)(2). Aircraft certificated
under this experimental purpose would continue to include those that have been
certificated under § 21.190 and assembled from an aircraft kit in accordance with the
The items the applicant must provide to apply for an experimental airworthiness
certificate for a light-sport category kit-built aircraft currently exist in § 21.193(e). This
rule would relocate these application items for light-sport category kit-built aircraft from
that an aircraft of the same make and model was manufactured and assembled by the
aircraft kit manufacturer and issued a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport
category. This proposed rule, in § 21.191(j)(1), would clarify that the issuance of a
special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category would occur under § 21.190.
operating instructions and § 21.193(e)(5) requires the applicant to provide a copy of the
§ 21.191(j)(2) in this rule and would change “the aircraft’s operating instructions” and
“the aircraft’s flight training supplement” to “the pilot’s operating handbook that includes
statement of compliance for the aircraft kit used in the aircraft assembly that meets
§ 21.190(c), except that instead of meeting § 21.190(c)(7), the statement must identify
assembly instructions for the aircraft that meet an applicable consensus standard. This
proposed rule would move this requirement to § 21.191(j)(4) and clarify that the aircraft
kit must comply with the applicable requirements of § 21.190 and part 22 in effect at the
time the aircraft kit was manufactured, except the statement of compliance need not
indicate compliance with § 22.100 for flight and ground testing in accordance with a
production acceptance test procedure. This change is necessary because this rule would
contain the applicable requirements throughout § 21.190 that an applicant would have to
design, production, and airworthiness requirements that must be complied with would be
manufactured outside the United States to show evidence that the aircraft kit was
manufactured in a country with which the United States has a Bilateral Airworthiness
This rule would create a new experimental purpose for former military aircraft to
under the proposed rule, aircraft would have to be manufactured, purchased, or modified
under contract by the U.S. Armed Forces or a foreign military. This proposed
requirement would establish the military history of the aircraft as a prerequisite for
eligibility under this section. The aircraft would have to have been a military aircraft
before the FAA would consider the aircraft a former military aircraft. Under the proposed
rule, unmanned aircraft (UA) would be excluded from eligibility for an airworthiness
aircraft between their public aircraft operations performed on behalf of the Department of
Defense (DOD). Since fiscal year 2015, the DOD components have increased the use of
air support contracts, including contracting for more flying hours and expanding the
awarded almost $8.4 billion for air support contracts in fiscal years 2015 through 2021.123
These contracts provide non-military aircraft and personnel to replicate the role of
combat aircraft for various training activities. DOD has used contracts to meet training
needs, address shortages in available military aircraft and crew members, and manage
costs.
Many of these DOD operations involve contract air support operations that use
civilian contractor aircraft and personnel. Some examples of contract air support
operations are ordinance delivery, target towing, aerial refueling, and aggressor training,
Government Accountability Office, Report to the Committee on Armed Services of the United States House of Representatives
123
activities. Although contract air support aircraft have been issued experimental
airworthiness certificates for the purpose of exhibition and crew training, there currently
is no experimental purpose available that adequately addresses the DOD’s needs with
regard to contract air support. Although the operations conducted under the contract with
DOD may be conducted as public aircraft operations, any operations the aircraft may
perform that do not meet the statutory requirements for public aircraft operations would
and crew training also may not include the mitigations appropriate to the operation of
these aircraft. To date, former-military aircraft seeking to conduct contract air support
operations typically have sought experimental airworthiness certificates for the purposes
of exhibition and crew training which the FAA has issued accompanied by specific
operating limitations developed for each purpose in accordance with § 91.319(i) and
FAA Order 8130.2.124 As the DOD has increased its use of contract air support operations
over time, the FAA has become aware that issuing experimental airworthiness certificates
under the current available purposes may result in a misalignment of the issued
experimental purpose and the operations being conducted. The proposed experimental
purpose will align the civil operations to be conducted and the purpose for which these
To better allow these aircraft to operate as civil aircraft, the FAA proposes to
establish a new experimental purpose for former military aircraft that would allow for
three types of civil operation. First, aircraft with this purpose would be able to fly the
often need to be taken to specific locations to have requisite repairs, alterations, and
124 FAA Order 8130.2J, Airworthiness Certification of Aircraft (July 21, 2017).
maintenance, whether scheduled or unscheduled. Second, aircraft with this purpose
would be able to fly the aircraft to a point of storage. When not being used for contract
air support operations, these aircraft are typically not housed on military property and
need to be kept in storage facilities that meet certain security, size, and environmental
requirements. As such, allowing for flight between the contract air support operations and
where the aircraft are housed is necessary. Third, aircraft with this purpose would be able
to be repositioned for use under contract with the DOD. Contract air support operations
occur at various DOD installations and within special use airspace, with the same aircraft
often being used for contract air support operations at different locations. As the flight
between the two locations would not be considered a public aircraft operation, this
purpose will cover the relocation flight necessary for the aircraft to fulfill contractual
requirements. These purposes are also aligned with the types of operations generally
allowed under a special flight permit. Unlike a special flight permit, however, this rule
would allow these aircraft to seek an experimental airworthiness certificate rather than
get specific permission for each such operation. The proposed experimental purpose
would enable the DOD to use contract air services more effectively and enable the FAA
to oversee the civil use of these aircraft more efficiently. Such civil air support operations
are critical to the defense readiness of the United States. The three authorizations
proposed by the FAA provide a pathway for the DOD contractors to conduct limited civil
operations.
§ 21.193(a) through (d) are those necessary for the application for an airworthiness
certificate for an experimental purpose. In accordance with these proposed revisions, the
heading of this section would be changed from “Experimental certificates: general” to
FAA setting forth the purpose for which the aircraft is to be used. This rule would omit
the first half of this requirement: “A statement, in a form and manner prescribed by the
FAA...” In this proposed rule, § 21.193(a) would require an applicant to submit the
experimental purpose for which the aircraft would be used and § 21.193(b) would require
or test, as applicable. Combined, these two requirements would necessitate more than a
“statement” from the applicant, as currently required by § 21.193(a). The applicant would
be required to provide the § 21.191 purpose(s) for which application is being made as
well as provide enough data for the FAA to understand the scope, risks, and hazards of
purpose. This proposed rule, in § 21.193(e), would change this requirement by removing
the phrase “such as photographs” to clarify that other means of identification are
permitted.
The FAA is not changing the requirement in § 21.193(c) stating that, upon
inspection of the aircraft, any pertinent information found necessary by the FAA to
safeguard the general public must be submitted by the applicant. In this proposal, this
number of flights required for the experiment. This proposed rule would keep this
requirement in § 21.193(c) but would make it applicable only for an applicant seeking
category aircraft, and operating light-sport category kit-built aircraft) are not dependent
with regulations, crew training, and market survey would all be subject to a certificate
duration of three years or less under this rule, or they could indicate the number of flights
it will take to complete their experiment or operation. Applicants for the exhibition and
air racing experimental purposes would identify the number of flights, typically planned
at events such as airshows, movie or television productions, or air races. In this section,
of this rule to reflect that not all the experimental purposes in § 21.191(a) through (f)
The current requirement in § 21.193(d)(3) for applicants to submit the areas over
which the experiment will be conducted when applying for an airworthiness certificate
for an experimental purpose would move to § 21.193(d) in this proposed rule. Consistent
with other requirements in this section in this proposed rule, the word “experiment”
would be changed to “flight” to show that not all experimental purposes involve
experiments.
photographs of the aircraft, except for aircraft converted from a previously certificated
type without appreciable change in the external configuration. This proposed rule, in
§ 21.193(f), would omit the words “aircraft converted from” to clarify that any previously
type-certificated aircraft would be excepted from this requirement if there was no
under § 21.191(i) operating former light-sport category aircraft, and § 21.191(j) operating
light-sport category kit-built aircraft, to demonstrate compliance with the aircraft noise
limits in 14 CFR part 36. If compliance cannot be demonstrated using analytical data
(i.e., the aircraft needs to be flight tested), an applicant for either of these experimental
purposes would need to obtain an experimental airworthiness certificate for the purpose
airworthiness certification under the proposed § 21.191(i) or (j). Options for noise
applies to persons who have altered the design of a type-certificated aircraft. Both
§ 21.195(b) and (c) have the requirement for an aircraft, before alteration, to have been
type certificated in the normal, utility, acrobatic, commuter, or transport category. This
proposed rule would add aircraft type certificated in the primary and restricted categories.
This change would allow, for example, a manufacturer or person to alter an aircraft, such
as by adding a new crop sprayer and install it in an aircraft that had been, before
alteration, type certificated in the restricted category for the special purpose operation of
crop spraying. This manufacturer or person could demonstrate the new crop sprayer on a
market survey. Currently, § 21.195 does not contain requirements applicable to these
this section is entitled to that certificate if, in addition to meeting the requirements of
§ 21.193, the applicant has established an inspection and maintenance program for the
continued airworthiness of the aircraft and showed that the aircraft has been flown for at
least 50 hours, or for at least 5 hours if it is a type-certificated aircraft which has been
modified. The FAA may reduce these operational requirements if the applicant provides
adequate justification. This proposed rule would clarify that § 21.195(a), (b), or (c)
determine the eligibility for the application of an airworthiness certificate for the
eligibility criterion. To remedy this common misconception, this rule would clarify that
§ 21.195(d) only applies when an applicant meets the requirements of § 21.193 and any
In addition to the changes previously discussed, this rule proposes to eliminate the
8. Noise Requirements
This rule proposes that new experimental light-sport aircraft and existing
experimental light-sport aircraft that are altered in a manner that changes their noise
generation would be required to demonstrate compliance with part 36. While the noise
limits listed in the appendices to part 36 would apply, the FAA is proposing different
methods of compliance depending on the complexity of the aircraft and the availability of
noise consensus standards. A more comprehensive discussion of the need for this
section IV.K.
light-sport aircraft kit-built aircraft when an airworthiness certificate is applied for under
§ 21.191(j). The applicability and methods of compliance with part 36 are fully discussed
in section IV.K.
9. Aircraft Identification
In § 21.182(a), this rule would change the word “his” to “the” to make this
sentence gender-neutral.
When combined, the current § 21.182(b) introductory text and (b)(2) contain
double-negative language that is confusing. This rule would eliminate the double-
negative language to add clarity. Section 21.182(b) currently states in part that paragraph
(a) of this section does not apply to applicants for the following: an experimental
certificate for an aircraft not issued for the purpose of operating amateur-built aircraft,
operating primary kit-built aircraft, or operating light-sport aircraft. To apply this double-
negative language correctly, a person would have to determine the experimental purposes
not listed in § 21.182(b)(2). These purposes include research and development, showing
compliance with regulations, crew training, exhibition, air racing, and market survey. The
included under § 21.182(b)(2), thereby excluding these aircraft from compliance with the
built under U.S. or foreign military requirements, and it would be impractical and
extremely costly for them to have to retroactively comply with civil fireproof
operating under FAA airworthiness certificates are already excluded from fire-proof
marking requirements since they tend to operate under the experimental purposes of
J. Restricted Category
requirements that the FAA finds inappropriate for the special purpose for which the
aircraft is to be used. This proposed rule would specify that the airworthiness regulations
for primary or light-sport categories are not acceptable for type certification in the
restricted category. These two categories were created after the restricted category
regulations were established and were not intended to be included for type certification in
categories are not appropriate for use in restricted category type certification. The
primary category airworthiness regulations are not designed to include all of the
requirements for light-sport category aircraft, as proposed in this rule, are based on the
design, performance, and production requirements in part 22. This revision would
preclude owners of primary category aircraft and light-sport category aircraft from
seeking certification of their aircraft in the restricted category. Currently, the FAA is not
aware of any owners of primary category aircraft or light-sport category aircraft that have
requested their aircraft to be certificated in the restricted category. As such, this proposed
rule would result in the airworthiness regulations for normal, utility, acrobatic, commuter,
and transport categories to be acceptable for use under the proposed restricted category
provisions in § 21.25(a)(1).
Also in this proposed rule, the term “special purpose” would be replaced with
“special purpose operation” in § 21.25(a)(1) and (2). This change would standardize the
use of this terminology throughout §§ 21.25, 21.185, and 91.313 and FAA Order
8110.56B, Restricted Category Type Certification, dated July 19, 2017 (“FAA Order
8110.56B").
type certificated in the restricted category. This proposed rule would restructure
§ 21.25(a)(2) by splitting this section into three requirements, of which the latter two are
new. This restructuring would make this section easier to read. In this proposed rule, the
phrase, “an Armed Force of the United States,” would be replaced with “the U.S. Armed
Forces” to align with terminology used throughout 14 CFR part 21. Section 21.25(a)(2)(i)
would contain the existing requirement that the aircraft type was manufactured in
accordance with the requirements of, and accepted for use by, the U.S. Armed Forces.
§ 21.25(a)(2)(ii), an aircraft type must have been operated by a U.S. Armed Force since
this provision is intended for former aircraft types of a U.S. Armed Force. Aircraft that
have only been manufactured for and accepted by a U.S. Armed Force, but never
operated by that U.S. Armed Force, could have been manufactured and accepted on
behalf of other operators such as under foreign military sales arrangements and, therefore,
or be modified to be able to perform, the special purpose operation for which the aircraft
modifications are permitted or required for type certification are not specified. This has
produced misconceptions that the aircraft can only be modified for special purpose
operation. Surplus military aircraft may be type certificated to perform a special purpose
operation without any modification. Alternatively, modifications may be made for other
The existing list of special purpose operations in § 21.25(b)(1) through (7) that are
authorized for restricted category aircraft have largely remained unchanged since 1964
(see 29 FR 14564, October 24, 1964). This proposed rule would revise § 21.25(b) by
codifying the special purpose operations that have been approved by the FAA since 1964.
Most of these special purpose operations have been published in FAA Order 8110.56B.
In this proposed rule, § 21.25(b)(1) through (7) would continue to contain the
seven special purposes currently in § 21.25(b)(1) through (7) that include: agricultural,
forest and wildlife conservation, aerial surveying, patrolling, weather control, aerial
advertising, and other, as specified by the FAA. Additionally, the associated special
purpose operations for each special purpose would be codified. For example, cloud
seeding would be a special purpose operation under the special purpose of weather
control. This change would align terminology in § 21.25(b) with that used by the FAA in
the approvals for special purpose operations published in the Federal Register. This
change would also align this terminology with that used in the certification basis section
of type certificate data sheets and supplemental type certificates, as well as with FAA
For § 21.25(b)(1), this rule would add three agricultural special purpose
operations that have been previously approved by the FAA: insect control, dust control,
and fruit drying and frost control. Frost control and fruit drying, also called protection of
crops, involve the use of an aircraft to circulate air over a field or orchard to prevent frost
from forming on the crops or to dry the fruit on the orchard trees.
For § 21.25(b)(2), this rule would codify forest and wildlife conservation special
purpose operations that have been previously approved by the FAA. These include aerial
dispensing of fire-fighting materials, fish spotting, wild animal survey, and oil spill
this rule proposes to change the name to aerial dispensing of fire-fighting materials to
For § 21.25(b)(3), this rule would codify aerial surveying special purpose
operations that include: aerial imaging, gas exploration, atmospheric survey and research,
navigation signals. Gas exploration would be added as a special purpose operation since
it uses the same processes as the special purpose operation of oil exploration, which has
aircraft is a key component to perform aerial surveying operations. Aerial imaging would
permit new technologies used to perform aerial surveying operations, such as light
For § 21.25(b)(4), this rule would codify patrolling special purpose operations
transmission lines and towers. Patrolling of data transmission lines and towers is a new
special purpose operation that would be added to this rule because it involves a similar
process used for the special purpose operation of patrolling power lines, which has
Finally, for § 21.25(b)(7), this rule would codify other special purpose operations
that have been previously approved by the FAA but are not categorized under the prior
six special purposes. The following special purpose operations would be added to
operations, glider towing, Alaskan fuel hauling, Alaskan fixed-wing external load
operations, and space vehicle launch support. This rule would move the existing catchall,
“any other special purpose operation specified by the FAA,” to become the last item in
the list to indicate that the FAA may still add special purpose operations in the future.
Section 21.185(a) states that an applicant for the original issue of a restricted
category, that was not previously type certificated in any other category, must comply
with the appropriate provisions of § 21.183. In this proposed rule, § 21.185(a) would be
revised to remove “original issue of” because “original” specifies compliance with the
applicable requirements of § 21.183 only for the original issuance of a restricted category
aircraft may require re-issuance of the airworthiness certificate in situations where the
airworthiness certificate was lost or had become unreadable due to damage. This
proposed revision would account for both original and re-issuance of a restricted category
airworthiness certificate.
certificate for an aircraft type certificated in the restricted category that was either a
surplus aircraft of the Armed Forces or previously type certificated in another category is
entitled to an airworthiness certificate if the aircraft has been inspected by the FAA and
found to be in a good state of preservation and repair and in a condition for safe
implement terminology changes that align with the language used in other sections of this
chapter. For example, this section would add “entitled to an airworthiness certificate” in
the first sentence to align with other sections of part 21, subpart H. Consistent with the
and “U.S. Armed Forces” would be used in § 21.185(b)(1) and (b)(2)(ii) respectively.
In addition to the changes previously discussed, this rule proposes to eliminate the
This proposal would revise the heading of § 21.187 by adding “for restricted
category aircraft” to clarify that this section applies only to restricted category aircraft.
The FAA is proposing to amend the applicability of 14 CFR part 36 to make noise
certification applicable to aircraft that do not conform to a type certificate. Since noise
this rulemaking proposes the addition of a new § 36.0 for aircraft that do not conform to a
type certificate to keep the requirements clearly separated. Part 36 would apply on the
effective date of the final rule. Compliance would be required when a new special
airworthiness certificate when an alternation is made to an aircraft that would affect the
proposed for an aircraft that does not conform to a type certificate would not be
Pursuant to its authorizing legislation in 49 U.S.C. 44715, the FAA has the
responsibility to “protect the public health and welfare from aircraft noise.” This
responsibility came with broad authority to adopt regulations and noise standards to carry
out this mandate. When promulgated in the 1970s, the FAA applied the part 36 noise
certification regulations when the agency issued type certificates. This represented the
provision in section 44715(a)(3) that acts as the “floor” for the FAA’s duty to exercise its
authority. The agency’s much broader authority over aircraft noise remains discretionary.
Initially, the FAA determined that there was little value in assessing the noise
from aircraft that did not receive type certificates. Those aircraft were originally found to
be few in number, and in many cases may have been a single aircraft of its kind. The
agency did not find value in requiring noise testing by single operators, nor any value in
the test data from a single model of an aircraft that was allowed only limited operations;
these were often categorized under the general heading of experimental airworthiness
certificates.
In the past two decades, the reality of the number of aircraft operating that do not
conform to a type certificate has overtaken those historical presumptions. There are now
tens of thousands of aircraft that do not conform to type certificates, many of them nearly
identical, that have never been subject to noise testing or limits, including aircraft that
may be similar to or larger than aircraft with type certificates that are already subject to
the noise requirements. The FAA did not anticipate the growth of aircraft that do not
conform to type certificates when the categories were created, and the noise requirements
did not keep pace with this growth of these categories because they were based on
historical use and expectations. The FAA can no longer justify the exclusion of these
aircraft and their noise impact on communities under its statutory responsibility, nor can
it let the growth continue by changing the names or the categories. The purpose of this
current realities of certification, and it presents the opportunity to recognize and address
the noise created by these aircraft. This proposed expansion of the applicability of part 36
acknowledges that noise certification is part of the overall certification scheme for
aircraft and is appropriate for modernization as the agency modernizes its issuance of
categories and classes of aircraft that represent the more recent expansion, rather than the
aircraft that were traditionally excepted from noise regulations. Aircraft that would
experimental, for example the proposed categories of research and development, showing
compliance, market survey, exhibition, air racing, and amateur-built aircraft. Aircraft
category aircraft as long as their airworthiness certificate was issued before the effective
date of the final rule and for as long as the aircraft remains unaltered. However, any
aircraft that would be certificated for the first time under proposed § 21.190 would be
subject to noise requirements of part 36 at all weights. Part 36 would also apply to a
current light-sport category aircraft that incorporates an alteration that would routinely be
considered as requiring evaluation of the change for noise in accordance with § 21.93(b).
That regulation is known as the “acoustical change” provision. However, because § 21.93
only applies to type-certificated aircraft the FAA finds the provision would not be
appropriate for aircraft that have no type certificate since they have no original noise
basis from which to evaluate a change. In the proposed regulation, this type of change is
aircraft that does not have a type certificate, such alteration would likely be made by the
airworthiness certificate holder for their single aircraft. If an aircraft incorporates such an
purposes of discussion here, such alterations almost always include a change in engine or
propellers, a change in the wing structure or material, significant additions to the fuselage
or fixed landing gear, increases in operating weight, and the attachment of external
equipment. Those alterations that incorporate a change that would reduce the noise level
created by the aircraft may also require a demonstration of compliance with part 36, as it
burdensome testing and the potential for noise operating limitations in certain areas, this
is often not the case. Neither comprehensive testing nor operating limitations are
automatic when part 36 applies. At present, the only noise operating limitations in the
its source, the aircraft itself, rather than operations generally. This assessment occurs
when noise is measured at the time of type certification. Through the creation of noise
limits for various aircraft types and the development of measurement procedures and
methods that are relevant to day-to-day operation, the FAA meets its primary statutory
obligation to protect the public health and welfare by assessing the noise profiles of
aircraft as they are developed, and by setting a defined noise limit with which an aircraft
must comply before it is given an airworthiness certificate and permitted to operate. The
limits are set based on weight, design, and means of propulsion. There are a set of
standards and limits for fixed wing small airplanes, one for jets, one for helicopters, and
one for tiltrotors. As new aircraft types develop, the FAA gathers the appropriate data to
determine what is acceptable for noise production by the aircraft type to fulfill the
agency’s statutory responsibilities. These standards and their adoption into regulations
are how the FAA meets its obligation to protect public health and welfare from aircraft
The noise certification requirements of part 36 are integrated into the larger
aircraft type and airworthiness certification processes that assess safety. However, there
is one significant difference between safety and noise certification. Safety is maintained
by continual assessment of aircraft condition, and the FAA can address and require
legally enforceable regulation adopted in accordance with 14 CFR part 39. No such
monitoring or correction mechanism by the FAA exists for noise. This difference places
the one time the noise is measured at certification. Since nothing in the regulations
specifies any particular means to control the noise of an individual aircraft, the level
requires that the noise limits and reference conditions in part 36 be maintained when
Until now, noise certification has been required only for aircraft that conform to a
aircraft. As discussed earlier, the expansion of the domestic fleet to include routine
operations of aircraft that are not type certificated has caused the FAA to re-evaluate its
statutory responsibility and respond to the increased noise burden from aircraft of all
kinds. As is required by the FAA’s statutory mandate, the existing limits and procedures
for noise certification have been developed in a manner that considers the economic
it would apply.125 These criteria also guided the expansion of the noise certification
Noise certification is also a different and separate process from the FAA’s
localities. Such considerations are assessed separately under different statutory and
regulatory criteria than noise certification, e.g., the National Environmental Policy Act126
and other special purpose laws. While these environmental impacts often refer to noise
data gathered during part 36 noise testing, the noise measurements themselves are made
As stated earlier, the noise certification process does not itself create operational
restrictions. Instead, each type of aircraft has a noise limit established in part 36. Noise
procedures of part 36. The first step is to measure the noise levels created by an aircraft at
different operating points. The second step is to determine whether the noise levels
measured during testing are below the regulatory noise limit, demonstrating that the
aircraft complies with part 36. Since it does not require any specific technology or
test shows that as configured, an aircraft is below or above the regulatory limit. Noise
if the noise levels of an aircraft are, in many cases, established at the time of type
certification for the convenience of the manufacturer (e.g., §21.17). The regulations
require that each individual aircraft remains compliant with the noise standards,
compliance with part 36. An aircraft may incorporate any equipment desired to stay
below the noise limit established for that aircraft. An aircraft that demonstrates
compliance with part 36 must of course meet the airworthiness requirements for safety as
configured when noise tested. Since aircraft noise is correlated to weight, noise
certification tests are conducted at the maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) allowed by the
remains below the noise limits in part 36, that maximum weight for safe operation
becomes an inherent noise limitation (e.g., part 36, appendix B, section B36.7(b)(6)). If
and fairness requires that the aircraft be re-assessed for its noise compliance because the
for noise testing cover various operating modes such as takeoff, flyover and approach. In
essence, the noise certification regulations become more sophisticated for aircraft that are
larger, heavier, more powerful, and more complex. But for aircraft that are smaller and
lighter, the certification criteria are likewise simpler, such as a noise level measured at
takeoff at maximum allowed weight, or at a level overflight condition. Part 36 uses such
configurations during noise certification to represent the flight segments that generally
have the most noise impact. Historically, these measurement points were adopted to
represent aircraft flight segments that are most noticeable by people on the ground.
Noise certification is best viewed as a continuum, and despite that aircraft noise is
assessed according to weight and measured noise output, the continuum has historically
included only aircraft that sought type certification. That historical application is
changing. The FAA’s reassessment of its statutory obligations and the realities of how
aircraft get certificated for operation has led to the expansion of part 36 applicability
in part 21 present a unique opportunity for the FAA to modernize its noise
responsibilities within the framework of the various aircraft certification processes that
allow operation with or without type certificates. The FAA is aware that type certification
has long been avoided in part to skirt the noise regulations. The FAA recognizes that its
represent a failing of the agency’s duty to protect the public health and welfare from
As noise certification expands to cover aircraft that do not have type certificates,
the FAA is open to consideration of different procedures and certification paths that will
both meet its statutory obligations and allow for less burdensome and more streamlined
compliance for newly affected airworthiness certificate holders. Those compliance
The first step in current noise certification process is the determination of the
appropriate certification basis. Typically, the FAA determines which existing part 36
category applies to the aircraft, depending on its design and expected operation. Once the
part 36 category is determined, the next step is to determine the noise limits and methods
of compliance (reference conditions and test procedures) from the corresponding subpart
and appendices of part 36. The applicant would then develop a noise certification test
plan that includes these methods, get the plan approved by the FAA, conduct the required
noise measurements, and submit its noise certification report for the FAA’s review and
For aircraft that do not conform to a type certificate, this proposed rule introduces
more flexibility for the methods of compliance. Nothing has changed for aircraft that
apply for a type certificate that are required to show compliance under existing
regulations. Nothing about this proposal for aircraft that do not conform to a type
certificate is intended to change the status of those that are type certificated. Type
certification applicants should not expect that they will get a choice to use alternate
aircraft category in part 21 may change as part of this proposed rule. Nothing about these
proposed regulations may be interpreted to alter the current noise certification limits or
Aircraft that historically have been designated experimental, that remain few in
number, are of limited use, or an aircraft that represents an early stage of continuing
design would continue to be excepted from part 36 applicability. These aircraft are issued
training, § 21.191(d) for exhibition, § 21.191(e) for air racing, § 21.191(f) for market
survey.
However, since this rulemaking is intended to streamline only the categories of aircraft
discussed in this proposed rule, those aircraft are not among the proposed changes to
airworthiness certification requirements and have not been included in this proposed
military aircraft). However, these aircraft are expected to remain few in number and of
limited use, and their numbers are not expected to increase significantly in the future.
Accordingly, this rule does not propose application of part 36 to these aircraft.
should not be subject to part 36 noise requirements, including any technical or economic
4. Proposed Applicability
Proposed § 36.0 would apply to all aircraft that do conform to a type certificate
21.193(h) or part 22 with exceptions listed in the rule. This rulemaking does not affect
the noise certification or operation of unmanned aircraft and they are not included in the
proposed applicability of part 36. Section 36.0(a) lists the general compliance
requirements applicable to each aircraft that does not conform to a type certificate. That
paragraph states that the noise regulations of part 36 would apply at the time an applicant
submits an application for the first certificate of airworthiness for an aircraft. For an
aircraft that already has an airworthiness certificate, noise compliance would take effect
when an alteration to the aircraft is made that would affect the noise level it creates, as
discussed earlier.
compliance. First, an applicant must demonstrate the aircraft, usually in its noisiest
operating configuration, produces less noise than the limit specified for an aircraft of its
kind and weight in part 36. The number that results from the test is called the aircraft’s
noise level and it must be no louder than the part 36 noise limit. The second part of
demonstrating compliance concerns the test procedures and analyses that may be required
(depending on the aircraft), and a determination that they conform to the requirements in
part 36 for the aircraft type, meeting the level playing field referenced earlier in the noise
background discussion. Each of these two requirements must be met during each
configuration, flight profile or reference condition that is determined to apply to the noise
certification plan for the aircraft. The simpler an aircraft is, the simpler the test plan
Section 36.0(c) lists the first method of compliance that would be available to an
aircraft that does not conform to a type certificate, the use of a noise consensus standard.
This is the first time the FAA has proposed to allow a noise consensus standard to be
In past noise type certification projects, industry has occasionally requested the
noise measurement procedures in part 36. These methods typically have been proposed to
demonstrate “no acoustic change” rather than be used for an initial demonstration of
compliance with a part 36 noise limit. These methods are heavily scrutinized by the FAA,
especially if they are new and novel, and have only been accepted on a single project
basis.
The FAA expects new noise consensus standards to be developed by the industry
for use by manufacturers of aircraft and kits, and by individuals. Before a consensus
standard could be used to demonstrate initial compliance with part 36 for an aircraft that
does not conform to a type certificate, the standard would have to be approved by the
FAA and use part 36 noise limits. The FAA expects that any consensus standards would
not be limited to physical measurements of noise taken during test flights. They might
compliance with § 36.0, the FAA expects to consider the following factors:
(1) The methods in the standard, whether based in physical noise testing or
(2) The standard must consider developments in other associated fields (such as
research programs into quantification and control of aircraft noise) and participation by
stakeholders;
(3) The noise levels generated from using the standard must be within 90 percent
of confidence limits and must be within +/-2 decibels A (dBA) when compared to results
from using the full noise measurement procedures in the corresponding appendix of part
36; and
(4) The standard must clearly document all assumptions used in the development,
the cost of noise compliance. Not only would there not be a need to physically test every
model (or aircraft), it would also allow manufacturers to use the predictive capabilities to
guide and support aircraft design decisions in earlier phases, avoiding costly future
redesign or modifications.
Accordingly, proposed § 36.0(c) would allow the use of a consensus standard for
an aircraft that does not conform to a type certificate when the standard has been
approved by the FAA, and the FAA finds that the standard is appropriate for the aircraft
and applies to the specific design. The agency anticipates that manufacturers of aircraft or
kits will work to get such noise consensus standards developed as an added value for its
products, and to facilitate compliance at an early stage. The FAA does not develop noise
Section 36.0(d) lists the methods of compliance with part 36 available for an
aircraft that does not have an applicable noise consensus standard. The first determination
is whether the aircraft is found by the FAA for noise purposes to be the same as or
there is such a type-certificated aircraft, then (1) the applicant for a special airworthiness
certificate may choose to retest its aircraft using the same part 36 standards that apply to
the type-certificated aircraft, or (2) if the applicant’s aircraft has had no modifications
that would affect the noise levels measured for the same or similar type-certificated
aircraft, the applicant can adopt the noise levels recorded for the type-certificated aircraft.
These are the provisions found in proposed § 36.0(d)(1)(i) and (ii). In some cases, this
may be an advantage to an aircraft that does not conform to a type certificate. The FAA is
aware that there are aircraft that once conformed to a type certificate but have been
modified, or that the owner voluntarily chose to restrict their operation to qualify for a
special airworthiness certificate. If the applicant can show that the aircraft had not been
altered in a manner that would change its noise profile, the applicant would be able to use
the noise certification for the type-certificated aircraft as its demonstration of compliance,
benchmarking. This would be true for jet airplanes, small propeller-driven airplanes,
small helicopters, and tiltrotors that have been type certificated and demonstrated
Alternatively, if the FAA finds that the applicant’s aircraft is not the same or
similar to an aircraft noise certificated under § 36.1, the applicant can demonstrate noise
compliance using the noise requirements determined by the FAA to be appropriate for the
aircraft. This provision, § 36.0(d)(2), is intended to allow the agency the maximum
the aircraft presented. The FAA will be able to build a noise compliance basis for an
aircraft using parts of current regulations in part 36, regulations in part 36 that are no
longer used for new certifications, accepted noise compliance standards that are not
published in part 36 (such as those applicable to single aircraft model), and portions of
accepted noise consensus standards. The noise limits established in part 36 would still
apply, but the method of compliance would consist of tests or analyses that work for a
particular aircraft, while allowing for the whole of the noise compliance basis to be
technological practicability. This kind of flexibility is not available under § 36.1 for type-
certificates, especially for new aircraft designs that do not fit neatly into historical
categories.
As an example, the FAA would allow the use of test procedures found in
have not been available to type certification applicants since 1988, when the regulations
were updated to account for larger and more sophisticated small airplanes, and for the
technology available to measure their noise more accurately. Appendix F contains
simpler procedures and less sophisticated equipment, such as one tripod mounted
§ 21.191(a) through (h) or (k) would be exempted from meeting the requirements of part
36. To account for balloons, gliders and possibly other specialized aircraft that have no or
limited noise sources, proposed § 36.0(e)(2) exempts aircraft which, if type certificated,
excepted from meeting noise requirements of part 36. These are aircraft that exceeded the
scope of part 103, and for which § 21.191(i)(1) was created, providing a temporary
2008. Although treated as experimental light-sport category aircraft, these aircraft do not
meet any accepted consensus standard for certification as light-sport category aircraft and
compliance. These aircraft have little in common with other light-sport category aircraft
other than the name. No aircraft will be added to this group, and no demonstration of
noise certification for an aircraft that does not conform to a type certificate is intended to
be simpler as well, with lower costs for manufacturers and for owners that introduce
experience with acoustic measurement that most aircraft owners do not have. Conducting
such testing using accredited professional services can also be expensive. Moreover, the
best noise performance is often achieved by informed decisions early in the design
process rather than by later design additions or modifications. Like the noise certification
basis for type-certificated aircraft, the FAA must approve the applicable noise
compliance standards for an aircraft before it is tested, or the applicant risks the tests and
data being deemed unusable for demonstrating compliance with part 36. But the addition
proposed here are all intended to create a simpler, less restrictive process while
maintaining the FAA’s mandate to protect the public health and welfare. The FAA invites
comments on the proposed expansion of noise applicability detailed here, including the
exclusion of certain aircraft, including any data or economic impact information that
aircraft that do not conform to a type certificate where the requirements would apply.
by breaking the applicability into two paragraphs for type-certificated aircraft and aircraft
that do not conform to a type certificate. The balance of the current section would be
designated as paragraph (b) and would apply to all aircraft in paragraph (a). No changes
amended by adding a sentence indicating that aircraft that does not conform to a type
certificate would have to include the noise levels achieved during airworthiness
certification in the Pilot’s Operating Handbook rather than the flight manual required for
a new paragraph (h) to describe the requirements for an aircraft that does not conform to
a type certificate. The new paragraph indicates that for aircraft subject to § 21.190(e) or §
The section also includes a statement that no operating limitations are prescribed as part
of part 36 certification, and that no other operating limitations designated for an aircraft
by other regulations are affected. The actual operating limitations statement is included in
the new paragraph (h) because the current paragraph of § 36.1581 where it appears
The FAA proposes to require compliance with all proposals on the effective dates
of the rule. Except for the following, the FAA proposes an effective date of 2 months
after publication of the final rule. The FAA proposes an effective date 6 months after
publication of the final rule for proposed amendments that would require new or revised
consensus standards for compliance; this effective date would apply to amending-
• Section 21.190 concerning the issue of a special airworthiness certificate for light-
aircraft,
may commence based on this NPRM, consensus standards bodies need final rule
requirements to finalize means of compliance within their consensus standards. This
effective date would also provide time for manufacturers to complete fabrication and
assembly of light-sport category aircraft and experimental light-sport aircraft kits that
started under current rules. The FAA also proposes an effective date 6 months after
publication of the final rule for 14 CFR 65.107(d) to provide time for revision or
Mechanic Airman Certification Standards. The FAA requests comments on whether the
above proposal to establish an effective date 6 months after publication of the final rule
for proposed amendments that would require new or revised consensus standards for
as practical with the need for additional time to revise consensus standards, complete
fabrication and assemble of aircraft that started under current rules, determine compliance
with new requirements, and revise of training for certification of repairman (light-sport).
countries with which the United States has a bilateral agreement that includes acceptance
of imported aircraft. This proposal would align regulatory text with the intent expressed
This proposal would revise § 21.327 to require that an applicant for an export
certificate of airworthiness for an aircraft must be an owner of that aircraft and the
aircraft must be registered in the U.S. The current regulation states that any person may
apply for an export airworthiness approval and does not require that the aircraft be
registered in the U.S. This proposal would preclude persons from exporting aircraft for
which they are neither the owner nor the owner’s agent. Furthermore, by requiring that
the aircraft is registered in the U.S., this proposal would allow the aircraft to be under the
that a new or used aircraft manufactured under subpart F or G of the part would need to
meet all applicable requirements under subpart H of the part, and not just those
requirements that may apply to airworthiness. Subpart H contains requirements for items
other than airworthiness, such as requirements for aircraft registration and identification.
N. Conforming Amendments
Proposed revisions to § 21.175(b) would clarify that aircraft receiving primary, restricted,
provisional, and limited category airworthiness certificates are also type certificated in
their respective categories. This section would also clarify that special airworthiness
The FAA proposes amendments to parts 43 and 65 to make sure that existing text
is consistent with the proposed changes in this NPRM. The first proposed change is to
airworthiness certificate for the purpose of operating former light-sport category aircraft.
The second change is to § 65.109. It updates the cross references in § 65.109(a)(2) and
(b)(2) to proposed § 21.191(i) and (j) to identify the privileges and limitations of
repairman (light-sport). The FAA notes that the requirements set forth in proposed
§ 65.109 are currently in § 65.107. The purpose of these changes is to make sure that the
intent of the proposed amendments discussed in this NPRM carries through to parts 43
and 65. These amendments do not, in and of themselves, make substantive changes to the
rule. Rather, they are conforming changes to effectuate the changes discussed earlier in
this document
V. Regulatory Notices
executive orders and other requirements. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive
Review”), direct that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a
reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify the costs.
Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-354) requires agencies to
analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade
Agreements Act of 1979 (Public Law 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 (Public Law 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 that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal
(adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. The current threshold after adjustment
for inflation is $177,000,000, using the most current (2022) Implicit Price Deflator for the
Gross Domestic Product. The FAA has provided a regulatory impact analysis (RIA) in
the docket for this rulemaking. This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's
In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that this rule: (1) will
generate benefits that justify costs; (2) is not an economically “significant regulatory
action” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866; (3) may have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; (4) will not create
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States; and (5) will not
sector.
The baseline for the analysis of incremental benefits and costs of the proposed
rule includes existing regulations and standards, existing practices, affected entities, and
current safety and environmental risks. The FAA promulgated the existing regulations for
reflect small, simple, easy-to-fly aircraft for sport, recreation, and experimental purposes
with small range. The FAA also works with industry in developing consensus standards
for light-sport category aircraft, as well as reviews the consensus standards periodically.
The FAA amended its airworthiness standards for small type-certificated aircraft
in 2016. The standards provide risk-based divisions for airplanes with a maximum
pounds or less. Type-certificated aircraft must meet existing standards for aircraft noise.
Currently, noise standards are not applied to light-sport aircraft in the United States.
The proposed rule may affect aircraft manufacturers to the extent that they design
and manufacture the types of aircraft for which the performance-based or noise standards
would apply. The FAA identified 54 (25 U.S. and 29 foreign) active manufacturers of
light-sport aircraft and 74 models produced since 2020 (35 from U.S. and 39 from foreign
manufacturers). In 2022, there were also almost 7,000 active sport pilots and 250 new
nonfatal accidents, involving previously defined special light-sport aircraft. There were
also 28 fatal accidents and 97 nonfatal accidents, resulting in 43 fatalities and 23 serious
injuries, involving amateur-built aircraft. The FAA does not have data on baseline noise
requirements).
2. Benefits
The benefits of the proposed rule would include the value of changes in safety and
environmental risks, as well as recreational values. The proposed rule could reduce risks
associated with light-sport category aircraft to the extent that the relaxation of certain
requirements spurs changes that make these aircraft safer to fly. The performance-based
aircraft that do not meet 14 CFR or consensus standards. Given the value of reducing
fatalities (e.g., $11.8 million Value of Statistical Life, or VSL) and injuries (e.g., fraction
of VSL, or $1.2 million for serious injury), a relatively small reduction in baseline risk
The proposed rule will likely not lead to significant noise reductions. Most current
light-sport aircraft designs would not require modifications to meet the noise standards.
The proposed rule will, however, prevent the introduction of obsolete, overly loud
technology into the light-sport aircraft fleet or modification of such existing aircraft that
would increase noise above the limit. Because the FAA cannot predict the amount of
technology backsliding that could occur in the absence of the rule, it cannot quantify
these benefits.
The proposed rule could also increase recreational values associated with light-
sport aircraft, either through increased value of current activity or increased activity
levels. For example, greater access to newer technology, safer planes, or improved flying
experience could increase unit values and the level of participation. Sport pilots would
also be able to fly certain model planes that currently do not meet the definition of light-
sport aircraft, including some that they may have used in training. However, the FAA
does not have data on baseline recreational values or how they may increase under the
proposed rule.
3. Costs
The FAA estimated that the proposed rule could result in incremental compliance
costs for design and production and noise certification (Table 7). The FAA does not have
data to estimate incremental costs or cost savings for design and production. For noise
certification, costs are most likely to be minimal under the assumption that manufacturers
This assumption is supported by FAA research showing that existing SAE standards for
predicting light propeller-driven aircraft noise have a potential for further development
into a modeling-based consensus standard tool. As an upper bound, the FAA also
calculated costs using the test-based methods in the applicable 14 CFR part 36 appendix.
Upper bound costs for the industry as a whole may be in the range of $700,000 one-time
and $100,000 annually. One-time costs are to certify all existing light-sport category
aircraft and experimental light-sport aircraft models; annual costs would depend on the
provisions of the proposed rule, such as training. For example, course providers of
training for a light-sport repairman would need to revise courses so they contain content
on aircraft that could be newly included in that class of aircraft. However, these providers
already must update their training manuals every two years. The FAA’s acceptance,
however, would no longer expire after two years, and the FAA estimates that the net
incremental impacts of these changes would likely be minimal. The FAA also does not
have data to estimate any cost savings, such as could result from operating certain light-
sport category aircraft in aerial work which may be less costly than the airplanes
4. Summary
The proposed rule largely expands opportunities in the light-sport aircraft sector.
These expansions may result in safety and recreational benefits; there may also be
associated design and production costs and cost savings. The proposed rule would also
apply 14 CFR part 36 noise standards to this sector, preventing obsolete, overly loud
technology from being introduced into the light-sport aircraft fleet. The FAA expects that
compliance with the noise standards would be minimal using industry consensus
standards. As an upper bound, the FAA also calculated costs using the applicable 14 CFR
part 36 appendix. Upper bound costs for the U.S. industry as a whole may be in the range
of $700,000 to certify all existing models for continued production, and approximately
$100,000 per year to certify newly developed models based on the current model
production rate. The FAA does not anticipate more than minimal incremental costs for
other provisions of the proposed rule, such as training. The FAA also does not have data
to estimate any cost savings, such as could result from operating certain light-sport
more details.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, Public Law 96–354, 94 Stat. 1164
Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–121, 110 Stat. 857, Mar. 29, 1996), and the Small Business
Jobs Act of 2010 (Public Law 111–240, 124 Stat. 2504 Sept. 27, 2010), requires Federal
agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory action on small business and other small
entities and to minimize any significant economic impact. The term ‘‘small entities’’
comprises small businesses and not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned
and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with
The FAA is publishing this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) to aid
the public in commenting on the potential impacts to small entities from this proposal.
The FAA invites interested parties to submit data and information regarding the potential
economic impact that would result from the proposal. The FAA will consider comments
Analysis.
(1) A description of the reasons why the action by the agency is being considered;
(2) A succinct statement of the objective of, and legal basis for, the proposed rule;
requirements of the proposed rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities
which will be subject to the requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for
(5) An identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant Federal rules that
accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes, and which minimize any
expand and enable innovation in the classes of aircraft that may be certificated using
and equipage; enable more robust aircraft for the pilot training environment; enable
increased capacities for passengers, fuel, and cargo; enable electric propulsion; and
enable faster, higher-performing aircraft more suitable for personal travel. Together, the
FAA intends for these proposals to enhance safety by enabling attractive alternative to
amateur-built aircraft that do not meet 14 CFR or consensus standards. As also described
elsewhere in this preamble, the FAA is requiring that light-sport category aircraft and
noise standards because it has reconsidered its responsibility to protect the public health
The FAA is proposing to expand privileges for sport pilots and light-sport
repairmen, and update limitations for experimental aircraft, to align with these changes.
There are also smaller amendments to related rules for experimental aircraft, restricted
aircraft with an experimental certificate to conduct space support vehicle flights without
As also described elsewhere in this preamble, the objectives of the proposed rule
are to enhance the safety, performance, and operating privileges for light-sport category
aircraft, including increasing suitability for flight training, limited aerial work, and
personal travel, while continuing to enable the manufacture of safe and economical
certificated aircraft. This NPRM also includes proposals to amend the special purpose
operations for restricted category aircraft; amend the duration, eligible purposes, and
operating limitations for experimental aircraft; and add operating limitations applicable to
language. Section III of this preamble describes the FAA’s authority to issue rules on
aviation safety.
FAA used the definition of small entities in the RFA for this analysis. The RFA
organizations. In 5 U.S.C. section 601(3), the RFA defines "small business" to have the
same meaning as “small business concern” under section 3 of the Small Business Act.
The Small Business Act authorizes the Small Business Administration (SBA) to define
SBA has established size standards for various types of economic activities, or
industries, under the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). These
size standards generally define small businesses based on the number of employees or
annual receipts. Table 8 shows the SBA size standards for example industrial
classification codes relevant for the proposed rule. Note that the SBA definition of a
small business applies to the parent company and all affiliates as a single entity.
As described in the Regulatory Impact Analysis, the FAA estimated that there
experimental light-sport aircraft that would have to comply with noise standards under
the proposed rule. These entities may meet the size standard for a small business.
represent only minor revisions of existing requirements. Section IV.K. of the preamble
describes the requirements for compliance with noise standards. As described in that
section, and the Regulatory Impact Analysis, the FAA expects that compliance costs will
be minimal through use of industry consensus standards. As an upper bound, the FAA
also estimated the cost of noise certification testing under applicable appendices to 14
CFR part 36. There may also be incremental costs for design and production, depending
on the model and needed changes. The FAA does not have data to estimate these impacts.
Using industry consensus standards, the FAA estimates that per manufacturer
costs for noise certification would be minimal. In the event that manufacturers pursue
noise certification testing, the estimated costs for U.S. manufacturers to certify existing
models represent an average of one model per manufacturer. Based on the estimated
upper bound testing cost of $20,000 per model, Table 9 shows these costs as a percentage
of average receipts for companies of different small sizes. Because the one-time costs are
nonrecurring, any impacts would occur only in the testing year. Not all manufacturers
will develop new models every year, but impacts associated with new model
development would be the same as shown in the table for existing models and only occur
There are no relevant Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with
The FAA considered two alternatives to applying the noise standards in 14 CFR
part 36 to light-sport category aircraft. The FAA considered the no action alternative in
which noise standards do not apply to light-sport category aircraft. The FAA determined,
however, that this alternative is not consistent with its responsibility to “protect the public
The FAA also considered applying the noise standards to operating amateur-built
aircraft [experimental certificates issued per 14 CFR 21.191(g). Manufacturers of kits for
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Public Law 96-39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Public Law 103-465), prohibits Federal agencies from
to the foreign commerce of the United States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic objective, such as 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 proposed rule and determined that it would respond to a domestic safety
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 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 1 year by State, local, and tribal
$177 million in lieu of $100 million. This proposed rule does not contain such a mandate;
127Only one manufacturer since 2020 has requested that the FAA evaluate their aircraft kit for eligibility in meeting the “major
portion” requirement of 14 CFR 21.191(g) (see
faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/ultralights/amateur_built/kits/media/amateur_built_kit_listing.pdf).
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the FAA
consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on
the public. According to the 1995 amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act (5 CFR
1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an agency may not collect or sponsor the collection of information, nor
(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), the FAA has submitted these proposed information collection
1. Summary
2. Use
The FAA will use the revised information collections for oversight activities in
reflect minor form revisions (Table 1) that would have no impact on the number of
The cancellation of OMB Control Number 2120-0730 would remove the burden
would also have no impact on the frequency of collection requirements in the approved
collections.
The annual burden estimates in the OMB Control Numbers 2120-0018, 2120-
The burden estimated for OMB Control Number 2120-0730 would be eliminated
(a) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement is necessary for the
proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d) Minimize the burden of collecting information on those who are to respond,
requirement to the address listed in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this
Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Desk
Officer for FAA, New Executive Building, Room 10202, 725 17th Street, NW,
Washington, DC 20053.
F. International Compatibility
However, proposals in this NPRM concern aircraft that are issued special airworthiness
certificates for domestic operations. As such, these aircraft are not required to be found to
meet ICAO standards and recommended practices as required for aircraft that engage in
international air navigation. The FAA notes that multiple aviation authorities have
among these authorities share similarities for enabling the certification of small aircraft
for recreation. However, the specific eligibility parameters for certification as light-sport
procedures are not harmonized among these authorities. The FAA understands that
European Aviation Safety Agency requires the use of the noise standards in ICAO
Chapter 16 Volume I. This rule would not require the use of ICAO Chapter 16 Volume I
for these aircraft. Regardless of particular differences among national civil aviation
authorities for the certification of light-sport category aircraft, proposals in this NPRM
generally align with recent rulemaking in Brazil and the European Community in
G. Environmental Analysis
rulemaking qualifies for a categorical exclusion and does not involve extraordinary
circumstances.
The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and criteria of
Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency has determined that this action would
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, would not have federalism implications.
Governments
Indian Tribal Governments,128 and FAA Order 1210.20, American Indian and Alaska
Native Tribal Consultation Policy and Procedures,129 the FAA ensures that Federally
Recognized Tribes (Tribes) are given the opportunity to provide meaningful and timely
input regarding proposed Federal actions that have the potential to affect uniquely or
significantly their respective Tribes. Currently, the FAA has not identified any unique or
rule.
Distribution, or Use
The FAA analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
action” under the Executive order and would not be likely to have a significant adverse
safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or
prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The FAA has analyzed this
action under the policies and agency responsibilities of Executive Order 13609 and has
determined that this action will have no effect on international regulatory cooperation.
A. Comments Invited
written comments, data, or views. The FAA also invites comments relating to the
economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting
the proposals in this document. Additionally, the FAA requests comment on whether the
FAA should remove the definition of consensus standard from § 1.1 altogether or revise
the definition as proposed. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the
proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should submit
only one time if comments are filed electronically or commenters should send only one
The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report
summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this
proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all
comments it receives on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider
comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without
incurring expense or delay. The FAA may change this proposal in light of the comments
it receives.
that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom
of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your
customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or
responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as
“PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA,
and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing
CBI should be sent to the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section of this document. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not
specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.
Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 533(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit,
described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be viewed at
dot.gov/privacy.
A copy of this NPRM, all comments received, any final rule, and all background
material may be viewed online at regulations.gov using the docket number listed above.
A copy of this proposed rule will be placed in the docket. Electronic retrieval help and
guidelines are available on the website. It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each
year. An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded from the Office of the
website at govinfo.gov. A copy may also be found at the FAA's Regulations and Policies
website at faa.gov/regulations_policies.
Washington, D.C. 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9677. Commenters must identify the
docket or notice number of this rulemaking. All documents the FAA considered in
developing this proposed rule, including economic analyses and technical reports, may be
requires the FAA to comply with small entity requests for information or advice about
compliance with statutes and regulations within its jurisdiction. A small entity with
questions regarding this document may contact its local FAA official, or the person listed
the preamble. To find out more about SBREFA on the Internet, visit
faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.
List of Subjects
14 CFR Part 1
Air transportation.
14 CFR Part 36
14 CFR Part 45
14 CFR Part 61
14 CFR Part 65
14 CFR Part 91
Air carriers, Air taxis, Air traffic control, Aircraft, Airmen, Airports, Aviation
standard,” removing the definition of “Light-sport aircraft,” and adding the definitions of
“Space support vehicle” and “Space support vehicle flight” in alphabetical order to read
as follows:
* * * * *
under procedures which provide an opportunity for input by persons interested and
(2) Has been reached through substantial agreement on its adoption; and
* * * * *
Space support vehicle means an aircraft that is a launch vehicle, reentry vehicle,
Space support vehicle flight means a flight in the air that is not a launch or
* * * * *
ARTICLES
category for special purpose operations if the applicant shows compliance with the
applicable noise requirements of part 36 of this chapter, and if the applicant shows that no
feature or characteristic of the aircraft makes it unsafe when it is operated under the
primary category or light-sport category, except those requirements that the FAA finds
inappropriate for the special purpose operation for which the aircraft is to be used; or
(i) Has been manufactured in accordance with the requirements of, and accepted
(ii) Has a service history with the U.S. Armed Forces acceptable to the FAA; and
(iii) Has been found capable by the FAA of performing, or has been modified to
perform, the special purpose operation for which the aircraft is to be used.
(1) Agricultural use, for one or more of the following special purpose operations,
including─
(2) Forest and wildlife conservation, for one or more of the following special
including─
(4) Patrolling, for one or more of the following special purpose operations,
including
(5) Weather control, including the special purpose operation of cloud seeding.
(6) Aerial advertising, for one or more of the following special purpose
operations, including─
(i) Skywriting;
(i) Rotorcraft external-load operations conducted under part 133 of this chapter;
categories;
§ 21.181 Duration.
otherwise established by the FAA, airworthiness certificates are effective as long as the
for aircraft certificated in the primary, restricted, or limited category are effective as long
(2) A special flight permit is effective for the period of time specified in the
permit.
(i) Except as specified in paragraph (a)(3)(iv) of this section, the aircraft meets the
(iii) The aircraft has no unsafe condition and is not likely to develop an unsafe
condition.
FINAL RULE], and for which an amended manufacturer’s statement of compliance has
not been submitted to the FAA in accordance with § 21.190(e) on or after [EFFECTIVE
DATE OF THE FINAL RULE], the aircraft meets all of the following conditions:
(A) A maximum takeoff weight of not more than 1,320 pounds (600 kilograms)
for aircraft not intended for operation on water or 1,430 pounds (650 kilograms) for an
(B) A maximum airspeed in level flight with maximum continuous power (VH) of
not more than 120 knots CAS under standard atmospheric conditions at sea level.
(C) A maximum never-exceed speed (VNE) of not more than 120 knots CAS for a
glider.
(D) A maximum stalling speed or minimum steady flight speed without the use of
lift-enhancing devices (VS1) of not more than 45 knots CAS at the aircraft's maximum
(E) A maximum seating capacity of no more than two persons, including the pilot.
powered glider.
(K) Fixed landing gear, except for an aircraft intended for operation on water or a
glider.
(L) Fixed or retractable landing gear, or a hull, for an aircraft intended for
operation on water.
effective for 3 years from the date of issue or renewal unless the FAA prescribes a shorter
period.
aircraft, exhibition, air-racing, operating primary kit-built aircraft, operating former light-
sport category aircraft, operating light-sport category kit-built aircraft, and operating
former military aircraft is unlimited, unless the FAA establishes a specific period for
good cause.
* * * * *
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each applicant for an
airworthiness certificate under this subpart must show that the aircraft is identified as
(b) * * *
development, showing compliance with regulations, crew training, exhibition, air racing,
* * * * *
b. Removing the word “and” and adding “or” in its place at the end of paragraph
(d)(2)(iv); and
commuter, and transport category aircraft; manned free balloons; and special
classes of aircraft.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
authority with whose country the United States has a bilateral agreement that includes
acceptance of this aircraft category by the United States for import. An acceptable
inspection must have been completed while the aircraft was operated on the registry of
the exporting authority and within 60 days of submitting the application for a United
* * * * *
applicant for a restricted category airworthiness certificate for an aircraft type certificated
in the restricted category, that was not previously type certificated in any other category,
(1) The aircraft is type certificated for a special purpose operation in the restricted
category;
(i) Manufactured in accordance with the requirements of, and accepted for use by,
the U.S. Armed Forces and has a service history with the U.S. Armed Forces acceptable
to the FAA; or
(ii) Previously type certificated in another category (other than primary category
(3) The aircraft has been inspected by the FAA and found to be in a good state of
* * * * *
aircraft.
* * * * *
11. Effective [DATE 6 MONTHS after date OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE
aircraft.
(a) Purpose. The FAA issues a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport
category to operate an aircraft, other than an unmanned aircraft, that meets the
sport category, an aircraft must meet the applicable requirements of § 22.100 of this
chapter.
airworthiness certificate under this section must provide the FAA with:
this section.
(ii) A flight training supplement to enable safe operation of the aircraft within the
(iii) A listing of any aerial work operations that may be safely conducted using the
aircraft and any instructions and limitations that are necessary to safely conduct those
operations.
(iv) A statement that the aircraft has demonstrated compliance with part 36 of this
chapter, the tested noise levels of the aircraft, and the following statement: “No
determination has been made by the Federal Aviation Administration that the noise levels
of this aircraft are or should be acceptable or unacceptable for operation in any location.”
(4) Evidence that the aircraft has demonstrated compliance with the applicable
certified and trained on the requirements associated with the issuance of a statement of
accordance with a consensus standard that has been accepted by the FAA.
(2) Identify the aircraft by make, model, serial number, class, and date of
manufacture.
(3) State whether this aircraft meets the requirements specified in subpart J of part
(4) Specify those aerial work operations the manufacturer has determined may be
safely conducted, and state that the aircraft has been ground and flight tested to ensure
that it can be operated to safely conduct those operations in accordance with the
(5) State whether the aircraft meets the requirements of § 22.180 of this chapter
(6) Specify the consensus standards used to determine the aircraft’s compliance
with subpart B of part 22 of this chapter and state that the aircraft meets the eligibility,
accepted by the FAA for the airworthiness certification of light-sport category aircraft.
(7) State that the aircraft conforms to the manufacturer's design data, using the
manufacturer’s quality assurance system that meets the specified consensus standard.
(8) State that the manufacturer will make available to any interested person the
(9) State that the manufacturer will support the aircraft by implementing and
(iii) Includes a process for notifying the FAA and all owners of all safety of flight
issues; and
(iv) Includes a process for advance notice to the FAA and all owners of a
(10) State that the manufacturer will monitor and correct safety-of-flight issues
through the issuance of safety directives and a continued operational safety program that
(11) State that at the request of the FAA, the manufacturer will provide
unrestricted access to its facilities and to all data necessary to determine compliance with
(12) State that the manufacturer has established and maintains a quality assurance
(e) Special provisions for aircraft certificated in the light-sport category before
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE]. The owner of an aircraft issued a light-
(1) Identify the aircraft by make, model, serial number, and date of manufacture.
(3) Reference and reaffirm the statements made in the original manufacturer’s
statement of compliance.
(4) State that the design and construction of the aircraft provides sufficient
structural integrity to enable safe operation of the aircraft during the performance of the
specified aerial work operations and that the aircraft is able to withstand any foreseeable
(5) Specify the FAA-accepted consensus standard used to make the determination
those aerial work operations that may be conducted using the aircraft, and any applicable
revisions to the aircraft’s maintenance and inspection procedures, and flight training
supplement.
12. Amend § 21.191 by revising the section heading, introductory text, and paragraph (i)
and adding reserved paragraph (j) and paragraph (k) to read as follows:
purposes:
* * * * *
previously has been issued a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category
under § 21.190.
(j) [Reserved]
(k) Operating former military aircraft. Operating a former military aircraft that
(2) The aircraft was manufactured, purchased, or modified under contract by the
(i) Flying the aircraft to a base where repairs, alterations, or maintenance are to be
performed;
(iii) Repositioning the aircraft for use under contract with the U.S. Armed Forces.
13. Effective [DATE 6 MONTHS after date OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], amend § 21.191 further by adding paragraph (j) to read
as follows:
* * * * *
type that has been certificated under § 21.190 and assembled from an aircraft kit in
(1) Evidence that an aircraft of the same make and model was manufactured and
assembled by the aircraft kit manufacturer and issued a special airworthiness certificate in
(2) The pilot’s operating handbook that includes a flight training supplement.
(4) The manufacturer's statement of compliance for the aircraft kit used in the
aircraft assembly that meets the applicable requirements of § 21.190 in effect at the time
the aircraft kit was manufactured, except the statement need not indicate compliance with
§ 22.175 of this chapter. The statement must identify assembly instructions for the
(5) For an aircraft kit manufactured outside the United States, evidence that the
aircraft kit was manufactured in a country with which the United States has a Bilateral
* * * * *
purposes.
(c) The estimated time or number of flights required for the operation, for an
(f) Except for a previously type certificated aircraft without an appreciable change
of the aircraft.
(g) Upon inspection of the aircraft, any pertinent information found necessary by
former light-sport category aircraft or for the purpose of operating light-sport category
kit-built aircraft, evidence of compliance with the applicable aircraft noise limits in part
36 of this chapter.
15. Amend § 21.195 by revising paragraphs (b) through (d) to read as follows:
* * * * *
that has altered a type certificated aircraft by installing an engine it has manufactured,
may apply for an experimental certificate for that aircraft to be used for market surveys,
sales demonstrations, or customer crew training, if the basic aircraft, before alteration,
was type certificated in the normal, utility, acrobatic, commuter, transport, primary, or
restricted category.
(c) A person who has altered the design of a type certificated aircraft may apply
for an experimental certificate for an altered aircraft to be used for market surveys, sales
demonstrations, or customer crew training if the basic aircraft, before alteration, was type
category.
(d) An applicant for an experimental certificate under paragraph (a), (b), or (c) of
this section is entitled to that certificate if, in addition to meeting the requirements of
(1) Has established an inspection and maintenance program for the continued
hours if it is a type certificated aircraft which has been altered. The FAA may reduce
§ 21.327 Application.
(a) Any owner of a U.S.-registered aircraft may apply for an export certificate of
(b) Any person may apply for an export airworthiness approval for an aircraft
(c) Each applicant must apply in a form and manner prescribed by the FAA.
17. Amend § 21.329 by revising paragraph (a)(1) introductory text to read as follows:
(a) * * *
(1) A new or used aircraft manufactured under subpart F or G of this part meets
* * * * *
Subpart A – General
Sec.
22.1 Applicability.
22.100 Eligibility.
22.120 Special requirements for light-sport aircraft used for aerial work operations.
22.160 Visibility.
22.175 Noise.
22.180 Special requirements for light-sport category aircraft with simplified flight
controls.
Subpart A – General
§ 22.1 Applicability.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, this part prescribes design,
(b) Each person who applies under part 21 of this chapter for such a certificate or
(c) This part does not apply to aircraft issued an experimental airworthiness
§ 22.100 Eligibility.
airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category issued under § 21.190 of this chapter,
an aircraft must –
(1) Except for an airplane, have a maximum seating capacity of not more than two
(2) For an airplane, have a maximum seating capacity of not more than four
(3) Have a maximum stalling speed or minimum steady flight speed, without the
use of lift-enhancing devices (VS1) at the aircraft's maximum certificated takeoff weight
and most critical center of gravity of 54 knots CAS for an airplane, or 45 knots CAS for a
(4) Have a maximum speed of 250 knots CAS at maximum available power under
(6) Not have been previously issued a standard, primary, restricted, limited, or
by the FAA.
(8) Be inspected by the FAA and found to be in a condition for safe operation.
(b) Aircraft manufactured outside the United States. For aircraft manufactured
outside the United States to be eligible for a special airworthiness certificate in the light-
sport category under § 21.190 of this chapter, an applicant must provide the FAA
evidence that—
(2) The aircraft was manufactured in a country with which the United States has a
normal use of primary flight controls at all loading conditions during all phases of flight;
and,
(a) The design and construction of the aircraft must provide sufficient structural
integrity to enable safe operations within the aircraft’s flight envelope throughout the
known minimum safe speed for each flight condition encountered in normal operations,
including applicable sources of lift and phases of flight, to maintain controlled safe flight.
The minimum safe speed determination must account for the most adverse conditions for
each configuration.
§ 22.120 Special requirements for light-sport aircraft used for aerial work
operations.
any aerial work operation, the design and construction of the aircraft must provide
sufficient structural integrity to enable safe operation of the aircraft during the
performance of that operation and ensure that the aircraft is able to withstand any
The suitability and durability of materials used for products and articles must
account for the likely environmental conditions expected in service, the failure of which
(a) The aircraft must have all instruments and equipment necessary for safe flight,
to include those instruments necessary for systems control and management. The aircraft
must also include all instruments and equipment required for the kinds of operations for
which it is authorized.
(b) The aircraft, instruments, equipment, and systems must perform their intended
functions under all operating conditions specified in the pilot’s operating handbook.
Likely failure or malfunction of a system or component must not cause loss of control of
the aircraft. Systems and components must be considered separately and in relation to
each other.
The aircraft must be designed and constructed so that the pilot has the ability to
reach all controls and displays in a manner that provides for smooth and positive
(a) Have controls that are simple, intuitive and not confusing;
(b) Be designed so that the failure of any product or article does not prevent
continued safe flight and landing or, if continued safe flight and landing cannot be
(c) Not exceed safe operating limits under normal operating conditions; and
(d) Have the necessary reliability, durability, and endurance for safe flight without
(a) Provide a means to safely remove or isolate the fuel stored in the system from
their attachments that would leak fuel to an ignition source or allow electrical power to
§ 22.160 Visibility.
The aircraft must be designed and constructed so that the pilot has—
(b) Sufficient vison outside the aircraft necessary to conduct safe aircraft
operations.
(1) So that all occupants have the ability to rapidly conduct an emergency
evacuation; and
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, to account for all
(b) Aircraft not intended for operation on water are not required to account for
The aircraft must display all placards and instrument markings necessary for safe
operation and occupant warning. Markings or graphics must clearly indicate the function
§ 22.175 Noise.
The aircraft must meet the applicable noise standards of part 36 of this chapter.
§ 22.180 Special requirements for light-sport category aircraft with simplified flight
controls.
An aircraft that meets the following requirements may be designated by the
(a) The aircraft allows the pilot to only control the flight path of the aircraft or
(c) The aircraft has a means to enable the pilot to quickly and safely discontinue
The aircraft must have been designed, produced, and tested under a documented
quality assurance system to ensure each product and article conforms to its design and is
The aircraft must have been found compliant with the provisions of the applicable
The aircraft must have been ground and flight tested under documented
features.
(d) Ensure the aircraft can safely conduct any aerial work operation designated by
CERTIFICATION
44704, 44715; sec. 305, Pub. L. 96-193, 94 Stat. 50, 57; E.O. 11514, 35 FR 4247, 3 CFR,
(a) General applicability. Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, for
aircraft described in § 21.190, § 21.191, § 21.193(h), or part 22 of this chapter, that does
not conform to a type certificate, the requirements of this part apply at the time of
change.
(1) A determination that the applicable noise limits specified in this part are not
exceeded for any configuration, flight profile, or reference condition required for an
(2) When applicable, a determination that any test procedures and analyses
contained in a related appendix to this part have been met for any configuration, flight
(c) Use of a noise consensus standard. An aircraft that does not conform to a type
certificate may demonstrate compliance using a noise consensus standard that meets the
following conditions:
(1) The noise consensus standard has been approved by the FAA; and
(2) The noise consensus standard has been determined by the FAA to be
appropriate for the aircraft and applicable to the aircraft’s specific design.
(d) No noise consensus standard available. For an aircraft that does not conform
to a type certificate, and for which no noise consensus standard has been approved or
determined by the FAA to be appropriate for the aircraft, the following apply:
by the FAA for noise purposes to be the same as or sufficiently similar in design to a type
certificated aircraft described in §36.1 may demonstrate compliance with this part by —
(i) Using the same requirements as the type certificated aircraft that is the same
(ii) Adopting the noise levels for the type certificated aircraft that is the same or
sufficiently similar in design to the aircraft when the aircraft has not been altered to result
in an acoustical change.
(2) Aircraft with no similar type-certificated aircraft. If the FAA determines that
for noise purposes, there is no type certificated aircraft of the same or sufficiently similar
design described in § 36.1, an applicant may demonstrate compliance with this part using
the noise requirements determined by the FAA to be appropriate for the aircraft.
(e) Exceptions. The following aircraft that do not conform to a type certificate are
21.191(i)(1) of this chapter on or before January 31, 2008, for the purpose of operating a
light-sport aircraft.
21. Amend § 36.1 by adding reserved paragraph (a)(6) and paragraph (a)(7) to read as
follows:
(a) * * *
(6) [Reserved]
(7) Aircraft that do not conform to a type certificate, in accordance with § 36.0.
* * * * *
(a) Each applicant for certification under this part must demonstrate that:
(1) For type certificated aircraft, that the aircraft complies with the airworthiness
regulations in this chapter that constitute the type certification basis of the aircraft under
(2) For aircraft without a type certificate, that the aircraft complies with all
airworthiness requirements in this chapter applicable to the design of the aircraft under all
(b) Each applicant for certification under this part must show that any procedure
used to demonstrate compliance with this part, and any procedure and information for the
flight crew developed under this part, are consistent with the requirements of paragraph
employed for obtaining the certified noise levels prescribed by this part, including
equivalent procedures used for flight, testing, and analysis, must be developed by the
applicant and approved by the FAA. For type certificated aircraft, noise levels achieved
during type certification must be included in the aircraft’s approved flight manual. For
aircraft without a type certificate, noise levels achieved during airworthiness certification
* * * * *
* * * * *
(h) For aircraft subject to § 36.0, no noise operating limitations are prescribed
under this part, and this part does not affect any operating limitations for these aircraft
described elsewhere in this chapter. Noise compliance with this part must be documented
information must:
(1) State that the aircraft has demonstrated compliance with this part;
(3) Include the following statement: No determination has been made by the
Federal Aviation Administration whether the noise levels of this aircraft are or should be
AND ALTERATION
§ 43.1 Applicability.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) Any aircraft for which the FAA has issued an experimental certificate under
the provisions of § 21.191(i) of this chapter, and the aircraft was previously issued a
* * * * *
27. Amend § 43.13 by revising paragraphs (a) and (c) to read as follows:
an aircraft, engine, propeller, or appliance shall use the methods, techniques, and
practices acceptable to the Administrator, except as noted in § 43.16. That person must
use the tools, equipment, and test apparatus necessary to assure completion of the work in
recommended by the manufacturer involved, that person must use that equipment or
* * * * *
(c) Unless otherwise notified by the Administrator, the methods, techniques, and
practices contained in the maintenance manual or the maintenance part of the manual of
the holder of an air carrier operating certificate or an operating certificate under part 121
or 135 of this chapter and operators under part 129 of this chapter holding operations
46306, 47122.
* * * * *
(b) Except for unmanned aircraft, when marks include only the Roman capital
letter “N” and the registration number is displayed on limited, restricted, experimental, or
provisionally certificated aircraft, the operator must also display on that aircraft near each
entrance to the cabin, cockpit, or pilot station, in letters not less than 2 inches nor more
applicable.
GROUND INSTRUCTORS
44729, 44903, 45102-45103, 45301-45302; sec. 2307, Pub. L. 114-190, 130 Stat. 615 (49
31. Amend § 61.3 by revising the section heading and adding paragraph (m) to read as
follows:
* * * * *
(m) For a person who possesses a sport pilot certificate. No person may exercise
sport pilot privileges under § 61.313 unless that person receives a qualifying logbook
endorsement under § 61.317 or § 61.321 for the appropriate category and class privilege.
The requirement in this paragraph (m) does not apply to a person who already holds the
while operating an airplane or helicopter with a simplified flight controls design and
requirements for a private, commercial, or airline transport pilot certificate, except for
private pilot applicants who present an aircraft with the simplified flight controls design
33. Amend § 61.31 by redesignating paragraph (l) as paragraph (m) and adding a new
requirements.
* * * * *
(l) Additional aircraft model-specific flight training. No person may act as pilot in
command of an aircraft with a simplified flight controls designation unless that person
has -
(1) Received and logged model-specific flight training in that aircraft, or in a full
the person proficient in the safe operation of that model-specific aircraft and the
* * * * *
34. Amend § 61.45 by revising the introductory text in paragraph (f) and adding
* * * * *
(f) Conduct of a sport pilot practical test in an aircraft with a single seat. A
practical test for a sport pilot certificate may be conducted in an aircraft having a single
* * * * *
(g) Aircraft with a simplified flight controls designation. An applicant for a pilot
certificate, rating, or privilege may use an aircraft with a simplified flight controls
(2) The examiner holds the appropriate category and class rating or privilege, the
(3) The examiner is able to assume control of the aircraft at any time, except if
(4) After successful completion of the practical test, the applicant is issued a pilot
certificate with the appropriate category and class privilege and model specific limitation.
(h) Simplified flight controls limitation. A person who receives a category and
class rating or privilege with a simplified flight controls limitation may operate only the
specified make and model of aircraft set forth by the limitation unless the person satisfies
(1) If seeking to operate another make and model of aircraft with a simplified
flight controls designation in the same category and class, the person must receive
(2) If seeking to operate a different category and class of aircraft with a simplified
flight controls designation or any aircraft without a simplified flight controls designation,
the person must successfully complete a practical test for that category and class of
aircraft.
* * * * *
(m) Training in an aircraft with a simplified flight controls designation. (1) For
purposes of this paragraph (m), instructor pilot means a pilot employed or used by a
(2) A flight instructor may conduct flight training in an aircraft with a simplified
flight controls designation without satisfying the training and endorsement requirements
(i) Holds a flight instructor certificate with the appropriate aircraft category, class,
(ii) Has received and logged model-specific training in that aircraft from an
(iii) Has received a logbook or training record endorsement from the instructor
pilot certifying that the flight instructor is proficient in the safe operation of that model-
provide the training and endorsement specified in paragraph (m)(2) of this section in lieu
of an authorized instructor.
36. Amend § 61.303 by revising the section heading and paragraphs (a) and (b)(4) to read
as follows:
§ 61.316, what operating limits and endorsement requirements in this subpart must
I comply with?
(a) Use the following table to determine what operating limits and endorsement
requirements in this subpart, if any, apply to you when you operate an aircraft that
satisfies the limitations identified in § 61.316. The medical certificate specified in this
table must be in compliance with § 61.2 in regards to currency and validity. If you hold a
recreational pilot certificate, but not a medical certificate, you must comply with cross
country requirements in § 61.101(c), even if your flight does not exceed 50 nautical miles
from your departure airport. You must also comply with requirements in other subparts of
this part that apply to your certificate and the operation you conduct. In the following
table, when the word “aircraft” is used, it refers to aircraft that satisfy the limitations
identified in § 61.316.
(b) * * *
(4) Not know or have reason to know of any medical condition that would make
§ 61.305 What are the age and language requirements for a sport pilot certificate?
(a) Be at least 17 years old (or 16 years old if you are applying to operate a glider
or balloon).
(b) Be able to read, speak, write, and understand English. If you cannot read,
speak, write, and understand English because of medical reasons, the FAA may place
limits on your certificate as are necessary for the safe operation of aircraft.
38. Amend § 61.307 by adding paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) to read as follows:
* * * * *
(b) * * *
privilege, the applicant must complete a practical test satisfactorily demonstrating the
knowledge, risk management, and skill elements for each area of operation as specified in
the Sport Pilot for Helicopter – Simplified Flight Controls Airman Certification
this section with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C.
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. This material is available for inspection at the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) and the National Archives and Records Administration
obtained from FAA, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20591, 866-835-
5322, faa.gov/training_testing.
§ 61.311 What flight proficiency requirements must I meet to apply for a sport pilot
certificate?
To apply for a sport pilot certificate, you must receive and log ground and flight
for airplane single-engine land or sea, glider, gyroplane, helicopter, airship, balloon,
balloons).
(i) Navigation.
(j) Slow flight (not applicable to lighter-than-air aircraft, helicopters, and powered
parachutes).
(k) Stalls (not applicable to lighter-than-air aircraft, gyroplanes, helicopters, and
powered parachutes).
§ 61.313 What aeronautical experience must I have to apply for a sport pilot
certificate?
(a) Aeronautical experience. Use the following table to determine the aeronautical
If you are applying for a Then you must log at Which must include at
sport pilot certificate least… least…
with…
(1) Airplane category and 20 hours of flight time, (i) 2 hours of cross-country
single-engine land or sea including at least 15 hours flight training;
class privileges, of flight training from an (ii) 10 takeoffs and
authorized instructor in a landings to a full stop (with
single-engine airplane and each landing involving a
at least 5 hours of solo flight in the traffic pattern)
flight training in the areas at an airport;
of operation listed in § (iii) One solo cross-country
61.311, flight of at least 75 nautical
miles total distance, with a
full-stop landing at a
minimum of two points
and one segment of the
flight consisting of a
straight-line distance of at
least 25 nautical miles
between the takeoff and
landing locations; and
(iv) 2 hours of flight
training with an authorized
instructor on those areas of
operation specified in §
61.311 in preparation for
the practical test within the
preceding 2 calendar
months from the month of
the test.
(2) Glider category 10 hours of flight time in a (i) Five solo launches and
privileges, and you have glider, including 10 flights landings; and
not logged at least 20 hours in a glider receiving flight (ii) at least 3 training
of flight time in a heavier- training from an authorized flights with an authorized
than-air aircraft, instructor and at least 2 instructor on those areas of
hours of solo flight trainingoperation specified in §
in the areas of operation 61.311 in preparation for
listed in § 61.311, the practical test within the
preceding 2 calendar
months from the month of
the test.
(3) Glider category 3 hours of flight time in a (i) Three solo launches and
privileges, and you have glider, including five landings; and
logged 20 hours flight time flights in a glider while (ii) at least 3 training
in a heavier-than-air receiving flight training flights with an authorized
aircraft, from an authorized instructor on those areas of
instructor and at least 1 operation specified in §
hour of solo flight training 61.311 in preparation for
in the areas of operation the practical test within the
listed in § 61.311, preceding 2 calendar
months from the month of
the test.
(4) Rotorcraft category and 20 hours of flight time, (i) 2 hours of cross-country
gyroplane class privileges, including 15 hours of flight flight training;
training from an authorized (ii) 10 takeoffs and
instructor in a gyroplane landings to a full stop (with
and at least 5 hours of solo each landing involving a
flight training in the areas flight in the traffic pattern)
of operation listed in § at an airport;
61.311, (iii) One solo cross-country
flight of at least 50 nautical
miles total distance, with a
full-stop landing at a
minimum of two points,
and one segment of the
flight consisting of a
straight-line distance of at
least 25 nautical miles
between the takeoff and
landing locations; and
(iv) 2 hours of flight
training with an authorized
instructor on those areas of
operation specified in §
61.311 in preparation for
the practical test within the
preceding 2 calendar
months from the month of
the test.
(5) Lighter-than-air 20 hours of flight time, (i) 2 hours of cross-country
category and airship class including 15 hours of flight flight training;
privileges, training from an authorized (ii) Three takeoffs and
instructor in an airship and landings to a full stop (with
at least 3 hours performing each landing involving a
the duties of pilot in flight in the traffic pattern)
command in an airship at an airport;
with an authorized (iii) One cross-country
instructor in the areas of flight of at least 25 nautical
operation listed in § miles between the takeoff
61.311, and landing locations; and
(iv) 2 hours of flight
training with an authorized
instructor on those areas of
operation specified in §
61.311 in preparation for
the practical test within the
preceding 2 calendar
months from the month of
the test.
(6) Lighter-than-air 7 hours of flight time in a (i) 2 hours of cross-country
category and balloon class balloon, including three flight training; and
privileges, flights with an authorized (ii) 1 hours of flight
instructor and one flight training with an authorized
performing the duties of instructor on those areas of
pilot in command in a operation specified in §
balloon with an authorized 61.311 in preparation for
instructor in the areas of the practical test within the
operation listed in § preceding 2 calendar
61.311, months from the month of
the test.
(7) Powered parachute 12 hours of flight time in a (i) 1 hour of cross-country
category land or sea class powered parachute, flight training,
privileges, including 10 hours of flight (ii) 20 takeoffs and
training from an authorized landings to a full stop in a
instructor in a powered powered parachute with
parachute, and at least 2 each landing involving
hours of solo flight training flight in the traffic pattern
in the areas of operation at an airport;
listed in § 61.311 (iii) 10 solo takeoffs and
landings to a full stop (with
each landing involving a
flight in the traffic pattern)
at an airport;
(iv) One solo flight with a
landing at a different
airport and one segment of
the flight consisting of a
straight-line distance of at
least 10 nautical miles
between takeoff and
landing locations; and
(v) 1 hours of flight
training with an authorized
instructor on those areas of
operation specified in §
61.311 in preparation for
the practical test within the
preceding 2 calendar
months from the month of
the test.
(8) Weight-shift-control 20 hours of flight time, (i) 2 hours of cross-country
aircraft category land or including 15 hours of flight flight training;
sea class privileges, training from an authorized (ii) 10 takeoffs and
instructor in a weight-shift- landings to a full stop (with
control aircraft and at least each landing involving a
5 hours of solo flight flight in the traffic pattern)
training in the areas of at an airport;
operation listed in § (iii) One solo cross-country
61.311, flight of at least 50 nautical
miles total distance, with a
full-stop landing at a
minimum of two points,
and one segment of the
flight consisting of a
straight-line distance of at
least 25 nautical miles
between takeoff and
landing locations; and
(iv) 2 hours of flight
training with an authorized
instructor on those areas of
operation specified in §
61.311 in preparation for
the practical test within the
preceding 2 calendar
months from the month of
the test.
(9) Rotorcraft category and 30 hours of helicopter (i) 2 hours of flight training
helicopter class, only if that flight time, including at en route to an airport that is
helicopter is certificated least 15 hours of flight located more than 25
under § 21.190 of this training from an authorized nautical miles from the
chapter and obtains the instructor in a helicopter, airport where the applicant
simplified flight controls and at least 5 hours of solo normally trains;
design designation, flight training in the areas (ii) 3 takeoffs and landings
of operation listed in at the airport located more
§ 61.311, as appropriate, than 25 nautical miles from
the airport where the
applicant normally trains;
(iii) 3 hours of solo flying
in the aircraft for the
privilege sought, on the
areas of operation listed in
§ 61.98 that apply to the
aircraft category and class
privilege sought; and
(iv) 3 hours of flight
training with an authorized
instructor on those areas of
operation specified in
§ 61.311 in preparation for
the practical test within the
preceding 2 calendar
months from the month of
the test.
(b) Flight simulation training device and aviation training device credit. (1) Sport
pilot applicants can use up to 2.5 hours of training credit in a qualified flight simulation
training devise and aviation training device representing the appropriate category and
(2) The training must be provided by an authorized instructor who possesses the
41. Amend § 61.315 by revising paragraph (a), the introductory text of paragraph (c), and
§ 61.315 What are the privileges and limits of my sport pilot certificate?
(a) If you hold a sport pilot certificate you may act as pilot in command of an
aircraft that meets the provisions of § 61.316, except as specified in paragraph (c) of this
section.
* * * * *
* * * * *
* * * * *
(i) Has retractable landing gear, unless you have met the requirements of
§ 61.331(a).
(ii) Has a controllable pitch propeller, unless you have met the requirements of
§ 61.331(b).
§ 61.316 What are the performance limits and design requirements for the aircraft
(a) If you hold a sport pilot certificate, you may act as pilot in command of an
aircraft that, since its original certification, meets the following requirements:
(1) A maximum stalling speed or minimum steady flight speed without the use of
lift-enhancing devices (VS1) of not more than 45 knots CAS, except for airplanes, which
must have a VS1 speed of not more than 54 knots CAS at the aircraft’s maximum
(2) A maximum seating capacity of two persons, except for airplanes, which may
(4) For powered aircraft other than powered gilders, a fixed or ground-adjustable
(7) For powered aircraft other than balloons or airships, the loss of partial power
would not adversely affect directional control of the aircraft and the aircraft design must
allow the pilot the capability of establishing a controlled descent in the event of a partial
(8) For helicopters, they must be certificated with the simplified flight controls
gear or a hull.
(11) For powered-aircraft other than a glider or an aircraft intended for operation
on water, fixed landing gear except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) If you hold a sport pilot certificate, you may act as pilot in command of an
airplane that, since its original certification, has retractable landing gear or a controllable
pitch propeller if you have met the training and endorsement requirements specified in
§ 61.331.
b. Removing the phrase “light-sport aircraft” and adding the word “aircraft” in their place
in paragraph (a);
d. Removing the phrase “light-sport aircraft” and adding the word “aircraft” in their place
If you hold a sport pilot certificate and seek to operate an additional category or
class of aircraft that satisfy the limitations identified in § 61.316, you must -
* * * * *
proficiency check from an authorized instructor other than the instructor who trained you
on the aeronautical knowledge areas and areas of operation specified in §§ 61.309 and
(e) If you are seeking to add an airplane single-engine land or sea or a rotorcraft-
practical test for that category and class privilege as specified in § 61.307.
44. Amend § 61.325 by revising the section heading and introductory text to read as
follows:
§ 61.325 How does a sport pilot obtain privileges to operate an aircraft at an airport
If you hold a sport pilot certificate and seek privileges to operate an aircraft in
airport having an operational control tower, you must receive and log ground and flight
training. The authorized instructor who provides this training must provide a logbook
endorsement that certifies you are proficient in the following aeronautical knowledge
* * * * *
You may act as pilot in command with a sport pilot certificate during night
operations if you:
(a) Receive three hours of flight training at night from an authorized instructor
and receive a logbook endorsement from an authorized instructor certifying that you are
(b) Conduct at least one cross-country flight during the flight training under
paragraph (a) of this section at night, with a landing at an airport of at least 25 nautical
instructor; and
(d) Either hold a medical certificate issued under part 67 of this chapter or,
provided the pilot holds a valid U.S. driver’s license, meet the requirements of
§ 61.23(c)(3) and conduct the operation consistently with § 61.113(i). If you are
(a) If you hold a sport pilot certificate and seek privileges to operate an aircraft
(2) Receive and log ground and flight training from an authorized instructor in an
airplane that has retractable landing gear and receive an endorsement from the instructor
(b) If you hold a sport pilot certificate and seek privileges to operate an airplane
(2) Receive and log ground and flight training from an authorized instructor in an
airplane that has a controllable pitch propeller and receive an endorsement from the
47. Amend § 61.405 by adding paragraphs (b)(3) and (4) to read as follows:
§ 61.405 What tests do I have to take to obtain a flight instructor certificate with a
* * * * *
(b) * * *
complete a practical test and satisfactorily demonstrate the knowledge, risk management,
and skill elements for each area of operation specified in the Sport Flight Instructor for
reference into this section with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under
5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. This material is available for inspection at the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) and the National Archives and Records Administration
obtained from FAA, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20591, 866-835-
5322, faa.gov/training_testing.
§ 61.409 What flight proficiency requirements must I meet to apply for a flight
You must receive and log ground and flight training from an authorized instructor
on the following areas of operation for the aircraft category and class in which you seek
(j) Ground reference maneuvers (except for gliders, helicopters, and lighter-than-
air).
parachutes).
gyroplanes).
aircraft).
§ 61.411 What aeronautical experience must I have to apply for a flight instructor
* * * * *
If you are applying for a Then you must log at Which must include at
flight instructor certificate least… least…
with a sport pilot rating
for…
* * * * * * *
(h) Rotorcraft category and (1) 150 hours of flight time (i) 100 hours of flight time
helicopter class, only if that as a pilot, as pilot in command in
helicopter is certificated powered aircraft;
under § 21.190 of this (ii) 50 hours of flight time
chapter and obtains the in a helicopter;
simplified flight controls (iii) 25 hours of cross-
design and designation, country flight time;
(iv) 10 hours of cross-
country flight time in a
helicopter; and
(v) 15 hours of flight time
as pilot in command in a
helicopter.
50. Amend § 61.415 by adding paragraphs (k) through (n) to read as follows:
§ 61.415 What are the limits of a flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot
rating?
* * * * *
(l) You may not provide training in an airplane with a controllable pitch propeller
or an aircraft with a retractable landing gear unless you have received training and
types of aircraft.
(m) You may not provide training in an aircraft that has the simplified flight
controls design and designation unless you have received the model-specific flight
(n) You may not provide training in an aircraft at night unless you have completed
b. Removing the phrase “light-sport aircraft” and adding the word “aircraft” in their place
class of aircraft?
* * * * *
proficiency check from an authorized instructor other than the instructor who trained you
on the areas specified in § 61.409 for the additional category and class flight instructor
* * * * *
(e) If you are seeking to add an airplane single-engine land or sea or a rotorcraft-
knowledge and practical test for that category and class privilege as specified in § 61.405.
§ 61.429 May I exercise the privileges of a flight instructor certificate with a sport
* * * * *
(d) If you want to exercise the privileges of your flight instructor certificate in a
model-specific aircraft that has a simplified flight controls designation, you must meet
the training and endorsement requirements specified in § 61.31(l) prior to providing any
CREWMEMBERS
45102-45103, 45301-45302.
54. Amend § 65.15 by revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (d) to read as follows:
certificate or rating issued under this part is effective until it is surrendered, suspended, or
revoked.
issued in accordance with § 65.101 is effective until the holder is relieved from the duties
* * * * *
(d) Except for temporary certificates issued under § 65.13, the holder of a paper
certificate issued under this part may not exercise the privileges of that certificate.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
Airman Certification Standards, November 1, 2021; IBR approved for §§ 65.75, 65.79,
and 65.107.
* * * * *
person is rated (but excluding major repairs to, and major alterations of, propellers, and
any repair to, or alteration of, instruments), and may perform additional duties in
accordance with §§ 65.85, 65.87, and 65.95. However, a certificated mechanic may not
supervise the maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alteration of, or approve for return
to service, any aircraft or appliance, or part thereof, for which that person is rated unless
that person has satisfactorily performed the work concerned at an earlier date. If that
person has not so performed that work at an earlier date, that person may show the ability
repairman, who has had previous experience in the specific operation concerned.
(b) A certificated mechanic may not exercise the privileges of that person’s
certificate and rating unless that person understands the current instructions of the
manufacturer, and the maintenance manuals, for the specific operation concerned.
with an airframe rating may approve for return to service an airframe, or any related part
or appliance, after that person has performed, supervised, or inspected its maintenance or
mechanic with an airframe rating may perform the 100-hour inspection required by part
91 of this chapter on an airframe, or any related part or appliance, and approve for return
to service.
(b) A certificated mechanic with an airframe rating can approve for return to
major repair or major alteration for products that are not produced under an FAA
approval provided the major repair or major alteration was authorized by, and performed
in accordance with instructions developed by, the manufacturer or a person acceptable to
the FAA.
with a powerplant rating may approve for return to service a powerplant or propeller or
any related part or appliance, after that person has performed, supervised, or inspected its
certificated mechanic with a powerplant rating may perform the 100-hour inspection
required by part 91 of this chapter on a powerplant or propeller, or any part thereof, and
(b) A certificated mechanic with a powerplant rating can approve for return to
inspecting a major repair or major alteration for products that are not produced under an
FAA approval, provided the major repair or major alteration was authorized by, and
* * * * *
(c) This section does not apply to the holder of a repairman certificate
(a) Ratings. The following ratings may be issued on a repairman certificate (light-
(3) Be a citizen of the U.S. or a citizen of a foreign country who has been lawfully
(5) Complete a training course pursuant to paragraph (c) or (d) of this section, as
(6) Pass a written test administered by the training course provider that covers the
contents of the course pursuant to paragraph (c) or (d) of this section, applicable to the
rating sought.
the category of experimental aircraft for which the person intends to exercise the
Administrator appropriate to the category of aircraft for which the person intends to
(1) Until [DATE SIX MONTHS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF RULE], the
training course must provide the following number of hours of instruction for the
applicable privileges:
(2) The training course must include, at a minimum, the knowledge, risk
management, and skill elements for each subject contained in the Aviation Mechanic
reference, see § 65.23), as appropriate to the category of aircraft for which the person
(e) Training course providers. The training course described in paragraphs (c) and
(d) of this section must be delivered using facilities, equipment, and materials appropriate
to the training course content taught and must be delivered by instructors that are
appropriately qualified to teach the course content. After a student completes the training
and passes the written test, the training course provider must provide a certificate of
completion to the student indicating the name of the training provider, the FAA course
acceptance number, the rating applicable to the training course, the category of aircraft
the training was based on, and the date of training completion.
61. Effective [DATE 6 MONTHS after date OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE
read as follows:
* * * * *
appropriate to the category of aircraft for which the person intends to exercise the
privileges of the rating. The course must include, at a minimum, the knowledge, risk
management, and skill elements for each subject contained in the Aviation Mechanic
* * * * *
(2) That has an experimental certificate for the purpose of operating light-sport
category aircraft under § 21.191(i) of this chapter or operating light-sport category kit-
built aircraft under § 21.191(j) of this chapter, or an aircraft that does not meet the
provision of § 103.1 of this chapter and that has an experimental certificate for the
purpose of operating light-sport that was issued on or before January 31, 2008; and
(3) That is in the same category of aircraft for which the holder has completed the
may -
(1) Approve for return to service an aircraft that has been issued a special
airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category under § 21.190 of this chapter, or any
part thereof, after performing or inspecting maintenance (to include the annual condition
inspection and the 100-hour inspection required by § 91.327 of this chapter), preventive
experimental certificate for the purpose of operating light-sport category aircraft under
§ 21.191(j) of this chapter, or an aircraft that does not meet the provision of § 103.1 of
this chapter and that has an experimental certificate for the purpose of operating light-
aircraft that is in the same category of aircraft for which the holder has completed the
training specified in § 65.107(d). Before performing a major repair, the holder must
complete additional training acceptable to the FAA and appropriate to the repair
performed.
may not approve for return to service any aircraft or part thereof unless that person has
previously performed the work concerned satisfactorily. If that person has not previously
performed that work, the person may show the ability to do the work by performing it to
previous experience in the specific operation concerned. The repairman may not exercise
the privileges of the certificate unless the repairman understands the current instructions
of the manufacturer and the maintenance manuals for the specific operation concerned.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40101, 40103, 40105, 40113, 40120, 44101,
44111, 44701, 44704, 44709, 44711, 44712, 44715, 44716, 44717, 44722, 44740, 46306,
46315, 46316, 46504, 46506-46507, 47122, 47508, 47528-47531, 47534; Pub. L. 114-
190, 130 Stat. 615 (49 U.S.C. 44703 note); articles 12 and 29 of the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, 61 Stat. 1180; Pub. L. 112-95, 126 Stat. 11.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(3) An airship has the right-of-way over all other powered aircraft. However, an
aircraft towing or refueling other aircraft has the right-of-way over all other powered
aircraft.
* * * * *
65. Amend § 91.126 by revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) to read as follows:
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Each pilot of a powered fixed wing aircraft and powered-lift aircraft operating
in wing-borne flight mode must make all turns to the left unless the airport displays
approved light signals or visual markings indicating that turns should be made to the
right, in which case the pilot must make all turns to the right; and
(2) Each pilot of any other aircraft must avoid the flow of the aircraft specified in
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(ii) A special airworthiness certificate for which a type certificate has been issued,
and is equipped with a tow-hitch of a kind, and installed in a manner, that is approved or
(iii) A special airworthiness certificate, for which the aircraft has not been
previously issued a type certificate, and is equipped with a tow-hitch of a kind that is
approved or otherwise acceptable to, and is installed in a manner acceptable to, the
Administrator;
* * * * *
67. Amend § 91.319 by revising paragraphs (a) introductory text and (c) and adding
* * * * *
person may operate an aircraft that has a certificate issued under § 21.191 of this chapter
* * * * *
a space support vehicle flight carrying persons or property for compensation or hire
* * * * *
RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], amend §91.319 further by adding paragraph (l)
to read as follows:
* * * * *
§ 21.191(i) or (j) of this chapter after the performance of an alteration accomplished after
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE], unless that aircraft has demonstrated
* * * * *
69. Effective [DATE 6 MONTHS after date OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE
a. Revising the section heading and paragraphs (a), (b)(1), (4), (5), and (6), (c)
(a) No person may operate an aircraft that has a special airworthiness certificate in
§ 91.309;
(3) To conduct any aerial work operations specified in the aircraft’s pilot
(b) * * *
station in accordance with the applicable provisions of part 43 of this chapter and
* * * * *
(4) The aircraft has demonstrated compliance with the applicable requirements of
(5) Each minor repair or minor alteration to an aircraft meets the applicable and
person acceptable to the FAA, and is performed and inspected in accordance with
maintenance and inspection procedures developed by the manufacturer or a person
* * * * *
the light-sport category to tow a glider or unpowered ultralight vehicle for compensation
or hire or conduct flight training for compensation or hire in an aircraft which that person
provides unless within the preceding 100 hours of time in service the aircraft has—
maintenance and inspection procedures acceptable to the FAA and been approved for
* * * * *
carry –
(1) More than four occupants, including the pilot, if the aircraft is an airplane; or
(2) More than two occupants, including the pilot, if the aircraft is other than an
airplane.
* * * * *
(a) A person may operate an aircraft to conduct a space support vehicle flight
(1) The aircraft has a special airworthiness certificate issued under § 21.191 of
this chapter to operate the aircraft for the purpose of conducting a space support vehicle
flight.
(2) The aircraft conducting the space support vehicle flight —
(i) Takes flight and lands at a single launch or reentry site that is operated by an
entity licensed to operate the launch or reentry site under 51 U.S.C. chapter 509;
U.S.C. chapter 509, or on behalf of a launch or reentry vehicle operator licensed under 51
(C) Research and development tasks, which require the unique capabilities of the
(b) The Administrator may prescribe additional operating limitations that the
§ 91.409 Inspections
* * * * *
(c) * * *
* * * * *
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(v) The current status of applicable airworthiness directives (AD) including, for
each, the method of compliance, the AD number and revision date. If the AD involves
recurring action, the time and date when the next action is required.
* * * * *
OPERATIONS
73. The authority citation for part 119 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Pub. L. 111-216, sec. 215 (August 1, 2010); 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g),
1153, 40101, 40102, 40103, 40113, 44105, 44106, 44111, 44701-44717, 44722, 44901,
b. Removing the period at the end of paragraph (e)(11) and adding “; or” in its place; and
§ 119.1 Applicability.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(12) Space support vehicle flights conducted under the provisions of § 91.331 of
this chapter.
Washington, DC.
Lirio Liu,
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-14425 Filed: 7/19/2023 11:15 am; Publication Date: 7/24/2023]