
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 199 (Tuesday, October 17, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 71509-71518]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22634]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 61

[Docket No. FAA-2023-2083; Notice No. 24-1]
RIN 2120-AL89


Robinson Helicopter R-22 and R-44 Special Training and Experience 
Requirements

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This rulemaking would revise the Special Federal Aviation 
Regulation (SFAR), Robinson R-22/44 Special Training and Experience 
Requirements, to provide consistency with other FAA regulatory 
requirements, training, and testing publications. The rulemaking would 
remove the low gravity (low G) dual flight instruction requirement to 
align the SFAR with current aircraft placard requirements and the 
limitations section of the Rotorcraft Flight Manual/Pilot Operating 
Handbook (RFM/POH) set forth by Airworthiness Directives (ADs). This 
proposed revision would also update the SFAR so it mirrors the 
terminology currently used in the Helicopter Flying Handbook and 
Practical Test Standards (PTS). This rulemaking proposes to clarify the 
awareness training endorsement and flight review requirements for less 
experienced pilots, remove legacy dates, and update the applicability 
section to include ground and flight training, including flight reviews 
provided by authorized flight instructors. Additionally, the FAA 
proposes to add an expiration date to the SFAR to allow the FAA time to 
review and refine the R-22 and R-44 requirements for ground training, 
aeronautical experience, including flight training, and flight reviews, 
before moving them to a permanent location in a separate subchapter.

DATES: Send comments on or before December 18, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2023-2083 
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov/ and follow the online instructions for sending 
your comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S. 
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room 
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket 
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at (202) 493-2251.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at 
https://www.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, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cara M. Barbera, Training and 
Certification Group, General Aviation and Commercial Division, Federal 
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 
20591; telephone (202) 267-1100; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
    A. Overview of Proposed Rule
    B. Summary of the Costs and Benefits
II. Authority for This Rulemaking
III. Background
    A. SFAR 73 Final Rule Background Information
    B. AD 95-11-09 (R-22) and AD 95-11-10 (R-44) Low G Cyclic 
Pushover Prohibition Background
    C. Recommendation and Proposal
IV. Discussion of the Proposal
    A. Removal of Required Flight Training on the Effects of Low G 
Maneuvers and Proper Recovery Procedures
    B. Moving Flight Training Topic of Low G Hazards to Ground 
Training Requirements
    C. Awareness Training Renamed as Ground Training
    D. Flight Review Requirements for Pilots With Less Experience in 
R-22/R-44
    E. Enhanced Training in Autorotation Procedures
    F. Removal of Legacy Dates
    G. Add Persons Who Seek To Provide Ground Training or Flight 
Training or Conduct a Flight Review to Applicability Section
    H. Revise Term Blade Stall
    I. Revise Term Certified and Certificated for Flight Instructors
    J. R-22/R-44 Awareness Training Endorsement
    K. Add Expiration Date to SFAR No. 73
V. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
    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 
Cooperation
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

A. Overview of Proposed Rule

    Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) No. 73, found in part 61 
of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), currently 
requires the effects of low G maneuvers and proper recovery procedures 
to be accomplished during dual instruction flight training. However, 
because of the inherent danger in performing low G maneuvers, 
Airworthiness Directives (ADs) 95-11-09 \1\ and 95-11-10,\2\ effective 
July 14, 1995, prohibit intentionally inducing low G flight in Robinson 
model R-22 and R-44 helicopters. The FAA proposes to remove the 
requirement to perform low G maneuvers during flight training due to 
safety concerns and to continue addressing these hazards in the ground 
training topic for low G hazards, which is established in the SFAR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See AD 95-11-09, Robinson Helicopter Company Model R22 
Helicopters (Jul. 14, 1995), https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/AB0E6D73A5A548F186256A4D006126BD.0001.
    \2\ See AD 95-11-10, Robinson Helicopter Company Model R44 
Helicopters (Jul. 14, 1995), https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/FED1D31B434F466E86256A4D00613579.0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA proposes additional amendments to SFAR No. 73 to update and 
align its terminology with other FAA regulations and publications. 
Certain terminology in SFAR No. 73 has

[[Page 71510]]

not been defined or used in the same context as found in the Helicopter 
Flying Handbook, Practical Test Standards, and 14 CFR part 61. Changing 
this terminology would not impact the requirements of SFAR No. 73 but 
would update the terms ``awareness,'' ``certified/certificated flight 
instructor,'' and ``blade stall'' for consistency with part 61 terms 
and definitions. Throughout this NPRM, ``awareness training'' will be 
referred to as ``ground training.'' In addition, the FAA proposes to 
replace the term ``enhanced'' with more specific language outlining 
what is necessary to satisfy autorotation training in an R-22 and/or R-
44 helicopter. The terminology changes would not require updates to 
endorsements, websites, or other publications.
    The FAA proposes to memorialize current ground training general 
subject area requirements to simplify the model applicability 
endorsement. It also would improve formatting to focus on the 
requirements for flight reviews specific to SFAR No. 73. Finally, this 
rulemaking proposes to align the applicability section in the SFAR with 
its other sections by including applicability to flight instructors who 
conduct ground training, flight training, or a flight review.
    The FAA also proposes to add a five-year expiration date to SFAR 
No. 73. The addition of an expiration date would allow the FAA time to 
review and refine the requirements for R-22 and R-44 helicopters and 
move them to a permanent location in Title 14 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations, chapter 1.
    The changes proposed by this rule would not impose any additional 
requirements to the current regulations, nor would they render current 
requirements less restrictive. Rather, the proposed changes are 
intended to more clearly identify the current requirements for persons 
seeking to manipulate the flight controls, act as pilot in command, 
provide ground training or flight training, or conduct a flight review 
in a Robinson model R-22 or R-44 helicopter that are unique to SFAR No. 
73, and not otherwise included in part 61.

B. Summary of the Costs and Benefits

    The FAA expects the proposal to promote safety without imposing 
costs by memorializing existing requirements, eliminating 
inconsistencies, and updating language. Thus, the FAA has determined 
that the proposal would have minimal economic effects and pose no novel 
or legal policy issues. Therefore, the FAA has determined that this 
proposal is not ``significant'' as defined in section 3(f) of Executive 
Order 12866 and is not ``significant'' as defined by DOT's Regulatory 
Policies and Procedures.

II. Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in 
Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes 
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation 
Programs, describes the scope of the FAA's authority.
    The FAA is proposing this rulemaking under the authority described 
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart iii, section 44701, General 
Requirements. Under these sections, the FAA prescribes regulations and 
minimum standards for practices, methods, and procedures the 
Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This 
rulemaking proposal is within the scope of that authority.

III. Background

A. SFAR 73 Final Rule Background Information

    Title 14 CFR part 61 details the certification requirements for 
pilots, flight instructors, and ground instructors. Subparts C through 
G of part 61 contain training requirements for applicants seeking 
rotorcraft category helicopter class ratings. These requirements do not 
address specific types or models of rotorcraft. However, in 1995, the 
FAA determined that specific training and experience requirements were 
necessary for the safe operation of Robinson model R-22 and R-44 model 
helicopters.3 4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Robinson R-22/R-44 Special Training and Experience 
Requirements, 60 FR 11254 (March 27, 1995).
    \4\ The Mitsubishi MU-2B is another example of an instance where 
the FAA initially created an SFAR and later codified regulations 
specific to an aircraft to ensure safe operation. Similarly, the 
conflicts between SFAR No. 108 and FAA guidance prompted the FAA to 
codify regulations related to the Mitsubishi MU-2B. See 81 FR 61584.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The R-22 helicopter is a two-seat, reciprocating engine powered 
helicopter that is frequently used in initial student pilot training. 
The R-22 is one of the smallest helicopters in its class and 
incorporates a unique cyclic control and teetering rotor system. The R-
44 is a four-seat helicopter with operating characteristics and design 
features that are similar to the R-22. Certain aerodynamic and design 
features of these aircraft result in specific flight characteristics 
that require particular pilot knowledge and responsiveness in order to 
be operated safely.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 60 FR 11254.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained in the 1995 final rule, the FAA found the R-22 met 14 
CFR part 27 certification requirements and issued a type certificate to 
Robinson in 1979. However, the R-22 had a high number of fatal 
accidents due to main rotor/airframe contact when compared to other 
piston powered helicopters. Many of those accidents were attributed to 
pilot performance or inexperience, where low rotor revolutions per 
minute (RPM) or low ``G'' conditions caused mast bumping or main rotor-
airframe contact accidents.
    In its analysis of accident data, the FAA found that pilots rated 
to fly the helicopter were not properly prepared to safely operate the 
R-22 and R-44 helicopters in certain flight conditions. The FAA 
determined that additional specific pilot training was necessary for 
safe operation of these helicopters as part of a comprehensive program 
that responded to a high number of accidents. Other elements of this 
program included addressing design and operational issues, cited by the 
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), that may have been 
contributing factors in some of the accidents. Furthermore, at that 
time, the R-44 had been recently certified, and the FAA was concerned 
that the R-44 would experience the same frequency of accidents because 
of the similar design. Accordingly, the FAA issued SFAR No. 73, which, 
in addition to addressing pilot training, also included requirements 
for flight instructors and continued flight reviews in the specific 
model to be flown.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 60 FR 11254.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2021, the FAA formed a Safety Risk Management (SRM) Team to 
perform a safety risk assessment of SFAR No. 73. The SRM Team included 
representatives from the FAA, Helicopter Association International 
(HAI), Robinson Helicopter Company, and two Designated Pilot Examiners 
(DPEs). Between November 16-18, 2021, and on January 19, 2022, the SRM 
Team met to analyze hazards associated with operating and training 
pursuant to SFAR No. 73 and determine whether the SFAR effectively 
controls risk or is no longer needed.
    Subject matter experts from the FAA and industry were invited to 
provide their input. After the SRM Team meeting concluded, Robinson 
Helicopter Company provided specific opinions and background material. 
The SRM Team's analysis resulted in recommended modifications of SFAR 
No. 73 that are reflected in this proposed rule. A copy of the full SRM 
Team Safety Risk Assessment Report for

[[Page 71511]]

SFAR No. 73 is posted to the docket for this rulemaking.
    Since SFAR No. 73 was published, Robinson model R-22 and R-44 
helicopters have continued to operate throughout the world. Although 
other international civil aviation authorities have taken different 
approaches to implementing pilot certification standards, the 
manufacturer of these helicopters makes advisory material available to 
all operators worldwide.\7\ Safety notices, available both in the 
Pilot's Operating Handbook/Rotorcraft Flight Manual (POH/RFM) \8\ and 
on the Robinson Helicopter Company website, emphasize subject matter 
found in SFAR No. 73. Although these notices are not regulatory in 
nature, they provide guidance and recommended practices to owners of 
all Robinson helicopters. In addition, the manufacturer produces 
publications, including safety alerts, which are also located on the 
Robinson Helicopter Company website. The FAA anticipates the 
international aviation community will be interested in the outcome of 
this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Robinson Helicopter Company Safety Notices, https://robinsonheli.com/robinson-safety-notices/.
    \8\ See Robinson Helicopter Company POH/FRM https://robinsonheli.com/current-status/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. AD 95-11-09 (R-22) and AD 95-11-10 (R-44) Low G Cyclic Pushover 
Prohibition Background

    SFAR No. 73 consists of ground and flight training requirements, 
including low G flight training.\9\ However, shortly after issuance of 
this SFAR, the FAA prohibited intentionally inducing low G flight in R-
22 and R-44 helicopters. This prohibition was published on July 14, 
1995, in ADs 95-11-09 (R-22) \10\ and 95-11-10 (R-44) \11\ because of 
the inherent risk in performing those maneuvers. That action was 
prompted by FAA analysis of the manufacturer's data that indicated a 
low G cyclic pushover maneuver may result in mast-bumping on the 
Robinson model R-22 helicopters. If uncorrected, this condition could 
result in an in-flight main rotor separation or contact between the 
main rotor blades and the airframe of the helicopter and subsequent 
loss of control of the helicopter. The ADs require installation of 
placards in the helicopter and insertion of a prohibition against low G 
cyclic pushover maneuvers into the limitations section of the RFM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See 14 CFR part 61 Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 
73--Robinson R-22/R-44 Special Training and Experience Requirements.
    \10\ See AD 95-11-09, Robinson Helicopter Company Model R22 
Helicopters (Jul. 14, 1995), https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/AB0E6D73A5A548F186256A4D006126BD.0001.
    \11\ See AD 95-11-10, Robinson Helicopter Company Model R44 
Helicopters (Jul. 14, 1995), https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/FED1D31B434F466E86256A4D00613579.0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Recommendation and Proposal

    While accidents in the R-22 and R-44 helicopters have declined 
markedly since SFAR No. 73 was issued, the NTSB has recommended that 
the FAA should ensure that SFAR No. 73, the Flight Standards Board 
specifications, and the ADs applicable to the operation of the R-22 and 
R-44 are made permanent.\12\ According to a special investigation 
report the NTSB issued on April 2, 1996, the special operating rules 
for flight instructors and students and low-experience and non-
proficient pilots must continue in order to ensure the safe operation 
of the helicopter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See National Transportation Safety Board, Special 
Investigation Report, Robinson Helicopter Company R22 Loss of Main 
Rotor Control Accidents, Adopted April 2, 1996, https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SIR9603.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The inconsistency between the low G flight training requirement in 
SFAR No. 73 and the ADs' prohibition on intentionally inducing low G 
flight has led to confusion regarding the actual requirements for 
flight training in R-22 and R-44 helicopters. The FAA proposes to 
resolve that discrepancy by removing the requirement in SFAR No. 73 to 
perform low G maneuvers during flight training. The FAA also proposes 
to revise certain language in this SFAR by updating terminology to make 
it consistent across FAA regulations and guidance.

IV. Discussion of the Proposal

A. Removal of Required Flight Training on the Effects of Low G 
Maneuvers and Proper Recovery Procedures

    Shortly after issuance of SFAR No. 73 in 1995, the FAA issued 
priority letters AD 95-11-09 \13\ and AD 95-11-10 \14\ in response to 
FAA analysis of the manufacturer's data that indicated a low G cyclic 
pushover maneuver may result in mast-bumping on the Robinson model R-22 
and R-44 helicopters.\15\ These ADs prohibited intentionally induced 
low G flight in R-22 (AD 95-11-09) and R-44 (AD 95-11-10) helicopters 
in an effort to prevent in-flight main rotor separation or contact 
between the main rotor blades and the airframe of the helicopter and 
subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. To provide immediate 
corrective action, the FAA issued these ADs by priority letters to all 
known U.S. owners and operators of Robinson model R-22 and R-44 
helicopters on May 25, 1995, and then published them in the Federal 
Register as an amendment to 14 CFR 39.13 to make the mandate applicable 
to all persons.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See AD 95-11-09, Robinson Helicopter Company Model R22 
Helicopters (Jul. 14, 1995), https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/AB0E6D73A5A548F186256A4D006126BD.0001.
    \14\ See AD 95-11-10, Robinson Helicopter Company Model R44 
Helicopters (Jul. 14, 1995), https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/FED1D31B434F466E86256A4D00613579.0001.
    \15\ [Title] 60 FR 33686, (Jun. 29, 1995), Docket No. 95-SW-24-
AD.
    \16\ See R-22 Docket No. 95-SW-24-AD; Amendment 39-9299; AD 95-
11-09 and R-44 Docket No. 95-SW-25-AD; Amendment 39-9300; AD 95-11-
10, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1995-06-29/pdf/FR-1995-06-29.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since their publication, these ADs have conflicted with SFAR No. 
73, which requires dual instruction (flight training) on the effects of 
low G maneuvers and proper recovery procedures.\17\ To resolve this 
conflict, the FAA proposes to remove the requirements for flight 
training on the effects of low G maneuvers and proper recovery 
procedures from paragraph 2(b) of SFAR No. 73. Specifically, the FAA 
proposes to remove paragraphs 2(b)(1)(ii)(D), 2(b)(2)(ii)(D), 
2(b)(3)(iv), 2(b)(4)(iv), and 2(b)(5)(iii)(D) from the current 
regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ In essence, the ADs and RFM contradict the requirements in 
the SFAR, creating confusion and an inability to comply with both 
requirements. Flight instructors and flight schools adhere to the AD 
and RFM limitations and do not conduct SFAR 73 low-G flight 
training.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Moving Flight Training Topic of Low G Hazards to Ground Training 
Requirements

    Although the FAA is proposing to remove the requirement for flight 
training on the effects of low G maneuvers and proper recovery 
procedures under paragraph 2(b) of SFAR No. 73, the FAA will continue 
to require knowledge-based training on low G as a general subject area 
under paragraph 2(a)(3). To enhance the quality of low G ground 
training provided under paragraph (a)(3)(iv) and emphasize the 
importance of understanding the risks, the FAA proposes to reconfigure 
the current flight training requirement on low G maneuvers and proper 
recovery procedures as a ground training requirement in paragraph 
2(a)(3)(iv). Specifically, the FAA proposes to replace the term ``Low G 
hazards'' in the ground training requirements in paragraph 2(a)(3)(iv) 
with the term ``Low G conditions, effects, and proper recovery 
procedures.'' This proposal would resolve the conflict with the 
airworthiness requirements for the aircraft while continuing to 
underscore

[[Page 71512]]

the importance of a pilot's understanding of low G-related hazards when 
operating an R-22 or R-44 helicopter. This more specific and 
comprehensive classroom coverage of the subject would educate pilots 
about the situations and conditions that lead to low G, the aerodynamic 
impact it has on the aircraft, and the proper way to recover to prevent 
an accident.
    The FAA proposes changes to the existing ground training 
requirements, which would align SFAR No. 73 with existing FAA 
publications that address low G hazards. For example, the Helicopter 
Flying Handbook (HFH) highlights the importance of low G recognition 
and recovery procedures but also discusses the risk of low G flight 
operations, stating that low G mast bumping has been the cause of 
numerous military and civilian fatal accidents.\18\ The HFH details the 
safety consequences of low G conditions, which further emphasizes the 
hazards of low G in flight and the importance of addressing these 
topics through ground training.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See FAA-H-8083-21B, Helicopter Flying Handbook, published 
2019; https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/helicopter_flying_handbook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the helicopter testing standard for airman 
certificates and ratings addresses knowledge elements related to low G, 
understanding and recognizing those conditions, and explaining the 
proper recovery procedure.\19\ This change to the regulations would 
ensure consistency with those testing standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Some PTSs may transition to Airman Certification Standards 
(ACS) to be utilized as practical test testing standard for airman 
certificates and ratings. The FAA published a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (NPRM) which proposes to incorporate these Airman 
Certification Standards and Practical Test Standards by reference 
into the certification requirements for pilots, flight instructors, 
flight engineers, aircraft dispatchers, and parachute riggers. See 
Airman Certification Standards and Practical Test Standards for 
Airmen; Incorporation by Reference, 87 FR 75955 (Monday, Dec. 12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Awareness Training Renamed as Ground Training

    SFAR No. 73 distinguishes ground training requirements from 
aeronautical experience \20\ requirements. This ground training, 
currently titled ``awareness training,'' is provided by an authorized 
instructor as part of the comprehensive program to help prevent 
accidents in Robinson R-22 and R-44 helicopters. The FAA has found that 
there is a need for all pilots operating these helicopters to be aware 
of certain characteristics associated with Robinson R-22 and R-44 
helicopters. Awareness training requirements and the associated ground 
topics are detailed in SFAR No. 73, paragraph 2(a).\21\ Ground 
training, as defined by 14 CFR 61.1(b), ``means that training, other 
than flight training, received from an authorized instructor.'' On the 
other hand, the term ``awareness training'' does not have a 
corresponding definition. Therefore, the FAA proposes to change the 
title ``Awareness Training'' to ``Ground Training.'' This proposed 
change would align the regulatory language throughout part 61 and 
provide clarity in differentiating the ground training section from the 
aeronautical experience requirements of SFAR No. 73. The FAA thereafter 
would interpret endorsements, websites, or other publications and 
documents that currently use the term ``awareness training'' as 
synonymous with the term ``ground training,'' as defined in 14 CFR 
61.1(b). Adopting this interpretation would eliminate any requirement 
to amend previously issued endorsements or make immediate changes to 
current industry and FAA publications and documents. The FAA recommends 
that, if the rule change becomes final, the terminology used in 
industry documents or websites that utilize SFAR No. 73 (effective on 
June 29, 2009) be updated during a normally scheduled revision process 
or a planned revision rather than as an unscheduled change immediately 
following the adoption of any final rule associated with this notice of 
proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Section 61.1 defines aeronautical experience as ``pilot 
time obtained in an aircraft, flight simulator, or flight training 
device for meeting the appropriate training and flight time 
requirements for an airman certificate, rating, flight review, or 
recency of flight experience requirements of this part.'' As such, 
aeronautical experience includes flight training.
    \21\ Currently, SFAR No. 73 awareness training requires 
instruction in the general subject areas of energy management, mast 
bumping, low rotor RPM (blade stall), low G hazards; and rotor RPM 
decay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Flight Review Requirements for Pilots With Less Experience in R-22/
R-44

    Under Sec.  61.56, no person may act as PIC of an aircraft unless, 
within the preceding 24 months, the person has completed a flight 
review in an aircraft for which that pilot is rated.\22\ Under 2(c)(1) 
of SFAR No. 73, to continue acting as PIC of an R-22 after initially 
completing the SFAR training requirements, a person must complete the 
flight review in an R-22.\23\ A separate flight review is required for 
the R-44 under 2(c)(2). The flight review must include the awareness 
training and the flight training in SFAR No. 73 as set forth in 
paragraph 2(c)(3). Pilots who do not meet a threshold experience level 
in the R-22 or R-44 (i.e., those with less than 200 flight hours in 
helicopters and at least 50 hours in the model of Robinson helicopters) 
are required to complete an annual flight review to continue to act as 
PIC of the respective model of helicopter. The purpose of these 
provisions is to ensure persons operating Robinson R-22 and R-44 
maintain proficiency and competency over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ A flight review consists of one hour of ground training and 
one hour of flight training on general operating and flight rules of 
part 91 and those maneuvers and procedures that, at the discretion 
of the person giving the flight review, are necessary for the pilot 
to demonstrate the safe exercise of the privileges of the pilot 
certificate. 14 CFR 61.56(a).
    \23\ By completing a flight review in an R-22, a person would be 
current to act as PIC of an R-22 and would satisfy the flight review 
requirements for any other helicopter (except for the R-44). By 
contrast, a pilot who completes a flight review in a helicopter 
other than the R-22 would be ineligible to act as PIC of the R-22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The flight review requirements for less experienced pilots are 
identified in paragraphs 2(b)(1)(ii) and 2(b)(2)(ii) and grouped 
together in the same paragraph that describes the general pilot-in-
command flight training. This annual flight review requirement is not 
set forth as an individual condition in a way that calls attention to 
its necessity. Furthermore, these flight review requirements do not 
specify within the paragraphs what subjects this group of pilots must 
accomplish to satisfy the ground training portion of the flight review. 
To resolve these issues, the FAA proposes moving the annual flight 
review requirements located in 2(b)(1)(ii) and 2(b)(2)(ii) for that 
specified group of pilots to separate paragraphs--2(b)(1)(iii) and 
2(b)(2)(iii)--within the same section. This change will not impact the 
flight review requirements outlined in 2(c), as appropriate. This new 
paragraph would also identify the general subject areas from the 
awareness training as the required ground training and the associated 
abnormal and emergency procedures for the Robinson R-22 or R-44 
helicopter, as appropriate. This proposed change would increase 
awareness of the annual flight review requirements and reduce the 
likelihood of pilots overlooking this requirement.

E. Enhanced Training in Autorotation Procedures

    A pilot who seeks to manipulate the flight controls of a Robinson 
R-22 or R-44 helicopter must meet the applicable flight training 
requirements set forth in SFAR 73, paragraph 2(b), including enhanced 
training in autorotation procedures.\24\ The term ``enhanced'' is

[[Page 71513]]

not defined in part 61. In the context of the SFAR, the FAA interprets 
the term ``enhanced'' to mean different autorotation iterations. On its 
face, however, the term lacks sufficient specificity to adequately 
inform the regulated community what autorotation maneuvers are expected 
to be performed. As such, the proposed change would remove the term 
``enhanced'' in SFAR No. 73, paragraphs 2(b)(1)(ii), 2(b)(2)(ii), 
2(b)(3), 2(b)(4), and 2(b)(5)(iii) and replace it with language 
specifying that the training must include autorotation procedures and 
energy management, including utilizing a combination of flight control 
inputs and maneuvering to prevent overshooting or undershooting the 
selected landing area from an entry altitude that permits safe 
recovery. Revising the terminology would provide a better understanding 
of the necessary flight control inputs to achieve the desired airspeed, 
rotor RPM, and autorotation performance and improve pilot proficiency 
with the Robinson R-22 and R-44 helicopter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Subsequent to issuance of SFAR 73, industry-standard 
training has emphasized autorotation training to maneuver the 
aircraft that avoids overshooting or undershooting the selected 
landing area that is consistent with the specificity proposed in 
this rule. See Safety Risk Assessment Report for SFAR 73: Robinson 
R-22/R-44 Special Training and Experience Requirements (2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the FAA also proposes to add specificity in 
2(b)(1)(ii)(B) and 2(b)(2)(ii)(B) in place of the term ``enhanced'' 
training in autorotation procedures to include autorotation training in 
the maximum glide configuration for the R-22 and both the minimum rate 
of descent and maximum glide configuration for the R-44.\25\ The R-22 
training would differ slightly because the RFM/POH does not provide 
information for airspeed and main rotor revolutions per minute to 
perform an autorotation minimum rate of descent configuration, whereas 
the R-44 flight manual establishes those flight parameters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Safety Risk Assessment Report for SFAR 73: Robinson R-
22/R-44 Special Training and Experience Requirements (2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed changes would more clearly establish the expectations 
for the autorotation portion of the flight training requirements to 
receive an endorsement to act as pilot in command, solo, conduct a 
flight review, or provide flight instruction in a Robinson R-22 and R-
44. These autorotation procedures would align with the Helicopter 
Flying Handbook (HFH) and RFM/POH.

F. Removal of Legacy Dates

    SFAR No. 73 contains three long-expired compliance dates for ground 
training in paragraphs 2(a)(1), 2(a)(2), and 2(a)(4). Since the ground 
training requirements outlined in these paragraphs now apply to all 
pilots and operators of R-22 and R-44 helicopters, the FAA proposes to 
remove those expired dates that are no longer applicable.

G. Add Persons Who Seek To Provide Ground Training or Flight Training 
or Conduct a Flight Review to Applicability Section

    The FAA also proposes to amend the applicability section of SFAR 
No. 73 (Section 1) to include persons who provide ground or flight 
training or conduct a flight review in R-22 or R-44 helicopters. While 
paragraph 2(b)(5) contains requirements for persons who provide flight 
training or conduct a flight review, the Applicability section of SFAR 
No. 73 does not identify authorized flight instructors as persons to 
whom the rule applies. For the purposes of clarity and consistency, the 
FAA, therefore, proposes to modify Section 1 by adding persons who seek 
to provide ground training or flight training or conduct a flight 
review in a Robinson model R-22 or R-44 helicopter.

H. Revise Term Blade Stall

    Low rotor RPM (blade stall) is identified as a ground training 
topic in SFAR No. 73, paragraph 2(a)(3)(iii). This ground training 
topic places blade stall in parentheticals. This formatting leads the 
reader to believe that low rotor RPM and blade stall are synonymous. 
However, they are different topics; low RPM is the onset of the 
emergency, and stall is the state at which the aircraft becomes 
unrecoverable. Low rotor RPM is recoverable if identified early and 
immediately corrected. If this flight condition is not rectified and 
the rotor RPM continues to trend lower, blade stall may occur. Blade 
stall is a fatal condition where the rotor RPM is not recoverable.
    Furthermore, the term blade stall can be confused with retreating 
blade stall, which occurs at high forward speeds and has its own unique 
emergency/hazard situation. Rotor stall can occur at any airspeed, and 
the rotor quickly stops producing enough lift to support the 
helicopter, causing it to lose lift and descend rapidly.
    Changing the term blade stall to rotor stall would more accurately 
capture a consequence of low rotor RPM. Removing the parentheticals and 
labeling this ground topic as low rotor RPM and rotor stall would also 
better align SFAR No. 73 terminology with the HFH. As the terms are not 
synonymous and ground training currently must cover each independent 
topic, this proposed change is not substantive and would not expand the 
requirements set forth in SFAR No. 73.

I. Revise Term Certified and Certificated for Flight Instructors

    This NPRM proposes to remove ``certified'' and ``certificated'' 
from areas in this SFAR that reference flight instructors to align with 
part 61 definition of flight instructor and provide consistency. This 
SFAR would instead use the term ``flight instructor'' and identify the 
authorization requirement established in SFAR No. 73, paragraph 
2(b)(5)(iv) where appropriate throughout the SFAR. The flight 
instructor requirements outlined in SFAR No. 73, paragraph 2(b)(5) 
establish the aeronautical experience, training requirements, and 
demonstration of skills to receive authorization to perform ground and 
flight training identified in this rule. This authorization is 
documented by the issuance of an endorsement from an FAA aviation 
safety inspector or authorized designated pilot examiner.

J. R-22/R-44 Awareness Training Endorsement

    Flight instructors and pilots have misinterpreted the ground 
training endorsement identified in SFAR No. 73, paragraphs 2(a)(1) and 
2(a)(2) to be aircraft make and model specific.\26\ However, the ground 
training on the general subject areas listed in paragraph 2(a)(3) is 
given to increase awareness for the operation of both R-22 and R-44 
models and is not unique to either model. They have the same subject 
content, technical detail, and recovery techniques for both the 
Robinson model R-22 and R-44 helicopters. A person would receive model 
specific training during the flight training listed in SFAR No. 73, 
paragraph 2(b), Aeronautical Experience. Because the ground training 
covers general subject areas, the endorsement may be written to cover 
both aircraft. The FAA proposes to add a new paragraph to paragraph (a) 
clarifying that the ground training endorsement is intended to cover 
both Robinson model R-22 and R-44 helicopters.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ The FAA has received inquiries requesting clarification 
regarding SFAR No. 73 ground training endorsement and if it pertains 
to a specific Robinson model for training on general subject areas 
for the R-22 and R-44.
    \27\ The proposed addition would become new paragraph (a)(4), 
and existing (a)(4) governing endorsements for completing the 
manufacturer's safety course will be redesignated as paragraph 
(a)(5).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 71514]]

K. Add Expiration Date to SFAR No. 73

    SFAR No. 73 became effective on June 29, 2009, and does not have an 
expiration date. The proposed revision would add a five-year expiration 
date that starts on the effective date of a final rule adopting this 
notice of proposed rulemaking. Adding an expiration date to this SFAR 
would provide a timeframe for an assessment of how to move its R-22 and 
R-44 requirements for ground training, aeronautical experience, flight 
training, and flight reviews to a permanent location in a subchapter of 
14 CFR, chapter 1.

V. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    Federal agencies consider impacts of regulatory actions under a 
variety of executive orders and other requirements. First, Executive 
Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 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 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires 
agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small 
entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits 
agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to 
the foreign commerce of the United States. Fourth, the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to 
prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects 
of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate that may 
result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more 
(adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. The current 
threshold after adjustment for inflation is $177 million using the most 
current (2022) Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product.
    In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that this 
proposed rule: (1) will result in benefits that justify costs; (2) is 
not a ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of 
Executive Order 12866; (3) is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's 
Regulatory Policy and Procedures; (4) will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; (5) will not 
create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United 
States; and (6) will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or 
tribal governments, or on the private sector.

A. Regulatory Impact Analysis

    This proposal would remove a flight training requirement from SFAR 
No. 73 that cannot be currently performed in the aircraft because it is 
inconsistent with Airworthiness Directives (ADs) related to Robinson R-
22 and R-44. It is current practice not to perform the flight training 
maneuver notwithstanding the regulatory requirement in the SFAR; 
therefore, the proposed change imposes no new cost. The FAA expects the 
proposal to promote safety without imposing costs by clarifying 
requirements, eliminating inconsistencies, and updating language.
    The proposal is needed to resolve a contradiction between SFAR No. 
73, which requires low G maneuvers during flight training for Robinson 
R-22 and R-44 helicopters, and subsequent ADs that prohibit low G 
cyclic pushover maneuvers in these aircraft. The FAA originally 
promulgated SFAR No. 73 in 1995 in response to a series of fatal 
accidents attributed to pilot inexperience resulting in main rotor and 
airframe contact. To address these safety concerns, SFAR No. 73 
established special awareness training, aeronautical experience, 
endorsement, and flight review requirements for pilots operating 
Robinson R-22 and R-44 helicopters. However, within months, the FAA 
issued ADs requiring insertion of limitations in the rotorcraft flight 
manual and aircraft placards prohibiting low G cyclic pushover 
maneuvers. The proposal would remove the requirement for low G 
maneuvers during in-flight training from SFAR No. 73 while continuing 
ground training related to low G conditions and proper recovery 
procedures. The proposal would make other conforming changes to improve 
clarity and consistency without creating new information collections or 
requiring immediate changes to current industry or FAA publications and 
documents.
    Based on this information, the FAA has determined that the proposal 
would have minimal economic effects and pose no novel or legal policy 
issues. Therefore, the FAA has determined that this proposal is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of 
Executive Order 12866 and is not ``significant'' as defined by DOT's 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, (5 U.S.C. 601-612), 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996 (Pub. L. 104-121) and the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 
111-240,), 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 populations of less than 50,000.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA. 
However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, 
section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so 
certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The 
certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for 
this determination with a reasoned explanation.
    The FAA expects the proposal to have a minimal economic impact on 
small entities. The proposal applies most directly to providers of 
training for Robinson R22 and R44 helicopters. Some of these training 
providers are small entities. However, the proposal does not impose new 
burdens. The proposal would align SFAR No. 73 with current practice and 
Airworthiness Directives (ADs) related to Robinson R-22 and R-44 
helicopter training requirements. Total training hours remain the same. 
The proposal would also update language and make other conforming 
changes to improve clarity and consistency regarding training for 
Robinson R-22 and R-44 helicopters without imposing new recordkeeping 
or other requirements.
    If an agency determines that a rulemaking will not result in a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, 
the head of the agency may so certify under section 605(b) of the RFA. 
Therefore, the FAA proposes to certify that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The FAA welcomes comments on the basis of this certification.

C. International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal 
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities 
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign

[[Page 71515]]

commerce of the United States. Pursuant to these Acts, the 
establishment of standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to 
the foreign commerce of the United States, so long as the standard has 
a legitimate domestic objective, such 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 the proposal responds to a domestic safety objective. 
The FAA has determined that this proposed rule is not considered an 
unnecessary obstacle to trade.

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) 
governs the issuance of Federal regulations that require unfunded 
mandates. An unfunded mandate is a regulation that requires a State, 
local, or tribal government or the private sector to incur direct costs 
without the Federal government having first provided the funds to pay 
those costs. The FAA determined that the proposed rule will not result 
in the expenditure of $177 million or more by State, local, or tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector, in any one year. 
This proposed rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore, the 
requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

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. The FAA has determined that 
there would be no new requirement for information collection associated 
with this proposed rule.

F. International Compatibility

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on 
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to 
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and 
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has 
determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices 
that correspond to these proposed regulations.

G. Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1F identifies FAA actions that are categorically 
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or 
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy 
Act (NEPA) in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has 
determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical 
exclusion identified in paragraph 5-6.6f for regulations and involves 
no extraordinary circumstances.

VI. Executive Order Determinations

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and 
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The FAA 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.

B. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Consistent with Executive Order 13175, Consultation and 
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,\28\ and FAA Order 1210.20, 
American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Consultation Policy and 
Procedures,\29\ 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. At this 
point, the FAA has not identified any unique or significant effects, 
environmental or otherwise, on tribes resulting from this proposed 
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 6, 2000).
    \29\ FAA Order No. 1210.20 (Jan. 28, 2004), available at http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/1210.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    The FAA analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, 
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use. The FAA has determined that it would not be a 
``significant energy action'' under the executive order and would not 
be likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy.

D. Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory 
Cooperation

    Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory 
Cooperation, promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet 
shared challenges involving health, 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 would have no 
effect on international regulatory cooperation.

VII. Additional Information

A. Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this 
rulemaking by submitting 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. 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 copy of 
written comments if comments are filed in writing.
    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.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments 
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts 
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the 
commenter provides, to https://www.regulations.gov, as described in the 
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at 
https://www.dot.gov/privacy.

B. Confidential Business Information

    Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial 
information that is both customarily and

[[Page 71516]]

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 comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial 
or financial information that is 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 that is not specifically 
designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this 
rulemaking.

C. Electronic Access and Filing

    A copy of this NPRM, all comments received, any final rule, and all 
background material may be viewed online at https://www.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 Federal Register's website at https://www.federalregister.gov and the Government Publishing Office's website 
at https://www.govinfo.gov. A copy may also be found on the FAA's 
Regulations and Policies website at https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies.
    Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal 
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence 
Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9677. 
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 accessed in 
the electronic docket for this rulemaking.

D. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 
1996 requires the FAA to comply with small entity requests for 
information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations 
within its jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this 
document may contact its local FAA official or the person listed under 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the beginning of the 
preamble. To find out more about SBREFA on the internet, visit https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 61

    Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation 
Administration proposes to amend chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal 
Regulations as follows:

PART 61--CERTIFICATION: PILOTS, FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS, AND GROUND 
INSTRUCTORS

0
1. The authority citation for part 61 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701-44703, 44707, 
44709-44711, 44729, 44903, 45102-45103, 45301-45302.
0
2. Revise Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 73 to read as 
follows:

Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 73--Robinson Helicopter 
Company, Robinson R-22/R-44 Special Training and Experience 
Requirements

Sections
    1. Applicability.
    2. Required training, aeronautical experience, endorsements, and 
flight review.
    3. Expiration date.

    1. Applicability. Under the procedures prescribed herein, this SFAR 
applies to all persons who seek to manipulate the controls, act as 
pilot in command, provide ground training or flight training, or 
conduct a flight review in a Robinson model R-22 or R-44 helicopter. 
The requirements stated in this SFAR are in addition to the current 
requirements of part 61.
    2. Required training, aeronautical experience, endorsements, and 
flight review.
    (a) Ground Training:
    (1) Except as provided in paragraph 2(a)(2) of this SFAR, no person 
may manipulate the controls of a Robinson model R-22 or R-44 helicopter 
for the purpose of flight unless the ground training specified in 
paragraph 2(a)(3) of this SFAR is completed and the person's logbook 
has been endorsed by a flight instructor authorized under paragraph 
2(b)(5)(iv) of this SFAR.
    (2) A person who holds a rotorcraft category and helicopter class 
rating on that person's pilot certificate and meets the experience 
requirements of paragraph (b)(1) or paragraph 2(b)(2) of this SFAR may 
not manipulate the controls of a Robinson model R-22 or R-44 helicopter 
for the purpose of flight unless the ground training specified in 
paragraph 2(a)(3) of this SFAR is completed and the person's logbook 
has been endorsed by a flight instructor authorized under paragraph 
2(b)(5)(iv) of this SFAR.
    (3) Ground training must be conducted by a flight instructor who 
has been authorized under paragraph 2(b)(5)(iv) of this SFAR and 
consists of instruction in the following general subject areas:
    (i) Energy management;
    (ii) Mast bumping;
    (iii) Low rotor RPM and rotor stall;
    (iv) Low G conditions, effects, and proper recovery procedures; and
    (v) Rotor RPM decay.
    (4) The general subject areas identified in paragraph 2(a)(3) of 
this SFAR are intended to cover both Robinson model R-22 and R-44 
helicopters.
    (5) A person who can show satisfactory completion of the 
manufacturer's safety course may obtain an endorsement from an FAA 
aviation safety inspector in lieu of completing the ground training 
required by paragraphs 2(a)(1) and 2(a)(2) of this SFAR.
    (b) Aeronautical Experience.
    (1) No person may act as pilot in command of a Robinson model R-22 
unless that person:
    (i) Has logged at least 200 flight hours in helicopters, at least 
50 flight hours of which were in the Robinson R-22; or
    (ii) Has logged at least 10 hours of flight training in the 
Robinson R-22 and has received an endorsement from a flight instructor 
authorized under paragraph 2(b)(5)(iv) of this SFAR that the individual 
has been given the training required by this paragraph and is 
proficient to act as pilot in command of an R-22. The flight training 
must include at least the following abnormal and emergency procedures:
    (A) Training in autorotation procedures and energy management, 
including utilizing a combination of flight control inputs and 
maneuvering to prevent overshooting or undershooting the selected 
landing area from an entry altitude that permits safe recovery;
    (B) Autorotations at an entry altitude that permits safe 
maneuvering and recovery utilizing maximum glide configuration;
    (C) Engine rotor RPM control without the use of the governor; and
    (D) Low rotor RPM recognition and recovery.

[[Page 71517]]

    (iii) Pilots who do not meet the experience requirement of 
paragraph 2(b)(1)(i) of this SFAR may not act as pilot in command of a 
Robinson R-22 beginning 12 calendar months after the date of the 
endorsement identified in paragraph 2(b)(1)(ii) of this SFAR until 
those pilots have:
    (A) Completed a flight review of the ground training subject areas 
identified by paragraph 2(a)(3) of this SFAR and the flight training 
identified in paragraph 2(b)(1)(ii) of this SFAR in an R-22; and
    (B) Obtained an endorsement for that flight review from a flight 
instructor authorized under paragraph 2(b)(5)(iv) of this SFAR.
    (2) No person may act as pilot in command of a Robinson R-44 unless 
that person--
    (i) Has logged at least 200 flight hours in helicopters, at least 
50 flight hours of which were in the Robinson R-44. The pilot in 
command may credit up to 25 flight hours in the Robinson R-22 toward 
the 50-hour requirement in the Robinson R-44; or
    (ii) Has logged at least 10 hours of flight training in a Robinson 
helicopter, at least 5 hours of which must have been accomplished in 
the Robinson R-44 helicopter, and has received an endorsement from a 
flight instructor authorized under paragraph 2(b)(5)(iv) of this SFAR, 
that the individual has been given the training required by this 
paragraph 2(b)(2)(ii) and is proficient to act as pilot in command of 
an R-44. The flight training must include at least the following 
abnormal and emergency procedures--
    (A) Training in autorotation procedures and energy management, 
including utilizing a combination of flight control inputs and 
maneuvering to prevent overshooting or undershooting the selected 
landing area from an entry altitude that permits safe recovery;
    (B) Autorotations at an entry altitude that permits safe 
maneuvering and recovery utilizing minimum rate of descent 
configuration and maximum glide configuration;
    (C) Engine rotor RPM control without the use of the governor; and
    (D) Low rotor RPM recognition and recovery.
    (iii) Pilots who do not meet the experience requirement of 
paragraph 2(b)(2)(i) of this SFAR may not act as pilot in command of a 
Robinson R-44 beginning 12 calendar months after the date of the 
endorsement identified in paragraph 2(b)(2)(ii) of this SFAR until 
those pilots have:
    (A) Completed a flight review of the ground training subject areas 
identified by paragraph 2(a)(3) and the flight training identified in 
paragraph 2(b)(2)(ii) of this SFAR in an R-44; and
    (B) Obtained an endorsement for that flight review from a flight 
instructor authorized under paragraph 2(b)(5)(iv) of this SFAR.
    (3) A person who does not hold a rotorcraft category and helicopter 
class rating must have logged at least 20 hours of flight training in a 
Robinson R-22 helicopter from a flight instructor authorized under 
paragraph 2(b)(5)(iv) of this SFAR prior to operating it in solo 
flight. In addition, the person must obtain an endorsement, from a 
flight instructor authorized under paragraph 2(b)(5)(iv) of this SFAR, 
that training has been given in those maneuvers and procedures, and the 
instructor has found the applicant proficient to solo a Robinson R-22. 
This endorsement is valid for a period of 90 days. The flight training 
must include at least the following abnormal and emergency procedures:
    (i) Training in autorotation procedures and energy management, 
including utilizing a combination of flight control inputs and 
maneuvering to prevent overshooting or undershooting the selected 
landing area from an entry altitude that permits safe recovery;
    (ii) Autorotations at an entry altitude that permits safe 
maneuvering and recovery utilizing maximum glide configuration;
    (iii) Engine rotor RPM control without the use of the governor; and
    (iv) Low rotor RPM recognition and recovery.
    (4) A person who does not hold a rotorcraft category and helicopter 
class rating must have logged at least 20 hours of flight training in a 
Robinson R-44 helicopter from a flight instructor authorized under 
paragraph 2(b)(5)(iv) of this SFAR prior to operating it in solo 
flight. In addition, the person must obtain an endorsement, from a 
flight instructor authorized under paragraph 2(b)(5)(iv) of this SFAR, 
that training has been given in those maneuvers and procedures, and the 
instructor has found the applicant proficient to solo a Robinson R-44. 
This endorsement is valid for a period of 90 days. The flight training 
must include at least the following abnormal and emergency procedures:
    (i) Training in autorotation procedures and energy management, 
including utilizing a combination of flight control inputs and 
maneuvering to prevent overshooting or undershooting the selected 
landing area from an entry altitude that permits safe recovery;
    (ii) Autorotations at an entry altitude that permits safe 
maneuvering and recovery utilizing minimum rate of descent 
configuration and maximum glide configuration;
    (iii) Engine rotor RPM control without the use of the governor and
    (iv) Low rotor RPM recognition and recovery.
    (5) No flight instructor may provide training or conduct a flight 
review in a Robinson R-22 or R-44 unless that instructor--
    (i) Completes the ground training in paragraph 2(a) of this SFAR.
    (ii) For the Robinson R-22, has logged at least 200 flight hours in 
helicopters, at least 50 flight hours of which were in the Robinson R-
22, or for the Robinson R-44, logged at least 200 flight hours in 
helicopters, 50 flight hours of which were in Robinson helicopters. Up 
to 25 flight hours of Robinson R-22 flight time may be credited toward 
the 50-hour requirement.
    (iii) Has completed flight training in a Robinson R-22, R-44, or 
both, on the following abnormal and emergency procedures--
    (A) Training in autorotation procedures and energy management, 
including utilizing a combination of flight control inputs and 
maneuvering to prevent overshooting or undershooting the selected 
landing area from an entry altitude that permits safe recovery;
    (B) For the Robinson R-22, autorotations at an entry altitude that 
permits safe maneuvering and recovery utilizing maximum glide 
configuration. For the Robinson R-44, autorotations at an entry 
altitude that permits safe maneuvering and recovery utilizing maximum 
glide configuration and minimum rate of descent configuration;
    (C) Engine rotor RPM control without the use of the governor; and
    (D) Low rotor RPM recognition and recovery.
    (iv) Has been authorized by endorsement from an FAA aviation safety 
inspector or authorized designated examiner that the instructor has 
completed the appropriate training, meets the experience requirements, 
and has satisfactorily demonstrated an ability to provide training on 
the general subject areas of paragraph 2(a)(3) of this SFAR, and the 
flight training identified in paragraph 2(b)(5)(iii) of this SFAR.
    (c) Flight Review:
    (1) No flight review completed to satisfy Sec.  61.56 by an 
individual after becoming eligible to function as pilot in command in a 
Robinson R-22 helicopter shall be valid for the operation of an R-22 
helicopter unless that flight review was taken in an R-22.
    (2) No flight review completed to satisfy Sec.  61.56 by an 
individual after becoming eligible to function as pilot in command in a 
Robinson R-44

[[Page 71518]]

helicopter shall be valid for the operation of an R-44 helicopter 
unless that flight review was taken in the R-44.
    (3) The flight review will include a review of the ground training 
subject areas of paragraph 2(a)(3) of this SFAR and flight training in 
abnormal and emergency procedures, in the Robinson R-22 or R-44 
helicopter, as appropriate, identified in paragraph 2(b) of this SFAR.
    (d) Currency Requirements: No person may act as pilot in command of 
a Robinson model R-22 or R-44 helicopter carrying passengers unless the 
pilot in command has met the recency of flight experience requirements 
of Sec.  61.57 in an R-22 or R-44, as appropriate.
    3. Expiration date. This SFAR No. 73 expires [DATE FIVE YEARS AFTER 
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE] unless sooner revised or rescinded.

    Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a), 
and 44703 in Washington, DC.
Wesley L. Mooty,
Acting Deputy Executive, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-22634 Filed 10-16-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


