At the National Business Aviation Administration-Business Aviation Convention and Exhibition (NBAA-BACE) in Las Vegas, FAA Administrator Mike Whitaker signed the SFAR, which contains initial operational rules and pilot training requirements for powered-lift aircraft and will remain in effect for 10 years.

“It’s here today,” Whitaker told NBAA-BACE attendees Tuesday morning. “It is now a final rule.”

The FAA called the SFAR the “final piece in the puzzle” for introducing powered-lift aircraft, which could begin flying passengers, cargo, and even ambulance services in rural and urban areas as soon as next year.

The category is a relatively new, special class of aircraft covering designs that take off vertically like a helicopter but cruise on fixed wings like an airplane. To be considered powered-lift, the aircraft must generate lift primarily from its engines—which can be electric, hydrogen, or hybrid-powered—while relying on rigid components, usually wings, for horizontal flight. They will become the first new category of civil aircraft since helicopters were introduced in the 1940s.

The FAA sometimes refers to these as vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) or advanced air mobility (AAM) aircraft, the latter term covering new aircraft technology more broadly.

For years, the agency communicated to the aviation industry that there would be a pathway for powered-lift designs—such as electric air taxis being developed by Joby Aviation, Archer Aviation, and others—to be certified as Part 23 normal category aircraft.

But the regulator unexpectedly reversed course in 2022, determining instead that they would be certified as Part 21 special class aircraft. That kicked off a yearslong effort to develop an entirely new set of rules for powered-lift pilot training, operations, maintenance, and more.

The FAA last year released a proposal addressing several of those areas. It was panned by a collective of industry groups, however, who argued that the proposed pilot training requirements were too strict. They also clamored for performance-based operational rules—drawing from aircraft and rotorcraft guidelines as appropriate—rather than the creation of a new powered-lift operational category, as the FAA proposed.

FAA and Department of Transportation officials have promised to address the industry’s concerns. According to Whitaker, the SFAR does exactly that.

“For the last 80 years, we’ve had two types [of aircraft], rotor and fixed wing,” he said. “We now have a third type…and this rule will create an operating environment so these companies can figure out how to train pilots. They can figure out how to operate.”

The SFAR applies helicopter rules to certain phases of powered-lift flight, regardless of whether the aircraft is operating like a helicopter or an airplane. But in response to the industry’s feedback, it uses performance-based rules for certain operations, applying airplane, rotorcraft, or helicopter rules as appropriate.

For example, powered-lift aircraft can use helicopter minimums for VFR and IFR fuel requirements and minimum safe altitudes when they are capable of performing a vertical landing at any point along the route, as a helicopter is. This will allow manufacturers to get around the issue of low battery energy density, for example, by lowering the fuel reserve requirement.

“The rulemaking approach now is to really focus on performance and making sure you can prove that you can operate safely, or you can meet certain performance metrics, rather than being prescriptive and telling you exactly how to do it,” Whitaker said. “So we’re trying to create a larger envelope to have different means of compliance for some of the requirements and the rules.”

The approach mirrors the European Union Aviation Safety Agency’s (EASA) special class for VTOL (SC-VTOL) rules, which base operational guidelines on situational factors—like reserve fuel levels—instead of aircraft design. It’s a change that will be welcomed by manufacturers, who can now design aircraft for a wide range of operations rather than those defined by a narrow powered-lift category.

“We need to have the flexibility to allow these businesses to succeed, do so safely, and adjust our approach as we go along,” Whitaker said.

The other major difference between the SFAR and the FAA’s initial proposal is the creation of a pathway to train powered-lift pilots with a single set of flight controls. Some programs will still require dual controls. But throwover controls and simulator training will be acceptable substitutes. The change is a big one, as many powered-lift manufacturers designed their aircraft—including trainers—with single controls.

“Some pilot training can happen in the normal way that it’s always happened, with an instructor that has a set of controls and a student that has a set of controls,” Whitaker said. “But sometimes it’s a single set of controls that are accessible to an instructor, so we have rules that allow for that type of operation. And sometimes they have other configurations. So there again, we put in performance metrics to make sure that the companies can train instructors, and the instructors can train pilots.”

Last year, the FAA released a blueprint intended to serve as a framework for policymakers, describing a “crawl-walk-fly” approach to integrate powered-lift designs alongside conventional aircraft. The agency predicts they will initially use existing helicopter routes and infrastructure, and pilots will communicate with air traffic control as needed.

But Whitaker on Tuesday said the FAA will continue developing a new ecosystem for powered-lift aircraft. Critical to its blueprint is the construction of vertiports: vertical takeoff and landing sites equipped with electric chargers and other powered-lift infrastructure.

“The blueprint that we put in place 16 months ago for introducing this technology includes vertiports, and we’ll continue to work on that issue,” Whitaker said.

Plenty more work must be done in order for powered-lift designs to take to the skies at scale. But the SFAR gives the industry a practical pathway to begin flying.

Like this story? We think you’ll also like the Future of FLYING newsletter sent every Thursday afternoon. Sign up now.

The post FAA Finalizes Rules for Powered-Lift Aircraft appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The audit, published last week, details years of internal strife, mismanagement, and fragmented communication it claims have unnecessarily delayed the certification and regulation of advanced air mobility (AAM) aircraft, such as air taxis. The DOT issued four recommendations to the FAA—with which it concurred—but said the agency “will likely continue to face challenges.”

The FAA, in response, reiterated its commitment to safety: “Our mission is to create a space for this industry where innovation incorporates the high level of safety that defines modern aviation,” the agency told FLYING in an email.

“We are making steady and significant progress in certifying aircraft and pilots and the planning for integrating these aircraft into the airspace. We’ll be ready for air taxi operators when they’re ready to fly safely.”

In August 2020, ranking members of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and its Subcommittee on Aviation, noticing the slow pace of AAM certification and regulation, requested the DOT investigate FAA procedures.

Then, in March 2022, the DOT launched an audit “to determine FAA’s progress in establishing the basis for certification of AAM aircraft, including ensuring the safety of novel features [such as electric engines] and providing guidance to applicants.”

Over the following 14 months, the agency reviewed federal regulations, rulemaking documents, and a host of other FAA documentation. It also conducted interviews with FAA representatives, executives, and personnel, as well as AAM certification applicants and aviation industry groups.

Concluded in May, the audit paints the picture of an agency in dysfunction, bogged down by disagreement and lethargic decision-making that continues to hamper progress on AAM. It identified three major deficiencies in the FAA’s approach:

• Undue time spent determining the proper AAM certification pathway
• Steep regulatory challenges in establishing the special-class powered-lift certification category for eVTOL
• Lack of clarity around the role of the Center for Emerging Concepts and Innovation

Below, we dive into the report’s key findings—and the DOT’s recommendations—in detail:

The Powered-Lift Predicament

As the audit notes, the conditions that created the FAA’s current regulatory Rubik’s cube can be traced back more than a quarter of a century. 

In 1997, the agency defined an aircraft category called “powered-lift,” which it described as “aircraft capable of vertical takeoff, vertical landing, and low speed flight that depends principally on engines during those phases of flight, and on wings during horizontal flight.”

Sound familiar? This definition of powered-lift closely describes the way early eVTOL aircraft are expected to fly, but not quite. And though the FAA did amend pilot certification regulations to establish a powered-lift category rating, it never developed powered-lift airworthiness standards or operating rules.

Therein lies the problem. According to the audit, some within the FAA believed air taxis fit the 1997 definition well enough to be certified as special-class powered-lift aircraft under section 21.17(b). Others, worried by the lack of regulation around powered-lift, preferred to certify them under section 21.17(a) as normal category airplanes with special conditions.

The latter group would get its way. In 2017, the FAA began revising airworthiness standards for normal category airplanes, which some personnel told auditors were designed to introduce fixed-wing AAM aircraft into that category. However, the rule specified that some AAM aircraft resembling rotorcraft—Alakai’s AH2-1 or Moog’s SureFly 250, for example—would be certified under the special category of section 21.17(b). 

The lack of a universal path to certification created a divide within the FAA, the DOT claims. According to the audit, there were sizable factions supporting either sections 21.17(a) or 21.17(b).

For example, the FAA in 2017 began the process of authorizing powered-lift aircraft for commercial operations under Parts 110 and 119. But between 2018 and 2022, management continued to push for AAM certification in the airplane category. They abandoned efforts to enable commercial powered-lift operations in 2021, instead attempting to remove the category from the books altogether.

The auditors claim, according to interviews, this move created internal conflict and low morale, inhibiting AAM rulemaking. Per a 2021 survey of the Flight Standards Service’s Office of Aviation Safety Standards, respondents claimed FAA top brass injected “personal bias” into AAM decision-making. Some were afraid to bring up potential issues due to “intimidation by higher management or fear of a decision being preordained,” the report concluded.

In response to the audit, the FAA pushed back on the DOT’s assessment: “Through [internal discussions], the FAA decided on a path that would ensure a viable operational strategy for these projects. The wide-ranging discussions did not adversely affect the applicants’ programs and will better ensure a successful integration of their aircraft into the National Airspace System.”

However, despite external communication that AAM aircraft would be certified as airplanes, the FAA last year reversed course—a move several applicants claim caught them off guard.

Reversing Course and the Challenge Ahead

Just one year after the FAA decided to scrap the powered-lift category, the agency did a complete 180-degree turnaround. Following a few senior personnel changes, it announced in May 2022 that AAM aircraft would now be certified as special-class powered-lift aircraft under section 21.17(b). 

Finally, after four years, it had settled on a standard. But the decision took AAM applicants, who had been planning certification within the normal airplane category, by surprise—and it could cause the FAA headaches down the line.

The audit criticized the FAA’s external communication (or lack thereof) of its AAM certification path. Interviews with applicants revealed concerns about meeting certification timelines, and some worried a delayed U.S. launch could muck up their planned launches in other markets.

The change in certification also means the FAA must reissue certification bases to applicants. So far, it’s provided new guidance to Joby and Archer Aviation, as well as German eVTOL manufacturer Lilium. The agency said it will also make minor changes to two other aircraft certification bases awarded under section 21.17(a).

But there’s a bigger issue. As noted earlier, there are no airworthiness standards or operating rules for powered-lift aircraft. That means the FAA must develop an entirely new set of regulations, which it began doing in early 2022 through a Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR).

The SFAR was initially slated to appear in the Federal Register this past spring but instead published this month. Now, stakeholders have 48 days to provide comments, which the FAA said it will use to develop a final rule by 2024. That’s just one year before several air taxi firms, such as Archer and Joby Aviation, plan to enter service.

Because the agency created a powered-lift category pilot rating in 1997, there is no way for civilian pilots to operate AAM aircraft—the rule calls for them to have experience flying powered-lift civilian aircraft, none of which have been certified. The proposed SFAR would circumvent this by approving an initial group of powered-lift pilots. It would also determine which operating rules apply to powered-lift aircraft.

But the 1997 powered-lift definition creates another problem. Per FAA regulations, powered-lift aircraft cannot operate as “air carriers,” meaning they cannot fly passengers or cargo commercially. 

To address this, the FAA had to retread previous steps. In December, it published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to revisit the previously proposed revisions to Parts 110 and 119 that would have authorized commercial powered-lift operations. Had the rule been finalized back in 2017, it would have kept the agency on schedule, FAA technical staff told the DOT.

So far, the agency has published an AAM blueprint and told FLYING it will release an initial integration plan next month. But neither is comprehensive, and the DOT warned it also has “many years” of work ahead to create airspace management and infrastructure regulations.

“The [FAA] will likely continue to face challenges as it progresses through the certification process for AAM aircraft, including reviewing novel features and establishing new operational regulations,” the auditors noted.

Communication on CECI

The Center for Emerging Concepts and Innovation (CECI) was founded in 2020 within the Policy and Innovation Division of the FAA’s Aircraft Certification Service. But few within the FAA or the AAM industry seem to know what CECI does.

The audit found CECI does not sufficiently adhere to Government Accountability Office standards and that the FAA has not established proper policies, procedures, or communications around its role in certification.

Internal communications around CECI are fragmented, the DOT said. The FAA said it assists in initial certification activities and projects that have significant innovative technologies. But several FAA staff, managers, and field offices remain uncertain of its responsibilities.

In 2021, the agency attempted to solve this problem by creating an Intake Board, which routed AAM applications either to CECI officers or local certification offices. But it has not shared details on this process with external stakeholders. Another effort involved the creation of an AAM Integration Executive Council, which convened once in April 2021 but has not conducted a formal meeting since.

The FAA did note, though, it will publish new details on CECI’s role internally and externally by December 30. It also finalized a reorganization of its Aviation Safety Office in April, co-locating CECI managers with project officers from the Certification Coordination office.

“This move streamlines and combines all certification engagement activities, both pre-application and during formal project execution, under one branch manager with authority to oversee the division of tasks and clean handoff of early engagement projects to the certification team at the appropriate time,” the agency said in response to the audit.

Change in the Air

In response to the audit’s findings, the DOT made four recommendations to the FAA, all of which the agency concurred.

Two call for the acceleration of the SFAR for powered-lift pilot certification and operations and the NRPM for powered-lift integration into Parts 110 and 119. For each, the DOT requested the FAA create a plan for completion of rulemaking that includes milestones and a process for updating stakeholders.

Another recommendation asks the agency to identify the causes of insufficient communication and AAM decision-making, requesting it develop a process for managing disagreement on future projects. And the last calls for new policies and procedures explaining CECI’s role in certification.

In response, the FAA said it would implement the latter two requests by December 31. By then, it will provide an update to the DOT on the actions it will take to address the first two.

“The FAA is fully committed to carrying out rulemaking and organizational measures—some of which are already underway—to address the issues raised by [DOT] and improve the efficiency and clarity of the processes for advanced air mobility (AAM) aircraft certification and entry into service,” the agency said. “By doing these steps, FAA maintains its commitment to the appropriate and necessary level of safety expected by the flying public.”

If those words are any indication, there are some major changes in store at the FAA. Based on the DOT’s assessment, they’ll be needed in order to get air taxi routes—several of which are planned for airports by 2025—off the ground.

The post DOT: Internal Strife ‘Hindered FAA’s Progress’ on AAM Regs appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The regulator released a draft notice of proposed rulemaking, or NPRM, that would update the definition of air carriers to include powered-lift aircraft under the regulations covering commercial operations including airlines, charters, and air tours.

• READ MORE: FAA Reveals Airworthiness Criteria for Joby’s JAS4-1

“This rule lays the foundation that will allow operators to use powered-lift aircraft,” the FAA said in the announcement.

For aircraft manufacturers, operators, and potential passengers, the FAA notice is a promising step toward development of a regulatory structure necessary for eVTOLs to enter service. The proposed changes also could ease the certification process for eVTOLs and other powered-lift aircraft.

“By adding the category of vertical-lift aircraft to the existing regulatory framework for commercial aircraft operations, the FAA continues to demonstrate U.S. leadership toward safely bringing revolutionary technologies to market,” a Joby Aviation spokesperson said.

The lack of rules governing eVTOL operations and the potentially long process for developing them have long been foreseen as obstacles to the nascent eVTOL industry. 

“The FAA proposes to amend the regulatory definitions of certain air carrier and commercial operations,” the FAA said in its proposal, adding, “This proposed rule would add powered-lift to these definitions to ensure the appropriate sets of rules apply to air carriers’ and certain commercial operators’ operations of aircraft that FAA regulations define as powered-lift.

“This rule is an important step in the FAA’s integration of new entrant aircraft in the National Airspace System.”

In part because it is unclear how long the full integration of powered-lift aircraft into the airspace system might take, the FAA said it would allow the aircraft to operate under certain temporary provisions.

“In addition to this rulemaking, the FAA is proposing a Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR), ‘Integration of Powered-Lift: Pilot Certification and Operations,’ to establish temporary operating and airman certification regulations for powered-lift,” the agency said. The SFAR would allow powered-lift operations to begin while the FAA collects data needed to establish permanent regulations.

The post FAA Proposes Regulations To Ease eVTOL Certification appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Note: The FAA has temporarily unpublished the SFAR to make updates. The new ruling will be published on May 4.

The FAA has published on April 29, 2020, a SFAR (special federal aviation regulation) regarding the extension of certain pilot and technician recency of experience, testing, and medical certification requirements in response to the international crisis triggered by the COVID-19 outbreak. The agency addresses in detail the specific areas of mitigation involved, and the actions and financial burdens expected from compliance—or that would be precipitated if the FAA took no action.

Most relevant to active pilots and instructors are the sections covering recency of experience requirements, flight testing, flight reviews, and medical certification requirements. In part, these are outlined below, but please reference the text of the SFAR for detailed guidance, and for areas of special operations, including those for technicians and IAs, and remote-piloted aircraft operators.

Flight reviews due during the period from March to June 2020 have up to a three-month extension. According to the SFAR: “The three calendar month extension applies to pilots who were current to act as PIC of an aircraft in March 2020 and whose flight review was due in March 2020 through June 2020. To mitigate any safety risk, the pilot must have logged at least 10 hours of PIC time within the twelve calendar months preceding the month the flight review was due. This flight time must be obtained in an aircraft for which that pilot is rated.” Pilots must complete an online seminar for WINGS credits sometime after January 2020 to meet the requirements of the extension.

Instrument pilot currency or recency of experience has been extended. The FAA has granted an additional three months to the normal six-month cycle, under certain provisions. “The FAA is extending the six calendar month requirement of §61.57(c)(1) by an additional three calendar months. This will enable a pilot to continue exercising instrument privileges, provided the pilot has performed the required tasks within the nine calendar months preceding the month of the flight, instead of the preceding six calendar months. To be eligible for the relief, a pilot will need to have some recent experience in instrument flight. More specifically, the FAA is requiring that the pilot have logged, in the preceding six calendar months, three instrument approaches in actual weather conditions, or under simulated conditions using a view-limiting device. Eligible pilots may exercise the relief in this SFAR through June 30, 2020.”

Private pilots conducting charity flights and other essential operations are permitted under certain criteria. The SFAR gives guidance that pilots must meet recency of experience within the past 12 months in order to qualify. “This relief applies to some operations conducted by pilots exercising private pilot privileges, provided the pilot has at least 500 hours of total time as a pilot of which 400 hours is as PIC and 50 of the PIC hours were accrued in the last 12 calendar months. The kinds of operations permitted are those that are: incidental to business or employment, in support of family medical needs or to transport essential goods for personal use, necessary to fly an aircraft to a location in order to meet a requirement of this chapter, or a flight to transport essential goods and/or medical supplies to support public health needs.”

Valid period for medical certificates has been extended. Because the medical exam is by necessity in-person and not an emergency or urgent examination, the FAA has lengthened the period during which a pilot can renew their certificate to the end of June 2020—if the pilot’s expiration month was as early as March 2020. In addition, pilots must still adhere—wisely—to the restriction from flying with a known, disqualifying medical issue. “The FAA notes that the provisions of this SFAR do not extend to the requirements of §61.53 regarding prohibition on operations during medical deficiency. These prohibitions remain critical for all pilots to observe, especially given the policy of emergency accommodation announced here and the health threat of COVID-19. Accordingly, the FAA emphasizes that under §61.53, no person who holds a medical certificate issued under 14 CFR part 67 may act as a required pilot flight crewmember while that person: (1) knows or has reason to know of any medical condition that would make the person unable to meet the requirements for the medical certificate necessary for the pilot operation; or (2) is taking medication or receiving other treatment for a medical condition that results in the person being unable to meet the requirements for the medical certificate necessary for the pilot operation.”

Pilot knowledge test expiration dates have been extended. Depending on the certification level, the results of a knowledge exam are generally valid for presentation at a practical test for a period of 24 calendar months—60 months in the case of the multiengine ATP. The FAA figures that roughly 60,000 pilots took knowledge exams whose valid period may be expiring during the period between March and May 2020. “To ensure these individuals are not penalized by having to take another knowledge test, the FAA is extending the validity of knowledge tests by a duration of three calendar months. Therefore, this SFAR will allow an individual who has a knowledge test expiring between March 2020 and June 2020 to present the expired knowledge test to show eligibility under §61.39(a)(1) to take a practical test for a certificate or rating issued under part 61 for an additional three calendar months.”

For more details, please view the full SFAR content here.

The post FAA Publishes SFAR Extending Pilot, Technician Requirements appeared first on FLYING Magazine.