[Federal Register: July 27, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 143)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 44771-44882]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr27jy04-21]
[[Page 44771]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Department of Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Aviation Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14 CFR Parts 1, 21, et al.
Certification of Aircraft and Airmen for the Operation of Light-Sport
Aircraft; Final Rule
[[Page 44772]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 1, 21, 43, 45, 61, 65, and 91
[Docket No. FAA-2001-11133; Amendment No. 1-53; 21-85; 43-39; 45-24;
61-110; 65-45; 91-282]
RIN 2120--AH19
Certification of Aircraft and Airmen for the Operation of Light-
Sport Aircraft
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FAA is creating a new rule for the manufacture,
certification, operation, and maintenance of light-sport aircraft.
Light-sport aircraft weigh less than 1,320 pounds (1,430 pounds for
aircraft intended for operation on water) and are heavier and faster
than ultralight vehicles and include airplanes, gliders, balloons,
powered parachutes, weight-shift-control aircraft, and gyroplanes. This
action is necessary to address advances in sport and recreational
aviation technology, lack of appropriate regulations for existing
aircraft, several petitions for rulemaking, and petitions for
exemptions from existing regulations. The intended effect of this
action is to provide for the manufacture of safe and economical
certificated aircraft that exceed the limits currently allowed by
ultralight regulation, and to allow operation of these aircraft by
certificated pilots for sport and recreation, to carry a passenger, and
to conduct flight training and towing in a safe manner.
DATES: Effective September 1, 2004.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions on airman certification
and operational issues (parts 1, 61, and 91 of title 14, Code of
Federal Regulations (14 CFR)), contact Susan Gardner, Flight Standards
Service, General Aviation and Commercial Division (AFS-800), Federal
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC
20591; telephone 907-271-2034 or 202-267-8212.
For questions on aircraft certification and identification (14 CFR
parts 21 and 45), contact Scott Sedgwick, Aircraft Certification
Service, Small Airplane Directorate (ACE-100), Federal Aviation
Administration, 901 Locust Street, Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone
816-329-2464; fax 816-329-4090; e-mail
9-ACE-AVR-SPORTPILOT-QUESTIONS@faa.gov.
For questions on aircraft maintenance and repairman certification
(14 CFR parts 43 and 65), contact Bill O'Brien, Aircraft Maintenance
Division (AFS-305), Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence
Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-3796.
In addition, information on the implementation of this rule is
available on http://AFS600.faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability of Rulemaking Documents
You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by--
(1) Searching the Department of Transportation's (DOT) electronic
Docket Management System (DMS) Web page (http://dms.dot.gov/search). (2) Visiting the FAA Office of Rulemaking's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/index.cfn.
(3) Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://
http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html.
You can also get a copy by submitting a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680.
Identify the amendment number or docket number of this rulemaking.
You may search the electronic form of all comments received into
any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment
(or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, or labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy
Act statement in the April 11, 2000 Federal Register (65 FR 19477) or
at http://dms.dot.gov.
Implementation Information
The FAA spent a considerable amount of time determining the
effective date of the final rule. Based on a review of the planning and
scheduling of the tasks necessary to support the development of the
infrastructure to implement the final rule, the agency believes that it
had two options in determining this date. The first option was to
establish the effective date of the rule after all of the guidance,
policy, and infrastructure was in place to implement the rule. The FAA
considered the economic impact of delaying the implementation of the
rule while waiting for all of this material to be completed and
believes that such action would not be in the best interest of those
persons affected by the rule. Additionally, the complexity of the rule
and the interrelationship among many of its new provisions makes the
use of more than a single effective date for the rule difficult to
implement. The second option was to select an effective date shortly
after publication of the rule in the Federal Register. The FAA could
then provide the public with many of the benefits of the rule while
concurrently carrying out a plan for implementing other portions of the
rule. The plan will contain milestones for completion of the specific
guidance, policy, and infrastructure necessary for the public to
conduct operations and seek certification under the new regulations.
Selection of this option, for example, will permit currently
certificated pilots to take advantage of many of the benefits of the
new rule, such as those provisions relating to the exercise of sport
pilot privileges without the necessity of holding an airman medical
certificate. The infrastructure to implement other provisions of the
rule can be developed during this period.
Due to the agency's intent to provide the public with as many of
the benefits of the rule as soon as possible, the agency has
established a single effective date of September 1, 2004 for the final
rule. Shortly after publication of this rule, the FAA will post an
implementation plan for the rule on the FAA Sport Pilot and Light-Sport
Aircraft Web site, http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/ sportpilot or http://AFS600.faa.gov.
The FAA recognizes that persons seeking certification
as airmen under the rule or seeking the certification of light-sport
aircraft under the rule will not be able to obtain such certification
immediately after the rule's effective date. The FAA, however, will
work closely with the sport aviation community and those organizations
that support its members to ensure that each milestone on the FAA's
implementation plan is met and that information regarding
implementation of the rule is made available in a timely manner.
The FAA has also reissued exemptions to the Experimental Aircraft
Association (EAA), the United States Ultralight Organization (USUA),
and Aero Sports Connection (ASC) that address flight training in
ultralight vehicles. These revised exemptions from certain provisions
of 14 CFR part 103 contain an expiration date of January 31, 2008. This
date coincides with the date established to transition existing
ultralight training vehicles, single and two-place ultralight-like
aircraft, and ultralight operators and instructors to the provisions of
the final rule.
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
[[Page 44773]]
advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its
jurisdiction. Therefore, any small entity that has a question regarding
this document may contact its local FAA official, or the person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT above. You can find out more
about SBREFA on the Internet at http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/sbrefa.htm.
Guide to Terms and Acronyms Frequently Used in This Document
AD--Airworthiness Directive
AGL--Above ground level
AME--Aviation Medical Examiner
ARAC--Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee
ASC-- Aero Sports Connection
ATC--Air traffic control
BAA-- Bilateral Airworthiness Agreement
BASA-- Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement
CAS--Calibrated airspeed
DAR--Designated Airworthiness Representative
DPE--Designated pilot examiner
EAA--Experimental Aircraft Association
Experimental light-sport aircraft--Aircraft issued an experimental
certificate under Sec. 21.191(i)
IFR--Instrument flight rules
LTA--Lighter-than-air
MSL--Mean sea level
NAS--National Airspace System
NM--Nautical mile
NTSB--National Transportation Safety Board
PMA--Parts Manufacturer Approval
SFAR--Special Federal Aviation Regulation
Special light-sport aircraft--Aircraft issued a special
airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category (or, aircraft
issued a special airworthiness certificate under Sec. 21.190)
STC--Supplemental type certificate
TC--Type certificate
TSO--Technical Standard Order
Ultralight-like aircraft--An unregistered aircraft that exceeds the
parameters of part 103 and meets the definition of ``light-sport
aircraft''
USUA--United States Ultralight Association
VH--Maximum airspeed in level flight with maximum
continuous power
VNE--Maximum never-exceed speed
VS0--Maximum stalling speed or minimum steady flight
speed in landing configuration
VS1--Maximum stalling speed or minimum steady flight
speed without the use of lift-enhancing devices
Outline of This Document
I. The Proposed Rule
I.1. NPRM and On-Line Public Forum
I.2. Public Comment Period
I.3. Ex Parte Communications
II. Purpose of This Final Rule
III. General Discussion of Changes in the Final Rule
III.1. FAA Judgment and Discretion
III.2. Summary of Significant Issues Raised By Commenters
III.3. Security Concerns Related to Pilot Identification and
Certification
III.4. SFAR No. 89
III.5.A. Comments on Ultralight Vehicles
III.5.B. Future Rulemaking on Ultralight Vehicles
IV. Comparative Tables
V. Section-by-Section Discussion of Comments and Changes
Incorporated Into the Final Rule
V.1. Part 1
V.2. Part 21
V.3. Part 43
V.3.A. Part 43--General Issues
V.3.B. Part 43--Section-by-Section Discussion
V.4. Part 45
V.5. Part 61
V.5.A. Part 61--General Issues
V.5.A.i. SFAR No. 89 Conversion Table
V.5.A.ii. Medical Provisions
V.5.A.iii. Flight Training and Proficiency Requirements
V.5.A.iv. Make and Model Logbook Endorsements, and Sets of
Aircraft
V.5.A.v. Changes to Airspace Restrictions
V.5.A.vi. Changes to Altitude Limitations
V.5.A.vii. Gyroplanes
V.5.A.viii. Demonstration of Aircraft to Perspective Buyers
V.5.A.ix. Category and Class Discussion: FAA Form 8710-11
Submission
V.5.B. Part 61 Section-by-Section Discussion
V.6. Part 65
V.7. Part 91
V.7.A. Part 91--General Issues
V.7.B. Part 91--Section-by-Section Discussion
VI. Plain Language
VII. Paperwork Reduction Act
VIII. International Compatibility
IX. Economic Assessment
X. Regulatory Flexibility Determination
XI. Trade Impact Analysis
XII. Unfunded Mandates Assessment
XIII. Executive Order 3132, Federalism
XIV. Environmental Analysis
XV. Energy Impact
XVI. List of Subjects
I. The Proposed Rule
I.1. NPRM and On-Line Public Forum
On February 5, 2002 the FAA published the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM), ``Certification of Aircraft and Airmen for the
Operation of Light-Sport Aircraft'' (67 FR 5368; Feb. 5, 2002), and
requested comments by May 6, 2002. In addition, the FAA held an on-line
public forum from April 1, 2002, until April 19, 2002, during which
time the FAA posed 15 questions on the Internet. For a description of
the on-line public forum and a list of the 15 questions, see the FAA's
announcement published in the Federal Register on March 19, 2002 (67 FR
12826; March 19, 2002). The NPRM and the announcement of the on-line
public forum are in the public docket for this rulemaking.
I.2. Public Comment Period
The FAA received over 4,700 comments to the NPRM. Of those, 2,913
were in response to the publication of the NPRM in the Federal
Register, and approximately 1,800 additional comments came through the
on-line forum. To read the on-line forum comments, go to the electronic
docket address given above in the section entitled ``Availability of
Rulemaking Documents'' and view item number 2676 in Docket No. FAA-
2001-11133. A detailed discussion of the public's comments and the
FAA's responses are in ``V. Section-by-Section Discussion of Comments
and Changes Incorporated Into the Final Rule.''
Most commenters expressed fundamental agreement with the FAA's
intent in proposing the rule. While there were many comments containing
specific criticisms of the proposed rule and suggestions for how the
rule could be improved, few of the commenters expressed a complete
disagreement with the FAA's goal of providing for the manufacture of
safe and economical aircraft and to allow operation of these aircraft
by the public in a safe manner. Some comments contained numerous
specific suggestions and criticisms, yet were prefaced by a statement
of support for the FAA's efforts to make aviation more accessible to
the general public. It should be noted that, while not substantial in
number, several commenters expressed a fundamental disagreement with
the FAA's proposed action, based upon a lack of confidence in the
ultralight community. The commenters did not support these concerns
with accompanying data.
I.3. Ex Parte Communications
The FAA worked closely with industry associations on this
rulemaking in a number of ways. FAA staff conducted informational
sessions with interested groups to determine how these rules, if
adopted, should best be implemented. The FAA also assisted
manufacturers in the development of consensus standards for light-sport
aircraft. The Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) and others met
with the FAA repeatedly to urge the completion of this rulemaking as
quickly as possible so as to meet the public need for authority to
engage in activities permitted under this rule.
On occasion, FAA personnel met with interested organizations to
discuss specific aspects of the NPRM and to determine, based on
information received from these groups, how the NPRM should be
modified. The issues discussed, however, were also set out in
[[Page 44774]]
numerous comments to the public docket. These discussions, while of an
ex parte nature, have helped to develop a final rule that is responsive
to the comments. The revisions to the NPRM, as adopted in this final
rule, respond to written and oral concerns raised by individuals and
organizations. This final rule reflects the FAA's independent judgment
as to the appropriate level of safety for the manufacture and operation
of light-sport aircraft.
II. Purpose of This Rule
The FAA intends this rule to--
Increase safety in the light-sport aircraft community by
closing the gaps in existing regulations and by accommodating new
advances in technology.
Provide for the manufacture of light-sport aircraft that
are safe for their intended operations.
Allow operation of light-sport aircraft exceeding the
limits of ultralight vehicles operated under 14 CFR part 103, with a
passenger and for flight training, rental, and towing.
Establish training and certification requirements for
repairman (light-sport aircraft) to maintain and inspect light-sport
aircraft.
The rule is designed to allow individuals to experience sport and
recreational aviation in a manner that is safe for the intended
operations, but not overly burdensome. By bringing these individuals
under a new regulatory framework, the FAA believes this rule lays the
groundwork for enhancing safety in the light-sport aircraft category.
This rule does not change existing aircraft certification or
maintenance regulations for aircraft already issued an airworthiness
certificate, such as a standard, primary, or special certificate (e.g.,
experimental amateur-built and experimental exhibition aircraft).
However, as discussed in the section-by-section preamble discussion for
Sec. 1.1, Definition of Light-Sport Aircraft, a sport pilot can
operate an aircraft meeting the light-sport aircraft definition in
Sec. 1.1, regardless of the airworthiness certificate issued. In
addition, this rule does not change existing part 103 requirements.
A more detailed discussion and justification for the rule can be
found in the preamble to the NPRM published in the Federal Register on
February 5, 2002. On page 5370 of that Federal Register publication, is
a section entitled ``Effects of the Proposal on the Public and
Industry'' that gives answers to frequently asked questions (FAQs).
These questions and answers have been updated on the FAA's Web site
(http://faa.gov/avr/afs/sportpilot and click on FAQs) to reflect the
changes being adopted in this final rule.
III. General Discussion of Changes in the Final Rule
III.1. FAA Judgment and Discretion
As the following summary reflects, commenters provided a variety of
suggestions for the rule. As discussed more completely in the section-
by-section discussions that follow, the FAA carefully considered the
comments. Besides the specific issues in the comments, the FAA weighed
two factors in adopting, modifying, or rejecting the comments.
First, the FAA is making decisions in a new area for regulation.
Although some experience exists in similar aircraft, the rule
anticipates growth and change in the industry. There are areas where
only time and experience will determine whether these regulatory
provisions meet the FAA's expectations or require modification. There
is room for debate and disagreement, and the FAA is prepared to make
changes when appropriate. But in the FAA's judgment, these standards
strike a balance in favor of safety while allowing freedom to operate.
Second, there are situations where a line must be drawn. For
example, the case can be made that the maximum weight or speed could be
somewhat higher or lower than what is being adopted. In these
situations, the FAA is not establishing this rule with the intent of
including or excluding specific aircraft. Instead, the FAA is trying to
objectively determine where the line should be drawn while considering
the appropriate level of safety and the complexity of the operation.
III.2. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Commenters
While most commenters expressed a desire to see some aspect of the
proposed rule revised, they either agreed with the proposed regulation
overall or agreed with the intent of the proposal. Most commenters
believed the proposal would succeed if revised to address the issues
they identified.
Significant issues raised by commenters are listed below, with
reference to the corresponding proposal. These issues account for
approximately 80 percent of the comments. They, and other comments on
the NPRM, are discussed in detail under ``V. Section-by-Section
Discussion of Comments and Changes Incorporated Into the Final Rule.''
Towing: 1,298 comments
a. Prohibition of towing of hangliders and paragliders by
ultralight pilots; part 103--691 comments
b. Prohibition of towing of hangliders and paragliders by light-
sport aircraft; SFAR No. 89 section 73(b)(12)--607 comments
Section 1.1 definition of ``light-sport aircraft''--122
comments
Maximum weight limits for light-sport aircraft; Sec. 1.1
definition of ``light-sport aircraft'' paragraph (1)--489 comments
Maximum speed in level flight under maximum continuous power
for light-sport aircraft; Sec. 1.1 definition of ``light-sport
aircraft'' paragraph (2)--141 comments
Maximum stall speed limits for light-sport aircraft; Sec. 1.1
definition of ``light-sport aircraft'' paragraph (4)--62 comments
Fixed or ground-adjustable propellers and repositionable
landing gear on light-sport aircraft; Sec. 1.1 definition of ``light-
sport aircraft'' paragraphs (8) and (11)--116 comments
Sport pilot certification (general comments on SFAR No. 89)--
653 comments
Maximum speed limit on student pilot operation of light-sport
aircraft; SFAR No. 89 section 35(e)--57 comments
Altitude limits on operation of light-sport aircraft; SFAR No.
89 section 73(b)(6)--55 comments
Logbook endorsement requirement for each make and model of
light-sport aircraft; SFAR No. 89 section 61--129 comments
Repairman certification; Sec. 65.107--159 comments
Existing exemptions for two-seat ultralight vehicles; part
103--288 comments
Operation of ultralights that would be issued an experimental
certificate; Sec. 21.191(i)--116 comments
Use of a U.S. driver's license to establish medical
eligibility; SFAR 89, sections 15 and 111--230 comments
III.3. Security Concerns Related to Pilot Identification and
Certification
One State's Department of Transportation's aeronautical division
expressed concern that allowing persons with a driver's license as a
sole form of identification to have access to airports and the airspace
system would reduce pilot identification standards and would lead to
reduced security. The commenter said that since the terrorist attacks
of September 11, 2001, airport security identification, as well as
pilot identification, are under greater scrutiny, and that higher
standards must be established to prevent unauthorized
[[Page 44775]]
access to airports and aircraft. The commenter went on to say that
additional scrutiny provided by the process of obtaining a pilot
certificate, an airman medical certificate, and passing an FAA
practical test is a welcome safety enhancement at this time and must
not be eliminated.
The FAA agrees that the additional scrutiny provided by the process
of obtaining a pilot certificate, an airman medical certificate, and
passing an FAA practical test enhances safety. The FAA is not
eliminating any of these certificates or testing requirements for
holders of currently issued pilot certificates. All persons operating
an aircraft are required to possess a pilot certificate and pass a
practical test. All persons issued at least a recreational pilot
certificate (except those operating gliders and balloons) are also
required to possess an airman medical certificate. This rulemaking
action will bring persons who were formerly operating as ultralight
pilots into an existing certification system that will provide further
scrutiny of these individuals. These ultralight pilots have not been
required to have pilot certificates, possess airman medical
certificates or driver's licenses, or been required to take practical
tests. Therefore, they have not been subject to any level of government
scrutiny. Only sport pilots, or those seeking to exercise sport pilot
privileges will be afforded the opportunity to exercise certificate
privileges with either an airman medical certificate or a U.S. driver's
license. These persons will be required to possess a pilot certificate
and pass a practical test.
Sport pilots, like all pilots, will have to hold and possess their
sport or student pilot certificates at all times when operating light-
sport aircraft. Recent FAA rulemaking requires all pilots to carry
photo identification when exercising the privileges of a pilot
certificate and to present it, if requested by the FAA, an authorized
representative of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), the
Transportation Security Administration (TSA), or a law enforcement
officer (67 FR 65858; Oct. 28, 2002). That rule will apply to all sport
pilots.
Additionally, the FAA is creating FAA Form 8710-11 ``Sport Pilot
Certificate and/or Rating Application.'' Information from the
applicant's U.S. driver's license or airman medical certificate will be
recorded on the form.
As a result of this new regulatory action, an estimated 15,000
persons operating ultralight-like aircraft now will be required to hold
pilot certificates. In addition, persons performing work on light-sport
aircraft will be required to hold repairman (light-sport aircraft)
certificates. According to new security procedures, their names will be
entered into the FAA airman registry. In addition, all existing
unregistered ultralight-like aircraft and two-place utralight training
vehicles will now, as certificated aircraft, be required to display an
``N'' registration number. These numbers will also be entered into the
FAA aircraft registry. This will enable the TSA to conduct any
necessary security screening for certificated airmen and registered
aircraft operating in the National Airspace System (NAS).
These new sport pilots will now be required to make themselves
aware of safety- and security-related information contained in notices
to airmen (NOTAMs). Currently, operators of ultralight vehicles are not
required to review these NOTAMs; although those who receive voluntary
training and participate in industry-provided ultralight programs are
encouraged to access this information that is made available through
their organizations.
III.4. SFAR No. 89
The FAA proposed most of the sport pilot certification requirements
as a Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR). After further
consideration, the FAA decided not to use the SFAR, but to codify most
of the requirements as new subparts J and K of part 61, and the
remainder in the existing structure of part 61. The SFAR format is
appropriate to regulate operations in a very narrow set of
circumstances, to address a temporary situation, or both. However,
light-sport aircraft and their operation will be a significant segment
of aviation and will require long-term regulatory oversight.
For the convenience of the user, a table showing how the sections
of SFAR No. 89 were incorporated into part 61 is provided under ``V.
Section-by-Section Discussion of Comments and Changes Incorporated Into
the Final Rule.''
III.5.A. Comments on Ultralight Vehicles
The comments regarding ultralight vehicles were so significant,
that, except for towing issues, a response is presented here, rather
than in the section-by-section analysis below. A total of 1,586
comments were related to the operation of ultralights under the
proposed rule. Of those, 1,298 comments addressed ultralight towing,
specifically--
The prohibition on towing hangliders and paragliders by
ultralight pilots; part 103--691 comments; and
The prohibition on towing hangliders and paragliders by
light-sport aircraft; SFAR No. 89 section 73(b)(12)--607 comments.
Towing issues are discussed in the section-by-section analysis for
Sec. 61.69.
Four hundred and four comments addressed--(1) eliminating existing
exemptions from part 103 (288 comments) and (2) reclassifying aircraft
operating under exemptions to part 103 as light-sport aircraft under
Sec. 21.191(i) (116 comments). The commenters were nearly uniform in
their opposition to eliminating existing exemptions from part 103 and
codifying the exemptions into parts 21 and 61. The majority of
commenters opposed including ultralights in the proposed regulation.
Almost all commenters suggested keeping ultralight regulation as it is,
but incorporating existing exemptions from part 103 into that part.
Part 103 defines an ultralight vehicle and prescribes the operating
rules for these vehicles. An ultralight vehicle is either an unpowered
or powered vehicle with certain weight, speed, and other limits, as
prescribed in Sec. 103.1. An ultralight vehicle can carry only one
occupant and be used for sport and recreational purposes. The
ultralight industry has established voluntary training programs and
recommended maintenance practices. In an effort to encourage the use of
these voluntary training programs, the FAA has granted exemptions to
part 103 that allow--
Training and proficiency flights to be conducted in a two-
place ultralight vehicle operated by an ultralight flight instructor or
ultralight student.
Tandem training operations for hang gliders and powered
paragliders conducted by an ultralight flight instructor or ultralight
student.
Towing operations in a single-seat and two-seat
ultralight-like aircraft to facilitate operations and training in an
ultralight vehicle that is a hang glider, glider, or paraglider.
The FAA has granted these exemptions to part 103 to gather data and
to temporarily meet the training needs for persons operating ultralight
vehicles and to resolve operational issues such as towing.
Commenters contended that eliminating existing training exemptions
from part 103 would--
Force unregistered two-place training ultralights to be
classified as experimental light-sport aircraft, which would prevent
their use for compensation or hire and increase the operating costs of
these aircraft; and
Place unregistered single-place and two-place ultralight-
like aircraft and
[[Page 44776]]
standard category aircraft under the same regulation.
Many of these commenters specifically referred to the United States
Ultralight Association (USUA)'s comprehensive suggestion for a two-
tiered approach for the regulation of ultralight vehicles and light-
sport aircraft. USUA recommended that the FAA not only retain the
proposed regulations for light-sport aircraft, but also adopt
additional regulations codifying long-standing FAA exemptions for two-
place ultralight training. One set of regulations (Tier I) would
address single- and two-place ultralight-like aircraft. Single-place
aircraft would be limited to 360 pounds empty weight (662 pounds
maximum gross weight), 10 gallons maximum fuel capacity, 32 knots
maximum power-off stall speed, and 72 knots VH. Two-place aircraft
under Tier I would be limited to 496 pounds empty weight (992 pounds
maximum gross weight), 10 gallons maximum fuel capacity, 35 knots
maximum power-off stall speed, and 75 knots VH. Another set of
regulations (Tier II) would address light-sport airplanes, using the
weight and performance limits as proposed in the NPRM.
USUA's suggested regulations for ultralight vehicles would
accommodate both ``fat single- and two-place ultralight aircraft.''
USUA stated that this regulation could require registration of these
aircraft. This action would enable the FAA to provide safety
information to the owners and permit training for compensation, as
permitted under current exemptions. USUA noted that these ultralight
vehicles would have more restrictions than light-sport aircraft. For
example, they would not be permitted to operate over congested areas,
and would require prior air traffic control (ATC) permission for flight
in controlled airspace.
USUA was unequivocal in its comments on the proposed rule, stating
that the FAA must update ultralight regulations to better reflect the
manner in which ultralights are currently flown in the United States.
USUA stated that two-place ultralights have become heavier since part
103 was established in 1980, and that two-seat ultralight training has
become common as a result of the training exemptions. The USUA stated
that its suggested regulatory approach would include two-seat and
single-seat unregistered ultralight-like aircraft, allowing for a
permanent solution to the ongoing problem of how to regulate
ultralights that do not comply with part 103.
USUA clearly stated that ultralight pilots want the part 103
training exemption provisions used by USUA and other ultralight
associations incorporated in the regulations. USUA noted that its
recommendation to expand the parameters of ultralight vehicles
currently regulated by part 103 has an international precedent in
Europe. USUA also noted that the Federation Aeronautique Internationale
(FAI), the world governing body of air sports activities, has defined
microlights as weighing up to 450 kg (992 pounds) gross weight, with a
stall speed no greater than 65 kilometers per hour (kph) (35 knots),
and the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) have accepted this definition.
Regarding airspeed, the rule allows a sport pilot to fly only a
light-sport aircraft that has a maximum airspeed in level flight with
maximum continuous power (VH) of 87 knots CAS or less,
unless he or she receives additional training and a one-time
endorsement to operate a light-sport aircraft with a VH up
to 120 knots CAS. On the weight criterion, the FAA proposed a weight
limit of 1,232 pounds, which is increased to 1,320 pounds in the final
rule for aircraft not intended for operation on water. This weight is
maximum gross takeoff weight and is essentially equivalent to the empty
weight suggested by USUA. The gross takeoff weight includes the added
weight of two passengers, ten or more gallons of fuel, one or more
pieces of luggage, and a ballistic parachute carried on an aircraft.
This weight allows the aircraft to be constructed with stronger
materials, to use stronger landing gear, and to use a heavier and more
powerful four-stroke engine. All of these items were specifically
requested by industry and other commenters, most often in the interest
of safety. The consensus standards will address a minimum weight for
design standards for a single-place light-sport aircraft.
USUA's recommendation was influential on the ultralight community.
Most commenters addressing the subject of ultralights simply
recommended that the FAA adopt the USUA's two-tiered approach; however,
many of these commenters did not supply any analysis to support their
recommendation.
Concerning the aircraft certification component of the USUA's
proposed two-tiered concept, the FAA believes that the use of consensus
standards is appropriate for aircraft that exceed the parameters of
ultralight vehicles as specified in part 103, yet do not exceed the
parameters of a light-sport aircraft. The FAA believes that the
operating characteristics of these aircraft necessitate their
certification. However, their characteristics and the operations that
they will be used to conduct do not warrant the more extensive
certification standards applied to primary or standard category
aircraft. The FAA believes that the use of consensus standards provides
a level of safety appropriate for the operation of the aircraft.
Concerning the regulation of airmen and flight operations, FAA does
not completely agree with USUA's proposal. The FAA does not agree that
the part 103 operating environment is appropriate for the larger,
heavier, higher performance aircraft USUA's proposal identifies as
``Tier 1'' Ultralight Aircraft.'' The FAA acknowledges the safety
benefits for aircraft design and manufacturing and airman training that
have resulted from the exemption process; however, the FAA believes
that the operational characteristics of these aircraft are of such a
degree that a more comprehensive regulatory structure should be
applicable to their operation.
Like USUA, most commenters who are ultralight pilots stated that
ultralights fundamentally differ from standard category aircraft, and
that the FAA should continue to regulate ultralights, regardless of
their size, under part 103. For two reasons, the FAA disagrees with the
suggestion that all ultralight-like aircraft should be regulated under
part 103, either with incorporations of the existing training
exemptions or with a continuation of the current exemptions.
First, that approach would not provide the solution recommended
specifically by the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC). USUA
chaired the ARAC working group that addressed the regulation of
ultralight vehicles. That working group of the committee was made up of
members of the ultralight industry and produced a comprehensive
recommendation to the FAA regarding ultralight regulation. The FAA
notes that the ARAC recommendation did not include USUA's proposal to
expand part 103 to include larger aircraft. The ARAC recommendation
did, however, include the USUA's position as a dissenting opinion.
ARAC's recommendation to focus on appropriate training for sport pilots
served as the basis for the FAA's proposed rule. ARAC's recommendation
did not propose either the continuation of existing part 103
exemptions, or the codification of those exemptions into part 103. See
the discussion in the preamble of the NPRM, ``Section V. The Aviation
Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC).''
Second, the FAA issued exemptions to temporarily resolve training
issues and operational issues such as towing.
[[Page 44777]]
In the preamble to the rule establishing part 103 (47 FR 38776; Sept.
2, 1982), the FAA explained its rationale for permitting no more than a
single occupant in an ultralight vehicle. The FAA noted that the
general public might incorrectly assume that an ultralight operator
possesses certain minimum qualifications and has met specific
requirements resulting in the issuance of a pilot certificate. The
public would be unaware of the risks that an ultralight pilot assumes
with the operation of an uncertificated ultralight vehicle. The FAA
still believes that it would be inappropriate to permit the operation
of larger and more capable ultralight-like aircraft without the
benefits afforded by the certification of these aircraft and their
pilots. In addition, extending current training exemptions on a long-
term basis would be an inappropriate use of the exemption process. It
would not allow the FAA to address the many other regulatory changes
contemplated in this rulemaking.
This rule is intended to provide a comprehensive regulatory
approach that extends beyond the ultralight community. A significant
purpose of the rule is to certificate those two-seat ultralight-like
aircraft previously operated under part 103 training exemptions and
those two-seat and single-seat unregistered ultralight-like aircraft
operating outside of the regulations.
Several commenters noted that the speed differential between
ultralights and standard category aircraft makes their operation in the
same airspace dangerous. However, USUA recommended a continuation of
the current practice allowed under part 103, which permits flights in
controlled airspace (Class A, B, C, D, and surface-based Class E) with
prior ATC permission. These flights may occur at any altitude, with no
equipment requirements for communication, navigation, or
identification, and with no required pilot training.
The FAA has considered the comments on the issue of speed
differentials and operations in controlled airspace. As adopted, a
sport pilot operating a light-sport aircraft will be prohibited from
operating in Class A airspace and from operating above 10,000 feet mean
sea level (MSL). A sport pilot is authorized to operate in Class G and
E airspace. With training on airspace requirements and communications
equivalent to the training requirements for a private pilot, and a one-
time endorsement from an authorized instructor, a sport pilot can
operate in Class B, C, and D airspace and to, from, through, or at an
airport having an operational control tower. A sport pilot can only do
so, however, if the light-sport aircraft he or she is operating is
properly equipped and authorized for that operation. The FAA is also
providing that, like a student pilot, a sport pilot will not be
authorized to take off or land at any of the airports listed in part
91, appendix D, section 4. For a complete discussion, see ``V.5.A.v.
Changes to Airspace Restrictions'' and the discussion of Sec. 91.131
below.
The FAA notes that many of USUA's suggestions were incorporated in
the FAA's proposal. The FAA agreed with the recommendation that it not
permit flight at night. However, the rule will permit special light-
sport aircraft to fly over cities. The use of light-sport aircraft
engines that meet consensus standards for powerplant performance and
reliability will make any prohibition of flight over cities
unnecessary. Experimental light-sport aircraft (the existing fleet of
ultralight-like aircraft) will continue to be restricted to flight over
uncongested areas. The rule provides more privileges than the two-tier
system suggested by USUA. The rule allows the carriage of a passenger
for purposes other than flight training, which has never been allowed
under part 103 or the part 103 training exemptions. The rule
establishes new categories of airman ratings and two new classes of
aircraft--(1) weight-shift-control, and (2) powered parachute. The rule
allows a special light-sport aircraft owner to accept compensation for
the use of the aircraft for flight training or towing a glider or
unpowered ultralight vehicle. It also allows a light-sport aircraft
owner to accept compensation for rental of the aircraft. Neither of
these privileges had been allowed under the part 103 exemptions. The
rule establishes the requirements for repairmen (light-sport aircraft)
to maintain and inspect the newly certificated experimental and special
light-sport aircraft. Finally, the final rule addresses the concern
that it will limit or prevent the use of currently unregistered
ultralight-like aircraft. The FAA revised the final rule to assist
those who have been operating two-seat ultralight-like aircraft under
the part 103 training exemptions. The rule provides a 5-year period
during which persons may continue to operate their two-place
ultralight-like aircraft and receive compensation for flight training,
provided those aircraft are certificated as experimental light-sport
aircraft. The FAA expects that in the long term, instructors operating
light-sport aircraft previously classified as two-seat ultralight-like
aircraft will provide instruction at a lower cost and with greater
safety.
In some cases, the rule is more restrictive than USUA's
recommendation, but the FAA is using a building-block approach in
extending privileges to sport pilots. The rule permits a sport pilot to
obtain additional training to permit the exercise of additional
privileges at a later time. In the proposed rule, the FAA stated that
there would be many safety benefits to certificating sport pilots,
light-sport aircraft, and the repairman who would maintain these
aircraft that would not be realized under the USUA proposal. For a
complete discussion of these safety benefits and alternatives refer to
the discussion in the preamble of the NPRM, ``IV. Background--B. The
FAA's Reason for This Proposal.''
III.5.B. Future Rulemaking on Ultralight Vehicles
The NPRM did not address, nor does the final rule address, the use
of hangliders, paragliders and powered paragliders in tandem operations
and training. There is a need to address these issues, but the FAA did
not examine questions in this area for this rule. Rather than delay
this rule to include these issues, the FAA intends to initiate a
separate rulemaking action. Until that can be completed, the FAA
intends to maintain the status quo for these operations by continuing
or reissuing training exemptions as necessary.
IV. Comparative Tables
The following tables provide a quick comparison of regulations
governing light-sport aircraft and other aircraft.
Abbreviations Used In Tables
A&P--Airframe and powerplant
CFI--Certificated flight instructor
CTD--Computer Testing Designee
DPE--Designated Pilot Examiner
ELSA--Experimental light-sport aircraft
EW--Empty weight
IFR--Instrument flight rules
LS-I--Light-sport--Inspection
LS-M--Light-sport--Maintenance
M/M--Make and model
MTOW--Maximum takeoff weight
PIC--Pilot in command
PMA--Parts Manufacturer Approval
SLSA--Special light-sport aircraft
SP--Sport pilot
STC--Supplemental Type Certificate
TC--Type Certificate
TSO--Technical Standard Order
VFR--Visual flight rules
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
[[Page 44778]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27JY04.005
[[Page 44779]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27JY04.006
(1) For two-place ultralight training vehicles operating under
an exemption and registered with an FAA-recognized ultralight
organization--100-hour condition inspection done by ultralight
instructor registered with an FAA-recognized ultralight
organization.
(2) Applies to training aircraft used for compensation until
January 31, 2010, and tow aircraft used for compensation.
[[Page 44780]]
(3) Applies to aircraft used for flight training or towing for
compensation.
(4) Applies to aircraft used for flight instruction for hire--
Sec. 91.409.
(5) ELSA--Kit-built (Sec. 21.191(i)(2)(ii)) or aircraft that
have been previously issued a special airworthiness certificate in
the light-sport category (Sec. 21.191(i)(3)) meet consensus
standards.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27JY04.007
[[Page 44781]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27JY04.008
[[Page 44782]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27JY04.009
[[Page 44783]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27JY04.010
[[Page 44784]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27JY04.011
[[Page 44785]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27JY04.012
[[Page 44786]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27JY04.013
BILLING CODE 4910-13-C
V. Section-by-Section Discussion of Comments and Changes Incorporated
Into Final Rule
The following is a summary of comments for each section of rule
text, with a description of any changes the FAA is making to the final
rule. Because of the large number of comments received on the proposed
rule, it is not possible to discuss each commenter's remarks
individually. Some of the changes are being made as the result of
public comments, and others are being made after further review within
the FAA. As discussed previously in this preamble, the requirements
proposed as SFAR No. 89 are being moved into part 61, and a conversion
table is included for the reader's convenience in the discussion of
comments to part 61. All comments to proposed SFAR No. 89 therefore are
located under the discussion of changes to part 61.
[[Page 44787]]
V.1. Part 1--Definitions And Abbreviations
Section 1.1 General Definitions
Definition of ``Consensus Standard''
The FAA received numerous comments on the topic of consensus
standards. Most commenters expressed support for the concept of
airworthiness standards developed by a consensus of industry and the
FAA. However, some commenters expressed concern that they could not
review any actual consensus standards, as the standards were
nonexistent at the time of the NPRM comment period. These standards
would be developed either concurrent with, or subsequent to, the
adoption of the rule. The FAA understands the commenters' concern, but
notes that the consensus standards development process will include
adequate opportunity for public participation and comment. The FAA
further notes that the consensus standards process will not replace,
but rather will supplement, existing design, manufacturing, and
airworthiness certification procedures, and that alternative consensus
standards may be found acceptable.
Since the publication of the proposal, a number of aviation
organizations have chosen to work with ASTM International to develop
light-sport aircraft consensus standards. ASTM International has
established Committee F37--Light-Sport Aircraft for this standards
development task. Anyone who desires to comment on the consensus
standards may participate in their development by ASTM International.
Also, when an acceptable standard is developed, the FAA will publish a
Notice of Availability in the Federal Register. This notification will
include a statement that the FAA has found the standard acceptable for
certification of the specified aircraft under the provisions of this
rule. This statement will assert that:
The FAA has participated in the development process for
this consensus standard;
The FAA has reviewed the standard for compliance with the
regulatory requirements of the rule; and
Any light-sport aircraft designed, manufactured, and
operated in accordance with that consensus standard provides the public
with an appropriate level of safety.
If comments from the public are received as a result of the Notice
of Availability, the FAA will address them during its recurring review
of the consensus standards and participation in the consensus standards
revision process. Refer to the comment below from NTSB concerning FAA
participation in the revision of consensus standards.
Several commenters recommended delaying the effective date of the
rule until the consensus standards were issued. The FAA recognizes that
consensus standards may not be completed by the effective date of the
rule, and has therefore revised the rule to permit existing two-seat
ultralights to be used for many of the operations that are intended for
aircraft manufactured to a consensus standard.
Some commenters were concerned that the consensus standards process
would only represent viewpoints of particular manufacturers, and would
not assure adequate representation of small manufacturers or aircraft
operators. Other commenters believed the consensus standards should not
be set only by the aircraft manufacturers and ASTM International.
Another proposed that a committee of pilots, aircraft owners,
manufacturers, standards organizations, and regulators should formulate
the consensus standards. The FAA agrees that broad representation of
all affected parties is necessary for the FAA to accept a consensus
standard. Any and all interested parties can participate in the
development of consensus standards. In fact, OMB Circular A-119
requires balanced participation and voting. The FAA believes that the
ASTM process balances the representation of product manufacturers,
product users, and the interests of other affected persons. The FAA
notes that the current ASTM consensus standard committees are comprised
of individuals representing all the perspectives recommended by the
commenter. The FAA believes that the ASTM standards development
procedures satisfy the other attributes (openness, due process, and
appeals process) set forth in OMB Circular A-119 for an acceptable
consensus standard body. The OMB Circular permits FAA to make this
determination. If necessary, the FAA will participate with other
standards development organizations in the development of alternative
consensus standards. The FAA would refer to paragraphs 2, 6.e. and f.
of OMB Circular A-119 in making this determination. These paragraphs
describe the goals of the government in using consensus standards and
the considerations the FAA should make when considering the use of a
consensus standard.
The FAA received a comment from the NTSB saying that the NPRM
lacked sufficient information for it to determine to what extent the
FAA will be involved in the review of consensus standards after they
have been issued. As stated in the NPRM, the FAA will participate in
the development of and any revision to the consensus standards, in
accordance with OMB Circular A-119. In the preamble of the NPRM, the
FAA stated that it expected a suitable consensus standard to be
reviewed every two years. As a member of the consensus standard body,
the FAA can call for revisions to the consensus standard when the
agency determines such revisions are necessary. The FAA, as all other
participants, may propose changes to amend the consensus standard to
address new technology, applications, or deficiencies. As part of the
FAA's participation in the consensus standards development, the FAA
will review proposed consensus standards prior to the issuance of a
Notice of Availability. The FAA will not issue a Notice of Availability
for a consensus standard it considers unacceptable. The FAA will notify
the public, through a Notice of Availability, of its acceptance of a
consensus standard or any revision to a consensus standard. The FAA
will continue to participate in revising the consensus standard at an
interval no longer than every 2 years. The FAA will respond to comments
on the consensus standards in this revision process.
One commenter proposed that the term ``industry developed consensus
airworthiness standard'' be changed to ``industry developed
airworthiness standard.'' The FAA prefers that the word ``consensus''
be included to emphasize that these standards are developed in
accordance OMB A-119. Use of the term ``consensus'' will also
distinguish consensus standards from airworthiness standards that are
developed by the FAA through the normal rulemaking process and are
specifically contained in other parts of 14 CFR subchapter C. Within
the definition, the FAA is removing the modifier ``airworthiness'' from
the phrase ``industry developed consensus airworthiness standard.''
This change is to permit the consensus standards body to develop light-
sport aircraft and sport pilot safety standards that may encompass more
standards than those affecting airworthiness.
A commenter stated that FAA involvement in developing the criteria
for certificating light-sport aircraft should be minimal to keep
aircraft design and manufacturing costs down. As noted above, the FAA
has chosen to use consensus standards developed in accordance with the
criteria in OMB Circular A-119 for these aircraft. The use of the
consensus standard process
[[Page 44788]]
assures government and industry discussion and agreement on appropriate
standards for the required level of safety. The FAA believes that the
consensus standards process will minimize costs while meeting the level
of safety appropriate for these aircraft.
Several commenters expressed concern that the consensus standards
would result in excessive increases to the price of light-sport
aircraft. A commenter expressed concern over insurance costs for light-
sport aircraft, and expressed the opinion that general aviation
revitalization depends on the availability of factory-built aircraft
priced under $40,000. The FAA has discussed the certification process
for these aircraft in both the NPRM and this final rule. How the public
will interact with insurance companies and legal professionals, as well
as the pricing of these aircraft are matters of commercial interest.
The FAA, however, believes that this rule may significantly decrease
the cost of purchasing and operating light-sport aircraft. See the full
economic analysis in the public docket for this rulemaking.
Consensus Standards Topics
In the notice, the FAA proposed that consensus standards address
airworthiness certification and continued airworthiness. In the NPRM,
the proposed definition for consensus standard specified that the
standard address ``* * * aircraft design and performance, quality
assurance system requirements, production acceptance test
specifications, and continued operational safety monitoring system
characteristics.'' Based on comments received from the public on the
proposed rule and as a result of FAA review of the NPRM, the FAA has
determined that the consensus standard definition should be expanded to
include additional topics. These additional topics are related to
aircraft maintenance and operations, or subjects that should be more
appropriately addressed as separate topics rather than as subsections
within the four topics listed in the FAA's proposed definition.
In view of this consideration, the consensus standards definition
is being revised to specifically require the consensus standards to
address topics other than the four specified in the proposed rule. The
revised definition sets forth a broader approach. It generally
specifies that the consensus standards must address the three subjects
of aircraft design, production and airworthiness. Additional specific
topics the consensus standards must address are set forth in the
revised definition. Consensus standards may address additional topics,
as determined by the consensus standards body. As a result of FAA's
review of questions from commenters to the NPRM, and as a result of
FAA's participation in the ongoing development of consensus standards,
the FAA has determined that the consensus standards must address the
following topics so that appropriate information and procedures are
provided for manufacturers and operators of light-sport aircraft.
Design and Performance: The consensus standard includes a design
and performance section, which should address the following:
(1) Methodology for determining parameters associated with the
definition of light-sport aircraft. The consensus standard should
provide methodologies for determining definition parameters such as:
maximum takeoff weight; maximum airspeed in level flight with maximum
continuous power (VH); maximum never-exceed speed
(VNE) for gliders; maximum stalling speed or minimum steady
flight speed without the use of lift-enhancing devices
(VS1).
(2) Methodology for distinguishing different make and model
aircraft from the same manufacturer and for updating and recording
information that may change during the course of the production of the
make and model aircraft.
Required Equipment: The FAA did not expressly propose to require
the consensus standard to address or include minimum equipment in the
NPRM. However, the FAA notes that certain aircraft equipment is
required by part 91 to operate in the NAS. The FAA notes that, because
the requirements of Sec. 91.205 do not apply to these aircraft, the
FAA has revised the definition of consensus standard to specifically
indicate that a consensus standard must address required equipment. The
design and performance portion of the consensus standard, therefore,
should indicate standards for performance for equipment that is
required for specific authorized operations. The FAA recognizes that
the operator of a light-sport aircraft may have a variety of privileges
based on differing certificate privileges or individual logbook
endorsements. However, a person may not exercise those privileges,
unless the aircraft is appropriately equipped.
Quality Assurance: Commenters recommended that instructors
functioning also as dealers, be allowed to continue to assemble weight-
shift-control and powered parachutes kits for their clients. They did
not believe that this privilege should be limited to the factory
(manufacturer). The commenters also expressed an interest in
assembling, demonstrating, and selling the aircraft. They cite that
they were already providing these distributor-type services. They
further stated that costs to ship a completed aircraft are much more
than shipping a kit-built aircraft that can be assembled at the final
destination. The FAA agrees that persons other than the manufacturer
may complete the assembly of light-sport aircraft subject to this rule.
This may be permitted provided the consensus standard addresses how the
manufacturer will control these outside entities under its quality
assurance system. The consensus standard should address how the
manufacturer maintains oversight of the persons and the processes of
assembly, and, if the aircraft is delivered to a dealer for assembly,
procedures for the dealer to issue a statement of compliance on behalf
of the manufacturer. The manufacturer that issues the statement of
compliance is responsible for the quality of the end product, and this
includes material supplied by, or assembly work performed by, a person
or other entity.
In the proposed definition, the term ``quality assurance system
requirements'' has been revised to read ``manufacturer quality
assurance systems'' to emphasize that the aircraft manufacturer has the
overall responsibility to assure that safe aircraft are delivered to
its customers.
Production Acceptance Tests: The production acceptance tests should
include all tests needed to prove the aircraft's reliability and
functionality. These tests may be accomplished at different stages of
assembly and at final completion. The tests verify the aircraft's
proper function on the ground and in the air, as required by Sec.
21.190(c)(7). The consensus standard should include tests that
demonstrate that the aircraft is in a condition for safe operation. As
a minimum, these ground and flight tests show that the aircraft--
Has been assembled in accordance with the manufacturer's
criteria and specifications.
Can be operated normally throughout all ranges of
capability, as defined in the consensus standard.
In the proposed definition, the term ``production acceptance test
specifications'' has been revised to read ``production acceptance test
procedures.'' The FAA believes that use of the word ``specifications''
is not consistent with performance-based standards, which are
preferable to prescriptive standards for aircraft built to consensus
standards.
[[Page 44789]]
Aircraft Operating Instructions: In the proposal, the FAA stated
that the consensus standards must address aircraft design and
performance. The proposal did not include a specific requirement for
the consensus standards to address aircraft operating instructions.
Proposed Sec. 21.186, however, required the manufacturer to identify,
and the applicant to present, the applicable ``Pilot Operating
Handbook.''
In the final rule the FAA is revising the consensus standard
definition to specifically address aircraft operating instructions.
Although the FAA believed that the proposed consensus standards
definition would require aircraft operating instructions to be
addressed in the standards for aircraft design and performance, the FAA
has determined that standards for aircraft operating instructions
should be developed specifically as part of the consensus standards
process.
The FAA also notes that rather than using the term ``Pilot
Operating Handbook'' in the definition of consensus standards it is
using the term ``Aircraft Operating Instructions.'' The term ``Pilot
Operating Handbook'' is normally associated with type-certificated
general aviation aircraft and may include information approved by the
FAA. ``Aircraft Operating Instructions,'' however, will not require FAA
approval. ``Aircraft Operating Instructions'' provide methods and
procedures to safely operate the aircraft. Additionally, the aircraft
operating instructions specify those parameters (e.g. weight, stall
speed, maximum speed) that show the aircraft make and model meets the
light-sport aircraft definition.
Maintenance and Inspection Procedures: The proposal did not include
a specific requirement for the consensus standards to address
maintenance and inspection procedures. Proposed Sec. 21.186, however,
required the manufacturer to identify, and the applicant to present,
the applicable maintenance and inspection procedures. In the final rule
the FAA is revising the consensus standard definition to specifically
address maintenance and inspection procedures. The FAA has determined
that standards for maintenance and inspection procedures should be
developed specifically as part of the consensus standards process.
Through the consensus standards process the rule requires the
development of maintenance and inspection procedures for the entire
aircraft. This includes the engine, propeller, and accessories, such as
ballistic parachutes, floats, and skis. These maintenance and
inspection procedures can be developed solely by the airframe
manufacturer or with other manufacturers that supply engines,
propellers, or other products for the aircraft. The purpose of
requiring maintenance and inspection procedures is to ensure the
continued airworthiness of the aircraft throughout its useful life.
Maintenance and inspection procedures should contain at least two
parts, one part for inspection and one for maintenance.
The inspection section should include inspection requirements and a
checklist for conducting the annual condition inspection, the 100-hour
inspection, or any other inspection, as needed. The inspection section
should also identify any checks needed to verify adequate limits for
items subject to wear or replacement due to age or time in use.
The maintenance section should specifically address major aircraft
systems and components such as the engine, propeller, fuel system,
flight controls, lubrication system, instrumentation, airframe, and
landing gear. Each part of this maintenance section should identify the
maintenance that a certificated repairman, mechanic, or repair station
can perform, and those preventive maintenance tasks that a pilot can
perform. For each major system, instructions should be provided that
detail the service and maintenance requirements for that system,
including removal and replacement instructions for components, repair
and overhaul instructions for those products that can be repaired and
overhauled, and how Airworthiness Directives (ADs) and Safety
Directives should be addressed.
The maintenance and inspection procedures also should include a
section that addresses major repairs and major alterations. This
section should include the training requirements for a person to
perform a major repair for each aircraft system (e.g., overhaul an
engine), what data should be used to perform a major repair or major
alteration, and describe the process used to notify the manufacturer
that a major repair or major alteration has been accomplished on its
product. While a parts manual is not required to be developed as part
of the required maintenance and inspection procedures, the FAA
recommends that manufacturers develop these manuals to ensure the
proper parts are installed.
Identification and Recording of Major Repairs and Major
Alterations: The proposal did not include a specific requirement for
the consensus standards to address major repairs and major alterations,
and procedures to record them, for each class of light-sport aircraft.
The FAA has revised the proposal to require maintenance on special
light-sport aircraft to be performed in accordance with part 43, except
for those requirements that apply to the performance and recording of
major repairs and major alterations. In the final rule, therefore, the
FAA is revising the consensus standard definition to specifically
address major repairs and major alterations. The FAA has determined
that standards for defining, performing, and recording major repairs
and major alterations should be developed specifically as part of the
consensus standards process. The consensus standard also should address
the level of training a person must have before performing a major
repair. Refer to the discussions of part 43 and Sec. 91.327 for more
explanation of this topic.
Continued Airworthiness: The FAA specifically requested comments
from the public on its proposal that the consensus standards include
provisions for defining minimum characteristics for a manufacturer's
continued operational safety monitoring system. The FAA received
comments both for and against the use of the FAA's existing AD process
for correcting unsafe conditions in light-sport aircraft. These
comments are addressed in item (2) below. The FAA discussed the
expectations for a continued airworthiness system in the section-by-
section analysis of the NPRM under ``Definition of ``Consensus
Standard''' under Sec. 1.1, and also in Sec. 21.186(c)(6). In
response to comments received concerning continued airworthiness, the
following clarifies the processes that should be followed for the
continued airworthiness of special light-sport aircraft.
The consensus standard should address the following:
(1) The types of occurrences or events or incidents that the
aircraft owner is to report back to the manufacturer.
(2) How the manufacturer will issue Safety Directives to correct
unsafe conditions, including a process for how the determination of an
unsafe condition will be made. Examples of unsafe conditions include,
but may not be limited to:
(a) Structural failures that reduce the aircraft ability to carry
flight or ground loads;
(b) Structural failures affecting the attachment of high mass items
to the aircraft;
(c) Structural failures affecting flight or powerplant control
systems; or
(d) Failures that might result in occurrence of a fire in flight.
A commenter stated that for light-sport aircraft, the AD system
should be
[[Page 44790]]
used because the aviation community is familiar with it, and it helps
to assure that the owners of light-sport aircraft can be found
regardless of changes of ownership of the aircraft manufacturer. A
different commenter questioned if Safety Directives issued by the
aircraft manufacturer would be any better quality than ADs, which the
commenter believes are sometimes issued in haste and may be ineffective
or burdensome. Another commenter agreed with not using the AD system,
believing that the AD system can be used in the event that a
manufacturer no longer exists or is no longer able to issue safety-of-
flight information.
The FAA maintains the position it took in the proposed rule. The
FAA does not intend to issue ADs on the special light-sport aircraft,
but will issue them on type-certificated products incorporated into
special light-sport aircraft, and may, if necessary, issue them on
products having other forms of FAA approval. Therefore, as proposed,
the final rule requires development of corrective actions for unsafe
conditions in special light-sport aircraft by the aircraft
manufacturer, or a group or individual that has assumed that
responsibility. As described in the discussion of proposed Sec.
21.186(c)(6), the FAA intended for the rule to provide for persons
other than the manufacturer to assume continued airworthiness
responsibilities in the event that the special light-sport aircraft
manufacturer would cease to exist, or cease to provide safety-of-flight
information.
The FAA, in discussing the intended advantages of the proposed
rule, referred to the safety benefits of ``* * * safety-of-flight
bulletins, similar to airworthiness directives and service bulletins *
* *'' that would be issued by the manufacturer to correct problems that
might exist on aircraft in service. A commenter recommended that the
FAA change the term ``safety-of-flight'' to a different term such as
``safety directive,'' since the military already uses the term
``safety-of-flight'' and this may cause confusion. The FAA agrees and
has revised the term to ``Safety Directive'' in the final rule. The FAA
uses the term ``Safety Directive'' to identify the documents that a
special light-sport aircraft manufacturer issues to make changes that
are needed to correct conditions that may adversely affect safety of
flight for aircraft that are in service.
One commenter recommended that proposed corrective actions by
individual manufacturers should be subject to industry review and
acceptance within a two- or three-month time period. The FAA recognizes
that this proposal would provide for a balance of manufacturer and
operator interests in assuring effective continued airworthiness
support of special light-sport aircraft. As the consensus standards
process develops procedures for continued airworthiness, the FAA will
present the commenter's proposal to the appropriate technical committee
for consideration.
(3) Operator actions that will be addressed by a service
publication other than a Safety Directive. This discussion addresses a
comment expressing concern that manufacturers might issue mandatory
part replacement or maintenance instructions that would be not be
justified by any corresponding safety concern. The consensus standard
should identify those situations for which the manufacturer's Safety
Directives should not be issued. Those situations include, but are not
limited to, circumstances in which service publications are issued to
improve or enhance the following:
(a) Spare part sales;
(b) Aircraft performance, capability, or efficiency, unless the
change is needed for the aircraft to meet the minimum design and
performance standards identified in the consensus standard and the
manufacturer's statement of compliance;
(c) Aircraft appearance;
(d) Aircraft maintainability; or
(e) Any other aircraft characteristic when the action called for
does not remedy an unsafe condition, including those related to
reliability which do not have an impact on safety of flight.
(4) A process for responding to requests for methods of correcting
unsafe conditions that differ from those prescribed in Safety
Directives. This section addresses comments recommending that the owner
of a special light-sport aircraft be able to correct an unsafe
condition using methods other than specified by a Safety Directive.
Refer also to the discussion in Sec. 91.327, ``Safety-of-Flight
Issues.'' The FAA notes that owner-developed alterations and repairs
are permitted for experimental light-sport aircraft where compliance
with Safety Directives is not mandatory.
(5) A process for permitting successor organizations to assume
responsibility for providing continued airworthiness support. Adding
this section to the consensus standard addresses comments recommending
the consensus standard contain provisions for assuming or transferring
continued airworthiness responsibilities if the original manufacturer
of a light-sport aircraft goes out of business. The FAA, in the NPRM,
intended to allow for this. This was discussed in the proposal in
Sec. Sec. 21.186(b)(1)(iv), (b)(1)(v), and (c)(6), in which the FAA
allowed for a person other than the original aircraft manufacturer to
assume continued airworthiness responsibilities for in-service
aircraft. (The phrase ``manufacturer or a person acceptable to the
FAA'' in proposed Sec. 21.186(b)(1)(iv) and (v) allowed for this
possibility.) A person acceptable to the FAA may include persons other
than the original manufacturer, such as a licensee, designee,
successor, or a person other than the manufacturer or licensee who
built a product or part that was not part of the original design,
(i.e., a third-party modifier). In the current rule, these provisions
are in Sec. 91.327(b), since continued airworthiness of light-sport
aircraft will be controlled by the operating limitations of the
aircraft airworthiness certificate.
(6) A process for qualification of third-party alterations or
replacement parts, if a manufacturer chooses to permit this. In the
proposed rule, alterations, repairs, design modifications, or
replacement parts manufactured by third parties (distinct from the
manufacturer or the airplane owner) were not addressed. The FAA's
assumption at the time of the NPRM was that each manufacturer would
determine if it intended to permit third-party aircraft support, such
as the manufacture of replacement parts, or the alteration of aircraft
in service. If a manufacturer chooses to permit this, the standard
should address how oversight and control of the third parties
performing this service will be accomplished by the manufacturer.
The FAA also notes that the operating limitations for aircraft
having the special light-sport aircraft airworthiness certificate
require that all changes to an aircraft after its original manufacture
be authorized by the manufacturer or other acceptable person. Aircraft
modifiers, manufacturers of replacement parts for light-sport aircraft,
and manufacturers of products used to modify light-sport aircraft also
must comply with the provisions of the applicable consensus standard in
order to be considered a person acceptable to the FAA.
(7) A process for responding to an aircraft owner's assertion that
a Safety Directive was issued for reasons other than to correct an
unsafe condition. Providing this process also responds to the
previously stated concern that manufacturers might require the operator
to purchase expensive parts and make changes to the aircraft that do
not correct an unsafe condition. By developing guidelines through an
appropriate consensus standard, the
[[Page 44791]]
balanced representation of interests will help to minimize the
possibility of a manufacturer issuing a safety directive for an
inappropriate reason. If an aircraft owner believes a Safety Directive
was issued for reasons other than to correct an unsafe condition, the
owner should raise this issue to the manufacturer. The consensus
standard process should address how the manufacturer reviews the
request, and how it responds to the aircraft owner by justifying its
position that the Safety Directive addresses an existing unsafe
condition affecting the aircraft. The FAA notes that a manufacturer may
permit an alternative means of compliance to the Safety Directive. In
the event that the aircraft owner does not accept the manufacturer's
response and chooses not to correct the condition in a manner permitted
by the manufacturer, the aircraft owner may request a waiver from the
FAA to operate his or her aircraft without following the Safety
Directive. See the discussion of the ``waiver'' process under Sec.
91.327, ``Safety-of-flight issues.''
(8) A process for reviewing ADs issued on FAA-approved products
used in special light-sport aircraft. Upon further internal review, the
FAA recognized that special light-sport aircraft may embody equipment
that has its own FAA approval (e.g., engines, propellers,
communications equipment, instruments). Owners of special light-sport
aircraft will be required to comply with applicable ADs issued against
FAA-approved products installed on special light-sport aircraft. For
details, see the discussion under Sec. 91.327 ``Safety-of-flight
issues.''
In addition, the FAA believes that the consensus standards should
also address--
Manufacturer's Assembly Instructions. In proposed Sec.
21.193(e)(5), the FAA stated an expectation that kit-built experimental
light-sport aircraft would be assembled following detailed instructions
provided by the manufacturer. This was stated in the section-by-section
analysis of the NPRM. However, the FAA did not establish any
requirements with regard to the quality of those assembly instructions.
In the final rule, a requirement is being added to Sec. 21.193(e)(4)
for the assembly instructions to meet the consensus standard. Also,
there is a change to Sec. 21.191(i)(2) requiring that the assembler
provide evidence that he or she assembled the aircraft according to the
manufacturer's instructions.
The manufacturer should prescribe the details of an individual
aircraft assembly process. The objective is for the assembly
instructions to provide the detailed instructions to build and safely
flight test the product. Any necessary mechanical skills or training
should be defined. The instructions should prescribe the tooling,
fixtures, inspections, measurements, and other pertinent items that
must be recorded by the assembler and presented to the FAA or the FAA
representative, such as, the Designated Airworthiness Representative
(DAR), as evidence that the manufacturer's assembly instructions were
followed.
In the proposed definition, the term ``continued operational safety
monitoring system characteristics'' is revised to read ``continued
airworthiness.'' The changed language requires the consensus standard
to address continued airworthiness subjects that may be considered
outside the scope of a continued operational safety monitoring system.
Changes
The definition of ``consensus standard'' is changed in the final
rule as follows:
The words ``consensus airworthiness standard'' are changed to
``consensus standard.''
The word ``governs'' is changed to ``applies to.''
The words ``aircraft design and performance'' are changed to
``aircraft design, production, and airworthiness.''
The four topics that a consensus standard would govern have been
revised and additional specific items have been added to the list of
items that a consensus standard must address.
The definition now lists the items that a consensus standard
``includes but is not limited to.'' The topics specified in the
definition now include ``standards for aircraft design and performance,
required equipment, manufacturer quality assurance systems, production
acceptance test procedures, operating instructions, maintenance and
inspection procedures, identification and recording of major repairs
and major alterations, and continued airworthiness.''
Definition of ``Light-Sport Aircraft''
Overview
The FAA believes that there might be confusion concerning what
airworthiness certificates apply to light-sport aircraft. Therefore,
the FAA is clarifying this issue. A sport pilot may operate any
aircraft that meets the definition in Sec. 1.1 of a light-sport
aircraft, regardless of the airworthiness certificate issued for the
aircraft. An aircraft that meets the light-sport aircraft definition
may have any airworthiness certificate that may be issued for an
aircraft, such as standard, special, primary, or experimental amateur-
built aircraft. An aircraft that meets the light-sport aircraft
definition and holds a standard airworthiness certificate must be
operated and maintained in accordance with the limitations of that
airworthiness certificate. For example, the sport pilot must operate
the aircraft within the limits of the aircraft's flight manual and type
certificate data sheet. Also, maintenance will still need to be done in
accordance with part 43 by an appropriately rated mechanic, repairman,
or repair station. A repairman (light-sport aircraft) is not authorized
to conduct any maintenance on an aircraft issued a standard
airworthiness certificate or a special airworthiness certificate in a
category other than light-sport.
Numerous commenters raised issues pertaining to the design
attributes associated with the definition of light-sport aircraft. A
majority recommended expanding the design attributes in one or more
areas, such as maximum weight, stall speed, or cruise speed. The design
attributes associated with the definition are discussed individually
later in this section.
As stated in the proposal, the FAA intended to limit the definition
of light-sport aircraft to primarily address the population of
ultralight-like aircraft that are being operated under exemptions to
part 103 to conduct flight training. The rule was not primarily
intended to address type-certificated and vintage aircraft where there
were not significant regulatory, certification, or operational issues.
The FAA recognizes that any aircraft that meets the light-sport
aircraft definition may be operated by a sport pilot. However, it is
necessary for the FAA to use its judgment and discretion in setting
limits on aircraft to be flown by sport pilots.
The most frequently cited justification to increasing one or more
design attributes associated with the light-sport aircraft definition
was to enable existing aircraft designs to be operated as light-sport
aircraft. A majority of these comments contended that the light-sport
aircraft definition should be expanded to accept these additional
aircraft simply because these larger or higher performance aircraft
could be safely operated as light-sport aircraft.
While some changes were made to the design attributes of the
definition, there was only one change made to the definition as a
result of comments pertaining to operating type-certificated aircraft
as light-sport aircraft. The change prohibits aircraft modified to
[[Page 44792]]
meet the parameters of the definition from being operated as light-
sport aircraft. The reasoning for this change is explained below.
One commenter noted that the FAA's proposal is unique in attempting
to address aircraft for used for recreation rather than transportation
purposes. Some commenters expressed concern that the light-sport
aircraft definition did not describe how a given constraint would be
shown to be satisfied. Neither a Sec. 1.1 definition nor an operating
rule definition is normally so complete as to establish how compliance
with the definition is determined.
Another commenter noted that the definition of an aircraft category
is usually established in the applicability section of the appropriate
airworthiness standard, rather than in Sec. 1.1. The FAA agrees with
this observation. However, there will not be airworthiness standards
set forth in specific parts of the Code of Federal Regulations, and the
definition of light-sport aircraft will be applicable to a variety of
different kinds of aircraft. Also, the definition is significant both
for aircraft and airman certification purposes. For these reasons, it
is appropriate for the FAA to establish these limits for the light-
sport aircraft in the general definitions section of part 1.
Many commenters wanted various existing airplanes to be included in
the light-sport aircraft definition. Many of these commenters believe
that the existing service record of these airplanes makes them safe and
more affordable than a new airplane. The FAA recognizes that certain
aircraft that do not meet the definition of light-sport aircraft may
have operating characteristics that are similar to aircraft that meet
the definition. The FAA determined that the values used in the
definition strike an appropriate balance between safety and public
interest. Refer to the discussion under ``III.1. FAA Judgment and
Discretion.'' The FAA has revised the light-sport aircraft definition
without the intent to include or exclude specific aircraft.
General Comments on the Design Attributes in the Light-Sport Aircraft
Definition
There was considerable interest in changing the design attributes
that control the definition of light-sport aircraft. The FAA received
numerous general questions and comments on aircraft currently
certificated. Some commenters operating aircraft with a standard or an
experimental certificate stated that their aircraft nearly met the
definition of light-sport aircraft. Many of these commenters expressed
their desire that the light-sport aircraft definition be changed to
include their aircraft, whether it be an airplane with a standard
airworthiness certificate, an amateur-built aircraft, or a vintage
aircraft with a standard airworthiness certificate. Several commenters
stated a desire that the FAA revise the light-sport aircraft definition
to permit them to obtain the perceived advantages of the sport pilot
certificate's medical provisions when operating their aircraft.
Commenters also requested clarification as to how compliance with
some of the parameters used to define light-sport aircraft will be
determined. The most frequently cited parameters were maximum takeoff
weight, maximum airspeed in level flight with maximum continuous power
VH, and stall speeds VS1 (without lift enhancing
devices) and VS0 (landing configuration). As discussed under
Sec. 1.1, the consensus standards will address details on methods of
demonstrating compliance.
A commenter stated that the light-sport aircraft definition should
require ballistic parachute recovery systems as protection in case of
inadvertent encounter of instrument flight rule (IFR) weather
conditions. The FAA disagrees. This rule does not directly prescribe
design or equipment standards, those are contained in the consensus
standard.
Modifications of Aircraft To Meet the Light-Sport Aircraft Definition
Some commenters stated that aircraft with quite high payload and
performance characteristics that far exceed the stated definition of
light-sport aircraft could be modified to meet the definition of light-
sport aircraft. The FAA has revised the definition of light-sport
aircraft in the rule to prevent these modifications. The FAA notes that
these types of modified aircraft are outside the stated purpose of the
proposal. The proposal identified light-sport aircraft as aircraft that
exceed the limits set in Sec. 103.1, and are compatible with the
skills and training required to obtain a sport pilot certificate.
Light-sport aircraft are simple low-performance aircraft that are
distinct from small aircraft that can be designed and built to existing
airworthiness standards. In the proposal, the FAA permitted sport
pilots to fly any aircraft that meets the light-sport aircraft
definition. In prohibiting modifications to aircraft to meet the light-
sport aircraft definition, the FAA seeks to ensure that the light-sport
aircraft operating characteristics are consistent with the skills and
training for the sport pilot. The FAA is concerned that modifications
to an aircraft to meet the light-sport aircraft definition may increase
its complexity to a level that is inappropriate for the capabilities of
the sport pilot. This is the FAA's rationale for excluding these
modified aircraft from the light-sport aircraft definition.
The FAA notes that compliance with light-sport aircraft parameters
can be more readily verified for type-certificated aircraft than for
amateur-built aircraft certificated under existing Sec. 21.191(g).
Amateur-built aircraft do not have a TC, a flight manual, or a type
certificate data sheet. Because of this, it may be difficult to
determine if aircraft with other than a standard airworthiness
certificate meets the limits listed for a light-sport aircraft and can
be operated by a sport pilot. The FAA anticipates that the aircraft
design consensus standard will include methodologies that will readily
enable a determination that an aircraft design meets the light-sport
aircraft definition.
Requests for Light-Sport Aircraft Definition To Include Additional
Kinds of Aircraft
A number of commenters wanted ``light'' helicopters and gyroplanes
to be included in the definition of light-sport aircraft. They believed
that these aircraft are suited for the sport and recreation that the
proposed rule addresses.
As stated in the proposal, the FAA did not include helicopters
because their complex design, manufacture, and operation is beyond what
the FAA envisioned for light-sport aircraft. The FAA included
gyroplanes in the light-sport aircraft definition, but does not intend
to issue the special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport
category for gyroplanes. See the discussion of paragraph (9) of the
definition of light-sport aircraft below.
Several comments recommended that the light-sport aircraft
definition include individual unique aircraft designs, such as flying
platforms or tandem wing aircraft. The FAA disagrees. The light-sport
aircraft definition does not need to address every possible variation
of aircraft. The FAA believes that the unique nature of these aircraft
precludes the development of consensus standards for these aircraft at
this time. However, these aircraft remain eligible for the experimental
certificate for operating amateur-built aircraft, under existing Sec.
21.191(g). A few commenters requested that aircraft with standard
airworthiness certificates not be included in the sport pilot program.
As stated in the proposed rule, a sport pilot may fly an aircraft with
a standard airworthiness certificate, if it meets the definition of
light-sport aircraft. See also
[[Page 44793]]
Sec. 21.175 discussion on airworthiness certificates. As stated above
in the section titled ``Modifications of Aircraft To Meet the Light-
Sport Aircraft Definition,'' a sport pilot may not fly an aircraft with
a standard airworthiness certificate that has been modified to meet the
light-sport aircraft definition.
Comments Concerning the Limits Established by the Light-Sport Aircraft
Definition
Many commenters suggested alternatives to the maximum speed as
limiting factors for the light-sport aircraft definition. The
alternatives proposed included wing loading (airplane weight divided by
airplane wing area); horsepower (ranging from 80 to 180 horsepower);
fuel capacity; aircraft payload; kinetic energy of the airplane at
cruise speed; weight of the drive train package. One commenter proposed
to base the light-sport aircraft definition on the weights and
aerodynamic performance of the J-3 Cub airplane. The FAA disagrees that
the light-sport aircraft definition should be changed to replace the
maximum speed limit with a different limiting design condition. The FAA
does not believe that any of the alternatives suggested will be a
better, more readily determined method of assuring that light-sport
aircraft are simple, low performance aircraft. The FAA has not
eliminated a maximum speed in the light-sport aircraft definition.
However, the light-sport aircraft definition has been revised to
increase the maximum speed limit. The FAA has not adopted an
alternative approach to setting an upper limit to the power or
performance of a light-sport aircraft. However the FAA decided that the
light-sport aircraft definition should set an upper limit for aircraft
power to assure that the aircraft is suitable for the sport pilot. The
FAA believes that the maximum airspeed limit, combined with a maximum
takeoff weight, acceptably serves this purpose, for the reasons
originally stated in the proposed rule. The FAA discusses each of the
attributes of the light-sport aircraft definition elsewhere in this
section.
Some commenters believed that the limits in the FAA's definition of
light-sport aircraft would limit innovation, or lead to the development
of unsafe aircraft. The FAA disagrees with this opinion, and believes
that the consensus standards process and the FAA's participation in
that process will lead to an acceptable balance between innovation and
safety.
A few commenters requested that the FAA use the definition of
microlight aircraft established by the International Aeronautical
Federation (FAI). The FAA did consider this definition in developing
its proposal. The microlight aircraft definition primarily addresses
weight, seating capacity, and stall speed. The FAA notes that the
light-sport aircraft definition addresses significantly more parameters
than the definition of microlight aircraft. The FAA developed this
definition to provide for the development of an aircraft that matches
the capabilities of the sport pilot.
A few commenters believed that the FAA's definition of light-sport
aircraft was too broad. Alternatives suggested included three different
weight limits for light-sport aircraft, and the two-tiered system
proposed by USUA and discussed in detail under ``III.5.A. Comments on
Ultralight Vehicles.'' The FAA disagrees that the light-sport aircraft
definition should be changed to address different weight limits for
different kinds of light-sport aircraft. The FAA believes that the use
of a broad definition for light-sport aircraft, along with the
development of consensus standards appropriate for each class of
aircraft, will result in safe and economical aircraft for the wide
range of products in recreational aviation.
One commenter suggested eliminating the word ``light'' from the
definition, to prevent the implication that there might be medium- and
heavy-sport aircraft to follow. Another commenter suggested ``Class III
aircraft'' as an alternative, stating that the public might form an
impression that light-sport aircraft ``* * * are frivolous toys.'' The
FAA disagrees with these opinions and believes that the words used to
describe ``light-sport aircraft'' are adequate to distinguish this
category of aircraft.
Several commenters stated that the cost of new aircraft would be
prohibitive with the goals of the proposed rule. The FAA disagrees. The
aircraft certification process that uses industry consensus standards
and a manufacturer's statement of compliance is a lower-cost approach
than type and production certification. Refer to the full regulatory
evaluation that is in the rulemaking docket for a detailed discussion
on the estimated cost to the end user.
A commenter suggested that light-sport aircraft should have a
maximum noise limit established and verified by a simple protocol to be
defined in the consensus standard for aircraft performance. The
commenter believed that including a noise limit would prevent adverse
public impressions of light-sport aircraft. Current amateur-built
aircraft do not require compliance with a maximum noise limit.
Presently, part 36 noise standards are applicable only to aircraft with
a type certificate or a standard airworthiness certificate. See ``XIV.
Environmental Analysis'' below.
Paragraph (1) Maximum Certificated Takeoff Weight
Some commenters stated that lacking a definition of maximum takeoff
weight, aircraft with fairly high performance characteristics could
meet the definition of light-sport aircraft by limiting the approved
weight and payload of the airplane. The FAA considers this a valid
concern and has provided some additional constraints on the weight as
detailed below. The maximum weight of a light-sport aircraft is the sum
of:
(1) Aircraft empty weight;
(2) Weight of the passenger for each seat installed;
(3) Baggage allowance for each passenger; and
(4) Full fuel, including a minimum of the half-hour fuel reserve
required for day visual flight rules in Sec. 91.151(a)(1).
Some commenters wanted the weight increased to permit stronger
aircraft structures, use of four-stroke or type-certificated engines,
electrical systems for avionics, starters for engines, or ballistic
recovery systems. The FAA is increasing the weight limitation of the
light-sport aircraft from the proposed 1,232 pounds (560 kilograms) to
1,320 pounds (600 kilograms). The originally proposed weight limitation
was based on the 1,200-pound weight limitation proposed by the ARAC's
light-sport aircraft working group. The FAA agrees that there may be a
safety benefit to light-sport aircraft designs to include provisions
for currently produced type-certificated four-stroke engines and
ballistic parachute recovery systems. Commenters submitted data that
indicated that an additional 60 to 70 pounds would accommodate four-
stroke aviation powerplants, and that an additional 30 to 40 pounds
would accommodate the ballistic parachute recovery systems. For these
reasons, the FAA has revised its proposed maximum takeoff weight
limitation to 1,320 pounds (600 kilograms) for aircraft designed for
operation on land.
In addition, many commenters requested that the proposed weight
limitation be increased to accommodate flying boats, amphibious or
float plane aircraft designs. The FAA originally envisioned these kinds
of aircraft in its proposed light-sport aircraft definition.
Recommendations from these commenters indicated weights ranging from
100 pounds to 250 pounds to allow for amphibious or float plane
capability. The rule provides for a maximum take-off weight of 1,430
pounds for light-
[[Page 44794]]
sport aircraft designed for operation on water. The 110-pound weight
increase compared to an aircraft not designed for operation on water is
consistent with data submitted regarding weight of floats for
microlight type aircraft.
Some commenters objected to setting a weight limit that becomes a
specific number of pounds based on conversion of kilograms to pounds,
assuming that the FAA is relying solely upon foreign airworthiness
standards in establishing the light-sport aircraft category. The FAA
stated weight limitations are different from those used by other
airworthiness authorities for the reasons stated in the two preceding
paragraphs.
Many commenters proposed alternative weight limits, ranging from
1,250 to 2,650 pounds, to encompass a number of existing general
aviation or classic aircraft. In the FAA's judgment, the weight limit
in the rule is appropriate for the light-sport aircraft to be
compatible with the skills and training of the sport pilot.
Some commenters wanted the weight increased, stating that a
passenger weight of 170 pounds is not realistic today. The FAA notes
that the maximum take-off weight includes the weight of the occupants.
The manufacturer may want to consider this in their design and
communicate any weight limits to the customer. A few commenters stated
that the FAA should use weight other than maximum takeoff weight as a
limiting condition. Alternatives suggested by commenters included
aircraft empty weight, or maximum payload. The FAA believes that the
maximum take-off weight is an appropriate limiting parameter for light-
sport aircraft, because it is an objective measure that can easily be
determined when the aircraft configuration is specified.
A few commenters agreed with the FAA's originally proposed weight
limit of 1,232 pounds for aircraft that are not lighter-than-air (LTA)
aircraft. Some commenters questioned the rationale for the FAA's
originally proposed weight limit. As stated above, the weight limit
originally proposed by the FAA for other than LTA was a balance between
the original ARAC recommendation for light-sport aircraft, and existing
foreign airworthiness requirements for sport aircraft, such as
microlights and aircraft certificated under the Joint Airworthiness
Requirements for Very Light Aircraft (JAR-VLA).
Some commenters objected to the FAA's proposed weight limit of 660
pounds (300 kilograms) for an LTA aircraft, stating that the weight
limit is too low for a two-passenger hot air balloon. One comment asked
if the weight limit was intended to refer to an uninflated mass. The
FAA intended for the LTA weight limit to be comparable to the weight
limit for the other light-sport aircraft designs, that is, a maximum
mass for the aircraft. The FAA intended for the weight limit to include
the aircraft with passengers and fuel, and the weight of the lifting
gas (the product of lifting gas volume and density) added to the weight
of the uninflated mass. For airships, the FAA intended the defined
weight limit to include the empty weight of the airship, the weight of
pilot and passenger, fuel, and lifting gas (FAA-P-8110-2, ``Airship
Design Criteria,'' paragraph 2-4). One commenter provided a weight
statement for a two-passenger hot air balloon, saying that 800 to 1,000
pounds would be appropriate in that it would allow for two 15-gallon
fuel tanks, or 230 pounds of fuel. The FAA disagrees. The FAA's
originally proposed weight limit for LTA aircraft was based on a review
of the weights of type-certificated manned free balloons. The FAA
believed that the maximum weight permitted for a LTA light-sport
aircraft should not be greater than the maximum weight of currently
existing type-certificated manned free balloons. The FAA believes the
requirements in part 21 and part 31 are appropriate for the manufacture
and design of hot air balloons larger than proposed by the FAA.
Additionally, one commenter stated that 2,200 pounds would be an
appropriate weight limit for airships in the light-sport aircraft
category because the low speeds for takeoff or approach to landing
would result in low kinetic energy. The commenter also expressed
concern that existing very light hot air airships are robust enough to
accommodate two large persons plus the systems and structures for a
powered LTA aircraft. The commenter did not provide any data to support
the position that the weight limit in the FAA's proposal or the
existing airship design certification criteria for small airships used
for sport and personal recreation are unnecessarily burdensome. The FAA
believes that the requirements of part 21 and the guidance contained in
FAA publication FAA-P-8110-2, ``Airship Design Criteria'' are
appropriate for the manufacture and design of airships as large as that
proposed by the commenter.
Several commenters stated that the FAA's proposed weight limit for
the light-sport aircraft definition had the effect of eliminating some
existing certificated aircraft that they believed were ideally suited
for the sport pilot rule. One commenter's opinion was that the FAA
strategically established the weight limit to favor the sale of new,
more expensive light-sport aircraft. The FAA did not have such a
purpose in mind when it established its proposed light-sport aircraft
weight limit. Also, in establishing the light-sport aircraft, FAA did
not intend to promote existing certificated aircraft. When the FAA
initially set the proposed limits for the light-sport aircraft
definition, the FAA did not look at currently built aircraft, either
with type certificate approval or in the amateur-built aircraft
marketplace. The FAA's proposed definition was to address aircraft to
be designed and built for the sport pilot, rather than addressing
existing aircraft for currently certificated pilots.
A commenter stated that the proposed weight limit eliminates the
eligibility of many production aircraft, and seems to cater to
homebuilt aircraft. The FAA disagrees with this opinion. The reasons
for the weight limit were discussed in the proposal and were intended
to accommodate a wide variety of simple, low performance aircraft that
have no more than two occupants. The FAA has explained elsewhere in
this section the reasons for its changes to the proposed weight limit
in the light-sport aircraft definition. A few commenters noted that the
FAA's originally proposed weight limit would result in some models in a
particular classic aircraft line being eligible for the light-sport
aircraft category, while other models in the same line would not be
eligible. The FAA believes that this is evidence that the weight limit
for light-sport aircraft was not drawn with the intent of including or
excluding specific aircraft.
A commenter proposed that the FAA establish different weight limits
for single- and two-seat aircraft. This would add an additional
limiting condition to the definition of light-sport aircraft. The FAA
disagrees. The weight is only one component of the definition. The FAA
believes that its weight limit is appropriate for a two-seat aircraft.
One of the main purposes of the light-sport aircraft definition is to
provide appropriate flight training aircraft for sport pilots. The
weight limit proposed by the FAA is intended to accommodate aircraft
designed for two occupants. The FAA does not have data that would
support establishing a reduced weight limit for single occupant
aircraft. The FAA notes, however, that a manufacturer may choose to
produce a single place aircraft with a weight less than the maximum
permitted by the rule. A commenter stated that the weight limit will
preclude tricycle landing gear on light-sport aircraft, and that will
make light-sport aircraft more
[[Page 44795]]
difficult to operate by low-time pilots. The FAA does not agree that
the weight limit will preclude tricycle gear light-sport aircraft. The
FAA is aware of tricycle-gear aircraft that meet the light-sport
aircraft weight limit.
A commenter proposed that the FAA's weight limit should only apply
to powered parachutes and weight-shift-control aircraft, and that
higher weights should be permitted for airplanes in the light-sport
aircraft category. The FAA disagrees that different weight limits
should be established for powered parachutes, weight-shift-control
aircraft, and airplanes. However, the FAA agrees that the weight limit
for light-sport aircraft should be raised and has done so in the final
rule. The FAA believes that the maximum weight limits established in
the light-sport aircraft definition will permit the design and
manufacture of two-seat airplanes suitable for operation by sport
pilots. Manufacturers of powered parachutes and weight-shift control
aircraft may manufacture aircraft that weigh less than the maximum
weight limit permitted by the light-sport aircraft definition.
Some commenters stated that low stall speed is more important than
aircraft weight. The FAA agrees that low stall speed is important;
however, the FAA does not believe that the light-sport aircraft
definition should identify any one attribute of the definition as more
important than another.
Commenters recommended that sport pilots be permitted to fly
aircraft heavier than the FAA's proposed weight limits with a logbook
endorsement. Another commenter proposed that sport pilots with higher
experience levels be permitted to fly aircraft heavier than the FAA's
proposed weight limits. A different commenter said that for 5 years
following the adoption of the FAA's proposal, sport pilots should be
permitted to fly existing general aviation training aircraft that are
within 120 percent of the limits established in the light-sport
aircraft definition. The FAA disagrees that sport pilots should be
permitted to fly aircraft heavier than the weight limits for light-
sport aircraft. The FAA believes that a pilot operating aircraft above
these weights should have at least a private or recreational pilot's
certificate. For further discussion on sport pilot training limits
reference the discussion titled ``Flight Training and Proficiency
Requirements'' in the section on Part 61 general issues.
Paragraph (2) Maximum Airspeed in Level Flight With Maximum Continuous
Power (VH)
As discussed in more detail later in this section, the FAA always
intended that the light-sport aircraft definition would establish an
appropriate limiting maximum airspeed. During the preliminary
discussions to set the design attributes proposed in the NPRM, the FAA
considered a range of limiting airspeeds. When setting an appropriate
limiting maximum airspeed, the FAA took into account that: (1) Training
requirements for the sport pilot certificate are based on the
simplicity of the aircraft's operating characteristics; and (2)
aircraft certification requirements are based on a performance envelope
appropriate for a light-sport aircraft.
In constructing the light-sport aircraft definition, the FAA also
took into consideration three groups of aircraft that will be addressed
by this rule: (1) Two-place ultralight-like aircraft that have been
operating under an exemption to part 103; (2) new light-sport aircraft
to be designed, manufactured and operated under this rule; and (3)
existing aircraft whose low performance capabilities would meet the
light-sport aircraft definition. In the proposed rule, the FAA believed
that the 115 knots CAS VH limit met the two considerations
in the preceding paragraph and covered the range of aircraft described
in this paragraph.
Additionally, the FAA specifically requested additional input
through the light-sport aircraft online forum on methods to establish
upper limits for the light-sport aircraft definition. To read the
online forum comments, go to the electronic docket address given above
in the section titled ``Availability of Rulemaking Documents'' and view
item number 2676 in Docket No. FAA-2001-11133.
The FAA still believes that establishing a maximum airspeed in
level flight at maximum continuous power (VH) is the best
way to limit ``high-end'' capability of the powered light-sport
aircraft. With the change to the light-sport aircraft definition
permitting increased weight, which may provide for the use of higher-
powered engines, the FAA is also increasing VH to 120 knots.
The FAA believes that this small increase is appropriate for the
revised light-sport aircraft definition and remains consistent with the
purpose that was the basis for the originally proposed 115-knot CAS
(VH) limit. The FAA believes that the training required for
sport pilots operating light-sport aircraft over 87 knots
(VH) addresses any training concerns and that the change in
the VH airspeed limit from 115 to 120 knots does not require
any additional training beyond what is established in the rule.
Some commenters believed that the proposed airspeed limitation,
VH, should be eliminated and some commenters state that
unlimited maximum speeds would not jeopardize safety. A commenter said
that the FAA should impose other design limits or flight
characteristics instead of a maximum speed limit for light-sport
airplanes. One commenter specifically asked why the FAA cares how fast
the airplane can fly. The FAA disagrees that a maximum speed limit is
unnecessary for light-sport aircraft. As stated in the NPRM, the FAA
believes that a maximum speed limit is appropriate for aircraft
designed for operation by persons with the minimum training and
experience of a sport pilot. Some commenters state that the maximum
speed limitation is essentially unenforceable. For the purpose of
issuing the special light-sport aircraft airworthiness certificate, the
FAA believes that the consensus standards will identify an easily
repeatable demonstration for the manufacturer to prove that the
aircraft meets the light-sport aircraft definition. The manufacturer
will perform this test in support of its statement of compliance.
One commenter stated that aircraft speeds vary with altitude, and
the light-sport aircraft definition did not state any FAA expectation
concerning this. The FAA agrees with the comment, and is specifying in
the light-sport aircraft definition that performance limitations are
expected to be met for standard atmospheric conditions at sea level.
Commenters stated that the FAA's proposed limit of 115 knots
maximum airspeed in level flight with maximum continuous power is
unnecessary or redundant because the aircraft weight and stall speed
establish power and wing loading, which effectively set drag that
limits maximum speed. One commenter proposed that a weight limit of 750
pounds for a single-seat light-sport airplane would limit power and
airspeed without requiring a design constraint. Alternatively, some
commenters proposed that the sport pilot accept an operating limitation
to not operate at speeds in excess of the FAA's desired limit. A
commenter proposed that a sport pilot operating limitation of 100 knots
CAS in the airport traffic pattern should be an alternative to the
proposed light-sport aircraft maximum airspeed limit. The FAA believes
that because of the wide variety of aircraft to be included in the
[[Page 44796]]
light-sport aircraft definition, the use of airplane-based parameters
is not adequate to eliminate an upper limit on light-sport aircraft
speed. The FAA requires a maximum speed limit to assure a light-sport
aircraft design that is compatible with the capabilities of a sport
pilot. However the FAA disagrees with the use of operating limitations
to prescribe limitations on the aircraft definition. Using operating
limitations instead of aircraft design limits may permit sport pilots
to use aircraft that exceed the parameters of the light-sport aircraft
definition.
Commenters requested that the FAA consider alternative maximum
speed limits, ranging from 120 to 187 knots CAS. One commenter proposed
that the maximum airspeed limit should be 120 knots, so that 2 nautical
miles (NM) per minute would simplify navigation by pilotage. The FAA
disagrees that simplifying navigation by pilotage would be an
appropriate justification; however, the FAA is increasing the maximum
speed value to 120 knots CAS from the 115 knots CAS originally
proposed. As previously stated, the FAA believes this small increase is
appropriate for the revised definition of ``light-sport aircraft,'' and
it remains consistent with the original proposal. The FAA does not
believe that this change will materially affect the population of
aircraft that are eligible to meet the definition of light-sport
aircraft.
Commenters stated that the proposed limit is unenforceable, because
a propeller pitch change can increase or decrease the airplane speed at
maximum power. Some commenters asked if flat pitch propellers or engine
governors would be permitted as a way for an airplane to satisfy the
maximum airspeed constraint. The FAA agrees that the manufacturer may
use flat pitch propellers or engine governors as part of the aircraft
design to demonstrate compliance with the light-sport aircraft
definition. If an aircraft propeller or engine configuration causes the
aircraft to exceed the prescribed limitations, the aircraft will not be
considered to meet the definition of light-sport aircraft. The FAA
notes that although it is not permitting variable pitch propellers, the
use of ground adjustable propellers is permitted. The FAA expects the
airplane manufacturer to define the airplane configuration, using
critical parameters, when determining compliance with the light-sport
aircraft definition. The FAA expects that the sport pilot will operate
the aircraft in the configuration that the manufacturer used to
demonstrate compliance with the light-sport aircraft definition.
Commenters stated that the proposed limit is impractical, because
when the airplane nose drops, it will accelerate and possibly exceed
the limit set by the light-sport aircraft definition. The FAA disagrees
that the limit is impractical. The proposed limit is for straight and
level flight only and should not be confused with a maximum operating
speed or a maximum dive speed. The consensus standard for airplane
design and performance will assure that the aircraft structure has
adequate margins to be operated within its allowable speed range.
Several commenters stated that the same flying skills are needed
for a slower or a faster airplane. The FAA disagrees and notes that the
skills necessary to operate an aircraft that exceeds 120 knots differ
from those skills necessary to operate a light-sport aircraft. In
addition, the FAA requires a sport pilot to obtain additional training
to operate an aircraft with VH greater than 87 knots and
less than 120 knots because different skills are necessary to operate
these light-sport aircraft with higher performance capabilities. For
further discussion on training requirements reference ``V.5.A.iii.
Flight Training and Proficiency Requirements'' in the discussion of
Part 61 general issues.
A commenter proposed that a different light-sport airplane category
permit faster airplanes, or that a sport pilot be permitted to operate
faster airplanes with a logbook endorsement. The FAA disagrees that
sport pilots should be permitted to fly faster aircraft heavier than
permitted by the definition of light-sport aircraft. The FAA believes
that a pilot operating aircraft above the speed in the definition
should have at least a private or recreational pilot's certificate
because the FAA believes it would not be appropriate or safe for
persons with the minimum training and experience of a sport pilot to
operate faster or heavier aircraft.
A commenter stated that cruise speed has little to do with aircraft
energy when the aircraft is out of control. The FAA notes that the
purpose of the limitation on speed is to make it easier for the sport
pilot to maintain aircraft control. The FAA believes that, at higher
cruise speeds, the possibility for adverse consequences from momentary
loss of control is greater. Commenters objected that the proposed limit
would force the design of inefficient aircraft. The FAA disagrees with
this opinion. Faster aircraft are not necessarily more efficient than
slower aircraft. Maximum speed is not an indication as to whether or
not an aircraft has an efficient design. An efficient aircraft design
(with lower drag) can provide benefits to the operator other than
increased speed. Such benefits may permit the aircraft to use a smaller
engine, have increased range, or have increased payload capacity.
Some commenters proposed that a horsepower limit would be more
suitable than a maximum speed limit. A commenter stated that horsepower
and drag are the factors that set airplane maximum speed. The FAA
agrees that there are alternative methods of limiting aircraft speed,
however, the FAA has chosen to limit the speed directly rather than
indirectly through some other parameter. Due to the variability of
aircraft design the FAA believes that limiting horsepower would not
necessarily result in consistent maximum airspeed limitations.
Some commenters stated that higher speed does not affect safety,
but insufficient power may reduce safety. The FAA has previously
discussed how higher speed may affect safety. With regard to simple,
low-performance aircraft, the design and performance consensus standard
will ensure that all aircraft meet a minimum performance standard and
therefore provide an acceptable level of safety. Several commenters
stated that the maximum airspeed is dependent upon throttle position,
and that operating at 100% throttle is not a normal operation. Although
this statement is true, the FAA has determined that it is appropriate
to impose a maximum speed limit for the reasons stated above.
Another commenter stated that many airplanes ``claim'' inflated top
speeds, so only a demonstrated maximum speed would be credible. The FAA
agrees and notes that VH was selected as it is easily
demonstrated. Several commenters noted that in-service variations
affecting engine or propeller efficiency, instrument calibration, or
airplane aerodynamics could cause significant variations in actual
maximum airspeed. The FAA agrees that some small variations in actual
aircraft performance are to be expected. However, the FAA believes that
a demonstration by the manufacturer of the aircraft's maximum airspeed
in a specified configuration is adequate to ensure that the airplane
design is compatible with the light-sport aircraft definition. A
commenter stated that foreign sport airplane airworthiness standards do
not impose a maximum airspeed requirement, and this would be an unfair
advantage compared to American aircraft. The FAA disagrees that foreign
aircraft have an unfair advantage. Regardless of the country of
manufacture, in order to be considered a light-sport aircraft, the
aircraft must
[[Page 44797]]
meet the parameters of the light-sport aircraft definition.
A commenter proposed that the light-sport aircraft definition
should assure structural integrity by requiring that the maximum speed
in level flight with maximum continuous power, VH, be less
than or equal to the design maneuvering speed (VA) at
altitudes of 8,000 feet or less. Because the FAA is not establishing
structural limits in the definition of light-sport aircraft, it would
be inappropriate to include this constraint in the definition. The FAA
believes that this would be an excessive restriction for light-sport
aircraft.
Paragraph (3) Maximum Never-Exceed Speed (VNE) for a Glider
A commenter stated that the FAA's proposed maximum speed of 115
knots for a glider does not provide adequate protection against
headwinds or wind shear. A commenter asked that the never-exceed speed
(VNE) be increased slightly to allow for increased safety,
utility, and comfort. Several comments recommended increased
VNE for gliders. Additional comments expressed satisfaction
with the consistency with the VH for powered aircraft. The
FAA is aware that the two maximum speed limits established in the
light-sport aircraft definition have two different bases. As stated in
the previous section, the FAA's concern is that the light-sport
aircraft definition set a maximum speed limit for the aircraft to be
flown by sport pilots. In response to the comments reported in this
section, in the final rule, VNE for gliders is increased to
120 knots CAS. This is done to maintain consistency between the
VH value for powered aircraft and the VNE value
for gliders.
Proposed Paragraph (4) Maximum Stalling Speed or Minimum Steady Flight
Speed in Landing Configuration (VS0)
Some commenters recommended that the FAA eliminate the 39-knot
stall speed in the landing configuration. Many comments recommended
raising the limit of 39 knots CAS in the landing configuration. Some
commenters questioned the narrow proposed spread between the originally
proposed VS0 (proposed in paragraph (4)) of 39 knots CAS and
the VS1 (proposed in paragraph (5)) of 44 knots CAS.
The FAA agrees that the proposed spread of stall speeds in practice
is narrow, and provides a mixed message as to the limiting design
condition. A low stall speed is desirable, but not at the expense of
forcing a simple aircraft that otherwise meets the definition to become
more complex to operate and maintain by adding flaps to a design for no
other purpose than to meet the VS0 requirement. Light-sport
aircraft may have flaps because the safety benefit of this feature can
be achieved without the complexity inherent in retractable landing gear
or controllable-pitch propellers. The FAA is eliminating the maximum
stalling speed in the landing configuration (VS0)
restriction that was proposed in paragraph (4) of the NPRM because the
low-speed limit is adequately addressed by the maximum ``clean'' stall
speed (VS1).
Final Rule Paragraph (4) Maximum Stalling Speed or Minimum Steady
Flight Speed Without the Use of Lift-Enhancing Devices (VS1) (Proposed
as Paragraph (5))
The FAA received numerous comments concernin