WASHINGTON, D.C.—Within the next month, the FAA will release a final rule outlining pilot certification and initial operations for electric vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) air taxis and other powered-lift aircraft, a U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) official said Thursday.

At Honeywell’s third annual Advanced Ait Mobility (AAM) Summit in Washington, D.C., Christopher Coes, acting undersecretary of transportation for policy within the DOT, said a highly anticipated special federal aviation regulation (SFAR) defining the rules will be published in the next few weeks.

“The department has a final rule for our powered-lift operations, and we expect that that will be published in the next month,” Coes said. “And I think you will see it is quite responsive to the industry’s comments.”

Industry Raises Concerns

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for the powered-lift SFAR in June 2023. The rule would set alternative training and eligibility requirements for certifying powered-lift pilots as well as create operational rules for passenger and cargo transport.

But the document was decried by a collective of stakeholders, spearheaded by the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA), who took issue with many of the agency’s proposals.

Namely, industry groups believe powered-lift training courses should credit existing rotorcraft and airplane category certificates, and pilots should be able to add a powered-lift rating directly to those permissions. They urged the FAA to lower the threshold for powered-lift flight hours, remove a requirement that limits training to dual control aircraft, and allow more training in simulators.

The groups also argue that performance-based—rather than prescriptive—rules should be used for powered-lift flight, such as by applying airplane and rotorcraft rules as appropriate rather than creating a new category of operations.

Kristie Greco Johnson, senior vice president of government affairs for the National Business Aviation Association (NBAA), said Thursday that members are seeking a “practical pathway” to AAM integration. And the SFAR could be that pathway.

“AAM isn’t a future Jetsons concept,” Johnson said. “It is actually happening right now in our airspace.”

Amanda Joyner, managing director of government affairs for GAMA, agreed with Johnson and said members are hopeful that the SFAR will help them to get their products on the market quickly. Eventually, investment into AAM manufacturers will dry up if the firms are unable to demonstrate a product, so a final rule could help them begin to turn a profit.

What It Means

The deadline for a powered-lift SFAR is December 16, as mandated by the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 signed into law on May 16—a provision that was lauded by industry organizations, private companies, and lawmakers alike.

The FAA earlier this week missed the bill’s September 16 deadline to issue a NPRM for beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) drone flight. But Andrew Miller, a staffer on the Senate Commerce Minority Committee, and Alexander Simpson, a staffer on that chamber’s majority counterpart, said they are confident the FAA will meet the SFAR timeframe. Hunter Presti, a staffer on the House Majority Transportation Committee, is optimistic but believes it will be tight.

According to Simpson, should the agency miss its deadline, existing standards and regulations for rotorcraft and fixed-wing aircraft would apply to powered-lift models.

Coes said his office is simultaneously developing a U.S. national strategy to safely integrate AAM operations alongside conventional aircraft. That plan has been in the works for over a year and is under department review.

The initiative will require an interagency review and final briefing to Congress, “but I am confident that this will be a set of documents that can be championed by the industry, by academia, by labor, our state and local partners, as well as Congress,” Coes said.

Coes added that his team is working with the International Civil Aviation Organization’s AAM study group to harmonize international consensus on AAM standards, practices, and procedures. The goal, he said, is to ensure the U.S. takes the reins on those provisions.

Conference attendees including Coes hope the FAA and other federal agencies will be able to use the Los Angeles Olympic Games in 2028 as a showcase for AAM technology. The event could also serve as a proving ground for the integration of AAM aircraft with other transportation systems.

In support of that effort, the FAA last year released its Innovate28 blueprint for air taxi integration. Earlier this year, the agency proposed comprehensive certification criteria for AAM aircraft, laying the groundwork to get them approved to fly.

But there is still a long way to go, and the powered-lift SFAR—whenever it is released—will be a key part of the process.

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

The post DOT: Final Rule on Air Taxi Pilot Training, Operations Coming Soon appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Joby on Tuesday announced it acquired the autonomy division of Xwing, the developer of autonomous gate-to-gate flight software Superpilot, as it looks ahead to a transition to self-flying air taxi services. The manufacturer plans to initially operate the aircraft with onboard pilots and has a partnership with Delta Air Lines to launch commercial service as early as next year, beginning in New York and Los Angeles.

Terms of the deal were not disclosed. But the acquisition was paid for with Joby shares and covers “all of Xwing’s existing automation and autonomy technology activities,” the company said.

“The aircraft we are certifying will have a fully qualified pilot on board,” said JoeBen Bevirt, founder and CEO of Joby, “but we recognize that a future generation of autonomous aircraft will play an important part in unlocking our vision of making clean and affordable aerial mobility as accessible as possible.”

Like competitors Wisk Aero, the eVTOL subsidiary of Boeing, and Archer Aviation—which in August agreed to make Wisk the exclusive provider of autonomous systems for a future variant of its flagship air taxi—Joby evidently believes autonomy will be key to scaling up its operations.

The manufacturer began exploring pilotless flight in 2021 with the acquisition of radar developer Inras, whose technology it said it would use to develop an onboard sensing and navigation system.

One problem the eVTOL industry faces is a lack of powered-lift pilots, for which the FAA is working to develop a training and certification pathway. In the short term, autonomy could take on more flight functions, akin to autopilot technology on commercial airliners, to allow operations with smaller crews. Further out, it could allow Joby to remove the pilot from its aircraft entirely.

Wisk argues that the technology will further make operations safer and more affordable for passengers. That’s important, because eVTOL manufacturers, including Joby and Archer, claim their air taxi services will be cost-competitive with ground-based rideshare options such as Uber and Lyft.

Additionally, Joby said Xwing’s Superpilot will help it fulfill obligations for the U.S. Department of Defense, through which it is under contract with AFWERX, the innovation arm of the U.S. Air Force. The manufacturer has so far committed to four deliveries out of a total of nine air taxi orders—two each to Edwards Air Force Base in California and MacDill Air Force Base in Florida—delivering one to Edwards.

Joby in March estimated that the agreement has a total contract value of $163 million but on Tuesday said Xwing’s technology gives it room for growth.

“Autonomous systems are increasingly prolific in the private sector and bring potentially game-changing advantages to the Air Force as well,” said Colonel Elliott Leigh, director of AFWERX and chief commercialization officer for the Air Force. “We created Autonomy Prime to keep up with this shift and to stay engaged as a partner while this technology evolves so that we can adapt and evolve along with the private sector, maintaining our competitive advantage.”

Rather than develop autonomous software in-house, as it does for most of its aircraft’s components and systems, Joby will instead adopt the technology Xwing has been building since its founding in 2016.

A platform-agnostic system, Superpilot uses AI and machine learning algorithms to automate a range of tasks such as vision system processing, detect and avoid, decision making, and mission management, including route planning and live updates.

The system integrates into type-certified aircraft and is designed to change the role and location of the pilot, enabling remote supervision from a ground control station within the existing air traffic control system. However, Xwing on its website says the technology “is applicable to and will improve safety in both piloted and autonomous aircraft.”

Xwing began flying Superpilot-equipped aircraft in 2020 and has since completed more than 250 autonomous flights and 500 autolandings using a modified Cessna 208B Grand Caravan. Since 2021, it has operated a Part 135 air carrier business, flying 400 feeder cargo flights per week for UPS. Through a nonexclusive agreement with Cessna manufacturer Textron Aviation, the company intends to retrofit more small cargo aircraft, beginning with the Grand Caravan.

Last year, Superpilot became the first standard category large uncrewed aerial system (UAS) to receive an official FAA project designation, initiating the process for it to be approved for commercial cargo operations in U.S. national airspace. Under a three-year contract with NASA, Xwing is allowing researchers to study the technology and develop a safety management system (SMS) to integrate routine, pilotless flights alongside conventional aircraft.

In May 2023, the Air Force committed to exploring Superpilot for defense applications through a 21-month flight trial awarded by AFWERX. It must like what it’s seen so far, because less than a year into the partnership, it granted military airworthiness to Xwing’s modified Cessna, allowing it to begin performing cargo missions in unrestricted airspace. In February, the aircraft completed the Air Force’s first autonomous logistics mission.

Joby on Tuesday said Xwing engineers, researchers and technologists will join the manufacturer to seek out new technology development partnerships with the DOD. The department is eyeing autonomous cargo aircraft as a way to take human pilots out of potentially dangerous scenarios.

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

The post Joby Acquires Autonomous Flight Developer Xwing appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

In a level of coordination and political mobilization not that uncommon in the industry, what seems like the entirety of general aviation has rallied against the FAA’s proposed rules for training and certification of powered lift pilots. And it did it the old-fashioned way: by penning the agency a strongly worded letter.

The FAA’s 160-page Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR), published in the Federal Register for comment in June, attempts to create a pathway to establish the initial cohort of pilots who will conduct advanced air mobility (AAM) operations using electric vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) and other emerging aircraft designs. Think air taxis, such as Joby Aviation or Volocopter.

But despite the clear amount of effort that went into the document, a collective of industry stakeholders spearheaded by the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) fears the proposal falls short.

GAMA’s comments are supported by the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA); Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA); Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA); Helicopter Association International (HAI); National Air Transportation Association (NATA); National Business Aviation Association (NBAA); and Vertical Flight Society (VFS).

Let’s start with the good. GAMA praised the “dedication and efforts” of FAA rulemakers, acknowledging the challenge of integrating an entirely new model of aircraft into the national airspace system. An accompanying comment from the NBAA highlighted a few provisions in the SFAR the groups support. These relate largely to the inclusion of powered lift instrument procedures, operations in remote areas, and extended permissions for pilot inspections.

But that’s about it. The bulk of GAMA’s letter criticized four key provisions in the SFAR, which the industry feels will impede AAM entry into service, restrict operations, and place undue burdens on pilots, instructors, and manufacturers.

Representing more than 150 of the world’s largest general aviation manufacturers, operators, service providers, and other stakeholders, GAMA has plenty of political clout on Capitol Hill. And with the added support of the NBAA, NATA, and others, chances are these comments will inform the FAA’s final rule.

So, let’s dive into the implications of the industry’s recommendations.

Where It All Started

Though GAMA highlighted the challenge of certifying an entirely new cohort of aircraft and pilots, many of the obstacles the FAA faces are of its own making.

Last year, the agency unexpectedly reversed course on eVTOL certification, opting to certify the aircraft as “special class” powered lift aircraft under FAR 21.17(b) rather than as normal category airplanes with special conditions under 21.17(a). This followed four years of communication that 21.17(a) would be the standard.

While some supported the reversal, it immediately drew criticism from eVTOL manufacturers and stakeholders, including GAMA, whose members “weren’t happy” with the change. A Department of Transportation audit of the FAA, released in June, alleges the rule change significantly impeded the agency’s progress on fostering the new industry.

Interestingly, the FAA cited pilot certification as the catalyst for its decision: “These regulations did not anticipate the need to train pilots to operate powered lift [aircraft], which take off in helicopter mode, transition into airplane mode for flying, and then transition back to helicopter mode for landing.”

But the new certification path may actually complicate pilot training and certification.

It has been brought up that the skills required to pilot two existing powered lift aircraft, the Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey and the F-35B, are very different, though the FAA currently issues former military pilots of these aircraft powered lift pilot certificates with no distinction for these differences. The argument has been made that placing all powered lift aircraft in the same category in a similar fashion creates issues with the uneven distribution of privileges, which GAMA says can only be resolved by requiring additional type-specific training for all aircraft models.

Recommendation 1: Training Should Credit Existing Certificates

According to GAMA, the SFAR proposal “reflects the same path for new powered lift pilots as existing requirements for airplane and rotorcraft.” In other words, it’s largely hours based.

To operate powered lift aircraft, the FAA proposes that airplane and helicopter category pilot certificate holders first obtain a powered lift category rating by completing a certificate at the commercial level followed by a type rating. The add-on would require 50 hours of flight time in the category. This echoes the updated airline transport pilot (ATP) rule, which has been criticized by pilots and airlines for its arbitrarily high time requirement.

All applicants (including Flight Standardization Board pilots, who will likely be the first to fly these aircraft) must log at least 50 flight hours in the category.

This is “not a practical nor appropriate” pathway to certify initial pilots, GAMA says. It argues that airplane and rotorcraft category certificate holders are experienced pilots ready for type-specific training. In short, there is no added value or safety benefit from requiring them to train on generic powered lift aircraft—a category it contends does not yet even exist—before pursuing a type rating.

The agency itself acknowledged the lack of a generic powered lift category in the SFAR: “…The FAA has determined that, unlike airplanes and rotorcraft, it is not feasible to establish classes within the powered lift category at this time.”

In lieu of the two-step process, GAMA recommends the FAA allow a powered lift type rating to be added directly to an airplane or helicopter category pilot certificate, which would remove a big chunk of the hours requirement. This, the group says, aligns with International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standards for certifying pilots for powered lift operations.

GAMA suggests that because the proposal seeks to qualify already-certificated pilots with plenty of experience, the curriculum should be based on training rather than hours. It points to the FAA’s removal of the requirement for military pilots to build time in unrelated training aircraft, which the agency says provides no added safety benefit.

“This requirement is not a training requirement but a time-building requirement,” GAMA wrote. “The economic realities of operating a large powered-lift will incentivize an applicant to build this time in a lower-cost aircraft that might not be relevant to the aircraft they intend to operate commercially.”

Instead of the time required for a powered lift category certificate, GAMA argues that minimums should align more closely with those for an instrument powered lift rating in 61.65(f) and the powered lift rating flight hour requirements in 61.129(e)(3) and 61.129(e)(4). Specifically, GAMA stated, “Industry questions the net safety benefit of § 61.129(e)(1), requirement for 50 hours in a powered-lift for which the SFAR proposes no alternate requirements. This requirement is not a training requirement, but a time-building requirement. The economic realities of operating a large powered-lift will incentivize an applicant to build this time in a lower-cost aircraft that might not be relevant to the aircraft they intend to operate commercially.” 

“GAMA and its members propose instead that the time required in a powered-lift should be linked to meeting the minimums specified in §§ 61.65(f), 61.129(e)(3), and 61.129 (e)(4), which are training-oriented requirements rather than mere time-building metrics.”

Stakeholders were particularly critical of the 50 powered lift flight hour requirement. Few, if any, FSB pilots hold powered lift category ratings at the commercial level and therefore cannot complete flight hours in a powered lift aircraft requiring a type rating. This, the industry argues, would place the burden on the aircraft manufacturer to provide FSB pilot flight hours.

By GAMA’s estimate, requiring a full 50 hours per pilot could extend the FSB process by as many as nine months. And with a growing number of manufacturers looking to enter the FSB process at the same time, that issue is not likely to go away.

The groups contend that the SFAR’s proposed requirement of an airplane or helicopter category rating and the similarities between maneuvering those aircraft and powered lift designs justifies credit toward the 50-hour requirement. It also recommended the FAA consider takeoff and landing operations as equivalent to a flight hour, similar to the way 61.159(b) allows certain night takeoffs and landings to count toward night flight hours. 

Further, the group suggests that after applicants complete an approved training course, the FAA should accept simulator flight training or supervised line flying (more on that later) as sufficient to approve newly rated powered lift pilots for commercial operations.

Recommendation 2: Ax the Dual-Control Aircraft Requirement

One unexpected piece of the FAA’s proposal would require AAM manufacturers to maintain a separate, dual-control variant of their design—or find a different model altogether—specifically for pilot training. The agency contends that before operating a model with single controls, pilots must show they can safely fly a dual-control design with an instructor.

Industry stakeholders have several qualms with this. For one, many powered lift models will not have dual-control alternatives in the near term, since most manufacturers have developed their designs with a single set of flight controls. The rule would also penalize manufacturers who have integrated advanced flight controls by proposing a single pathway for training. 

“These barriers are a direct consequence of FAA reversals on this rulemaking and the content of the proposed SFAR,” GAMA says.

The groups further contend that this “one-size-fits-all approach” could compromise safety, considering the dual-control training aircraft may have very different controls and performance compared to the real deal.

The proposal also fails to consider the safety benefits of simulator-based training, which is at the core of GAMA’s recommendation. It asserts that simulator tech has come far enough to offer realistic scenarios minus the risk, proposing the FAA allow applicants to complete training in flight simulation training devices (FSTDs) under approved training courses.

These courses should cover all maneuver training in certified FSTDs qualified for training, testing and checking the airman certification standards maneuvers outlined in recent FAA rulemaking. They should also conduct part of the practical test in an aircraft, GAMA says, which would eliminate pilot-in-command (PIC) and supervised operating experience (SOE) requirements on the applicant’s new certificate.

After qualification, the groups recommend a post-qualification program under Part 135 that would require supervised line flying in the NAS in order to codify flight experience within the training course.

Currently, the Department of Defense uses simulators, augmented flight controls, and endorsed solo flight experience to allow airplane pilots to operate powered-lift aircraft. GAMA suggests these procedures could serve as a reference point for powered lift training programs.

Taking things a step further, the industry asks the FAA to leverage existing precedent and acknowledge the experience gained in one category of aircraft (i.e. airplanes or helicopters) as “creditably similar” to the requirements for powered-lift qualifications.

Accordingly, it argues the agency does not need to require SOE for all single control aircraft, like the current SFAR proposes. Rather, it should allow for exemptions and open a pathway to awarding letters of authorization to manufacturers that can demonstrate their FSTDs meet the same standard.

As things stand, SOE is not required if a single control aircraft is capable of assessing the five maneuvers laid out in 61.64(f)(1). By creating an alternate pathway, the FAA could lower the number of requests for exemption from this provision, allow SOE to be done virtually or in a simulator, or exempt trainees from SOE altogether if the aircraft requires reduced skill or knowledge to operate.

Recommendation 3: Remove the Red Tape Around Flight Simulators

In the current SFAR, the FAA mandates that manufacturers publish powered lift FSTD qualification performance standards (QPS)—essentially, the agency’s curriculum for simulators—in the Federal Register for public notice and comment. But GAMA argues this requirement could delay entry into service beyond the initial cohort of powered lift aircraft.

Instead, it recommends the FAA allow manufacturers to pick and choose portions of the QPS as appropriate for each type of powered lift design. This, it says, aligns with the National Simulator Program’s approach, which recognizes exceptions for certain FSTDs.

As GAMA points out, many powered lift manufacturers and training partners have already proposed QPSs and had deviations approved. Under the current proposal, these firms risk having to go through the QPS process all over again.

The group adds that because the SFAR would amend FAR 60.1—effectively incorporating powered-lift aircraft into Part 60—the proposed requirement for public notice and comment is unnecessary. Since it would overlap with powered lift FSTD qualifications already outlined in FAA rules, all it would do is strain time and resources.

Stakeholders further ask the FAA to expand the types of simulators that can be used for training, which the SFAR limits to Level C or higher. They argue that new, lower-level technology can meet or even surpass safety requirements, as well as lower costs for the operator—which would make the Level C provision moot.

Recommendation 4: Treat Powered Lift Aircraft the Way They Want To Be Treated

While GAMA’s first three points of contention focus on pilot training and certification, its final criticism turns the spotlight on operations.

As written, the SFAR primarily applies airplane rules to powered lift operations, with few exceptions. That inherently limits the acceptability of rotorcraft rules, which in GAMA’s view fails to consider that many powered lift designs fly just like helicopters.

The core issue here is that the proposed operating rules are prescriptive: They place all powered lift aircraft under the same regulatory umbrella, despite the wide spectrum of capabilities and use cases they possess. Accordingly, the industry is clamoring for performance-based rules.

GAMA suggests the FAA apply operating rules for both airplanes and rotorcraft as appropriate, based on the performance characteristics of each powered-lift aircraft type demonstrated during type certification. Basically, it asks the agency to treat powered-lift as airplanes when they fly like airplanes and as helicopters when they fly like helicopters.

The FAA could do this by approving individualized operating rules based on each operator’s safety management system, training requirements or other factors, achieved through an operations specification for Part 135 air carriers or a letter of authorization for Part 91 operators. This would allow them to collect and share data about the suitability of rotorcraft operational rules for powered-lift and adjust current standards.

It would help the FAA accommodate the range of vehicle types and performance capabilities in the new category. The industry recommends the agency revisit its proposal and take inventory of operational data every two years in order to make necessary refinements.

There are a few specific operational requirements GAMA highlighted. Under proposed 91.155, powered lift aircraft would be subject to the same visibility requirements as airplanes. But since they can maneuver like helicopters, possess VTOL capabilities, and can operate safely at low airspeeds and altitudes, the group contends helicopter rules should apply.

It argues the same for minimum safe altitudes, asserting that powered lift designs have similar emergency maneuverability to helicopters and therefore should be allowed to fly below the safe minimum for airplanes. In the SFAR, the FAA counters that some powered lift aircraft lack the autorotation capabilities of helicopters and could lose altitude when transitioning from forward to vertical flight.

Overwater operations are one of the few areas the FAA proposed permitting helicopter rules for powered lift. But again, GAMA disagreed. This time, it argues that some eVTOLs glide on fixed wings like airplanes when carrying passengers over water. As such, the agency should apply airplane rules to these designs.

The industry’s final point of contention concerns fuel reserve requirements, which the FAA proposes should be time-based. But because powered lift aircraft can land vertically like helicopters to find runways when fuel is low and can operate in reduced visibility, stakeholders counter with a performance-based system.

That framework would instead account for mission- and aircraft-specific conditions. Through a mission-specific range and endurance hazard assessment that covers weather, air traffic, and airport conditions, mission planning, and other factors, the industry argues manufacturers could determine how much reserve fuel is needed.

Ball Now in the FAA’s Court

GAMA and the other groups have a few peripheral concerns. The biggest is the SFAR’s Regulatory Impact Analysis, which they say excludes key costs and resources and paints a misleading picture of the FAA’s ability to implement the new rules.

But really, the industry’s recommendations boil down to four key points:

1. Allow a powered lift type rating to be added to airplane and helicopter category pilot certificates.
2. Add language to create an alternative pathway to powered lift training beyond dual-control aircraft.
3. Grant deviation authority in the FSTD QPS process.
4. Add language like “unless otherwise specified” to operational provisions applying airplane and helicopter rules to powered lift operations.

These four changes alone won’t achieve the industry’s vision. But they would help shift powered lift pilot training and certification away from hours-based standards and toward a more practical, accessible, and cost-effective pathway. They would also allow early powered-lift aircraft to operate the way they were built to be operated.

After two months, the proposed SFAR this week officially closed for comments. Now, the ball is in the FAA’s court—and the pressure is on from all corners of the industry.

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

The post GAMA and Other Industry Groups Cast Shade on FAA Powered Lift Pilot Proposal appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The proposed rule, scheduled to be published in the Federal Register for comments next week, would greatly expand privileges for light sport aircraft (LSA) pilots, including the ability to fly larger, heavier aircraft at greater speeds. It covers changes to just about every aspect of LSA, from manufacturing and certification to operations, maintenance, and alteration.

But buried within the 318-page document (yes, I read the entire thing, and my head is spinning) are some pretty interesting implications for advanced air mobility (AAM).

Specifically, MOSAIC would allow rotorcraft (defined in the proposal as helicopters and gyroplanes) and electric vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) aircraft—which I’ll use interchangeably with the FAA’s term “powered-lift” moving forward—to be certificated as light sport aircraft.

It would also introduce electric propulsion systems to the LSA market and grant rotorcraft privileges to light sport pilots, instructors, and repairmen. In other words, LSA certificate holders may soon be able to fly, instruct on, and repair certain helicopters.

MOSAIC is not yet a final rule, and the FAA’s proposal could change depending on the comments it receives in the 90 days following its publication. But let’s dig into some of the key implications for AAM:

A New Path to Certification for Rotorcraft and Powered-Lift

If MOSAIC is approved as written, helicopters and eVTOL aircraft would enter the light sport arena.

Under current rules, LSA are defined as aircraft other than rotorcraft or powered-lift designs. But the FAA proposes allowing both categories to obtain special airworthiness certification in the light sport category if they are eligible under proposed Section 22.100, which includes the new weight, cruise speed, and stall speed requirements.

Rotorcraft and powered-lift aircraft will also need to adhere to performance-based requirements in the proposed Part 22, which would set out design, production, and airworthiness requirements for the new light-sport inductees. An FAA-accepted consensus standard would serve as the means of compliance.

This change would essentially allow any aircraft class to be certified as light sport, so long as they meet those Part 22 performance requirements and are eligible under Section 22.100. Trained compliance staff would also be required to ensure the aircraft fits with the FAA-accepted consensus standard.

While MOSAIC proposes to lift the two-seat limitation for light sport aircraft, rotorcraft and powered-lift aircraft would still have that restriction. This means air taxi models, like Joby or Archer Aviation’s, wouldn’t fit the bill, but personal eVTOLs with one or two seats would be eligible.

The agency has also asked commenters to chime in with potential weight and noise restrictions for these aircraft.

New Aircraft, New Rules

Of course, incorporating these new aircraft into the light sport class will require a slew of regulatory changes.

Though the FAA proposes relaxing stall speed restrictions for LSA, rotorcraft and powered-lift aircraft won’t face any limitations due to their ability to hover (or, in the case of some rotorcraft, autorotate to the ground). The agency also determined rotorcraft and powered-lift designs inherently place a cap on cruise speed, eliminating the need for a limit.

Instead, it proposes powered-lift manufacturers determine the minimum safe speed for each of the aircraft’s phases of flight, including lift, transition, and wing-borne cruise. The proposed Section 22.115 calls for those estimates to account for the most adverse conditions in each phase, giving pilots an idea of how to transition safely between flight modes.

Powered-lift aircraft and some rotorcraft will need to be designed with “safe, controllable, and predictable characteristics” that would allow a pilot to keep control of the aircraft in the event of an engine failure. The FAA suggested some form of automation could help fulfill this requirement.

Since some powered-lift aircraft and rotorcraft are unable to initiate a controlled landing in emergency situations—a feature inherent in airplane designs—the agency also proposes requiring all light sport aircraft to allow the pilot to maintain directional control, including during descent. This includes airplanes, as new designs may not inherently have that capability.

And finally, MOSAIC proposes rules for powered-lift operations near airports. In Class G airspace, powered-lift aircraft in wing-borne flight (which the agency treats as fixed-wing aircraft) can only make left turns unless the airport declares otherwise, the same as airplanes. The idea is to separate aircraft the FAA considers fixed-wing from other traffic, such as helicopters.

…And New Privileges

Already have a light-sport pilot, instructor, or mechanic rating? Good news: The FAA wants to expand your privileges.

Flight

MOSAIC proposes an amendment that would allow sport pilots to operate “certain simple-to-fly helicopters.” To be eligible, a helicopter would need to be certificated under the proposed Section 21.190 and include simplified flight controls.

The proposal would add helicopter-specific areas of operation and tasks that would apply to sport pilots seeking to fly a helicopter. These would include hovering maneuvers and ground and flight training on heliport operations from an instructor.

Sport pilots would still need to be proficient in other operations currently in the rule (such as takeoff, landing, and performance maneuvers) but would be excepted from operations such as ground reference maneuvers, slow flight, and stalls.

The FAA argues that the minimum experience requirements for a recreational pilot to obtain a helicopter rating also fit sport pilots seeking that designation, since the operational limitations are nearly identical. As such, it would require the latter to complete:

• 30 hours total helicopter flight time.
• 15 hours flight training.
• Five hours of solo flight.
• Two hours flight training enroute to an airport more than 25 nm from where the applicant normally trains.
• Three takeoffs and landings at an airport more than 25 nm from where the applicant normally trains.
• Three hours of solo flying in the aircraft for the privilege sought on the applicable areas of operation listed in Section 61.98 (which would include helicopter-specific operations).

Applicants would also need to complete three hours of training with an authorized instructor to prepare for a practical test. The test would cover areas of operation addressed under the proposed Sport Pilot Helicopter Airman Certification Standards (ACS), such as pre- and postflight procedures, performance maneuvers, airport and heliport operations, takeoffs, and landings.

Sport pilots seeking to add a helicopter rating would also need to complete a knowledge test, as opposed to the less stringent proficiency check that currently allows them to add new privileges.

Since powered-lift designs are complex and many are still in development, MOSAIC would not allow sport pilots to fly them—at least not yet. The FAA hinted it may consider adding that privilege for aircraft that fit within the constraints of sport pilot operations and certification requirements. For now, though, the agency has proposed separate powered-lift pilot certification and training requirements.

Instruction

Like sport pilots, sport pilot instructors would also gain helicopter privileges under MOSAIC.

Similarly, instructors would need to pass a knowledge test and a practical test based on a proposed Sport Flight Instructor Helicopter ACS, which resembles the Sport Pilot Helicopter ACS but includes a few extra study areas.

They would be required to log ground and flight training on areas of operation that apply to other aircraft, as well as the newly proposed helicopter-specific operations. The FAA also wants to add a “special operations” area, which would encompass some of the tasks under the Sport Flight Instructor Helicopter ACS. However, like pilots, they would also be exempt from operations such as slow flight and stalls.

In terms of experience, sport pilot instructors would need to accumulate 150 hours of flight time as pilot in command (PIC), including:

• 100 hours flight time as PIC of a powered aircraft.
• 50 hours flight time in a rotorcraft or helicopter.
• 25 hours cross-country flight time.
• 10 hours cross-country flight time in a rotorcraft or helicopter.
• 15 hours flight time as PIC of a helicopter.

To address the vacuum of sport pilot instructors that may be created when MOSAIC takes effect, the FAA proposes relying on Subpart H instructors who already have a rotorcraft category helicopter rating on their certificate. 

The agency would allow these instructors to receive training and endorsements from manufacturers of simplified-control helicopters, qualifying them to train other instructors or sport pilots seeking helicopter privileges, training, and endorsement. In the FAA’s view, this would establish an initial group of instructors with helicopter privileges.

Repairs

With their expanded privileges, sport pilots and instructors have cause for celebration. But repairmen also have reason to rejoice!

Since MOSAIC would add rotorcraft and powered-lift aircraft to the light-sport category, the FAA anticipates an influx of aircraft in the market—and greater demand for repairs. Fittingly, it proposes an alteration to the repairman certificate (light sport aircraft) that would allow holders to work not only with helicopters but also powered-lift aircraft.

Training course providers would have six months following MOSAIC’s effective date to comply with newly proposed training standards, which are based on the existing ACS for aviation maintenance technicians. During that time, repairmen seeking to work with rotorcraft and powered-lift aircraft will need to complete an ACS-based course rather than an hours-based course.

To add helicopter or gyroplane privileges, MOSAIC would only require repairmen to complete a single rotorcraft training course, which covers both of those categories.

Electric Aircraft Enter the Fray

MOSAIC’s implications for light sport aircraft are without a doubt exciting. You could even say they’re electric—literally.

Currently, the definition of LSA limits designs to a single reciprocating engine, if powered. But MOSAIC proposes to omit this requirement, opening up the market to all kinds of engine and propulsion systems.

Per the FAA, this should encourage the development and innovation of different powerplants for LSA, “especially electric-powered aircraft.” It contends that any risk from the rule change would be mitigated by the aircraft and pilot certification process, but its benefits could range from a reduction in cost and emissions to much greater ease of operation.

The agency noted that the current American Society for Testing and Materials Standard F2840 lays the groundwork for developing electric propulsion units for electric-powered aircraft that cannot currently be certified as light sport aircraft. Accordingly, it recommended revising that standard to account for propulsion units that could be installed on rotorcraft, powered-lift aircraft, and any other new aircraft that might be certified as light-sport under MOSAIC.

Importantly, the FAA proposes these electric systems be designed to be removed or isolated, which would help prevent overheating, fire, and damage to electrical systems in the event of a malfunction. They’ll also need to have features that minimize the risk of an electrical fire during an emergency landing.

Should MOSAIC take effect as previewed, chances are it will take a while for the FAA to sort out the manufacturing and operational requirements for electric light sport aircraft. But the agency is clearly committed to incorporating them, and that could one day have a massive impact on aviation emissions.

Final Thoughts

To reemphasize—MOSAIC is simply a proposal, and it could change based on the comments from industry stakeholders. But the incorporation of rotorcraft and powered-lift aircraft into the light-sport category and the expanded privileges of sport pilots, instructors, and repairmen are likely to stick, at least in some form.

That could be a game-changer for the personal eVTOL market in particular. One- and two-seater eVTOL manufacturers such as Air and Jetson, which currently would need to endure the lengthy special type-certification process, could theoretically speed up things by certifying in the light-sport category.

The helicopter market stands to benefit greatly. That industry, like many others, is currently facing a pilot shortage, and it could get a boost from newly certificated light sport pilots, instructors, and repairmen.

The outlook for electric light sport aircraft is a bit murkier—if MOSAIC is approved, the FAA will still have some rulemaking to do in order to give them a lift. But in removing the single-engine requirement, the agency specifically singled out electric aircraft as a beneficiary, giving hope that it will continue its efforts in that regard.

In short, MOSAIC won’t be approved for at least a few months, and it won’t take effect until six months after that. But when it does, expect a major shakeup for AAM.

The post FAA’s MOSAIC Preview Has Major Implications for Helicopters, eVTOL appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Powered-Lift Predicament

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reversing Course and the Challenge Ahead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Communication on CECI

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

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

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

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

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

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

Change in the Air

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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