This week during the International Civil Aviation Organization’s inaugural Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) Summit in Montreal, Joby took the first step in securing an air operator certificate from the United Arab Emirates’ General Civil Aviation Authority (GCAA)—a requirement to operate commercial air transport in the country.

Company leaders met with the aviation regulator’s director general, presenting a letter of intent to begin the application process.

Joby earlier this year signed multiple agreements with regional Emirati agencies in preparation to fly in the UAE’s two largest cities, Dubai and Abu Dhabi, as early as 2026. It announced similar plans for neighboring Saudi Arabia in May.

“There is incredible momentum behind the adoption of clean flight across the UAE, and we’re excited to be working with a wide range of partners, including the GCAA, to lay the groundwork for one of the world’s first electric air taxi networks,” said JoeBen Bevirt, founder and CEO of Joby.

Joby’s all-electric air taxi takes off and lands vertically like a helicopter but flies on fixed wings like a plane, with some help from unique tilting propellers. It is designed for a pilot to fly as many as four passengers, cruising as fast as 200 mph (174 knots).

The company estimates that a trip between Dubai International Airport (OMDB) and the Palm Jumeirah—a group of artificial islands on the city’s waterside—for example, would take about 10 minutes by air taxi versus 45 minutes by car.

Joby’s LOI for an air operator certificate is the first step toward making those flights a reality. Similar to the FAA’s Part 135 Air Carrier Certificate, which Joby obtained in 2022, the approval will authorize the company as a commercial operator. The certification process comprises five phases, culminating in GCAA observation of flight operations and pilot and mechanic training. The company will also devise air taxi operating manuals and host inspections of its UAE facilities.

“Our readiness to support these advanced technologies underscores our commitment to fostering advanced air mobility solutions that will be part of the future of transportation in the UAE and beyond,” said Saif Mohammed Al Suwaidi, director general of the GCAA.

Joby is not alone in the Middle East. The region has become somewhat of a hot spot for eVTOL manufacturers in recent years, luring companies with the promise of extensive government support and financing.

For example, rival air taxi firm Archer Aviation similarly plans to fly in Abu Dhabi and Dubai, where, despite Joby’s claim to exclusive air taxi operator rights, Archer CEO Adam Goldstein believes the competitors can coexist.

“We believe we will be able to operate [in Dubai], and we will have a strong hub out of Abu Dhabi,” Goldstein told FLYING in March. “We’re glad to see Joby coming to the region and leaning in, because we think it’s a good early market for eVTOL players to start.”

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

The post Joby Seeks Middle East’s First Air Taxi Operator Certification appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The bill gives Boeing (NYSE: BA) a bridge, in case the express carriers need extra capacity, until it can develop a new freighter next decade. Multiple industry sources familiar with the process said FedEx (NYSE: FDX) and UPS (NYSE: UPS) joined Boeing in lobbying Congress for a reprieve from the January 1, 2028, production deadline. The legislation previously passed the Senate and will be sent to President Joe Biden to sign into law.

At face value, a split from international consensus would limit operation of freighters produced between 2028 and 2033 to the domestic U.S. market, but it’s possible some countries could permit access, according to experts. Freighters delivered before the end of 2027 aren’t covered by the enhanced carbon emission rules and won’t face any restrictions. 

Under International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) agreements, commercial aircraft manufacturers effectively can’t sell aircraft that don’t meet the 2028 carbon emissions standards. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency adopted the fuel efficiency standard in 2021 with the FAA following suit in February.

Even if post-2027 freighters end up being limited to domestic flying, it makes sense for FedEx and UPS to buy them, said Tom Crabtree, a Seattle-based industry consultant and former Boeing market analyst, in an email exchange with FreightWaves.

“The 767-300 production and converted freighter provides the lowest trip costs of any widebody freighter in production today while simultaneously allowing service to smaller markets where 50 metric tons of payload, or more, simply isn’t needed,” Crabtree said. “They also have sufficient range to serve international markets to/from Europe and/or northern South America from the U.S.”

Boeing stopped making the 767 as a passenger jet many years ago. It also supplies a tanker variant for militaries. FedEx and UPS are the only customers for the 767-300 freighter. Traditional cargo airlines opt for used 767s that have been converted to a cargo configuration because they don’t have the consistent, daily volumes of integrated express carriers and can’t afford more expensive new models.

UPS was the launch customer for the Boeing 767 freighter in 1995. The parcel logistics giant has 88 B767-300s in its fleet, including 10 converted freighters, and 19 additional factory aircraft on order from Boeing. 

“We expect to receive all outstanding orders before that time,” said UPS spokeswoman Michelle Polk.

FedEx has 137 B767s flying in its network, with 15 more deliveries scheduled through mid-2026, according to the company’s latest statistics.

Aviation publication The Air Current was first to unearth the 767 freighter waiver, tucked away on page 1,038 of the FAA bill. The language doesn’t mention the 767 by name, but the maximum takeoff weight of 180,000 kilograms to 240,000 kilograms squarely fits the 767.

Boeing officials have increasingly signaled that they plan to develop a freighter version of the 787 Dreamliner as a replacement for the 767F, but the first delivery is expected to take at least eight to 10 years.

“The 767F continues to be the most environmentally sound mid-size freighter available. We are working with our customers and are in communication with regulators regarding the requirements for this market segment,” Boeing said in a statement before the vote. “As we look ahead to future medium-widebody freighter options, the 787 is a natural place for us to look. We continue to evaluate our options in this space and are listening to our customers. Any future decisions regarding whether to launch a new program, will be largely driven by customer needs and market demand.”

Without the exemption, FedEx and UPS could be limited to Airbus A330 converted cargo jets, a model neither currently operates, if they need more medium-widebody aircraft in four or five years. The feedstock for 767 conversions is drying up because passenger airlines like Delta and United are holding on to aircraft longer than anticipated in response to supply chain, manufacturing and engine-related problems that have delayed delivery of replacement aircraft. The airlines probably won’t be ready to let go of the 767s until “they are well beyond the age of conversion or have too many flight cycles and flight hours accumulated on them to make it worth a while to convert it,” said Crabtree.

The new law will enable Boeing to compete with Israel Aircraft Industries, which installs 767 conversion kits, and an Airbus subsidiary that rebuilds A330s into freighters, and give it time to bring a 787 freighter to market, said the former chief editor of the biennial Boeing World Air Cargo Forecast. And A330 conversion providers would be able to demand higher pricing without that competition.

“Express firms like the certainty of production freighters even though they are more expensive than conversions of the same airplane models,” he said. That certainty takes the form of more consistent delivery schedules and meeting of specifications.

FedEx and UPS put pressure on Congress to keep the 767 option open and keep the playing field level until Boeing brings out the 787 freighter, the sources said.

Many have interpreted the carve-out to the international fuel efficiency standards to mean that noncompliant aircraft will be prohibited from flying outside the United States. But there is no universal enforcement mechanism. ICAO’s carbon emission standard will be implemented by individual countries as new domestic regulations updating their system for certifying aircraft types. Production will essentially be banned starting in 2028 because noncompliant models will not be certified for sale by civil aviation authorities in their area of jurisdiction.

Countries that ban the sale of noncompliant models are likely to ban aircraft with an exemption from entering their airspace on the basis of having an unfair advantage.

But an aviation industry source, who didn’t want to be identified because of the political sensitivity of the topic, said FedEx and UPS access to airspace in foreign countries would depend on what individual governments are willing to accept. Smaller countries that typically follow FAA and European Union regulations rather than certify aircraft themselves might have fewer qualms with allowing exempted 767s to operate.

Boeing also continues to deliver 777 cargo jets to FedEx and other airlines around the world. The FAA reauthorization doesn’t provide a waiver for the 777, probably because it is a transcontinental aircraft that wouldn’t make economic sense to operate only in the domestic market.

Editor’s Note: This article first appeared on FreightWaves.

The post FAA Reauthorization Bill Exempts Boeing 767 From 2028 Production Cutoff appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

As an FAA-certificated pilot, you are allowed to fly aircraft within the U.S., as well as N-registered aircraft in any ICAO member state (193 countries comprising the vast majority of the world). Beyond our shores and U.S.-registered aircraft, though, piloting requires converting your FAA certificate(s) to their foreign equivalent(s). There are a few reasons one might be interested in doing this. 

The first, and most common, is foreign citizens returning to their native country after completing flight training in the U.S. because of the lower cost of flying here. There are now several schools in the U.S. that offer direct European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) pilot licensure, but the more common route is to earn one’s FAA certificates here and then go through the conversion process back home.

The second scenario involves U.S. citizens converting their commercial or ATP certificate with the intention of working overseas as an expat (or emigrating), or as a hedge in case of a downturn in the U.S. economy, airline industry, or political situation. This was quite common in the “lost decade” after 9/11, when thousands of furloughed or career-stagnated U.S. pilots sought opportunities overseas at the same time that many foreign operators were facing an acute pilot shortage. Right now the U.S. is well ahead of most of the world in both pilot compensation and hiring, but this could change, and in any case a scenery shift will always appeal to some. Unless you are a dual citizen or otherwise have a right to work in a foreign state, however, obtaining a work visa may prove harder than converting your certificates.

The last scenario involves a U.S.-certificated pilot who spends a lot of time overseas, or is taking a lengthy vacation, and wishes to fly locally registered aircraft for pleasure. This usually involves issuing only a PPL (depending on the country) and perhaps an instrument rating.

Every country’s aviation authority sets its own requirements and process for converting pilot licenses, except in cases where multiple countries have combined their authorities into a single agency, as in the case of EASA (which covers the entire European Union, plus Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, and Lichtenstein). It helps that ICAO has coordinated three standard levels of licensure that are recognized by all member states: private (PPL), commercial (CPL), and airline transport (ATPL). A fourth ICAO license, multi-pilot (MPL), is not recognized by the U.S. or Canada. Instrument and multiengine ratings are well standardized and usually convertible, though maintaining currency and recency of experience can differ greatly. However, the FAA’s non-ICAO-standard certificates, such as recreational or light sport, usually cannot be converted. 

Almost all conversions require obtaining a medical certificate issued by the converting authority. If not yet in-country, this might involve a special visit with associated time and expense. Medical certification standards vary, as do the guidelines for waivers and special issuances. In some cases, your current FAA medical can be used for a limited time frame, after which you must obtain a local medical of the appropriate class.

The simplest license conversions typically involve countries with similar regulatory structures, often neighbors. New Zealand and Australian licenses are easily interchangeable with a simple form. Converting a U.S. certificate to a Canadian one is a fairly simple process involving a 10-to-15-hour online class. The U.K.’s Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) resumed responsibility for licensure after Brexit, and its licenses were interchangeable with EASA until last year. They are still virtually identical and easily convertible. Some Middle East countries and others with a high percentage of expat airline pilots (notably excepting India and China) accept FAA, EASA, and U.K.-CAA ATPLs with a minimum of fuss.

• READ MORE: Make a Run for the Border

Most countries, however, present the potential convert with significant hurdles and no small amount of bureaucracy, particularly for CPL and ATPL. These can include a logbook review, submitting police records and undergoing a background check, undergoing mandatory ground and/or flight training, sitting for various exams, and passing a check ride or flight review. Even for my humble New Zealand short-term PPL validation, I had to log ground and flight instruction in weather and mountain flying from a NZ instructor and then complete a flight review. It’s worth noting that NZ, like many countries, uses a type-rating system even for piston singles. My BFR took place in a Cessna 172, and I am type rated in the “C172” only. To fly any other type, I would need to seek training from an appropriately rated NZ instructor. Similarly, to fly at night I would need to obtain a night rating. 

The most common target for converting FAA certificates is undoubtedly EASA. Converting a PPL in the EU is a reasonably simple proposition, an instrument rating or CPL somewhat less so, and an ATPL least of all. The Europeans—and really, most aviation authorities worldwide—place a much greater emphasis on knowledge testing than the FAA. ATPL conversion candidates must sit for 14 separate exams, testing knowledge of aerodynamics, weather, systems, regulations, air traffic procedures, and so forth. In addition, there are many ground and flight training requirements, capped off by a check ride. It’s a lengthy, expensive, and cumbersome process, yet thousands of European professional pilots (and a few Americans) have gone this route. 

Ultimately, flying is flying the world over, and the differences from country to country are relatively minor in the scheme of things. Compared to the difficulty of learning to fly and earning your FAA certificates in the first place, exporting them for use overseas is usually a pretty reasonable process and an enlightening one that gives a sneak peek into how various aviation authorities go about their business.

The post A Primer on Pilot Certificate Conversions appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Under the new agreement, the partners will work together to identify opportunities to improve decarbonization methodologies in an effort to generate more reliable, uniform, and accurate carbon measurements. ICAO and Google said these efforts will “empower the general public, industry stakeholders, and regulators” to make well-informed and environmentally sustainable and science based choices regarding air transport.

• READ MORE: Net-Zero Emissions Target Set By ICAO for 2050

“Currently, a wide range of independently produced aviation carbon calculators provide very diverse emissions estimate results for a given aircraft and flight,” said ICAO secretary General Juan Carlos Salazar. “This is largely due to different sets of data being employed, simplifications in the related methodologies, and scientific uncertainty. ICAO’s new partnership with Google should result in much more reliable results for passengers and shippers everywhere.”

Currently ICAO and Google each offer emission assessment tools. ICAO said its Carbon Emissions Calculator is the “only calculator of its type to be approved by aviation regulators.” Google’s Travel Impact Model is publicly accessible and used for estimating flight emissions at the individual passenger level.

“We want to help everyone make more sustainable choices when they travel,” said Sebnem Erzan, head of Google’s travel sustainability and transport partnerships. “Together with ICAO, we can continue to improve the Travel Impact Model for flight emissions and increase transparency for travelers around the world.”

The post ICAO, Google Agree to Collaborate on Decarbonizing Aviation 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 occasion marks a milestone for SAF production and for wider climate action within the aviation industry.

Three companies, Neste in the Netherlands, World Energy in the United States and Ecochem in China, produced nine batches of SAF representing about 1,700 tons of CO2 emissions reduction. The SAF was certified under the Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials (RSB) and International Sustainability & Carbon Certification (ISCC) standards, ICAO said.

“The successful certification of these sustainable aviation fuels ensures that they present real environmental benefits on a life cycle basis, and it also confirms the performance of the certification process itself,” said ICAO council president Salvatore Sciacchitano. “This milestone shows that CORSIA global framework for sustainability assessment is robust and ready to support the achievement of ICAO’s goals on climate change.”

• READ MORE: Boeing Unveils Sustainability Tool to Boost Industry Net-Zero Goals

The fuels produced under CORSIA were made from waste materials and resulted in CO2 emissions 75 percent to 84 percent lower than those associated with conventional aviation fuels, according to ICAO.

The post ICAO Marks First Certification of Sustainable Aviation Fuel Under CORSIA Standard appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Studies indicate that more than 2,000 people have died in aircraft accidents as a result, at least in part, from language-related/communication issues—mostly between air traffic controllers and pilots—since 1973. And, researchers suspect that many more aviation incidents and accidents—including in general aviation and pilot training environments—are the result of miscommunication and/or lack of English language proficiency. 

Recognizing the importance of communication to aviation safety, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), a United Nations agency formed in 1944 to support the global air transportation industry, adopted English as the industry’s universal language in 1951, and has since created English-language Standards and Recommended Practices. Formalized in 2003, ICAO’s language proficiency requirements have been adopted and implemented widely by civil aviation authorities (CAAs) around the world, including the FAA and the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). 

But Jennifer Roberts, a linguist and curriculum chair for the department of aviation English at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University’s Worldwide campus, says more needs to be done, particularly in the area of English language proficiency for flight training. 

“The ICAO language proficiency requirements, they are for professional pilots, professional [air traffic] controllers,” she says. “ICAO doesn’t actually have regulations for flight students.”

However, the FAA and other civil aviation authorities do. The FAA’s Aviation English Language Standards (AELS), see Advisory Circular 60-28B, applies to flight students as well as professionals working in aviation. The AELS are modeled after ICAO standards and require a minimum of level 4, or operational English proficiency. 

The AC states: “AELS will be evaluated before acceptance of a student pilot application or issuance of a student solo endorsement, recommendation or examination of an applicant for an FAA pilot certificate or additional aircraft rating, and whenever any individual is tested or checked as required by the Administrator under Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR).”

The Wild West of the Skies

But Roberts says the way proficiency is evaluated is not standardized, even across the U.S., and this is a problem. There’s also very little policy enforcement. “It’s just really unregulated. It’s kind of wild out there. What’s going on in flight school A and flight school B could be vastly different. It’s a mess,” Roberts says.

What’s worse, she says, is that upon completion of flight school training and receipt of their pilot’s certificate, newly graduated flight students enter a global industry with varying levels of English proficiency. 

“The way the FAA does it, they just put a stamp or an endorsement on [certificates] that says ‘English language proficient,’” Roberts says. “A student can actually go back to Saudi Arabia, for example, let’s say they’re now going to work for Saudi Airlines. That airline may test the student and come to see that they’re not even level 4, which is the minimum.” The student is left with a pilot certificate and ratings that they paid tens of thousands of dollars for and spent years to achieve that is essentially useless, because of their lack of English language proficiency. 

On the other hand, Roberts says, “Some countries, when they receive a student back from the U.S., they automatically assume that they must be at least level 4 because they managed to get through training in the U.S. But that’s so far from true. That’s very far from true, to be honest.”

Need for a Universal Assessment Tool

Henry Emery, cofounder and managing director of Latitude Aviation English Services in the U.K., which prepares students for flight training in an English-speaking environment and works with airlines and air navigation service providers, says a universal [aviation English language proficiency] assessment tool is needed. 

“One of the greatest problems is that no instrument was set down, no instrument was professionally developed in accordance with the ICAO standards and then adopted by member states so that the assessment was uniform at the same level worldwide,” Emery says.

Ideally, role-specific language assessment tools would be developed for each area of aviation, Emery says, with a different test for pilots (further broken down by commercial pilots, student pilots, general aviation/private pilots, and rotary wing pilots); for air traffic controllers; for aviation maintenance professionals, etc. 

Given the associated costs of creating and maintaining a universal aviation English language test instrument, Emery says it will take a collaborative effort to achieve. “And that has to come through civil aviation authorities, through airlines, through air navigation service providers working together, making a financial contribution to an instrument which is universally owned and operated, making sure that it’s done to at least minimum standards.” 

Who Determines Aviation English Proficiency? 

Another challenge in the implementation of ICAO’s standards, is that the people assigned to make judgments regarding aviation English language proficiency aren’t necessarily qualified to do so. And, there’s a lot that hangs in the balance: the candidate’s career and livelihood, for one, and for aviation safety, Emery says. “The decisions you make around language, whether it’s a student, or a pilot keeping his or her license have an impact on safety and on the individual as well. You would like to think that the candidate being subject to taking language assessment would have the highest standards that the field can offer…and sadly, that’s very often not the case.” 

The FAA, per AC 60-28B, assigns language proficiency assessment and decision-making to any/all of the following: “FAA personnel, DEs, flight and ground instructors, Training Center Evaluators (TCE), check FEs/check pilots, training facilities, and flight schools.” 

“Flight examiners can interact with a student pilot and say they’re level 6,” which means they essentially communicate at the level of a native-English speaker, Emery says. This then nullifies the requirement for any additional language courses or assessments. “That’s problematic in itself as very often aviation professionals are not language professionals,” Emery explains. “Very often what we find in the U.S. and the U.K., and other places in the world, are those without the education in language assessment performing language assessments with varying degrees of quality and success.” 

He adds, “We are 18 years into the language proficiency requirements—and to be honest, at the moment, it’s a dog’s breakfast. I would imagine it’s going to be another generation before we’re anywhere close to having meaningful workable standards worldwide.”

Pilot Shortage Intensifies Aviation English Issues

According to Roberts, complicating the situation is the aviation industry’s increased demand for pilots. 

“Ab initio flight training organizations are experiencing a push to get students through quicker and more cost-effectively than before, due to the pressure facing the airline industry to hire new pilots and keep the National Air Space System operating efficiently and safely,” Roberts states in a paper she coauthored in 2020. The result, she says, is that more students are coming to flight schools in English speaking countries, like the U.S. And, while ground and flight instructors are well-versed in teaching flight operations, they are not usually experienced in teaching English-as-a-second-language learners. 

Andrew “Andy” Schneider, aviation English coordinator for the flight training department at Embry-Riddle’s Daytona Beach campus, says oftentimes—especially in today’s pilot hiring environment—flight instructors are young. “They’re in their 20s…they’re kids teaching kids.”

Teaching CFIs How To Teach Second-Language Learners

Schneider helped establish several programs at Embry-Riddle to help non-native English speakers achieve greater success. This includes language training for the Part 141 school’s certified flight instructors. 

“I do a hefty amount of training with our instructors on how to teach using language and how to work with second-language speakers both from a psycho-linguistics perspective, like a cognitive perspective, and a cultural perspective,” he says. One thing Schneider emphasizes is, when it comes to English language proficiency, “It’s not something to be swept under the rug.” 

• READ MORE: Boeing Forecasts Demand for 602,000 New Pilots 

He says, “All of the flight instructors are language teachers, whether they know it or not.” In addition to non-native English speakers, CFIs teach all of the pilots they train how to talk on the radio. “Part of the training [we give at Embry-Riddle to instructors] is informing them, making them aware of what the English language standards are, because that is not part of the CFI materials from the FAA now. It’s part of the circulars, but it’s not part of the fundamentals of instruction, their FOI.”

Aviation English Entry Exams Are One Solution

Addressing the need for evaluation at the very start of flight training, Embry-Riddle has established its own aviation English language standards. All non-native English-speaking students entering flight training are required to take the university’s Aviation English for Flight Training course (FA 135) as a prerequisite, Schneider says. However, those who pass a specialized placement exam created by Embry-Riddle, called the English for Flight Training Assessment or EFTA, can “place out” of taking the course.

The exam is designed around ICAO’s rating scale for pronunciation, structure (grammar), vocabulary, fluency, comprehension, and interactions to determine a student’s “plain language proficiency,” he says. The exam does not assess aviation phraseology or a student’s knowledge of technical or operational language.

English for Radiotelephony

For Schneider, radio communication is a key element of English-language instruction for student pilots, and it’s at the heart of why ICAO established its English language standards in the first place. 

“Most of the famous accidents have to do with standard phraseology,” Schneider says. But learning this “second/technical artificial language,” which is unique to air traffic controllers and pilots, is only part of the issue. Non-standard phraseology and “local code” often creeps into radio communications, he says; for example, when air traffic controllers use the term “no delay” in place of the standard term, “expedite.” This can cause confusion for pilots—especially for those who are non-native English speakers. 

“I think standard phraseology solves 90 percent of our problems,” Schneider says.

To this end, Schneider created Embry-Riddle’s PILOT (Preflight Immersion Laboratory for Observation Training) program, which gives non-native and native-English speaking students 35 hours of virtual reality training, including radio communication and standard phraseology.

Emery says it should come as no surprise that non-native English speakers have difficulty communicating on the radio. “I cannot conceive of learning to fly an aircraft in a second language….It would be really hard in my own language,” he says. “So the fact that these kids do it at all, is a thing of wonder.”

However, at the starting point of learning to fly, plain English skills are actually more important.

“The work we do to prepare students for flight training is very different from the work we would do with an experienced airline pilot who needs to brush up on language in order to maintain his or her license at level 4,” Emery says. “You need to give them [students] the skills they need to listen to instructors, to cope with a preflight briefing, to be able to read training manuals on a variety of subjects, such as powerplants, rules of the air, meteorology…Those sorts of learning contexts are very different to aeronautical communication.” 

This is why aviation English language assessments for flight training applicants and aviation English preparatory courses are so important to student success, he says.

Safety Should Come Before Business

Another challenge related to ensuring student pilots are English-language proficient when they take to the skies is the business model of flight training. In the U.S., some for-profit flight schools shy away from a robust front-end screening procedure, Emery says. “Because what they want to see is people who have 60,000 U.S. [dollars] in their pocket…the last thing a flight school wants to do is to turn that business away because somebody isn’t language proficient, which is probably a reason why there are still so many language issues in the States. Flight schools are frightened of the negative impact that good language screening will have on their business.” 

Despite the challenges surrounding aviation English proficiency, Emery says progress has been made, and thankfully, flying is still “phenomenally safe…compared to other forms of transport.”

He adds, “Language should not be a point of discrimination. Language is an enabler; it’s the thing that lets us do things. Language should be opening doors to this fantastic industry, to a brilliant career as a pilot, or a controller, or a maintenance engineer, or whatever the next generation are going to be. But if we don’t treat it as an enabler and we don’t assign a level of importance to it, then there’s really no point in doing it at all.”

The post FAA’s English Language Standards Leave Gaps for Learners appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The NAHF, founded in 1962, is the only Congressionally chartered aviation hall of fame in the United States. Each year, the NAHF Board of Nominations, a body of more than 130 aviation professionals nationwide, select class members from the world of aviation and aerospace. The selectees are drawn from air and space pioneers, both living and posthumously. Thus far 254 people have been honored.

The Class of 2023 is composed of both living and posthumous inductees.

(The late) Velta Benn

Benn is an aviation pioneer who began as a Women Airforce Service Pilot (WASP), class 44-W-7, and went on to fly for more than 63 years, amassing 55,000 flying hours as a CFI, FAA examiner, and safety expert. In 1983 she was inducted into the Virginia Aviation Hall of Fame. Benn flew West in December 2010 at the age of 93.

(The late) Cornelius Coffey

Coffey is an aviation pioneer who, despite many racial barriers, became a pilot and mechanic. He opened a flight school that trained more than 1,500 students, including hundreds of Tuskegee Airmen. In the 1930s, Coffey was an automobile mechanic who dreamed of becoming a pilot. In 1931 he brought together a group of black air enthusiasts to study at the Curtiss-Wright Aeronautical School. Segregation at the time excluded them from local airports, so local aviators of color built their own facility in Robbins, Illinois, and the Coffery School of Aeronautics was born. Coffey’s school was one those selected in World Was II for the Civilian Pilot Training Program (CPTP).

(The late) Ed Stimpson

Stimpson was a founding member of the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA), an organization he led for many years. He was also the U.S. representative to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the chairman of the Flight Safety Foundation (FSF).

In 1994, when the general aviation industry was floundering because of lawsuits targeting aircraft manufacturers, Stimpson helped champion the General Aviation Revitalization Act (GARA), which was credited with helping revive the industry by limiting manufacturers’ product liability to 18 years.

Angela Gittens

Gittens is known for her work with Airport Council International (ACI) World. Gittens has been the Director General of ACI World since 2008. She was formerly airport CEO for Miami and Atlanta and Deputy at San Francisco International Airport, where she helped shape airport security and policy.

Fred Haise

Haise joined the aviation world in 1952 as a naval aviation cadet. He served as a U.S. Marine Corps fighter pilot from 1954-1956 and later became a test pilot for NASA. Haise was selected for the manned space program in 1966. In 1970, Haise was the Lunar Module Pilot for the Apollo 13 mission in which the intended moon landing was canceled because of a rupture in a fuel-cell oxygen tank. Haise was also part of the space shuttle program then went on to an executive position with the Northrop Grumman Corporation. Haise is also an author; his book, Never Panic Early, an Apollo 13 Astronauts Journey, was released in hardcover in April of this year.

Elon Musk

Musk is an entrepreneur and leader in the commercial aerospace. Musk is the founder of SpaceX, the first private company to put crewed spacecraft into orbit and dock with the International Space Station. Musk is known as a major influencer in the technology and aerospace industry.

NAHF Board of Nominations Chair Tom Lodge revealed the Class of 2023 at the 2022 Enshrinement Dinner and Ceremony in Dayton, Ohio.

“We believe that this is an excellent class and we are already looking forward to their induction in Washington, D.C.,” Lodge said. “From pioneers Benn and Coffey to visionaries Gittens, Stimpson, and Musk, and to aerospace hero Haise, the NAHF’s Class of 2023 represents the best in aviation. We applaud the Board of Nominations for their challenging and thorough work.”

The post Astronaut, Aviation Pioneers Inducted into NAHF Class of 2023 appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Clients can also use 4AIR’s web-based calculator to measure their carbon footprint, giving aircraft purchasers greater visibility of the carbon impact of their potential purchase, according to the organization. 

• READ MORE: IADA Reports Strong Third-Quarter Aircraft Sales

“The partnership with 4AIR is a statement that the leaders in the business aviation resale industry place importance on sustainability,” David Monacell, IADA chair emeritus and partner in CFS Jets, said in a statement Monday.

Monacell said the new partnership gives IADA’s accredited dealers another tool to “be the very best counselors available for buyers and sellers of business aircraft.”

The partnership will be a useful tool during aircraft purchases, according to 4AIR president Kennedy Ricci.

“With today’s growing scrutiny of private travel and its impact on the environment, it’s increasingly important to be able to assist buyers and sellers answer questions about prospective aircraft and their environmental impacts,” Ricci said.

• READ MORE: Embraer and 4AIR Partner Up

4AIR offers a streamlined reporting program for owners and operators to track their environmental footprint. It aims to simplify voluntary and compliance reporting and align with industry standards set by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHG Protocol).

“We provide an avenue to help those looking to make meaningful, verified, and documented steps in understanding and minimizing their environmental footprint. IADA and its members are helping lead the industry to a sustainable future,” Ricci said.  

The post IADA, 4AIR Partnership Focuses on Aircraft Environmental Impact appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The news follows an intense session in which the organization also voted to remove Russia from its council seat.

“States’ adoption of this new long term goal for decarbonized air transport, following the similar commitments from industry groups, will contribute importantly to the green innovation and implementation momentum which must be accelerated over the coming decades to ultimately achieve emissions-free powered flight,” said Salvatore Sciacchitano, president of the ICAO Council.

The goal requires financing and other forms of support from member states, and paying for the changes needed will tax a system that has recently undergone quite a bit of stress. ICAO’s Assistance, Capacity-Building and Training for Sustainable Aviation Fuels (ACT-SAF) program looks to accelerate the availability and use of SAF—and the organization plans a conference to convene on alternative fuels in 2023.

The council also recommitted to the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA). “Countries agreed on a new CORSIA baseline from 2024 onwards, defined as 85 percent of CO₂ emissions in 2019, and on revised percentages for the sectoral and individual growth factors to be used for the calculation of offsetting requirements from 2030 onwards,” said the statement.

A GA Industry-Wide Effort

Several aviation associations joined to applaud the move, which codifies many actions already underway within the GA and commercial aviation industries.

“We commend the ICAO Assembly for its prioritization of carbon emission-reduction goals and standards,” said Pete Bunce, president and CEO of the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA). “Achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 is an ambitious goal which the aviation industry can reach through strong partnerships with governments and regulators to help accelerate the production, distribution and use of SAF as well as investments in research, development and deployment projects to advance technology and facilitate operational improvements.  

“General and business aviation manufacturers are committed to working with ICAO to reach our net-zero goal as outlined in the Business Aviation Commitment on Climate Change and to support the future of our industry and its societal and economic benefits,” Bunce said.

The National Business Aviation Association (NBAA) echoed Bunce’s comment. “The business aviation community has always prioritized measures to enhance the safety and sustainability of flight,” said NBAA’s president and CEO Ed Bolen. “We welcome this significant step taken by ICAO toward further decarbonization, and we will continue to work with our industry partners toward achieving this ambitious goal.”

Business aviation accounts for less than 1 percent of transportation’s carbon emissions contribution, but has led the way in promoting the use of sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) in turbine aircraft, developing more efficient powerplants and long-range aircraft, and decarbonizing operations around the globe through the actions of corporations, flight departments, and people at all levels.

• READ MORE: EPA Releases Proposed Finding on Leaded AvGas

The Business Aviation Commitment on Climate Change was established to identify and guide the segment’s activities, and the Business Aviation Coalition for Sustainable Fuel outlines a roadmap for long-term carbon emissions reduction. The International Business Aviation Council’s director general Kurt Edwards mentioned its guidelines as well: “This is a significant achievement to have a collective goal across the global civil aviation industry and clear recognition by states of the important role they will play in working to achieve the long-term goal,” he said. 

“The resolution encompasses the four guiding principles that our sector shared prior to the Assembly, and we are eager to start the real work to achieve this ambitious goal, including collaborating with governments and stakeholders to decarbonize the industry,” Edwards said.

With member states such as the U.S. pursuing restrictions on traditional fuels—witnessed by last week’s proposed finding on leaded avgas released by the Environmental Protection Agency—the global movement towards “greener” skies continues.

The post Net-Zero Emissions Target Set By ICAO for 2050 appeared first on FLYING Magazine.