In an online forum Tuesday, GAMA provided an industry update on the initiative to Eliminate Aviation Gasoline Lead Emissions, or EAGLE.

The forum included representatives from the FAA and GAMA.  Eric Blinderman, senior director of communications for the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), acted as moderator, introducing the co-chairs of the EAGLE initiative that represent supply chain infrastructure and deployment; research, development and innovation; unleaded fuel evaluation and authorization; regulation policy; and programmatic activities.

• READ MORE: EAGLE Initiative Shows Measured Progress, Fuel Contenders Say at Oshkosh

Curt Castagna of the National Air Transportation Association (NATA) said fulfilling the EAGLE initiative will require a continued effort to educate users and other stakeholders— including the FAA—”to work as fast and as safely as we can.” Castagna said the goal is “to eliminate the use of leaded aviation fuels for piston engine aircraft in the United States by the end of 2030 without adversely impacting the general aviation fleet.”

Several speakers noted that the safety considerations and liability involved with the production of aviation fuel dictates that a considerable amount of testing be involved in the creation of unleaded (UL) products.

The UL100E unleaded fuel testing protocols include:

• Determining fuel compatibility with materials used in aviation, from the metal of the wings to fuel bladders, hoses, aircraft sealants, and elastomers.
• Determining engine performance for rated power as compared to the same engines running on 100LL and determining if detonation is a factor. The tests involve hundreds of engines. The impact of vibration of the aircraft propellers attached to those engines is also being studied.
• Determining the durability of the fuel and its effect on engine parts, especially testing for deposits that may form after hundreds of hours of operation.

The fuel tests will take place both on the ground and in the air under a variety of conditions, including cold soak and high temperatures and humidity.

The testing will involve multiple engines and multiple aircrafts. According to a graphic provided during the stakeholder meeting, this work has just begun, with the exception of the testing involving a Continental TSIO-550K.

“After testing, the engines are torn down to look for damage,” said Tim Owen, who has spent several years in product development at Continental Motors Inc. and been part of the Piston Aviation Fuels Initiative (PAFI).

Supply Chain

In addition to the development of a replacement fuel for 100LL, a seamless transition to UL fuel must also be developed. A support policy and regulatory proposal for maintaining 100LL availability is also needed, as are safety measures to prevent improper fueling during the transition.

Stakeholders noted during the meeting that many FBOs are already looking into means to accommodate both 100LL and UL fuels, such as acquiring a fuel truck for UL. In addition, there will be more training required for line crew and placards in aircraft to prevent accidental misfueling.

• READ MORE: The EAGLE Has Launched to Get Lead Out of Avgas

Discussions are underway with FBOs in remote areas, such as in Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico, to determine how fuel can be economically delivered to these locations.

It is still incumbent on the FAA to authorize the use of a new unleaded fuel in GA aircraft.

That can be done one of two ways: through the fleet authorization process established by Congress and in conjunction with the PAFI, or through the FAA’s traditional aircraft type certification/supplemental type certification (STC) process.

In March 2023, the FAA issued a Fleet Authorization Policy Statement, which describes the process to obtain a fleet authorization of a qualified unleaded fuel candidate.

“The FAA anticipates that approximately 68 percent of the [GA] fleet will be eligible to use UL 94/UL 91 fuels,” according to the EAGLE industry partnership.

Stakeholders also noted that the adoption of unleaded fuels will likely require extra placards on aircraft and extra pages in the pilot’s operating handbook (POH) to advise pilots of the changes, but that is likely years away.

The FAA is expected to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) and accept industry comments before EAGLE becomes law.

The post Forum Stresses More Work Needed to Meet GA Unleaded Fuel Goals appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

President Joe Biden’s 2025 budget proposal would boost the current tax of 22 cents per gallon to $1.06 by 2030, raising an estimated $1.1 billion over the five years. The administration states business aircraft account for 7 percent of FAA airspace workload, but at the present time the current fuel tax only covers 1 percent of the revenue for the federal trust fund for aviation and airports. 

The proposal also includes a major funding increase for the FAA, including money to hire 2,000 air traffic controllers.

• READ MORE: Biden Administration Proposes Fivefold Jet Fuel Tax Hike For Bizjets

According to a background source on Biden’s recent State of the Union address, the administration wants to make private jet operators “pay their fair share.” In the speech itself Biden said he wanted “end tax breaks for big pharma, big oil, private jets, massive executive pay.” 

A coalition of aviation industry groups, however, is pushing back, contending the proposal is draconian and lacks supporting data to justify an increase that would prove detrimental to the small and midsize businesses that rely on business jets.

In a letter sent to Congress on Thursday,  leaders of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA), International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM), National Air Transportation Association (NATA), National Business Aviation Association (NBAA), NetJets Association of Shared Aircraft Pilots (NJASAP), and Vertical Aviation International (VAI) outlined their concerns with the plan.

“According to a 2018 Harris Poll, 85 percent of companies relying on an airplane to meet their transportation challenges are small and midsize enterprises,” the aviation coalition said. “The passengers aboard a business airplane are typically technicians, midlevel managers and customers, not C-suite executives.”

The Biden administration’s budget plan also seeks to modify the depreciation schedule on purchased aircraft from five to seven years to match it to the depreciation schedule of commercial airline aircraft.

“It is incongruous to compare the extensive aircraft fleet owned by a commercial airline and offered to the full marketplace for commercial service to the one or two planes owned by a company of a different industry with a different business model,” the coalition said, noting the five-year cost recovery rule applies to many other business assets.

“Reclassifying noncommercial aircraft without a broader look at all depreciation rules lacks valid policy rationale, would upset decades of sound legal precedent, and would negatively impact American businesses’ access to capital, job creation, and growth opportunity.”

The policy and regulatory proposals from the administration would harm business aviation, which also encompasses nonprofit agencies, agriculture, emergency response and air ambulance services, and law enforcement and government agencies, according to the aviation groups. 
“These vehicles facilitate efficient mobility for businesses to create jobs throughout our nation, particularly in communities underserved by commercial service,” the groups said.

The post Aviation Coalition Pushes Back on Biden Fuel Tax Hike Plan appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The White House’s 2025 budget proposal would boost the current tax of 22 cents per gallon to $1.06 by 2030. It’s estimated it would raise $1.1 billion over the five years. The proposal also includes a major funding increase for the FAA, including money to hire 2,000 air traffic controllers.

• READ MORE: FAA Releases Final Rule on Aircraft Fuel Efficiency for Emissions

The fuel tax hike is being championed as a fairness issue by the administration. The background documents say business aircraft account for 7 percent of FAA airspace workload but the current tax only covers 1 percent of the revenue into the federal trust fund for aviation and airports. Airline passengers pay a flat $4.50 on each flight and 7.5 percent excise tax on the fare to pay for the other 99 percent.

The backgrounder on the State of the Union address said the administration wanted to make private jet operators “pay their fair share.” In the speech itself Biden send he wanted “end tax breaks for big pharma, big oil, private jets, massive executive pay.” 

Aviation groups responded quickly to the SOTU address and were ready with comments on the budget proposal. NBAA President Ed Bolen reiterated his stance that private aviation is an important business tool and that most of those flying on the jets are mid-level managers doing company business and not their ultra-rich employers. “The Biden administration’s sweeping plan would hurt business aviation and the jobs and communities that depend on it, and make it harder for U.S. companies to compete in a global economy,” Bolen said.

The National Air Transportation Association hit all of NBAA’s points and also alleged that much of the revenue raised by the aviation fund is diverted to a similar fund for highway projects. “We are concerned that the Biden Administration is failing to account for the billions of business aviation tax dollars that are diverted from the Airport and Airways Trust Fund (AATF) into the Highway Trust Fund (HTF),” said NATA President Curt Castagna. “Such diversion weakens the National Airspace System and could place the safety of the industry at risk.”

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

The post Biden Administration Proposes Fivefold Jet Fuel Tax Hike for Bizjets appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

As the comment period closed on January 22 for the MOSAIC revamp of the light sport aircraft approval process, several signatories backed EAA’s take—and the FAA must address the proposal in light of ongoing quality and oversight issues at Boeing.

EAA submitted its response Monday, cosigned by the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, National Business Aviation Association, and the National Air Transportation Association, with broad support of the measure, including several key areas to refine or expand.

“We support and strongly encourage the agency to commit the resources needed to continue to move this proposal forward and implement these changes,” said the consortium in the EAA statement. “Doing so will further enhance the safety, utility, and commercial viability of general aviation by fostering new aircraft designs and further stimulating the development of new technology.” 

Those elements include: 

• Removal of exclusions on aircraft class, expanding from the currently limited list of airplanes, gliders, powered parachutes, weight-shift control, and lighter-than-air, to add rotorcraft and powered lift and allow for new classes as technology advances
• Removal of the maximum takeoff weight of 1,320 pounds for land-based aircraft (1,430 for water-based aircraft)
• Raising the maximum level flight V_H speed from 120 to 250 kcas
• Allowing for alternative powerplants, controllable pitch props, and retractable landing gear
• Raising the maximum stall speed V_S1 from 45 to 54 kcas—in fact, the consortium would like to see a speed raised to 58 kcas or as high as 61 kcas
• Raising the maximum seating capacity from two to four seats, with the allowance for sport pilots to have up to three passengers

The final two items are apparently where the EAA/AOPA/NATA/NBAA consortium and GAMA diverge in some specifics, with GAMA opposing the allowance of a higher stall speed than 58 kcas, as well as the expansion of sport pilot privileges to allow for carrying up to 3 passengers.

FLYING reached out to GAMA for its comments, and they responded with the following statement, along with its general support for those submitted by EAA/AOPA/NATA/NBAA.

“GAMA supports the key aspects of the MOSAIC proposal to increase the size, performance and scope of aircraft that can be flown by sport pilots and issuance of a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport aircraft category with the objective of improving safety, functionality, innovation, and availability of small general aviation aircraft. However, there are areas of the proposal regarding new and complex design and expanded operations of light-sport aircraft which are not fully supported by operational safety data alone and require additional consideration and understanding on how FAA intends to implement with the appropriate mitigations for risk.”

“In addition, GAMA believes FAA could more fully realize the intended objectives and benefits of this proposal by applying a consistent safety continuum approach across all small aircraft airworthiness and certification processes.” In translation, the association seeks further investigation of that risk before broadening the remit of the light sport model. The association notes that it was unable to gain consensus across its membership in the risk mitigation inherent in the proposal—given its inclusion of OEMs that build everything from LSA to Part 25 and 29 category aircraft.

Now, the FAA must sift through the recommendations and comments from a broad range of industry users and transform into action those elements that a consensus of the general aviation community has supported, as FLYING has observed.

Allowing for internal oversight is a key element that has propelled the development in LSA under ASTM. The transition to the certification program under the NPRM needs to acknowledge that in the face of increased public outcry on FAA oversight of similar types of self-assessment, such as Boeing and certain other OEMs of Part 23, 25, and 29 aircraft enjoy.

Who Do They Represent?

EAA in its letter acknowledged its 290,000 members and 900 local chapters of pilots, aircraft builders, and kitplane/vintage/warbird enthusiasts, while AOPA mentions its 300,000 “individuals who collectively operate 85 percent of all general aviation aircraft in the United States.” NATA reflects the operational side of GA, representing “nearly 3,700 aviation business locations across a broad cross section of the industry,” including fractional and Part 135 operators, and FBOs, MROs, and flight training providers. NBAA notes 11,000 “business and professional members involved in business aviation.”

• READ MORE: MOSAIC Questions Linger in Light Sport Aircraft Community

GAMA was formed to “foster and advance the general welfare, safety, interests, and activities of the global general and business aviation industry,” with more than 150 member companies represented, according to the association. Those constituents also include FBOs, pilot and maintenance training facilities, and fleet operators.

The EAA consortium comments may be read here. GAMA’s comments may be reviewed here.

The post Comments From Aviation Associations Take on Pros and Cons of MOSAIC appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The announcement came after the fuel passed a 150-hour engine durability test under the Piston Aviation Fuels Initiative (PAFI), a collaborative industry and government testing program established in 2014. The FAA noted that the LyondellBasell/VP Racing UL100E is the first unleaded fuel to pass this phase of PAFI testing. The program’s signatories are working towards a replacement for 100LL avgas for aircraft requiring higher octane than the currently available 94UL unleaded fuels.

• READ MORE: EAGLE Initiative Shows Measured Progress, Fuel Contenders Say at Oshkosh

“This is another important milestone for a safe general aviation transition to unleaded fuel and for our goal to eliminate lead emissions by the end of 2030,” said Lirio Liu, FAA executive director of aircraft certification service and government co-chair of the Eliminate Aviation Gasoline Lead Emissions (EAGLE) government-industry partnership. “The joint industry/government effort continues to make strong progress.”

The General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) and Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), both members of EAGLE, said they are “applauding the news of the first unleaded fuel candidate to successfully pass the most rigorous Piston Aviation Fuels Initiative initial detonation and 150-hour engine durability test phase, and continued progress toward an unleaded future.” 

• READ MORE: Time to Get Serious About Unleaded Fuel

Overall, the PAFI test program evaluates fuel on numerous characteristics including engine durability and detonation, aircraft performance, material compatibility and environmental factors.

“The LyondellBasell/VP Racing’s achievement marks an important waypoint on the path to a more environmentally friendly future for aviation fuel and demonstrates the progress we’ve made through our government and aviation community partnership,” said Curt Castagna, president of the National Air Transport Association (NATA) and industry co-chair of the EAGLE initiative. “EAGLE celebrates this milestone and looks forward to more opportunities to recognize industry ingenuity and innovation.”

The next step for the LyondellBasell/VP Racing fuel includes engine and airframe testing with 10 engines and eight aircraft, which is expected to take 12 to 18 months. The UL100E fuel is one of four unleaded fuel candidates in the test program. If a fuel successfully completes testing, and the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) publishes a production specification, the FAA would issue a fleet authorization.

The post Unleaded Avgas Candidate Passes Critical Engine Tests, Moves Ahead appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Representatives from GAMA, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), and the National Air Transportation Association (NATA) participated in the discussion.

The panelists cited progress toward fielding a replacement for 100 Low Lead (100LL) high octane gasoline that would be suitable for fleetwide use. While an estimated 70 percent of the current piston-aircraft fleet can safely use available lower-octane lead-free fuels, the remaining 30 percent that require higher-octane fuel to operate safely fly an estimated 70 percent of the hours flown by the entire GA fleet.

• READ MORE: EPA Releases Proposed Finding on Leaded AvGas

The panelists noted that the expected EPA endangerment finding, in itself, does not constitute a ban on continued use of 100LL fuel. In fact, the group stressed the priority of retaining the right to distribute and use 100LL until and acceptable replacement is in place.

However, the panelists did acknowledge that the EPA endangerment ruling does set a “pathway” to future rulemaking related to lead emissions in aviation fuels.

There was extended discussion on the difference between the supplemental type certificate (STC) route to acceptance of a replacement unleaded fuel, and the so-called ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) route, involving a “collaborative government FAA program to test candidate fuels, generate report and data, and distribute to fuel providers” enabling the FAA to gain “industry consensus” and issue a fleetwide approval.

• READ MORE: G100UL Avgas Replacement Set to Soon Hit Pumps

The panelists were careful to assure that the FAA, as the arbiter of safe aviation operations, is the final authority on approving a replacement for 100LL; not the EPA. That said, the discussion revealed that – for the first time – regulatory standards for lead emissions in aviation fuel will be established as a result of the expected EPA endangerment finding. GAMA assured the participating journalists that there would be further briefings once the EPA endangerment finding is finalized.

Editor’s Note: This article first appeared on AVweb.com.

The post GAMA Hosts Pre-Brief on Life After EPA’s Ruling on Leaded Aviation Fuel 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.

Grant Fisk, who co-founded Volatus Infrastructure, LLC in 2021, on Wednesday became the newest member of NATA’s newest committee, Volatus told FLYING. Fisk became the 18th member of the AAM committee, established in November to, in NATA’s words, “foster the connection between this emerging sector and the Part 135 environment.”

Fisk’s new associates include a who’s who of industry stakeholders, executives, and experts. 

Co-chaired by Toni Drummond of Titan Aviation and Craig Teasdale of Ferrovial Vertiports, the committee also includes companies like Joby Aviation, Atlantic Aviation, Beta Technologies, Skyports, Overair, and Southern Sky Aviation. Also making the list are consultancies HMMH and SMG Consulting and aviation-focused law firm Shackleford, Bowen, McKinley & Norton.

The committee’s stated goals are to provide stakeholder input on legislative and regulatory priorities for fixed base operators, airports, and other providers, as well as to foster connections between AAM firms and Part 135 operators.

“It’s an honor to be a part of an association with such deep roots and history in the aviation industry and I am looking forward to working with the other AAM committee members as we blaze this new path forward together,” said Fisk. “We are in the critical planning and preparation time period for AAM as the vehicles start to complete their certifications and the infrastructure ecosystem breaks.”

NATA’s AAM committee held its first meeting back in November, where president and CEO Curt Castagna explained the association’s shift in focus. In his view, AAM has a major role to play in the years ahead—the challenge, though, will be establishing cooperation between those companies and traditional aviation firms.

“The efficiency and effectiveness of AAM development and integration will require strategic leadership to address immediate needs related to ground service, operations, maintenance, and public acceptance,” Castagna explained. “With guidance and input from key stakeholders on our new AAM committee, NATA has the right team in place to drive success in all focus areas for aviation businesses.”

In January, the committee convened again, this time naming its initial membership through a town hall. And later that month, it met with leaders of NATA’s Air Charter, General Aviation Airports, Safety, and Environment committees to discuss AAM integration in areas like operations, safety, maintenance, training, and ground infrastructure.

“NATA was pleased to have a new opportunity to unite its various membership segments toward a common goal,” said Megan Eisenstein, managing director of industry affairs and innovation and staff liaison for the AAM Committee. “It’s important for all aviation businesses to have an understanding, a voice, and a vision for AAM integration into the current aviation ecosystem.”

Eisenstein’s words may come as a relief to pilots, some of whom have voiced hesitancy when faced with the prospect of a technology like AAM creating a seismic shift in aviation.

“As a pilot, it was both inspiring and a little frightening,” wrote CFI Michael Wildes, referring to a panel of AAM stakeholders who spoke at the National Business Aviation Association’s Business Aviation Convention and Exhibition in October 2021.

To Wildes’ point, some fears that pilots have about AAM are valid—namely, the complete removal of humans from the cockpit, which several firms have already stated as their mission. However, as Wildes also pointed out, it could also create new latitude for pilots to hone their skills in fleet management, engineering, and other areas.

But whether you view AAM as a threat or an opportunity, one thing is clear: Integrating the technology with established aviation systems is a challenge that will require intense collaboration among AAM stakeholders, as well as between those players and airports, FBOs, and pilots.

The post NATA Adds Vertiport Firm Volatus to Advanced Air Mobility Committee appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The coalition is made up of seven aviation stakeholder organizations, and includes the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA), the Helicopter Association International (HAI), the National Air Transportation Association (NATA), the National Business Aviation Association (NBAA) and the American Petroleum Institute (API).

In their comments, the coalition emphasized that the elimination of lead from avgas is in the public interest, as it will reduce lead air pollution and applauded the industry’s continued work on an unleaded replacement that will meet both safety performance needs of the U.S. fleet of piston aircraft, as well as FAA regulatory requirements.

Developing Alternatives to 100LL

At the present time there are four high-octane unleaded fuels currently in development and approval by the FAA.

“Each of these fuels attempts to address the critical safety need for high-octane aviation fuel using differing chemical approaches,” the coalition said. “Aircraft and aircraft engines are type certificated by FAA as meeting all the applicable safety requirements for design, airworthiness, and operation. Each type certificated aircraft and engine, by make/model, must be FAA approved to operate on any new or replacement fuel to ensure their continued operational safety.”

• READ MORE: GAMI Gains Avgas STC for Pistons on Unleaded Fuel

The two paths available to obtain FAA approval for new fuel are the traditional FAA aircraft type certification process, such as supplemental type certificates (STC), and the FAA aviation fuel fleet authorization process established by Congress in sec. 565 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 201813.

The coalition noted that approval of the replacement fuel is the first step, the second is creating a commercial pathway for the production and distribution of the unleaded fuel to the airports.

Two fuel developers, General Aviation Modifications Inc. and Swift Fuels Inc. are pursuing STCs. On September 1, 2022, the FAA issued an approved model list supplemental type certificate (AML-STC) to GAMI for G100UL unleaded avgas. According to its website, GAMI anticipates that the production and delivery of G100UL will ramp up this year, with the unleaded avgas becoming more readily available by 2024.

In the meantime, Swift Fuels Inc. delivers a 94-octane unleaded aviation fuel to a limited but growing number of airports for those aircraft that can safely use a lower octane fuel. Swift holds an AML-STC FAA approval for UL94 fuel, which each owner-operator can purchase and install on their individual eligible aircraft and engines allowing them to use UL94.

• READ MORE: Avgas Coalition on Aviation Fuel Pushes for 100LL Bridge

Swift is also developing a high-octane unleaded fuel and is working with the FAA toward certification by the end of 2024.

The emphasis, as outlined in the Eliminate Aviation Gasoline Lead Emissions (EAGLE) initiative, is the successful transition to lead-free avgas for piston aircraft by the end of 2030 without compromising the safe and efficient operation of the general aviation fleet.

Over the past two years there have been high profile studies down around airports, particularly those in California that attribute lead pollution to local airports. In particular, one in Santa Clara County focused on Reid-Hillview (KRHV) in San Jose.

• READ MORE: Santa Clara County Responds to FAA Informal Investigation

Critics of the study have noted that many of the buildings in the neighborhoods surrounding the airport were constructed in the 1920s and 1930s when lead pipes and lead-based paint were used extensively, and over the decades have been oxidizing. Therefore, it is impossible to conclusively determine the source of lead exposure.

The post We’re Getting the Lead Out, Aviation Groups Say appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The Senate approved the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 on Monday, which allocates a $1.25 per gallon tax credit for each gallon of SAF sold. SAF producers must demonstrate that the fuel can cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 50 percent as part of a qualified mix compared to regular jet fuel.

The bill is expected to pass the House and be signed into law by President Biden.

In its statement, NATA said the five-year tax provision was a good incentive for producing renewable jet fuel and accelerating the industry’s progress to net-zero carbon emissions.

“The SAF tax credits…are a crucial first step toward meeting the Biden administration’s SAF Grand Challenge goal of 3 billion gallons of domestically produced SAF by 2030,” said NATA president and CEO Timothy Obitts. 

Currently, global SAF production is a miniscule 26.4 million gallons a year—about 0.1 percent of all aviation fuel. 

Globally, civil aviation produces about 2.1 percent of all human-induced CO2 emissions, according to the Air Transport Action Group. That number is expected to rise significantly by 2050.
NATA also noted that it was important for the government to reduce the “regulatory roadblock” that it said was slowing production and progress of the SAF market, particularly by ensuring that it is included in the Environmental Protection Agency’s Renewable Fuel Standard program.

‘Single Most Important Thing’

NBAA president Ed Bolen also welcomed the Senate vote and said increasing the availability of SAF at general aviation airports was crucial in helping the industry attain its goal of reaching net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.

“Establishing a robust federal tax credit for SAF is the single most important thing policymakers can do to increase production and availability,” Bolen said.

With passage of the bill into law, the credit would take effect on January 1, 2023, and last for two years, after which the Clean Fuel Production Credit (CFPC) will take over, providing a baseline credit for SAF until 2027. The Clean Fuels Production Credit will offer fuel producers up to $1.75 per gallon for fuels with a 100 percent GHG reduction or less, based on emission volumes. Unless the CFPC is extended by Congress, it will expire on the last day of 2027.

NATA and NBAA have previously advocated for tax credits, initially as part of the Sustainable Skies Act in 2021, to encourage more investments in the rapidly developing sustainable fuel market. 

“The business aviation industry has already demonstrated a consistent demand for SAF; now we call on government leaders to adopt sound legislative and regulatory policies to foster consistent production,” Obitts said.

The post Aviation Industry Groups, NATA and NBAA, Welcome SAF Tax Credit appeared first on FLYING Magazine.