7034 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Parts 61, 91, and 135 

[Docket No. FAA–2006–24981; Amendment 

Nos. 61–117, 91–298, and 135–111] 

RIN 2120–AI82 

Special Federal Aviation Regulation 

No. 108—Mitsubishi MU–2B Series 

Airplane Special Training, Experience, 

and Operating Requirements 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration, DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This Special Federal Aviation 

Regulation (SFAR) creates new pilot 

training, experience, and operating 

requirements for persons operating the 

Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane (MU– 

2B). These requirements follow an 

increased accident and incident rate in 

the MU–2B and are based on a Federal 

Aviation Administration safety 

evaluation of the MU–2B. This SFAR 

mandates additional training, 

experience, and operating requirements 

to improve the level of operational 

safety for the MU–2B. 

DATES: This final rule is effective April 

7, 2008. Affected parties, however, do 

not have to comply with the information 

collection requirements until the FAA 

publishes in the Federal Register the 

control number assigned by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

these information collection 

requirements. Publication of the control 

number notifies the public that OMB 

has approved these information 

collection requirements under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

The incorporation by reference of 

certain publications listed in the 

regulations is approved by the Director 

of the Federal Register as of April 7, 

2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron 

Baker, General Aviation and 

Commercial Division, Commercial 

Operations Branch, AFS–800, Federal 

Aviation Administration, Room 835, 

800 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 

267–8212; facsimile (202) 267–5094. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The Federal Aviation 

Administration’s (FAA’s) authority to 

issue rules on aviation safety is found in 

Title 49 of the United States Code. 

Subtitle I, section 106, describes the 

authority of the FAA to issue, rescind, 

and revise the rules. This rulemaking is 

promulgated under the authority 

described in Subtitle VII, Aviation 

Programs, Part A, Air Commerce and 

Safety, Subpart III, Safety, section 

44701, General Requirements. Under 

section 44701 the FAA is charged with 

prescribing regulations setting the 

minimum standards for practices, 

methods, and procedures necessary for 

safety in air commerce. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority 

because it will set the minimum level of 

safety to operate the Mitsubishi MU–2B. 

Background 

In response to the increasing number 

of accidents and incidents involving the 

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) MU– 

2B series airplane, the FAA performed 

a safety evaluation of the MU–2B 

starting in July 2005. The safety 

evaluation provided an in-depth review 

and analysis of MU–2B accidents, 

incidents, safety data, pilot training 

requirements, and maintenance. During 

the safety evaluation, the FAA also 

convened an FAA Flight 

Standardization Board (FSB) to evaluate 

proposed training, checking, and 

currency requirements for pilots 

operating the MU–2B. 

The notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM) published on September 28, 

2006 (71 FR 56905) was based on the 

recommendations of the safety 

evaluation and the FSB report. A copy 

of both the safety evaluation and the 

FSB report are in the Rules Docket 

(FAA–2006–24981) for this rulemaking 

action. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed 

new requirements for ground and flight 

training that would apply to all persons 

who manipulate the controls or act as 

pilot-in-command (PIC) of the MU–2B. 

The proposed SFAR also would apply to 

those persons who provide pilot 

training for the Mitsubishi MU–2B. 

Operational requirements, such as a 

requirement for a functioning autopilot 

for single pilot instrument flight rules 

(IFR) and night visual flight rules (VFR) 

operations, a requirement to obtain and 

carry a copy of the latest available 

revision of the airplane flight manual, 

and a requirement to use a new pilot 

checklist were part of the proposal. The 

requirements of the proposed SFAR 

would be in addition to the 

requirements in 14 CFR parts 61, 91, 

and 135. 

The FAA proposed that all training 

conducted in the Mitsubishi MU–2B be 

done using the standardized MHI 

training program and a checklist 

accepted by the FAA’s MU–2B FSB. 

Copies of a training program and a 

checklist were placed in the Rules 

Docket for this rulemaking so that 

interested persons could comment on 

them. In addition, the FAA requested 

comment on additional paperwork 

requirements of the proposed rule. 

The FAA proposed a 180-day 

compliance date for the final rule. 

However, when published in the 

Federal Register a printing error 

indicated the compliance date would be 

March 27, 2007. This date is incorrect. 

The FAA intended that operators 

comply with this rule within 180 days 

of the final rule’s publication. 

On January 3, 2007 (72 FR 55) the 

FAA published a supplemental NPRM 

(SNPRM). The FAA had been 

monitoring implementation of the MHI 

MU–2B training program and 

determined that some pilots with little 

or no experience flying the MU–2B were 

requesting training at the requalification 

level when it was the FAA’s intention 

that these pilots receive training at the 

initial/transition level. The FAA needed 

to clarify our intent with regard to the 

phrase ‘‘operating experience’’ as used 

in the training program. A lack of 

specificity led to the public not being 

properly advised as to the 

circumstances under which the FAA 

expected a pilot to undergo initial/ 

transition training, requalification 

training, or recurrent training. In the 

SNPRM, the FAA proposed experience 

qualifications for initial/transition 

training, requalification training, and 

recurrent training. The comment period 

for the SNPRM closed on February 2, 

2007. 

Comments on the Proposed Rule 

The FAA received over 90 comments 

on the proposed SFAR. Commenters 

included commercial operators, general 

aviation pilots, organizations 

representing owners and operators of 

the MU–2B, and the manufacturer. Most 

commenters applauded the FAA’s 

requirement for additional pilot training 

in the MU–2B airplane, but also took 

issue with the total number of program 

hours required for pilot training or 

qualification as a flight instructor. 

Several commenters noted that the MU– 

2B, by the FAA’s own admission, is a 

safe airplane and questioned why pilots 

of other makes and models of airplanes 

are not required to receive additional 

training. In general, commenters noted 

that the MU–2B airplane is safe if 

‘‘flown by the book.’’ 

Several commenters stated that the 

SFAR is well thought out and will 

address the majority of MU–2B 

accidents that have arisen out of the 

lack of pilot training or inadequate pilot 

training. Other commenters stated that 

the additional training will not address 

accidents that occur from bad pilot 

judgment, such as the two recent 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7035 

accidents involving pilots who flew into 

severe thunderstorms. Others 

commented that the SFAR enhanced the 

regulatory environment and will 

improve safety within the population of 

MU–2B operators. 

The Aircraft Owners and Pilot 

Association (AOPA) supported the idea 

of an SFAR to address the special 

challenges of flying an MU–2B, but 

stated that the proposed requirements 

are burdensome and go beyond what is 

reasonable for safety. The National Air 

Transportation Association (NATA) 

commended the FAA for the course of 

action the agency took in developing the 

NPRM, but expressed concern that the 

narrow compliance window and 

burdensome aeronautical experience 

requirements would reduce available 

instructors. The National Business 

Aviation Association (NBAA) praised 

the FAA for maintaining a data-driven 

safety focus. After reviewing the FAA’s 

proposal, NBAA concluded that the 

issuance of an SFAR is the most 

appropriate regulatory solution in light 

of a number of possible options. The 

Regional Air Cargo Carriers Association 

(RACCA) applauded the FAA’s efforts to 

take a measured approach involving the 

manufacturer, the operators, and the 

FAA in developing means to address 

perceived safety issues with the aircraft. 

There was a general consensus among 

many of the commenters that the 

rulemaking effort benefited from the 

collaborative process prior to the NPRM 

that involved the airplane’s users, 

manufacturer, and regulators. 

The FAA received 20 comments to the 

SNPRM. Numerous comments on the 

SNPRM addressed issues on language in 

the NPRM. All comments are 

summarized in this preamble by issue. 

Applicability 

The FAA proposed that this rule 

apply to a PIC, second in command 

(SIC), or any other person who 

manipulates the controls of the MU–2B 

airplane. The FAA received many 

comments asking who would be 

allowed to manipulate the controls of 

the Mitsubishi MU–2B airplane. The 

commenters argued that there are 

legitimate reasons why a person who is 

not the PIC and who does not meet the 

training requirement of the proposed 

SFAR should be allowed to manipulate 

the controls. Some of these reasons 

included flights for the purposes of 

providing pilot training, maintenance 

flights, pre-employment pilot 

proficiency evaluations, and 

demonstration flights related to aircraft 

sales. One commenter was concerned 

that the rule would prohibit a ‘‘pinch 

hitter’’ from manipulating the controls. 

Pinch hitter courses are often given to 

provide non-certificated persons with 

basic piloting skills in order to assist in 

an emergency, such as the medical 

incapacitation of the PIC. 

The FAA agrees that the proposed 

restrictions would make it difficult to 

receive flight training in the MU–2B. 

The FAA did not intend to prohibit the 

use of the MU–2B during flight training 

if the PIC had successfully completed 

the flight training requirements of the 

proposed rule. 

Some commenters provided valid 

reasons for a less restrictive regulation. 

The FAA recognizes that certain 

maintenance test flights are best 

performed with two pilots or a pilot and 

a mechanic. For example, the level of 

safety when performing an in-flight 

Negative Torque Sensor Check is greatly 

enhanced when done by a two-pilot 

crew or a pilot and mechanic. The FAA 

has revised the rule language to allow 

manipulation of the controls by certain 

persons who have not received the 

SFAR’s required training. The revised 

rule requires that the PIC must have 

completed the required MU–2B training 

and occupy a pilot station, and the flight 

may not be conducted with passengers 

or cargo onboard. A nonqualified pilot 

may manipulate the controls in the 

three circumstances described in section 

2, paragraph (b) of the SFAR. 

The FAA considers a pinch hitter 

course to be a form of flight instruction. 

The FAA also considers preemployment pilot proficiency 

evaluations to be a function of flight 

training if such evaluations are 

conducted by qualified instructors 

meeting the training and experience 

requirements of this SFAR. The FAA 

notes that the responsibility and 

authority of a PIC allows the PIC to 

deviate from the rules to the extent 

required in an in-flight emergency 

requiring immediate action. 

Time Allowed for Compliance With the 

Rule 

The FAA proposed that all persons 

who operate the MU–2B airplane or 

train in the airplane would meet the 

requirements of the rule within 180 

days of the effective date of the final 

rule. We felt that an expedited 

compliance period was necessary 

because of the potential safety risk 

identified by the safety evaluation. 

Based on comments and other actions 

that have mitigated these risks, such as 

voluntary compliance with the training 

program, the FAA has extended the 

compliance period to 1 year. 

Many commenters expressed concern 

that 180 days is too short a time period 

for compliance. Two commercial 

training providers (SIMCOM and 

Howell Enterprises) and the airplane 

manufacturer (MHI) suggested 365 days 

as an alternative. One commenter noted 

the scarcity of flight instructors for the 

large number of pilots who would need 

training, stating that there are only three 

qualified instructors in the United 

States and only one simulator. Another 

commenter noted that some pilots are 

delaying recurrent training to see what 

the final rule will mandate; thus there 

will be a rush to training. Most persons 

commenting on this issue suggested a 

365-day compliance period. 

Commenters also noted that if all pilots 

are trained in the proposed 180 days, 

the instructors would have nothing to 

do the other half of the year. They also 

posited that a one-time compliance 

window would make everyone’s 

recurrent training in following years fall 

within the same 180 days. 

Many commenters noted that 

commercial operators and most general 

aviation pilots are already receiving 

some sort of annual training. The 

commenters believe a longer (1 year) 

implementation period will allow these 

pilots to retain their current training 

cycle. The NATA believes a 1-year 

compliance time is more economically 

efficient, as it will allow MU–2B pilots 

flying under part 135 to complete the 

training defined in the SFAR in 

conjunction with currently required part 

135 checks. They also argued that longer 

compliance time will have a minimal 

impact on safety. 

The FAA agrees that a 180-day 

implementation period is too short. The 

SFAR will allow pilots to match existing 

annual training cycles whenever 

possible to reduce compliance costs. 

The final rule will take effect 60 days 

after publication in the Federal 

Register. The compliance period will be 

305 days from the effective date. 

Therefore, the operators and trainers for 

the MU–2B will have 365 days from the 

date of publication of the final rule to 

comply. 

Pilot Training 

Many commenters agreed with the 

need for specialized training but raised 

concerns with the type and length of 

training. Some commenters felt that the 

SFAR did not go far enough, especially 

for initial training and part 135 

operations. 

Minimum Program Hours 

The FAA proposed to adopt the hours 

of training determined by the FSB and 

incorporated in the MU–2B Training 

Program. We have decided to reformat 

the proposed training program and 

include it as Appendices A through D 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
7036 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

to the SFAR. We have not added any 

additional requirements to the training 

program in the appendix, and it is 

fundamentally the same as the training 

program that we placed in the rules 

docket for comment. 

One commercial training provider 

commented that the training program 

reduces ground training hours below 

what is currently provided and should 

be increased. Another commenter 

asserted that 8 hours of recurrent 

training is excessive for already 

proficient pilots. Several persons 

commented that 6, rather than 8, hours 

of requalification training is more 

reasonable. One commenter stated that 

a PIC should have at least 10 hours of 

in-flight training in the MU–2B before 

taking a check ride. Two commenters 

stated that the required training hours 

are arbitrary. 

The FAA established the minimum 

required ground and flight training 

program hours after carefully reviewing 

all FAA-approved training programs 

and the proposed MHI training program. 

A team of pilots representing a cross 

section of the airplane’s user 

demographics received the training. 

Proficiency levels and completion times 

were closely tracked. Additionally, the 

FAA has monitored the completion 

times for training conducted using the 

MHI training program since its 

approval. This monitoring has validated 

the number of training hours proposed. 

Accordingly, the FAA has determined 

that the program hour requirements 

represent the minimum number of 

hours required to reach an acceptable 

level of safety and proficiency. The FAA 

notes that training providers can add 

additional hours to the program if they 

feel it is needed. 

A commenter stated that the 4 hours 

of recurrent training, followed by a 

check ride, is too exhausting. This 

person suggested that the training be 

broken into two, 2-hour training 

sessions, each 6 months apart. The FAA 

clarifies that the recurrent training 

requirement must be completed 

annually. The SFAR does not prohibit 

the division of the training into 

segments. Thus, the requirement may be 

met in two or more training sessions in 

order to align with existing training 

cycles. 

Training to Proficiency 

The FAA proposed to adopt the hours 

of training determined by the FSB and 

incorporated in the MU–2B training 

program, which vary depending on 

whether the pilot is receiving initial/ 

transition, requalification, recurrent, or 

differences training. 

Several commenters suggested 

training to proficiency rather than 

imposing a set number of hours of 

training. The commenters also noted 

that the number of hours proposed is 

too much training for some and too little 

for others. 

The FAA points out that the MU–2B 

training program requires that the 

student complete a minimum number of 

program hours and that the student is 

trained to an acceptable level of 

proficiency as defined in the training 

program. Additionally, although the 

training program addresses pilot 

proficiency and skill, the training 

program also provides a body of 

knowledge addressing best practices, 

procedures, and operational techniques, 

as learned throughout the safety 

evaluation and the FSB process. 

Therefore, the FAA has determined that 

the program hours represent the 

minimum amount of training time 

needed. The FAA will continue to 

monitor the time required for 

completion of the training and may 

adjust the required training program 

hours if necessary. 

Credit for Part 135 Training 

The FAA stated in the proposed rule 

that the hours of training in the MU–2B 

training program are in addition to other 

training required by parts 61 and 135. 

Based on comment, we realize that some 

training maneuvers may be redundant. 

In this case, the maneuver is only 

performed once, but credit is given in 

both training programs. 

A commenter stated that the FAA 

should recognize part 135 training that 

is already required (i.e., § 135.293 

aircraft competency check, § 135.297 

instrument proficiency check, § 135.299 

line check). Part 135 operators already 

receive a total of 3 hours of in-flight 

testing each year, plus the training that 

will be required by the SFAR. The 

commenter does not think the SFAR 

considered the part 135 training. 

In drafting the NPRM, the FAA did 

consider training already conducted 

under part 61 and part 135. Maneuvers 

covered under the Final Phase Check 

required by the training program may 

not satisfy all the requirements of a 

§ 135.293, § 135.297, or § 135.299 check. 

Many maneuvers listed on the FAA 

Form 8410–3, Airman Competency/ 

Proficiency Check, are not required 

under the final phase check of the 

training program. In the event that 

maneuvers or other training 

requirements appear in both training 

programs, credit should be given for the 

training under both programs. To the 

extent the training is conducted in an 

MU–2B airplane, and the maneuvers are 

identical, credit will be given for both 

program hours and completion of 

maneuvers. Such actions should be well 

documented, as this allowance does not 

eliminate any of the recordkeeping 

requirements within either training 

program. Operators must ensure that all 

requirements of part 135 are met. 

However, operators are not required to 

perform the same maneuvers twice (i.e., 

once for the Final Phase Check and 

again during a § 135.293 proficiency 

check). All items for both programs 

must be completed, even if that results 

in exceeding the minimum number of 

program hours. 

Credit for Prior Training 

The FAA did not allow credit for 

prior training in the proposed rule 

because it determined that much of the 

training lacked standardization and had 

differing procedures. 

Some commenters felt that pilots with 

a high level of experience, previous 

factory training, or ‘third party annual 

training’ for insurance purposes, should 

be exempt (grandfathered) or have a 

reduced number of training hours. The 

FAA also received comments that the 

proposed training program as presently 

defined is the only approved training 

program. This single program means the 

entire MU–2B community is required to 

use the proposed training program. 

Another commenter suggested that 

existing approved training programs are 

adequate. Several commenters requested 

exemption from the SFAR training 

requirements because of participation in 

other approved training programs. 

During the MU–2B safety evaluation, 

the FAA reviewed 23 approved training 

programs. There was little 

standardization among these training 

programs. Many taught techniques and 

procedures that were contrary to those 

published in the airplane flight manual 

(AFM). Therefore it was the conclusion 

of the safety evaluation and the FSB, 

that in order for training to be effective, 

there must be one standardized training 

program. The FAA will not allow 

persons to be grandfathered from the 

SFAR based on previous training. 

However, as explained later in this 

document, training conducted between 

July 27, 2006, and the effective date of 

this rule, using Mitsubishi Heavy 

Industries MU–2B Training Program, 

Part number YET 05301, Revision 

Original, dated July 27, 2006, or 

Revision 1, dated September 19, 2006, is 

considered to be compliant with this 

SFAR. 

Demonstration of Proficiency 

The FAA’s safety evaluation and the 

FSB both recommended that 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7037 

standardized training conclude with a 

demonstration of proficiency. This 

demonstration was a part of the 

proposed training program and allows 

for simultaneous training and checking 

during requalification and recurrent 

training. 

The AOPA believes that pilots should 

not be required to pass a formal 

checkride at the end of their training. 

Instructors should be allowed to 

evaluate or ‘‘check’’ a pilot’s 

performance during the course of 

training. 

The final phase check of the training 

program is different from a formal 

checkride. During a formal checkride, 

where the pilot has made application for 

a certificate or rating, the inability to 

satisfactorily demonstrate proficiency 

will result in a failed checkride. During 

a final phase check required by the MU–

2B training program, if the pilot cannot 

satisfactorily demonstrate proficiency 

he or she has not failed a checkride. 

Those pilots that do not perform to an 

acceptable level of proficiency may 

need additional training in order to 

complete the training program. The 

requirement of a final phase check 

ensures that all pilots not only receive 

the training, but also have acquired the 

skills and proficiency necessary to 

safely operate the airplane. The final 

phase check is also different from a 

formal checkride because the training 

program allows for simultaneous 

training and checking during 

requalification or recurrent training. 

Students can be given credit for 

successfully completing maneuvers 

while receiving the training. However, 

simultaneous training and checking is 

not allowed by the training program 

during initial/transition training. 

Training Satisfying a Flight Review 

The proposed rule did not specifically 

address the part 61 flight review in 

conjunction with the proposed training 

program. The final rule accommodates 

part 61 flight training, but only if the 

training is done in the MU–2B airplane. 

The AOPA commented that the 

recurrent training should satisfy the 

requirements for a flight review as 

described in 14 CFR 61.56. The FAA 

notes that § 61.56(a) requires a flight 

review that includes at least 1 hour of 

flight time. The MU–2B training 

program requires a minimum of 6 hours 

of flight training in the MU–2B airplane 

for initial/transition training. Those 

pilots that opt to conduct requalification 

or recurrent training in the MU–2B 

airplane instead of a flight training 

device are required to receive a 

minimum of 4 or 8 hours respectively of 

flight training in the MU–2B airplane. 

Those pilots that attend initial/ 

transition training, or conduct 

requalification or recurrent training in 

the airplane, easily satisfy the minimum 

amount of flight training required by 

§ 61.56(a). Additionally, the ground 

training requirements for initial, 

requalification, and recurrent training 

covers the subjects required in § 61.56 

(a)(1) and (a)(2). Therefore, the FAA 

agrees that successful completion of the 

flight and ground training requirements 

for initial/transition, requalification, or 

recurrent training meets the 

requirements of § 61.56 provided that at 

least 1 hour of the flight training was 

conducted in the Mitsubishi MU–2B 

airplane. Therefore, the FAA will 

recognize those persons that document 

successful completion of the applicable 

portions of the training program in the 

Mitsubishi MU–2B airplane as having 

met the applicable requirements of 

§ 61.56. In this circumstance, no 

separate endorsement for the flight 

review will be required. 

Grace Month for Training 

The AOPA and two other commenters 

asked that we allow training conducted 

in the month before or after (a grace 

month) it is due to be considered as 

accomplished in the month it was due 

(the base month). The FAA agrees that 

completing training in the month before 

or after the month in which compliance 

is required can be considered as 

completed in the month it is due. 

However, this allowance does not reestablish a pilot’s base month. This 

practice is allowed in other training 

requirements, such as in part 135 

training. The rule language has been 

adjusted to reflect this allowance. The 

FAA notes that the grace month only 

applies to the training required by this 

SFAR. 

Training Profiles 

The FAA proposed incorporating by 

reference the training profiles in the 

proposed MU–2B training program. 

These were developed by the 

manufacturer while working with the 

FSB. Commenters expressed concern 

with some of the profiles. 

One commenter felt that the engine 

inoperative non-precision and missed 

approach procedure, as published in the 

proposed training profiles, is dangerous. 

The commenter stated that requiring the 

pilot to extend the landing gear only 

when landing is assured invites training 

accidents, and if performed during 

actual instrument conditions, is 

contrary to the accepted instrument 

procedures of having the aircraft 

configured and stabilized inside of the 

final approach fix (FAF). The FAA 

recognizes that the profile as published, 

for a single-engine non-precision 

approach, deviates from common 

practices. However, during the FSB’s 

evaluation, FAA test pilots flew a 

variety of makes and models of the MU–

2B. They flew the MU–2B at various 

weights positioned throughout the 

airplane’s center-of-gravity (CG) 

envelope. This included the maximum 

allowable take-off weight at the 

rearward limits of CG envelope. The 

drag penalty induced by configuring the 

airplane for landing at the FAF made it 

difficult to maintain a number of nonprecision approach profiles. Airspeed 

often deteriorated below a safe speed 

while trying to maintain the profile in 

the landing configuration. Maintaining 

adequate airspeed became especially 

difficult when a circle-to-land maneuver 

was required. As a result of these 

findings, the FAA modified the singleengine non-precision approach 

procedures to delay deployment of the 

landing gear until landing is assured. 

This procedure has been included in the 

MU–2B training program in the 

applicable MU–2B model checklists. 

The FAA notes that several elements 

of the training program have been 

revised since the training program was 

placed in the docket. The MU–2B 

Training Program now provides the 

profile for Take-Off Engine Failure Flaps 

5° or Flaps 20° and the profile for the 

One Engine Inoperative Non-precision 

and Missed Approach. Corresponding 

changes were also made to the training 

program checklist to reflect the changes 

to the maneuver profiles. The FAA has 

determined that these changes are 

within the scope of the notice. There are 

no other substantive changes to the 

MU–2B Training Program except as 

modified by the proposal in the SNPRM. 

Simulator Training 

A commenter suggested a one-time 

training requirement in a simulator for 

those failures that cannot be safely 

simulated in the airplane. This training 

would include engine failure at rotation 

and the in-flight Negative Torque Sensor 

Check. The FAA considered this option 

but recognizes that there are no FAAapproved MU–2B simulators in 

operation and only two FAA-approved, 

Level 5, flight training devices (FTD). 

Both of these devices are located at a 

single facility in Florida. The FAA 

determined that it would pose an 

economic hardship to make the entire 

MU–2B community travel to Florida to 

train at this facility. Additionally, 

although the FAA embraces the use of 

simulators and FTD, not all training 

providers have them available, nor are 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
7038 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

they the only method for delivering 

effective training. 

A commenter also posited that the 

annual recurrent training should 

include three takeoffs and landings in 

the actual MU–2B airplane under the 

supervision of a qualified check airman 

or flight instructor. The FAA notes that 

safety can be enhanced by use of FTD 

during recurrent training. Therefore, the 

SFAR allows recurrent training to be 

conducted in an FTD or the MU–2B 

airplane. 

In-House Training 

Another commenter stated that part 

135 companies should not be allowed to 

train in-house but should require their 

pilots to attend professional training 

companies to satisfy the SFAR 

requirements. The commenter also 

stated that there is too much latitude 

when part 135 companies conduct the 

training. The FAA considered this 

option but we are not changing existing 

part 135 regulations and guidance that 

allow commercial operators to conduct 

in-house training. Since there are no 

FAA-approved part 142 training centers 

for the MU–2B airplane, requiring 

commercially provided training for part 

135 operators is not possible. 

Commercial operators can contract with 

training facilities to provide some types 

of instruction if the curriculum is 

approved by their Principal Operations 

Inspector, but this is not a requirement. 

Monitoring Training Implementation 

and Training Quality 

A commenter asked if the FAA will 

ensure that all MU–2B owners and 

pilots are trained to at least the 

proposed levels. The commenter also 

asked where the FAA plans to get the 

personnel to do surveillance on the 

SFAR training. The FAA is confident 

that pilots will be trained to at least the 

proposed levels. The FAA determined 

that successful completion of the 

training program requires a 

demonstration of proficiency to 

carefully defined performance 

standards. The FAA’s Commercial Pilot 

Practical Test Standards are used as a 

guide to determine the pilot’s level of 

proficiency under the MU–2B training 

program. Successful completion will be 

documented by a flight instructor 

meeting the experience requirements of 

the SFAR. A substantial amount of 

training has already been conducted 

using the FAA-approved MHI training 

program. Many pilots have voluntarily 

attended this training in anticipation of 

the issuance of the SFAR. The FAA has 

monitored this training and is satisfied 

with the quality and effectiveness of the 

program and its instructors. At the time 

of closure of the public comment period 

for the NPRM, approximately 6 percent 

of the MU–2B pilot community had 

received the new training. The FAA also 

held a workshop to ensure a smooth 

implementation of the FSB report for 

commercial training providers and part 

135 operators. 

The FAA will continue to monitor the 

training and SFAR implementation and 

conduct surveillance as part of its 

annual work program for field 

inspectors. Additionally, FAA guidance 

material was updated to assist 

inspectors and operators. 

A commenter asked how the increase 

in training will prepare pilots for a lossof-control of the airplane during an 

emergency. The FAA has determined 

that the mandatory training will provide 

the pilot with the knowledge and skill 

to fly the airplane safely within its 

designed operational limits under 

normal, abnormal, and emergency 

conditions, including operations with 

one engine inoperative. Many of the 

MU–2B accidents involved loss of 

directional control or stalling the 

airplane due to poor airspeed 

management or excessive bank angles 

when maneuvering. The training 

program emphasizes proper airspeed 

management, low-speed maneuvering, 

and the risks associated with excessive 

bank angles. The training also 

specifically addresses the loss-of-control 

accidents that have occurred in the MU–

2B. Additionally, pilots must annually 

demonstrate proficiency in the flight 

maneuvers to commercial pilot practical 

test standards. Therefore, the training 

program focuses on prevention of unsafe 

conditions while also providing 

instruction for recovery from them. 

Pilot Experience 

The FAA proposed that a pilot must 

have logged 100 hours of PIC experience 

in multi-engine airplanes in order to 

operate the MU–2B airplane. That 

requirement is retained in the final rule. 

One commenter questioned why the 

FAA would require a pilot to receive 

100 hours experience in a multi-engine 

airplane prior to being able to serve as 

PIC of the MU–2B. This commenter 

believes that such an experience 

requirement would be confusing during 

the MU–2B training. The FAA finds that 

a pilot needs to have a basic level of 

experience and understanding of multiengine airplanes prior to advancing to 

more complex airplanes. This threshold 

is consistent with experience 

requirements of SFAR 73, which 

describes additional operating 

experience requirements for the 

Robinson R–22/44. 

Credit for Previous Operating 

Experience 

In the SNPRM the FAA proposed that 

a person have a minimum level of 

previous operating experience of 50 

hours within the previous 24 months to 

be exempt from initial/transition 

training. Based on comments, the FAA 

has modified this experience 

requirement in the final rule to also 

exempt pilots from initial training pilots 

who have a total of 500 hours previous 

operating experience. Most of the 

commenters requested that the FAA 

consider prior operating experience in 

the MU–2B. Some commenters noted 

that the proposed definitions in the 

SNPRM treat a pilot with significant, 

but not recent experience (i.e., last 24 

months), the same as one with no 

experience. The AOPA and seven other 

commenters recommended that the FAA 

exempt experienced pilots from the 

initial training requirement if that pilot 

has at least 500 hours of documented 

MU–2B PIC experience. Other 

commenters also requested an 

exemption from initial training based on 

experience, although they suggested 

different determining thresholds. Two 

commenters suggested a threshold of 

250 hours, and one commenter 

suggested 1,000 hours. One commenter 

stated that forcing an otherwise 

qualified pilot to attend initial training 

on the basis of the last 24 months flying 

is unfair. The commenter recommended 

a further qualification be added that 

states: ‘‘or has logged a total of 500 

hours of PIC in the MU–2.’’ The 

commenter added that a pilot meeting 

this criteria should be able to re-qualify 

with the training specified in the 

requalification course. 

The FAA agrees that pilots with 

significant previous experience should 

be exempt from participating in initial 

training. These pilots would instead be 

allowed to attend requalification 

training. The FAA also agrees that by 

allowing a form of the above proposed 

language, the original intent of the 

proposed rule is retained without 

penalizing those that have not flown the 

MU–2B within the past 24 months. 

Therefore, pilots with at least 500 hours 

of documented flight time manipulating 

the controls while serving as PIC of an 

MU–2B will not be required to attend 

initial/transition training, but will be 

required to satisfactorily complete 

requalification training. 

Operating Experience in the Previous 24 

Months 

In the SNPRM, the FAA proposed that 

pilots with less than 50 hours of 

operating experience within the 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7039 

previous 24 months would be required 

to attend initial training even if that 

pilot had already successfully 

completed initial training in the past. 

We have modified the final rule to make 

completion of initial training a one-time 

requirement. 

The NATA commented that the 

association is in agreement with the 

FAA that pilots with little or no recent 

experience in the MU–2B should be 

required to train in the aircraft in order 

to obtain sufficient proficiency and 

experience. The association was not 

opposed to the FAA’s proposed 

requirement for at least 50 hours of 

operating experience within the 

previous 24 months in order to bypass 

initial training. The NATA stated that 

with the existing part 135 currency and 

training requirements, and the level of 

on-demand charter activity, the 50-hour 

limit should not be cumbersome or add 

costly training to the typical part 135 

operator. The NATA was sensitive to 

the fact that some part 91 operators do 

not support this requirement, and stated 

that they have no specific position on 

this requirement as it would apply to 

that industry segment. The NATA also 

stated that they appreciate the FAA’s 

efforts to respond to MU–2B concerns 

with a rational, methodic, and 

participatory approach. 

One commenter asked that we clarify 

that the 50 hours in the previous 24 

months is not a continuing qualification 

limitation, but is intended to determine 

the pilot’s level of entry into this new 

program. Another commenter stated the 

50-hour requirement in the original 

NPRM was only intended for new 

entrants into the training program. 

The FAA notes the SNPRM did 

propose a continuing look-back 

requirement of 50 hours within the 

preceding 24 months. Many 

commenters did not support this 

requirement, finding it unnecessary and 

burdensome. The FAA agrees with the 

comments that a continuing look-back 

requirement is not needed. The FAA has 

reviewed the FAA-approved training 

program and determined that the NPRM 

did not include such a provision. 

Furthermore, the FAA notes that after 

completing initial or requalification 

training, a pilot must still satisfactorily 

complete recurrent training annually, 

which includes an annual 

demonstration of proficiency. Therefore, 

the FAA has concluded that a 

continuing look-back requirement is not 

necessary. 

In response to the comments and 

further FAA review, the FAA has 

revised the MU–2B training program 

and the rule language to include the 

following operating experience 

thresholds for determining pilot 

qualification for the various training 

options: 

A person is required to complete 

‘‘Initial/transition training’’ if that 

person has fewer than: 

(i) 50 hours of documented flight time 

manipulating the controls while serving 

as pilot-in-command of an MU–2B in 

the preceding 24 months; or 

(ii) 500 hours of documented flight 

time manipulating the controls while 

serving as pilot-in-command of an MU–

2B. 

A person is eligible to receive 

Requalification training in lieu of 

initial/transition training if that person 

has at least: 

(i) 50 hours of documented flight time 

manipulating the controls while serving 

as pilot-in-command of an MU–2B in 

the preceding 24 months; or 

(ii) 500 hours of documented flight 

time manipulating the controls while 

serving as pilot-in-command of an MU–

2B. 

A person is required to complete 

Recurrent training within the preceding 

12 months. Successful completion of 

initial/transition or requalification 

training within the preceding 12 months 

satisfies the requirement of recurrent 

training. A person must successfully 

complete initial/transition training or 

requalification training before being 

eligible to receive recurrent training. 

Successful completion of initial/ 

transition training or requalification 

training is a one-time requirement. A 

person may elect to retake initial/ 

transition training or requalification 

training in lieu of recurrent training and 

receive credit for recurrent training for 

that year. 

These definitions have been included 

in the Compliance and Eligibility 

section of the SFAR. 

Type Rating vs. SFAR 

In the NPRM, the FAA discussed why 

it determined that an SFAR is more 

appropriate for the safe operation of the 

MU–2B than a type rating alone. This 

decision was based on the 

recommendations of the safety 

evaluation and the FSB. 

Bankair, Inc. did not agree that it is 

necessary to mandate training that goes 

beyond the requirements of a type rating 

for this airplane. Another commenter 

said the FAA has failed to adequately 

consider a type rating for the aircraft or 

to adequately justify having an entirely 

special and new pilot competency 

program. 

The MU–2B safety evaluation and the 

FSB found that a portfolio of corrective 

actions are required that go well beyond 

the reach of a type rating or pilot 

training alone are needed to 

significantly reduce the accident rate of 

the MU–2B. The SFAR allows the FAA 

to mandate actions that are far more 

stringent and broader in scope than 

what would be achieved through a type 

rating alone. 

The FAA has determined that there is 

a need for annual recurrent training and 

an annual demonstration of proficiency. 

A type rating would not require 

recurrent training or additional checks 

because the aircraft is not required to be 

operated by a two-pilot crew as part of 

its certification basis. However, the FAA 

notes that some part 135 operations do 

require a two-pilot crew. An SFAR can 

mandate the conditions under which 

the aircraft may be operated, such as, in 

compliance with the new 

manufacturer’s data (including new 

checklists or use of an autopilot), or 

other operational requirements 

determined necessary by the FSB. None 

of these requirements would be 

addressed by the issuance of a type 

rating. An SFAR can also impose higher 

experience requirements for those 

instructing or administering tests in the 

MU–2B than is presently required by 

existing regulations. Therefore, this 

SFAR provides a higher level of safety 

than would be achieved by issuance of 

a type rating alone. 

Training Monopoly 

A commenter stated that it does not 

make sense that he should forego all 

other flight training except at a flight 

school A commenter also suggested the 

FAA was supporting a commercial 

training monopoly. The FAA does not 

agree. This standardized training can be 

provided by any instructor or 

commercial training organization that 

meets the experience requirements for 

instructors as described within this 

SFAR. This rule does not require that all 

SFAR compliant training be conducted 

at a commercial training center or flight 

school. 

Availability of Training Program 

One commenter expressed concern 

about access and availability of the 

training program. Another commenter 

requested that the FAA reopen the 

comment period, claiming that 

Mitsubishi will not release the training 

program to the public and the public 

cannot comment on the proposal 

without evaluating it. This commenter 

requested that the FAA have Mitsubishi 

publish all of their information and then 

re-open the comment process. A 

commenter also noted the manufacturer 

requires a Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) to be signed by 

the recipient before being provided a 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
7040 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

copy of the training program. This 

commenter felt that he should not be 

required to sign the MOU. 

The FAA posted a copy of the MHI 

training program to Rules Docket FAA–

2006–24981 prior to the NPRM 

comment period opening. This training 

program remains in the Rules Docket 

and may be downloaded by interested 

parties. As previously noted, the FAA 

has decided to place the requirements of 

the MU–2B Training Program in 

Appendices A through D to the SFAR. 

The SFAR will be published in the Code 

of Federal Regulations making the MU–

2B Training Program publicly available. 

The FAA has determined that the public 

has reasonable access to the training 

program. 

Procedures Not Covered by the Training 

Program 

One commenter noted that a pilot 

cannot operate the MU–2B contrary to 

the training program and wondered 

about other procedures not in the 

training program such as IFR holds, GPS 

approaches and DME arcs. With this 

SFAR, the FAA does not intend to 

change operational procedures that are 

not contained in the MU–2B training 

program. The FAA notes that such 

procedures are already covered by 

existing FAA regulations and guidance. 

Revisions to the Training Program 

Although no comments were received 

about the proposed rule provisions 

related to future training program 

revisions, the FAA notes that absent 

future rulemaking that makes a later 

revision of the training program 

exclusive and mandatory, operators 

must use the MU–2B Training Program 

contained in the SFAR The FAA has 

added a new section 8 to the SFAR to 

give credit for use of certain prior 

versions of the MHI training program for 

a specific time period. Section 8 states 

that ‘‘Initial/transition or requalification 

training conducted between July 27, 

2006, and the effective date of this rule, 

using Mitsubishi Heavy Industries MU–

2B Training Program, Part number YET 

05301, Revision Original, dated July 27, 

2006, or Revision 1, dated September 

19, 2006, is considered to be compliant 

with this SFAR, if the student met the 

eligibility requirements for the 

applicable category of training and the 

student’s instructor met the experience 

requirements of this SFAR.’’ This 

addition was made to allow those pilots 

who have already completed the MHI 

training program during the rulemaking 

process to receive credit for initial/ 

transition training. 

Requirements for Flight Instructors 

The FAA proposed a variety of 

experience requirements for flight 

instructors who conduct training in the 

MU–2B airplane, depending on whether 

the instruction is in the airplane, in a 

simulator, or in an FTD. 

One commenter stated that the SFAR 

adequately addresses the need for flight 

instructors to be trained and current in 

the MU–2B airplane. One training 

provider suggested that the experience 

requirements for pilot examiners and 

check airmen be increased from 100 

hours to 300 hours. Another commenter 

felt that the experience requirements for 

instructors, pilot examiners, and check 

airmen should be increased to 500 

hours. The FAA notes that existing 

regulations allow instruction and 

checking in the MU–2B to be conducted 

with as little as 5 hours PIC time in 

make and model. The requirement that 

this be increased to 300 hours for 

instructors and 100 hours for examiners 

is a substantial increase over what is 

now required. The experience 

requirements in this SFAR are also 

consistent with thresholds established 

by other prior rulemaking for certain 

aircraft, such as SFAR 73 for the 

Robinson R–22/R–44 helicopter (62 FR 

16298), and the recommendations of the 

FSB Report. 

Another commenter stated that the 50 

hours of operating experience within 

the previous 12 months for instructors, 

whether in the airplane or simulator, is 

not enough experience for someone who 

provides training in the MU–2B. The 

FAA notes that existing regulations 

allow flight instruction in the MU–2B to 

be conducted with as little as 5 hours 

PIC time in make and model. The 

increase to 50 hours within the previous 

12 months significantly increases the 

experience requirements for MU–2B 

instructors. Furthermore, this 50-hour 

requirement is just one of many 

experience requirements for MU–2B 

instructors. Other experience 

requirements for an instructor such as 

the currency requirement of § 61.57, the 

flight review of § 61.56, the 2,000 hours 

of PIC time, and 800 hours PIC in multiengine airplanes, combine to set a high 

experience level for MU–2B instructors. 

The specific purpose of the 50-hour 

requirement is to ensure that instructors 

have recent experience in the MU–2B 

airplane, training device, or simulator. 

The 50 hours must be obtained within 

the past 12 months. 

A commenter also found that the 100 

hours of PIC time required for a 

designated pilot examiner was too little 

time. The FAA notes this is only part of 

the total requirement. That examiner is 

also required to have the training 

required by this SFAR and to maintain 

currency in the MU–2B. The 100 hours 

is based on the FSB recommendations, 

other aircraft training requirements, a 

previous SFAR, and the FAA’s 

experience in checking and evaluation. 

A commenter noted that under part 

135, a flight instructor does not have to 

hold a valid and current certificated 

flight instructor certificate (CFI). The 

commenter commented that, for part 

135 operations, a flight instructor 

should hold a valid CFI certificate with 

multi-engine and instrument ratings for 

at least 2 years. In addition, the check 

airman or CFI should have 300 hours as 

PIC acquired while the sole manipulator 

of the controls as described in 14 CFR 

61.51(e)(1)(i). 

The FAA does not intend to change 

the general qualification requirements 

for part 135 flight instructors, but rather 

to establish minimum experience 

requirements for all instructors who 

provide training in an MU–2B. 

Additionally, requiring 300 hours as PIC 

as sole manipulator of the controls or 

requiring that instructors for part 135 

operations hold a certificated flight 

instructor certificate would be beyond 

the scope of the FAA’s proposal. 

A commenter stated it will be difficult 

for an instructor to have 50 hours of PIC 

MU–2B time annually, that 50 hours is 

not useful if it is only flown in ‘‘straight 

and level’’ flight, and that proficiency is 

what is useful for a flight instructor. The 

FAA has determined that the recency of 

experience and the amount of flight 

time in the airplane are important 

qualifications for a flight instructor who 

provides instruction in the MU–2B. This 

level of experience was also 

recommended by the FSB Report. 

The NATA commented that the total 

flight time and PIC flight time 

requirements for instructors are 

burdensome and could significantly 

limit the number of instructors qualified 

to provide training to MU–2B pilots. 

Additionally, the proposed rule would 

require designated pilot examiners to 

have an excessive amount of 

aeronautical experience in the MU–2B 

but would not require the same of FAA 

inspectors. 

The FAA has determined that 

although the rule will increase the 

experience requirements for MU–2B 

instructors, the rule will not 

significantly reduce the number of 

instructors that are presently teaching in 

the MU–2B. In order to maximize the 

number of instructors available to 

provide training in the airplane, the 

FAA revised section 5 to allow the 

Flight Instructor Airplane experience 

requirements to be met using a 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7041 

combination of PIC time and experience 

acquired while providing instruction in 

a FAA-approved MU–2B flight training 

device or simulator. The FAA has also 

extended the compliance period by 6 

months to allow a more orderly 

implementation of this rule. The 

training and checking requirements for 

FAA inspectors are the same as for the 

public when the inspector is acting as 

the PIC, administering check rides, or 

otherwise manipulating the controls. 

One commenter stated that safety 

would be diminished because local 

instructors would no longer be allowed 

to conduct an Instrument Competency 

Check (ICC) for the MU–2B. This SFAR 

does not require that instrument 

currency be maintained exclusively in 

the MU–2B. Also, the SFAR does not 

prohibit local instructors from giving an 

ICC. The only requirement is that the 

instructor meets the qualifications of the 

SFAR in order to give instruction in an 

MU–2B. 

One operator commented that part 

135 pilots, in commercial operations, do 

not carry logbooks or present logbooks 

during training. The logbook 

requirement is only applicable to part 

91 operators. The commenter also stated 

a part 135 operator keeps records in 

compliance with 14 CFR 135.63(c) to 

include the completion date and result 

of every phase of training and checking 

for 5 years after the pilot’s employment 

ends. Logbook endorsements are 

generally used as provided in part 61 at 

the student and private pilot level. The 

commenter requested that the references 

to pilot logbooks should be changed to 

‘‘logbook or other permanent pilot 

record.’’

The FAA notes that § 135.63(c) 

addresses the recordkeeping 

requirement for multiengine load 

manifest and does not address 

documentation of pilot training. Section 

135.63(a)(vi) addresses recordkeeping 

requirements for initial and recurrent 

competency tests, proficiency, and route 

checks required by §§ 135.293, 135.297, 

and 135.299. Section 135.63(a)(vii) 

addresses recordkeeping requirements 

for determining compliance with flight 

time limitations found within part 135. 

However, none of the above referenced 

rules address the documentation 

requirements of part 61. Additionally, 

14 CFR 61.51 requires that all pilots, 

regardless of which regulations of 14 

CFR under which they operate, keep a 

logbook and within it, document and 

record training and experience used to 

meet the requirements for a certificate, 

rating, flight review, aeronautical 

experience, or recent flight experience. 

This SFAR does not change the 

applicability or requirements of the 

existing § 61.51 rule. The requirements 

of this SFAR are not limited to part 135 

operations. Pilots that operate the MU–

2B will need to be able to demonstrate 

compliance with this SFAR whether or 

not they are employed by a part 135 

operator. This documentation is best 

accomplished through a logbook 

endorsement, which is consistent with 

existing regulations. 

A commenter stated that the proposed 

SFAR requires endorsement of the pilot 

logbook by a ‘‘certificated flight 

instructor.’’ The commenter posited that 

this text should be changed to 

‘‘instructor’’ or ‘‘flight instructor’’ since 

part 135 does not require the use of a 

CFI. The FAA notes that the eligibility, 

requirements, and privileges of a flight 

instructor are described in detail by 

existing rules under 14 CFR parts 61 

and 135. The FAA also acknowledges 

these requirements may be different for 

training conducted under part 61 as 

compared to part 135. Part 135 operators 

can use a CFI but can also use an 

instructor authorized by the FAA in lieu 

of a CFI. The FAA has changed this 

language accordingly. 

Autopilot Requirement 

The FAA proposed that no one could 

operate the MU–2B airplane under IFR, 

IFR conditions (i.e., instrument 

meteorological conditions (IMC)), or 

night VFR unless that airplane has a 

functional autopilot. That requirement 

is retained in the final rule. However, 

the FAA has described the requirement 

in a simplified form. The final rule does 

not require a functional autopilot for 

day VFR or when operating under IFR 

in daytime VMC conditions when 

maintenance of an inoperable autopilot 

has been deferred using an approved 

minimum equipment list (MEL). 

Most persons commenting on the 

autopilot requirement did not see the 

need for this requirement. Some persons 

commented that the autopilot is 

unnecessary and rarely used; one cited 

that no other airplane is restricted when 

the autopilot is nonfunctioning. 

Experienced pilots commented that they 

prefer to ‘‘hand fly’’ the airplane. 

Another commented that, if the 

autopilot is mandated, a pilot may 

become dependent on it. 

Several of the MU–2B accidents 

involved single pilot night-time VFR 

and IFR operations in high-density 

terminal areas with high pilot 

workloads. The flight training profiles 

flown by FSB members during the safety 

evaluation included a human factors 

workload evaluation. One airplane was 

equipped with several cameras that 

allowed post-flight evaluation of the 

pilot’s workload. The FSB pilots 

completed numerous questionnaires 

developed by human factors specialists 

to measure task saturation. 

Questionnaires and flight video reviews 

were completed during post-flight 

interviews with a human factors 

specialist. Using techniques developed 

by the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration, testing showed a 

significant reduction in single pilot 

workload and stress and improved 

performance when an autopilot was 

used in actual flight conditions. The 

FAA recognizes that in some conditions 

use of the autopilot may be 

inappropriate or even prohibited, such 

as during flights into icing conditions. 

The FAA also recognizes some pilots 

routinely hand-fly the airplane. The 

SFAR does not mandate the use of the 

autopilot during any particular phase of 

flight. That decision remains solely with 

the PIC. The SFAR does require that a 

functioning autopilot be installed for 

certain types of operations (IFR, IFR 

conditions, and night VFR). This 

requirement provides the pilot with 

access to a significant safety enhancing 

tool if he or she should need it to reduce 

pilot work load, during normal, 

abnormal, and emergency conditions. 

The AOPA requested that the FAA 

eliminate the requirement to have a 

functioning autopilot for night VFR and 

for IFR in visual meteorological 

conditions (VMC) and allow an 

instrument and multiengine rated pilot 

to act as the safety pilot for an MU–2B 

PIC flying in IMC. Flightline/ 

AmeriCheck, Inc., also requested that 

operators be allowed to conduct 

operations with two pilots, either two 

PICs or one PIC and one SIC in lieu of 

a functioning autopilot. Instead of 

grounding the airplane when the 

autopilot is not functioning, one 

commenter suggested the flight be 

limited to two qualified pilots; one of 

which meets the part 135 training and 

checking requirements as a SIC. In 

addition, one person commented that 

safety would be enhanced by a person 

in the right seat who could assist the 

PIC with minor duties even though he 

or she may not be MU–2B qualified. 

The MU–2B safety evaluation and the 

FSB recommended that all operators of 

the MU–2B attend standardized pilot 

training. Therefore, the FAA has 

determined that a second pilot must 

meet the training requirements of this 

SFAR in order to provide the equivalent 

level of safety of a functional autopilot. 

Operators can conduct IFR and night 

VFR operations without a functioning 

autopilot when using a properly trained 

second-in-command meeting the 

applicable requirements of this SFAR. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
7042 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

We also received comments that 

requested relief from the autopilot 

through the use of a minimum 

equipment list (MEL). The NBAA 

commented they have long held that 

two qualified and trained pilots are one 

of the best safety investments in an 

aircraft and thus support the autopilot 

requirement. But, the NBAA also stated 

that FAA should consider allowing the 

use of an MEL for a nonfunctioning 

autopilot. Flightline/AmeriCheck, Inc. 

requested that they be allowed to 

maintain their authorization to defer 

repair of an inoperative autopilot by 

using their existing FAA-approved MEL. 

The FAA notes that experience has 

shown the normal operation of every 

system or installed component may not 

be necessary when the remaining 

operative equipment or other mitigating 

conditions can provide an acceptable 

level of safety. The FAA also 

acknowledged that operations with 

inoperative equipment are possible 

while maintaining an acceptable level of 

safety by requiring appropriate 

conditions and limitations. 

Therefore, the FAA will allow, when 

provided by existing rules, single pilot 

IFR in VMC conditions under the SFAR 

with the autopilot inoperative under 

certain conditions. The deferred 

maintenance and repair of the autopilot 

must be completed in accordance with 

the repair category and provisions 

specified in the operator’s FAAapproved Mitsubishi MU–2B MEL, and 

the operator must obtain FAA approval 

to use a MEL for his or her airplane. 

This relief does not supersede any 

existing crew requirements for an SIC, 

including but not limited to operations 

described in 14 CFR 135.99, 135.105, 

and 135.111. This relief will allow 

operators time to locate parts and 

facilities for repairs, ferry aircraft to 

repair stations, and complete trips. 

Under certain conditions, the aircraft 

with an approved MEL will not be 

immediately grounded due to an 

inoperative autopilot, and operators will 

have a reasonable period of time to 

make repairs. The FAA has changed the 

rule language to specifically allow for 

the use of an MEL under the SFAR. 

One person stated that if IFR flight is 

not an option due to a non-functioning 

autopilot, the pilot may push the limits 

of VFR rules to an unsafe situation. 

Another person noted that on long trips, 

one leg of the flight may be delayed if 

the airplane without a functioning 

autopilot must wait for good weather to 

avoid flying in IFR conditions. The FAA 

does not agree with the comments that 

pilots will fly in marginal VFR weather 

(scud run), or delay their trips when 

their autopilots are inoperative. 

Deferred maintenance and repair of the 

autopilot using an approved MEL will 

provide an alternative to choosing to fly 

in marginal VFR weather. 

Additional commenters noted that 

parts for installed autopilots are difficult 

to obtain. The FAA recognizes that parts 

for the autopilots are becoming 

increasingly scarce and support for the 

existing autopilots may someday end. 

However, to date, the FAA is unable to 

identify autopilots that cannot be 

repaired. Additionally, the FAA notes 

new autopilots are under development 

for the MU–2B. 

One commenter suggested that 

requiring a functioning autopilot 

modifies the airplane type certification 

basis. Another commenter stated that to 

require an autopilot defies the 

certification basis for the MU–2B 

because the airplane was type 

certificated for single pilot operations. 

The FAA notes that the autopilot 

requirement is an operational 

requirement and not a certification 

requirement. Furthermore, in most of 

today’s modern cockpits, aircraft that 

are permitted to be operated with a 

single pilot are required to have a 

functional autopilot installed. Requiring 

an autopilot does not change or modify 

the airplane’s original type certification 

basis. 

Some commenters asked which 

aspects of the autopilot must be 

functional or, if one facet is not 

functioning, how the airplane could be 

flown to a repair facility. A commenter 

said grounding the airplane due to a 

non-functioning autopilot is excessive. 

The FAA disagrees. A functional 

autopilot is one in which the system 

and components are operative and 

working properly to accomplish the 

intended purpose. That autopilot is 

consistently functioning within its 

approved operating limits and design 

tolerances. Operators have many ways 

to verify that their autopilot is 

functioning properly including 

conducting the preflight check as 

described by the manufacturer. 

Operators can find this information in 

the Supplemental AFM. 

Another pilot recommended 

additional specific instruction in 

autopilot inoperative strategies during 

recurrent training. 

The MU–2B training program 

provides instruction for operation of the 

airplane with and without the autopilot 

operational. The training program 

requires the pilot to demonstrate 

proficiency while hand-flying the 

airplane. 

Airplane Flight Manual 

The FAA proposed that operators of 

the MU–2B airplane have on board the 

most recent revision to the AFM. One 

commenter noted that an out-of-date 

AFM is a common problem for many 

MU–2B airplanes, and was confident 

that the SFAR solves this problem. The 

SFAR requires the operator to have the 

appropriate AFM on board the airplane 

and accessible during the flight. 

The FAA notes there may be 

differences between checklist, 

procedures, and techniques found in the 

MU–2B training program required by 

this SFAR and procedures found in the 

AFM procedures sections (Normal, 

Abnormal, and Emergency). Until the 

AFM is updated, a person operating the 

MU–2B must operate the airplane in 

accordance with the required pilot 

training specified in section 3, 

paragraphs (a), (b), and (g) and the 

operating requirements of section 7, 

paragraphs (d) and (e). If the AFMs are 

updated, the FAA may initiate 

additional rulemaking. At that time the 

FAA may mandate that the operators 

obtain and use the latest version of the 

AFM. The chart below shows the 

current versions of the AFMs as of the 

date of publication of the SNPRM. 

MHI DOCUMENT NUMBER AND REVISION LEVEL FOR MU–2B SERIES AIRPLANE—AIRPLANE FLIGHT MANUAL

Model Marketing 

designation Type certificate 

Applicable AFM revision level 

Document No. Revision No. Date issued 

MU–2B–60 .......................................................... Marquis ............. A10SW ............. MR–0273–1 ...... 14 July 11, 2005. 

MU–2B–40 .......................................................... Solitaire ............ A10SW ............. MR–0271–1 ...... 12 July 11, 2005. 

MU–2B–36A ....................................................... N ....................... A10SW ............. MR–0196–1 ...... 14 July 11, 2005. 

MU–2B–36 .......................................................... L ....................... A2PC ................ YET 74122A ..... 12 August 9, 2004. 

MU–2B–35 .......................................................... J ........................ A2PC ................ YET 70186A ..... 13 August 9, 2004. 

MU–2B–30 .......................................................... G ....................... A2PC ................ YET 69013A ..... 13 August 9, 2004. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7043 

1The MU–2B FSB is located at FAA Central 

Region Headquarters, Aircraft Evaluation Group 

MKC–AEG, Room 332, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 

64106; telephone 816–329–3233. 

MHI DOCUMENT NUMBER AND REVISION LEVEL FOR MU–2B SERIES AIRPLANE—AIRPLANE FLIGHT MANUAL—Continued 

Model Marketing 

designation Type certificate 

Applicable AFM revision level 

Document No. Revision No. Date issued 

MU–2B–26A ....................................................... P ....................... A10SW ............. MR–0194–1 ...... 12 July 11, 2005. 

MU–2B–26 .......................................................... M ...................... A2PC ................ YET 74129A ..... 12 August 9, 2004. 

MU–2B–26 .......................................................... M ...................... A10SW ............. MR–0160–1 ...... 10 July 11, 2005. 

MU–2B–25 .......................................................... K ....................... A10SW ............. MR–0156–1 ...... 10 July 11, 2005. 

MU–2B–25 .......................................................... K ....................... A2PC ................ YET 71367A ..... 12 August 9, 2004. 

MU–2B–20 .......................................................... F ....................... A2PC ................ YET 68034A ..... 12 August 9, 2004. 

MU–2B–10 .......................................................... D ....................... A2PC ................ YET 86400 ....... 12 August 9, 2004. 

MU–2B ................................................................ B ....................... A2PC ................ YET 67026A ..... 12 August 9, 2004. 

Checklist 

The FAA proposed and the final rule 

requires that all operators of the MU–2B 

have a copy of an MU–2B checklist 

appropriate for the MU–2B model being 

operated on board the airplane, 

accessible for each flight at the pilot 

station, and used by the flight 

crewmembers when operating the 

airplane. These checklists must be 

accepted by the FAA’s MU–2B FSB. The 

manufacturer has developed make and 

model specific checklists for each MU–

2B model. These checklists have been 

already accepted by the FAA’s MU–2B 

FSB and are appropriate for unmodified 

versions of the models listed. A list of 

the checklists for the various models of 

the MU–2B series airplane are in section 

3 (g), table 1, of this final rule. 

A commenter was pleased to see a 

standardized checklist and added that it 

will result in improved safety. Another 

commenter stated that the checklist 

should be aircraft specific, which could 

be accomplished by providing a 

checklist template to be customized to 

fit the specific aircraft. 

During the safety evaluation, FAA test 

pilots evaluated a standardized 

checklist developed by MHI and found 

it to be a significant safety 

improvement. A standardized cockpit 

checklist that emphasizes proper 

operational procedures is critical to the 

safe operation of the MU–2B. The FAA 

and MHI engineers and test pilots 

carefully considered cockpit layout, 

flow patterns, crew resource 

management, and pilot work load when 

determining the checklist items. This 

rule requires that any MU–2B checklist 

used be accepted by the FAA’s MU–2B 

FSB. Operators with airplane 

configurations different from the 

airplane as originally delivered, or later 

modified, may submit other checklists 

for review by the FSB. 

Another commenter who has installed 

an aural checklist in his MU–2B asked 

if this would be prohibited under the 

SFAR. Yet another suggested that the 

checklist be customized to allow for 

individual configurations. 

In accordance with existing FAA 

guidance and procedures, the MU–2B 

FSB is responsible for reviewing, and 

accepting or rejecting any checklists 

submitted by the manufacturer or the 

public. For the purpose of this rule, the 

term ‘‘approved or accepted’’ means the 

FAA has received the proposed 

checklist, reviewed the checklist 

content, and determined it to be safe for 

use while operating the MU–2B 

airplane. 

The MU–2B FSB will review all 

submitted checklists, including aural 

checklists or those not produced by the 

manufacturer, if an operator has an 

airplane configuration that is different 

from that originally delivered. This 

review will conclude with a 

determination of whether the submitted 

checklist can be accepted. An operator 

may submit their proposed checklist to 

the MU–2B FSB at the address in the 

footnote and request that the FSB 

review the checklist for acceptance.1

The rule language has been changed to 

reflect this process. 

One commenter said he had reviewed 

the checklist, and at 162 pages it is too 

long for a pilot to run through before 

takeoff. Another commenter said that 

the checklist should flow from system to 

system, not as things are arranged in the 

cockpit. 

The FAA posted to Rules Docket 

FAA–2006–24981 a sample of the 

manufacturer’s checklist for comment. 

This is one, but not the only, possible 

format that the FAA may accept. This 

162-page document includes checklists 

for normal, abnormal, and emergency 

procedures, but also includes 

instructions for checklist use, an 

expanded section that describes in 

greater detail the actions required, 

warnings, notes, and cautions. In the 

back of the binder, there are also 

performance charts that were not 

previously contained in the AFM. These 

charts include the following: ‘‘Weight 

for Positive Gradient After Takeoff with 

Flaps at 5 or 20 degrees’’ and ‘‘Single 

Engine Rate of Climb with Flaps at 5 or 

20 Degrees.’’ These charts are important 

pre-flight decision making tools and 

using them can enhance safe operation 

of the airplane. The FAA notes that the 

manufacturer’s checklist is comparable 

in size to those of airplanes of similar 

complexity. 

The FAA stated in the NPRM that we 

would publish specific checklists for 

each MU–2B model and seek public 

comment. A checklist for each model of 

the MU–2B airplane has been approved 

by the FSB. These are listed in section 

3(g) of the rule. 

Costs of the Rule 

Some commenters indicated the costs 

of the proposed rule are higher than 

those estimated by the FAA. These 

comments are discussed below by issue. 

For a more complete discussion of costs 

and benefits, see the Final Regulatory 

Evaluation, which has been placed in 

Rules Docket FAA–2006–24981. 

Compliance Date 

As discussed earlier in this document, 

compliance with this final rule is 

required 1 year after publication in the 

Federal Register. 

Extending the compliance date 

decreases the requalification training for 

all MU–2B pilots currently receiving 

training. The baseline training cost is 

the cost of the existing recurrent 

training (rather than zero). In addition, 

the actual final cost estimate of 

requalification training for those pilots 

currently getting training is reduced by 

the travel costs and value of travel time 

to the training facility. As a result of 

extending the compliance date to 1 year, 

the total cost estimate for this SFAR 

decreases $3 million to $4 million. 

Although some part 135 operators 

send their MU–2B pilots to commercial 

training providers, many part 135 

operators have in-house training 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
7044 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

2Economic Values for FAA Investment and 

Regulatory Decisions—A Guide, Draft Final Report, 

December 31, 2004. 

3Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational 

Employment and Wages, May 2005. 

programs and would not incur any 

travel, lodging, or per diem costs. The 

analysis in the final regulatory 

evaluation does not reflect this potential 

lower cost, but recognizes that the cost 

estimate is a potential overestimate of 

the actual costs because many MU–2B 

pilots flying under part 135 would not 

incur travel, lodging, or per diem costs. 

Value of Aircraft 

One commenter stated the FAA will 

‘‘kill’’ the value of the MU–2B, and he 

could not afford to walk away from a 

$400,000 investment he could not use or 

sell. In related comments, other persons 

stated the loss of value could be more 

than $100,000 per airplane. In contrast, 

another commenter stated he 

‘‘welcomed the FAA intervention’’ in 

hope that we might be able to put the 

safety issue behind us and restore lost 

value to the MU–2B fleet. 

The FAA is requiring MU–2B pilots 

(with a minimum of either 50 hours PIC 

time in the MU–2B in the last 2 years 

or 500 total hours in the MU–2B) to 

receive requalification training. This 

will entail a total additional cost 

including lodging, meals, incidental 

expenses, and value of time of 

approximately $5,000 for pilots 

currently getting training, or $13,000 for 

pilots not currently getting training. 

Pilots will also be required to receive 

annual recurrent training in the future, 

at a total additional cost of about $2,000 

per year for pilots currently getting 

training or $10,000 per year for pilots 

not currently getting training. Such a 

safety expense is very small compared 

with a $400,000 airplane. 

The MU–2B price was falling before 

the proposed rule was issued. Several 

factors, including the poor MU–2B 

safety record, higher maintenance costs, 

less availability of parts, and newer 

products with better capabilities, may 

help explain the falling price of MU–

2Bs. 

Impact of Aircraft Value Loss on 

Business 

A commenter complained, ‘‘Our fleet 

value has dropped significantly. Our 

MU–2Bs are a standalone division of the 

company. If the MU–2B division can not 

turn a profit, the business division will 

be shut down. Pilots and mechanics will 

be let go.’’

The decision to shut down a certain 

division is a business decision that is 

not based on the value of the MU–2B. 

The value of existing capital is not 

relevant in the decision to continue to 

provide current services. The value of 

capital is relevant in the determination 

of the shutdown value of a business. 

The FAA does not believe this rule will 

force companies out of business. As 

shown in Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis, found in the Final Regulatory 

Evaluation, the pilot training cost is 

estimated to be greater than 2 percent of 

annual revenues for one small entity 

operator, and greater than 1 percent of 

annual revenues for five small entity 

operators. (Refer to Table RF–5 in the 

Final Regulatory Evaluation in Rules 

Docket FAA–2006–24981.) 

Recurrent Training Cost 

A commenter stated that the cost of 

recurrent training should be reviewed. 

He found the price of recurrent training 

not $1,937 per pilot as estimated in the 

NPRM, but $4,100 at SimCom. 

In the NPRM, the FAA estimated that 

the average additional cost per pilot for 

recurrent training would be $1,937. This 

is in addition to the current cost the 

pilot is paying for recurrent training. 

($4,100 + $1,937 = $6,037) The existing 

3-day recurrent training course at 

SimCom costs $4,100 (refer to Table 3 

in the Regulatory Evaluation of the 

NPRM). The FAA estimated that the 

future recurrent training cost at SimCom 

would be $4,600 and that the training 

would spill over into a 4th day (refer to 

Table 4 in the NPRM’s Initial Regulatory 

Evaluation). So the total additional cost 

for the recurrent training course alone is 

$500 ($4,600¥$4,100 = $500). The 

average per diem costs (i.e., lodging, 

meals, and incidental expenses) in 

Orlando, FL is $137 per day based on 

the 2006 federal government per diem 

rates (refer to Tables 5 and 6). The total 

additional cost for the recurrent training 

course plus the additional day of 

lodging, meals, and incidental expenses 

would be $637 ($500 + $137 = $637). 

The additional costs due to travel 

(round trip travel costs and the value of 

travel time) are zero because the student 

would incur the same travel costs to 

attend the training. Since student pilots 

would be spending an additional day in 

recurrent training, the estimated value 

of time for the additional day is $288.51 

(8 hours × $36.06 average hourly value 

of time = $288.51). The $36.06 average 

hourly value of time is an average of the 

hourly value of travel time savings for 

general aviation purposes 2 and the 

mean annual wage of Commercial Pilots 

of small fixed or rotary winged aircraft.3

Hence, the total additional cost for an 

existing student in the recurrent training 

program at SimCom would be about 

$925 ($637 + $288.51 = $925.51). 

The FAA conducted a similar analysis 

for existing students at Howell 

Enterprises and at Professional Flight 

Training, and then conducted a 

weighted average of the additional costs 

per pilot at these 3 training facilities and 

arrived at an average additional cost of 

$1,937 per pilot. The total per pilot 

costs of training at Howell Enterprises 

and at Professional Flight Training are 

higher than at SimCom because these 

training facilities conduct the training in 

the customer’s airplane. Hence, the FAA 

included the additional MU–2B variable 

operating cost of $900 per hour, which 

is based on a cost study of the 

Mitsubishi Marquise conducted by 

Howell Enterprises. In contrast, 

SimCom provides recurrent training in 

simulators, and students at SimCom 

would not incur any additional MU–2B 

operating costs. 

Training Cost Estimates 

Several commenters stated that the 

estimates in the SFAR are unrealistic. 

They said the real costs for 

requalification training will be in excess 

of $20,000 and the annual recurrent 

training cost would be in excess of 

$8,000. 

The estimates in the initial regulatory 

evaluation were the additional costs that 

a pilot would incur due to this rule. If 

a pilot has been getting recurrent 

training, the FAA estimated that his 

additional cost for recurrent training 

due to this rule would be $1,937. If a 

pilot has not been getting recurrent 

training, and will be forced to do so 

now, the FAA estimates that the cost of 

recurrent training for this pilot would be 

$9,889. Hence, the existing cost of 

recurrent training is approximately 

$8,000 ($9,889¥$1,937 = $7,952). The 

FAA estimated in the NPRM that the 

average total costs for requalification 

training would be $12,604. (Refer to 

Table 8 in the NPRM’s Initial Regulatory 

Evaluation.) Requalification training is 

more expensive than recurrent training, 

but it is not 2.5 times the cost of 

recurrent training. The commenters 

have not provided any supporting 

justification to show that the cost of 

requalification training is really $20,000 

plus. 

After accounting for the increased 

compliance time and other revisions to 

the rule, the FAA estimates that the 

additional cost of requalification 

training for pilots currently getting 

training would be around $5,000 per 

pilot. (Refer to Table 8 in the Final 

Regulatory Evaluation of the Final 

Rule.) 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7045 

4 ‘‘OMB Circular A–94’’ (Revised—October 29, 

1992) p. 8. 

Instructor Costs 

A commenter stated MU–2B 

instructors cost $100 per hour, not $50 

per hour. Also this commenter claimed 

there were costs associated with fuel, 

related airplane costs, and housing 

related to the training. 

The FAA agrees that MU–2B 

instructor rates are approximately $100 

per hour. However, the additional costs 

for pilots to attend the training program 

are not based on an instructor hourly 

rate. Instead, they are based on the costs 

of the training programs. (Refer to Table 

3 in the Regulatory Evaluation.) As 

explained above, the FAA estimated 

total per pilot costs including training 

costs, MU–2B operating costs (if training 

is done in the airplane), lodging, food 

and incidental expenses, transportation 

to the training venue, the value of 

training time, and the value of travel 

time. The FAA estimated the MU–2B 

variable operating costs to be $900 per 

hour. This figure includes the cost of 

fuel, maintenance, avionics, engine 

reserve for overhaul and hot section, 

and propeller reserve. This figure does 

not include fixed costs and other costs 

such as hangar rent, crew costs, interest, 

or insurance costs. 

The $50 per hour instructor rate used 

on page 24 in the Initial Regulatory 

Evaluation of the NPRM is the average 

instructor rate for an inexpensive multiengine airplane, such as a Piper Seneca. 

This rate was used to estimate the costs 

of the proposed rule requiring pilots to 

log at least 100 hours of pilot-incommand (PIC) time in multi-engine 

airplanes. Because the operating cost of 

the MU–2B is $900 per hour and the 

rental rate for a Piper Seneca is about 

$200 per hour, the FAA estimated that 

any pilot who needed to meet the 

requirement of 100 hours of PIC time in 

multi-engine airplanes could do so in a 

lower cost Piper Seneca, and also pay a 

lower Piper Seneca instructor rate of 

$50 per hour. 

The FAA notes that the $50 per hour 

instructor rate was used incorrectly in 

the Paperwork Reduction Act 

Assessment, and has made the 

appropriate changes to reflect the MU–

2B instructor rate of $100 per hour in 

the PRA Assessment. 

Autopilot Cost 

Some commenters found the autopilot 

costs to be underestimated. They stated 

that maintaining an autopilot would 

cost $18,000 per 1,500 flight hours. 

Other commenters stated the cost of an 

autopilot would be between $50,000 

and $120,000 per airplane. MU–2 

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association 

and other commenters stated the 

average cost of an autopilot would be 

$75,000. The FAA received a single 

comment from one operator who stated 

he does not have an autopilot installed. 

In the Initial Regulatory Evaluation, 

the FAA estimated the proposed rule 

would impose no additional costs with 

regard to the purchase or maintenance 

of autopilots. Based on information from 

industry, all MU–2Bs currently had 

functioning autopilots, and the FAA 

estimated these MU–2B owners would 

continue to maintain their autopilots in 

the future. The FAA was unaware that 

one part 135 operator did not have an 

autopilot, and would need to install and 

maintain an autopilot in order to fly 

single pilot IFR. The FAA has made the 

appropriate changes to reflect this new 

information in the Final Regulatory 

Evaluation and in the Regulatory 

Flexibility Assessment using an average 

autopilot cost of $75,000 and 

maintenance costs of $18,000 per 1,500 

flight hours. The FAA also states that 

this operator still has the option of 

flying with two MU–2B pilots or not 

flying single pilot IFR or night VFR. 

One commenter (a part 135 operator) 

stated that the FAA did not include an 

economic impact analysis of the cost 

(and weight penalty) of a second 

crewmember. 

Under the existing part 135 

regulations, a second crewmember is 

required for passenger-carrying 

operations. In contrast, only one 

crewmember is required to carry cargo. 

This new rule would require that an 

airplane flown under part 135 

regulations have an autopilot, which is 

less expensive than the cost of a second 

crewmember. A part 135 operator may 

choose to have a second crewmember 

for a cargo operation, but the FAA is not 

requiring it. 

Other commenters stated autopilots 

and parts will not be supported by the 

manufacturer for much longer, certain 

parts are in short supply, and a 

replacement autopilot is very expensive. 

The FAA believes if the supply of 

replacement parts for autopilots were to 

become extremely scarce, a new 

company would produce replacement 

parts to meet the increased demand. 

Some commenters stated that without 

being able to use existing MEL relief 

when autopilots must be deferred, the 

associated additional costs could easily 

make continued operation of these 

aircraft economically unfeasible. 

The FAA is clarifying that MU–2B 

owner/operators will still have the 

ability to MEL the autopilot. 

Discounting Method 

One commenter stated the 7% 

discounting method used in the SFAR 

economic impact analysis does not work 

in the real world where companies 

adjust their cost for inflation. 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) permits benefit-cost analyses to 

be conducted in either nominal/current 

dollars or in constant dollars of a 

particular year.4 Effects of inflation are 

excluded by choosing either nominal/ 

current dollars or constant dollars and 

avoiding mixing-up both in the same 

analysis and by using a nominal 

discount rate if the analysis is 

conducted in nominal dollars and a real 

discount rate if the analysis is 

conducted in constant dollars. OMB 

implies a preference for the use of 

constant dollars unless most of the 

underlying values are initially available 

in nominal dollars. Because we use 

constant dollars in this Regulatory 

Evaluation, we apply a real discount 

rate of 7 percent (in accordance with 

OMB Circular A–94). 

The present value methodology 

accounts for the characteristic that 

benefits and costs occur over a number 

of years. It explicitly recognizes that 

otherwise equal benefits or costs which 

occur at different points in time will not 

be equal when viewed from a common 

point in time. Generally, the present 

value of a benefit will be worth more the 

sooner it is received, and the present 

value of a cost will be less the longer it 

is deferred. 

Part 135 Checks (§§ 135.293, 135.297, 

and 135.299) 

One commenter stated that the 135 

pilot qualified in a single aircraft type 

receives a minimum of 3 hours of inflight testing a year, and the number of 

hours of training as needed. Part 135 

operations require one § 135.293 aircraft 

competency check within the preceding 

12 months, two § 135.297 instrument 

proficiency checks in a 12-month 

period, and one § 135.299 line check 

within the preceding 12 months. Credit 

for the successful completion of the 

§ 135.293 check is not allowed in the 

proposed rule (although § 135.351(c) 

allows it to satisfy the recurrent flight 

training requirement). This creates an 

unnecessary economic burden for 

businesses that make their living flying 

the MU–2B. 

The FAA agrees with the commenter 

and will allow checks for §§ 135.293, 

135.297, and 135.299 to count also for 

the corresponding requirements under 

this SFAR. Up to 3 hours can be doublecounted as training under this SFAR. 

However, the checker must sign those 

elements of the MU–2B Final Phase 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
7046 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

Check in accordance with the training 

program requirements in order for those 

hours to count. In addition, the pilot 

must still meet all of the other training 

requirements under this SFAR, even if 

that pilot exceeds the minimum number 

of training hours required. 

Simultaneous Training and Checking 

Several commenters wanted the FAA 

to allow for simultaneous training and 

checking, and to allow all SFAR training 

to satisfy requirements for the biennial 

flight review. 

The FAA will allow for simultaneous 

training and checking in requalification 

and recurrent training. Regarding the 

biennial flight review, SFAR training 

completed in an MU–2B airplane would 

satisfy requirements for the biennial 

flight review. The Regulatory Evaluation 

states that there are no additional costs 

for the flight review requirement 

because pilots are already required to 

comply with 14 CFR 61.56. 

Furthermore, Howell Enterprises 

already provides a flight review as part 

of the recurrent training course. 

Training to Proficiency 

Many commenters wanted to train to 

proficiency instead of training to a set 

number of hours of training. The 

commenters also noted that the number 

of hours proposed is too much for some 

pilots and too little for others. 

The FAA recognizes that for current 

and proficient MU–2B pilots, the 

proposal could be more expensive than 

training to proficiency. However, the 

FAA is adopting the proposal for these 

reasons. (1) After carefully reviewing 

existing training programs and the 

proposed MHI training program, the 

FAA determined that the training 

program hour requirements represent 

the minimum number of hours required 

to reach an acceptable level of safety 

and proficiency. (2) The MU–2B 

training program requires that the 

student complete a minimum number of 

program hours and that the student is 

trained to commercial pilot practical 

test standards (the FAA’s Commercial 

Pilot Practical Test Standards is used as 

a guide to determine pilot proficiency 

under the MU–2B training program). (3) 

The FAA has monitored the completion 

times for training conducted using the 

MHI training program since it was 

approved, and this monitoring validated 

the number of training hours proposed. 

A commenter stated although he can 

continue to receive training in the 

simulator (FTD), none of the approved 

training providers will provide training 

in a self-insured aircraft. This 

commenter finds completion of a 

§ 61.56 flight review in an MU–2B will 

impose a significant additional 

economic cost on self-insured operators 

as they will be forced either to rent a 

commercially insured aircraft for the 

flight review or to insure their aircraft 

in the commercial market at a cost that 

may well render it economically 

unfeasible to continue to own an MU–

2B. 

The FAA is not requiring that MU–2B 

owners/operators buy insurance. It is 

the MU–2B owner/operator’s choice to 

obtain insurance or not. A self-insured 

MU–2B owner/operator can still obtain 

a § 61.56 flight review in that owner/ 

operator’s MU–2B from a flight 

instructor, a designated pilot examiner, 

a check airman, or a FAA FSDO 

Principal Operations Inspector that is 

MU–2B current. The commenter is not 

limited to using the services of the three 

training providers named in the 

regulatory evaluation. 

New Training Program Costs 

A commenter noted Reece Howell’s 

requalification tuition is currently 

$4,000. SimCom’s new initial course is 

9 days long. 

The FAA has verified this new 

information on the Web sites for Howell 

Enterprises and SimCom. The FAA also 

notes that Howell Enterprises is 

charging $7,000 for a 7-day initial 

training course, $3,000 for a 3-day 

recurrent training course, and $4,000 for 

a 4-day requalification course. The FAA 

has revised the cost estimates 

accordingly in the Regulatory 

Evaluation, and costs increased about 

$600,000 due to these revisions. 

One commenter thinks the SFAR 

would have prevented approximately 4 

accidents in the past 20 years, would 

cause an additional 2 accidents over the 

next 20 years, and would have a net 

reduction of 2 fatal accidents over the 

next 20 years. 

The FAA disagrees. FAA safety 

inspectors, pilots, and mechanics 

examined the MU–2B accident history 

along with root causes and determined 

that 15 MU–2B accidents over 10 years 

could have been prevented if this SFAR 

had been in place. 

Effect of the SFAR on the Environment 

One commenter noted that each 

additional hour of mandated flight 

training would burn valuable jet fuel. A 

qualified MU–2B pilot can fly the new 

procedures in a little over 2 hours. This 

SFAR mandated training would mean 

that 600+ pilots would burn 324,000 

gallons of jet fuel with accompanying jet 

fumes unnecessarily entering our 

environment. Part 91 pilots and an 

unknown number of MU–2B qualified 

check airmen could double this number. 

This commenter finds such a large 

misuse of any fuel in an age of 

dependency on foreign oil absurd, and 

believes that the FAA has not addressed 

this problem. 

FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from the National Environmental Policy 

Act for preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement in the absence of 

extraordinary circumstances. The FAA 

has reviewed paragraph 304 of this 

Order, Extraordinary Circumstances, 

before deciding to categorically exclude 

this rulemaking. During this review, the 

FAA determined that there are no 

extraordinary circumstances that would 

prevent a categorical exclusion. The 

FAA has determined this rulemaking 

action qualifies for the categorical 

exclusion identified in paragraphs 307a, 

312d, and 312f. The FAA also notes that 

all part 135 operators and most part 91 

operators are already receiving annual 

pilot training. The training required by 

this SFAR standardizes this training and 

experience requirements of those 

conducting the training but does not 

significantly increase the amount of 

training already being done. 

Expiration Date 

One commenter said the FAA should 

make the SFAR expire in 5 years and 

review the SFAR after 4 years to see if 

it is effective and still needed. The FAA 

will monitor the implementation of the 

SFAR and its effectiveness on a regular 

basis and at intervals much shorter than 

the 4 years proposed by the commenter. 

Airworthiness Directives 

Three commenters questioned 

whether it makes sense to add the 

economic costs of this training rule to 

the recently imposed financial burden 

that the MU–2B operators will incur 

from the 7 ADs issued in 2006. The 

FAA’s 2005 Safety Evaluation 

concluded that the existing ADs were 

not issued to address the training and 

operational experience requirements 

that the FAA found necessary to lower 

the accident rate. 

Comments Not Directly Related to the 

Proposed Rule 

Several comments were submitted 

that did not address the proposed 

requirements in the NPRM. Some 

commenters offered suggestions that are 

outside the scope of the proposal and 

cannot be adopted without a reopening 

of the comment period in a new NPRM. 

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries of 

America (MHIA) stated its opposition to 

descriptions of emergency procedures 

that compared their airplane to other 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7047 

airplane models contained in the 

preamble of the NPRM. The final rule 

preamble omits this general comparison. 

A commenter submitted questions 

about a workshop held for commercial 

MU–2B operators addressing 

implementation of the FSB report for 

part 135 operations. The FAA 

responded only to the portions of this 

letter that directly addressed the content 

of the proposed rule. 

One commenter stated that the FAA 

should do an ‘‘unintended 

consequences study’’ for the proposed 

rule, considering such issues as 

devaluing the airplane, change in pilot 

population, forcing flights into low level 

VFR environment, and oversight costs. 

The FAA has addressed these issues 

within various sections of the preamble. 

The FAA is not aware of any 

unintended consequences and the 

commenters did not raise any. The FAA 

does not intend to conduct a specific 

study. 

Economic Assessment, Regulatory 

Flexibility Determination, Trade Impact 

Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates 

Assessment 

Changes to Federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Order 12866 directs that 

each Federal agency shall propose or 

adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that the benefits of the 

intended regulation justify its costs. 

Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) requires 

agencies to analyze the economic 

impact of regulatory changes on small 

entities. Third, the Trade Agreements 

Act (Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits agencies 

from setting standards that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. In 

developing U.S. standards, this Trade 

Act requires agencies to consider 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis of 

U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–4) requires agencies to prepare a 

written assessment of the costs, benefits, 

and other effects of proposed or final 

rules that include a Federal mandate 

likely to result in the expenditure by 

State, local, or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100 million or more annually (adjusted 

for inflation with base year of 1995). 

This portion of the preamble 

summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the 

economic impacts of this final rule. We 

suggest readers seeking greater detail 

read the full final regulatory evaluation, 

a copy of which we have placed in the 

rules docket for this rulemaking (FAA–

2006–24981). 

In conducting these analyses, FAA 

has determined that this final rule: (1) 

Has benefits that justify its costs, (2) is 

not an economically ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as defined in section 

3(f) of Executive Order 12866, (3) is not 

‘‘significant’’ for the OMB but is 

‘‘significant’’ for the DOT because of its 

impact on small entities; (4) will have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities; (5) 

will not have a significant effect on 

international trade; and (6) will not 

impose an unfunded mandate on state, 

local, or tribal governments, or on the 

private sector by exceeding the 

threshold identified above. These 

analyses are summarized below. 

Total Costs and Benefits of This Rule 

The estimated cost of this final rule is 

about $25.9 million ($17.4 million in 

present value terms), and the estimated 

benefit is about $76.0 million ($49.3 

million in present value terms). More 

detailed benefit and cost information is 

provided below. 

Who Is Potentially Affected by This Rule 

All pilots and operators of the 

Mitsubishi MU–2B are affected by this 

rulemaking. (This also includes flight 

instructors, designated pilot examiners, 

training center evaluators, and check 

airmen.) 

Assumptions: 

• Discount rate—7%. Sensitivity 

analysis was performed on 3% and 7%. 

• Period of Analysis—2008 through 

2017. 

Benefits of This Rule 

We estimate the final rule will 

provide benefits of $76.0 million ($49.3 

million in present value) from 2008 

through 2017. In the absence of the 

requirements contained in this final 

rule, future accidents will occur on 

MU–2B airplanes in a manner similar to 

what has happened in the past. A key 

benefit of the final rule will be the 

avoidance of these accidents. Details of 

the benefit analysis are found in Section 

V of the Final Regulatory Evaluation in 

Rules Docket FAA–2006–24981. 

Costs of This Rule 

The FAA estimates the compliance 

costs of this final rule to be about $25.9 

million ($17.4 million in present value). 

The table below shows a breakdown of 

these total costs by category. 

Category Total 

Pilot Training Costs .............. $24,978,000 

Aeronautical Experience ....... 755,000 

Instruction, Checking and 

Evaluating ......................... 0 

Category Total 

Currency Requirements and 

Flight Review .................... 0 

Operating Requirements ...... 157,000 

Grand Total Costs 

(undiscounted) ........... 25,890,000 

Regulatory Flexibility Determination 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(Public Law 96–354) (RFA) establishes 

‘‘as a principle of regulatory issuance 

that agencies shall endeavor, consistent 

with the objectives of the rule and of 

applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and 

informational requirements to the scale 

of the businesses, organizations, and 

governmental jurisdictions subject to 

regulation. To achieve this principle, 

agencies are required to solicit and 

consider flexible regulatory proposals 

and to explain the rationale for their 

actions to assure that such proposals are 

given serious consideration.’’ The RFA 

covers a wide-range of small entities, 

including small businesses, not-forprofit organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

Agencies must perform a review to 

determine whether a rule will have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. If 

the agency determines that it will, the 

agency must prepare a final regulatory 

flexibility analysis. 

The FAA believes that this final rule 

will result in a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. The purpose of this analysis is 

to provide the reasoning underlying the 

FAA determination. 

Under Section 604 of the RFA, each 

final regulatory flexibility analysis 

(FRFA) shall contain: 

(1) A succinct statement of the need 

for, and objectives of, the rule; 

(2) A summary of the significant 

issues raised by the public comments in 

response to the initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis, a summary of the 

assessment of the agency of such issues, 

and a statement of any changes made in 

the proposed rule as a result of such 

comments; 

(3) A description of and an estimate 

of the number of small entities to which 

the rule will apply or an explanation of 

why no such estimate is available; 

(4) A description of the projected 

reporting, recordkeeping and other 

compliance requirements of the rule, 

including an estimate of the classes of 

small entities which will be subject to 

the requirement and the type of 

professional skills necessary for 

preparation of the report or record; and 

(5) A description of the steps the 

agency has taken to minimize the 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
7048 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

significant economic impact on small 

entities consistent with the stated 

objectives of applicable statutes, 

including a statement of the factual, 

policy, and legal reasons for selecting 

the alternative adopted in the final rule 

and why each one of the other 

significant alternatives to the rule 

considered by the agency which affect 

the impact on small entities was 

rejected. 

In accordance with section 604, we 

address each component for this FRFA. 

(1) A succinct statement of the need 

for, and objectives of, the rule 

Under Title 49 of the United States 

Code, the FAA Administrator is 

required to consider the following 

matters, among others, as being in the 

public interest: 

• Assigning, maintaining, and 

enhancing safety and security as the 

highest priorities in air commerce. [See 

49 U.S.C. 40101(d)(1).] 

• Promoting the safe flight of civil 

aircraft in air commerce by prescribing 

regulations that are necessary for safety. 

[See 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5).] 

• Additionally, it is the FAA 

Administrator’s statutory duty to carry 

out his or her responsibilities ‘‘in a way 

that best tends to reduce or eliminate 

the possibility or recurrence of 

accidents in air transportation.’’ [See 49 

U.S.C. 44701(c).] 

This Special Federal Aviation 

Regulation (SFAR) creates new pilot 

training, experience, and operating 

requirements for persons operating the 

Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane (MU–

2B). These requirements follow an 

increased accident and incident rate in 

the MU–2B and are based on a Federal 

Aviation Administration safety 

evaluation of the MU–2B. This SFAR 

mandates additional training, 

experience, and operating requirements 

to improve the level of operational 

safety for the MU–2B. 

(2) A summary of the significant 

issues raised by the public comments in 

response to the initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis, a summary of the 

assessment of the agency of such issues, 

and a statement of any changes made in 

the proposed rule as a result of such 

comments 

1. Almost all commenters stated that 

the proposed compliance date of 180 

days after the effective date of the final 

rule would adversely impact all pilots 

and training providers, and requested 

that the compliance date be extended to 

one year from the date of the final rule. 

The FAA agrees and has made the 

appropriate changes in the final rule. A 

one-year compliance date provides a 

substantially longer transition period for 

both pilots and training providers, 

which reduces compliance costs. 

2. One commenter stated that the FAA 

will kill the value of the MU–2B, and 

that he could not afford to walk away 

from a $400,000 investment that he 

could not use or sell. In related 

comments, other people stated that the 

loss of value could be more than 

$100,000 per airplane. 

The commenter’s concern would be 

completely valid if the FAA grounded 

the MU–2B because of the high accident 

rate. While that was seriously 

considered, we concluded that the 

training program will solve the accident 

problem. 

The training program contained in 

this final rule includes ground and 

flight training for four different 

categories: Initial/transition, 

requalification, recurrent, and 

differences training. The estimated cost 

for Initial/transition training is 

approximately $25,000. Requalification 

cost for pilots currently getting training 

is roughly $5,000, and $13,000 for pilots 

not currently getting training. The 

recurrent training is about $2,000 per 

year additional for pilots currently 

getting training or $10,000 per year for 

pilots not currently getting training. 

Such an expense is very small compared 

with a $400,000 airplane and the 

accident rates that accompany the 

current deficiencies. 

Lastly, the MU–2B price was falling 

before the rule was proposed. Several 

factors including the MU–2B safety 

record, higher maintenance costs, less 

availability of parts, and newer products 

with better capabilities may help 

explain the falling price of MU–2Bs. 

3. A commenter indicated that the 

fleet value dropped significantly and 

that the MU–2Bs are a standalone 

division of the company. If the MU–2B 

division can not turn a profit, the 

business division will be shut down. 

Pilots and mechanics will be let go. 

Again, the training costs are 

substantially lower than the value of the 

aircraft. The decision to shut down a 

certain division is a business decision 

that is not based solely on the value of 

the MU–2B. Although the value of a 

piece of capital equipment is useful in 

determining the assets of a business, the 

value of existing capital equipment is 

not relevant in a firm’s decision to 

continue operations. The FAA does not 

believe this rule will force companies 

out of business. 

4. A commenter stated that although 

we can continue to receive training in 

the simulator (FTD), none of the 

approved training providers will 

provide training in a self-insured 

aircraft. Requiring completion of a 

§ 61.56 flight review in a MU–2B will, 

at best, impose a significant additional 

economic cost on self-insured operators 

as they will be forced either to rent a 

commercially insured aircraft for the 

flight review or to insure their aircraft 

in the commercial market at a cost that 

may well render it economically 

unfeasible to continue to own an 

MU–2B. 

The FAA is not requiring that MU–2B 

owner/operators get insurance. It is the 

MU–2B owner/operator’s choice to get 

insurance or not. A self-insured MU–2B 

owner/operator can still obtain a § 61.56 

flight review in that owner/operator’s 

MU–2B from a flight instructor, a 

designated pilot examiner, a check 

airman, or a FAA FSDO Principal 

Operations Inspector that is MU–2B 

current. 

(3) A description of and an estimate 

of the number of small entities to which 

the rule will apply or an explanation of 

why no such estimate is available 

In conducting this final regulatory 

flexibility analysis we incorporate the 

most recent data from the aircraft 

registry (December, 2007). The size 

standards from the Small Business 

Administration for Air Transportation 

and Aircraft Manufacturing, specifies 

companies as small entities if they have 

fewer than 1,500 employees. 

In conducting our analysis, we 

considered the economic impact on 

small-business entities. While there are 

no scheduled commercial operators 

(part 121) of the MU–2B airplane, there 

are small business owners of MU–2Bs 

who operate under part 91 or 135. 

The part 91 operations of the MU–2B 

are either as a personal-use airplane or 

are for companies that operate them 

where aviation is not their primary 

business. Part 91 operations are not for 

hire or flown for profit. Part 135 

operations are commuter or ‘‘on 

demand’’ operations. 

In many cases employee data for 

owners and operators of aircraft 

(especially the aircraft operated in part 

91), affected by this rule is not public. 

Using publicly available data, there 

are 14 U.S. MU–2B operators, with less 

than 1,500 employees, who operate 61 

airplanes. This equates to roughly 4 

aircraft per operator. 

Corporations are the registered 

owners of 306 MU–2Bs. Based upon the 

publicly available data, the total number 

of affected small entities ranges from 77 

(4 airplanes/firm) to 245. The majority 

of the corporations operate the MU–2B 

in part 91 service, meaning aviation is 

not the primary business, and the 

airplane is not for hire. Publicly 

available information is scarce about 

these corporations. For this analysis we 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7049 

assume the worst case scenario that 

each of these firms are small businesses 

and will incur compliance costs as a 

result of this final rule. 

In addition to the owners of the 

affected aircraft, companies that train 

pilots will themselves have to train their 

current MU–2B instructors to this new 

standard. The FAA has determined that 

it is essential that all flight training be 

conducted per a single standardized 

training program that reflects piloting 

procedures as found in the MU–2B 

training program. Based on our 

discussions with MU–2B pilot training 

centers we established that they will 

continue providing their MU–2B 

instructors with the latest training 

available. We believe that most MU–2B 

pilot training centers are small 

businesses but this final rule will result 

in offsetting training revenue exceeding 

their training costs. 

(4) A description of the projected 

reporting, recordkeeping and other 

compliance requirements of the rule, 

including an estimate of the classes of 

small entities which will be subject to 

the requirement and the type of 

professional skills necessary for 

preparation of the report or record 

Reporting & Recordkeeping 

Requirements: A flight instructor must 

complete the form ‘‘Training Course 

Final Phase Check’’ at the end of each 

training course. The FAA estimates that 

it will take an instructor five minutes 

per pilot to complete the form. 

An instructor must endorse a MU–2B 

pilot’s logbook upon successful 

completion of training. The FAA 

estimates that it will take an instructor 

five minutes per pilot to endorse a 

pilot’s logbook. 

A copy of the airplane checklist must 

be accessible during each flight at the 

pilot station. The FAA estimates that the 

cost of a checklist will be about $200 

and that the checklist will be ordered 

over a 2-year period. 

Training Requirements: Depending on 

a pilot’s current training, the rule will 

require a training program that includes 

ground and flight training in different 

categories. The following table 

summarizes potential per pilot costs and 

the associated categories: 

Pilot category Initial training cost Requalification 

training cost 

Recurrent cost per 

year 

Additional Costs for MU–2 pilots with training .......................................................... .............................. $4,930 $1,875 

Costs for MU–2 pilots without training ...................................................................... .............................. 12,882 9,826 

Costs for Initial/Transition pilots ................................................................................ $25,376 .............................. 9,826 

(5) A description of the steps the 

agency has taken to minimize the 

significant economic impact on small 

entities consistent with the stated 

objectives of applicable statutes, 

including a statement of the factual, 

policy, and legal reasons for selecting 

the alternative adopted in the final rule 

and why each one of the other 

significant alternatives to the rule 

considered by the agency which affect 

the impact on small entities was 

rejected 

We considered the following 

alternatives: 

Alternative One: This alternative 

would prohibit all operations of the 

MU–2B series airplane within the 

National Airspace System. Although 

legislation requiring this alternative was 

not passed, it was an alternative 

explored by Congress. Upon our 

examination, we have determined that 

there is not sufficient justification to 

ground the airplane if the requirements 

contained in the rule become final. The 

airplane meets its original type 

certification basis as found in three type 

certification analyses (Special 

Certification Reviews conducted in 

1984, 1997, and the Safety Evaluation of 

2005 that found that the airplane 

complies with the applicable 

certification regulations). 

Alternative Two: This alternative 

would have kept the requirements 

contained in the final rule, except that 

it would require an aircraft type rating 

for the MU–2B, but remove 

requalification training. This alternative 

would not fully accomplish our safety 

objective and would not meet the FAA’s 

goal of ensuring that all MU–2B pilots 

receive continued training in the 

accepted procedures for normal, 

abnormal, and emergency operations. 

Alternative Three: This alternative 

would have kept the proposed SFAR, 

and in addition, require a second pilot. 

Requiring a second pilot for all MU–2B 

airplanes would be a substantially more 

costly option than the SFAR training 

and autopilot requirements (single-pilot 

IFR operations and night VFR 

operations will be required to have a 

functioning autopilot). In addition, the 

FAA has determined that use of an 

autopilot provides a level of safety 

comparable to a two-pilot crew and 

therefore does not propose requiring a 

second crew member. An operator has 

the option of running a two-pilot crew 

to enhance safety, but the FAA will not 

require it. 

International Trade Impact Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits Federal 

agencies from establishing any 

standards or engaging in related 

activities that create unnecessary 

obstacles to the foreign commerce of the 

United States. Legitimate domestic 

objectives, such as safety, are not 

considered unnecessary obstacles. The 

statute also requires consideration of 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis for 

U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed 

the potential effect of this final rule and 

determined that it responds to a 

domestic safety objective and is not 

considered an unnecessary barrier to 

trade. 

Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) 

requires each Federal agency to prepare 

a written statement assessing the effects 

of any Federal mandate in a proposed or 

final agency rule that may result in an 

expenditure of $100 million or more 

(adjusted annually for inflation with the 

base year 1995) in any one year by State, 

local, and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector; such 

a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently 

uses an inflation-adjusted value of 

$128.1 million in lieu of $100 million. 

One commenter stated that ‘‘taken as 

a whole’’ the requirements of Title II of 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 did apply. The FAA disagrees 

because the rule involves a value less 

than $128.1 million. This final rule does 

not contain such a mandate; therefore, 

the requirements of Title II do not 

apply. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

As required by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 

3507(d)), the FAA has submitted a copy 

of the new (or amended) information 

collection requirements(s) in this final 

rule to the Office of Management and 

Budget for its review. Affected parties, 

however, do not have to comply with 

the information collection requirements 

until the FAA publishes in the Federal 

Register the control number assigned by 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
7050 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for these information collection 

requirements. Publication of the control 

number notifies the public that OMB 

has approved these information 

collection requirements under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

• A certificated flight instruction 

(CFI) must complete the form ‘‘Training 

Course Final Phase Check’’ at the end of 

each training course. The FAA estimates 

that it will take a CFI 5 minutes per 

pilot to complete the form. Since there 

are about 600 MU–2B pilots, this will 

take a total of 50 hours per year. At an 

average MU–2B CFI hourly rate of $100 

and an average value of time at $36.06 

per hour, the total yearly cost of this 

requirement is $6,806 (600 pilots × 5/60 

hours × ($100 per hour + $36.06 value 

of time per hour) = $6,806). 

• A CFI must endorse an MU–2B 

pilot’s logbook upon successful 

completion of training. The FAA 

estimates that it will take a CFI 5 

minutes per pilot to endorse a pilot’s 

logbook. Since there are about 600 

MU–2B pilots, this will take a total of 

50 hours per year. At an average MU–

2B CFI hourly rate of $100 and an 

average value of time at $36.06 per hour, 

the total yearly cost of this requirement 

is $6,806 (600 pilots × 5/60 hours × 

($100 per hour + $36.06 value of time 

per hour) = $6,806). 

• A copy of the airplane checklist 

must be accessible during each flight at 

the pilot station. The FAA estimates that 

the cost of a checklist will be about $200 

and that the checklist will be ordered 

over a 2-year period. We assume it takes 

an operator 10 minutes to order a 

checklist, and the cost of the checklist 

will be about $64,069 (311 MU–2B 

airplanes × $200/checklist × ($36.06 

hourly value of time × 10/60 hours)). 

Annually, this cost would be $32,031 

($64,069 ÷ 2 years). 

Total PRA Results for the Final Rule: 

Average Total Annual Cost Burden: 

Approximately $45,641. 

Average Total Annual Hour Burden: 

Approximately 101 hours. 

An agency may not collect or sponsor 

the collection of information, nor may it 

impose an information collection 

requirement unless it displays a 

currently valid Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) control number. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this final rule 

under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We 

determined that this action would not 

have a substantial direct effect on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national Government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, and therefore 

would not have federalism implications. 

Regulations Affecting Intrastate 

Aviation in Alaska 

Section 1205 of the FAA 

Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 

3213) requires the FAA, when changing 

regulations in title 14 of the CFR in 

manner affecting intrastate aviation in 

Alaska, to consider the extent to which 

Alaska is not served by transportation 

modes other than aviation, and to 

establish such regulatory distinctions as 

he or she considers appropriate. The 

FAA received no comments specific to 

Alaska. 

Environmental Analysis 

FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances. 

The FAA has determined this 

rulemaking action qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion identified in 

paragraph 312f of the Order and 

involves no extraordinary 

circumstances. 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

The FAA has analyzed this final rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We 

have determined that it is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ under the 

executive order because it is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

Executive Order 12866, and it is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. 

Availability of Rulemaking Documents 

You can get an electronic copy of 

rulemaking documents using the 

Internet by—

1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal (http://www.regulations.gov); 

2. Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies Web page at http:// 

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or 

3. Accessing the Government Printing 

Office’s Web page at http:// 

www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html. 

You can also get a copy by sending a 

request to the Federal Aviation 

Administration, Office of Rulemaking, 

ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by 

calling (202) 267–9680. Make sure to 

identify the amendment number or 

docket number of this rulemaking. 

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 

65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you 

may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

The Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996 requires the FAA to comply with 

small entity requests for information or 

advice about compliance with statutes 

and regulations within its jurisdiction. If 

you are a small entity and you have a 

question regarding this document, you 

may contact a local FAA official, or the 

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. You can find out 

more about SBREFA on the Internet at: 

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_

policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/. 

List of Subjects 

14 CFR Part 61 

Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation Safety, 

Incorporation by reference, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Safety 

measures. 

14 CFR Part 91 

Aircraft, Airmen, Airports, Aviation 

safety, Freight, Incorporation by 

reference, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

14 CFR Part 135 

Air taxis, Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

The Amendment 

■ In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends chapter I of title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations, as follows: 

PART 61—CERTIFICATION: PILOTS, 

FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS, AND GROUND 

INSTRUCTORS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 61 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701–

44703, 44707, 44709–44711, 45102–45103, 

45301–45302. 

■ 2. Add SFAR No. 108 to part 61 to 

read as follows: Special Federal 

Aviation Regulation No 108. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7051 

Note: For the text of the SFAR No. 108, see 

part 91 of this chapter. 

PART 91—GENERAL OPERATING AND 

FLIGHT RULES 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 91 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 1155, 40103, 

40113, 40120, 44101, 44111, 44701, 44704, 

44709, 44711, 44712, 44715, 44716, 44717, 

44722, 46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506–

46507, 47122, 47508, 47528–47531, articles 

12 and 29 of the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation (61 stat. 1180). 

■ 4. Amend part 91 by adding SFAR No. 

108. 

Special Federal Aviation Regulation 

(SFAR) No. 108—Mitsubishi MU–2B 

Series Special Training, Experience, 

and Operating Requirements 

1. Applicability. After February 5, 

2009, this Special Federal Aviation 

Regulation (SFAR) applies to all persons 

who operate the Mitsubishi MU–2B 

series airplane including those who act 

as pilot-in-command, act as second-incommand, or other persons who 

manipulate the controls while under the 

supervision of a pilot-in-command. This 

SFAR also applies to those persons who 

provide pilot training for the Mitsubishi 

MU–2B series airplane. The 

requirements in this SFAR are in 

addition to the requirements of 14 CFR 

parts 61, 91, and 135 of this chapter. 

2. Compliance and Eligibility. (a) 

Except as provided in paragraph (b) of 

this section, no person may manipulate 

the controls, act as pilot-in-command, 

act as second-in-command, or provide 

pilot training for the Mitsubishi MU–2B 

series airplane unless that person meets 

the applicable requirements of this 

SFAR. 

(b) A person, who does not meet the 

requirements of this SFAR, may 

manipulate the controls of the 

Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane if a 

pilot-in-command meeting the 

applicable requirements of this SFAR is 

occupying a pilot station, and the flight 

is being conducted for one of the 

following reasons—

(1) The pilot-in-command is 

providing pilot training to the 

manipulator of the controls, and no 

passengers or cargo are carried on board 

the airplane; 

(2) The pilot-in-command is 

conducting a maintenance test flight 

with a second pilot or certificated 

mechanic, and no passengers or cargo 

are carried on board the airplane; or 

(3) The pilot-in-command is 

conducting simulated instrument flight 

and is using a safety pilot other than the 

pilot-in-command who manipulates the 

controls for the purposes of 14 CFR 

91.109(b), and no passengers or cargo 

are carried on board the airplane. 

(c) A person is required to complete 

Initial/transition training if that person 

has fewer than—

(1) 50 hours of documented flight 

time manipulating the controls while 

serving as pilot-in-command of a 

Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane in the 

preceding 24 months; or 

(2) 500 hours of documented flight 

time manipulating the controls while 

serving as pilot-in-command of a 

Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane. 

(d) A person is eligible to receive 

Requalification training in lieu of 

Initial/transition training if that person 

has at least—

(1) 50 hours of documented flight 

time manipulating the controls while 

serving as pilot-in-command of a 

Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane in the 

preceding 24 months; or 

(2) 500 hours of documented flight 

time manipulating the controls while 

serving as pilot-in-command of a 

Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane. 

(e) A person is required to complete 

Recurrent training within the preceding 

12 months. Successful completion of 

Initial/transition or Requalification 

training within the preceding 12 months 

satisfies the requirement of Recurrent 

training. A person must successfully 

complete Initial/transition training or 

Requalification training before being 

eligible to receive Recurrent training. 

(f) Successful completion of Initial/ 

transition training or Requalification 

training is a one-time requirement. A 

person may elect to retake Initial/ 

transition training or Requalification 

training in lieu of Recurrent training. 

(g) A person is required to complete 

Differences training if that person 

operates more than one MU–2B model. 

Differences training between the K and 

M models of the MU–2B airplane, and 

the J and L models of the MU–2B 

airplane, may be accomplished with 

Level A training. All other Differences 

training must be accomplished with 

Level B training. Persons that are 

operating two models of the MU–2B 

airplane are required to receive 1.5 

hours of Differences training. Persons 

that are operating three or more models 

of the MU–2B airplane are required to 

receive 3.0 hours of Differences training. 

An additional 1.5 hours of Differences 

training is required for each model 

added at a later date. Differences 

Training is not a recurring annual 

requirement. Once a person has 

received Differences training between 

the applicable different models, no 

additional Differences training between 

those models is required. 

3. Required Pilot Training. (a) Except 

as provided in section 2 paragraph (b) 

of this SFAR, no person may manipulate 

the controls, act as pilot-in-command, or 

act as second-in-command of a 

Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane for 

the purpose of flight unless—

(1) The applicable requirements for 

ground and flight training on Initial/ 

transition, Requalification, Recurrent, 

and Differences training have been 

completed, as specified in this SFAR, 

including Appendices A through D of 

this SFAR; and 

(2) That person’s logbook has been 

endorsed in accordance with paragraph 

(f) of this section. 

(b) No person may manipulate the 

controls, act as pilot-in-command, or act 

as second-in-command, of a Mitsubishi 

MU–2B series airplane for the purpose 

of flight unless—

(1) That person satisfactorily 

completes, if applicable, annual 

Recurrent pilot training on the Special 

Emphasis Items, and all items listed in 

the Training Course Final Phase Check 

as specified in Appendix C of this 

SFAR; and 

(2) That person’s logbook has been 

endorsed in accordance with paragraph 

(f) of this section. 

(c) Satisfactory completion of the 

competency check required by 14 CFR 

135.293 within the preceding 12 

calendar months may not be substituted 

for the Mitsubishi MU–2B series 

airplane annual recurrent flight training 

of this section. 

(d) Satisfactory completion of a 

Federal Aviation Administration 

sponsored pilot proficiency award 

program, as described in 14 CFR 

61.56(e) may not be substituted for the 

Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane 

annual recurrent flight training of this 

section. 

(e) If a person complies with the 

requirements of paragraph (a) or (b) of 

this section in the calendar month 

before or the calendar month after the 

month in which compliance with these 

paragraphs are required, that person is 

considered to have accomplished the 

training requirement in the month the 

training is due. 

(f) The endorsement required under 

paragraph (a) and (b) of this section 

must be made by—

(1) A certificated flight instructor 

meeting the qualifications of section 5 of 

this SFAR; or 

(2) For persons operating the 

Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane for a 

part 119 certificate holder within the 

last 12 calendar months, the 14 CFR part 

119 certificate holder’s flight instructor 

if authorized by the FAA and if that 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
7052 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

flight instructor meets the requirements 

of section 5 of this SFAR. 

(g) All training conducted for the 

Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane must 

be completed in accordance with the 

applicable MU–2B series checklist listed 

in table 1 of this SFAR or an MU–2B 

series airplane checklist that has been 

accepted by the Federal Aviation 

Administration’s MU–2B Flight 

Standardization Board. 

TABLE 1 TO SFAR 108.—MU–2B SERIES AIRPLANE MANUFACTURER’S CHECKLISTS

Model Type certificate 

Cockpit checklist Date the 

checklist was 

accepted by 

the FSB MHI document No. 

MU–2B–60 ............................................... A10SW .................................................... YET06220C ............................................. 2/12/2007 

MU–2B–40 ............................................... A10SW .................................................... YET06256A ............................................. 2/12/2007 

MU–2B–36A ............................................ A10SW .................................................... YET06257B ............................................. 2/12/2007 

MU–2B–36 ............................................... A2PC ....................................................... YET06252B ............................................. 2/12/2007 

MU–2B–35 ............................................... A2PC ....................................................... YET06251B ............................................. 2/12/2007 

MU–2B–30 ............................................... A2PC ....................................................... YET06250A ............................................. 3/2/2007 

MU–2B–26A ............................................ A10SW .................................................... YET06255A ............................................. 2/12/2007 

MU–2B–26 ............................................... A2PC ....................................................... YET06249A ............................................. 3/2/2007 

MU–2B–26 ............................................... A10SW .................................................... YET06254A ............................................. 3/2/2007 

MU–2B–25 ............................................... A10SW .................................................... YET06253A ............................................. 3/2/2007 

MU–2B–25 ............................................... A2PC ....................................................... YET06248A ............................................. 3/2/2007 

MU–2B–20 ............................................... A2PC ....................................................... YET06247A ............................................. 2/12/2007 

MU–2B–15 ............................................... A2PC ....................................................... YET06246A ............................................. 3/2/2007 

MU–2B–10 ............................................... A2PC ....................................................... YET06245A ............................................. 3/2/2007 

MU–2B ..................................................... A2PC ....................................................... YET06244A ............................................. 3/2/2007 

4. Aeronautical Experience. No 

person may act as pilot-in-command of 

a Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane for 

the purpose of flight unless that person 

holds an airplane category and multiengine land class rating, and has logged 

a minimum of 100 flight hours of pilotin-command time in multi-engine 

airplanes. 

5. Instruction, Checking and 

Evaluation. (a) Flight Instructor 

(Airplane). No flight instructor may 

provide instruction or conduct a flight 

review in a Mitsubishi MU–2B series 

airplane unless that flight instructor 

meets the requirements of this 

paragraph. 

(1) Each flight instructor who 

provides flight training in the 

Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane must 

meet the pilot training and 

documentation requirements of section 

3 of this SFAR before giving flight 

instruction in the Mitsubishi MU–2B 

series airplane. 

(2) Each flight instructor who 

provides flight training in the 

Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane must 

meet the currency requirements of 

paragraphs (a) and (c) of section 6 of this 

SFAR before giving flight instruction in 

the Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane. 

(3) Each flight instructor who 

provides flight training in the 

Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane must 

have a minimum total pilot time of 

2,000 pilot-in-command hours, 800 

pilot-in-command hours in multiengine 

airplanes. 

(4) Each flight instructor who 

provides flight training in the 

Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane must 

have—

(i) 300 pilot-in-command hours in the 

Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane, 50 

hours of which must have been within 

the preceding 12 months; or 

(ii) 100 pilot-in-command hours in 

the Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane, 

25 hours of which must have been 

within the preceding 12 months, and 

300 hours providing instruction in a 

FAA-approved Mitsubishi MU–2B 

simulator or FAA-approved Mitsubishi 

MU–2B flight training device, 25 hours 

of which must have been within the 

preceding 12 months. 

(b) Flight Instructor (Simulator/ Flight 

Training Device). No flight instructor 

may provide instruction for the 

Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane 

unless that instructor meets the 

requirements of this paragraph. 

(1) Each flight instructor who 

provides flight training for the 

Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane must 

meet the pilot training and 

documentation requirements of section 

3 of this SFAR before giving flight 

instruction for the Mitsubishi MU–2B 

series airplane. 

(2) Each flight instructor who 

provides flight training for the 

Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane must 

meet the currency requirements of 

paragraph (c) of section 6 of this SFAR 

before giving flight instruction for the 

Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane. 

(3) Each flight instructor who 

provides flight training for the 

Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane must 

have—

(i) A minimum total pilot time of 2000 

pilot-in-command hours and 800 pilotin-command hours in multiengine 

airplanes; and 

(ii) Within the preceding 12 months, 

either 50 hours of Mitsubishi MU–2B 

series airplane pilot-in-command 

experience or 50 hours providing 

simulator or flight training device 

instruction for the Mitsubishi MU–2B. 

(c) Checking and Evaluation. No 

person may provide checking or 

evaluation for the Mitsubishi MU–2B 

series airplane unless that person meets 

the requirements of this paragraph. 

(1) For the purpose of checking, 

designated pilot examiners, training 

center evaluators, and check airmen 

must have completed the appropriate 

training in the Mitsubishi MU–2B series 

airplane in accordance with section 3 of 

this SFAR. 

(2) For checking conducted in the 

Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane, each 

designated pilot examiner and check 

airman must have 100 hours pilot-incommand flight time in the Mitsubishi 

MU–2B series airplane and maintain 

currency in accordance with section 6 of 

this SFAR. 

6. Currency Requirements and Flight 

Review. (a) The takeoff and landing 

currency requirements of 14 CFR 61.57 

must be maintained in the Mitsubishi 

MU–2B series airplane. Takeoff and 

landings in other multiengine airplanes 

do not meet the takeoff landing currency 

requirements for the Mitsubishi MU–2B 

series airplane. Takeoff and landings in 

either the short-body or long-body 

Mitsubishi MU–2B model airplane may 

be credited toward takeoff and landing 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7053 

currency for both Mitsubishi MU–2B 

model groups. 

(b) Instrument experience obtained in 

other category and class of aircraft may 

be used to satisfy the instrument 

currency requirements of 14 CFR 61.57 

for the Mitsubishi MU–2B series 

airplane. 

(c) Satisfactory completion of a flight 

review to satisfy the requirements of 14 

CFR 61.56 is valid for operation of a 

Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane only 

if that flight review is conducted in a 

Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane. The 

flight review for Mitsubishi MU–2B 

series airplanes must include the 

Special Emphasis Items, and all items 

listed in the Training Course Final 

Phase Check of Appendix C of this 

SFAR. 

(d) A person who successfully 

completes the Initial/transition, 

Requalification, or Recurrent training 

requirements, as described in section 3 

of this SFAR, also meets the 

requirements of 14 CFR 61.56 and need 

not accomplish a separate flight review 

provided that at least 1 hour of the flight 

training was conducted in the 

Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane. 

7. Operating Requirements. (a) Except 

as provided in paragraph (b) of this 

section, no person may operate a 

Mitsubishi MU–2B airplane in single 

pilot operations unless that airplane has 

a functional autopilot. 

(b) A person may operate a Mitsubishi 

MU–2B airplane in single pilot 

operations without a functional 

autopilot when—

(1) Operating under day visual flight 

rule requirements; or 

(2) Authorized under a FAA approved 

minimum equipment list for that 

airplane, operating under instrument 

flight rule requirements in daytime 

visual meteorological conditions. 

(c) No person may operate a 

Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane 

unless a copy of the appropriate 

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries MU–2B 

Airplane Flight Manual is carried on 

board the airplane and is accessible 

during each flight at the pilot station. 

(d) No person may operate a 

Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane 

unless an MU–2B series airplane 

checklist, appropriate for the model 

being operated and accepted by the 

Federal Aviation Administration MU–

2B Flight Standardization Board, is 

accessible for each flight at the pilot 

station and is used by the flight 

crewmembers when operating the 

airplane. 

(e) No person may operate a 

Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane 

contrary to the MU–2B training program 

in the Appendices of this SFAR. 

(f) If there are any differences between 

the training and operating requirements 

of this SFAR and the MU–2B Airplane 

Flight Manual’s procedures sections 

(Normal, Abnormal, and Emergency) 

and the MU–2B airplane series checklist 

specified in section 3(g), table 1, the 

person operating the airplane must 

operate the airplane in accordance with 

the training specified in section 3(g), 

table 1. 

8. Credit for Prior Training. Initial/ 

transition or requalification training 

conducted between July 27, 2006, and 

April 7, 2008, using Mitsubishi Heavy 

Industries MU–2B Training Program, 

Part number YET 05301, Revision 

Original, dated July 27, 2006, or 

Revision 1, dated September 19, 2006, is 

considered to be compliant with this 

SFAR, if the student met the eligibility 

requirements for the applicable category 

of training and the student’s instructor 

met the experience requirements of this 

SFAR. 

9. Incorporation by Reference. You 

must proceed in accordance with the 

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries MU–2B 

Checklists as listed in Table 1 of this 

SFAR which are incorporated by 

reference. The Director of the Federal 

Register approved this incorporation by 

reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 

section 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. The 

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries MU–2B 

Checklists are distributed by Turbine 

Aircraft Services, Inc. You may obtain a 

copy from Turbine Aircraft Services 

Inc., 4550 Jimmy Doolittle Drive, 

Addison, Texas 75001, USA. You may 

inspect a copy at U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Management 

Facility, Room W 12–140, West 

Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey 

Ave., SE., Washington, DC 20590–0001, 

or at the National Archives and Records 

Administration at NARA, call 202–741–

6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/ 

federal_register/ 

code_of_federal_regulations/ 

ibr_locations.html. 

10. Expiration. This SFAR will remain 

in effect until further notice. 

Appendix A to SFAR 108—MU–2B 

General Training Requirements 

(a) The Mitsubishi MU–2B Training 

Program consists of both ground and flight 

training. The minimum pilot training 

requirement hours are shown in Table 1 of 

this appendix for ground instruction and 

Table 2 of this appendix for flight 

instruction. An additional ground training 

requirement for Differences Training is 

shown in Table 3. 

(b) The MU–2B is certificated by the 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as a 

single pilot airplane. No training credit is 

given for second in command (SIC) training 

and no credit is given for right seat time 

under this program. Only the sole 

manipulator of the controls of the MU–2B 

airplane, Flight Training Device (FTD), or 

Level C or D simulator can receive training 

credit under this program. 

(c) The training program references the 

applicable MU–2B airplane flight manual 

(AFM) in several sections. There may be 

differences between sequencing of 

procedures found in the AFM’s procedures 

sections and the checklists, procedures, and 

techniques found within this training 

program. The FAA’s Mitsubishi MU–2B 

SFAR requires that if there are any 

differences between the AFM’s procedures 

sections (Normal, Abnormal, and Emergency) 

and the training and operating requirements 

of the Mitsubishi MU–2B SFAR, the person 

operating the airplane must operate the 

airplane in accordance with the training 

specified in the SFAR and this MU–2B 

training program. 

(d) Minimum Programmed Training Hours 

TABLE 1 TO APPENDIX A OF SFAR 108 

Ground instruction 

Initial/transition Requalificaton Recurrent 

20 hours ............................................................. 12 hours ........................................................... 8 hours. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
7054 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 2 TO APPENDIX A OF SFAR 108 

Flight instruction 

Initial/transition Requalification Recurrent 

12 hours with a minimum of 6 hours at Level E 8 hours Level C or Level E .............................. 4 hours at Level E, or 6 hours at Level C. 

TABLE 3 TO APPENDIX A OF SFAR 108 

Differences training 

2 models currently .................................................................................... 1.5 hours at Level A or B. 

More than 2 models currently .................................................................. 3 hours at Level A or B. 

Each additional model added ................................................................... 1.5 hours at Level A or B. 

(e) Definitions of Levels of Training as 

Used in This Appendix 

(1) LEVEL A Training—Training that is 

conducted through self instruction by the 

pilot. 

(2) LEVEL B Training—Training that is 

conducted in the classroom environment 

with the aid of a qualified instructor who 

meets the requirements of this SFAR. 

(3) LEVEL C Training—Training that is 

accomplished in an FAA-approved Level 5, 

6, or 7 Flight Training Device (FTD). In 

addition to the basic FTD requirements, the 

FTD must be representative of the MU–2B 

cockpit controls and be specifically approved 

by the FAA for the MU–2B airplane. 

(4) LEVEL E Training—Training that must 

be accomplished in the MU–2B airplane, 

Level C simulator, or Level D simulator. 

Appendix B to SFAR 108—MU–2B 

Ground Training Curriculum Contents 

All items in the ground training 

curriculum must be covered. The order of 

presentation is at the discretion of the 

instructor. The student must satisfactorily 

complete a written or oral exam given by the 

training provider based on this MU–2B 

Training Program. 

I. Aircraft General 

A. Introduction 

B. Airplane (Structures/Aerodynamics/ 

Engines) Overview 

1. Fuselage 

2. Wing 

3. Empennage 

4. Doors 

5. Windshield and Windows 

C. Airplane Systems 

1. Electrical Power 

2. Lighting 

3. Fuel System 

4. Powerplant 

5. Environmental 

6. Fire Protection 

7. Ice and Rain Protection 

8. Landing Gear and Brakes 

9. Flight Controls and Trim 

10. Pilot Static System/Flight Instruments 

11. Oxygen System 

D. Operating Limitations 

1. Weights 

2. Center of Gravity and Loading 

3. Airspeeds 

4. Maneuvering Load Factors 

5. Takeoff And Landing Operations 

6. Enroute Operations 

E. Required Placards 

F. Instrument Markings 

G. Flight Characteristics 

1. Control System 

2. Stability and Stall Characteristics 

3. Single Engine Operation 

4. Maneuvering and Trim 

5. Takeoff and Landing 

II. Electrical Power 

A. General Description 

B. DC Electrical System 

1. DC Power Generation 

2. DC Power Distribution 

3. Battery System 

4. External Power System 

C. AC Electrical System 

1. AC Power Generation 

2. Controls and Indicators 

3. AC Power Distribution 

D. Limitations 

1. General Limitations 

2. Instrument Markings 

III. Lighting 

A. Exterior Lighting System 

1. Navigation Lights 

2. Anti-Collision Lights 

3. Wing Inspection Lights 

4. Taxi Lights 

5. Landing Lights 

6. Rotating Beacon 

7. Operation 

B. Interior Lighting System 

1. Flight Compartment Lights 

2. Passenger Compartment Lights 

C. Emergency Lighting System 

1. Cockpit Emergency Lighting 

2. Aircraft Emergency Lighting 

D. Procedures 

1. Normal 

2. Abnormal 

3. Emergency 

IV. Master Caution System 

A. System Description and Operation 

1. Master Caution Light and Reset Switch 

2. Annunciator and Indicator Panels 

3. Operation Lights 

4. System Tests 

B. Procedures 

V. Fuel System 

A. Fuel Storage 

1. Refueling/Balancing 

2. De-Fueling and Draining 

3. Tank Vent System 

B. Fuel Distribution 

1. Fuel Transfer 

2. Fuel Balancing 

3. Boost Pump Operation 

C. Fuel Indicating 

1. Fuel Quantity 

2. Low Fuel Warning 

D. Fuel System Limitations 

1. Approved Fuels 

2. Fuel Anti-Icing Additives 

3. Fuel Temperature Limitations 

4. Fuel Transfer and Fuel Imbalance 

5. Fuel Pumps 

6. Refueling 

7. Capacity 

8. Unusable Fuel 

VI. Powerplant 

A. Engine Description 

1. Major Sections 

2. Cockpit Controls 

3. Instrumentation 

4. Operation 

B. Engine Systems 

1. Lubrication 

2. Fuel 

3. Ignition 

4. Engine Starting 

5. Anti-Ice 

C. Propeller System 

1. Ground Operations 

2. In-Flight Operations 

3. Synchronization 

4. De-Ice 

D. Ground Checks 

1. Overspeed Governor 

2. SRL and Delta P/P 

3. NTS and Feather Valve 

4. Supplementary NTS 

E. In Flight Post Maintenance Checks 

1. NTS In-Flight 

2. Flight Idle Fuel Flow 

F. Limitations 

1. Powerplant 

2. Engine Starting Conditions 

3. Airstart Envelope 

4. Engine Starting 

5. Oil 

6. Fuel 

7. Starter/Generator 

8. External Power 

9. Instrument Markings (as applicable) 

a. TPE331–10–511M 

b. TPE331–5/6–252/251M 

c. TPE331–1–151M 

G. Engine Malfunctions and Failures 

1. Propeller Coupling 

2. Torque Sensor 

3. Engine Overspeed 

4. Fuel Control Spline 

VII. Fire Protection 

A. Introduction 

B. Engine Fire Detection 

1. System Description 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7055 

2. Annunciator 

C. Portable Fire Extinguishers 

VIII. Pneumatics 

A. System Description 

B. System Operation 

1. Air Sources 

2. Limitations 

C. Wing and Tail De-Ice 

1. System Description 

2. Controls 

D. Entrance and Baggage Door Seal 

1. Air Source 

2. Operation 

IX. Ice and Rain Protection 

A. General Description 

B. Wing De-Ice 

1. System Description 

2. Operation 

3. Controls and Indications 

C. Engine Anti-Ice 

1. System Description 

2. Operation 

3. Controls and Indications 

D. Window Defog 

1. Controls 

2. Operation 

E. Tail De-Ice 

1. Horizontal Stabilizer De-Ice 

2. Vertical Stabilizer De-Ice 

F. Pitot Static System Anti-Icing 

1. Pitot Tube Heating 

2. Static Port Heating 

3. AOA Transmitter Heating 

G. Windshield De-Ice/Anti-Ice 

1. System Description 

2. Controls and Indications 

H. Windshield Wiper 

1. System Description 

2. Control and Operation 

I. Propeller De-Ice 

1. System Description 

2. Controls and Indications 

J. Ice Detector 

1. System Description 

2. Controls and Indications 

3. Operation 

K. Limitations 

1. Temperatures 

2. Cycling 

X. Air Conditioning 

A. System Description and Operation 

1. Refrigeration Unit (ACM) 

2. Air Distribution 

3. Ventilation 

4. Temperature Control 

5. Water Separator 

B. Limitations 

XI. Pressurization 

A. General 

B. Component Description 

1. Cabin Pressure Controller 

2. Altitude Pressure Regulator 

3. Ram Air 

4. Outflow Safety Valves 

5. Air Filters 

6. Manual Control Valve 

7. Pneumatic Relays 

8. Venturi 

C. System Operation 

1. Ground Operation 

2. Takeoff Mode 

3. In-Flight Operation 

4. Landing Operation 

D. Emergency Operation 

1. High Altitude 

2. Low Altitude 

E. Limitations 

1. Maximum Differential 

2. Landing Limitations 

XII. Landing Gear and Brakes 

A. General Description 

1. Landing Gear Doors 

2. Controls and Indicators 

3. Warning Systems 

4. Emergency Extension 

B. Nosewheel Steering 

C. Landing Gear/Brakes/Tires 

D. Limitations 

1. Airspeed (with flaps) 

2. Emergency Extension 

3. Tire Speed 

4. Brake Energy 

XIII. Flight Controls 

A. Primary Flight Controls (Elevator/ 

Rudder/Spoilers) 

1. Description 

2. Operations 

B. Trim Systems 

1. System Description 

2. Roll Trim 

a. Normal Operation 

b. Emergency Operation 

3. Rudder Trim 

4. Pitch Trim 

a. General 

b. Operations 

c. Trim-in-Motion Alert System 

C. Secondary Flight Controls 

1. System Description 

2. Flaps 

D. Limitations 

1. Instrument Markings 

2. Placards 

E. Flight Characteristics 

1. Control Systems 

2. Stability and Stall Characteristics 

3. Single Engine Operation 

5. Maneuvering and Trim 

6. Takeoff and Landing 

XIV. Avionics 

A. Pitot-Static System 

1. System Description 

2. Pilot’s System 

3. Co-Pilot’s System 

4. Alternate Static 

B. Air Data Computer 

C. Attitude Instrument Displays (EFIS and 

Standard) 

1. EADI 

2. Standard Attitude Gyro 

D. AHRS 

1. System Description 

2. Controls and Indications 

E. Navigation 

1. Nav Systems Descriptions 

2. Compass System Descriptions 

3. Display Systems 

4. Terrain Awareness System 

5. Traffic Avoidance System 

F. Communications 

1. VHF Communications Systems 

2. Audio Control 

G. Standby Flight Instruments 

1. System Description 

2. Controls and Indications 

H. Automatic Flight Control System 

1. Controls and Indications 

2. Yaw Damper 

3. Trim-in-Motion Alert System 

4. Autopilot Automatic Disconnect 

5. Aural Alert System 

I. Angle of Attack (AOA) System 

1. System Description 

2. Controls and Indications 

J. Limitations 

XV. Oxygen System 

A. System Description 

B. Crew Oxygen 

1. Oxygen Cylinder Assembly 

2. Pressure Gauge 

3. Outlet Valves 

4. Duration 

C. Passenger Oxygen 

1. System Description 

2. Duration 

D. Limitations 

XVI. Performance and Planning 

A. Takeoff Performance Charts 

1. Runway Requirements 

2. Normal and with One Engine 

Inoperative 

B. Climb Performance 

1. Normal and with One Engine 

Inoperative 

2. Obstacle Clearance 

3. Power Assurance Charts 

C. Cruise Performance 

1. Power Charts 

2. Maximum Practical Altitude 

3. Cruise Speeds/Engine Health 

4. Buffet Boundary 

D. Landing Performance 

1. Runway Requirements 

a. Dry Runway 

b. Wet Runway 

2. Go-Around 

a. One Engine Inoperative 

b. All Engines 

XVII. Weight and Balance 

A. Aircraft Loading Procedures 

B. Limitations 

1. Weight Limits 

2. C.G. Limits 

C. Plotter 

1. Description 

2. Use 

D. Calculations 

1. AFM Procedures 

2. Examples 

XVIII. General Subjects 

A. Controlled Flight into Terrain 

Awareness 

B. CRM/SPRM 

1. Crew Resource Management 

2. Single Pilot Resource Management 

C. MU–2B Flight Standardization Board 

Report 

Appendix C to SFAR 108—MU–2B 

Final Phase Check and Flight Training 

Requirements 

(I) MU–2B Final Phase Check Requirements 

(A) Completion of the MU–2B Training 

Program in this appendix requires successful 

completion of a final phase check taken in 

the MU–2B airplane or a Level C or D 

simulator for Initial/Transition training. The 

final phase check for Requalification or 

Recurrent Training may be taken in the 

MU–2B airplane, a Level C or D simulator, 

or in a Level 5, 6, or 7 FAA-approved MU–

2B Flight Training Device (FTD). The final 

phase check must be conducted by a 

qualified flight instructor who meets the 

requirements of the MU–2B SFAR. 

Simultaneous training and checking is not 

allowed for Initial/Transition training. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
7056 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

(B) For pilots operating under 14 CFR part 

135, checking must be done in accordance 

with applicable regulations. For the purpose 

of recurrent testing in 14 CFR 135.293(b), the 

MU–2B is considered a separate type of 

aircraft. 

(C) The final phase check must be 

conducted using the standards contained in 

the FAA Commercial Pilot—Airplane MultiEngine Land, and Instrument Rating—

Airplane Practical Test Standards (PTS). 

(D) The final phase check portion of the 

training is comprised of the following tasks 

for all airmen (instrument rated and non 

instrument rated). An (*) indicates those 

maneuvers for Initial/Transition training 

which must be completed in the MU–2B 

airplane, or a Level C or D simulator. 

(1) Preflight Check. 

(2) Start and Taxi Procedures. 

(3) * Normal Takeoff (X-Wind) (Two 

Engine). 

(4) * Takeoff Engine Failure. 

(5) Rejected Takeoff. 

(6) * Steep Turns. 

(7) * Approach to Stalls (3) (must include 

Accelerated Stalls). 

(8) * Maneuvering with One Engine 

Inoperative—Loss of Directional Control 

(Vmc). 

(9) Abnormal and Emergency Procedures—

To include MU–2B operation in icing 

conditions without the autopilot or without 

trim-in-motion or automatic autopilot 

disconnect. 

(10) * Precision Approach (One Engine 

Inoperative). 

(11) Go Around/Rejected Landing. 

(12) Normal Landing (X-Wind). 

(13) * Landing with One Engine 

Inoperative. 

(14) * Landing with Non-Standard Flap 

Configuration (0 or 5 degrees). 

(15) Postflight Procedures. 

(E) The following additional tasks are 

required for those airmen who possess an 

instrument rating. An (*) indicates those 

maneuvers for Initial/Transition training 

which must be completed in the MU–2B 

airplane, or a Level C or D simulator. 

(1) Preflight Check. 

(2) Unusual Attitudes. 

(3) Abnormal and Emergency Procedures. 

(4) Basic Instrument Flight Maneuvers. 

(5) Area Arrival and Departure. 

(6) Holding. 

(7) Precision Approach (Two Engine). 

(8) * Non-Precision Approaches (2)—Must 

include a Non-Precision Approach with One 

Engine Inoperative. 

(9) Missed Approach from either Precision 

or Non Precision Instrument Approach (Two 

Engine). 

(10) Landing from a Straight-In or Circling 

Approach. 

(11) Circling Approach. 

(12) Postflight Procedures. 

(F) A form titled ‘‘Training Course Final 

Phase Check’’ has been included in this 

appendix for use in creating a training and 

final check record for the student and the 

training provider. 

(II) MU–2B Required Flight Training Tasks 

(A) General Flight Training Requirements: 

All flight training maneuvers must be 

consistent with this training program and the 

applicable MU–2B checklist accepted by the 

FAA. The maneuver profiles shown in 

Appendix D to this SFAR No. 108 are 

presented to show the required training 

scenarios. Profiles conducted in flight require 

planning and care on the part of both the 

instructor and student in order to provide the 

highest level of safety possible. The 

maneuver profiles shown in Appendix D to 

this SFAR No. 108 do not account for local 

geographic and flight conditions. The 

instructor and student must consider local 

conditions when performing these 

maneuvers in flight. 

(B) Special Emphasis Items: Certain aspects 

of pilot knowledge, skills and abilities must 

be emphasized and evaluated during the 

training and checking process of the MU–2B 

Training Program. 

(1) Accelerated stall awareness and 

recovery procedures with emphasis on 

configuration management. Awareness of the 

margin to stall in all flight operations and 

configurations must be emphasized 

throughout training. 

(2) Vmc awareness and early recognition 

must be trained and checked. Minimum 

airspeeds for one engine inoperative must be 

emphasized in all configurations. 

(3) Airspeed management and recognition 

of airspeed deterioration below 

recommended speeds and recovery methods 

in this training program must be emphasized 

throughout training and checking. 

(4) Knowledge of icing conditions and 

encounters must be emphasized throughout 

training and checking including: Equipment 

requirements, certification standards, 

minimum airspeeds, and the use of the 

autopilot and other applicable AFM 

procedures. 

(5) Airplane performance characteristics 

with all engines operating and with one 

engine inoperative must be emphasized. 

(C) MU–2B Flight Training Program 

Proficiency Standards. 

(1) Each pilot, regardless of the level of 

pilot certificate held, must be trained to and 

maintain the proficiency standards described 

below. 

(a) General VFR/IFR. 

(i) Bank Angle—± 5 degrees of prescribed 

bank angle 

(ii) Heading—± 10 degrees 

(iii) Altitude—± 100 feet 

(iv) Airspeed—± 10 knots 

(b) Instrument Approach—Final Approach 

Segment. 

Precision Approach 

(i) Heading—± 10 degrees 

(ii) Altitude—± 100 feet 

(iii) Airspeed—± 10 knots prior to final 

(iv) Airspeed—± 10 knots after established on 

final 

(v) Glide Slope (GS)/Localizer Deviation—

Within 3⁄4 scale—not below GS 

Non-Precision Approach 

Straight In 

(vi) Initial Approach Altitude—± 100 feet 

(vii) Heading—± 10 degrees 

(viii) Altitude (MDA)— + 100, ¥0 feet 

(ix) Airspeed— + 10 knots 

(x) Course Deviation Indicator—Within 3⁄4

scale or ± 10 degrees on RMI 

Circling Approach 

(xi) Maximum Bank—30 degrees 

(xii) Heading—Within 10 degrees 

(xiii) Altitude— +100, ¥0 feet 

(xiv) Airspeed—Within 10 knots but not less 

than Vref

(c) In all cases, a pilot must show complete 

mastery of the aircraft with the outcome of 

each maneuver or procedure never seriously 

in doubt. 

(D) Maneuvers and Procedures. All flight 

training maneuvers and procedures must be 

conducted as they are applicable to the MU– 

2B and each type of operations involved. 

Preflight 

(1) Preflight Inspection—The pilot must— 

(a) Conduct an actual visual inspection of 

the exterior and interior of the airplane, 

locating each item and explaining briefly the 

purpose of inspecting it; and 

(b) Demonstrate the use of the appropriate 

checklist, appropriate control system checks, 

starting procedures, radio and electronic 

equipment checks, and the selection of 

proper navigation and communications radio 

facilities and frequencies prior to flight. 

(2) Taxiing—this maneuver includes 

taxiing in compliance with instructions 

issued by the appropriate ATC facility or by 

the person conducting the check. 

(3) Pre-Takeoff Checks—The pilot must 

satisfactorily complete all pre-takeoff aircraft 

systems and powerplant checks before 

takeoff. 

Takeoff and Departure 

(1) Normal—One normal takeoff, which for 

the purpose of this maneuver, begins when 

the airplane is taxied into position on the 

runway to be used. 

(2) Instrument Takeoff—Takeoff with 

simulated instrument conditions at or before 

reaching an altitude of 200 feet above the 

airport elevation and visibility of 1800 RVR. 

(3) Crosswind—One crosswind takeoff, if 

practical, under the existing meteorological, 

airport and traffic conditions. 

(4) Powerplant Failure—One takeoff with a 

simulated failure of the most critical 

powerplant at a point after Vlof. In the MU– 

2B airplane, all simulated powerplant 

failures must only be initiated when the 

person conducting the training or checking 

determines that it is safe under the prevailing 

conditions. The instructor must assure that 

the power lever does not move beyond the 

flight idle gate. 

(5) Rejected Takeoff—A rejected takeoff 

performed in an airplane during a normal 

takeoff run after reaching a reasonable speed 

determined by giving due consideration to 

aircraft characteristics, runway length, 

surface conditions, wind direction and 

velocity, brake heat energy, and any other 

pertinent factors that may adversely affect 

safety or the airplane. 

(6) Area departure—Demonstrate adequate 

knowledge of departure procedures, 

establishing appropriate ATC 

communications and following clearances. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7057 

Flight Maneuvers and Procedures 

(1) Steep bank turns—Each steep turn must 

involve a bank angle of 50 degrees with a 

heading change of at least 180 degrees but no 

more than 360 degrees. 

(2) Approaches to stalls—Must be 

performed in each of the following 

configurations; takeoff, clean, and landing. 

One approach to a stall must be performed 

in either the takeoff, clean, or landing 

configuration while in a turn with a bank 

angle between 15 degrees and 30 degrees. 

(3) Accelerated stalls—must be done in the 

flaps 20 and flaps 0 configurations. 

(4) Recovery procedures must be initiated 

at the first indication of a stall. 

Normal and Abnormal Procedures and 

Operations 

(1) Runway trim. 

(2) Normal and abnormal operations of the 

following systems: 

(a) Pressurization. 

(b) Pneumatic. 

(c) Air conditioning. 

(d) Fuel. 

(e) Electrical. 

(f) Flight control. 

(g) Anti-icing and de-icing. 

(h) Autopilot. 

(i) Stall warning devices, as applicable. 

(j) Airborne radar and weather detection 

devices. 

(k) Other systems, devices or aids 

available. 

(l) Electrical, flight control and flight 

instrument system malfunction or failure. 

(m) Landing gear and flap system 

malfunction or failure. 

(n) Failure of navigation or 

communications equipment. 

Flight Emergency Procedures 

(1) Powerplant failure. 

(2) Powerplant, cabin, flight deck, wing 

and electrical fires. 

(3) Smoke control. 

(4) Fuel jettisoning, as applicable. 

(5) Any other emergency procedures 

outlined in the appropriate AFM or FAAaccepted checklist. 

Instrument Procedures 

(1) Area departure. 

(2) Use of navigation systems including 

adherence to assigned course and/or radial. 

(3) Holding procedures. 

(4) Aircraft approach category airspeeds. 

(5) Approach procedures: Each instrument 

approach must be performed according to all 

procedures and limitations approved for that 

facility. An instrument approach procedure 

begins when the airplane is over the initial 

approach fix for the approach procedure 

being used and ends when the airplane 

touches down on the runway or when 

transition to missed approach configuration 

is completed. 

(a) ILS, ILS/DME, approach. 

(i) A manually controlled ILS with a 

powerplant inoperative; occurring before 

initiating the final approach course and 

continuing to full stop or through the missed 

approach procedure. 

(ii) A manually controlled ILS utilizing raw 

data to 200 feet or decision height (DH). 

(iii) An ILS with the autopilot coupled. 

(b) Non-precision approaches. 

(i) NDB, NDB/DME approach, straight in or 

circle. 

(ii) VOR, VOR/DME, straight in or circle. 

(iii) LOC, LOC/DME, LOC backcourse. 

(iv) GPS approach (If the aircraft/FTD/ 

flight simulator has a GPS installed, the 

applicant must demonstrate GPS approach 

proficiency.) 

(v) ASR approach. 

(c) Missed approach procedure: One 

missed approach procedure must be a 

complete approved missed approach 

procedure as published or as assigned by 

ATC. 

(i) From a precision approach. 

(ii) From a non-precision approach. 

(iii) With a simulated powerplant failure. 

(d) Circling approach. 

(i) The circling approach must be made to 

the authorized MDA and followed by a 

change in heading and the necessary 

maneuvering (by visual reference) to 

maintain a flight path that permits a normal 

landing on the runway. 

(ii) The circling approach must be 

performed without excessive maneuvering 

and without exceeding the normal operating 

limits of the airplane and the angle of bank 

must not exceed 30°. 

Landings and Approaches to Landings 

(1) Airport orientation. 

(2) Normal landings with stabilized 

approach. 

(3) Crosswind landings. 

(4) From a precision instrument approach. 

(5) From a precision instrument approach 

with a powerplant inoperative. 

(6) From a non-precision instrument 

approach. 

(7) From a non-precision instrument 

approach with a powerplant inoperative. 

(8) From a circling approach or VFR traffic 

pattern. 

(9) Go Around/Rejected landings—a 

normal missed approach procedure or a 

visual go-around after the landing is rejected. 

The landing should be rejected at 

approximately 50 feet and approximately 

over the runway threshold. 

(10) Zero flap landing. 

(a) Runway requirements. 

(b) Airspeeds. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
7058 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7059 

Appendix D to SFAR 108—MU–2B 

Maneuver Profiles 

(A) The Maneuver Profiles are provided to 

develop pilot proficiency with the 

procedures and techniques contained within 

this MU–2B Flight Training Program. 

(B) Though constructed for use in the 

airplane they may also be used in the Flight 

Training Device (FTD). When an FTD is used, 

a maneuver may be performed at lower 

altitudes or carried to its completion. When 

training is conducted in the MU–2B airplane, 

all maneuvers must be performed in a 

manner sufficient to evaluate the 

performance of the student while never 

jeopardizing the safety of the flight. 

(C) The maneuvers profiles are broken 

down into three sections by similar aircraft 

model groups. The three sections of this 

program are: 

(1) Marquise (¥60), Solitaire (–40), N (–

36A), P (–26A)—Figures A–1 through A–28 

(2) J (–35), K (–25), L (–;36), M (–26)—

Figures B–1 through B–28 

(3) B, D (–10), F (–20), G (–30)—Figures C–

1 through C–28 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
7060 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7061 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.002</GPH>
7062 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.003</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7063 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.004</GPH>
7064 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.005</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7065 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.006</GPH>
7066 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.007</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7067 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.008</GPH>
7068 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.009</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7069 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.010</GPH>
7070 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.011</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7071 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.012</GPH>
7072 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.013</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7073 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.014</GPH>
7074 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.015</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7075 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.016</GPH>
7076 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.017</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7077 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.018</GPH>
7078 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.019</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7079 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.020</GPH>
7080 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.021</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7081 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.022</GPH>
7082 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.023</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7083 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.024</GPH>
7084 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.025</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7085 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.026</GPH>
7086 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.027</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7087 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.028</GPH>
7088 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.029</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7089 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.030</GPH>
7090 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.031</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7091 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.032</GPH>
7092 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.033</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7093 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.034</GPH>
7094 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.035</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7095 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.036</GPH>
7096 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.037</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7097 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.038</GPH>
7098 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.039</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7099 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.040</GPH>
7100 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.041</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7101 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.042</GPH>
7102 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.043</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7103 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.044</GPH>
7104 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.045</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7105 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.046</GPH>
7106 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.047</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7107 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.048</GPH>
7108 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.049</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7109 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.050</GPH>
7110 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.051</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7111 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.052</GPH>
7112 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.053</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7113 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.054</GPH>
7114 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.055</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7115 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.056</GPH>
7116 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.057</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7117 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.058</GPH>
7118 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.059</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7119 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.060</GPH>
7120 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.061</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7121 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.062</GPH>
7122 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.063</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7123 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.064</GPH>
7124 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.065</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7125 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.066</GPH>
7126 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.067</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7127 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.068</GPH>
7128 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.069</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7129 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.070</GPH>
7130 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.071</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7131 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.072</GPH>
7132 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.073</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7133 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.074</GPH>
7134 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.075</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7135 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.076</GPH>
7136 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.077</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7137 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.078</GPH>
7138 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.079</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7139 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.080</GPH>
7140 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.081</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7141 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.082</GPH>
7142 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.083</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7143 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.084</GPH>
7144 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.085</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7145 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.086</GPH>
7146 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.087</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7147 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.088</GPH>
7148 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.089</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7149 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.090</GPH>
7150 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.091</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7151 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.092</GPH>
7152 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.093</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7153 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.094</GPH>
7154 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.095</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7155 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.096</GPH>
7156 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.097</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7157 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.098</GPH>
7158 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.099</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7159 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.100</GPH>
7160 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.101</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7161 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.102</GPH>
7162 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.103</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7163 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.104</GPH>
7164 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.105</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7165 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–C 

(D) Each MU–2B profile in its respective 

section follows the outline below. 

(1) Normal Takeoff (5- and 20-degrees 

flaps). 

(2) Takeoff Engine Failure (5- and 20- 

degrees flaps). 

(3) Takeoff Engine Failure on Runway or 

Rejected Takeoff. 

(4) Takeoff Engine Failure after Liftoff—

Unable to Climb (Classroom or FTD only). 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER06FE08.106</GPH>
7166 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

(5) Steep Turns. 

(6) Slow Flight Maneuvers. 

(7) One Engine Inoperative Maneuvering/ 

Loss of Directional Control. 

(8) Approach to Stall (clean configuration/ 

wings level). 

(9) Approach to Stall (takeoff 

configuration/15- to 30-degrees bank). 

(10) Approach to Stall (landing 

configuration/gear down/40-degrees flaps). 

(11) Accelerated Stall (no flaps). 

(12) Emergency Descent (low speed). 

(13) Emergency Descent (high speed). 

(14) Unusual Altitude Recovery (nose 

high). 

(15) Unusual Altitude Recovery (nose low). 

(16) Normal Landing (20- and 40-degrees 

flaps). 

(17) Go Around/Rejected Landing. 

(18) No Flap or 5-degrees flaps Landing. 

(19) One Engine Inoperative Landing (5- 

and 20-degrees flaps). 

(20) Crosswind Landing. 

(21) ILS and Missed Approach. 

(22) Two Engine Missed Approach. 

(23) One Engine Inoperative ILS and 

Missed Approach. 

(24) One Engine Inoperative Missed 

Approach. 

(25) Non-Precision and Missed Approach. 

(26) One Engine Inoperative Non-Precision 

and Missed Approach. 

(27) Circling Approach at Weather 

Minimums. 

(28) One Engine Inoperative Circling 

Approach at Weather Minimums. 

Engine Performance 

(A) The following should be considered in 

reference to power settings and airspeeds: 

(1) Power settings shown in italics are 

provided as guidance only during training 

and are not referenced in the AFM. Power 

setting guidance is provided to show the 

approximate power setting that will produce 

the desired airspeed or flight condition. 

Actual power settings may be different from 

those stated and should be noted by the 

instructor and student for reference during 

other maneuvers. Power settings in the 

profiles are stated in torque or PSI and will 

vary with aircraft model, engine model, 

weight, and density altitude. Power settings 

are based on standard atmospheric 

conditions. 

(2) Some pilots prefer to set power initially 

using fuel flow, because the fuel flow system 

is not field adjustable. Fuel flow settings refer 

to engine operations only. If fuel flow is used 

to set power for takeoff, check torque and 

temperature after setting fuel flow and adjust 

torque or temperature, whichever is limiting, 

for maximum takeoff power prior to liftoff. 

(3) Improperly adjusted torque or 

improperly calibrated temperatures are a 

safety of flight issue and must be checked 

and corrected prior to conducting flight 

training. 

(4) The pilot should refer to the 

performance section of the airplane flight 

manual to determine actual speeds required 

for his/her particular model and specific 

weight for any given operation. 

In Flight Maneuvering 

(A) Maneuvers conducted at altitude such 

as stalls and steep turns must always be 

preceded by clearing turns and at least one 

crew member must continually clear the 

flying area during the maneuver. The 

instructor must emphasize the importance of 

clearing the area, even if the maneuvers are 

being done in an FTD or simulator. This will 

create the habit pattern in the pilot to clear 

the area before practicing maneuvers. 

(B) During stalling maneuvers and upon 

recognition of the indication of a stall, the 

pilot must call the ‘‘stall’’ to the instructor 

and then proceed with the recovery. In 

addition, during training, the pilot must 

announce the completion of the stall 

recovery maneuver. Instructors must exercise 

caution when conducting stall maneuvers 

and be prepared to take the controls if the 

safe outcome of the maneuver is in doubt. 

(C) During accelerated stall maneuvers, it 

is important that the instructor pay close 

attention to the position of the ball 

throughout the maneuver and recovery so as 

to maintain coordinated flight. Stall 

recognition and recovery is the completion 

criteria, and it is not necessary to continue 

the stall beyond the stick shaker to 

aerodynamic buffet. 

(D) When demonstrating a loss of 

directional control with one engine 

inoperative, the engine failure must only be 

simulated. During the slowing of the aircraft 

to demonstrate loss of directional control, the 

instructor should use the rudder block 

method to allow the student to experience 

the loss of directional control associated with 

VMC, at a speed of approximately 10 knots 

above actual VMC. 

Note: To accurately simulate single engine 

operations, zero thrust must be established. 

The zero thrust torque setting will vary 

greatly from model to model. It is important 

to establish to zero thrust torque setting for 

your aircraft. This requires that the aircraft be 

flown on one engine to establish the zero 

thrust setting. This is accomplished by 

establishing single engine flight with one 

propeller feathered and noting the 

performance with the operating engine at 

maximum torque or temperature. It is 

suggested that two airspeeds be established 

for zero thrust power settings. They are 120 

kts, flaps 20, gear up for takeoff and 140 

knots, flaps 5, gear up for in-flight and 

approach maneuvering. Once performance 

has been established and recorded for each 

airspeed, restart the other engine and find the 

torque setting that duplicates the 

performance (climb or descent rate, airspeed) 

as was recorded with that propeller 

feathered. This torque setting will be zero 

thrust for the simulated inoperative engine. 

The student/pilot should note that the 

performance experienced with one engine 

operating at flight idle, may produce greater 

performance than if the engine were stopped 

and the propeller feathered. 

Pre-maneuver briefings for any maneuver 

that requires either an actual engine 

shutdown or a simulated engine failure must 

be undertaken when using an aircraft. In the 

case of an actual engine shutdown, a 

minimum altitude of 3,000 ft above ground 

level (agl) must be used and done in a 

position where a safe landing can be made 

at an airport in the event of difficulty. 

Takeoff and Landing 

(A) When using the profiles to establish the 

procedure for configuring the aircraft for 

takeoff or landing, it is important to 

understand that each task for the procedure, 

as noted on the procedure diagram, 

establishes the point at which each task 

should have been completed and not the 

exact point at which the task should be 

accomplished unless otherwise stated in the 

task box. Numbers which represent 

performance such as descent rates or other 

maneuvering information that is not 

contained in the aircraft flight manual are 

shown in italics. 

(B) In all takeoff profiles the prompt for the 

gear to be retracted is ‘‘No Runway 

Remaining, Gear Up’’. This should set the 

decision point for making a landback after an 

engine failure and should normally be 

reached at altitudes of less than 100 ft AGL. 

It is impractical to attempt a landback from 

above 100 ft AGL, because it can require 

distances up to 10,000 ft from the beginning 

of the takeoff run to bring the aircraft to a 

stop. But, even on very long runways, 

landback will not be necessary above 100 ft 

AGL and above Vyse for the flap 

configurations, if the single engine climb 

capability found in the POM charts, with the 

gear up, is positive (250 fpm or better) and 

obstacles clearance is not an issue. 

(C) The manufacturers FAA-accepted 

checklists and checklist in Appendix C to 

this SFAR No. 108 describe a procedure for 

the discontinuance of flight following an 

engine failure after takeoff and the realization 

that the aircraft cannot climb. The 

corresponding flight profile in this training 

program is ‘‘Takeoff Engine Failure, Unable 

to Climb’’. This maneuver must not be 

attempted in the aircraft, but must be the 

subject of a classroom discussion or be 

demonstrated in the FTD. 

(D) The focus of all landing procedures, 

whether two engine or engine out, is on a 

stabilized approach from an altitude of 500 

feet. This will not be possible for all 

approach procedure maneuvering, especially 

during non-precision or circle to land 

approaches. Approach procedures for these 

two approaches should be stabilized from the 

point at which the pilot leaves the Minimum 

Descent Altitude for the landing. 

(E) When performing one engine 

inoperative approaches, landings or missed 

approaches, the instructor must be prepared 

to add power to the simulated failed engine 

at the first sign of deteriorating airspeed or 

other situation that indicates the student’s 

inability to correctly perform the maneuver. 

(F) While maneuvering in the pattern or 

during instrument approach procedures with 

one engine inoperative, a 30° bank angle 

must not be exceeded. This will become 

especially important when executing nonprecision and circle to land approaches. 

Emergency and Abnormal Procedures 

(A) During training, either in the FTD or in 

the aircraft, the performance of emergency 

and abnormal procedures is critical to the 

completion of the training program. All 

emergency and abnormal procedures should 

be simulated when training in the MU–2B 

airplane. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 7167 

(B) When presenting emergency scenarios 

to the student, the instructor must not 

introduce multiple emergencies 

concurrently. 

Scenario Based Training (SBT) 

SBT flight training creates an environment 

of realism. The SBT programs utilize a highly 

structured flight operation scenario to 

simulate the overall flight environment. The 

pilot is required to plan a routine, point-topoint flight and initiate the flight. During the 

conduct of the flight, ‘‘reality-based’’

abnormal or emergency events are introduced 

without warning. Because the pilot is 

constantly operating in the world of 

unknowns, this type of training also builds 

in the ‘‘startle factor’’, and just as in the realworld, the consequences of the pilot’s actions 

(decisions, judgment, airmanship, tactile 

skills, etc.) will continue to escalate and 

affect the outcome of the planned flight. 

Although flying skills are an integral part of 

this type of training, SBT enables the pilot to 

gain experience in dealing with unexpected 

events and more importantly further 

enhances the development of good judgment 

and decisionmaking. 

PART 135—OPERATING 

REQUIREMENTS: COMMUTERS AND 

ON DEMAND OPERATIONS AND 

RULES GOVERNING PERSONS ON 

BOARD SUCH AIRCRAFT 

■ 5. The authority citation for part 135 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 41706, 

44701–44702, 44705, 44709, 44711–44713, 

44715–44717, 44722, 45101–45105. 

■ 6. Add SFAR No. 108 to part 135 to 

read as follows: SPECIAL FEDERAL 

AVIATION REGULATION NO. 108. 

Note: For the text of SFAR No. 108, see 

part 91 of this chapter. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 23, 

2008. 

Robert A. Sturgell, 

Acting Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 08–398 Filed 1–28–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2