9 ms·

FAA changes course on eVTOL certification

65 points by jeffreyrogers 4y ago

imoverclocked 4y ago
I’m not sure why this classification wasn’t used originally. This shift makes sense to me but I’m also unable to read the entire article.
- lutorm 4y ago
  Yeah, I agree. "Light aircraft" seems to imply that you are passively-stable and can glide to the ground in case of powerplant failure, which can't be true for these things. Powered-lift seems like a more appropriate classification, but I don't have any insight into what the differences in actual requirements are.
  - sjburt 4y ago
    The Joby vehicle looks like it would be capable of controlled descent, it has decent sized wings.
    - jandrese 4y ago
      I guess the cutoff is if you can maintain a sink rate low enough to make a landing without killing/severely injuring passengers in an engine-out scenario. I would expect most of these "scaled up quadcopter" companies to incorporate an emergency parachute system to handle similar to a Cirrus CAPS.
    - nradov 4y ago
      I doubt it. Consider the high wing loading, high drag, and lack of certain control surfaces. Any power loss will result in a quick stall and unrecoverable spin. Most of those powered lift aircraft rely on a mix of redundant systems plus a ballistic recovery parachute for flight safety.
  - Animats 4y ago
    Here's what they are. The "small airplane" certification standards [1] are for airplanes. A helicopter is not an airplane. A powered-lift VTOL incapable of gliding is not an airplane. "The airplane must be controllable and maneuverable, without requiring exceptional piloting skill, alertness, or strength, within the operating envelope ... (despite) flight control or propulsion system failure" "Continued safe flight and landing means an airplane is capable of continued controlled flight and landing, possibly using emergency procedures, without requiring exceptional pilot skill or strength. Upon landing, some airplane damage may occur as a result of a failure condition." So you must be able to glide to a landing, or at least a controlled crash, if you lose engine power. The FAA is correct here. The "eVTOL" class of aircraft based on quadrotor drone technology will fall out of the sky on either a power or control failure. It's worse than a helicopter, which can usually autorotate. [1] https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-C/part-23 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-C...
  - JoblessWonder 4y ago
    Powered-Lift just means that they aren't using their wing surfaces for lift take-off/landing but are using them for lift during normal flight. They [edit:might] be able to auto-rotate down in the case of a powerplant failure just like a helicopter. Here is the exact definition: > (425) Powered-lift. A heavier-than-air aircraft capable of vertical take-off, vertical landing, and low-speed flight that depends principally on engine-driven lift devices or engine thrust for lift during these flight regimes and on non-rotating aerofoil(s) for lift during horizontal flight.
    - jeffreyrogers 4y ago
      I don't know about these eVTOLs, but the V22 can't autorotate (well technically it can but it probably won't survive the landing).
      - JoblessWonder 4y ago
        Ah, you are correct. I edited my comment from "should" to "might". I can't imagine the F-35B is able to auto-rotate either. :)
        someweirdperson 4y ago
        It doesn't need to. Martin Baker takes care of those situations.
keeganjw 4y ago
I hope the FAA and EVTOL companies can work this out and these new rules don't significantly disrupt or destroy such a nascent industry. Of course the aircraft need to be safe but I hope there will still be a clear path for them to become fully certified.
- trhway 4y ago
  Just look at drones and FAA. That will kill any hopes on working something out. Especially considering that most new eVTOL are really just very large drones, pilot presence notwithstanding.
user_7832 4y ago
Could someone with an aviation background chime in on what this entails? I would think that VTOL pilot/aircraft certification would be more stricter/tighter than light aircrafts. I wonder if this move was made by the FAA being slightly concerned about the safety, though the AW609 mentioned in the (initial) part of the article is a light aircraft... which raises the question on why VTOL rules weren't applied right from the start. Side note: why does this website restrict copying text, or even middle-button scrolling?
- starwind 4y ago
  > which raises the question on why VTOL rules weren't applied right from the start. I've had limited dealings with the FAA but my overall impression is they struggle to deal with change. They don't handle medical certifications well—God help you if you take an antidepressant and want to fly a plane, they failed on the 5G-radio altimeter issue, they can't approve a leadless fuel despite having one that passes all their tests and meets their standards, and now this.
  - JoblessWonder 4y ago
    I deal with the FAA regularly and I agree with your overall impression. The people you deal with at the bottom/middle of the organization are incredibly reliant on existing rules/wording that when something new comes up they often seem to lack common sense.
  - lutorm 4y ago
    I don't think that's entirely fair. Yes, they seem very conservative and often taking a punitive approach, but: https://www.greencarcongress.com/2021/07/20210728-g100ul.html https://www.greencarcongress.com/2021/07/20210728-g100ul.htm... "FAA approves first high-octane unleaded avgas", for medical certification there's now BasicMed, the new light airplane certification standards mentioned in the article are a lot less prescriptive than the old ones, and they're now working on the MOSAIC changes to make special-airworthiness certificate rules more flexible.
    - 4y ago
imglorp 4y ago
A few more details without a paywall. https://www.flyingmag.com/faa-modifying-approach-to-evtol-certification/ https://www.flyingmag.com/faa-modifying-approach-to-evtol-ce...
adrianparsons 4y ago
Wow, bad timing for Eve Air Mobility, who just started trading on the NYSE this morning. https://evtol.com/news/eve-goes-public-nyse-zanite-shareholders-approve-merger/ https://evtol.com/news/eve-goes-public-nyse-zanite-sharehold...
- jandrese 4y ago
  This may even be seen as a warning to investors that the FAA is not going to be laissez faire with regards to regulating aircraft that carry passengers, so companies that are currently trying to skirt regulation are at risk.
  - Robotbeat 4y ago
    The FAA will downright torpedo the entire industry in the name of conservatism. A lifesaver for Boeing and Airbus to have such a restrictive regulator in the biggest market. The electric aviation (generally, not just eVTOL) over-regulation is the one that really gets me. The FAA will happily reinforce the status quo of fossil fuel aviation (including the leaded gas fiasco!) than take one iota of risk. Every 4500 tons of CO2 (just ten 777 flights) results in an excess death due to climate change[0], but that’s not the FAA’s problem! [0]https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/07/29/more-carbon-emissions-will-kill-more-people-heres-how-many/ https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/07/29/more-carbon-emi...
    - jandrese 4y ago
      > but that’s not the FAA’s problem! I think this is supposed to be sarcastic, but that's exactly how the FAA sees it. Their job is to prevent people from dying in or because of aircraft and that's it. Environmental concerns are the EPA's domain. Once the alternative fuels are available and the FAA has determined that they are safe to use it should be EPA pressuring pilots to make the switch. I do however agree that the FAA is outrageously slow to react to change. They are risk adverse to a excessive degree, but at the same time air travel is the safest way to get around on a per-mile basis, so their approach is working. My final note is that slow development in eletric aircraft is not entirely the fault of the regulatory environment. There is also the issue of battery technology being a bit insufficient for most uses currently and having bad failure conditions.
aeternum 4y ago
Onerous certification incentivizes companies to invent in other countries. The FAA has become increasing bureaucratic and in many cases it is causing safety issues. Take the recent case where they deemed it illegal to do a low-pass over a private airstrip to assess safety prior to landing. I'd like to see the FAA do a pass over existing and new regulations to see if they can generalize any of the rules. IE if the concern for safety is due to momentum/potential energy, codify that rather than separate limitations on weight and speed.
- aftbit 4y ago
  >Take the recent case where they deemed it illegal to do a low-pass over a private airstrip to assess safety prior to landing. I am a big fan of Trent Palmer as well, so I tend to take his side of the story as more likely. However I believe the FAA is arguing that he never intended to land and was just planning to buzz his friend's house. I wasn't there so I don't know what really happened. However I agree, claiming that his landing was "not necessary" so the pre-landing pass was not protected seems very short-sighted. Here's Trent's video on this if you want to hear his side for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpFDRoStcd4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpFDRoStcd4
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    I'm on Trent's side here as well, but I will also say that I've seen many inspection passes of paved runways. These are often in conjunction with an airport event. (I guess maybe there's an increased risk of a fouled runway during such events and, you know, you can never be too careful...)
    - joncrane 4y ago
      I watch a lot of ATC videos on YouTube and these low passes happen a lot in emergency situations. The two scenarios I've seen are: 1) Pilot thinks there may be damage/malfunction and does a low pass so that the Tower/Ground Ops staff can have a look. This was evident in a recent one I saw where the pilot had a nose gear fault. It took two passes, but they were able to confirm that the nose gear was NOT down and were still able to have a successful landing. 2) Student pilot either has mechanical issue or in-plane pilot becomes incapacitated. Tower/remote instructor tells student to do multiple low, slow passes at increasingly lower altitudes and speeds to get used to taking the proper heading and control inputs until the final pass is so low/slow that the landing essentially happens naturally. I'd be flabbergasted if the FAA bans this type of thing, in both of these cases I personally saw (and I'm sure many others), this procedure saved lives. Why would they ban this?
Justin_K 4y ago
I'm glad the FAA is clamping down on these... I don't want one of these falling on my house because someone forgot to set the environment variables.
- jafo 4y ago
  You are a NCIMBY? No crashing in my backyard?
  - kevinventullo 4y ago
    Or perhaps NOMBY: Not Over My Backyard.
  - earleybird 4y ago
    Why yes, yes I am :-) My back yard, and anyone elses.
  - Justin_K 4y ago
    LOL most definitely. If Boeing can't get it right, I sure won't trust a "move fast and break things" approach to flight.
    - throwawayben 4y ago
      There's an almost perfect test case of the two approaches in SpaceX's Dragon Vs Boeing's Starliner. The "move fast and break things" approach seems to work better.
      - marcosdumay 4y ago
        Move fast and break things (on the lab) is certainly the way to do it. The problem is that breaking things on the lab is expensive, and some companies push it into the normal operation when they already make a profit.
      - Justin_K 4y ago
        When a rocket is launched out of a remote area to over the ocean, with a self destruct button, I'm not really worried. When a glorified quad copter with cheap LIPOs is over a populated area, I am worried.
marmalar 4y ago
Anybody noticed that you can't highlight text on this website? When I try to double click, it pops up an "! ALERT: Content is protected !!". Seems like a futile usefulness oversight, especially since if I really need to, I can: - copy the text via eyeballs->keyboard - copy the text from the dev console - take a screenshot and extract the text with Google Photos or something
- GrumpyNl 4y ago
  Just disable java script and all can be copied.
- pineconewarrior 4y ago
  Totally. Some old guy from legal demanded the feature I bet.
- muglug 4y ago
  They're using this plugin: https://wordpress.org/plugins/wp-content-copy-protector/ https://wordpress.org/plugins/wp-content-copy-protector/
- MR4D 4y ago
  Copied (below). I'm on a Mac using Chrome. Not sure if that's relevant. The Federal Aviation Administration is dramatically revising its approach to certifying electric vertical take-off and landing aircraft, injecting new uncertainty into the certification programs of the United States’ leading eVTOL developers. Although the shift comes as the FAA has been broadly rebalancing its relations with industry since the 737 Max crashes exposed its insufficient oversight of Boeing’s certification programs, this recent move appears more geared toward bureaucracy than safety. Specifically, it is driven by a decision to establish operational rules for eVTOLs as “powered-lift” aircraft — a definition that was originally introduced into federal regulations to cover conventionally powered tiltrotors like the Leonardo AW609, in development for the last two decades. Related: Approaching first flight, Eviation’s Alice readies to test FAA Until now, developers of winged eVTOL aircraft including Joby Aviation, Archer and Beta Technologies have been proceeding on the assumption that their aircraft would be certified under the FAA’s overhaul of small airplane certification rules that took effect in 2017. Those performance-based regulations were created out of collaboration with industry and kicked off a wave of new entrants emboldened by the opportunities they created to certify innovative technologies. Now, the FAA under new Acting Administrator Billy Nolen is reversing course, the agency confirmed to The Air Current, a stunning development that appears to have largely caught the industry off guard. While the full implications of the shift are unclear, it is likely to rattle investors who had believed that the FAA was working in harmony with industry to provide eVTOL aircraft with a clear route to certification — an impression that Nolen himself bolstered in a recent appearance on 60 Minutes.
timbre1234 4y ago
I'm usually not anti-government, but the FAA has absolutely lost its way and is causing far more harm than good nowadays. Look at lead in avgas. The Boeing fiascos. Inability and cost of innovating in the space. America is being left behind in global aviation.
- alexk307 4y ago
  You're upset with the FAA for the Boeing fiasco, but simultaneously upset that they are going to be more strict with certifying a new class of aircraft?
  - hammock 4y ago
    Regulation is not just on a spectrum with not enough on one end and too much on the other end. There is an orthogonal dimension that comprises the quality of regulation (good and poor). Would that more understand this idea.
  - pmichaud 4y ago
    Why not? One of the main failure modes of bureaucracy is escalating attempts to deflect blame for both individuals and the organization as a whole, where all that leads to a nightmare of red tape that pulls against the original intent of the organization. So you have a bunch of rules and strictness plus a bunch of snafus. “Be indiscriminately more strict” obviously isn’t the thing to do. But I don’t think it’s too much to ask that a federal oversight organization be actually-effective at overseeing the industry it’s tasked with overseeing. Be strict enough in smart ways to catch real problems before they happen, might be one way to think of the ideal mandate.
    - droopyEyelids 4y ago
      If I had my way, organizations like the FAA would do a good job, they'd do it efficiently, and they wouldn't be subject to compromising incentives. I think this is basically what you're saying, too
  - dylan604 4y ago

65 points by jeffreyrogers 4y ago

I’m not sure why this classification wasn’t used originally. This shift makes sense to me but I’m also unable to read the entire article.

lutorm 4y ago
Yeah, I agree. "Light aircraft" seems to imply that you are passively-stable and can glide to the ground in case of powerplant failure, which can't be true for these things. Powered-lift seems like a more appropriate classification, but I don't have any insight into what the differences in actual requirements are.
- sjburt 4y ago
  The Joby vehicle looks like it would be capable of controlled descent, it has decent sized wings.
  - jandrese 4y ago
    I guess the cutoff is if you can maintain a sink rate low enough to make a landing without killing/severely injuring passengers in an engine-out scenario. I would expect most of these "scaled up quadcopter" companies to incorporate an emergency parachute system to handle similar to a Cirrus CAPS.
  - nradov 4y ago
    I doubt it. Consider the high wing loading, high drag, and lack of certain control surfaces. Any power loss will result in a quick stall and unrecoverable spin. Most of those powered lift aircraft rely on a mix of redundant systems plus a ballistic recovery parachute for flight safety.
- Animats 4y ago
  Here's what they are. The "small airplane" certification standards [1] are for airplanes. A helicopter is not an airplane. A powered-lift VTOL incapable of gliding is not an airplane. "The airplane must be controllable and maneuverable, without requiring exceptional piloting skill, alertness, or strength, within the operating envelope ... (despite) flight control or propulsion system failure" "Continued safe flight and landing means an airplane is capable of continued controlled flight and landing, possibly using emergency procedures, without requiring exceptional pilot skill or strength. Upon landing, some airplane damage may occur as a result of a failure condition." So you must be able to glide to a landing, or at least a controlled crash, if you lose engine power. The FAA is correct here. The "eVTOL" class of aircraft based on quadrotor drone technology will fall out of the sky on either a power or control failure. It's worse than a helicopter, which can usually autorotate. [1] https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-C/part-23 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-C...
- JoblessWonder 4y ago
  Powered-Lift just means that they aren't using their wing surfaces for lift take-off/landing but are using them for lift during normal flight. They [edit:might] be able to auto-rotate down in the case of a powerplant failure just like a helicopter. Here is the exact definition: > (425) Powered-lift. A heavier-than-air aircraft capable of vertical take-off, vertical landing, and low-speed flight that depends principally on engine-driven lift devices or engine thrust for lift during these flight regimes and on non-rotating aerofoil(s) for lift during horizontal flight.
  - jeffreyrogers 4y ago
    I don't know about these eVTOLs, but the V22 can't autorotate (well technically it can but it probably won't survive the landing).
    - JoblessWonder 4y ago
      Ah, you are correct. I edited my comment from "should" to "might". I can't imagine the F-35B is able to auto-rotate either. :)
      - someweirdperson 4y ago
        It doesn't need to. Martin Baker takes care of those situations.

keeganjw 4y ago

I hope the FAA and EVTOL companies can work this out and these new rules don't significantly disrupt or destroy such a nascent industry. Of course the aircraft need to be safe but I hope there will still be a clear path for them to become fully certified.

trhway 4y ago
Just look at drones and FAA. That will kill any hopes on working something out. Especially considering that most new eVTOL are really just very large drones, pilot presence notwithstanding.

user_7832 4y ago

Could someone with an aviation background chime in on what this entails? I would think that VTOL pilot/aircraft certification would be more stricter/tighter than light aircrafts. I wonder if this move was made by the FAA being slightly concerned about the safety, though the AW609 mentioned in the (initial) part of the article is a light aircraft... which raises the question on why VTOL rules weren't applied right from the start. Side note: why does this website restrict copying text, or even middle-button scrolling?

starwind 4y ago
> which raises the question on why VTOL rules weren't applied right from the start. I've had limited dealings with the FAA but my overall impression is they struggle to deal with change. They don't handle medical certifications well—God help you if you take an antidepressant and want to fly a plane, they failed on the 5G-radio altimeter issue, they can't approve a leadless fuel despite having one that passes all their tests and meets their standards, and now this.
- JoblessWonder 4y ago
  I deal with the FAA regularly and I agree with your overall impression. The people you deal with at the bottom/middle of the organization are incredibly reliant on existing rules/wording that when something new comes up they often seem to lack common sense.
- lutorm 4y ago
  I don't think that's entirely fair. Yes, they seem very conservative and often taking a punitive approach, but: https://www.greencarcongress.com/2021/07/20210728-g100ul.html https://www.greencarcongress.com/2021/07/20210728-g100ul.htm... "FAA approves first high-octane unleaded avgas", for medical certification there's now BasicMed, the new light airplane certification standards mentioned in the article are a lot less prescriptive than the old ones, and they're now working on the MOSAIC changes to make special-airworthiness certificate rules more flexible.
  - 4y ago

imglorp 4y ago

A few more details without a paywall. https://www.flyingmag.com/faa-modifying-approach-to-evtol-certification/ https://www.flyingmag.com/faa-modifying-approach-to-evtol-ce...

adrianparsons 4y ago

Wow, bad timing for Eve Air Mobility, who just started trading on the NYSE this morning. https://evtol.com/news/eve-goes-public-nyse-zanite-shareholders-approve-merger/ https://evtol.com/news/eve-goes-public-nyse-zanite-sharehold...

jandrese 4y ago
This may even be seen as a warning to investors that the FAA is not going to be laissez faire with regards to regulating aircraft that carry passengers, so companies that are currently trying to skirt regulation are at risk.
- Robotbeat 4y ago
  The FAA will downright torpedo the entire industry in the name of conservatism. A lifesaver for Boeing and Airbus to have such a restrictive regulator in the biggest market. The electric aviation (generally, not just eVTOL) over-regulation is the one that really gets me. The FAA will happily reinforce the status quo of fossil fuel aviation (including the leaded gas fiasco!) than take one iota of risk. Every 4500 tons of CO2 (just ten 777 flights) results in an excess death due to climate change[0], but that’s not the FAA’s problem! [0]https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/07/29/more-carbon-emissions-will-kill-more-people-heres-how-many/ https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/07/29/more-carbon-emi...
  - jandrese 4y ago
    > but that’s not the FAA’s problem! I think this is supposed to be sarcastic, but that's exactly how the FAA sees it. Their job is to prevent people from dying in or because of aircraft and that's it. Environmental concerns are the EPA's domain. Once the alternative fuels are available and the FAA has determined that they are safe to use it should be EPA pressuring pilots to make the switch. I do however agree that the FAA is outrageously slow to react to change. They are risk adverse to a excessive degree, but at the same time air travel is the safest way to get around on a per-mile basis, so their approach is working. My final note is that slow development in eletric aircraft is not entirely the fault of the regulatory environment. There is also the issue of battery technology being a bit insufficient for most uses currently and having bad failure conditions.

aeternum 4y ago

Onerous certification incentivizes companies to invent in other countries. The FAA has become increasing bureaucratic and in many cases it is causing safety issues. Take the recent case where they deemed it illegal to do a low-pass over a private airstrip to assess safety prior to landing. I'd like to see the FAA do a pass over existing and new regulations to see if they can generalize any of the rules. IE if the concern for safety is due to momentum/potential energy, codify that rather than separate limitations on weight and speed.

aftbit 4y ago
>Take the recent case where they deemed it illegal to do a low-pass over a private airstrip to assess safety prior to landing. I am a big fan of Trent Palmer as well, so I tend to take his side of the story as more likely. However I believe the FAA is arguing that he never intended to land and was just planning to buzz his friend's house. I wasn't there so I don't know what really happened. However I agree, claiming that his landing was "not necessary" so the pre-landing pass was not protected seems very short-sighted. Here's Trent's video on this if you want to hear his side for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpFDRoStcd4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpFDRoStcd4
- sokoloff 4y ago
  I'm on Trent's side here as well, but I will also say that I've seen many inspection passes of paved runways. These are often in conjunction with an airport event. (I guess maybe there's an increased risk of a fouled runway during such events and, you know, you can never be too careful...)
  - joncrane 4y ago
    I watch a lot of ATC videos on YouTube and these low passes happen a lot in emergency situations. The two scenarios I've seen are: 1) Pilot thinks there may be damage/malfunction and does a low pass so that the Tower/Ground Ops staff can have a look. This was evident in a recent one I saw where the pilot had a nose gear fault. It took two passes, but they were able to confirm that the nose gear was NOT down and were still able to have a successful landing. 2) Student pilot either has mechanical issue or in-plane pilot becomes incapacitated. Tower/remote instructor tells student to do multiple low, slow passes at increasingly lower altitudes and speeds to get used to taking the proper heading and control inputs until the final pass is so low/slow that the landing essentially happens naturally. I'd be flabbergasted if the FAA bans this type of thing, in both of these cases I personally saw (and I'm sure many others), this procedure saved lives. Why would they ban this?

Justin_K 4y ago

I'm glad the FAA is clamping down on these... I don't want one of these falling on my house because someone forgot to set the environment variables.

jafo 4y ago
You are a NCIMBY? No crashing in my backyard?
- kevinventullo 4y ago
  Or perhaps NOMBY: Not Over My Backyard.
- earleybird 4y ago
  Why yes, yes I am :-) My back yard, and anyone elses.
- Justin_K 4y ago
  LOL most definitely. If Boeing can't get it right, I sure won't trust a "move fast and break things" approach to flight.
  - throwawayben 4y ago
    There's an almost perfect test case of the two approaches in SpaceX's Dragon Vs Boeing's Starliner. The "move fast and break things" approach seems to work better.
    - marcosdumay 4y ago
      Move fast and break things (on the lab) is certainly the way to do it. The problem is that breaking things on the lab is expensive, and some companies push it into the normal operation when they already make a profit.
    - Justin_K 4y ago
      When a rocket is launched out of a remote area to over the ocean, with a self destruct button, I'm not really worried. When a glorified quad copter with cheap LIPOs is over a populated area, I am worried.

marmalar 4y ago

Anybody noticed that you can't highlight text on this website? When I try to double click, it pops up an "! ALERT: Content is protected !!". Seems like a futile usefulness oversight, especially since if I really need to, I can: - copy the text via eyeballs->keyboard - copy the text from the dev console - take a screenshot and extract the text with Google Photos or something

GrumpyNl 4y ago
Just disable java script and all can be copied.
pineconewarrior 4y ago
Totally. Some old guy from legal demanded the feature I bet.
muglug 4y ago
They're using this plugin: https://wordpress.org/plugins/wp-content-copy-protector/ https://wordpress.org/plugins/wp-content-copy-protector/
MR4D 4y ago
Copied (below). I'm on a Mac using Chrome. Not sure if that's relevant. The Federal Aviation Administration is dramatically revising its approach to certifying electric vertical take-off and landing aircraft, injecting new uncertainty into the certification programs of the United States’ leading eVTOL developers. Although the shift comes as the FAA has been broadly rebalancing its relations with industry since the 737 Max crashes exposed its insufficient oversight of Boeing’s certification programs, this recent move appears more geared toward bureaucracy than safety. Specifically, it is driven by a decision to establish operational rules for eVTOLs as “powered-lift” aircraft — a definition that was originally introduced into federal regulations to cover conventionally powered tiltrotors like the Leonardo AW609, in development for the last two decades. Related: Approaching first flight, Eviation’s Alice readies to test FAA Until now, developers of winged eVTOL aircraft including Joby Aviation, Archer and Beta Technologies have been proceeding on the assumption that their aircraft would be certified under the FAA’s overhaul of small airplane certification rules that took effect in 2017. Those performance-based regulations were created out of collaboration with industry and kicked off a wave of new entrants emboldened by the opportunities they created to certify innovative technologies. Now, the FAA under new Acting Administrator Billy Nolen is reversing course, the agency confirmed to The Air Current, a stunning development that appears to have largely caught the industry off guard. While the full implications of the shift are unclear, it is likely to rattle investors who had believed that the FAA was working in harmony with industry to provide eVTOL aircraft with a clear route to certification — an impression that Nolen himself bolstered in a recent appearance on 60 Minutes.

timbre1234 4y ago

I'm usually not anti-government, but the FAA has absolutely lost its way and is causing far more harm than good nowadays. Look at lead in avgas. The Boeing fiascos. Inability and cost of innovating in the space. America is being left behind in global aviation.

alexk307 4y ago
You're upset with the FAA for the Boeing fiasco, but simultaneously upset that they are going to be more strict with certifying a new class of aircraft?
- hammock 4y ago
  Regulation is not just on a spectrum with not enough on one end and too much on the other end. There is an orthogonal dimension that comprises the quality of regulation (good and poor). Would that more understand this idea.
- pmichaud 4y ago
  Why not? One of the main failure modes of bureaucracy is escalating attempts to deflect blame for both individuals and the organization as a whole, where all that leads to a nightmare of red tape that pulls against the original intent of the organization. So you have a bunch of rules and strictness plus a bunch of snafus. “Be indiscriminately more strict” obviously isn’t the thing to do. But I don’t think it’s too much to ask that a federal oversight organization be actually-effective at overseeing the industry it’s tasked with overseeing. Be strict enough in smart ways to catch real problems before they happen, might be one way to think of the ideal mandate.
  - droopyEyelids 4y ago
    If I had my way, organizations like the FAA would do a good job, they'd do it efficiently, and they wouldn't be subject to compromising incentives. I think this is basically what you're saying, too
- dylan604 4y ago