[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 32 (Wednesday, February 18, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8089-8093]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-3920]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 97-NM-170-AD; Amendment 39-10350; AD 98-04-38]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Cessna Model 500, 501, 550, 551, and
560 Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
[[Page 8090]]
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD),
applicable to certain Cessna Model 500, 501, 550, 551, and 560 series
airplanes, that requires revising the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) to
specify procedures that would prohibit flight in severe icing
conditions (as determined by certain visual cues), limit or prohibit
the use of various flight control devices while in severe icing
conditions, and provide the flight crew with recognition cues for, and
procedures for exiting from, severe icing conditions. This amendment is
prompted by results of a review of the requirements for certification
of the airplane in icing conditions, new information on the icing
environment, and icing data provided currently to the flight crews. The
actions specified by this AD are intended to minimize the potential
hazards associated with operating the airplane in severe icing
conditions by providing more clearly defined procedures and limitations
associated with such conditions.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 25, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Information pertaining to this rulemaking action may be
examined at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport
Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington; or at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, Wichita Aircraft
Certification Office, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Mid-Continent
Airport, Wichita, Kansas.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carlos L. Blacklock, Program Manager,
Flight Test and Program Management, ACE-117W, FAA, Small Airplane
Directorate, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, 1801 Airport Road,
Room 100, Mid-Continent Airport, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone (316)
946-4166; fax (316) 946-4407.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness
directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Cessna Model 500, 501,
550, 551, and 560 series airplanes was published in the Federal
Register on September 16, 1997 (62 FR 48560). The action proposed to
require revising the Limitations Section of the FAA-approved Airplane
Flight Manual (AFM) to specify procedures that would:
Require flight crews to immediately request priority
handling from Air Traffic Control to exit severe icing conditions (as
determined by certain visual cues);
Prohibit flight in severe icing conditions (as determined
by certain visual cues);
Prohibit use of the autopilot when ice is formed aft of
the protected surfaces of the wing, or when an unusual lateral trim
condition exists; and
Require that all icing wing inspection lights be operative
prior to flight into known or forecast icing conditions at night.
That action also proposed to require revising the Normal Procedures
Section of the FAA-approved AFM to specify procedures that would:
Limit the use of the flaps and prohibit the use of the
autopilot when ice is observed forming aft of the protected surfaces of
the wing, or if unusual lateral trim requirements or autopilot trim
warnings are encountered; and
Provide the flight crew with recognition cues for, and
procedures for exiting from, severe icing conditions.
Comments
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate
in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to
the comments received.
In addition to the proposed rule described previously, in September
1997, the FAA issued 24 other similar proposals that address the
subject unsafe condition on various airplane models (see below for a
listing of all 24 proposed rules). These 24 proposals also were
published in the Federal Register on September 16, 1997. This final
rule contains the FAA's responses to all relevant public comments
received for each of these proposed rules.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer/airplane Federal Register
Docket No. model citation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
97-CE-49-AD............... Aerospace 62 FR 48520
Technologies of
Australia, Models
N22B and N24A.
97-CE-50-AD............... Harbin Aircraft Mfg. 62 FR 48513
Corporation, Model
Y12 IV.
97-CE-51-AD............... Partenavia 62 FR 48524
Costruzioni
Aeronauticas,
S.p.A., Models P68,
AP68TP 300, AP68TP
600.
97-CE-52-AD............... Industrie 62 FR 48502
Aeronautiche
Meccaniche Rinaldo
Piaggio S.p.A.,
Model P-180.
97-CE-53-AD............... Pilatus Aircraft 62 FR 48499
Ltd., Models PC-12
and PC-12/45.
97-CE-54-AD............... Pilatus Britten- 62 FR 48538
Norman Ltd., Models
BN-2A, BN-2B, and BN-
2T.
97-CE-55-AD............... SOCATA--Groupe 62 FR 48506
Aerospatiale, Model
TBM-700.
97-CE-56-AD............... Aerostar Aircraft 62 FR 48481
Corporation, Models
PA-60-600, -601, -
601P, -602P, and -
700P.
97-CE-57-AD............... Twin Commander 62 FR 48549
Aircraft
Corporation, Models
500, -500-A, -500-B,
-500-S, -500-U, -
520, -560, -560-A, -
560-E, -560-F, -680,
-680-E, -680FL(P), -
680T, -680V, -680W, -
681, -685, -690, -
690A, -690B, -690C, -
690D, -695, -695A, -
695B, and 720.
97-CE-58-AD............... Raytheon Aircraft 62 FR 48517
Company (formerly
known as Beech
Aircraft
Corporation), Models
E55, E55A, 58, 58A,
58P, 58PA, 58TC,
58TCA, 60 series, 65-
B80 series, 65-B-90
series, 90 series,
F90 series, 100
series, 300 series,
and B300 series.
97-CE-59-AD............... Raytheon Aircraft 62 FR 48531
Company (formerly
known as Beech
Aircraft
Corporation) Model
2000.
97-CE-60-AD............... The New Piper 62 FR 48542
Aircraft, Inc.
Models PA-46 -310P
and PA-46-350P.
97-CE-61-AD............... The New Piper 62 FR 52294
Aircraft, Inc.,
Models PA-23, PA-23-
160, PA-23-235, PA-
23-250, PA-E23-250,
PA-30, PA-39, PA-40,
PA-31, PA-31-300, PA-
31-325, PA-31-350,
PA-34-200, PA-34-
200T, PA-34-220T, PA-
42, PA-42-720, PA-42-
1000.
97-CE-62-AD............... Cessna Aircraft 62 FR 48535
Company, Models
P210N, T210N, P210R,
and 337 series.
97-CE-63-AD............... Cessna Aircraft 62 FR 48528
Company, Models
T303, 310R, T310R,
335, 340A, 402B,
402C, 404, F406, 414
414A, 421B, 421C,
425, and 441.
97-CE-64-AD............... SIAI-Marchetti S.r.I. 62 FR 48510
(Augusta), Models
SF600 and SF600A.
97-NM-170-AD.............. Cessna Aircraft 62 FR 48560
Company, Models 500,
501, 550, 551, and
560 series.
97-NM-171-AD.............. Sabreliner 62 FR 48556
Corporation, Models
40, 60, 70, and 80
series.
97-NM-172-AD.............. Gulfstream Aerospace, 62 FR 48563
Model G-159 series.
97-NM-173-AD.............. McDonnell Douglas, 62 FR 48553
Models DC-3 and DC-4
series.
97-NM-174-AD.............. Mitsubishi Heavy 62 FR 48567
Industries, Model YS-
11 and YS-11A series.
97-NM-175-AD.............. Frakes Aviation, 62 FR 48577
Model G-73 (Mallard)
and G-73T series.
97-NM-176-AD.............. Lockheed, Models L-14 62 FR 48574
and L-18 series.
[[Page 8091]]
97-NM-177-AD.............. Fairchild, Models F27 62 FR 48570
and FH227 series.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 1. Unsubstantiated Unsafe Condition for This Model
One commenter suggests that the AD's were developed in response to
a suspected contributing factor of an accident involving an airplane
type unrelated to the airplanes specified in the proposal. The
commenter states that these proposals do not justify that an unsafe
condition exists or could develop in a product of the same type design.
Therefore, the commenter asserts that the proposal does not meet the
criteria for the issuance of an AD as specified in the Federal Aviation
Regulations (14 CFR part 39).
The FAA does not concur. As stated in the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM), the FAA has identified an unsafe condition
associated with operating the airplane in severe icing conditions. As
stated in the preamble to the proposal, the FAA has not required that
airplanes be shown to be capable of operating safely in icing
conditions outside the certification envelope specified in Appendix C
of part 25 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 25). This
means that any time an airplane is flown in icing conditions for which
it is not certificated, there is a potential for an unsafe condition to
exist or develop and the flight crew must take steps to exit those
conditions expeditiously. Further, the FAA has determined that flight
crews are not currently provided with adequate information necessary to
determine when an airplane is operating in icing conditions for which
it is not certificated or what action to take when such conditions are
encountered. The absence of this information presents an unsafe
condition because without that information, a pilot may remain in
potentially hazardous icing conditions. This AD addresses the unsafe
condition by requiring AFM revisions that provide the flight crews with
visual cues to determine when icing conditions have been encountered
for which the airplane is not certificated, and by providing procedures
to safely exit those conditions.
Further, in the preamble of the proposed rule, the FAA discussed
the investigation of roll control anomalies to explain that this
investigation was not a complete certification program. The testing was
designed to examine only the roll handling characteristics of the
airplane in certain droplets the size of freezing drizzle. The testing
was not a certification test to approve the airplane for flight into
freezing drizzle. The results of the tests were not used to determine
if this AD is necessary, but rather to determine if design changes were
needed to prevent a catastrophic roll upset. The roll control testing
and the AD are two unrelated actions.
Additionally, in the preamble of the proposed rule, the FAA
acknowledged that the flight crew of any airplane that is certificated
for flight icing conditions may not have adequate information
concerning flight in icing conditions outside the icing envelope.
However, in 1996, the FAA found that the specified unsafe condition
must be addressed as a higher priority on airplanes equipped with
pneumatic deicing boots and unpowered roll control systems. These
airplanes were addressed first because the flight crew of an airplane
having an unpowered roll control system must rely solely on physical
strength to counteract roll control anomalies, whereas a roll control
anomaly that occurs on an airplane having a powered roll control system
need not be offset directly by the flight crew. The FAA also placed a
priority on airplanes that are used in regularly scheduled passenger
service. The FAA has previously issued AD's to address those airplanes.
Since the issuance of those AD's, the FAA has determined that similar
AD's should be issued for similarly equipped airplanes that are not
used in regularly scheduled passenger service.
Comment 2. AD Is Inappropriate To Address Improper Operation of the
Airplane
One commenter requests that the proposed AD be withdrawn because an
unsafe condition does not exist within the airplane. Rather, the
commenter asserts that the unsafe condition is the improper operation
of the airplane. The commenter further asserts that issuance of an AD
is an inappropriate method to address improper operation of the
airplane.
The FAA does not concur. The FAA has determined that an unsafe
condition does exist as explained in the proposed notice and discussed
previously. As specifically addressed in Amendment 39-106 of part 39 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39), the responsibilities
placed on the FAA statute (49 U.S.C. 40101, formerly the Federal
Aviation Act) justify allowing AD's to be issued for unsafe conditions
however and wherever found, regardless of whether the unsafe condition
results from maintenance, design defect, or any other reason.
This same commenter considers that part 91 (rather than part 39) of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 91) is the appropriate
regulation to address the problems of icing encounters outside of the
limits for which the airplane is certificated. Therefore, the commenter
requests that the FAA withdraw the proposal.
The FAA does not concur. Service experience demonstrates that
flight in icing conditions that are outside the icing certification
envelope does occur. Apart from the visual cues provided in these final
rules, there is no existing method provided to the flight crews to
identify when the airplane is in a condition that exceeds the icing
certification envelope. Because this lack of awareness may create an
unsafe condition, the FAA has determined that it is appropriate to
issue an AD to require revision of the AFM to provide this information.
One commenter asserts that while it is prudent to advise and
routinely remind the pilots about the hazards associated with flight
into known or forecast icing conditions, the commenter is opposed to
the use of an AD to accomplish that function. The commenter states that
pilots' initial and bi-annual flight checks are the appropriate
vehicles for advising the pilots of such hazards, and that such
information should be integrated into the training syllabus for all
pilot training.
The FAA does not concur that substituting advisory material and
mandatory training for issuance of an AD is appropriate. The FAA
acknowledges that, in addition to the issuance of an AD, information
specified in the revision to the AFM should be integrated into the
pilot training syllabus. However, the development and use of such
advisory materials and training alone are not adequate to address the
unsafe condition. The only method of ensuring that certain information
is available to the pilot is through incorporation of the information
into the Limitations Section of the AFM. The appropriate vehicle for
requiring such a revision of the AFM is issuance of an AD. No change is
necessary to the final rule.
[[Page 8092]]
Comment 3. Inadequate Visual Cues
One commenter provides qualified support for the AD. The commenter
notes that the recent proposals are identical to the AD's issued about
a year ago. Although the commenter supports the intent of the AD's as
being appropriate and necessary, the commenter states that it is
unfortunate that the flight crew is burdened with recognizing icing
conditions with visual cues that are inadequate to determine certain
icing conditions. The commenter points out that, for instance, side
window icing (a very specific visual cue) was determined to be a valid
visual cue during a series of icing tanker tests on a specific
airplane; however, later testing of other models of turboprop airplanes
revealed that side window icing was invalid as a visual cue for
identifying icing conditions outside the scope of Appendix C.
The FAA does not concur with the commenters' request to provide
more specific visual cues. The FAA finds that the value of visual cues
has been substantiated during in-service experience. Additionally, the
FAA finds that the combined use of the generic cues provided and the
effect of the final rules in increasing the awareness of pilots
concerning the hazard of operating outside of the certification icing
envelope will provide an acceptable level of safety. Although all of
the cues may not be exhibited on a particular model, the FAA considers
that at least some of the cues will be exhibited on all of the models
affected by this AD. For example, some airplanes may not have side
window cues in freezing drizzle, but would exhibit other cues, (such as
accumulation of ice aft of the protected area) under those conditions.
For these reasons, the FAA considers that no changes regarding visual
cues are necessary to the final rule. However, for those operators that
elect to identify airplane-specific visual cues, the FAA would consider
a request for approval of an alternative method of compliance, in
accordance with the provisions of this AD.
Comment 4. Request for Research and Use of Wing-Mounted Ice Detectors
One commenter requests that wing-mounted ice detectors, which
provide real-time icing severity information (or immediate feedback) to
flight crews, continue to be researched and used throughout the fleet.
The FAA infers from this commenter's request that the commenter asks
that installation of these ice detectors be mandated by the FAA.
While the FAA supports the development of such ice detectors, the
FAA does not concur that installation of these ice detectors should be
required at this time. Visual cues are adequate to provide an
acceptable level of safety; therefore, mandatory installation of ice
detector systems, in this case, is not necessary to address the unsafe
condition. Nevertheless, because such systems may improve the current
level of safety, the FAA has officially tasked the Aviation Rulemaking
Advisory Committee (ARAC) to develop a recommendation concerning ice
detection. Once the ARAC has submitted its recommendation, the FAA may
consider further rulemaking action to require installation of such
equipment.
Comment 5. Particular Types of Icing
This same commenter also requests that additional information be
included in paragraph (a) of the AD that would specify particular types
of icing or particular accretions that result from operating in
freezing precipitation. The commenter asserts that this information is
of significant value to the flightcrew.
The FAA does not concur with the commenter's suggestion to specify
types of icing or accretion. The FAA has determined that supercooled
large droplets (SLD) can result in rime ice, mixed (intermediate) ice,
and ice with glaze or clear appearance. Therefore, the FAA finds that
no type of icing can be excluded from consideration during operations
in freezing precipitation, and considers it unnecessary to cite those
types of icing in the AD.
The FAA's Determination
After careful review of all available information related to the
subject presented above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the
public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed.
Cost Impact
There are approximately 1,710 Cessna Model 500, 501, 550, 551,and
560 series airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The
FAA estimates that 1,427 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by
this proposed AD, that it will take approximately 1 work hour per
airplane to accomplish the required actions, and that the average labor
rate is $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of
the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $85,620, or $60 per
airplane.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that
no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD
action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the
future if this AD were not adopted.
In addition, the FAA recognizes that this action may impose
operational costs. However, these costs are incalculable because the
frequency of occurrence of the specified conditions and the associated
additional flight time cannot be determined. Nevertheless, because of
the severity of the unsafe condition, the FAA has determined that
continued operational safety necessitates the imposition of the costs.
Regulatory Impact
The regulations adopted herein will not have substantial direct
effects 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. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this final
rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866;
(2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a
significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial
number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action
and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained
from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
[[Page 8093]]
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
98-04-38 Cessna Aircraft Company: Amendment 39-10350. Docket 97-NM-
170-AD.
Applicability: Model 500, 501, 550, 551, and 560 series
airplanes equipped with pneumatic deicing boots, certificated in any
category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (b) of
this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of
the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to
address it.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless already accomplished.
To minimize the potential hazards associated with operating the
airplane in severe icing conditions by providing more clearly
defined procedures and limitations associated with such conditions,
accomplish the following:
(a) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD,
accomplish the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this
AD.
Note 2: Operators should initiate action to notify and ensure
that flight crewmembers are apprised of this change.
(1) Revise the FAA-approved Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) by
incorporating the following into the Limitations Section of the AFM.
This may be accomplished by inserting a copy of this AD in the AFM.
``WARNING
Severe icing may result from environmental conditions outside of
those for which the airplane is certificated. Flight in freezing
rain, freezing drizzle, or mixed icing conditions (supercooled
liquid water and ice crystals) may result in ice build-up on
protected surfaces exceeding the capability of the ice protection
system, or may result in ice forming aft of the protected surfaces.
This ice may not be shed using the ice protection systems, and may
seriously degrade the performance and controllability of the
airplane.
During flight, severe icing conditions that exceed
those for which the airplane is certificated shall be determined by
the following visual cues. If one or more of these visual cues
exists, immediately request priority handling from Air Traffic
Control to facilitate a route or an altitude change to exit the
icing conditions.
--Unusually extensive ice accumulation on the airframe and
windshield in areas not normally observed to collect ice.
--Accumulation of ice on the upper surface of the wing aft of the
protected area.
Since the autopilot, when installed and operating, may
mask tactile cues that indicate adverse changes in handling
characteristics, use of the autopilot is prohibited when any of the
visual cues specified above exist, or when unusual lateral trim
requirements or autopilot trim warnings are encountered while the
airplane is in icing conditions.
All wing icing inspection lights must be operative
prior to flight into known or forecast icing conditions at night.
[NOTE: This supersedes any relief provided by the Master Minimum
Equipment List (MMEL).]''
(2) Revise the FAA-approved AFM by incorporating the following
into the Normal Procedures Section of the AFM. This may be
accomplished by inserting a copy of this AD in the AFM.
``THE FOLLOWING WEATHER CONDITIONS MAY BE CONDUCIVE TO SEVERE IN-FLIGHT
ICING
Visible rain at temperatures below 0 degrees Celsius
ambient air temperature.
Droplets that splash or splatter on impact at
temperatures below 0 degrees Celsius ambient air temperature.
PROCEDURES FOR EXITING THE SEVERE ICING ENVIRONMENT
These procedures are applicable to all flight phases from
takeoff to landing. Monitor the ambient air temperature. While
severe icing may form at temperatures as cold as -18 degrees
Celsius, increased vigilance is warranted at temperatures around
freezing with visible moisture present. If the visual cues specified
in the Limitations Section of the AFM for identifying severe icing
conditions are observed, accomplish the following:
Immediately request priority handling from Air Traffic
Control to facilitate a route or an altitude change to exit the
severe icing conditions in order to avoid extended exposure to
flight conditions more severe than those for which the airplane has
been certificated.
Avoid abrupt and excessive maneuvering that may
exacerbate control difficulties.
Do not engage the autopilot.
If the autopilot is engaged, hold the control wheel
firmly and disengage the autopilot.
If an unusual roll response or uncommanded roll control
movement is observed, reduce the angle-of-attack.
Do not extend flaps when holding in icing conditions.
Operation with flaps extended can result in a reduced wing angle-of-
attack, with the possibility of ice forming on the upper surface
further aft on the wing than normal, possibly aft of the protected
area.
If the flaps are extended, do not retract them until
the airframe is clear of ice.
Report these weather conditions to Air Traffic
Control.''
(b) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification
Office (ACO), FAA, Small Airplane Directorate. The request shall be
forwarded through an appropriate FAA Operations Inspector, who may
add comments and then send it to the Manager, Wichita ACO.
Note 3: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Wichita ACO.
(c) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(d) This amendment becomes effective on March 25, 1998.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 6, 1998.
Gilbert L. Thompson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 98-3920 Filed 2-17-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
