[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 25 (Monday, February 8, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6160-6164]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-2971]
[[Page 6159]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part IV
Department of Transportation
_______________________________________________________________________
Federal Aviation Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
14 CFR Part 25
Revision of Gate Requirements for High-Lift Device Controls; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 1999 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 6160]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 25
[Docket No. 28930; Amdt. No. 25-98]
RIN 2120-AF82
Revision of Gate Requirements for High-Lift Device Controls
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action amends the airworthiness standards for transport
category airplanes to revise the requirements concerning gated
positions on the control used by the pilot to select the position of an
airplane's high-lift devices. The FAA is taking this action to update
the current standards to take into account the multiple configurations
of the high-lift devices provided on current airplanes to perform
landings and go-around maneuvers. This final rule also harmonizes these
standards with those being adopted by the European Joint Aviation
Authorities (JAA).
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 10, 1999.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don Stimson, FAA, Airplane and Flight
Crew Interface Branch, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98055-
4056; telephone (425) 227-1129; facsimile (425) 227-1320, e-mail
Don.Stimson@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability of Final Rule
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded using a modem
and suitable communications software from the FAA regulations section
of the FedWorld electronic bulletin aboard service (telephone: 703-321-
3339), the Government Printing Office's electronic bulletin board
service (telephone: 202-512-1661), or the FAA's Aviation Rulemaking
Advisory Committee Bulletin Board service (telephone: 800-322-2722 or
202-267-5948).
Internet users may reach the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/
avr/arm/nprm/nprm.htm or the Government Printing Office's web page at
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara for access to recently published
rulemaking documents.
Any person may obtain a copy of this document by submitting 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. Communications must reference the amendment
number or docket number of this final rule.
Persons interested in being placed on the mailing list for future
notices of proposed rulemaking and final rules should request from the
above office a copy of Advisory Circular (AC) No. 11-2A, Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the
application procedure.
Small Entity Inquiries
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
(SBREFA) requires the FAA to report inquiries from small entities
concerning information on, and advice about, compliance with statutes
and regulations within the FAA's jurisdiction, including interpretation
and application of the law to specific sets of facts supplied by a
small entity.
The FAA's definitions of small entities may be accessed through the
FAA's web page (http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/sbrefa.htm), by contacting a
local FAA official or by contacting the FAA's Small Entity Contact
listed below.
If you are a small entity and have a question, contact your local
FAA official. If you do not know how to contact your local FAA
official, you may contact Charlene Brown, Program Analyst Staff, Office
of Rulemaking, ARM-27, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, 1-888-551-1594.
Internet users can find additional information on SBREFA in the ``Quick
Jump'' section of the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/
sbrefa.htm and may send electronic inquiries to the following Internet
address: [email protected]
Background
Section 25.145(c) of 14 CFR part 25 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations prescribes conditions under which it must be possible for
the pilot, without using exceptional piloting skill, to prevent losing
altitude while retracting the airplane's high-lift devices (e.g., wing
flaps and slats). The intent of this requirement is to ensure that
during a go-around from an approach to landing, the high-lift devices
can be retracted at a rate that prevents altitude loss if the pilot
applies maximum available power to the engines at the same time the
control lever is moved to begin retracting the high-lift devices.
Prior to Amendment 25-23 to part 25, the Sec. 25.145(c) requirement
applied to retractions of the high-lift devices from any initial
position to any ending position, including a continuous retraction from
the fully extended position to the fully retracted position. In
Amendment 25-23 to part 25, the FAA revised this requirement to allow
the use of segmented retractions if gates are provided on the control
the pilot uses to select the high-lift device position.
Gates are devices that require a separate and distinct motion of
the control before the control can be moved through a gated position.
The purpose of the gates is to prevent pilots from inadvertently moving
the high-lift device control through the gated position. Gate design
requirements were introduced into part 25 with Amendment 25-23, which
revised Sec. 25.145(c) to allow the no altitude loss requirement to be
met by segmented retractions of the high-lift devices between gated
positions of the high lift devices. As amended by Amendment 25-23,
Sec. 25.145(c) specifies that the no altitude loss requirement applies
to retractions of the high-lift devices between the gated positions and
between the gates and the fully extended and fully retracted positions.
In addition, the first gated control position from the landing position
must correspond to the position used to establish the go-around
procedure from the landing configuration.
In Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 97-9, which was published in the
Federal Register on June 9, 1997 (62 FR 31482), the FAA proposed to
update the gate design standards to clarify which positions of the
high-lift device control should be gated and to harmonize these
standards with those being proposed for the European Joint
Airworthiness Requirements (JAR-25). The proposal contained in Notice
97-9 was originally developed by the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory
Committee (ARAC) and presented to the FAA as a recommendation for
rulemaking.
The Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee
The ARAC was formally established by the FAA on January 22, 1991
(56 FR 2190), to provide advice and recommendations concerning the full
range of the FAA's safety-related rulemaking activity. This advice was
sought to develop better rules in less overall time using fewer FAA
resources than are currently needed. The committee provides the
opportunity for the FAA to obtain firsthand information and insight
from interested parties regarding proposed new rules or revisions of
existing rules.
There are over 60 member organizations on the committee,
[[Page 6161]]
representing a wide range of interests within the aviation community.
Meetings of the committee are open to the public, except as authorized
by section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
The ARAC establishes working groups to develop proposals to
recommend to the FAA for resolving specific issues. Tasks assigned to
working groups are published in the Federal Register. Although working
group meetings are not generally open to the public, all interested
parties are invited to participate as working group members. Working
groups report directly to the ARAC, and the ARAC must concur with a
working group proposal before that proposal can be presented to the FAA
as an advisory committee recommendation.
The activities of the ARAC will not, however, circumvent the public
rulemaking procedures. After an ARAC recommendation is received and
found acceptable by the FAA, the agency proceeds with the normal public
rulemaking procedures. Any ARAC participation in a rulemaking package
will be fully disclosed in the public docket.
Discussion of the Proposals
In Notice 97-9, the FAA proposed to update the gate design
standards to clarify which positions of the high-lift device control
should be gated and to harmonize these standards with those being
proposed for the European Joint Airworthiness Requirements. First, the
FAA proposed to re-codify the gate requirements of Sec. 25.145(c) as a
new Sec. 25.145(d). Second, the FAA proposed to update and clarify the
requirement that the first gated control position from the landing
position corresponds to the configuration used to execute a go-around
from an approach to landing. Third, the FAA proposed to clarify that
performing a go-around maneuver beginning from any approved landing
configuration should not result in a loss of altitude, regardless of
the location of gated control positions. Fourth, the FAA proposed to
add a statement to clarify that the ``separate and distinct motion''
required to move the high-lift device control through a gated position
must be made at that gated position.
The existing gate requirements are contained in a separate, but
undesignated paragraph at the end of Sec. 25.145(c). To be consistent
with current codification practices, the FAA proposed to re-codify
these requirements as a new Sec. 25.145(d). Re-codification would not
affect the content or intent of the requirement.
Currently, Sec. 24.145(c) requires the first gated control position
from the landing position to ``correspond with the high-lift devices
configuration used to establish the go-around procedure from the
landing configuration.'' The wording of this requirement implies that
airplanes have only one configuration that can be used for landing and
one configuration that can be used to perform a go-around maneuver.
Modern transport category airplanes, however, typically have multiple
configurations that can be used for performing a landing or a go-
around. Airplane manufacturers provide multiple landing and go-around
configurations to optimize airplane performance for different
environmental conditions (e.g., field elevation and temperature) and
for non-normal situations (e.g., inoperative engines or systems).
To provide for airplanes with multiple landing and go-around
configurations, the FAA proposed to revise the portion of the gate
requirements relating to the placement of the first gated control
position from the landing position by inserting the word ``maximum''
preceding ``landing position'' and by replacing ``the high-lift devices
configuration'' and the go-around procedure'' with ``a configuration of
the high-lift devices'' and ``a go-around procedure,'' respectively.
The FAA considered allowing the location of the flap gates to be made
independent of the go-around position; however, from a human factors
standpoint, providing a gate at a go-around position assists the pilot
in selecting the proper configuration for a maneuver that is usually
unexpected and entails a high workload. The FAA considers that
requiring a gate at every approved go-around position would also be
undesirable. Too many gates would make it difficult for the pilot to
move the control through high-lift device positions that might not be
used during normal operations. For go-around maneuvers using a
different high-lift device position than the position that is gated,
the gate can still serve as a guide for selecting the proper
configuration (e.g., the pilot could move the control to the gate and
either forward or backward one or more positions).
The FAA also proposed a revision to Advisory Circular (AC) 25-7,
``Flight Test Guide for Certification of Transport Category Airplanes''
(June 17, 1997, 62 FR 32852) to provide additional guidance regarding
criteria for locating the gate when the airplane has multiple go-around
configurations.
Regardless of the location of any gates, initiating a go-around
from any of the approved landing configurations should not result in a
loss of altitude. Therefore, the FAA proposed to further revise the
existing gate standards to require applicants to demonstrate that no
less altitude will result from retracting the high-lift devices from
each approved landing position to the position(s) corresponding with
the high-lift device configuration(s) used to establish the go-around
procedure(s) from that landing configuration.
The existing Sec. 25.145(c) also requires that a separate and
distinct movement of the high-lift device control must be made to pass
through a gated position. The FAA proposed to further clarify the gate
design criteria in the proposed Sec. 25.145(d) to specify that this
separate and distinct movement can occur only at the gated position.
This provision would ensure that the pilot receives tactile feedback
when the control reaches a gated position. Although the FAA has always
interpreted the current requirements in a manner consistent with this
provision, this proposal will assist applicants by clarifying the part
25 design requirements for gated high-lift device control positions.
The amendments proposed in Notice 97-9 were harmonized with
proposed amendments to JAR-25. The Joint Aviation Authorities published
Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA) 25B-238 on June 20, 1997, which, in
combination with the proposed part 25 changes, would achieve complete
harmonization of the affected positions of part 25 and JAR-25.
Discussion of Comments
Very few comments were received on the part 25 rule changes
proposed by the FAA in Notice 97-9. Three of the commenters, which were
organizations represented in the ARAC process that developed these
proposals, expressed their support for the proposals. One of these
commenters noted that the ARAC process was highly successful in
developing a better proposal than what was envisaged at the beginning
of the process, did so in a very short period of time, and ended up
with a proposal that was unanimously supported by all the participants.
This commenter expressed hope that the FAA will continue to make
improvements in the process to develop rules in less overall time.
One commenter, whose organization was also represented in the ARAC
deliberations, expressed support for the proposals, but also suggested
several changes be made. First, the commenter notes that Sec. 25.145
uses both terms ``wing flaps'' and ``high lift devices.'' The commenter
suggests standardizing on the single term ``high lift devices''
throughout.
[[Page 6162]]
Second, the commenter alleges that the FAA proposal differs from
the JAA proposal relative to the position of the first gated position
from the maximum landing position. The commenter claims that the FAA
proposal would require the gate to correspond with the configuration
used to establish a go-around procedure from ``the'' landing position,
implying that the landing position is the maximum position. The
commenter notes that the JAA proposal refers to ``a'' landing position,
which the commenter believes allows the optimum gate position to be
chosen when there are multiple landing configurations.
Third, the commenter notes that there is no reference within part
25 regarding the relationship between the configuration for the missed
approach (Secs. 25.101(g) and 25.121(d)) and the configuration used for
go-around (proposed Sec. 25.145(d)). Since these configurations can be
different, the commenter believes that the definitions and procedures
should be clarified. The commenter did not fully explain why such
clarification is needed, nor were any specific suggestions provided.
Last, the commenter notes that there could be a landing flap
position at a lesser flap angle than the gated go-around position.
Under the proposed rules, there would not be a requirement to have any
gates between that position and the clean configuration. This could
lead to an inadvertent retraction of the high lift leading edge devices
(e.g., slats) during a go-around, which the commenter believes may be a
hazardous event even if the ``don't sink'' requirement is met.
Although the FAA agrees in principle with the commenter's first
suggestion, to standardize on a single term, this issue is outside the
scope of the proposed rulemaking. The terms ``flaps,'' ``wing flaps,''
and ``high lift devices'' are used in other part 25 sections in
addition to Sec. 25.145, and any attempt to standardize these terms
should include a thorough review of these other sections. The objective
of this rulemaking is to clarify and harmonize the requirements
regarding gates on the high lift device control, taking into account
current airplane designs.
Regarding the commenter's second suggestion, the commenter is
incorrect in stating that the FAA and JAA proposals are different. The
FAA and JAA proposals are exactly the same; they both contain the
wording that the commenter prefers. In fact, it is the existing
Sec. 25.145(c) and JAR 25.145 that contain the wording the commenter is
objecting to, which the FAA and JAA proposed to revise due to the issue
raised by the commenter.
The commenter is correct in stating that there is no reference
within part 25 regarding the relationship between the configuration for
the missed approach (used to comply with Secs. 25.101(g) and 25.121(d))
and the configuration used for go-around (used to comply with
Sec. 25.145(d)). Although a single configuration is typically specified
by the applicant for both situations, the commenter points out that
this is not a part 25 requirement. The FAA disagrees that further
clarification of the definitions and procedures associated with the
missed approach and go-around configurations is necessary. The
configuration associated with a missed approach is specifically defined
in Sec. 25.121(d), which refers to an approach configuration prior to
selection of the landing configuration. The go-around configuration,
which is used to show compliance with Sec. 25.145(d), is the climb
configuration referenced in the procedures for a balked landing from
the landing configuration. The references to and relationships between
these configurations have not been changed by this rulemaking.
The issue brought up by the commenter's last suggestion was
considered during the development of the proposed rule. However, a
specific requirement to place a gate at the position preceding the one
at which the wing's leading edge high lift devices (e.g., slats)
retract was considered to be too prescriptive. The performance effect
of retracting the wing's leading edge high lift devices can vary
significantly, depending on the design of the high lift system on the
particular airplane. Other than the ``no loss of altitude'' provision
of Sec. 25.145(c), it is difficult to quantify a minimum performance
requirement that would appropriately address any safety concerns with
an inadvertent leading edge device retraction. The FAA considers the
``no loss of altitude'' criterion, coupled with industry design
practice, to adequately address this issue.
A commenter who was not involved in the ARAC process leading to the
proposed amendment suggests that a gate should be required at all
approved go-around positions of the high lift devices, rather than at
``a'' go-around position. This commenter believes that from a human
factors standpoint the benefits of maintaining a consistent procedure
for selecting the go-around configuration outweigh any drawbacks
associated with having too many gates.
The FAA addressed this issue in the preamble of the proposed
amendment (which is repeated in the background discussion above). The
FAA considers that requiring a gate at every approved go-around
position would be undesirable. Too many gates would make it difficult
for the pilot to move the control through high-lift device positions
that might not be used during normal operations. For go-around
maneuvers using a different high-lift device position than the position
that is gated, the gate can still serve as a guide for selecting the
proper configuration (e.g., the pilot could move the control to the
gate and either forward or backward one or more positions).
Although the FAA generally agrees that from a human factors
standpoint a consistent operational procedure is desirable, this
objective would not necessarily be achieved even if the commenter's
suggestion were adopted. For a typical transport category airplane with
multiple go-around positions requiring multiple gates, the procedure
for selecting the desired go-around configuration may involve moving
the selector to the first gate, through a gate to another gate, or
through multiple gates to the gate corresponding to the desired
configuration. Such a procedure is roughly equivalent to moving the
control to the gate and either forward or backward one or more
positions to select the desired configuration. The FAA does not
consider the presence of multiple gates to provide enough of an
enhancement to the flightcrew's ability in selecting the proper
configuration to outweigh the potential drawbacks associated with the
need to negotiate the control through multiple gates during normal
operations.
In light of the foregoing discussion, the amendment is adopted as
proposed.
Final Regulatory Evaluation, Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Determination, and Trade Impact 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 requires agencies to analyze the
economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the
Office of Management and Budget directs agencies to assess the effects
of regulatory changes on international trade. And 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
[[Page 6163]]
$100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation). In conducting
these analyses, the FAA has determined that this rule: (1) will
generate benefits that justify its costs and is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' as defined in the Executive Order; (2) is not
``significant'' as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures;
(3) will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities; (4) will lessen restraints on international trade; and (5)
does not contain a significant intergovernmental or private sector
mandate. These analyses, available in the docket, are summarized below.
Regulatory Evaluation Summary
U.S. manufacturers currently design high-lift device controls in
compliance with the final rule. Industry representatives indicate that
U.S. manufacturers will not have to redesign high-lift device controls
on either newly certificated airplanes or derivatives of currently
certificated models. The costs of the rule, therefore, will be
negligible. The FAA solicited information from manufacturers of
transport category airplanes concerning any possible design changes and
associated costs that would result from the proposed amendment. No
comments were received concerning these matters.
The primary benefit of the rule is the clarification of gate design
standards of high-lift device controls. A second benefit is the
harmonization of FAR certification requirements for controls of high-
lift devices with JAR certification requirements, and this benefit may
result in cost savings to manufacturers of transport category airplanes
in the United States and in JAA countries. Although the FAA is unable
to quantify these benefits, the FAA has determined that these benefits
exceed the negligible costs of the final rule.
Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) establishes ``as a
principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor,
consistent with the objective of the rule and of applicable statutes,
to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the
business, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to
regulation.'' To achieve that principle, the Act requires agencies to
solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the
rationale for their actions. The Act covers a wide-range of small
entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and
small governmental jurisdictions.
Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a proposal or
final rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. If the determination is that it will, the
agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in
the Act.
However, if an agency determines that a proposed or final rule is
not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities, section 605(b) of the 1980 act provides that
the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility
analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement
providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning
should be clear. For manufacturers, a small entity is one with 1,500 or
fewer employees. No transport category airplane manufacturer has 1,500
or fewer employees, thus there are no affected small entities. In
addition, the rule has negligible costs. Consequently, the FAA
certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small transport category airplane
manufacturers.
International Trade Impact Assessment
Consistent with the Administration's belief in the general
superiority, desirability, and efficacy of free trade, it is the policy
of the Administrator to remove or diminish, to the extent feasible,
barriers to international trade, including both barriers affecting the
export of American goods and services to foreign countries, and those
affecting the import of foreign goods and services into the United
States.
In accordance with that policy, the FAA is committed to develop, as
much as possible, its aviation standards and practices in harmony with
its trading partners. Significant cost savings can result from this,
both to American companies doing business in foreign markets, and
foreign companies doing business in the United States.
This rule is a direct action to respond to this policy by
increasing the harmonization of the U.S. Federal Aviation Regulations
with the European Joint Aviation Requirements. The result will be a
positive step toward removing impediments to international trade.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act),
enacted as Pub. L. 104-4 on March 22, 1995, requires each Federal
agency, to the extent permitted by law, to prepare a written assessment
of the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency
rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year.
Section 204(a) of the Act, 2 U.S.C. 1534(a), requires the Federal
agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by
elected officers (or their designees) of State, local, and tribal
governments on a proposed ``significant intergovernmental mandate.'' A
``significant intergovernmental mandate'' under the Act is any
provision in a Federal agency regulation that will impose an
enforceable duty upon State, local, and tribal governments, in the
aggregate, of $100 million (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one
year. Section 203 of the Act, 2 U.S.C. 1533, which supplements section
204(a), provides that before establishing any regulatory requirements
that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments, the
agency shall have developed a plan that, among other things, provides
for notice to potentially affected small governments, if any, and for a
meaningful and timely opportunity to provide input in the development
of regulatory proposals.
The rule does not contain any Federal intergovernmental or private
sector mandate. Therefore, the requirements of Title II of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not apply.
Federalism Implications
The regulations adopted herein will not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this rule
will not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
International Compatibility
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with ICAO
Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable.
The FAA has determined that this rule does not conflict with any
international agreement of the United States.
Regulations Affecting Intrastate Aviation in Alaska
Section 1205 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat.
3213) requires the Administrator, when modifying regulations in Title
14 of the CFR in a manner affecting intrastate aviation in Alaska, to
consider the extent to which Alaska is not served by
[[Page 6164]]
transportation modes other than aviation, and to establish such
regulatory distinctions as he or she considers appropriate. Because
this final rule applies to the certification of future designs of
transport category airplanes and their subsequent operation, it could
affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. The Administrator has considered
the extent to which Alaska is not served by transportation modes other
than aviation, and how the final rule could have been applied
differently to intrastate operations in Alaska. However, the
Administrator has determined that airplanes operated solely in Alaska
would present the same safety concerns as all other affected airplanes;
therefore, it would be inappropriate to establish a regulatory
distinction for the intrastate operation of affected airplanes in
Alaska.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
The Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Administration (FAA)
amends part 25 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR part
25) as follows:
PART 25--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS--TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRPLANES
1. The authority citation for part 25 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44704.
2. Section 25.145 is amended by revising paragraph (c) introductory
text, revising the text following paragraph (c)(3), and designating the
text as paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 25.145 Longitudinal control.
* * * * *
(c) It must be possible, without exceptional piloting skill, to
prevent loss of altitude when complete retraction of the high-lift
devices from any position is begun during steady, straight, level
flight at 1.1 VS1 for propeller powered airplanes, or
1.2VS1 for turbojet powered airplanes, with--
(1) * * *
(2) * * *
(3) * * *
(d) if gated high-lift device control positions are provided,
paragraph (c) of this section applies to retractions of the high-lift
devices from any position from the maximum landing position to the
first gated position, between gated positions, and from the last gated
position to the fully retracted position. The requirements of paragraph
(c) of this section also apply to retractions from each approved
landing position to the control position(s) associated with the high-
lift device configuration(s) used to establish the go-around
procedure(s) from that landing position. In addition, the first gated
control position from the maximum landing position must correspond with
a configuration of the high-lift devices used to establish a go-around
procedure from a landing configuration. Each gated control position
must require a separate and distinct motion of the control to pass
through the gated position and must have features to prevent
inadvertent movement of the control through the gated position. It must
only be possible to make this separate and distinct motion once the
control has reached the gated position.
Issued in Washington, DC, on February 3, 1999.
Jane F. Garvey,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 99-2971 Filed 2-5-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
