96-11493. Rotorcraft Regulatory Changes Based on European Joint Aviation Requirements  

  • [Federal Register Volume 61, Number 92 (Friday, May 10, 1996)]
    [Rules and Regulations]
    [Pages 21904-21908]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 96-11493]
    
    
    
    
    [[Page 21903]]
    
    
    _______________________________________________________________________
    
    Part VI
    
    
    
    
    
    Department of Transportation
    
    
    
    
    
    _______________________________________________________________________
    
    
    
    Federal Aviation Administration
    
    
    
    _______________________________________________________________________
    
    
    
    14 CFR Parts 27 and 29
    
    
    
    Rotorcraft Regulatory Changes Based on European Joint Aviation 
    Requirements; Final Rule
    
    Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and 
    Regulations
    
    [[Page 21904]]
    
    
    
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
    
    Federal Aviation Administration
    
    14 CFR Parts 27 and 29
    
    [Docket No. 28008; Amendment No. 27-33, 29-39]
    RIN 2120-AF65
    
    
    Rotorcraft Regulatory Changes Based on European Joint Aviation 
    Requirements
    
    AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
    
    ACTION: Final rule.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is amending the 
    airworthiness standards for normal and transport category rotorcraft. 
    The changes revise airworthiness standards for performance, systems, 
    propulsion, and airframes. The changes increase the regulatory safety 
    level, clarify existing regulations, and standardize terminology. The 
    changes are based on standards incorporated by the European Joint 
    Aviation Authorities (JAA) for Joint Aviation Requirements (JAR) 27 and 
    29. These changes are intended to harmonize the U.S. rotorcraft 
    airworthiness standards with the European JAR.
    
    EFFECTIVE DATE: August 8, 1996.
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    Carroll Wright, Regulations Group Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft 
    Certification Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Fort Worth, 
    Texas 76193-0111, telephone (817) 222-5120.
    
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    
    Background
    
        These amendments are based on Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 
    No. 94-36 published in the Federal Register on December 28, 1994 (59 FR 
    67068). That notice proposed to amend the airworthiness standards for 
    both normal and transport category rotorcraft based on recommendations 
    from the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC). By announcement 
    in the Federal Register (57 FR 58846, December 11, 1992), the ``JAR/FAR 
    27 and 29 Harmonization Working Group'' was chartered by the ARAC. The 
    working group included representatives from four major rotorcraft 
    manufacturers (normal and transport) and representatives from Aerospace 
    Industries Association of America, Inc. (AIA), Association Europeene 
    des Constructeurs de Material Aerospatial (AECMA), Helicopter 
    Association International (HAI), JAA, and the FAA Rotorcraft 
    Directorate. This broad participation is consistent with FAA policy to 
    involve all known interested parties as early as practicable in the 
    rulemaking process.
        The Harmonization Working Group was tasked with making 
    recommendations to the ARAC regarding JAA Notices of Proposed Amendment 
    (NPA's). The ARAC subsequently recommended that the FAA revise the 
    airworthiness standards for normal and transport category rotorcraft to 
    those currently in the JAR 27 and 29.
        The FAA evaluated the ARAC recommendations and proposed changes to 
    the rotorcraft airworthiness standards in 14 CFR parts 27 and 29 (parts 
    27 and 29). These proposed changes evolved from the FAA, JAA, and 
    industry meetings of 1990-1992 and the ARAC recommendations of 1993. 
    The changes proposed to (1) incorporate current design and testing 
    practices into the rules by requiring additional performance data, (2) 
    incorporate additional powerplant and rotor brake controls 
    requirements, (3) incorporate bird-strike protection requirements, and 
    (4) harmonize the certification requirements between parts 27 and 29 
    and the JAR. The proposals for part 27 included JAA's harmonized NPA's 
    27-Basic and 27-1, and the proposals for part 29 included NPA's 29-
    Basic and 29-1 through 29-5. This rule contains the harmonized rule 
    language of those sections of the NPA's except for Sec. 27.602 of NPA 
    27-Basic and Sec. 29.602 of NPA 29-4.
        In proposed rule, NPRM 94-36, there were several instances in which 
    a few descriptive words were proposed to either be removed from or 
    added to regulatory text. These word changes were adequately described 
    in the amendatory language to NPRM 94-36 when that proposal was 
    published in the Federal Register. However, at least one commenter 
    misunderstood the amendatory language. Therefore, to avoid possible 
    misunderstanding about the final rule language, the paragraphs with the 
    minor rule language changes are reproduced in their entirety in this 
    final rule. Also, the numbering of other regulations referenced in 
    Secs. 29.1587(a)(4) and (a)(5) has been changed, and a new 
    Sec. 29.1587(a)(6) has been added. The current Sec. 29.1587(a)(6), 
    which is being redesignated in this rule as Sec. 29.1587(a)(7), was 
    added by the Transport Category Rotorcraft Performance Rule published 
    elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.
        In this final rule, under the heading ``Appendix C to Part 27--
    Criteria for Category A,'' the NPRM 94-36 cites to Advisory Circular 
    (AC) material have been removed since AC material is advisory only. A 
    note has been added that informs the reader that there is appropriate 
    guidance material available. Further, the requirement to meet 
    Sec. 29.571 standards for certification as a part 27 Category A 
    rotorcraft has been removed from the Appendix C listing. The FAA has 
    determined that the current Sec. 27.571 contains sufficient 
    certification standards to maintain an adequate level of safety for 
    part 27 Category A rotorcraft, and an additional requirement of testing 
    to Sec. 29.571 standards is unnecessary.
    
    Discussion of Comments
    
        Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate 
    in the making of these amendments. Due consideration has been given to 
    the comments received. Comments were received from the JAA, HAI, 
    Transport Canada, and the United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority 
    (UKCAA).
        The JAA agrees with the proposed rule and the effort to harmonize 
    certification regulations of the U.S. and the European communities. To 
    fulfill harmonization objectives, the JAA prepared an NPA identical to 
    the NPRM and will publish the JAR final rule at the same time as this 
    time as this final rule for parts 27 and 29.
        HAI comments that the proposals faithfully reflect the 
    recommendation made to the FAA by the ARAC on rotorcraft regulatory 
    changes. HAI further comments that the NPRM reflects prudent rulemaking 
    to increase safety, economic viability, and harmonization within 
    realistic requirements and urges the adoption of the proposal.
        Transport Canada comments that the NPRM was not the same as the 
    ARAC recommendations in that there were changes in the nonregulatory 
    sections (preamble) and in the proposed text of the rule. The commenter 
    states that these changes cause concern because the discrepancies may 
    lead to different interpretations. The commenter notes that the meaning 
    of Sec. 29.547 was changed because the word ``main'' had been removed 
    in the ARAC recommendations but was not removed in the NPRM. This 
    commenter also states that the requirements of Secs. 29.547 and 29.917 
    are redundant because Sec. 29.571 also requires the identification of 
    the principal structural elements (PSE) that includes rotors and rotor 
    drive systems with the establishment of the inspections and replacement 
    times for those PSE's. Additionally, the commenter says that 
    Sec. 29.610 should state that it addresses only ``direct effects'' of 
    lightning and electricity and
    
    [[Page 21905]]
    
    that indirect effects are covered elsewhere in Secs. 29.954, 29.863, 
    29.1309, etc. This commenter also states that Sec. 29.1309 should 
    retain the reference to Sec. 29.610. This commenter also suggests 
    adding a new requirement and paragraph to Appendix B to part 29 that 
    would require an additional, self-powered third attitude indicator.
        The FAA agrees with Transport Canada that editorial changes between 
    the ARAC recommendations and the NPRM are a concern because the 
    differences may lead to different interpretations. To obviate this 
    concern, editorial changes have been made in the final rule language to 
    make it consistent with the ARAC recommended language. Also, the FAA 
    agrees with Transport Canada that the word ``main'' had been removed 
    from the introductory paragraph of Sec. 29.547(c), (d), and (e) in the 
    ARAC recommended language but, as previously discussed, had not been 
    shown as removed in the NPRM rule language. However, the word ``main'' 
    is being removed from this final rule.
        The FAA does not agree with this commenter that Secs. 29.547, 
    29.571, and 29.917 are redundant in requiring identification of 
    principal structural elements (PSE's), which include rotors and rotor 
    drive systems, and the establishment of the inspections, replacement 
    times of those PSE's. Section 29.547(b) requires a design assessment 
    for main and tail rotor structure components (rotor hub, blades, pitch 
    control mechanisms, etc); Sec. 29.571 requires fatigue evaluation of 
    structural components; and Sec. 29.917 requires a design assessment of 
    the rotor drive system (drive shafts, transmission, gearboxes, etc). 
    Therefore, these are non redundant requirements. The language is 
    adopted as proposed.
        The FAA agrees with the intent of this commenter's suggestion that 
    Sec. 29.610 should clearly indicate that it addresses only ``direct 
    effects'' of lightning and electricity. However, this was achieved in 
    the NPRM by adding the word ``structure'' between the words 
    ``rotorcraft'' and ``must'' in Sec. 29.610(a) to clarify that this 
    paragraph applied to rotorcraft structure and not to systems and 
    equipment. Accordingly, the language is adopted as proposed.
        The FAA does not agree with this commenter that Sec. 29.1309 should 
    retain the reference to Sec. 29.610. The NPRM added the word 
    ``structure'' to Sec. 29.610 to clarify that the paragraph applied to 
    rotorcraft structure and not to systems and equipment. Since 
    Sec. 29.1309(h) applies to lightning protection of systems and 
    equipment, it is inappropriate to reference Sec. 29.610, which applies 
    to lightning protection of structures. The commenter's proposal to 
    retain the reference to Sec. 29.610 is not adopted.
        The FAA disagrees with this commenter's suggestion that a new 
    requirement and paragraph be added to part 29, Appendix B, to require 
    an additional, self-powered third attitude indicator. Part 29, Appendix 
    B, paragraph VIII(a)(2) currently requires a standby attitude indicator 
    that is independent of the aircraft electrical generating system. 
    Additionally, part 29, Appendix B, paragraph VIII(b)(5)(iii) states, 
    ``The equipment, systems, and installations must be designed so that 
    one display of the information essential to the safety of flight that 
    is provided by the instruments will remain available to a pilot, 
    without additional crew-member action, after any single failure or 
    combination of failures that is not shown to be extremely improbable * 
    * *.'' Currently, the only practical design to meet the extremely 
    improbable (10-9) requirement of part 29, Appendix B, for the 
    display of information essential to flight safety after a single 
    failure or combination of failures is the design that uses a third 
    attitude indicator powered by a source other than the aircraft 
    electrical generating system. However, the FAA does not wish to limit 
    future alternative designs that may meet the extremely improbable 
    standard without a third attitude indicator. The suggestion of the 
    commenter to add a requirement for a self-powered third attitude 
    indicator is not adopted.
        The UKCAA comments that Proposal No. 13 in NPRM 94-36 proposed to 
    amend Sec. 29.923(b)(3)(i), to require two applications of 2-minute 
    power following each application of 30-second power, instead of the one 
    application of 2-minute power previously proposed. The UKCAA fully 
    supports the proposed changes in NPRM 94-36. However, the UKCAA further 
    comments that since publication of NPRM 94-36, the FAA published 
    Amendment 29-34 (59 FR 47764, September 16, 1994) that states in part, 
    ``When conducted on a bench test, the test sequence must be conducted 
    following stabilization at take-off power.'' The commenter states that 
    the reason for adding this sentence, as stated in the preamble to 
    Amendment 29-34, remains valid, and this sentence should therefore be 
    included in the final rule developed from NPRM 94-36.
        The FAA concurs with the UKCAA that the reason for adding the 
    sentence, ``When conducted on a bench test, the test sequence must be 
    conducted following stabilization at take-off power'' remains valid and 
    the sentence should be retained in Sec. 29.923(b)(3)(i). The sentence 
    was adopted in Amendment 29-34 due to a commenter's statement that if 
    the 5-minute takeoff power run to qualify the drive system is conducted 
    as part of the endurance run, and the 30-second/2-minute OEI 
    requirements are conducted on a bench test, then the takeoff power 5-
    minute run will be conducted twice on the same set of gears. The FAA 
    did not intend to duplicate the takeoff power 5-minute run if the OEI 
    requirements are conducted on a bench test, and the sentence was 
    adopted for clarification. Since the omission of the sentence in NPRM 
    94-36 was inadvertent, since the reasons for including the sentence 
    remain valid, and since the sentence is relieving in nature and does 
    not place any additional burden on manufacturers, it is unnecessary to 
    solicit prior public comment. Therefore, the sentence is restored as 
    requested by the commenter.
        After considering all of the comments, the FAA has determined that 
    air safety and the pubic interest support adoption of the amendments 
    with the changes noted.
    
    Regulatory Evaluation Summary
    
        Proposed 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 effect of regulatory changes on small entities. 
    Third, the Office of Management and Budget directs agencies to assess 
    the effect of regulatory changes on international trade. In conducting 
    these analyses, the FAA has determined that this rule: (1) would 
    generate benefits that justify its costs and is not ``a significant 
    regulatory action'' as defined in the Executive Order; (2) is 
    nonsignificant as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures; 
    (3) would not have a significant impact on substantial number of small 
    entities; and (4) will lessen restraints on international trade. These 
    analyses, available in the docket, are summarized below.
    
    Cost-Benefit Analysis
    
        All of the changes to part 27 and all but four of the changes to 
    part 29 will impose no or insignificant costs on rotorcraft 
    manufacturers since they largely reflect current design practices. In 
    recent years, manufacturers have incorporated engineering and 
    structural improvements into rotorcraft designs
    
    [[Page 21906]]
    
    that exceed minimum regulatory requirements with the aim of increasing 
    operating efficiencies, payload capabilities, and marketability in 
    world markets. Many of these improvements have also inherently improved 
    safety codification of these improvement and other changes will ensure 
    continuation of enhanced safety levels in future rotorcraft designs.
        The changes will also increase harmonization and commonality 
    between U.S. and European airworthiness standards. Harmonization will 
    eliminate the need to comply with different FAA and JAA airworthiness 
    requirements, thus reducing manufacturers' certification costs. Based 
    on experience in a recent certification, one rotorcraft manufacturer 
    indicated that complying with different FAA and JAA requirements 
    resulted in several hundred thousand dollars of excessive certification 
    costs (as related to all part 27 and 29 requirements). The duplicate 
    certification costs avoided by the harmonized rule alone could outweigh 
    the relatively modest increase in certification costs imposed by the 
    few new requirements. Following is a summary of the four changes to 
    part 29 that will impose additional costs totaling approximately 
    $160,000 per type certification. The safety benefits of these changes 
    are expected to easily exceed the incremental costs.
        Section 29.547--Main and tail rotor structure. While manufacturers 
    currently perform the design assessment as an integral part of the 
    design requirements of Sec. 29.917, there will be some incremental 
    costs to formalize the existing information. These costs are included 
    in the cost estimates of Sec. 29.917 summarized below. Formal 
    identification and assessment of critical component failures will 
    increase safety by providing more comprehensive maintenance information 
    to operators. The benefits of averting a single accident will exceed 
    the relatively low incremental costs of compliance.
        Section 29.631--Bird strike. Manufacturers indicate that present 
    rotorcraft structures can withstand impacts with 2.2 pound birds; 
    therefore, no incremental manufacturing costs are anticipated. 
    Nonrecurring testing and analysis costs of the requirement are 
    estimated to be $107,000 per type certification. A review of National 
    Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) data for the period 1983-1991 
    reveals two rotorcraft accidents caused by bird strikes. One accident 
    resulted in one serious injury, one minor injury, and substantial 
    damage to the rotorcraft (tail rotor separation); in the other 
    accident, the rotorcraft was destroyed but there were no injuries. 
    There is at least an equal probability of such accidents in the future, 
    given the tendencies toward higher operating speeds. The benefits of 
    averting a single accident will exceed the incremental costs of the 
    amendment.
        Section 29.917--Design. The incremental costs to formalize existing 
    design information for the rotor structure (Sec. 29.547 above) and 
    drive system are estimated to total $47,000 per type certification. 
    Formal identification and assessment of critical component failures of 
    the rotor drive system will increase safety by providing more 
    comprehensive maintenance information to operators. The benefits of 
    averting a single accident caused directly or indirectly by a lack of 
    relevant data would easily exceed the incremental costs.
        Section 29.1587--Performance information. Since the required climb 
    gradient data are already available from the results of flight tests 
    required to obtain performance information, the only additional costs 
    will be those associated with incorporating the data into the Flight 
    Manual, estimated to total $6,000 per type certification. The 
    availability and accuracy of performance data are paramount to 
    operational safety. The benefits of averting a single accident caused 
    directly or indirectly by a lack of relevant performance information 
    will easily exceed the incremental costs.
    
    Regulatory Flexibility determination
    
        The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) was enacted by 
    Congress to ensure that small entities are not unnecessarily and 
    disproportionately burdened by Federal Regulations. The RFA requires a 
    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis if a proposed rule would have ``a 
    significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
    entities.'' Based on the criteria of FAA Order 2100.14A, the FAA has 
    determined that the rule will not have a significant impact on a 
    substantial number of small entities.
        The rule will affect manufacturers of future type-certificated 
    normal (part 27) and transport category (part 29) rotorcraft. For 
    manufacturers, Order 2100.14A defines a small entity as one with 75 or 
    fewer employees and a significant economic impact as annualized costs 
    of $19,000 or more. The FAA has determined that the rule will not have 
    a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
    manufacturers since (1) no part 29 and only two part 27 rotorcraft 
    manufacturers have 75 or fewer employees, and (2) the annualized 
    certification costs of the rule are less than $19,000.
    
    International Trade Impact Assessment
    
        The rule will not constitute a barrier to international trade, 
    including the export of American rotorcraft to other countries and the 
    import of rotorcraft into the United States. Instead, the changes will 
    harmonize with certification procedures of the JAA and thereby enhance 
    free trade.
    
    Conclusion
    
        For the reasons discussed above, including the findings in the 
    Regulatory Flexibility Determination and the International Trade Impact 
    Analysis, the FAA has determined that this regulation is not a 
    significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. In addition, 
    the FAA certifies that this regulation 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. This 
    regulation is considered nonsignificant under DOT Order 2100.5. A final 
    regulatory evaluation of the regulation, including a final Regulatory 
    Flexibility Determination and International Trade Impact Analysis, has 
    been placed in the docket. A copy may be obtained by contacting the 
    person identified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    
    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Parts 27 and 29
    
        Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Rotorcraft, Safety.
    
    The Amendments
    
        In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation 
    Administration amends parts 27 and 29 of Title 14, Code of Federal 
    Regulations (14 CFR parts 27 and 29) as follows:
    
    PART 27--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: NORMAL CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT
    
        1. The authority citation for part 27 continues to read as follows:
    
        Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
    
        2. Section 27.1 is amended by adding a new paragraph (c) to read as 
    follows:
    
    
    Sec. 27.1   Applicability.
    
     * * * * *
        (c) Multiengine rotorcraft may be type certificated as Category A 
    provided the requirements referenced in appendix C of this part are 
    met.
        3. Section 27.65 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(2) 
    introductory text and (b)(2)(ii) to read as follows:
    
    [[Page 21907]]
    
    Sec. 27.65   Climb: all engines operating.
    
     * * * * *
        (b) * * *
        (2) The steady rate of climb must be determined--
     * * * * *
        (ii) Within the range from sea level up to the maximum altitude for 
    which certification is requested;
     * * * * *
        4. Section 27.1141 is amended by redesignating existing paragraphs 
    (c) and (d) as paragraphs (d) and (e) and by adding a new paragraph (c) 
    to read as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 27.1141   Powerplant controls: general.
    
     * * * * *
        (c) Each control must be able to maintain any set position 
    without--
        (1) Constant attention; or
        (2) Tendency to creep due to control loads or vibration.
     * * * * *
        5. New Sec. 27.1151 is added to read as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 27.1151   Rotor brake controls.
    
        (a) It must be impossible to apply the rotor brake inadvertently in 
    flight.
        (b) There must be means to warn the crew if the rotor brake has not 
    been completely released before takeoff.
        6. Part 27 is amended by adding a new appendix C to read as 
    follows:
    
    Appendix C to Part 27--Criteria for Category A
    
        C27.1  General.
        A small multiengine rotorcraft may not be type certificated for 
    Category A operation unless it meets the design installation and 
    performance requirements contained in this appendix in addition to 
    the requirements of this part.
        C27.2  Applicable part 29 sections. The following sections of 
    part 29 of this chapter must be met in addition to the requirements 
    of this part:
    
    29.45(a) and (b)(2)--General.
    29.49(a)--Performance at minimum operating speed.
    29.51--Takeoff data: General.
    29.53--Takeoff: Category A.
    29.55--Takeoff decision point: Category A.
    29.59--Takeoff Path: Category A.
    29.60--Elevated heliport takeoff path: Category A.
    29.61--Takeoff distance: Category A.
    29.62--Rejected takeoff: Category A.
    29.64--Climb: General.
    29.65(a)--Climb: AEO.
    29.67(a)--Climb: OEI.
    29.75--Landing: General.
    29.77--Landing decision point: Category A.
    29.79--Landing: Category A.
    29.81--Landing distance (Ground level sites): Category A.
    29.85--Balked landing: Category A.
    29.87(a)--Height-velocity envelope.
    29.547(a) and (b)--Main and tail rotor structure.
    29.861(a)--Fire protection of structure, controls, and other parts.
    29.901(c)--Powerplant: Installation.
    29.903(b) (c) and (e)--Engines.
    29.908(a)--Cooling fans.
    29.917(b) and (c)(1)--Rotor drive system: Design.
    29.927(c)(1)--Additional tests.
    29.953(a)--Fuel system independence.
    29.1027(a)--Transmission and gearboxes: General.
    29.1045(a)(1), (b), (c), (d), and (f)--Climb cooling test 
    procedures.
    29.1047(a)--Takeoff cooling test procedures.
    29.1181(a)--Designated fire zones: Regions included.
    29.1187(e)--Drainage and ventilation of fire zones.
    29.1189(c)--Shutoff means.
    29.1191(a)(1)--Firewalls.
    29.1193(e)--Cowling and engine compartment covering.
    29.1195(a) and (d)--Fire extinguishing systems (one shot).
    29.1197--Fire extinguishing agents.
    29.1199--Extinguishing agent containers.
    29.1201--Fire extinguishing system materials.
    29.1305(a) (6) and (b)--Powerplant instruments.
    29.1309(b)(2) (i) and (d)--Equipment, systems, and installations.
    29.1323(c)(1)--Airspeed indicating system.
    29.1331(b)--Instruments using a power supply.
    29.1351(d)(2)--Electrical systems and equipment: General (operation 
    without normal electrical power).
    29.1587(a)--Performance information.
    
        Note: In complying with the paragraphs listed in paragraph C27.2 
    above, relevant material in the AC ``Certification of Transport 
    Category Rotorcraft'' should be used.
    
    PART 29--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT
    
        7. The authority citation for part 29 continues to read as follows:
    
        Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
    
        8. Section 29.547 is amended by revising the heading; by revising 
    paragraph (a); by revising the introductory text in paragraphs (c), 
    (d), and (e); by revising paragraph (e)(1)(ii); and by adding paragraph 
    (b) to read as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 29.547  Main and tail rotor structure.
    
        (a) A rotor is an assembly of rotating components, which includes 
    the rotor hub, blades, blade dampers, the pitch control mechanisms, and 
    all other parts that rotate with the assembly.
        (b) Each rotor assembly must be designed as prescribed in this 
    section and must function safely for the critical flight load and 
    operating conditions. A design assessment must be performed, including 
    a detailed failure analysis to identify all failures that will prevent 
    continued safe flight or safe landing, and must identify the means to 
    minimize the likelihood of their occurrence.
        (c) The rotor structure must be designed to withstand the following 
    loads prescribed in Secs. 29.337 through 29.341 and 29.351:
     * * * * *
        (d) The rotor structure must be designed to withstand loads 
    simulating--
     * * * * *
        (e) The rotor structure must be designed to withstand the limit 
    torque at any rotational speed, including zero.
        In addition:
        (1) * * *
     * * * * *
        (ii) For the main rotor, the limit engine torque specified in 
    Sec. 29.361.
     * * * * *
        9. Section 29.610 is amended by revising the heading; by revising 
    paragraph (a); and by adding a new paragraph (d) to read as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 29.610  Lightning and static electricity protection.
    
        (a) The rotorcraft structure must be protected against catastrophic 
    effects from lightning.
     * * * * *
        (d) The electric bonding and protection against lightning and 
    static electricity must--
        (1) Minimize the accumulation of electrostatic charge;
        (2) Minimize the risk of electric shock to crew, passengers, and 
    service and maintenance personnel using normal precautions;
        (3) Provide an electrical return path, under both normal and static 
    electricity on the functioning of essential electrical and electronic 
    equipment.
        (4) Reduce to an acceptable level the effects of lightning and 
    static electricity on the functioning of essential electronic 
    equipment.
        10. Section 29.629 is revised to read as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 29.629  Flutter and divergence.
    
        Each aerodynamic surface of the rotorcraft must be free from 
    flutter and divergence under each appropriate speed and power 
    condition.
        11. Section 29.631 is added before the undesignated center heading, 
    ``Rotors'' to read as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 29.631  Bird strike.
    
        The rotorcraft must be designated to ensure capability of continued 
    safe flight and landing (for Category A) or safe landing (for Category 
    B) after impact with a 2.2-lb (1.0 kg) bird when
    
    [[Page 21908]]
    
    the velocity of the rotorcraft (relative to the bird along the flight 
    path of the rotorcraft) is equal to VNE or VH (whichever is 
    the lesser) at altitudes up to 8,000 feet. Compliance must be shown by 
    tests or by analysis based on tests carried out on sufficiently 
    representative structures of similar design.
        12. Section 29.917 is amended by redesignating existing paragraph 
    (b) as (c) and by adding a new paragraph (b) to read as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 29.917  Design.
    
     * * * * *
        (b) Design assessment. A design assessment must be performed to 
    ensure that the rotor drive system functions safely over the full range 
    of conditions for which certification is sought. The design assessment 
    must include a detailed failure analysis to identify all failures that 
    will prevent continued safe flight or safe landing and must identify 
    the means to minimize the likelihood of their occurrence.
    * * * * *
        13. Section 29.923 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(3)(i) to 
    read as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 29.923  Rotor drive system and control mechanism tests.
    
    * * * * *
        (b) * * *
        (3) * * *
        (i) Immediately following any one 5-minute power-on run required by 
    paragraph (b)(1) of this section, simulate a failure for each power 
    source in turn, and apply the maximum torque and the maximum speed for 
    use with 30-second OEI power to the remaining affected drive system 
    power inputs for not less than 30 seconds. Each application of 30-
    second OEI power must be followed by two applications of the maximum 
    torque and the maximum speed for use with the 2 minute OEI power for 
    not less than 2 minutes each; the second application must follow a 
    period at stabilized continuous or 30 minute OEI power (whichever is 
    requested by the applicant). At least one run sequence must be 
    conducted from a simulated ``flight idle'' condition. When conducted on 
    a bench test, the test sequence must be conducted following 
    stabilization at take-off power.
    * * * * *
        14. Section 29.1305 is amended by redesignating existing paragraphs 
    (a)(6) through (a)(25) as paragraphs (a)(7) through (a)(26) and by 
    adding a new paragraph (a)(6) to read as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 29.1305  Powerplant instruments
    
    * * * * *
        (a) * * *
        (6) An oil pressure indicator for each pressure-lubricated gearbox.
    * * * * *
        15. Section 29.1309 is amended by revising paragraph (h) to read as 
    follows:
    
    
    Sec. 29.1309  Equipment, systems, and installations
    
    * * * * *
        (h) In showing compliance with paragraphs (a) and (b) of this 
    section, the effects of lightning strikes on the rotorcraft must be 
    considered.
        16. Section 29.1351(d) is revised to read as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 29.1351  General
    
    * * * * *
        (d) Operation with the normal electrical power generating system 
    inoperative.
        (1) It must be shown by analysis, tests, or both, that the 
    rotorcraft can be operated safely in VFR conditions for a period of not 
    less than 5 minutes, with the normal electrical power generating system 
    (electrical power sources excluding the battery) inoperative, with 
    critical type fuel (from the standpoint of flameout and restart 
    capability), and with the rotorcraft initially at the maximum 
    certificated altitude. Parts of the electrical system may remain on 
    if--
        (i) A single malfunction, including a wire bundle or junction box 
    fire, cannot result in loss of the part turned off and the part turned 
    on;
        (ii) The parts turned on are electrically and mechanically isolated 
    from the parts turned off; and
        (iii) The electrical wire and cable insulation, and other 
    materials, of the parts turned on are self-extinguishing when tested in 
    accordance with Sec. 25.1359(d) in effect on September 1, 1977.
        (2) Additional requirements for Category A Rotorcraft.
        (i) Unless it can be shown that the loss of the normal electrical 
    power generating system is extremely improbable, an emergency 
    electrical power system, independent of the normal electrical power 
    generating system, must be provided, with sufficient capacity to power 
    all systems necessary for continued safe flight and landing.
        (ii) Failures, including junction box, control panel, or wire 
    bundle fires, which would result in the loss of the normal and 
    emergency systems, must be shown to be extremely improbable.
        (iii) Systems necessary for immediate safety must continue to 
    operate following the loss of the normal electrical power generating 
    system, without the need for flight crew action.
        17. Section 29.1587 is amended by redesignating (a)(6) as (a)(7), 
    by removing ``and'' from the end of paragraph (a)(5), and by adding a 
    new paragraph (a)(6) to read as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 29.1587  Performance Information.
    
    * * * * *
        (a) * * *
        (6) The steady gradient of climb for each weight, altitude, and 
    temperature for which takeoff data are to be scheduled, along the 
    takeoff path determined in the flight conditions required in 
    Sec. 29.67(a)(1) and (a)(2):
        (i) In the flight conditions required in Sec. 29.67(a)(1) between 
    the end of the takeoff distance and the point at which the rotorcraft 
    is 200 feet above the takeoff surface (or 200 feet above the lowest 
    point of the takeoff profile for elevated heliports);
        (ii) In the flight conditions required in Sec. 29.67(a)(2) between 
    the points at which the rotorcraft is 200 and 1000 feet above the 
    takeoff surface (or 200 and 1000 feet above the lowest point of the 
    takeoff profile for elevated heliports); and
    * * * * *
        18. Part 29 Appendix B is amended by adding a new paragraph 
    VIII(b)(6) to read as follows:
    
    Appendix B to Part 29--Airworthiness Criteria for Helicopter Instrument 
    Flight
    
    * * * * *
        VIII * * *
        (b) * * *
        (6) In determining compliance with the requirements of 
    Sec. 29.1351(d)(2), the supply of electrical power to all systems 
    necessary for flight under IFR must be included in the evaluation.
    
        Issued in Washington, DC, on May 2, 1996.
    David R. Hinson,
    Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 96-11493 Filed 5-9-96; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
    
    

Document Information

Effective Date:
8/8/1996
Published:
05/10/1996
Department:
Federal Aviation Administration
Entry Type:
Rule
Action:
Final rule.
Document Number:
96-11493
Dates:
August 8, 1996.
Pages:
21904-21908 (5 pages)
Docket Numbers:
Docket No. 28008, Amendment No. 27-33, 29-39
RINs:
2120-AF65: Rotorcraft Regulatory Changes Based on European Joint Airworthiness Requirements Proposals
RIN Links:
https://www.federalregister.gov/regulations/2120-AF65/rotorcraft-regulatory-changes-based-on-european-joint-airworthiness-requirements-proposals
PDF File:
96-11493.pdf
CFR: (19)
14 CFR 29.67(a)(1)
14 CFR 29.1351(d)(2)
14 CFR 29.1309(h)
14 CFR 27.1
14 CFR 27.65
More ...