[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 110 (Monday, June 9, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31482-31485]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-14886]
[[Page 31481]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part III
Department of Transportation
_______________________________________________________________________
Federal Aviation Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
14 CFR Part 25
Revision of Gate Requirements for High-Lift Device Controls; Proposed
Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 110 / Monday, June 9, 1997 / Proposed
Rules
[[Page 31482]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 25
[Docket No. 28930; Notice No. 97-9]
RIN 2120-AF82
Revision of Gate Requirements for High-Lift Device Controls
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 25
of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) 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 proposed amendment
would 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. The proposed amendment
would also harmonize these standards with those being proposed for the
European Joint Aviation Requirements (JAR).
DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 8, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Comments on this notice may be mailed in triplicate to:
Federal Aviation Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel,
Attention: Rules Docket (AGC-10), Docket No. 28930, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; or delivered in triplicate to: Room
915G, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591. Comments
delivered must be marked Docket No. 28930. Comments may also be
submitted electronically to: [email protected] Comments may be
examined in Room 915G weekdays, except Federal holidays, between 8:30
a.m. and 5 p.m. In addition, the FAA is maintaining an information
docket of comments in the Transport Airplane Directorate (ANM-100),
Federal Aviation Administration, Northwest Mountain Region, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98055-4056. Comments in the information docket
may be examined weekdays, except Federal holidays, between 7:30 a.m.
and 4 p.m.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Don Stimson, Flight Test and System Branch, ANM-111, Transport Airplane
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA 98055-4056; telephone (206) 227-1129; facsimile (206) 227-
1320.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. comments relating to any environmental, energy, or economic
impact that might result from adopting the proposals contained in this
notice are invited. Substantive comments should be accompanied by cost
estimates. Commenters should identify the regulatory docket or notice
number and submit comments in triplicate to the Rules Docket address
above. All comments received on or before the closing date for comments
will be considered by the Administrator before taking action on this
proposed rulemaking. The proposals contained in this notice may be
changed in light of comments received. All comments received will be
available in the Rules Docket, both before and after the comment period
closing date, for examination by interested persons. A report
summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. Persons wishing
the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments must submit with those
comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following
statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. 28930.'' The postcard will
be date stamped and returned to the commenter.
Availability of the NPRM
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 board service (telephone: 703-321-
3339), the Federal Register's electronic bulletin board service
(telephone: 202-512-1661), or the FAA's Aviation Rulemaking Advisory
Committee Bulletin Board service (telephone: 202-267-5948).
Internet users may reach the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov
or the Federal Register's web page at http://www.access.gpo.gov/
su__docs for access to recently published rulemaking documents.
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request
to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1,
800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, D.C. 20591, or by calling
(202) 267-9677. Communications must identify the notice number of this
NPRM. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
rulemaking documents should request from the Office of Public Affairs,
Attention: Public Inquiry Center, APA-230, 800 Independence Ave. SW.,
Washington, D.C. 20591, or by calling (202) 267-3484, a copy of
Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution
System, which describes the application procedure.
Background
Section 25.145(c) of 14 CFR part 25 (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 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 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 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 the gated
positions. Amendment 23 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.
[[Page 31483]]
In this notice, the FAA proposes 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 this notice was 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,
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
The FAA proposes 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 proposes to re-codify
the gate requirements of Sec. 25.145(c) as a new Sec. 25.145(d).
Second, the FAA proposes 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 proposes 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 proposes 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 proposes 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. 25.145(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 an airplane's 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 proposes 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 is proposing to revise Advisory Circular (AC) 25-7,
``Flight Test Guide for Certification of Transport Category Airplanes''
to provide additional guidance regarding criteria for locating the gate
when the airplane has multiple go-around configurations. Public
comments concerning this proposed revision to AC 25-7 are invited by
separate notice published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal
Register.
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 proposes to further revise the
existing gate standards to require applicants to demonstrate that no
loss of 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 proposes 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 this notice have been harmonized with
proposed amendments to JAR-25. The Joint Aviation Authorities intend to
publish a Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA), which, in
[[Page 31484]]
combination with the proposed part 25 changes contained in this notice,
would achieve complete harmonization of the affected portions of part
25 and JAR-25. When it is published, the NPA will be placed in the
docket for this rulemaking.
Regulatory Evaluation Summary
Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation, Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Determination, and Trade Impact Assessment
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
cots. 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 effects of regulatory changes on international trade. In conducting
these analyses, the FAA has determined that this proposed rule: 1)
would 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 Policies and Procedures; (3)
would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities; and 4) would not constitute a barrier to international trade.
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 proposed rule. Industry representatives indicate
that U.S. manufacturers would not have to redesign high-lift device
controls on either newly certificated airplanes or derivatives of
currently certificated models. The costs of the proposed rule,
therefore, would be negligible. However, the FAA solicits information
from all manufacturers of transport category airplanes concerning any
possible design changes and associated costs that would result from the
proposed amendment.
The primary benefit of the proposed 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 on
high-lift devices with proposed JAR certification requirements. The FAA
has determined that the proposed rule would be cost-beneficial.
Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) was enacted by
Congress to ensure that small entities are not unnecessarily or
disproportionately burdened by government regulations. The RFA requires
a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis if a proposed rule would have a
significant economic impact, either detrimental or beneficial, on a
substantial number of small entities. FAA Order 2100.14A, Regulatory
Flexibility Criteria and Guidance, establishes threshold cost values
and small entity size standards for complying with RFA review
requirements in FAA rulemaking actions. The Order defines ``small
entities'' in terms of size thresholds, ``significant economic impact''
in terms of annualized cost thresholds, and ``substantial number'' as a
number which is not less than eleven and which is more than one-third
of the small entities subject to the proposed or final rule.
Order 2100.14A specifies a size threshold for classification as a
small manufacturer as 75 or fewer employees. Since none of the
manufacturers affected by this proposed rule has 75 or fewer employees
and any costs of the proposed rule would be negligible, the proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small manufacturers.
International Trade Impact Assessment
The proposed rule will not constitute a barrier to international
trade, including the export of American airplanes to foreign countries
and the import of foreign airplanes into the United States. The
proposed gate design requirements in this proposed rule would harmonize
with those of the JAA and would, in fact, lessen the restraints on
trade.
Federalism Implications
The amended regulations proposed in this rulemaking would 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
proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
preparing a Federalism Assessment.
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and Joint Aviation
Regulations
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 proposed rule does not conflict with
any international agreement of the United States.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1990 (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.), there are no reporting or recordkeeping requirements
associated with this proposed rule.
Conclusion
Because the proposed changes to the flap gate design requirements
for transport category airplanes are not expected to result in
substantial economic cost, the FAA has determined that this proposed
regulation would not be significant under Executive Order 12866.
Because this is an issue which has not prompted a great deal of public
concern, the FAA has determined that this action is not significant
under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 25,
1979). In addition since there are no small entities affected by this
proposed rulemaking, the FAA certifies, under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, that this rule, if adopted. will not have a
significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial
number of small entities. An initial regulatory evaluation of the
proposal, including a Regulatory Flexibility Determination and 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 Part 25
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
The Proposed Amendments
Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes to
amend 14 CFR part 25 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) 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.
[[Page 31485]]
2. Section 25.145 would be amended by revising paragraph (c)
introductory text, revising the undesignated paragraph following
paragraph (c)(3), and designating that paragraph 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 positive 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 May 30, 1997.
Thomas E. McSweeney,
Director, Aircraft Certification Service, AIR-1.
[FR Doc. 97-14886 Filed 6-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
