[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 210 (Wednesday, November 1, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50583-50593]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23360]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 27 and 29
[Docket No.: FAA-2017-0990]
RIN 2120-AK80
Normal and Transport Category Rotorcraft Certification
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to amend the certification standards of
normal and transport category helicopters. The proposed changes are
necessary to address modern designs currently used in the rotorcraft
industry and would reduce the burden on applicants for certification of
new rotorcraft designs. The proposed changes would reduce or eliminate
the need for certain special conditions currently required to obtain
certification of modern rotorcraft. The proposed changes would also
incorporate the requirements of equivalent level of safety findings
that the FAA has imposed as conditions for approving certain design
features.
DATES: Send comments on or before January 30, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-0990
using any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202-493-2251.
Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.
Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions concerning this action,
contact Sandra Shelley, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management
Group, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817)
222-5110; email [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Authority for This Rulemaking
The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in
Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes
the authority of the FAA
[[Page 50584]]
Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more
detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Sections 44701 and 44704. Under
section 44701, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
minimum standards required in the interest of safety for the design and
performance of aircraft. Under section 44704, the Administrator issues
type certificates for aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, and
specified appliances when the Administrator finds the product is
properly designed and manufactured, performs properly, and meets the
regulations and minimum standards prescribed under section 44701(a).
This rulemaking is within the scope of these authorities because it
would promote safety by updating the existing minimum prescribed
standards used during the type certification process.
I. Overview of Proposed Rule
The FAA proposes to revise regulations in title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 27 (Airworthiness Standards: Normal Category
Rotorcraft) and part 29 (Airworthiness Standards: Transport Category
Rotorcraft) related to the certification of rotorcraft. The proposed
changes are necessary due to the extensive application of advancing
technologies to rotorcraft. Existing airworthiness standards are
inadequate because they do not address increasing design complexity. To
address these advances, the FAA currently issues reoccurring special
conditions, equivalent level of safety findings (ELOS), and means of
compliance (MOC) issue papers. This proposed rule would address these
problem areas by updating those standards that cause unnecessary
burdens in cost and time to both the FAA and the rotorcraft industry.
Compliance with these proposed regulatory changes would continue to be
shown by the same testing, analysis, and inspections as in the current
certification process and there would be a reduced burden through
clarification of the safety requirements for the installed systems.
II. Background
A. Statement of the Problem
The FAA is proposing to update parts 27 and 29 because the
regulations were originally published in 1964 and revisions to the
airworthiness standards have not kept pace with advances in technology
for rotorcraft. The FAA addresses the changes to technology by issuing
reoccurring special conditions, ELOS findings, and MOC issue papers.
Special conditions are prescribed under 14 CFR 21.16 when the FAA finds
the applicable airworthiness standards do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards because of a novel or unusual design
feature. The FAA issues ELOS findings under Sec. 21.21(b)(1) where a
design does not literally comply with the airworthiness standards, but
compensating factors exist that provide an equivalent level of safety.
MOC issue papers document compliance methodologies that fall outside
existing guidance and policies. These three processes are necessary to
address new design features for which airworthiness standards are
lacking, literal compliance with a rule cannot be achieved, or
alternative methods of compliance are proposed. In some cases,
advancements in technology have rendered the regulations obsolete.
These special conditions, ELOS findings, and MOC issue papers
impact FAA resources and applicants' schedules for obtaining FAA
approval of their products. By updating the affected standards, many
special conditions, ELOS findings, and MOC issue papers would be
unnecessary, thus reducing the burden on both the FAA and industry. We
also propose to update a few of these rules to correct typographical
errors.
Sections 27.1329 and 29.1329 do not adequately address the latest
technology in flight control automation. These standards adequately
addressed the functionality of autopilots for many years until recently
with the development of more sophisticated functions, especially in
normal category helicopters. The rotorcraft autopilot systems of
previous years controlled only altitude, attitude, and heading. The
more advanced autopilot systems also control airspeed, vertical speed,
and hover. The current rule is inconsistent with FAA-accepted industry
standards and practices. The current rule does not adequately cover the
growing changes in the marketplace toward increased automation in the
primary flight controls.
Sections 27.1335 and 29.1335 were originally written to address a
particular flight control concept called ``flight director systems;''
however, the term itself has long been considered a standard part of a
modern autopilot covered under Sec. Sec. 27.1329 and 29.1329. In
addition, the text we propose to remove from Sec. Sec. 27.1335 and
29.1335 has been added to the proposed Sec. Sec. 27.1329 and 29.1329
rules. The impact to industry would be minimal since the current
material associated with these rules in Advisory Circular (AC) 27-1B,
Certification of Normal Category Rotorcraft, and AC 29-2C,
Certification of Transport Category Rotorcraft,\1\ already recognizes
industry standards and practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In appendix B to parts 27 and 29, the reference to Amendment 29-14
in section VIII needs to be removed. By citing the amendment within the
rule, appendix B requires updating every time a relevant part 27 or
part 29 rule is changed.
B. National Transportation Safety Board Recommendations
As a result of incidents involving lithium-ion batteries installed
on aircraft, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) issued
Safety Recommendations A-14-032 through 036 to the FAA on May 22,
2014.\2\ The NTSB recommended the FAA develop abuse tests to simulate
failures observed in the incidents investigated and to address findings
in recent research (A-14-032), perform these tests on new aircraft for
certain installations (A-14-033), develop guidance on acceptable
methods to induce thermal runaway that reliably simulates battery
failures (A-14-034), review methods of compliance used to certificate
in-service lithium-ion battery aircraft installations to ensure that
they adequately protect against adverse effects of a cell thermal
runaway (A-14-035), and develop policy to establish a panel of
technical experts to advise on compliance and best practices for safely
installing new technology (A-14-036). This proposed rule would
incorporate these NTSB recommendations as they relate to rotorcraft
into Sec. Sec. 27.1353 and 29.1353.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ http://www.ntsb.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Discussion of the Proposal
A. AC 27-1B and AC 29-2C Guidance
AC 27-1B and AC 29-2C provide information on methods of compliance
with 14 CFR parts 27 and 29, which contain the airworthiness standards
for normal and transport category rotorcraft. These ACs include methods
of compliance in the areas of basic design, ground tests, and flight
tests. With these proposed rules, the FAA is also proposing related
changes to these ACs.
B. Powerplant Instruments (Sec. Sec. 27.1305 and 29.1305)
Sections 27.1305 and 29.1305 prescribe the specific required
powerplant instruments for rotorcraft.
[[Page 50585]]
The current rules specify separate indicators for many of these
instruments, including engine manifold pressure and engine revolutions
per minute (r.p.m.) for reciprocating engines, or gas producer speed,
gas temperature, and torque for turbine engines.
Traditionally, pilots determine the powerplant performance
conditions by monitoring individual gauges: Gas temperature, gas
producer speed, and torque. Sections 27.1305 and 29.1305 establish the
required powerplant instruments, and Sec. Sec. 27.1321 and 29.1321
require that these instruments be easily visible to the pilot. These
instruments measure the performance output of the engines and they
collectively allow the pilot to continuously monitor the condition and
health of the engines.
Many rotorcraft manufacturers have started to incorporate a
synthesized power indicator (SPI) that provides a single indicator of
engine performance. This single value displayed to the pilot is
generally presented as a percentage of the nearest engine limit. The
continuously displayed SPI presents the calculated value to the flight
crew on the primary flight displays along with a caption indicating the
nearest engine limiting parameter that is being used for the SPI
displayed calculation. Acceptable designs allow the pilot to monitor
engine performance and trends. Technologies such as an SPI, which
combine multiple indicators into one, cannot meet the requirements of
the current rules. By allowing means other than dedicated indicators,
the proposed changes would permit designs incorporating an SPI or
similar concepts. The FAA proposes to revise Sec. Sec. 27.1305(e),
(k), (n), and (o) and 29.1305(a)(5), (11), and (12) to allow other
means of powerplant indication for these instruments. Section
27.1305(k) would continue to require a tachometer to indicate main
rotor speed, but would also require a separate means to indicate the
r.p.m. of each engine. The FAA also proposes to modify Sec. 27.1305(o)
by replacing ``turboshaft'' with ``turbine'' to be consistent with
similar wording used throughout parts 27 and 29.
For part 29, the FAA proposes to add Sec. 29.1305(b)(4) to permit
manipulating the powerplant instruments to simulate one engine
inoperative (OEI) conditions without damaging the engines. Section
29.1305 requires unbiased engine instrument indications to remain
available to assure operation within safe limits. Several helicopter
designs include, for Category A \3\ training purposes (OEI Training
Mode), a feature to represent a simulated engine failure by reducing
power of all engines symmetrically. This simulated OEI condition is
shown on the engine instruments by biasing the engine power, gas
temperature, and gas producer and free power turbine tachometers on the
primary flight display. To avoid confusion, the proposed Sec.
29.1305(b)(4) would require additional annunciations to differentiate
the simulated OEI condition from that of an actual engine failure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In 14 CFR 1.1, Category A, with respect to transport
category rotorcraft, means multiengine rotorcraft designed with
engine and system isolation features specified in Part 29 and
utilizing scheduled takeoff and landing operations under a critical
engine failure concept which assures adequate designated surface
area and adequate performance capability for continued safe flight
in the event of engine failure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed changes to Sec. 29.1305 would permit designs
incorporating an OEI Training Mode. The FAA is not proposing changes to
Sec. 27.1305 because 14 CFR part 27 Category A rotorcraft are approved
under appendix C to part 27, which requires compliance with Sec.
29.1305.
C. Rotorcraft Equipment, Systems, and Installations (Sec. Sec.
27.1309, 29.1309, and Appendix C to Part 27)
Sections 27.1309 and 29.1309 apply generally to all systems on the
aircraft that do not otherwise have specific language to analyze the
safety aspects of a system. The proposed changes to Sec. 27.1309 would
address advances in technology and increases in performance of normal
category rotorcraft that were not envisioned when this rule was
originally promulgated. Manufacturers installed complex and highly
integrated systems in part 27 rotorcraft certificated for instrument
flight rules (IFR) under appendix B and Category A operations under
appendix C. At that time, the FAA did not envision complex and highly
integrated systems would be installed in non-IFR and non-Category A
normal category rotorcraft because industry was not employing this
advanced technology or the technology did not exist. The analysis
methods used to identify and determine the effects of system failures
required in Sec. 27.1309 are not adequate for today's complex and
highly integrated systems. The use of this advanced technology resulted
in an exponential increase in the number of ways rotorcraft systems can
fail and a decrease in the discernibility of such failures. To ensure
the reliability of the rotorcraft system is not compromised when
utilizing complex and highly integrated technology, the FAA is
proposing a more structured repeatable failure analysis.
The proposed change would also eliminate the distinction between
single-engine and multi-engine rotorcraft. Section 27.1309 currently
requires applicants to assess the effects of failures that may be
introduced by installed systems and equipment, and distinguishes that
the methods for assessing these failures may be different between
single and multi-engine rotorcraft. This distinction was envisioned
because multi-engine rotorcraft employed complex systems or systems
with more severe failure effects. This distinction is now irrelevant
since current analysis tools for technologies and associated failure
effects do not consider number of engines as required input.
The proposed rule would clarify the requirement to perform a proper
failure analysis and also recognize that the severity of failures can
vary. Since the current rule was promulgated, the number of failure
condition categories has varied. Current industry standards and
practices recognize five failure condition categories: Catastrophic,
Hazardous, Major, Minor, and No-Safety Effect. The proposed rule
recognizes the maximum and minimum failure effects without prescribing
the number of failure effect severity categories. This proposed change
would also accommodate future changes in industry failure analysis
techniques and reflect current certification practices. Additionally,
it would eliminate the need to issue recurring special conditions and
remove the additional time and cost to industry.
The changes proposed for Sec. Sec. 27.1309 and 29.1309 would make
the sections consistent. These changes would remove the necessity to
reference Sec. 29.1309 in appendix C of part 27. Although a specific
reference to Sec. 27.1309 would not be added, appendix C of part 27
already requires compliance with all of part 27 for Category A
certification. These proposed changes would not eliminate the
requirement to reassess compliance with Sec. 27.1309 for applicants
who request Category A operations. The FAA proposes to change appendix
C to delete the reference to Sec. 29.1309.
The FAA proposes to update Sec. 29.1309 to be consistent with
industry standards and practices for conducting failure analysis. These
proposed changes are intended to allow flexibility in the types of
assessments applicants may provide for showing compliance.
[[Page 50586]]
Section 29.1309 currently requires applicants to assess the effects
of failures resulting from installed systems and equipment. The current
rule also identifies differences in the depth of assessing failures
between Category A and Category B \4\ rotorcraft. Complex and highly
integrated systems were typically installed in part 29 rotorcraft
certificated for Category A operations. Like the distinction between
single-engine and multi-engine rotorcraft discussed previously, this
distinction was made because the FAA did not envision that complex and
highly integrated systems would be installed in rotorcraft certificated
for Category B operations. This distinction is now irrelevant since
current analysis tools for technologies and associated failure effects
do not differ between Category A and Category B. The FAA proposes to
add an introductory paragraph and revise paragraphs (a) and (b) to
clarify that all equipment, systems, and installations on the
rotorcraft must be analyzed and to remove the distinction between
Category A and B. Although the effects of the failures may be
different, the method for conducting the failure analysis is the same
regardless of the operations evaluated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ In 14 CFR 1.1, Category B, with respect to transport
category rotorcraft, means single-engine or multiengine rotorcraft
which do not fully meet all Category A standards. Category B
rotorcraft have no guaranteed stay-up ability in the event of engine
failure and unscheduled landing is assumed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The term ``warning'' in Sec. 29.1309(c) and (d) has been
interpreted as requiring a red level alert, when the intent was to
notify the crew of all required annunciations. Therefore, the FAA
proposes to modify paragraphs (c) and (d) by removing the terms
``warning'' and ``probability'' and replacing them with
``annunciation'' and ``effect'' respectively, and adding ``misleading
data'' as a standard failure mode.
The FAA also proposes removing the requirements of Sec. 29.1309(e)
and (f) dealing specifically with electrical systems as they are
covered by Sec. Sec. 29.1351, 29.1353, 29.1355, and 29.1357.
D. Automatic Flight Guidance and Control Systems (Sec. Sec. 27.1329,
27.1335, 29.1329, and 29.1335)
The FAA proposes to standardize terminology and combine the
requirements for automatic pilot and flight director systems into one
rule. Sections 27.1329 and 29.1329 address automatic pilot systems
while Sec. Sec. 27.1335 and 29.1335 address flight director systems.
At the time these rules were promulgated, the functionality of designs
prompted a separate rule for each system. Since then, systems for
automatic control of flight have evolved. Modern designs include both
automatic pilot and flight director systems and are now referred to as
automatic flight guidance and control systems. Having these systems in
separate rules that use different terminology has resulted in some
confusion. The proposed changes would remove Sec. Sec. 27.1335 and
29.1335 and incorporate the requirements into Sec. Sec. 27.1329 and
29.1329. The FAA also proposes to use the term ``automatic flight
guidance and control systems'' to address both automatic pilot and
flight director systems, as well as the components.
E. Instrument Systems (Sec. 29.1333 and Appendix B to Parts 27 and 29)
Currently, Sec. 29.1333(a) requires isolating the pilot instrument
system from any other operating systems. At the time the rule was
promulgated, these systems were federated, and connecting these systems
increased the likelihood that a fault in one system would cause a fault
in the pilot instrument system. This physical independence between the
pilot system and other operating systems prevented the pilot system's
reliability from being compromised by other operating systems. With the
adoption of microprocessor technology and the trend towards complex and
highly integrated systems, the requirement for physical independence is
no longer appropriate. The use of this technology resulted in an
exponential increase in the number of ways rotorcraft systems can fail
and a decrease in the discernibility of such failures. To ensure the
reliability of the pilot system is not compromised when utilizing
microprocessors or highly integrated systems, modern designs allow
redundant systems in the rotorcraft to compare information. Rotorcraft
cannot utilize current technology, and redundant systems cannot compare
information, when the pilot instrument system is isolated.
The FAA proposes to revise Sec. 29.1333(a) and section
VIII(b)(5)(i) of appendix B to parts 27 and 29 to make them applicable
only to pneumatic systems. These proposed changes would allow for the
use of modern technology to monitor and display highly integrated
information regarding the rotorcraft that is currently not permitted.
The FAA also proposes revising appendix B to parts 27 and 29 to remove
the amendment level as previously discussed in section B of the
preamble.
F. Electrical Systems and Equipment (Sec. 29.1351) and Energy Storage
Systems (Sec. Sec. 27.1353 and 29.1353)
The FAA proposes changing Sec. Sec. 27.1353 and 29.1353 to provide
a general regulation that is not directed at a particular battery or
battery chemistry. The existing regulations were first written when
backup electrical power was provided solely by a lead acid battery. The
regulations were later amended to add requirements specific to the
nickel-cadmium battery chemistry. Recently, batteries have been
developed using various lithium chemistries. Lead acid, nickel-cadmium,
and lithium batteries are all energy storage devices with different
operational parameters and failure mechanisms. Rather than add specific
lithium battery requirements, which would necessitate further
amendments to address future energy storage chemistries, the FAA is
proposing to generalize the regulation to accommodate any energy
storage system. The proposed regulation would be less prescriptive than
the existing regulation.
The FAA's intent with this proposal is that the modified regulation
would be directly applicable to both lead acid and nickel-cadmium
batteries without imposing additional requirements. In addition, this
generalized approach would allow the FAA to consider batteries, fuel
cells, or any other energy storage device not yet developed. Certain
attributes tied to a specific battery chemistry currently found in the
regulation would be addressed in AC 27-1B and AC 29-2C. These proposed
changes to Sec. Sec. 27.1353 and 29.1353 are intended to reduce the
burden on the FAA and the rotorcraft industry associated with issuing
special conditions and the related issue papers.
Section 29.1353, paragraphs (a) and (b) would be moved into Sec.
29.1351 as paragraphs (e) and (f) respectively. These paragraphs are
general requirements for all electrical systems and equipment
installations. This change is proposed for consistency because those
requirements are more appropriate in Sec. 29.1351. This proposed
change would standardize the requirements of Sec. Sec. 27.1353 and
29.1353 and both section titles would be changed to ``Energy storage
systems'' to properly reflect the new language.
G. Instrument Markings (Sec. Sec. 27.1545, 29.1545, 27.1549, and
29.1549)
The FAA proposes to modify Sec. Sec. 27.1545(b)(4), 27.1549(b),
29.1545(b)(4), and 29.1549(b) by eliminating the restriction of only
using
[[Page 50587]]
a ``green arc'' to indicate normal operating ranges. The existing rules
require using a green arc for normal operating ranges on airspeed and
powerplant instruments. Modern glass cockpits generally do not contain
these green indicators. The philosophy utilized by modern cockpit
designs is the ``dark, quiet cockpit,'' and only yellow or red is
presented to indicate the aircraft is outside the normal or safe
operating range. The absence of green arcs did not meet the requirement
of the rule. Since the rule was promulgated, the FAA has determined
that if all abnormal conditions are otherwise adequately indicated,
green markings are unnecessary. These accepted design features include
the pilot being able to easily interpret (by way of glancing at the
instrument) whether a parameter is in a precautionary range (yellow) or
beyond a limit (red). Almost every current rotorcraft design now
incorporates a glass cockpit that requires an ELOS finding for the
absence of green arcs. This proposal only affects the color utilized
for the normal operating ranges and does not address graduation
markings on an instrument.
The FAA also proposes to remove the term ``radial'' from Sec. Sec.
27.1545(b)(1), 27.1549(a), 29.1545(b)(1), and 29.1549(a). At the time
these rules were promulgated, cockpit instruments were circular, and
therefore the technically-correct term ``radial line'' was used.
Technological advances have since produced linear-scale gauges
rendering the term ``radial'' obsolete. The term ``line'' is intended
to represent a radial for round instruments or a line for tape or other
style instruments.
The FAA further proposes to replace ``arc'' with ``range'' in
Sec. Sec. 27.1545(b)(3), 27.1545(b)(4), 27.1549(b), 27.1549(c),
27.1549(d), 29.1545(b)(3), 29.1545(b)(4), 29.1549(b), 29.1549(c), and
29.1549(d). When these regulations were created, cockpit instruments
were circular. ``Arc'' is a term that only applies to round gauges and
not to tape or other style instruments, which are in popular use today.
The FAA intends ``range'' to be applied to round, tape, or other style
instruments.
Finally, the FAA proposes to move the requirement for indicating
VNE (power-off) from Sec. 27.1545(b)(2) to Sec.
27.1545(b)(1)(iii) and modify it to encompass designs that incorporate
a means other than a red cross-hatched line. The FAA has previously
accepted designs that utilize a single red line for VNE
(power-on) and VNE (power-off) when not concurrently
displayed. Additionally, a red and white cross-hatched ``barber pole''
may not be the only acceptable method for distinguishing VNE
(power-off) from VNE (power-on). The FAA also proposes to
apply this change to Sec. 29.1545.
H. Control Markings (Sec. Sec. 27.1555 and 29.1555)
The FAA proposes to modify Sec. Sec. 27.1555(c)(1) and
29.1555(c)(1) to permit more than one method to inform the pilot of the
usable fuel system capacity. The existing rules require marking the
usable fuel capacity at the fuel quantity indicator. Older, analog fuel
gauges (many without numbers) used a placard to inform the pilot of the
useful fuel quantity. With modern display systems, the location of the
fuel quantity indicator, as well as the fact that the location may
change, make it impractical to affix a placard next to the display. In
addition, although useful fuel capacity is commonly included in the
rotorcraft flight manual, the proposed alternate method would make this
a requirement to address the lack of continuous display provided by a
placard.
I. Typographical and Standardizing Corrections (Sec. Sec. 27.87,
27.903, 29.955, 29.977, 29.1019, 29.1517, and 29.1587)
The FAA proposes to correct several typographical errors and to
revise certain terminology differences between part 27 and part 29.
First, the FAA proposes to revise the title of Sec. 27.87 to coincide
with the title of Sec. 29.87, which is the equivalent transport
category rotorcraft requirement. The title of Sec. 29.87 was changed
from ``Limiting height-speed envelope'' to ``Height-velocity envelope''
in order to ``agree with the commonly used term.'' However, the
corresponding title to Sec. 27.87 was not similarly changed at that
time.
The FAA also proposes to replace the term ``height-speed'' with the
term ``height-velocity'' throughout Sec. Sec. 27.1587, 29.1587, and
29.1517 to be consistent with the title nomenclature of Sec. Sec.
27.87 and 29.87. These proposed changes are intended to reduce
confusion between and within parts 27 and 29.
The FAA also proposes to reformat Sec. 27.903(d) so that it is
consistent with the format of the Sec. 29.903(e) engine restart
capability requirement. When the Sec. 27.903(d) restart capability
requirements were adopted, the paragraph structure of the existing
Sec. 29.903(e) was not used even though the technical requirements
were intended to be identical. The restart capability requirements of
Sec. 27.903(d) are not being changed in this proposal. These proposed
changes are intended to reduce confusion between part 27 and part 29 by
using a standard format for the same technical requirements.
The FAA proposes to correct a typographical error in Sec. Sec.
29.955 and 29.1019. When Sec. 29.1305 was updated to add a requirement
for an oil pressure indicator for pressure-lubricated gearboxes, the
numbering sequence was changed when the additional requirement was
inserted at paragraph (a)(6). The Sec. 29.1305(a)(17) fuel filter
contamination warning was moved to paragraph (a)(18), and the Sec.
29.1305(a)(18) turbine engine filter contamination warning was moved to
paragraph (a)(19). However, the reference to the fuel filter
contamination warning in Sec. 29.955(a)(7) and the turbine engine
filter contamination warning in Sec. 29.1019(a)(5) were not updated to
account for the change in numbering sequence. This proposed change
would correct the reference at Sec. Sec. 29.955(a)(7) and
29.1019(a)(5).
Finally, the FAA proposes to correct a typographical error in Sec.
29.977. When Sec. 29.977 was updated, it incorrectly carried over
references to ``airplanes'' from an identical part 23 update. The
proposed change would revise Sec. 29.977 by removing the term
``airplanes'' and replacing it with the term ``rotorcraft.''
IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
A. Regulatory Evaluation
Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct
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 (Pub.
L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of
regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act
(Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In
developing U.S. standards, the Trade Act requires agencies to consider
international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis
of U.S. standards. 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 $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with
base year of 1995).
[[Page 50588]]
This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of the
economic impacts of this proposed rule.
Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations.
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement
to that effect and the basis for it to be included in the preamble if a
full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared.
Such a determination has been made for this proposed rule. The
reasoning for this determination follows:
The FAA proposes to revise regulations in 14 CFR part 27
(Airworthiness Standards: Normal Category Rotorcraft) and part 29
(Airworthiness Standards: Transport Category Rotorcraft) related to the
certification of rotorcraft. The proposed changes are necessary due to
advancing technologies, which address a lack of adequate airworthiness
standards resulting from increasing design complexity. As a result,
many regulatory sections are subject to reoccurring special conditions,
ELOS, and MOC issue papers. This proposed rulemaking would address
these problem areas by updating the rules that cause unnecessary
burdens in cost and time to both the FAA and the rotorcraft industry.
The compliance cost to industry of these proposed regulation changes
would be minimal. The justification for minimal cost by regulation is
identified in sections 1 through 9 below.
1. Powerplant Instruments (Sec. Sec. 27.1305 and 29.1305)
Changes to this section would allow for other means of compliance
for powerplant instrument indicators. Other means of compliance are
voluntary and do not impose any new cost but could be cost relieving
for those that choose to voluntarily comply. Additionally, for Sec.
29.1305, the FAA would permit manipulating the powerplant instruments
to simulate OEI conditions without damaging the engines. However,
helicopters with OEI Training Mode would require additional indicators
to differentiate the OEI condition from actual engine failure, but
these indicators are already being installed in current rotorcraft. The
FAA believes this proposed change would impose minimal new cost to
industry, as these are current industry practice.
2. Normal Category Rotorcraft Equipment, Systems, and Installations
(Sec. 27.1309 and Appendix C to Part 27)
The FAA clarifies the requirement to perform proper failure
analysis that would adopt the current industry practice of five failure
category conditions. Additionally, the FAA eliminates the distinction
between single-engine and multi-engine rotorcraft as this distinction
is irrelevant because current analysis tools for technologies and
associated failure effects no longer consider the number of engines. As
these are current industry practice, the FAA asserts that the cost
associated with these changes is minimal.
3. Transport Category Rotorcraft Equipment, Systems, and Installation
(Sec. 29.1309)
This section would be updated to be consistent with industry
standards and practices for conducting failure analysis. The proposed
rule would clarify the requirement to perform a proper failure analysis
and also recognize that the severity of failures can vary. The FAA
asserts that performing a proper failure analysis would be minimal cost
as it would codify current industry practices. Additionally, this
section would be changed to accommodate future changes in industry
failure analysis techniques and reflects current certification
practices. Moving to a performance based standard would reduce the need
to issue recurring special conditions and potentially save manufactures
that choose to use an alternative means of compliance. Thus, these
proposed changes would impose minimal cost.
4. Automatic Flight Guidance and Control Systems (Sec. Sec. 27.1329,
27.1335, 29.1329, and 29.1335)
The FAA proposes to standardize terminology and combine the
requirements for automatic pilot and flight director systems into one
rule. Modern designs include both automatic pilot and flight director
systems and are now referred to as automatic flight guidance and
control systems. Changes to this section would match current industry
practices at a minimal cost.
5. Instrument Systems (Sec. 29.1333 and Appendix B to Parts 27 and 29)
The FAA proposed change would allow for the use of more modern
integrated systems to monitor and display highly integrated information
regarding the rotorcraft. This section would impose minimal cost as the
updates reflect modern industry practices of integrating instrument
systems.
6. Electrical Systems and Equipment (Sec. 29.1351) and Energy Storage
Systems (Sec. Sec. 27.1353 and 29.1353)
The FAA proposed changes are less prescriptive and performance-
based to accommodate different energy storage systems. The modified
regulation would be directly applicable to both lead acid and nickel-
cadmium batteries without imposing additional requirements. The change
would allow the FAA to keep up with changes in technology. Cost to the
industry should be minimal as performance based requirements allow for
minimal cost options to meet the current standard.
7. Instrument Markings (Sec. Sec. 27.1545, 29.1545, 27.1549, and
29.1549)
The proposed rule would remove the restrictive requirement for some
instrument markings to allow alternative means of compliance, i.e.--
green arc, radial red line, etc. Allowing for another means of
compliance is voluntary and would be either a minimal cost and possibly
cost relieving for manufactures that elect to outfit the rotorcraft
with different instrument markings.
8. Control Markings (Sec. Sec. 27.1555 and 29.1555)
The proposed rule would permit more than one method to inform the
pilot of the usable fuel system capacity. However, alternative method
must address the lack of continuous display. Changes to this section
allows for more than one means of compliance. Offering alternative
means of compliance allows industry to meet the requirement with the
least costly option that can be cost relieving or the existing method
of compliance, but either method would be no more than minimal cost.
9. Typographical and Standardizing Corrections (Sec. Sec. 27.87,
27.903, 29.955, 29.977, 29.1019, 29.1517, and 29.1587)
Costs for proposed changes to this section are minimal as these are
strictly typographical or standardizing corrections.
The FAA has, therefore, determined that this proposed rule is not a
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866, and is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's
Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The FAA requests comments with
supporting justification about the FAA determination of minimal cost
impact.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA)
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that
[[Page 50589]]
agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and
of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational
requirements to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and
governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation. To achieve this
principle, agencies are required to solicit and consider flexible
regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions to
assure that such proposals are given serious consideration.'' The RFA
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 rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
section 605(b) of the RFA 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.
The FAA proposes to amend the certification standards of normal and
transport category helicopters. The proposed changes reflect modern
designs currently used in the rotorcraft industry and would reduce the
burden on applicants for certification of new rotorcraft designs. The
proposed changes would reduce or eliminate the need for certain special
conditions currently required to obtain certification of modern
rotorcraft. This proposed rule would merely revise and clarify FAA
rulemaking procedures; the expected outcome will have only a minimal
cost impact on any small entity affected by this rulemaking action.
If an agency determines that a rulemaking will not result in a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
the head of the agency may so certify under section 605(b) of the RFA.
Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), the head of the FAA certifies
that this rulemaking will not result in a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities.
C. International Trade Impact Assessment
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic
objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a
manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also
requires consideration of international standards and, where
appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has
assessed the potential effect of this proposed rule and determined that
the potential benefits are available to both domestic and international
firms which would either have no affect or a positive effect on
international trade.
D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $155 million in lieu of $100
million. This proposed rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore,
the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that
there would be no new requirement for information collection associated
with this proposed rule.
F. International Compatibility and Cooperation
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has
determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices
that correspond to these proposed regulations.
G. Environmental Analysis
FAA Order 1050.1F identifies FAA actions that are categorically
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has
determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical
exclusion identified in paragraph 5-6.6.f and involves no extraordinary
circumstances.
V. Executive Order Determinations
A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency has
determined that this action would not have a substantial direct effect
on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and
the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among
the various levels of government, and, therefore, would not have
Federalism implications.
B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
The FAA analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it
would not be a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order
and would not be likely to have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.
VI. Additional Information
A. Comments Invited
The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The agency
also invites comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy,
or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in
this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion
of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and
include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain
duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written
comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should
submit only one time.
The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well
as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA
personnel concerning
[[Page 50590]]
this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will
consider all comments it receives on or before the closing date for
comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period
has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or
delay. The agency may change this proposal in light of the comments it
receives.
Proprietary or Confidential Business Information: Commenters should
not file proprietary or confidential business information in the
docket. Such information must be sent or delivered directly to the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this document, and marked as proprietary or confidential. If submitting
information on a disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD
ROM, and identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific
information that is proprietary or confidential.
Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), if the FAA is aware of proprietary
information filed with a comment, the agency does not place it in the
docket. It is held in a separate file to which the public does not have
access, and the FAA places a note in the docket that it has received
it. If the FAA receives a request to examine or copy this information,
it treats it as any other request under the Freedom of Information Act
(5 U.S.C. 552). The FAA processes such a request under Department of
Transportation procedures found in 49 CFR part 7.
B. Availability of Rulemaking Documents
An electronic copy of rulemaking documents may be obtained from the
Internet by--
1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);
2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or
3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/.
Copies may also be obtained by sending 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.
Commenters must identify the docket number of this rulemaking.
All documents the FAA considered in developing this proposed rule,
including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from
the Internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced in item
(1) above.
List of Subjects
14 CFR Part 27
Aircraft, Aviation safety.
14 CFR Part 29
Aircraft, Aviation safety.
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:
PART 27--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: NORMAL CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT
0
1. The authority citation for part 27 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44704.
0
2. Amend Sec. 27.87 by revising the section heading and paragraph (a)
introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 27.87 Height-velocity envelope.
(a) If there is any combination of height and forward speed
(including hover) under which a safe landing cannot be made under the
applicable power failure condition in paragraph (b) of this section, a
limiting height-velocity envelope must be established (including all
pertinent information) for that condition, throughout the ranges of--
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 27.903 by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 27.903 Engines.
* * * * *
(d) Restart capability. (1) A means to restart any engine in flight
must be provided.
(2) Except for the in-flight shutdown of all engines, engine
restart capability must be demonstrated throughout a flight envelope
for the rotorcraft.
(3) Following the in-flight shutdown of all engines, in-flight
engine restart capability must be provided.
0
4. Amend Sec. 27.1305 by revising paragraphs (e), (k) introductory
text, (n), and (o) to read as follows:
Sec. 27.1305 Powerplant instruments.
* * * * *
(e) A means to indicate manifold pressure for each altitude engine.
* * * * *
(k) A means to indicate the r.p.m. of each engine and at least one
tachometer, as applicable, for:
* * * * *
(n) A means to indicate the gas temperature for each turbine
engine.
(o) A means to enable the pilot to determine the torque of each
turbine engine, if a torque limitation is established for that engine
under Sec. 27.1521(e).
* * * * *
0
5. Revise Sec. 27.1309 to read as follows:
Sec. 27.1309 Equipment, systems, and installations.
The equipment, systems, and installations whose functioning is
required by this subchapter must be designed and installed to ensure
that they perform their intended functions under any foreseeable
operating condition. For any item of equipment or system whose failure
has not been specifically addressed by another requirement in this
chapter, the following requirements also apply:
(a) The design of each item of equipment, system, and installation
must be analyzed separately and in relation to other rotorcraft systems
and installations to determine and identify any failure that would
affect the capability of the rotorcraft or the ability of the crew to
perform their duties in all operating conditions.
(b) Each item of equipment, system, and installation must be
designed and installed so that:
(1) The occurrence of any catastrophic failure condition is
extremely improbable;
(2) The occurrence of any minor failure condition is no more than
probable; and
(3) For the occurrence of any other failure condition, the
probability of the failure condition must be inversely proportional to
its consequences.
(c) A means to alert the crew in the event of a failure must be
provided when an unsafe system operating condition exists to enable
them to take corrective action. Systems, controls, and associated
monitoring and crew alerting means must be designed to minimize crew
errors that could create additional hazards.
(d) Compliance with the requirements of this section must be shown
by analysis and, where necessary, by ground, flight, or simulator
tests. The analysis must account for:
(1) Possible modes of failure, including malfunctions and
misleading data and input from external sources;
(2) The effect of multiple failures and latent failures;
(3) The resulting effects on the rotorcraft and occupants,
considering the stage of flight and operating conditions; and
(4) The crew warning cues and the corrective action required.
0
6. Amend Sec. 27.1329 by revising the section heading, adding
introductory
[[Page 50591]]
text, and revising paragraphs (a), (d), and (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 27.1329 Automatic flight guidance and control system.
For the purpose of this subpart, an automatic flight guidance and
control system may consist of an autopilot, flight director, or a
component that interacts with stability augmentation or trim.
(a) Each automatic flight guidance and control system must be
designed so that it:
(1) Can be overpowered by the pilot to allow control of the
rotorcraft;
(2) Provides a means to disengage the system by the pilot to
prevent it from interfering with the control of the rotorcraft; and
(3) Provides a means to indicate to the flight crew its current
mode of operation.
Selector switch position is not acceptable as a means of
indication.
* * * * *
(d) The system must be designed so that, within the range of
adjustment available to the pilot, it cannot produce hazardous loads on
the rotorcraft, or create hazardous deviations in the flight path,
under any flight condition appropriate to its use or in the event of a
malfunction.
(e) If the automatic flight guidance and control system integrates
signals from auxiliary controls or furnishes signals for operation of
other equipment, there must be a means to prevent improper operation.
* * * * *
Sec. 27.1335 [Removed]
0
7. Remove Sec. 27.1335.
0
8. Revise Sec. 27.1353 to read as follows:
Sec. 27.1353 Energy storage systems.
Energy storage systems must be designed and installed as follows:
(a) Energy storage systems must provide automatic protective
features for any conditions that could prevent continued safe flight
and landing.
(b) Energy storage systems must not emit any explosive or toxic
gases, smoke, or fluids except through designed venting provisions and
must not accumulate in hazardous quantities within the rotorcraft.
(c) Corrosive fluids or gases that escape from the system must not
damage surrounding structures, adjacent equipment, or systems necessary
for continued safe flight and landing.
(d) The maximum amount of heat that can be generated during any
operation or under any failure condition of the energy storage system
or its individual components must not result in any hazardous effect on
rotorcraft structure, equipment, or systems necessary for continued
safe flight and landing.
(e) Energy storage system installations required for continued safe
flight and landing of the rotorcraft must have monitoring features and
a means to indicate to the pilot the status of all critical system
parameters.
0
9. Amend Sec. 27.1545 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 27.1545 Airspeed indicator.
* * * * *
(b) The following markings must be made:
(1) A red line--
(i) For rotorcraft other than helicopters, at VNE.
(ii) For helicopters, at VNE (power-on).
(iii) For helicopters, at VNE (power-off). If
VNE (power-off) is less than VNE (power-on) and
both are simultaneously displayed, the red line at VNE
(power-off) must be clearly distinguishable from the red line at
VNE (power-on).
(2) [Reserved]
(3) For the caution range, a yellow range.
(4) For the normal operating range, a green or unmarked range.
* * * * *
0
10. Amend Sec. 27.1549 by revising paragraphs (a) through (d) to read
as follows:
Sec. 27.1549 Powerplant instruments.
* * * * *
(a) Each maximum and, if applicable, minimum safe operating limit
must be marked with a red line;
(b) Each normal operating range must be marked as a green or
unmarked range;
(c) Each takeoff and precautionary range must be marked with a
yellow range or yellow line; and
(d) Each engine or propeller range that is restricted because of
excessive vibration stresses must be marked with red ranges or red
lines.
* * * * *
0
11. Amend Sec. 27.1555 by revising paragraph (c)(1) to read as
follows:
Sec. 27.1555 Control markings.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) For fuel systems having no selector controls, the usable fuel
capacity of the system must be indicated at the fuel quantity indicator
unless it is:
(i) Provided by another system or equipment readily accessible to
the pilot; and
(ii) Contained in the limitations section of the rotorcraft flight
manual.
* * * * *
0
12. Amend Sec. 27.1587 by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as
follows:
Sec. 27.1587 Performance information.
(a) * * *
(1) Enough information to determine the limiting height-velocity
envelope.
* * * * *
0
13. Amend appendix B to part 27 by revising paragraphs VIII
introductory text and VIII(b)(5)(i) to read as follows:
Appendix B to Part 27--Airworthiness Criteria for Helicopter Instrument
Flight
* * * * *
VIII. Equipment, systems, and installation. The basic equipment and
installation must comply with Sec. Sec. 29.1303, 29.1431, and 29.1433,
with the following exceptions and additions:
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(5) * * *
(i) For pneumatic systems, only the required flight instruments for
the first pilot may be connected to that operating system;
* * * * *
Appendix C to Part 27 [Amended]
0
14. In appendix C to part 27, amend paragraph C27.2 by removing the
entry ``29.1309(b)(2) (i) and (d)-Equipment, systems, and
installations.''
PART 29--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT
0
15. The authority citation for part 29 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44704.
0
16. Amend Sec. 29.955 by revising paragraph (a)(7) to read as follows:
Sec. 29.955 Fuel flow.
(a) * * *
(7) The fuel filter required by Sec. 29.997 is blocked to the
degree necessary to simulate the accumulation of fuel contamination
required to activate the indicator required by Sec. 29.1305(a)(18).
* * * * *
0
17. Amend Sec. 29.977 by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) to read as
follows:
Sec. 29.977 Fuel tank outlet.
(a) * * *
(1) For reciprocating engine powered rotorcraft, have 8 to 16
meshes per inch; and
(2) For turbine engine powered rotorcraft, prevent the passage of
any object that could restrict fuel flow or damage any fuel system
component.
* * * * *
0
18. Amend Sec. 29.1019 by revising paragraph (a)(5) to read as
follows:
[[Page 50592]]
Sec. 29.1019 Oil strainer or filter.
(a) * * *
(5) An oil strainer or filter that has no bypass, except one that
is installed at an oil tank outlet, must have a means to connect it to
the warning system required in Sec. 29.1305(a)(19).
* * * * *
0
19. Amend Sec. 29.1305 by revising paragraphs (a)(5), (11), and (12)
and adding (b)(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 29.1305 Powerplant instruments.
(a) * * *
(5) A means to indicate manifold pressure for each reciprocating
engine of the altitude type;
* * * * *
(11) A means to indicate the gas temperature for each turbine
engine;
(12) A means to indicate the gas producer speed for each turbine
engine;
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) For each Category A rotorcraft for which OEI Training Mode is
requested, a means must be provided to indicate to the pilot the
simulation of an engine failure, the annunciation of that simulation,
and a representation of the OEI power being provided.
* * * * *
0
20. Revise Sec. 29.1309 to read as follows:
Sec. 29.1309 Equipment, systems, and installations.
The equipment, systems, and installations whose functioning is
required by this subchapter must be designed and installed to ensure
that they perform their intended functions under any foreseeable
operating condition. For any item of equipment or system whose failure
has not been specifically addressed by another requirement in this
chapter, the following requirements also apply:
(a) The design of each item of equipment, system, and installation
must be analyzed separately and in relation to other rotorcraft systems
and installations to determine and identify any failure that would
affect the capability of the rotorcraft or the ability of the crew to
perform their duties in all operating conditions.
(b) Each item of equipment, system, and installation must be
designed and installed so that:
(1) The occurrence of any catastrophic failure condition is
extremely improbable;
(2) The occurrence of any minor failure condition is no more than
probable; and
(3) For the occurrence of any other failure condition, the
probability of the failure condition must be inversely proportional to
its consequences.
(c) A means to alert the crew in the event of a failure must be
provided when an unsafe system operating condition exists and to enable
them to take corrective action. Systems, controls, and associated
monitoring and crew alerting means must be designed to minimize crew
errors that could create additional hazards.
(d) Compliance with the requirements of this section must be shown
by analysis and, where necessary, by ground, flight, or simulator
tests. The analysis must account for:
(1) Possible modes of failure, including malfunctions and
misleading data and input from external sources;
(2) The effect of multiple failures and latent failures;
(3) The resulting effects on the rotorcraft and occupants,
considering the stage of flight and operating conditions; and
(4) The crew warning cues and the corrective action required.
0
21. Amend Sec. 29.1329 by revising the section heading, adding
introductory text, and revising paragraphs (a), (d), and (e) to read as
follows:
Sec. 29.1329 Automatic flight guidance and control system.
For the purpose of this subpart, an automatic flight guidance and
control system may consist of an autopilot, flight director, or a
component that interacts with stability augmentation or trim.
(a) Each automatic flight guidance and control system must be
designed so that it:
(1) Can be overpowered by the pilot to allow control of the
rotorcraft;
(2) Provides a means to disengage the system by the pilot to
prevent it from interfering with the control of the rotorcraft; and
(3) Provides a means to indicate to the flight crew its current
mode of operation. Selector switch position is not acceptable as a
means of indication.
* * * * *
(d) The system must be designed so that, within the range of
adjustment available to the pilot, it cannot produce hazardous loads on
the rotorcraft, or create hazardous deviations in the flight path,
under any flight condition appropriate to its use or in the event of a
malfunction.
(e) If the automatic flight guidance and control system integrates
signals from auxiliary controls or furnishes signals for operation of
other equipment, there must be a means to prevent improper operation.
* * * * *
0
22. Amend Sec. 29.1333 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 29.1333 Instrument systems.
* * * * *
(a) For pneumatic systems, only the required flight instruments for
the first pilot may be connected to that operating system.
* * * * *
Sec. 29.1335 [Removed]
0
23. Remove Sec. 29.1335.
0
24. Amend Sec. 29.1351 by adding paragraphs (e) and (f) to read as
follows:
Sec. 29.1351 General.
* * * * *
(e) Electrical equipment, controls, and wiring must be installed so
that operation of any one unit or system of units will not adversely
affect the simultaneous operation of any other electrical unit or
system essential to safe operation.
(f) Cables must be grouped, routed, and spaced so that damage to
essential circuits will be minimized if there are faults in heavy
current-carrying cables.
* * * * *
0
25. Revise Sec. 29.1353 to read as follows:
Sec. 29.1353 Energy storage systems.
Energy storage systems must be designed and installed as follows:
(a) Energy storage systems must provide automatic protective
features for any conditions that could prevent continued safe flight
and landing.
(b) Energy storage systems must not emit any explosive or toxic
gases, smoke, or fluids except through designed venting provisions and
must not accumulate in hazardous quantities within the rotorcraft.
(c) Corrosive fluids or gases that escape from the system must not
damage surrounding structures, adjacent equipment, or systems necessary
for continued safe flight and landing.
(d) The maximum amount of heat that can be generated during any
operation or under any failure condition of the energy storage system
or its individual components must not result in any hazardous effect on
rotorcraft structure, equipment, or systems necessary for continued
safe flight and landing.
(e) Energy storage system installations required for continued safe
flight and landing of the rotorcraft must have monitoring features and
a means to indicate to the pilot the status of all critical system
parameters.
0
26. Amend Sec. 29.1517 by revising the section heading to read as
follows:
[[Page 50593]]
Sec. 29.1517 Limiting height-velocity envelope.
* * * * *
0
27. Amend Sec. 29.1545 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 29.1545 Airspeed indicator.
* * * * *
(b) The following markings must be made:
(1) A red line:
(i) For rotorcraft other than helicopters, at VNE.
(ii) For helicopters, at a VNE (power-on).
(iii) For helicopters, at VNE (power-off). If
VNE (power-off) is less than VNE (power-on) and
both are simultaneously displayed, the red line at VNE
(power-off) must be clearly distinguishable from the red line at
VNE (power-on).
(2) [Reserved]
(3) For the caution range, a yellow range.
(4) For the normal operating range, a green or unmarked range.
* * * * *
0
28. Amend Sec. 29.1549 by revising paragraphs (a) through (d) to read
as follows:
Sec. 29.1549 Powerplant instruments.
* * * * *
(a) Each maximum and, if applicable, minimum safe operating limit
must be marked with a red line;
(b) Each normal operating range must be marked as a green or
unmarked range;
(c) Each takeoff and precautionary range must be marked with a
yellow range or yellow line;
(d) Each engine or propeller range that is restricted because of
excessive vibration stresses must be marked with red ranges or red
lines; and
* * * * *
0
29. Amend Sec. 29.1555 by revising paragraph (c)(1) to read as
follows:
Sec. 29.1555 Control markings.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) For fuel systems having no selector controls, the usable fuel
capacity of the system must be indicated at the fuel quantity indicator
unless it is:
(i) Provided by another system or equipment readily accessible to
the pilot; and
(ii) Contained in the limitations section of the rotorcraft flight
manual.
* * * * *
0
30. Amend Sec. 29.1587 by revising paragraph (b)(6) to read as
follows:
Sec. 29.1587 Performance information.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(6) The height-velocity envelope except for rotorcraft
incorporating this as an operating limitation;
* * * * *
0
31. Amend appendix B to part 29 by revising paragraphs VIII
introductory text and VIII(b)(5)(i) to read as follows:
Appendix B to Part 29--Airworthiness Criteria for Helicopter Instrument
Flight
* * * * *
VIII. Equipment, systems, and installation. The basic equipment and
installation must comply with Sec. Sec. 29.1303, 29.1431, and 29.1433,
with the following exceptions and additions:
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(5) * * *
(i) For pneumatic systems, only the required flight instruments for
the first pilot may be connected to that operating system;
* * * * *
Issued under authority provided by (Consult AGC) 49 U.S.C.
106(f), 44701(a), and 44703 in Washington, DC, on October 19, 2017.
David W. Hempe,
Deputy Executive Director for Regulatory Operations, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-23360 Filed 10-31-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P