Rule: Performance and Handling Qualities Requirements For Rotorcraft

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No.
41 / Friday, February 29, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 10987
In acting on a request by a foreign air with crew and provide the Department —OST determines that the proposed
carrier for a statement of authorization with the results of that review.6 operations meet the requirements of
under part 212, OST must find that the Because these applications are 14 CFR part 212 and are in the public
operation meets the requirements of that handled on a case-by-case basis, interest, and grants the statement of
rule and is in the public interest.4 The applicants may, of course, endeavor to authorization requested by the foreign
applicant foreign air carrier must show that the foreign air carrier is in air carrier.
demonstrate that its proposed operational control and that the We will publish this Notice in the
arrangement with the U.S. air carrier for operation is in the public interest by Federal Register, and will serve this
the foreign carrier to conduct a flight or providing information and evidence Notice on all U.S. certificated air
series of flights with the foreign air other than that outlined above, but the carriers and all foreign air carriers
carrier’s aircraft and crew in foreign air burden of making that showing is on the holding OST authority.
transportation for an authorized U.S. applicants.
carrier meets these standards. In Dated: February 15, 2008.
To summarize applicable regulations,
particular, one way in which the public one way that a foreign air carrier may Michael W. Reynolds,
interest standard of part 212 could be demonstrate a public interest basis Acting Assistant Secretary for Aviation and
met would be for the foreign air carrier under which it could make an International Affairs, Department of
to show that (1) operational control of Transportation.
arrangement (which may be
the flight or flights rests with it and not characterized by the parties as a wet Nicholas A. Sabatini,
with the U.S. certificated air carrier; (2) lease) to conduct a flight or series of Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety,
legal and actual possession of the flights with the foreign carrier’s aircraft Federal Aviation Administration.
aircraft at all times will remain with the and crew for a U.S. carrier authorized to [FR Doc. E8–3470 Filed 2–28–08; 8:45 am]
foreign air carrier; (3) the country that perform the relevant foreign air BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P
issued its air operator certificate (AOC) transportation is to show that:
has been rated as Category 1 under the —The foreign air carrier involved holds
FAA’s International Aviation Safety DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
a foreign air carrier permit or
Assessment program; 5 and (4) the U.S. exemption authority from OST to
certificated air carrier involved has Federal Aviation Administration
conduct charter operations;
assessed the level of safety of the service
—The country that issued the foreign air 14 CFR Parts 27 and 29
to be provided by the foreign air carrier
carrier’s AOC is rated as Category 1
involved and has found it to be [Docket No.: FAA–2006–25414; Amendment
under the FAA’s International
satisfactory. Nos. 27–44 and 29–51]
The foreign air carrier may provide Aviation Safety Assessment program;
information on operational control by —The operations to be conducted RIN 2120–AH87
submitting, with its application for a represent foreign air transportation
statement of authorization, a copy of the and not prohibited cabotage, in Performance and Handling Qualities
agreement for the aircraft with crew that accordance with 49 U.S.C. 41703; Requirements for Rotorcraft
it has entered into with the U.S. —The foreign air carrier files an
application for a statement of AGENCY: Federal Aviation
certificated air carrier. In making a Administration (FAA), DOT.
determination on operational control, authorization for any such operation
proposed; ACTION: Final rule.
the FAA will consider the terms of that
agreement and all other relevant factors —The foreign air carrier demonstrates
SUMMARY: This final rule provides new
to ensure that the foreign air carrier will that it will be in operational control
of the proposed operation, for and revised airworthiness standards for
exercise authority over initiating, normal and transport category rotorcraft
conducting or terminating a flight example, by providing with its
application, for review by the FAA, due to technological advances in design
conducted under the agreement. and operational trends in normal and
Likewise, in determining whether the copies of the agreement for the aircraft
with crew, that it has entered into transport rotorcraft performance and
foreign air carrier retains actual and handling qualities. The changes
legal possession of the aircraft, the FAA with the U.S. certificated air carrier;
—The foreign air carrier demonstrates enhance the safety standards for
will consider all relevant factors, performance and handling qualities to
including the foreign air carrier’s right that it will retain legal and actual
possession of the aircraft; reflect the evolution of rotorcraft
to substitute other aircraft for the capabilities. This rule harmonizes U.S.
aircraft identified in the agreement, or —The foreign air carrier provides
evidence that the U.S. certificated air and European airworthiness standards
its right to use the aircraft identified in for rotorcraft performance and handling
the agreement for its own purposes carrier involved has conducted a
safety audit of the foreign carrier, qualities.
when the aircraft is not needed by the
consistent with an FAA-approved DATES: These amendments become
U.S. air carrier.
The U.S. certificated air carrier safety audit program, and has effective on March 31, 2008. Affected
involved in the arrangement may submitted a report of that audit to the parties, however, do not have to comply
demonstrate its assessment of the safety FAA for review; with the information collection
of the service by conducting a safety —The FAA notifies OST that it has requirements of this rule until the OMB
audit of the foreign air carrier under an determined that operational control of approves the FAA’s request for this
FAA-approved safety audit program, the proposed flights rest with the information collection requirement. The
comparable to the audits that U.S. foreign air carrier applicant, that the FAA will publish a separate document
carriers now perform under the OST/ oversight of the operation will remain notifying you of the OMB Control
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
FAA Code-Share Safety Program. The with the country that issued the Number and the compliance date(s) for
FAA would review the safety audit foreign air carrier’s AOC, and that the the information collection requirements
along with the agreement for the aircraft safety audit meets the standards of the of this rule.
U.S. certificated air carrier’s safety FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
4 See 14 CFR § 212.11(a). audit program; and technical questions concerning this final
VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:40 Feb 28, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29FER1.SGM 29FER1
10988 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 41 / Friday, February 29, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
rule contact Jeff Trang, Rotorcraft levels attainable by modern aircraft and Discussion of the Final Rule
Standards Staff, ASW–111, Federal FAA-approved equivalent level of safety Weight Limits (§§ 27.25, 29.25)
Aviation Administration, Fort Worth, findings. In fact, it has been more than
Texas 76193–0111; telephone (817) 20 years since the last major The FAA proposed § 27.25(a)(1)(iv) to
222–5135; facsimile (817) 222–5961, promulgation of rules that address formalize previous equivalent level of
e-mail jeff.trang@faa.gov. For legal rotorcraft performance and handling safety findings by establishing a
questions concerning this final rule qualities (Amendments 29–24 and 27– maximum allowable weight if the
contact Steve Harold, Directorate 21).1 Since then, the FAA has developed requirements in § 27.79 or § 27.143(c)(1)
Counsel, ASW–7G, Federal Aviation cannot be met. The equivalent level of
policies and procedures that address
Administration, Fort Worth, Texas safety is attained by prohibiting certain
certain aspects of these requirements to
76193–0007, telephone (817) 222–5099; operations and including limitations in
make the rotorcraft airworthiness the Rotorcraft Flight Manual (RFM) that
facsimile (817) 222–5945, e-mail standards workable within the
steve.c.harold@faa.gov. reflect the actual capability of the
framework of later rotorcraft designs aircraft.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: and operational needs. Additionally, One commenter suggested that the
most rotorcraft manufacturers have proposed changes potentially lower the
Authority for This Rulemaking
routinely exceeded the minimum safety level of safety currently required under
The FAA’s authority to issue rules on requirements in current part 27 and part part 27 standards, are redundant and
aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the 29 regulations. unnecessary, appear to delete the low-
United States Code. Subtitle I, Section speed controllability requirements as a
106 describes the authority of the FAA History of the NPRM
component in establishing the
Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation maximum weight under
On January 20, 1995, the FAA tasked
Programs, describes in more detail the § 27.25(a)(1)(iii), and therefore should
the Performance and Handling Qualities
scope of the agency’s authority. be withdrawn. The commenter stated
Harmonization Working Group
This rulemaking is promulgated that under the current standard the
(PHQHWG) to ‘‘review Title 14 Code of
under the authority described in flight requirements that typically
Federal Regulations part 27 and
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section establish the maximum weight for a
44701, ‘‘General requirements,’’ Section Appendix B, and part 29 and Appendix
B, and supporting policy and guidance helicopter with a single main rotor are
44702, ‘‘Issuance of Certificates,’’ and in-ground effect (IGE) hover
section 44704, ‘‘Type certificates, material for the purpose of determining
the course of action to be taken for performance (§ 27.73), height-velocity
production certificates, and (§ 27.79), and low-speed controllability
airworthiness certificates.’’ Under rulemaking and/or policy relative to the
(§ 27.143). The commenter further stated
section 44701, the FAA is charged with issue of harmonizing performance and
that the structure of § 27.25 will always
prescribing regulations and minimum handling qualities requirements.’’ The
establish the maximum weight at a
standards for practices, methods, and PHQHWG, which included broad value that allows compliance with
procedures the Administrator finds membership from government §§ 27.79 and 27.143(c)(1) because the
necessary for safety in air commerce. authorities and industry representatives applicant will always select the weights
Under section 44702, the FAA may throughout the international rotorcraft allowed by § 27.25(a)(1)(iii) to show
issue various certificates including type community, met a total of ten times compliance with §§ 27.73, 27.79 and
certificates, production certificates, and beginning in March 1995 to ensure 27.143. Under the scenario the FAA
airworthiness certificates. Under section participation by all interested parties used to justify the proposed change
44704, the FAA shall issue type early in the rulemaking process. Based (making an equivalent level of safety
certificates for aircraft, aircraft engines, on the recommendations of the finding to § 27.143(c) and statements in
propellers, and specified appliances PHQHWG, we published a notice of advisory material for § 29.143(c) that
when the FAA finds that the product is proposed rulemaking (NPRM 06–11) 2 in relate to possible removal, under certain
properly designed and manufactured, the Federal Register on July 25, 2006. circumstances, of operating limitations
performs properly, and meets the The comment period for that NPRM based on any hover controllability
regulations and minimum prescribed closed on October 23, 2006. condition), the commenter stated that
standards. This regulation is within the the FAA intends to delete the low-speed
Summary of Comments controllability requirements of the
scope of that authority because it would
promote safety by updating the existing The FAA received a total of 34 current rule as parameters for
minimum prescribed standards used comments to the NPRM from four establishing maximum weight. The
during the type certification process to commenters: Erickson Air-Crane, commenter maintained that this would
reflect the enhanced performance and Transport Canada, and three reduce the margin of safety for
handling quality capabilities of individuals, two of whom submitted helicopter operations, particularly above
rotorcraft. It would also harmonize this their comments jointly. One commenter sea level, and would require exceptional
standard with international standards agreed with the proposed changes but piloting skills or exceptionally favorable
for evaluating the performance and had a comment relating to our economic conditions in order to conduct safe
handling qualities of normal and evaluation. The remaining 33 comments operations. Such requirements are
transport category rotorcraft. prohibited by certain regulations, such
related to specific proposed rule
as § 27.51(a)(1).
Background changes and included suggested We disagree with a majority of these
Due to technological advances in changes, as discussed more fully in the comments. Proposed § 27.25(a)(1)(iv) is
design and operational trends in normal discussion of the final rule below. not redundant or unnecessary because it
and transport rotorcraft performance provides an additional standard, rather

and handling qualities, new and revised aircraft and its occupants, both direct than a replacement standard, for
and consequential, caused or
airworthiness standards have been determining the maximum weight.
contributed to by one or more failures,
developed. Some current part 27 and considering relevant adverse operation
Recent certifications have resulted in
part 29 regulations do not reflect safety or environmental conditions.’’ ARP4761 rotorcraft designs that have been unable
further states that, ‘‘for each failure
condition, the analyst must assign
VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:40 Feb 28, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000probability
Frm 00018 requirements.’’
Fmt 4700 SfmtIn existing
4700 E:\FR\FM\29FER1.SGM 29FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 41 / Friday, February 29, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 10989
to meet the current standards for historically, such a margin of safety was to show compliance through an
controllability near the ground (§ 27.143 maintained by an equivalent level of equivalent level of safety finding. We
Controllability and maneuverability) safety finding. Under the new standard, accepted these findings as providing the
while at the maximum weight which adopts this equivalent level of same level of safety as that for part 27
established at 7,000 feet density altitude safety as another alternative, prohibiting certifications, which also allows for
when meeting the standards for and limiting certain operations will configurations of no more than nine
performance at minimum operating maintain, not lower, that established passenger seats. In those certification
speed (§ 27.73) and for establishing the level of safety. Accordingly, we are projects, this new standard would allow
respective limiting height-speed adopting the changes as proposed. for demonstrated wind velocities and
envelope (§ 27.79). For those We proposed to amend § 29.25 by azimuths to be included as an operating
certification projects, we have permitted requiring that the maximum weights, limitation, which must be stated as such
the applicant to show compliance altitudes, and temperatures in the RFM. That is, for those part 29,
through equivalent level of safety demonstrated for compliance with Category B rotorcraft with nine or less
findings. In those cases, this new § 29.143(c), which may also include passenger seats, we believe that by
standard would allow for weight- wind azimuths, become operating requiring the wind operating envelope
altitude-temperature (WAT) limitations limitations for Category B rotorcraft to be a limitation, the proposed standard
to be established for a part 27 rotorcraft with a passenger seating capacity of provides the same level of safety as in
that cannot meet the requirements of nine or less. Such limitations are the standards prescribed by part 27,
§ 27.143(c) at 7,000 feet. The rotorcraft necessary to ensure safe aircraft which also limits the seating capacity to
would then be required to operate operations within the demonstrated nine or less passenger seats. This
within the weights, altitudes, and performance envelope of such rotorcraft. methodology is consistent with the
temperatures specified by those WAT Four comments were received standards adopted by Amendments 29–
limitations. This ‘‘part 29 regarding § 29.25. One commenter 21 and 29–24, which, among other
methodology,’’ which imposes WAT stated that the intent and applicability things, established different criteria for
limitations not usually required of in this proposed rule change is Category A and Category B rotorcraft
normal category rotorcraft, therefore confusing in the context of discussions certification in § 29.1 as a function of
raises the minimum level of safety by associated with previous amendments both aircraft weight and maximum
restricting the aircraft from operating in to part 29 of the regulations and passenger seating capacity. We believe
those environmental conditions where associated advisory material. The that the proposed change is materially
the low-speed controllability commenter recommended that the consistent with the current guidance
requirements cannot be met. paragraph be rewritten to: (1) Clarify material in Advisory Circular (AC) 29–
how this paragraph affects the relief 2C, which only will need to be revised
As alluded to by the commenter, these granted to Category B rotorcraft at
equivalent level of safety prohibitions to reflect the requirement that the
Amendment 29–24; (2) address
and limitations have historically been appropriate limitations be included in
maximum safe wind limitations in
obtained through use of a certification the RFM for these aircraft. Even though
§ 29.1583; and (3) make the paragraph
methodology analogous to that for part previous amendments did not
applicable to all Category B rotorcraft,
29 rotorcraft certification. They do not specifically require that operating
not just those having a passenger
circumvent or eliminate the low speed envelopes be included in the limitations
capacity of nine or less, if the intent of
controllability requirements for part 27 section of the RFM for these aircraft, the
the change is to grant relief under
rotorcraft. As previously noted, one proposed change makes this a
certain conditions from any hover
factor we have used in establishing requirement to further increase the
controllability conditions determined
WAT limitations is the low-speed under § 29.143(c). safety standards. Further, because this
controllability requirement of The FAA does not agree that the standard deals with aircraft weight for
§ 29.143(c). After these changes are intent and applicability of the proposed various conditions—maximum weights,
effective, the low-speed controllability change is confusing in the context of altitudes, and temperatures (WAT)—we
requirement of § 27.143(c) will remain a previous amendments to part 29 and the opted to place the limitations
factor in establishing the WAT associated advisory material. As requirement in this regulation, rather
limitations. While we partially agree explicitly stated in the proposed change than in § 29.1583, to further emphasize
with the commenter’s concerns about to § 29.25(a)(4) this paragraph of the that the maximum WAT conditions at
operating limitations being a greater regulation applies only to Category B which the rotorcraft can safely operate
workload on pilots, we do not believe rotorcraft with nine or less passenger near the ground with maximum wind
that any new requirements proposed in seats. Even though there may be some velocity are limitations and may also
this rule are beyond the scope of normal imprecise wording in our advisory include other demonstrated wind
piloting responsibilities. Whether such material, we chose to exclude Category velocities and azimuths.
data are provided in the Rotorcraft B rotorcraft with ten or more passenger Another commenter stated that
Flight Manual (RFM) as performance seats from this change to ensure that a revising the rule by addition of a new
data or in the Limitations Section higher level of safety is maintained for paragraph potentially lowers the level of
should not materially affect pilot those transport category rotorcraft safety established for part 29 standards;
workload. We agree with the commenter configured for 10 or more passenger potentially shifts the burden for
that certain environmental conditions seats. In short, we expect a higher level maintaining the currently established
may require increased pilot vigilance in of safety to be applied to all Category A level of safety from the type design to
determining wind speed and direction rotorcraft and most Category B the flight crew; and that maintaining the
in order to adhere to some limitations rotorcraft. For those Category B current version of § 29.25(a) is
and prohibitions. However, we believe rotorcraft having nine or less passenger satisfactory and need not be changed.
that following such limitations should seats, in prior certifications in which the The commenter therefore recommended
not require exceptional piloting skill. current standards for controllability that the proposed change to § 29.25(a)
Furthermore, this standard does not near the ground (§ 29.143(c)) could not be withdrawn. The commenter stated
reduce the margin of safety because, be met, we have allowed the applicant that the low-speed-controllability rule
consists of two elements, wind speed obtainable. To require this wind (OGE) hover performance, because OGE
and weight. The commenter further information as an operating limitation operations have become commonplace.
stated that, under current regulations, for Category B is impractical.’’ However, The proposed change mandates that
all part 29 Category B rotorcraft are at we have reevaluated our position OGE hover data be determined
a competitive disadvantage when relating to operating limitations and are throughout the range of weights,
compared to similarly-sized part 27 now requiring this information for altitudes, and temperatures; most
rotorcraft because, for part 27 rotorcraft, Category B rotorcraft with nine or less manufacturers already present this data
there is no requirement to take-off and passenger seats be placed in the in the RFM.
land above 7,000 feet density altitude at Limitations Section, for the same The FAA received a comment, outside
a weight which allows all-azimuth low reasons described in our disposition of of our proposed rule change, suggesting
speed controllability in winds of at least the first three comments to this section. that in this final rule, where we are re-
17 knots above 7,000 feet density The commenter is correct that, under designating § 27.73 as § 27.49, that we
altitude. The commenter asserts that current regulations, all part 29 Category revise paragraph (a)(2)(ii) to encompass
part 29 transport category rotorcraft B rotorcraft must be designed to operate the entire flight envelope requested by
must be designed to operate at the at the maximum weight that allows the applicant, including the
maximum weight that allows compliance with § 29.143(c) at each temperature-altitude hover ceiling
compliance with § 29.143(c) at each takeoff and landing altitude, and that for requirements where the temperature at
takeoff and landing altitude. If the low part 27 rotorcraft, there is no sea level is well above the minimum
speed requirement is deleted for part 29 requirement to demonstrate all-azimuth standard 100 °F condition envisioned in
Category B rotorcraft with nine or less low speed controllability in winds of at § 27.1043(b). The commenter further
passenger seats as proposed, the least 17 knots, above 7,000 feet density stated that, if we adopt their suggested
commenter believes the part 29 flight altitude and at the maximum weight. change to re-designate § 27.49(a)(2)(ii),
crew of these rotorcraft will be required The commenter stated that this places for consistency we should revise
to compensate by being more alert to the part 29, Category B rotorcraft at a §§ 27.51, 27.79(a)(1) and (a)(2), and
wind conditions when operating near competitive disadvantage when 27.143(c)(1) to require turbine-powered
maximum weight. Because the margin compared to similarly-sized part 27 rotorcraft to demonstrate compliance at
of safety currently provided by the part rotorcraft. We disagree. For Category B maximum weight from sea level at
29 design may no longer be included in rotorcraft having nine or less passenger temperatures established under
the design of the rotorcraft, the seats, in prior certifications in which the § 27.1043(b) to 2,500 feet pressure
commenter contends that this current standards for controllability altitude at a temperature corresponding
requirement would shift the burden for near the ground (§ 29.143(c)) could not to the established sea level temperature
maintaining the currently established be met, we have allowed the applicant decreased by the standard lapse rate.
level of safety from the type design to show compliance through equivalent The commenter also stated that the FAA
holder to the flight crew. level of safety findings. We accepted should consider revising the 7,000 feet
The FAA does not agree that these these findings as providing the same density altitude standard in proposed
requirements will result in a lower level of safety as that for part 27 §§ 27.51(b), 27.79(a)(1), and 27.143(c)(1)
safety standard for part 29 or that the certifications, which also allows for no and (c)(2) to 7,000 feet density altitude
requirement potentially shifts the more than nine passenger seats, by with temperature corresponding to the
burden for maintaining safety from the allowing operating limitations in the sea level temperature established in
type design holder to the flight crew. RFM which may include wind compliance with § 27.1043(b) decreased
Not only is this requirement a safety velocities and azimuths. In those by the standard lapse rate. The
improvement, but critical safety certification projects, this new standard commenter further stated that these
information such as maximum weight, would allow for demonstrated wind changes would acknowledge the
altitude, and temperature operating velocities and azimuths to be included increased capability of turbine-powered
limits (which may include limited wind as an operating limitation in the RFM. rotorcraft by requiring compliance at the
azimuths) would be listed in the That is, for those part 29, Category B edge of the envelope requested, not to
Limitations Section of the RFM. rotorcraft with nine or less passengers, a single density altitude, which may not
Currently, we require that information we believe that by requiring wind reflect the intended operational
to be placed in the Limitations Section operating envelope to be a limitation, envelope of the rotorcraft. Although this
of the RFM only for Category A the new standard provides the same comment may have merit, it is beyond
rotorcraft. Our position as reflected in level of safety as in the standards the scope of our proposals and is not
the preamble of the NPRM (82–12) 3 prescribed by part 27, which also limits adopted. We may consider it in future
leading to Amendment 29–24, states, in the seating capacity to nine or less rulemaking actions. Accordingly, it is
part, ‘‘The FAA considers the 17-knot passenger seats. adopted as proposed.
controllability requirement an As discussed earlier, the FAA did not
intend to delete the low speed Takeoff (§ 27.51), Landing (§ 27.75), and
appropriate minimum safety
requirement for part 29 Category B Engines (§ 27.903)
requirement for Category A rotorcraft.
* * * This proposal would add the rotorcraft with nine or less passenger We received no comments on these
requirement that the wind value be seats. One factor we have used in proposals; all three are adopted as
placed in the Flight Manual as a establishing WAT limitations is the low- proposed.
limitation for Category A rotorcraft. speed controllability requirement of We proposed to revise § 27.51 to
* * * In roles envisioned for utility § 29.143(c), which this final rule now recognize in the standard that the most
rotorcraft and those carrying less than formalizes. critical center-of-gravity (CG) may not
10 passengers, takeoffs and landings are be the extreme forward CG, and require
Performance at Minimum Operating that tests be performed at the most

frequently conducted from sites where Speed (New § 27.49)
wind information is not readily critical CG configuration and at the
We proposed to re-designate § 27.73 maximum weight for which takeoff
3 47 FR 37806–01, August 26, 1982, Docket # as § 27.49 and add a requirement to certification is requested. Further, we
23266. determine the out-of-ground effect proposed to clarify the requirement to
demonstrate safe landings after an from the first sentence, reflecting that together with the new OGE hover
engine failure at any point along the current OGE weights for helicopters are requirement of § 27.49, would increase
takeoff path up to the maximum takeoff not necessarily less than the maximum the level of safety by requiring
altitude or 7,000 feet, whichever is less, weight at sea level. Finally, we additional performance information.
to explicitly state that the altitudes cited proposed to remove the term ‘‘greatest Relative to both sections 27.143 and
are density altitudes. power’’ from § 27.79(b)(2) and replace it 29.143, one commenter noted that the
We proposed to revise § 27.75(a) to: with language that more clearly states reference to ‘‘paragraph (e)’’ in
(1) State the required flight condition in the power to be used on the remaining paragraph (b)(4) of the current rule
more traditional rotorcraft terminology; engine(s) for multi-engine helicopters. (which we did not propose to change in
(2) require multi-engine helicopters to This ‘‘minimum installed specification the NPRM) should be changed to read
demonstrate landings with one engine power’’ is the minimum uninstalled ‘‘paragraph (f).’’ The FAA agrees. As
inoperative and initiated from an specification power corrected for indicated in the NPRM, we proposed to
established approach; and (3) replace installation losses. re-designate §§ 27.143 and 29.143
the word ‘‘glide’’ with the word One commenter to the proposed paragraphs (d) and (e) as paragraphs (e)
‘‘autorotation.’’ language suggested that the FAA seems and (f), respectively. However, we failed
We proposed to add paragraph to be aligning the sections of part 27 to propose to change the reference in
§ 27.903(d) to require engine restart with part 29, as was proposed with the paragraphs in §§ 27.143 and 29.143(b)(4)
capability, which is a fundamental re-designation of § 27.73 as § 27.49. from paragraph (e) to paragraph (f). That
necessity for any aircraft to minimize Consequently, the commenter is, we gave no indication that we
the risk of a forced landing. A restart recommended that § 27.79 be re- proposed to delete the exception
capability will enhance safety, even if it designated as § 27.87. The FAA agrees enumerated in (b)(4) to exclude
may not be useful in every case such as that this paragraph re-designation better helicopters from the (b)(4) requirement
when engine damage exists or when aligns the requirements for performance if the helicopter demonstrates
there is insufficient altitude to at minimum operating speed in part 27 compliance with current paragraph (e)
implement the engine restart procedure. and part 29. Furthermore, the re- (re-designated paragraph (f)). Because
We intend that the restart procedure be designating of the paragraph is these paragraph re-designations, as well
included in the RFM. administrative in nature and imposes no as the unchanged provisions of
additional requirements on applicants. paragraph (b), were intended only to
Glide Performance (§ 27.71) Accordingly, the recommendation is continue the current requirements, we
One commenter noted that the word adopted as proposed. believe changing the reference in
‘‘glide’’ has been replaced with The second commenter noted that paragraph (b)(4) from (e) to (f) is non-
‘‘autorotation’’ in the proposed text of since the height-velocity (H–V) substantive, constitutes a correction of
§ 27.143. However, the title of § 27.71 envelope for part 27 aircraft is not a an error, is consistent with our intended
remains ‘‘Glide Performance.’’ The limitation, the word ‘‘limiting’’ should changes without which the proposed
commenter recommended that the title be deleted from the title of § 27.79 and change would have unintended
of § 27.71 be changed to ‘‘Autorotation from any other references to the H–V consequences, and continues the
Performance,’’ to provide consistency envelope contained in part 27. The FAA current standard to exclude the same
with the proposed changes. The FAA agrees with the comment, since helicopters from the provisions of
agrees with the comment and the title § 27.1587 requires that the H–V paragraph (b)(4). We have changed the
has been changed. envelope be published in the RFM as reference in the final rule.
performance information. Accordingly, A second comment stated that the
Performance at Minimum Operating the title of the paragraph is changed. NPRM proposes to add requirements to
Speed (§ 27.73) determine low-speed controllability: (1)
Controllability and Maneuverability
One commenter noted that in our Near the ground for takeoff and landing
(§§ 27.143, 29.143)
proposed re-designation of current altitudes above 7,000 feet density
§ 27.73 to § 27.49, we proposed to We proposed to revise altitude, and (2) for OGE for the altitude
change the ambient temperature in §§ 27.143(a)(2)(v) and 29.143(a)(2)(v) to range from standard sea level to the
paragraph (a)(2)(ii) from ‘‘° F’’ to ‘‘° C.’’ replace the word ‘‘glide’’ with maximum takeoff and landing altitude
Consequently, the commenter ‘‘autorotation.’’ We proposed to re- capability of the aircraft. The
recommended that all sections of part designate portions of § 27.143, and to commenter stated that under § 27.25(a),
27 containing temperature callouts rewrite §§ 27.143(c) and 29.143(c) to the weight selected by the applicant to
likewise be revised. We disagree. The more clearly state that controllability on establish the all-azimuth wind velocities
NPRM does not change the ambient or near the ground must be would be a factor in determining the
temperature callout from degrees- demonstrated throughout a range of maximum weight. The commenter
Fahrenheit to degrees-Celsius. Rather, it speeds from zero to at least 17 knots. We stated that this weight would
recognizes degrees-Celsius in addition also proposed to clarify the altitude undoubtedly be much less than the
to degrees-Fahrenheit when making the requirement with the addition of the maximum weight determined under the
temperature callout. Incorporating words ‘‘density altitude.’’ We further current rule and thus would make the
similar changes to other temperature proposed to revise § 27.143(c)(2) to rotorcraft less competitive. Further, the
callouts will be considered for future require that controllability be commenter assumes that the intent of
changes to part 27. Accordingly, the determined at altitudes above 7,000 feet the proposal is to develop additional
change is adopted as proposed. density altitude if takeoff and landing performance information beyond that
are scheduled above that altitude. currently available, to assist the flight
Limiting Height—Speed Envelope Lastly, we proposed to add §§ 27.143(d) crew. The commenter stated that if these
(§ 27.79) and 29.143(d), to require the assumptions are true, the NPRM should
We proposed to revise § 27.79(a)(1) to determination of controllability for be revised to clearly indicate that the
include the words ‘‘density altitude’’ wind velocities from zero to at least 17 proposed paragraphs are not applicable
after ‘‘7,000 feet.’’ We also proposed to knots OGE at weights selected by the as flight requirements when establishing
revise § 27.79(a)(2) by removing ‘‘lesser’’ applicant. These proposed changes, the maximum weight under § 27.25(a).
The FAA does not agree. As noted in the Demonstration of Static Longitudinal recommended that we delete the comma
NPRM, the intent of the proposed Stability (§§ 27.175, 29.175) after ‘‘Vy¥10 kt.’’ We agree. That
language is to increase the level of safety We proposed to decrease, in comma in the proposed text is a
by providing additional performance paragraphs (a) and (b) of §§ 27.175 and typographical error and has been
information in the RFM. This is further 29.175, the airspeed range about the removed in this final rule. Otherwise,
reflected in the proposed specified trim speeds to more the changes are adopted as proposed.
§ 27.1587(a)(2), which proposed to representative values than are currently
explicitly require presentation of Static Directional Stability (§§ 27.177,
contained in the rule. We also proposed 29.177)
performance information found in to add a new paragraph (c) to require an
meeting the requirements of the additional level flight demonstration We proposed to revise §§ 27.177 and
proposed § 27.143. Consequently, the point, at a trim airspeed of VNE ¥ 10 29.177 to provide further objective
new § 27.143(d)(4) will not be used in knots, because the data coverage under criteria over which the directional
determining the rotorcraft’s maximum the current cruise demonstration speed stability characteristics are evaluated.
weight under § 27.25(a). Except for the We also proposed to allow for a
in modern helicopters may no longer
reference change in paragraph minimum amount of negative stability
represent a normal variation about a
§ 27.143(b)(4), the changes are adopted around each trim point, which does not
trim point. Additionally, we proposed
as proposed. materially affect the overall safety
Another comment suggests that we to re-designate the current paragraph (c)
as paragraph (d), and to delete the considerations of static directional
used the word ‘‘manner’’ instead of
current paragraph (d) containing the stability.
‘‘maneuver’’ in proposed § 29.143(c).
The proposed requirement reads, in hover demonstration, as the safety One commenter noted a typographical
part, ‘‘* * * the rotorcraft can be considerations associated with hovering error in the proposed text of § 27.177, in
operated without loss of control on or flight are adequately addressed by that paragraph (a)(1) has an open
near the ground in any manner §§ 27.143(a) and 29.143(a), respectively. parenthesis mark in front of ‘‘10
appropriate to the type. * * *’’ The One commenter suggested that degrees’’ and suggests that it should be
commenter suggests that the word discrepancies may exist between a ‘‘±’’ symbol. We agree and have
‘‘manner’’ should be changed to § 27.175(d)(1) and (2), and §§ 27.67 and corrected that error in § 27.177(a)(1) of
‘‘maneuver’’ because the latter is used in 27.71. Specifically, § 27.175 requires this final rule. Otherwise, the proposal
the current requirement and also in the that static longitudinal stability be is adopted as proposed.
proposed and current requirement in demonstrated in autorotation about the
airspeeds for minimum rate-of-descent Two comments were received
§ 27.143(c). We agree. The word regarding § 29.177. In the first comment,
‘‘manner,’’ as used in the proposed text, and best angle-of-glide. However,
§ 27.71 requires that the minimum rate Transport Canada stated that they do
is an error. We intended to use the word not think that § 29.177(a)(1) makes sense
‘‘maneuver’’ in proposed § 29.143(c) and of descent and the best angle of glide
airspeeds be determined only for single in relation to § 29.177(a). They recited
we have made that non-substantive what they assumed we meant by the
change in this final rule. engine helicopters and multiengine
helicopters that do not meet Category A proposal and stated that ‘‘paragraph
Static Longitudinal Stability (§§ 27.173, engine isolation requirements. 29.177(a)(1) specifies a range of sideslip
29.173) Therefore, the commenter stated that angles and the lesser sideslip angle in
this requirement would not apply to this range will always be the smallest
We proposed to clarify §§ 27.173(a)
multi-engine helicopters that meet angle in the range.’’ We do not agree and
and 29.173(a) by changing ‘‘a speed’’ to
Category A engine isolation have not made any changes based on
‘‘airspeed.’’ We also proposed to
requirements. The commenter this comment. We believe that the
combine paragraphs (b) and (c) to allow
recommended that these sections be commenter has misinterpreted our
neutral or negative static stability in
limited areas of the flight envelope, if reconciled for part 27 designs that meet meaning in the ‘‘* * * sideslip angles
adequate compensating features are Category A engine isolation up to the lesser of—’’ language in
present and the pilot can maintain requirements. The FAA does not agree proposed § 29.177(a). This language
airspeed within five knots of the desired that any action is necessary. While modifies the four options listed in
trim airspeed under the conditions of § 27.71 does not have an explicit paragraphs § 29.177(a)(1) through
§§ 27.175 and 29.175. Such neutral or requirement to determine these two § 29.177(a)(4) and is intended to mean
negative static stability in limited flight autorotation speeds for part 27 rotorcraft the lesser value found from each of
domains have been allowed for that meet Category A engine isolation those four subsequent paragraphs.
numerous rotorcraft under equivalent requirements, § 27.141 requires that the Paragraph 29.177(a)(1) is intended to
level of safety findings. Lastly, we rotorcraft demonstrate satisfactory flight provide options of sideslip angles from
proposed to delete the §§ 27.173(c) and characteristics for ‘‘any condition of trim that are 50° wide (+25° to ¥25°) at
29.173(c) requirements relating to the speed, power, and rotor r.p.m. for which the minimum-rate-of-descent airspeed
hover demonstration in current certification is requested; * * *.’’ less 15 knots, then varying linearly and
§§ 27.175(d) and 29.175(d). Further, the two trim airspeeds narrowing to 20° wide (+10° to ¥10°) at
We received no substantive comments explicitly cited in the proposed rule are the Vne airspeed.
relative to the proposed changes to intended to provide data at the most The second commenter suggested that
§ 27.173. One commenter noted that the likely operating conditions flown during the phrase in proposed § 29.177(c) that
proposed revision to § 29.173(b) has an an autorotation, thereby providing a reads ‘‘paragraph (a) of this paragraph’’
open parenthesis mark in front of the ‘‘5 higher level of safety. Consequently, we be changed to read ‘‘paragraph (a) of this
knots’’ and suggested that open are adopting the language as proposed. section.’’ We agree. The correct
parenthesis mark should be a ‘‘±’’ One commenter stated that the reference is to paragraph (a) of § 29.177.
symbol. We agree and have made that proposed revision to paragraph Except for changing the word
change in the final rule. The other § 29.175(b) reads, ‘‘* * * in the climb ‘‘paragraph’’ to ‘‘section’’ for proposed
proposed changes have been adopted as condition at speeds from Vy¥10 kt, to § 29.177(c), the other changes are
proposed. Vy + 10 kt. * * *’’ The commenter adopted as proposed.
Performance Information (§§ 27.1587, We proposed to revise § 29.1587 to making specific reference to the IGE
29.1587) require new performance information be hover ceiling, adds clarification, and
included in the RFM, including the removes any ambiguity in the
We proposed to revise § 27.1587(a) to requirement for presenting maximum requirement. Accordingly, the
include reference to new § 27.49. We safe winds for OGE operations. recommendation is adopted.
also proposed to revise § 27.1587(a)(2)(i) A commenter stated that the proposed The commenter also suggested that
and (ii) to specifically include paragraphs (a)(7) and (b)(8) require, in since § 29.1587(b)(8) uses the term
requirements for presenting maximum part, ‘‘* * * the maximum weight for ‘‘winds of at least 17 knots from all
safe winds for OGE operations each altitude and temperature condition azimuths,’’ it ‘‘would seem reasonable
established in proposed § 27.143. Lastly, at which the rotorcraft can safely hover to expect paragraph (b)(4) to be similarly
we proposed to delete § 27.1587(b)(1)(i) in-ground-effect and out-of-ground changed.’’ We do not agree. Section
and (ii), which were moved into effect in winds of not less than 17 knots. 29.1587(b)(4) assumes that the
§ 27.1585(a) by Amendment 27–21 and * * *’’ The commenter stated that the requirements of § 29.143(c) for critical
inadvertently left in § 27.1587. requirement is redundant, is not conditions can be met during IGE
Three comments were received pertinent to a paragraph referring only operations. Consequently, the
regarding § 27.1587. The first to OGE hover performance, and that requirements of (b)(4) ensure that, if a
commenter suggested that the term other paragraphs of § 29.1587 already higher wind value exists that could
‘‘maximum wind value’’ in contain the in-ground-effect (IGE) present an unsafe condition, the
§ 27.1587(a)(2)(ii) could be confusing hovering requirement. The commenter consideration of those higher wind
and ambiguous and recommended that recommended that the IGE requirement values are reflected in the appropriate
the term ‘‘maximum wind value’’ be be deleted from each proposed performance information in the RFM for
replaced with ‘‘in winds of not less than paragraph. We agree that the ‘‘in- the maximum safe winds for operations
17 knots from all azimuths.’’ We ground-effect’’ requirement is redundant near the ground. Conversely, paragraph
disagree. The requirements of this and unnecessary. In adopting the (b)(8) requires presentation of the
proposed rule assume that the changes to this section, we have deleted maximum weight at which the rotorcraft
requirements of § 27.143(c) can be met the ‘‘in-ground-effect’’ hovering can hover OGE in 17-knot winds from
by the applicant. The proposed change requirement from the proposed any azimuth.
seeks to ensure that appropriate § 29.1587(a)(7) and § 29.1587(b)(8). The commenter questioned why we
performance information will be The commenter further stated that the proposed to remove the term
included in the RFM, whether it is 17 proposed paragraphs (a)(7) and (b)(8) ‘‘maximum safe wind’’ from current
knots or some higher demonstrated conflict with the proposed revision to § 29.1587(a)(7) and replace it with
value. § 29.143(d). Specifically, proposed ‘‘maximum weight for each altitude and
paragraphs (a)(7) and (b)(8) require the temperature condition at which the
The second commenter suggested that
applicant to publish performance data rotorcraft can safely hover in-ground-
§ 27.1587(a)(2)(ii) is in conflict with the
for the ‘‘maximum weight,’’ whereas effect and out-of-ground effect in winds
proposed § 27.143(c)(2) and (3).
proposed § 29.143(d) allows a ‘‘weight of not less than 17 knots from all
Specifically, the former paragraph uses
selected by the applicant’’ when azimuths.’’ The commenter noted that
the term ‘‘maximum weight,’’ while the
demonstrating the OGE requirement. in § 29.1587(b)(8) the FAA proposed to
latter two allow the applicant to select
The commenter stated that the ‘‘weight continue to use the current terminology
a weight, which may be less than the
selected by the applicant’’ may not be ‘‘maximum safe wind’’ but add an
maximum weight. The FAA disagrees.
the ‘‘maximum weight.’’ Therefore, the ‘‘almost separate and distinct
The proposed text of § 27.1587(a) commenter recommended that parameter,’’ that is to say, ‘‘maximum
explicitly requires that the RFM contain § 29.1587(a)(7) and (b)(8) be changed to weight for each altitude and
information determined in accordance reflect the ‘‘weight selected by the temperature condition at which the
with § 27.143(c) and (d). The term applicant’’ as stated in § 29.143(d). We rotorcraft can safely hover in-ground-
‘‘maximum weight,’’ subsequently used disagree. Proposed § 29.143(d) does effect and out-of-ground effect in winds
in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) is intended to be allow for a ‘‘weight selected by the of not less than 17 knots from all
a further description of the maximum applicant’’ for the controllability and azimuths,’’ the exact language we
weight used when demonstrating maneuverability standards. However, proposed as replacement language in
compliance with § 27.143(c) and (d). the proposed § 29.1587(a)(7) and (b)(8) paragraph (a)(7). The commenter stated
The third comment stated that the also require that OGE performance data that there is some apparent confusion
FAA has no formal definition of be provided at minimum operating over the definition and use of the term
‘‘maximum safe wind,’’ nor is there a speeds under § 29.49 over the ranges of ‘‘maximum safe wind.’’ The commenter
flight requirement to demonstrate a ‘‘weight, altitude, and temperature’’ for further postulated that in the proposed
‘‘maximum safe wind.’’ The commenter which certification is requested, in paragraph (a)(7), standard maximum
recommended that the FAA explain the addition to performance data at the safe wind seems to be equated with
term and include definitions in part 27 maximum weight for each altitude and winds established for all-azimuth low
and part 29. The FAA agrees that the temperature at which the helicopter can speed controllability as defined in
comment may have merit. However, the hover safely in winds of not less than 17 § 29.143(c). Conversely, proposed
term is currently used in both part 27 knots from all azimuths. Consequently, paragraph (b)(8) seems to treat
and part 29, and has been used the intent of this final rule is to require maximum safe wind as something other
throughout the history of these new OGE hover performance data be than winds established for all-azimuth
regulations, to include Civil Air provided at the maximum weight used low speed controllability. The
Regulations 6 and 7, predecessors to this to demonstrate compliance with commenter believes that ‘‘maximum
regulation. Development of a formal §§ 29.49 and 29.143(d). safe wind’’ could be viewed as a range
definition may be evaluated for The commenter stated that of wind speeds and azimuths for safe
incorporation in future rulemaking. § 29.1587(b)(2) could be revised to more operation where the wind speed is
Accordingly, the changes are adopted as clearly indicate that the hover ceiling neither less than the wind speed
proposed. data is for IGE hovering. We agree that established by § 29.143(c) nor more than
the demonstrated speed, particularly in ‘‘condition’’ in the two places in European Aviation Safety Agency
non-critical azimuth ranges. The paragraph VII(a) but do not agree that, (EASA). The remaining proposals are
commenter stated that the FAA has as stated, the proposal lessens the safety adopted without change.
neither a formal definition of standard. Rather, we believe that
Appendix C to Part 27 Criteria for
‘‘maximum safe wind’’ nor a flight omitting the term ‘‘condition,’’ as
Category A
requirement to demonstrate a proposed in the NPRM, could result in
‘‘maximum safe wind,’’ and therefore a perceived change to the requirements One commenter recognized that we
recommended that the FAA explain the for the systems safety assessment for did not propose to change Appendix C
term and include a formal definition in instrument flight certification or could to part 27, but suggested that since we
part 27 and part 29. The FAA disagrees. create confusion in future certification are proposing to revise the low speed
In paragraphs (a)(7) and (b)(8), we activities since its use would not be controllability section of part 27, we
proposed to more explicitly relate these consistent with other current should also require all-azimuth low
requirements to those of § 29.143. The regulations, advisory material, and speed controllability in winds of not
term ‘‘maximum safe wind’’ is also industry practice. No such change was less than 17 knots at all weights,
included in paragraph (b)(8) to provide intended by the proposal. altitudes and temperatures where
for the presentation of additional wind SAE Aviation Recommended Practice, Category A takeoff and landing
speeds and azimuths in which Category ARP4761, defines the term ‘‘failure’’ as operations are requested for
B rotorcraft may be safely operated. ‘‘a loss of a function or a malfunction of certification. The commenter stated that
While this term is not formally defined, a system or a part thereof.’’ It further current Appendix C to part 27 does not
it has been used in the certification defines the term ‘‘failure condition’’ as require that part 27 rotorcraft
standards since the existence of Civil ‘‘a condition with an effect on the certificated for Category A operations
Air Regulations 6 and 7; development of aircraft and its occupants, both direct meet the low speed controllability
a formal definition will be evaluated in and consequential, caused or requirements of § 29.143(c) because that
future rule changes. We did not make contributed to by one or more failures, requirement is not listed in paragraph
any changes to § 21.1587 based on these considering relevant adverse operation C27.2 of Appendix C to part 27. The
comments. or environmental conditions.’’ ARP4761 commenter speculated that perhaps ‘‘we
further states that, ‘‘for each failure reasoned that since the low speed
Airworthiness Criteria of Helicopter condition, the analyst must assign
Instrument Flight (Appendix B to Part controllability requirements of
probability requirements.’’ In existing § 27.143(c) and § 29.143(c) are identical,
27 and Appendix B to Part 29) certification activities, we accept these
We proposed to amend paragraph V(a) there was not a need to repeat a
definitions for assigning probability
to allow for a minimal amount of requirement already in place.’’
requirements. In application, the five
neutral or negative stability around trim However, the commenter stated that
probability classifications (frequent,
and to replace the phrase ‘‘in there is a difference; specifically with
reasonably probable, remote, extremely
approximately constant proportion’’ regards to the altitude range over which
remote, and extremely improbable) are
with ‘‘without discontinuity.’’ We also the two rules apply. The commenter
intended to relate to an identified
proposed to require that the pilot be stated that § 27.143(c) applies only from
‘‘failure condition’’ resulting from or
able to maintain the desired heading sea level to 7,000 feet density altitude,
contributed to by the improper
without exceptional skill or alertness. while § 29.143(c) applies to all altitudes
operation or loss of a function or
Additionally, we proposed to reorganize functions and not to the reliability of and temperature for takeoff and landing
paragraphs VII(a)(1) and VII(a)(2) and to specific components or systems. The requested for certification. The
revise them to specify the standards that FAA intends that the term ‘‘failure commenter stated that part 27 rotorcraft
must be met when considering a condition’’ relate to the assignment of a certificated for Category A operations
stability augmentation system failure. probability requirement (in this case, should meet the same level of safety as
Finally, in paragraph V(b) of Appendix ‘‘extremely improbable’’) to the ‘‘failure that for transport category rotorcraft. We
B to Part 29, we proposed to replace the condition,’’ and not to the ‘‘failure’’ disagree. Part 27 rotorcraft certificated
word ‘‘cycle’’ with the correct word, itself. In this standard, a Stability for Category A operations were not
‘‘cyclic.’’ Augmentation System (SAS) failure intended to meet the same level of
One commenter noted that, in the condition, under these definitions, safety as that for transport category
proposed change to paragraph VII(a) of requires that the applicant take into rotorcraft. If this were the case,
Appendix B to Part 27 and Part 29, we consideration that the operation is made Appendix C to part 27 would have
replaced the term ‘‘failure condition’’ during instrument flight. included all the part 29 requirements for
with the term ‘‘failure.’’ The commenter Because we are concerned that this Category A, particularly where
stated that, ‘‘in the context of a systems proposal may be viewed as an differences exist between part 27 and
safety assessment a ‘failure’ and a inadvertent change to the safety part 29. Indeed, different Category A
‘failure condition’ are two distinctly standard and the system safety analysis certification requirements exist for part
different things’’ and that the proposed requirements associated with SAS for 29 rotorcraft, as a function of aircraft
change represents an alleviation. instrument flight certification, we have weight and passenger seating capacity.
Consequently, the commenter stated changed the proposed standard and now Performance at Minimum Operating
support for reinstating the original term use the term ‘‘failure condition’’ in the Speed (New § 27.49)
‘‘failure condition’’ as intended by the suggested two locations in paragraph
ARAC Performance and Handling VII(a). This change is consistent with We proposed to re-designate § 27.73
Qualities Working Group. Although not the intent of the proposed standard, as § 27.49 and add a requirement to
stated specifically in the comment, we current industry practice, and is the determine the OGE hover performance,
believe that the commenter is suggesting same terminology used elsewhere in our because such operations have become
that the word ‘‘condition’’ be inserted regulations and guidance material. The commonplace. The proposed change
after the word ‘‘failure’’ in the second change is further consistent with our mandates that OGE hover data be
and third sentences of paragraph VII(a). goal of maintaining harmonized determined throughout the range of
We agree that we should insert the word certification standards with the weights, altitudes, and temperatures;
most manufacturers already present this We proposed to revise § 27.75(a) to: date(s) for the information collection
data in the RFM. (1) State the required flight condition in requirements of this rule.
Concerning this re-designation of more traditional rotorcraft terminology;
§ 27.73 as § 27.49, a commenter International Compatibility
(2) require multi-engine helicopters to
suggested that we revise paragraph demonstrate landings with one engine In keeping with U.S. obligations
(a)(2)(ii) to encompass the entire flight inoperative and initiated from an under the Convention on International
envelope requested by the applicant, established approach; and (3) replace Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to
including the temperature-altitude the word ‘‘glide’’ with the word comply with International Civil
hover ceiling requirements, where the ‘‘autorotation.’’ Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards
temperature at sea level is well above We proposed to add paragraph and Recommended Practices to the
the minimum standard 100°F condition § 27.903(d) to require engine restart maximum extent practicable. The FAA
envisioned in § 27.1043(b). The capability, which is a fundamental has reviewed the corresponding ICAO
commenter further stated that, if we necessity for any aircraft to minimize Standards and Recommended Practices
adopt the suggested change to re- the risk of a forced landing. A restart and has identified no ‘‘differences’’ with
designate § 27.49(a)(2)(ii), for capability will enhance safety, even if it these regulations.
consistency we should revise §§ 27.51, may not be useful in every case, such as
27.79(a)(1) and (a)(2), and 27.143(c)(1) Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory
when engine damage exists or when Flexibility Determination, International
to require turbine-powered rotorcraft to there is insufficient altitude to
demonstrate compliance at maximum Trade
implement the engine restart procedure.
weight from sea level at temperatures We intend to include the restart Impact Assessment, and Unfunded
established under § 27.1043(b) to 2,500 procedure in the RFM. Mandates Assessment
feet pressure altitude at a temperature
Economic Evaluation Changes to Federal regulations must
corresponding to the established sea
undergo several economic analyses.
level temperature decreased by the Regarding our economic First, Executive Order 12866 directs that
standard lapse rate. The commenter also determination, Erickson Air-Crane each Federal agency shall propose or
stated that the FAA should consider Incorporated asked that we correct the
revising the 7,000 feet density altitude adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned
Regulatory Flexibility Determination determination that the benefits of the
standard in proposed §§ 27.51(b), section to show that Erickson is a part
27.79(a)(1), and 27.143(c)(1) and (c)(2) intended regulation justify its costs.
29, rather than a part 27, rotorcraft Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act
to 7,000 feet density altitude with
manufacturer; has 600 employees rather of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) requires
temperature corresponding to the sea
than 500; and suggested that we agencies to analyze the economic
level temperature established in
recalculate the percentages in the impact of regulatory changes on small
compliance with § 27.1043(b) decreased
Annual Revenue table based on these entities. Third, the Trade Agreements
by the standard lapse rate.
The commenter stated that these changes. We concur. We have made Act (Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits agencies
changes would acknowledge the these changes and do not believe that from setting standards that create
increased capability of turbine-powered they materially change the economic unnecessary obstacles to the foreign
rotorcraft by requiring compliance at the determination of this rule. commerce of the United States. In
edge of the requested envelope, not to Paperwork Reduction Act developing U.S. standards, this Trade
a single density altitude, which may not Act requires agencies to consider
reflect the intended operational The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 international standards and, where
envelope of the rotorcraft. Although this (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the appropriate, that they be the basis of
comment may have merit, it is beyond FAA consider the impact of paperwork U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded
the scope of our proposals and is not and other information collection Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L.
adopted. We may consider it in future burdens imposed on the public. An 104–4) requires agencies to prepare a
rulemaking actions. agency may not collect or sponsor the written assessment of the costs, benefits,
collection of information, nor may it and other effects of proposed or final
Takeoff (§ 27.51), Landing (§ 27.75), and impose an information requirement rules that include a Federal mandate
Engines (§ 27.903) unless it displays a currently valid likely to result in the expenditure by
We received no comments on our Office of Management and Budget State, local, or tribal governments, in the
proposed changes to these sections. All (OMB) control number. aggregate, or by the private sector, of
are adopted as proposed, but are As required by the Act, we submitted $100 million or more annually (adjusted
included here for informational a copy of the new information for inflation with base year of 1995).
purposes. requirements to OMB for their review This portion of the preamble
We proposed to revise § 27.51 to when we published the NPRM. summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the
recognize in the standard that the most Additionally, in the NPRM, we solicited economic impacts of this final rule. We
critical center-of-gravity (CG) may not comments from the public on the suggest readers seeking greater detail
be the extreme forward CG, and require proposed new information collection read the full regulatory evaluation, a
that tests be performed at the most requirements. No comments relating to copy of which we have placed in the
critical CG configuration and at the the proposed new information docket for this rulemaking.
maximum weight for which takeoff collection requirements were received. In conducting these analyses, FAA
certification is requested. Further, we Affected parties, however, do not have has determined that this final rule: (1)
proposed to clarify the requirement to to comply with the information Has benefits that justify its costs, (2) is
demonstrate safe landings after an collection requirements of this rule until not an economically ‘‘significant
engine failure at any point along the the OMB approves the FAA’s request for regulatory action’’ as defined in section
takeoff path up to the maximum takeoff this information collection requirement. 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, (3) is not
altitude or 7,000 feet, whichever is less, The FAA will publish a separate ‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s
to explicitly state that the altitudes cited document notifying you of the OMB Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4)
are density altitudes. Control Number and the compliance will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small period. Manufacturers of 14 CFR part 27 revise the flight certification
entities; (5) will not have a significant rotorcraft will incur costs of $383,250 requirements to incorporate flight test
effect on international trade; and (6) will ($234,039 in present value) and procedures for performance and
not impose an unfunded mandate on manufacturers of 14 CFR part 29 handling qualities that reflect the
state, local, or tribal governments, or on helicopters will incur costs of $175,000 evolution of rotorcraft capabilities since
the private sector by exceeding the ($130,916 in present value). the last major revisions to this rule.
monetary threshold identified. These Final Regulatory Flexibility In addition the rule reflects an
analyses are summarized below. Determination international effort to have common
Total Benefits and Costs of This rotorcraft certification requirements.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 We used the Small Business
Rulemaking (RFA) establishes ‘‘as a principle of Administration guideline of 1,500
The estimated cost of this final rule is regulatory issuance that agencies shall employees or fewer per firm as the
about $558,250 ($364,955 in present endeavor, consistent with the objective criterion for the determination of a
value). The estimated potential benefits of the rule and of applicable statutes, to
small business in commercial air
of avoiding at least one helicopter fit regulatory and informational
service.4
accident are about $3.9 million ($2.7 requirements to the scale of the
In order to determine if the final rule
million in present value). business, organizations, and
will have a significant economic impact
governmental jurisdictions subject to
Who is Potentially Affected by This on a substantial number of small
regulation.’’ To achieve that principle,
Rulemaking? entities, a list of all U.S. rotorcraft
the RFA requires agencies to solicit and
manufacturers, who must meet normal
• Operators of U.S.-registered part 27 consider flexible regulatory proposals
and transport category rotorcraft
or 29 rotorcraft, and and to explain the rationale for their
airworthy standards under 14 CFR parts
• Manufacturers of part 27 or 29 actions. The RFA covers a wide-range of
27 and 29, respectively was developed.
rotorcraft. small entities, including small
businesses, not-for-profit organizations Using information provided by three
Our Cost Assumptions and Sources of and small governmental jurisdictions. sources: The World Aviation Directory,
Information Agencies must perform a review to Dunn and Bradstreet’s company
• Discount rate—7%. determine whether a proposed or final databases, and SEC filings through the
• Period of analysis—10 years. During rule will have a significant economic Internet, we examined the publicly
this period manufacturers will seek new impact on a substantial number of small available revenue and employment of
certifications for one large and one entities. If the agency determines that it all businesses, and eliminated those
small part 27 and two large part 29 will, the agency must prepare a with more than 1,500 employees and
rotorcraft. regulatory flexibility analysis as subsidiaries of larger businesses.
• Value of fatality avoided—$3.0 described in the Act. The results of this methodology are
million (Source: ‘‘Economic Values for However, if an agency determines that displayed on Table VII–1 showing 4
FAA Investment & Regulatory a proposed or final rule is not expected U.S. part 27 rotorcraft manufacturers
Decisions’’ (March 2004)). to have a significant economic impact with fewer than 1,500 employees and
on a substantial number of small one part 29 rotorcraft manufacturer with
Benefits of This Rule entities, section 605(b) of the RFA fewer than 1,500 employees.
The benefits of this final rule consist provides that the head of the agency One comment was received on the
of the value of lives and property saved may so certify and a regulatory NPRM regulatory flexibility section. The
due to avoiding accidents involving part flexibility analysis is not required. The comment was from Erickson Air-Crane.
27 or 29 rotorcraft. Over the 10-year certification must include a statement The regulatory flexibility analysis
period of analysis, the potential benefit providing the factual basis for this section of the NPRM listed Erickson Air-
of this final rule will be at least $3.9 determination, and the reasoning should Crane as a part 27 manufacturer with
million ($2.7 million in present value) be clear. 500 employees. Erickson Air-Crane
by preventing one accident. This Final Regulatory Flexibility commented that they are a part 29
Analysis examines the potential costs manufacturer with 600 employees. The
Cost of This Rule and benefits to small business entities of information provided by Erickson Air-
We estimate the costs of this final rule a final rule on new and revised Crane was used in the preparation of
to be about $558,250 ($364,955 in performance and handling requirements this final regulatory flexibility
present value) over the 10-year analysis for rotorcraft. The rule is intended to determination.
TABLE VII–1.—U.S. SMALL BUSINESS ROTORCRAFT MANUFACTURERS

No. Name Employment
Part 27
1 .................. Hiller Aircraft Corp ..................................................................................................................................................... 35

2 .................. Brantley Helicopter Industry ....................................................................................................................................... 35
3 .................. Enstrom Helicopter Corporation ................................................................................................................................ 100
4 .................. Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc ........................................................................................................................... 700
4 13 CFR 121.201, Size Standards Used to Define
Small Business Concerns, Sector 48–49

Transportation, Subsector 481 Air Transportation.
TABLE VII–1.—U.S. SMALL BUSINESS ROTORCRAFT MANUFACTURERS—Continued

No. Name Employment
Part 29
1 .................. Erickson Air-Crane ..................................................................................................................................................... 600
Based on the historic number of new TABLE VII–2.—COMPLIANCE COSTS TABLE VII–3.—COMPLIANCE COSTS
rotorcraft certificates over the next ten FOR SMALL BUSINESS PART 27 FOR SMALL BUSINESS PART 29
years, we expect that only one of the ROTORCRAFT MANUFACTURERS PER ROTORCRAFT MANUFACTURERS PER
part 27 smaller firms will be affected by CERTIFICATION CERTIFICATION—Continued
this final rule.
Although most of the proposed Rule section Cost Rule section Cost
requirements intended to revise the
27.49 ................................... $20,075 29.175 ................................. 35,000
flight certification requirements are 27.143 ................................. 29,300
current industry standards and support 27.173 ................................. (14,600) Total ................................ 175,000
new FAA rotorcraft policy, some will 27.175 ................................. 3,650
increase costs, while some will decrease 27.177 ................................. The annualized cost for this small
20,075
costs. Sections 27.49, 27.143, 29.143, 27.903 ................................. 18,250
operator is estimated at $24,916
27.175, 29.175, 27.177, and 27.903 will ($175,000 × 0.142378 6).
Total ................................ 76,750
increase costs by requiring The degree to which a small rotorcraft
manufacturers to add additional data manufacturer can ‘‘afford’’ the cost of
and testing procedures to the RFM. The annualized cost for this small compliance is determined by the
Sections 27.173 and 29.173 on static operator is estimated at $10,928 availability of financial resources. The
longitudinal stability will be cost ($76,750 × 0.142378 5). initial implementation costs of the
relieving to the manufacturers because As shown in Table VII–3, we estimate proposed rule may come from either
they delete hover demonstrations that the total compliance costs for a small cash flow or be borrowed. As a proxy for
are redundant with other requirements. part 29 firm’s new certification to be the firm’s ability to afford the cost of
$175,000. compliance, we calculated the ratio of
As shown in Table VII–2, we estimate the total annualized cost of the
the total compliance costs for a small TABLE VII–3.—COMPLIANCE COSTS proposed rule as a percentage of annual
part 27 firm’s new certification to be
FOR SMALL BUSINESS PART 29 revenue. This ratio is a conservative
$77,000.
ROTORCRAFT MANUFACTURERS PER measure as the annualized value of the
CERTIFICATION 10-year total compliance cost is divided
by one year of annual revenue. None of
Rule section Cost the small business operators potentially
affected by this proposed rule will incur
29.143 ................................. $280,000 costs greater than 0.2 percent of their
29.173 ................................. (140,000) annual revenue (See Table VII–4).
TABLE VII–4.—IMPACT OF FINAL RULE ON SMALL U.S. ROTORCRAFT MANUFACTURERS
Name Employment Annual Cert. cost Percentage

revenue
U.S. Part 27 Small Rotorcraft Manufacturers
Hiller Aircraft Corp ........................................................................................... 35 $7,500,000 $10,928 0.15

Brantley Helicopter Industry ............................................................................ 35 15,000,000 10,928 0.07
Enstrom Helicopter Corp ................................................................................. 100 35,000,000 10,928 0.03
Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc ........................................................................... 700 80,000,000 10,928 0.01
U.S. Part 29 Small Rotorcraft Manufacturers
Erickson Air-Crane ........................................................................................... 600 35,000,000 24,916 0.07
As we expect only one of these Consequently, the FAA Administrator Trade Impact Assessment
companies to certificate a new rotorcraft certifies that this final rule will not have The Trade Agreements Act of 1979
in the next 10 years, only one will incur a significant economic impact on a (Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits Federal
compliance costs. We estimated this substantial number of small rotorcraft agencies from establishing any
compliance cost will be less that 0.2 manufacturers.
percent of their total annual revenue. 6 Uniform Annual Value discounted at 7% over
Thus, we determined that no small 10-year period.

activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the
entity will incur a substantial economic foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate
impact in the form of higher annual 5 Uniform Annual Value discounted at 7% over
domestic objectives, such as safety, are not
costs as a result of this rule. 10-year period. Continued
The FAA has assessed the potential Environmental Analysis advice about compliance with statutes
effect of this final rulemaking action and FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA and regulations within its jurisdiction. If
determined that it will reduce trade actions that are categorically excluded you are a small entity and you have a
barriers by narrowing the differences from preparation of an environmental question regarding this document, you
between international and U.S. assessment or environmental impact may contact your local FAA official, or
certification standards. Therefore, this statement under the National the person listed under the FOR FURTHER
final rule is in accord with the Trade Environmental Policy Act in the INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the
Agreements Act. absence of extraordinary circumstances. beginning of the preamble. You can find
The FAA has determined this out more about SBREFA on the Internet
Unfunded Mandates Assessment
rulemaking action qualifies for the at http://www.faa.gov/
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates categorical exclusion identified in regulations_policies/rulemaking/
Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) paragraph 312f and involves no sbre_act/.
requires each Federal agency to prepare extraordinary circumstances. List of Subjects
a written statement assessing the effects Regulations That Significantly Affect
of any Federal mandate in a proposed or 14 CFR Part 27
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
final agency rule that may result in an Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation
expenditure of $100 million or more The FAA has analyzed this final rule
safety, Rotorcraft, Safety.
(adjusted annually for inflation) in any under Executive Order 13211, Actions
1 year by State, local, and tribal Concerning Regulations that 14 CFR Part 29
governments, in the aggregate, or by the Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation
private sector; such a mandate is Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We safety, Rotorcraft, Safety.
deemed to be a ‘‘significant regulatory have determined that it is not a
action.’’ The FAA currently uses an ‘‘significant energy action’’ under the The Amendment
inflation-adjusted value of $120.7 executive order because it is not a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under ■ In consideration of the foregoing, the
million in lieu of $100 million. This Federal Aviation Administration
final rule does not contain such a Executive Order 12866, and it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect amends parts 27 and 29 of title 14, Code
mandate. The requirements of Title II do of Federal Regulations as follows:
not apply. on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy. PART 27—AIRWORTHINESS
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Availability of Rulemaking Documents STANDARDS: NORMAL CATEGORY
The FAA has analyzed this final rule You may obtain an electronic copy of ROTORCRAFT
under the principles and criteria of rulemaking documents using the
Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We ■ 1. The authority citation for part 27
Internet by— continues to read as follows:
determined that this action will not 1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking
have a substantial direct effect on the Portal (http://www.regulations.gov); Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701–
States, or the relationship between the 2. Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and 44702, 44704.
national Government and the States, or Policies Web page at http:// ■ 2. Amend § 27.25 by adding the word
on the distribution of power and www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or ‘‘weight’’ after the word ‘‘maximum’’
responsibilities among the various 3. Accessing the Government Printing and removing the word ‘‘or’’ at the end
levels of government, and, therefore, Office’s Web page at http:// of the sentence in paragraph (a)(1)(ii);
does not have federalism implications. www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html. removing the word ‘‘and’’ and adding
You may also obtain a copy by
Regulations Affecting Intrastate the word ‘‘or’’ in its place in paragraph
sending a request to the Federal
Aviation in Alaska (a)(1)(iii); and by adding paragraph
Aviation Administration, Office of
(a)(1)(iv) to read as follows:
Section 1205 of the FAA Rulemaking, ARM–1, 800 Independence
Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat. Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or § 27.25 Weight limits.
3213) requires the FAA, when by calling (202) 267–9680. Make sure to (a) * * *
modifying its regulations in a manner identify the amendment number or (1) * * *
affecting intrastate aviation in Alaska, to docket number of this rulemaking.
Anyone is able to search the (iv) The highest weight in which the
consider the extent to which Alaska is provisions of §§ 27.79 or 27.143(c)(1), or
not served by transportation modes electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the combinations thereof, are demonstrated
other than aviation, and to establish if the weights and operating conditions
appropriate regulatory distinctions. In name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, if (altitude and temperature) prescribed by
the NPRM, we requested comments on those requirements cannot be met; and
whether the proposed rule should apply submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may * * * * *
differently to intrastate operations in
review DOT’s complete Privacy Act ■ 3. Re-designate § 27.73 as new § 27.49
Alaska. We did not receive any
statement in the Federal Register and revise to read as follows:
comments, and we have determined,
based on the administrative record of published on April 11, 2000 (Volume § 27.49 Performance at minimum
this rulemaking, that there is no need to 65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you operating speed.
make any regulatory distinctions may visit http://www.regulations.gov.
(a) For helicopters—
applicable to intrastate aviation in Small Business Regulatory Enforcement (1) The hovering ceiling must be
Alaska. Fairness Act determined over the ranges of weight,

The Small Business Regulatory altitude, and temperature for which
considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also certification is requested, with—
requires consideration of international standards
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
and, where appropriate, that these international 1996 requires FAA to comply with (i) Takeoff power;
standards be the basis for U.S. standards. small entity requests for information or (ii) The landing gear extended; and
(iii) The helicopter in-ground effect at (1) Approach or autorotation speeds (c) Wind velocities from zero to at
a height consistent with normal takeoff appropriate to the type of rotorcraft and least 17 knots, from all azimuths, must
procedures; and selected by the applicant; be established in which the rotorcraft
(2) The hovering ceiling determined (2) The approach and landing made can be operated without loss of control
under paragraph (a)(1) of this section with— on or near the ground in any maneuver
must be at least— (i) Power off, for single engine appropriate to the type (such as
(i) For reciprocating engine powered rotorcraft and entered from steady state crosswind takeoffs, sideward flight, and
helicopters, 4,000 feet at maximum autorotation; or rearward flight)—
weight with a standard atmosphere; (ii) One-engine inoperative (OEI) for (1) With altitude, from standard sea
(ii) For turbine engine powered multiengine rotorcraft, with each level conditions to the maximum takeoff
helicopters, 2,500 feet pressure altitude operating engine within approved and landing altitude capability of the
at maximum weight at a temperature of operating limitations, and entered from rotorcraft or 7000 feet density altitude,
standard plus 22 °C (standard an established OEI approach. whichever is less; with—
plus 40 °F). * * * * * (i) Critical Weight;
(3) The out-of-ground effect hovering (ii) Critical center of gravity;
■ 7. Re-designate § 27.79 as new § 27.87;
performance must be determined over (iii) Critical rotor r.p.m.;
revise the section heading; remove the
the ranges of weight, altitude, and (2) For takeoff and landing altitudes
word ‘‘rotocraft’’ and add in its place
temperature for which certification is above 7000 feet density altitude with–
the word ‘‘rotorcraft’’ in paragraph
requested, using takeoff power. (i) Weight selected by the applicant;
(b)(3); and revise paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2)
(b) For rotorcraft other than (ii) Critical center of gravity; and
and (b)(2) to read as follows:
helicopters, the steady rate of climb at (iii) Critical rotor r.p.m.
the minimum operating speed must be § 27.87 Height-speed envelope. (d) Wind velocities from zero to at
determined over the ranges of weight, (a) * * * least 17 knots, from all azimuths, must
altitude, and temperature for which (1) Altitude, from standard sea level be established in which the rotorcraft
certification is requested, with— conditions to the maximum altitude can be operated without loss of control
(1) Takeoff power; and capability of the rotorcraft, or 7000 feet out-of-ground-effect, with—
(2) The landing gear extended. density altitude, whichever is less; and (1) Weight selected by the applicant;
(2) Weight, from the maximum weight (2) Critical center of gravity;
■ 4. Revise § 27.51 to read as follows: (3) Rotor r.p.m. selected by the
at sea level to the weight selected by the
§ 27.51 Takeoff. applicant for each altitude covered by applicant; and
The takeoff, with takeoff power and paragraph (a)(1) of this section. For (4) Altitude, from standard sea level
r.p.m. at the most critical center of helicopters, the weight at altitudes conditions to the maximum takeoff and
gravity, and with weight from the above sea level may not be less than the landing altitude capability of the
maximum weight at sea level to the maximum weight or the highest weight rotorcraft.
weight for which takeoff certification is allowing hovering out-of-ground effect, * * * * *
requested for each altitude covered by whichever is lower.
(b) * * * ■ 9. Amend § 27.173 by removing the
this section— words ‘‘a speed’’ in the two places in
(2) For multiengine helicopters, OEI
(a) May not require exceptional paragraph (a) and adding the words ‘‘an
(where engine isolation features ensure
piloting skill or exceptionally favorable airspeed’’ in both their places; removing
continued operation of the remaining
conditions throughout the ranges of paragraph (c); and revising paragraph (b)
engines), and the remaining engine(s)
altitude from standard sea level to read as follows:
within approved limits and at the
conditions to the maximum altitude for
minimum installed specification power
which takeoff and landing certification § 27.173 Static longitudinal stability.
available for the most critical
is requested, and * * * * *
combination of approved ambient
(b) Must be made in such a manner (b) Throughout the full range of
temperature and pressure altitude
that a landing can be made safely at any altitude for which certification is
resulting in 7000 feet density altitude or
point along the flight path if an engine requested, with the throttle and
the maximum altitude capability of the
fails. This must be demonstrated up to collective pitch held constant during the
helicopter, whichever is less, and
the maximum altitude for which takeoff maneuvers specified in § 27.175(a)
and landing certification is requested or * * * * *
through (d), the slope of the control
7,000 feet density altitude, whichever is ■ 8. Amend § 27.143 by revising position versus airspeed curve must be
less. paragraph (a)(2)(v); re-designating positive. However, in limited flight
■ 5. Revise the section heading of paragraphs (d) and (e) as paragraphs (e) conditions or modes of operation
§ 27.71 to read as follows: and (f) respectively; revising paragraphs determined by the Administrator to be
(b)(4) and (c); and adding a new acceptable, the slope of the control
§ 27.71 Autorotation performance. paragraph (d) to read as follows: position versus airspeed curve may be
* * * * * neutral or negative if the rotorcraft
§ 27.143 Controllability and possesses flight characteristics that
■ 6. Revise § 27.75(a) to read as follows: maneuverability.
allow the pilot to maintain airspeed
(a) * * * within ±5 knots of the desired trim
§ 27.75 Landing. (2) * * * airspeed without exceptional piloting
(a) The rotorcraft must be able to be (v) Autorotation;
skill or alertness.
landed with no excessive vertical * * * * *
acceleration, no tendency to bounce, (b) * * * ■ 10. Amend § 27.175 by removing

nose over, ground loop, porpoise, or (4) Power off (except for helicopters paragraph (d); revising the introductory
water loop, and without exceptional demonstrating compliance with text paragraphs (a) and (b); revising
piloting skill or exceptionally favorable paragraph (f) of this section) and power paragraphs (b)(3) and (b)(5); re-
conditions, with— on. designating paragraph (c) as (d) and
revising re-designated paragraph (d); (1) ±25 degrees from trim at a speed information is provided and at which
and adding a new paragraph (c) to read of 15 knots less than the speed for the rotorcraft cannot land and take off
as follows: minimum rate of descent varying safely with the maximum wind value,
linearly to ±10 degrees from trim at VNE; those portions of the operating envelope
§ 27.175 Demonstration of static (2) The steady state sideslip angles and the appropriate safe wind
longitudinal stability.
established by § 27.351; conditions must be stated in the
(a) Climb. Static longitudinal stability (3) A sideslip angle selected by the Rotorcraft Flight Manual;
must be shown in the climb condition applicant, which corresponds to a * * * * *
at speeds from Vy ¥ 10 kt to Vy + 10 sideforce of at least 0.1g; or
kt with— (4) The sideslip angle attained by ■ 14. Amend Appendix B to part 27 by
* * * * * maximum directional control input. revising paragraphs V(a) and VII(a) to
(b) Cruise. Static longitudinal stability (b) Sufficient cues must accompany read as follows:
must be shown in the cruise condition the sideslip to alert the pilot when the Appendix B to Part 27—Airworthiness
at speeds from 0.8 VNE ¥ 10 kt to 0.8 aircraft is approaching the sideslip Criteria for Helicopter Instrument
VNE + 10 kt or, if VH is less than 0.8 VNE, limits. Flight
from VH ¥10 kt to VH + 10 kt, with— (c) During the maneuver specified in
* * * * * paragraph (a) of this section, the sideslip * * * * *
(3) Power for level flight at 0.8 VNE or angle versus directional control position V. Static Lateral Directional Stability
VH, whichever is less; curve may have a negative slope within (a) Static directional stability must be
* * * * * a small range of angles around trim, positive throughout the approved ranges of
(5) The rotorcraft trimmed at 0.8 VNE provided the desired heading can be airspeed, power, and vertical speed. In
or VH, whichever is less. maintained without exceptional piloting straight and steady sideslips up to ±10° from
(c) VNE. Static longitudinal stability skill or alertness. trim, directional control position must
increase without discontinuity with the angle
must be shown at speeds from VNE ¥ ■ 12. Amend § 27.903 by adding a new of sideslip, except for a small range of
20 kt to VNE with— paragraph (d) to read as follows: sideslip angles around trim. At greater angles
(1) Critical weight; up to the maximum sideslip angle
(2) Critical center of gravity; § 27.903 Engines.
appropriate to the type, increased directional
(3) Power required for level flight at * * * * * control position must produce an increased
VNE ¥10 kt or maximum continuous (d) Restart capability: A means to angle of sideslip. It must be possible to
power, whichever is less; restart any engine in flight must be maintain balanced flight without exceptional
(4) The landing gear retracted; and provided. pilot skill or alertness.
(5) The rotorcraft trimmed at VNE ¥ (1) Except for the in-flight shutdown * * * * *
10 kt. of all engines, engine restart capability
VII. Stability Augmentation System (SAS)
(d) Autorotation. Static longitudinal must be demonstrated throughout a
stability must be shown in autorotation flight envelope for the rotorcraft. (a) If a SAS is used, the reliability of the
(2) Following the in-flight shutdown SAS must be related to the effects of its
at—
failure. Any SAS failure condition that
(1) Airspeeds from the minimum rate of all engines, in-flight engine restart would prevent continued safe flight and
of descent airspeed¥10 kt to the capability must be provided. landing must be extremely improbable. It
minimum rate of descent airspeed + 10 ■ 13. Amend § 27.1587 by removing must be shown that, for any failure condition
kt, with— paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (b)(1)(ii), and of the SAS that is not shown to be extremely
(i) Critical weight; revising the introductory text of improbable—
(ii) Critical center of gravity; paragraph (a) and paragraphs (a)(2)(i) (1) The helicopter is safely controllable
(iii) The landing gear extended; and and (a)(2)(ii) to read as follows: when the failure or malfunction occurs at any
(iv) The rotorcraft trimmed at the speed or altitude within the approved IFR
§ 27.1587 Performance information. operating limitations; and
minimum rate of descent airspeed.
(a) The Rotorcraft Flight Manual must (2) The overall flight characteristics of the
(2) Airspeeds from best angle-of-glide helicopter allow for prolonged instrument
airspeed¥10 kt to the best angle-of- contain the following information, flight without undue pilot effort. Additional
glide airspeed + 10 kt, with— determined in accordance with §§ 27.49 unrelated probable failures affecting the
(i) Critical weight; through 27.79 and 27.143(c) and (d): control system must be considered. In
(ii) Critical center of gravity; * * * * * addition—
(iii) The landing gear retracted; and (2) * * * (i) The controllability and maneuverability
(iv) The rotorcraft trimmed at the best (i) The steady rates of climb and requirements in Subpart B of this part must
angle-of-glide airspeed. descent, in-ground effect and out-of- be met throughout a practical flight envelope;
(ii) The flight control, trim, and dynamic
* * * * * ground effect hovering ceilings, together
stability characteristics must not be impaired
■ 11. Revise § 27.177 to read as follows: with the corresponding airspeeds and below a level needed to allow continued safe
other pertinent information including flight and landing; and
§ 27.177 Static directional stability. the calculated effects of altitude and (iii) The static longitudinal and static
(a) The directional controls must temperatures; directional stability requirements of Subpart
operate in such a manner that the sense (ii) The maximum weight for each B must be met throughout a practical flight
and direction of motion of the rotorcraft altitude and temperature condition at envelope.
following control displacement are in which the rotorcraft can safely hover in- * * * * *
the direction of the pedal motion with ground effect and out-of-ground effect in
the throttle and collective controls held winds of not less than 17 knots from all PART 29—AIRWORTHINESS
constant at the trim conditions specified azimuths. These data must be clearly STANDARDS: TRANSPORT
in § 27.175(a), (b), and (c). Sideslip referenced to the appropriate hover CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT
angles must increase with steadily charts. In addition, if there are other
increasing directional control deflection combinations of weight, altitude and ■ 15. The authority citation for part 29
for sideslip angles up to the lesser of— temperature for which performance continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701– appears in paragraph (a) and adding the (ii) Critical center of gravity;
44702, 44704. words ‘‘an airspeed’’ in their places; (iii) The landing gear extended; and
■ 16. Amend § 29.25 by adding removing paragraph (c); and revising (iv) The rotorcraft trimmed at the
paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows: paragraph (b) to read as follows: minimum rate of descent airspeed.
(2) Airspeeds from the best angle-of-
§ 29.25 Weight limits. § 29.173 Static longitudinal stability. glide airspeed ¥ 10kt to the best angle-
(a) * * * * * * * * of-glide airspeed + 10kt, with—
(4) For Category B rotorcraft with 9 or (b) Throughout the full range of (i) Critical weight;
less passenger seats, the maximum altitude for which certification is (ii) Critical center of gravity;
weight, altitude, and temperature at requested, with the throttle and (iii) The landing gear retracted; and
which the rotorcraft can safely operate collective pitch held constant during the (iv) The rotorcraft trimmed at the best
near the ground with the maximum maneuvers specified in § 29.175(a) angle-of-glide airspeed.
wind velocity determined under through (d), the slope of the control ■ 20. Revise § 29.177 to read as follows:
§ 29.143(c) and may include other position versus airspeed curve must be
positive. However, in limited flight § 29.177 Static directional stability.
demonstrated wind velocities and
azimuths. The operating envelopes must conditions or modes of operation (a) The directional controls must
be stated in the Limitations section of determined by the Administrator to be operate in such a manner that the sense
the Rotorcraft Flight Manual. acceptable, the slope of the control and direction of motion of the rotorcraft
position versus airspeed curve may be following control displacement are in
* * * * * the direction of the pedal motion with
neutral or negative if the rotorcraft
■ 17. Amend § 29.143 by revising possesses flight characteristics that throttle and collective controls held
paragraph (a)(2)(v); re-designating allow the pilot to maintain airspeed constant at the trim conditions specified
paragraphs (d) and (e) as paragraphs (e) within ±5 knots of the desired trim in § 29.175(a), (b), (c), and (d). Sideslip
and (f) respectively; revising paragraphs airspeed without exceptional piloting angles must increase with steadily
(b)(4) and (c); and adding a new skill or alertness. increasing directional control deflection
paragraph (d) to read as follows: for sideslip angles up to the lesser of—
■ 19. Revise § 29.175 to read as follows:
§ 29.143 Controllability and
(1) ±25 degrees from trim at a speed
maneuverability. § 29.175 Demonstration of static of 15 knots less than the speed for
longitudinal stability. minimum rate of descent varying
(a) * * *
(a) Climb. Static longitudinal stability linearly to ±10 degrees from trim at VNE;
(2) * * *
must be shown in the climb condition (2) The steady-state sideslip angles
(v) Autorotation; and
at speeds from Vy ¥ 10 kt to Vy + 10 established by § 29.351;
* * * * * kt with— (3) A sideslip angle selected by the
(b) * * * (1) Critical weight; applicant, which corresponds to a
(4) Power off (except for helicopters (2) Critical center of gravity; sideforce of at least 0.1g; or
demonstrating compliance with (3) Maximum continuous power; (4) The sideslip angle attained by
paragraph (f) of this section) and power (4) The landing gear retracted; and maximum directional control input.
on. (5) The rotorcraft trimmed at Vy. (b) Sufficient cues must accompany
(c) Wind velocities from zero to at (b) Cruise. Static longitudinal stability the sideslip to alert the pilot when
least 17 knots, from all azimuths, must must be shown in the cruise condition approaching sideslip limits.
be established in which the rotorcraft at speeds from 0.8 VNE¥10 kt to 0.8 VNE (c) During the maneuver specified in
can be operated without loss of control + 10 kt or, if VH is less than 0.8 VNE, paragraph (a) of this section, the sideslip
on or near the ground in any maneuver from VH ¥ 10 kt to VH + 10 kt, with— angle versus directional control position
appropriate to the type (such as (1) Critical weight; curve may have a negative slope within
crosswind takeoffs, sideward flight, and (2) Critical center of gravity; a small range of angles around trim,
rearward flight), with— (3) Power for level flight at 0.8 VNE or provided the desired heading can be
(1) Critical weight; VH, whichever is less; maintained without exceptional piloting
(2) Critical center of gravity; (4) The landing gear retracted; and skill or alertness.
(3) Critical rotor r.p.m.; and (5) The rotorcraft trimmed at 0.8 VNE ■ 21. Amend § 29.1587 by revising
(4) Altitude, from standard sea level or VH, whichever is less.
conditions to the maximum takeoff and paragraph (a)(7), (b)(2), and (b)(8) to
(c) VNE. Static longitudinal stability read as follows:
landing altitude capability of the must be shown at speeds from VNE ¥
rotorcraft. 20 kt to VNE with— § 29.1587 Performance information.
(d) Wind velocities from zero to at (1) Critical weight; * * * * *
least 17 knots, from all azimuths, must (2) Critical center of gravity; (a) * * *
be established in which the rotorcraft (3) Power required for level flight at (7) Out-of-ground effect hover
can be operated without loss of control VNE ¥ 10 kt or maximum continuous performance determined under § 29.49
out-of-ground effect, with— power, whichever is less; and the maximum weight for each
(1) Weight selected by the applicant; (4) The landing gear retracted; and altitude and temperature condition at
(2) Critical center of gravity; (5) The rotorcraft trimmed at VNE ¥ which the rotorcraft can safely hover
(3) Rotor r.p.m. selected by the 10 kt. out-of-ground effect in winds of not less
applicant; and (d) Autorotation. Static longitudinal than 17 knots from all azimuths. These
(4) Altitude, from standard sea level stability must be shown in autorotation data must be clearly referenced to the
conditions to the maximum takeoff and at— appropriate hover charts.
landing altitude capability of the (1) Airspeeds from the minimum rate (b) * * *
rotorcraft. of descent airspeed ¥ 10 kt to the (2) The steady rates of climb and in-
* * * * * minimum rate of descent airspeed + 10 ground-effect hovering ceiling, together
■ 18. Amend § 29.173 by removing the kt, with— with the corresponding airspeeds and
words ‘‘a speed’’ in the two places it (i) Critical weight; other pertinent information, including
the calculated effects of altitude and must also be met throughout a practical flight an adverse comment, were received
temperature; envelope; and within the comment period, the
(iv) The static longitudinal and static regulation would become effective on
* * * * * directional stability requirements of Subpart
(8) Out-of-ground effect hover February 14, 2008. No adverse
B must be met throughout a practical flight
performance determined under § 29.49 envelope.
comments were received, and thus this
and the maximum safe wind notice confirms that effective date.
* * * * *
demonstrated under the ambient Issued in College Park, GA, on February 12,
Issued in Washington, DC, on February 20, 2008.
conditions for data presented. In 2008.
addition, the maximum weight for each John D. Haley,
Robert A. Sturgell,
altitude and temperature condition at Acting Manager, System Support Group,
which the rotorcraft can safely hover Acting Administrator. Eastern Service Center.
out-of-ground-effect in winds of not less [FR Doc. E8–3817 Filed 2–28–08; 8:45 am] [FR Doc. 08–875 Filed 2–28–08; 8:45 am]
than 17 knots from all azimuths. These BILLING CODE 4910–13–P BILLING CODE 4910–13–M
data must be clearly referenced to the
appropriate hover charts; and
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
* * * * *
■ 22. Amend Appendix B to Part 29 in Federal Aviation Administration Federal Aviation Administration
paragraph V(b) by removing the word
‘‘cycle’’ and adding the word ‘‘cyclic’’ in 14 CFR Part 71 14 CFR Part 71
its place; and by revising paragraphs
[Docket No. FAA–2007–0104; Airspace [Docket No. FAA–0165; Airspace Docket No.
V(a) and VII(a) to read as follows: Docket No. 07–AEA–10] 07–AEA–11]
Appendix B to Part 29—Airworthiness
Criteria for Helicopter Instrument Establishment of Class E Airspace; Oil Establishment of Class E Airspace;
Flight City, PA Montrose, PA
* * * * * AGENCY: Federal Aviation AGENCY: Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT. Administration (FAA), DOT.
V. Static Lateral Directional Stability
ACTION: Final rule; confirmation of ACTION: Final rule; confirmation of
(a) Static directional stability must be
positive throughout the approved ranges of
effective date. effective date.
airspeed, power, and vertical speed. In
SUMMARY: This action confirms the SUMMARY: This action confirms the
straight and steady sideslips up to ±10° from
trim, directional control position must effective date of a direct final rule that effective date of a direct final rule that
increase without discontinuity with the angle establishes a Class E airspace area to establishes a Class E airspace area to
of sideslip, except for a small range of support Area Navigation (RNAV) Global support Area Navigation (RNAV) Global
sideslip angles around trim. At greater angles Positioning System (GPS) Special Positioning System (GPS) special
up to the maximum sideslip angle Instrument Approach Procedures (IAPs) Instrument Approach Procedures (IAPs)
appropriate to the type, increased directional that serve the Northwest Medical Center that serve the Montrose High School
control position must produce an increased in Oil City, PA. Heliport, Montrose, PA.
angle of sideslip. It must be possible to
DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, February 14, DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, February 14,
maintain balanced flight without exceptional
pilot skill or alertness. 2008. The Director of the Federal 2008. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by Register approves this incorporation by
* * * * *
reference action under Title 1, Code of reference action under Title 1, Code of
VII. Stability Augmentation System (SAS) Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to
(a) If a SAS is used, the reliability of the the annual revision of FAA Order the annual revision of FAA Order
SAS must be related to the effects of its 7400.9 and publication of conforming 7400.9 and publication of conforming
failure. Any SAS failure condition that amendments. amendments.
would prevent continued safe flight and
landing must be extremely improbable. It FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
must be shown that, for any failure condition Daryl Daniels, Airspace Specialist, Daryl Daniels, Airspace Specialist,
of the SAS that is not shown to be extremely System Support, AJO2–E2B.12, FAA System Support, AJO2–E2B.12, FAA
improbable— Eastern Service Center, 1701 Columbia Eastern Service Center, 1701 Columbia
(1) The helicopter is safely controllable Ave., College Park, GA 30337; telephone Ave., College Park, GA 30337; telephone
when the failure or malfunction occurs at any (404) 305–5581; fax (404) 305–5572. (404) 305–5581; fax (404) 305–5572.
speed or altitude within the approved IFR
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
operating limitations; and
(2) The overall flight characteristics of the Confirmation of Effective Date Confirmation of Effective Date
helicopter allow for prolonged instrument
flight without undue pilot effort. Additional The FAA published this direct final The FAA published this direct final
unrelated probable failures affecting the rule with a request for comments in the rule with a request for comments in the
control system must be considered. In Federal Register on December 19, 2007 Federal Register on December 13, 2007
addition— (72 FR 71762). The FAA uses the direct (72 FR 70768). The FAA uses the direct
(i) The controllability and maneuverability final rulemaking procedure for a non final rulemaking procedure for a non
requirements in Subpart B must be met controversial rule where the FAA controversial rule where the FAA
throughout a practical flight envelope;
believes that there will be no adverse believes that there will be no adverse
(ii) The flight control, trim, and dynamic

stability characteristics must not be impaired public comment. This direct final rule public comment. This direct final rule
below a level needed to allow continued safe advised the public that no adverse advised the public that no adverse
flight and landing; comments were anticipated, and that comments were anticipated, and that
(iii) For Category A helicopters, the unless a written adverse comment, or a unless a written adverse comment, or a
dynamic stability requirements of Subpart B written notice of intent to submit such written notice of intent to submit such

Rule: Performance and Handling Qualities Requirements For Rotorcraft

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Rule: Performance and Handling Qualities Requirements For Rotorcraft

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No.

41 / Friday, February 29, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 10987

and transport rotorcraft performance provides an additional standard, rather

Performance at Minimum Operating that tests be performed at the most

TABLE VII–1.—U.S. SMALL BUSINESS ROTORCRAFT MANUFACTURERS

1 .................. Hiller Aircraft Corp ..................................................................................................................................................... 35

4 13 CFR 121.201, Size Standards Used to Define

Small Business Concerns, Sector 48–49

TABLE VII–1.—U.S. SMALL BUSINESS ROTORCRAFT MANUFACTURERS—Continued

1 .................. Erickson Air-Crane ..................................................................................................................................................... 600

TABLE VII–4.—IMPACT OF FINAL RULE ON SMALL U.S. ROTORCRAFT MANUFACTURERS

Name Employment Annual Cert. cost Percentage

U.S. Part 27 Small Rotorcraft Manufacturers

Hiller Aircraft Corp ........................................................................................... 35 $7,500,000 $10,928 0.15

U.S. Part 29 Small Rotorcraft Manufacturers

Erickson Air-Crane ........................................................................................... 600 35,000,000 24,916 0.07

Thus, we determined that no small 10-year period.

Alaska. Fairness Act determined over the ranges of weight,

acceleration, no tendency to bounce, (b) * * * ■ 10. Amend § 27.175 by removing

(ii) The flight control, trim, and dynamic

Você também pode gostar