Proposed Rule: Airworthiness Directives: Performance and Handling Qualities Requirements

Tuesday,
July 25, 2006
Part III
Department of
Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 27 and 29

Performance and Handling Qualities
Requirements for Rotorcraft; Proposed
Rule
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:42 Jul 24, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\25JYP3.SGM 25JYP3
42222 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 142 / Tuesday, July 25, 2006 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. Proprietary or Confidential Business
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, Information
Federal Aviation Administration except Federal holidays. Do not file in the docket information
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff that you consider to be proprietary or
14 CFR Parts 27 and 29 Trang, Rotorcraft Standards Staff, confidential business information. Send
[Docket No. FAA–2006–25414; Notice No. Rotorcraft Directorate, ASW–110, or deliver this information directly to
06–11] Federal Aviation Administration, Fort the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
Worth, Texas 76193–0110, telephone INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
RIN 2120–AH87
number (817) 222–5135; facsimile (817) document. You must mark the
Performance and Handling Qualities 222–5961, e-mail jeff.trang@faa.gov. information that you consider
Requirements for Rotorcraft SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: proprietary or confidential. If you send
the information on a disk or CD–ROM,
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Comments Invited
mark the outside of the disk or CD–ROM
Administration (FAA), DOT. The FAA invites interested persons to and also identify electronically within
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking participate in this rulemaking by the disk or CD–ROM the specific
(NPRM). submitting written comments, data, or information that is proprietary or
views. We also invite comments relating confidential.
SUMMARY: The FAA is proposing new
to the economic, environmental, energy, Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), when we are
and revised airworthiness standards for or federalism impacts that might result aware of proprietary information filed
normal and transport category rotorcraft from adopting the proposals in this with a comment, we do not place it in
due to technological advances in design document. The most helpful comments the docket. We hold it in a separate file
and operational trends in normal and reference a specific portion of the to which the public does not have
transport rotorcraft performance and proposal, explain the reason for any access, and place a note in the docket
handling qualities. The changes would recommended change, and include that we have received it. If we receive
enhance the safety standards for supporting data. We ask that you send a request to examine or copy this
performance and handling qualities to us two copies of written comments. information, we treat it as any other
reflect the evolution of rotorcraft We will file in the docket all request under the Freedom of
capabilities. comments we receive, as well as a Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). We
DATES: Send your comments on or report summarizing each substantive process such a request under the DOT
before October 23, 2006. public contact with FAA personnel procedures found in 49 CFR part 7.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments concerning this proposed rulemaking.
The docket is available for public Availability of Rulemaking Documents
[identified by Docket Number FAA–
2006–25414] using any of the following inspection before and after the comment You can get an electronic copy using
methods: closing date. If you wish to review the the Internet by:
• DOT Docket Web site: Go to http:// docket in person, go to the address in (1) Searching the Department of
dms.dot.gov and follow the instructions the ADDRESSES section of this preamble Transportation’s electronic Docket
for sending your comments between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday Management System (DMS) Web page
electronically. through Friday, except Federal holidays. (http://dms.dot.gov/search);
• Government-wide rulemaking Web You may also review the docket using (2) Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and
site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov the Internet at the web address in the Policies Web page at http://
and follow the instructions for sending ADDRESSES section. www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or
your comments electronically. Privacy Act: Using the search function (3) Accessing the Government
• Mail: Docket Management Facility, of our docket Web site, anyone can find Printing Office’s Web page at http://
U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 and read the comments received into www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.
Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, any of our dockets, including the name You can also get a copy by sending a
Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590– of the individual sending the comment request to the Federal Aviation
0001. (or signing the comment on behalf of an Administration, Office of Rulemaking,
• Fax: 1–202–493–2251. association, business, labor union, etc.). ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue
• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on You may review DOT’s complete SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by
the plaza level of the Nassif Building, Privacy Act Statement in the Federal calling (202) 267–9680. Make sure to
400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, Register published on April 11, 2000 identify the docket number, notice
DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday (65 FR 19477–78) or you may visit number, or amendment number of this
through Friday, except Federal holidays. http://dms.dot.gov. rulemaking.
For more information on the rulemaking Before acting on this proposal, we
will consider all comments we receive Authority for This Rulemaking
process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document. on or before the closing date for The FAA’s authority to issue rules
Privacy: We will post all comments comments. We will consider comments regarding aviation safety is found in
we receive, without change, to http:// filed late if it is possible to do so Title 49 of the United States Code.
dms.dot.gov, including any personal without incurring expense or delay. We Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the
information you provide. For more may change this proposal in light of the authority of the FAA Administrator.
information, see the Privacy Act comments we receive. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
discussion in the SUPPLEMENTARY If you want the FAA to acknowledge describes in more detail the scope of the
INFORMATION section of this document. receipt of your comments on this agency’s authority.
Docket: To read background proposal, include with your comments This rulemaking is promulgated
documents or comments received, go to a pre-addressed, stamped postcard on under the authority described in
http://dms.dot.gov at any time or to which the docket number appears. We Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section
Room PL–401 on the plaza level of the will stamp the date on the postcard and 44701, ‘‘General requirements,’’ Section
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, mail it to you. 44702, ‘‘Issuance of Certificates,’’ and
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 142 / Tuesday, July 25, 2006 / Proposed Rules 42223
Section 44704, ‘‘Type Certificates, 31 and 14 CFR part 27 at amendment either accepted or rejected on their
production certificates, and 27, the European Joint Aviation merits and by consensus of the group.
airworthiness certificates.’’ Under Authorities (JAA) Helicopter The group also came to a common
Section 44701, the FAA is charged with Airworthiness Study Group (HASG) and understanding of some acceptable
prescribing regulations and minimum the FAA agreed to form a specialist methods of compliance for the
standards for practices, methods, and subgroup to review proposals on flight proposals as well as the current
procedures the Administrator finds matters that were not incorporated requirements, and appropriate Advisory
necessary for safety in air commerce. during promulgation of the JAR. This Circular material was developed
Under Section 44702, the FAA may subgroup consisted of representatives of concurrently with this proposed rule.
issue various certificates including type the JAA, Association of European des There was much discussion in the
certificates, production certificates, air Constructeurs de Material Aerospatiale working group about the evolution of
agency certificates, and airworthiness (AECMA), Aerospace Industries the Appendix B Instrument Flight Rules
certificates. Under Section 44704, the Association of America (AIA), and the (IFR) flight characteristic requirements.
FAA shall issue type certificates for FAA. Early IFR helicopters were developed
aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, and The subgroup first met in January using relatively simple analog systems
specified appliances when the FAA 1994, and presented their findings to the consisting primarily of two or three-axis
finds that the product is properly HASG and the FAA in May 1994. The rate damping with, in some cases,
designed and manufactured, performs FAA announced the formation of the attitude or heading hold features.
properly, and meets the regulations and Performance and Handling Qualities Today, there are complex digital
minimum prescribed standards. This Requirements Harmonization Working automatic flight control systems or flight
regulation is within the scope of these Group (PHQHWG) in the Federal management systems available with
authorities because it would promote Register (60 FR 4220, January 20, 1995) highly redundant system architectures.
safety by updating the existing to act on the recommendation presented These highly complex systems may
minimum prescribed standards, used to the HASG and the FAA by the have enough redundancy or
during the type certification process, to specialist subgroup. The PHQHWG was compensating features to allow system
reflect the enhanced performance and charged with recommending to the operating characteristics as well as
handling quality capabilities of Aviaiton Rulemaking Advisory acceptable aircraft handling qualities to
rotorcraft. It would also harmonize this Committee (ARAC) new or revised be maintained in degraded modes of
standard with international standards standards for flight-test procedures and operation. Due to the difficulty of
for evaluating the performance and requirements. The PHQHWG was tasked adequately addressing all the various
handling qualities of normal and to ‘‘Review Title 14 Code of Federal elements of these complex systems and
transport category rotorcraft. Regulations part 27 and Appendix B, the associated flight characteristics, it
and part 29 and Appendix B, and was decided not to initiate parts 27 and
Background supporting policy and guidance material 29 rulemaking addressing these
Statement of the Problem for the purpose of determining the complex systems at this time, and that
course of action to be taken for the certification requirements for these
Due to technological advances in rulemaking and/or policy relative to the
design and operational trends in normal types of complex systems would be
issue of harmonizing performance and handled on a case-by-case basis within
and transport rotorcraft performance handling qualities requirements.’’
and handling qualities, the FAA is the current regulatory structure.
The PHQHWG included
proposing new and revised representatives that expressed an Section-by-Section Discussion of the
airworthiness standards. Some current interest by responding to the notice the Proposals
part 27 and 29 regulations do not reflect, FAA published in the Federal Register. Section 27.25 Weight Limits
in some cases, safety levels attainable by The PHQHWG included representatives
modern rotorcraft, and FAA-approved from the AIA, the AECMA, the Paragraph (a)(1)(iv) would be added to
equivalent level of safety findings. European JAA, Transport Canada, and formalize the equivalent level of safety
the FAA Rotorcraft Directorate. findings by establishing a maximum
History weight limit if the requirements in
Additionally, the PHQHWG consulted
It has been more than 20 years since representatives from the manufacturers § 27.79 or § 27.143(c)(1) cannot be met.
the last major promulgation of rules that of small rotorcraft. This broad Some recent certifications of part 27
address the performance and handling participation is consistent with the FAA rotorcraft have required placing weight,
qualities of rotorcraft (Amendments 29– policy to involve all known interested altitude, and temperature limitations in
24 and 27–21, 49 FR 44433 and 49 FR parties as early as practicable in the the Rotorcraft Flight Manual (RFM) to
44436, November 6, 1984). Since then, rulemaking process. The PHQHWG first achieve an equivalent level of safety
the FAA has developed policy and met in March 1995 and has with certain flight requirements.
procedures that address certain aspects subsequently met nine times. Specifically, the requirement for
of these requirements to make the parts controllability near the ground while at
27 and 29 rules workable within the General Discussion of the Proposals maximum weight and 7,000 feet density
framework of later rotorcraft designs Using the report submitted to the altitude and the requirement to establish
and operational needs. In addition, most HASG as a starting point, the PHQHWG the height-speed envelope at maximum
manufacturers have routinely exceeded agreed there was a need to update the weight or the highest weight allowing
some of the minimum performance rotorcraft performance and handling for hover out-of-ground-effect (OGE) for
requirements in part 27 and 29 of Title qualities standards. As the meetings altitudes above sea level are considered
14 of the Code of Federal Regulation progressed, the group evaluated a minimum level of safety for normal
(CFR) to meet customer needs. additional internally generated category rotorcraft. If compliance with
After the publication of the first issue proposals to change the performance these minimum standards is reached,
of the Joint Aviation Regulations (JAR) and handling qualities requirements the resultant data is put in the flight
for parts 27 and 29, which closely that were believed to be pertinent to the manual as performance information. In
mirrored 14 CFR part 29 at amendment group’s task. These proposals were some cases, an equivalent level of safety
has been attained by prohibiting certain forward CG is most critical, this may not This proposed rule would re-
operations and including limitations in be true for all rotorcraft, and the designate § 27.143(c) paragraphs (1)
the RFM that reflect the actual proposed language would provide for through (4). Paragraph (4) would
capability of the rotorcraft. such possibilities. This change to become paragraph (1) and paragraphs
§ 27.51 more clearly states the intent of (1), (2), and (3) would become
Section 29.25 Weight Limits
the current rule, which is to paragraphs (i), (ii), and (iii). Paragraph
Amendments 29–21 (48 FR 4374, demonstrate engine failure along the (c) in § 27.143 is rewritten to more
January 31, 1983) and 29–24 (49 FR takeoff flight path at the weight for clearly state that controllability on or
44422, November 6, 1984) granted relief which takeoff data are provided. The near the ground must be demonstrated
to certain operating limitations for requirement to demonstrate safe throughout a range of speeds from zero
Category B certificated rotorcraft with a landings after an engine failure at any to at least 17 knots. The current part 27
passenger seating capacity of nine or point along the takeoff path up to the rule could lead some applicants to
less. These amendments stated that, for maximum takeoff altitude or 7,000 feet, conclude that only a 17-knots
these rotorcraft, the hover controllability whichever is less, has been clarified to controllability data point must be
requirements of § 29.143(c) should not explicitly state that the altitudes cited in considered. That was not the intent of
be operating limitations. However, these the requirement are density altitudes. the current part 27 requirement. The
amendments did not specifically most critical speed may be less than 17
include language that would assure Section 27.75 Landing
knots. Additionally, the altitude
appropriate limitations are provided in The proposed rule would revise requirement is clarified with the
the RFM. The FAA has determined that § 27.75(a) to state the required flight addition of the words ‘‘density
it is necessary to establish appropriate condition in more traditional rotorcraft altitude.’’
limitations to ensure safe aircraft terminology. Included in this revision to Section 27.143(c)(2) is revised to
operations within the demonstrated § 27.75(a) is the requirement for multi- require that controllability be
performance envelope of the helicopter. engine helicopters to demonstrate determined at altitudes above 7,000 feet
This proposed rule would amend landings with one engine inoperative density altitude if takeoff and landing
§ 29.25 by requiring that the maximum and initiated from an established data are scheduled above that altitude.
weights, altitudes, and temperatures approach. The proposed rule would also Currently, no requirement exists to
demonstrated for compliance with make a minor revision in the text of determine controllability above 7,000
§ 29.143(c), which may also include paragraph (a) of this section by feet, even though takeoff and landing
limited wind azimuths, become replacing the word ‘‘glide’’ with data may be presented above that
operating limitations. ‘‘autorotation.’’ altitude. With the advent of lighter and
more powerful engines, it is not
New § 27.49 Performance at Minimum Section 27.79 Limiting Height-Speed
uncommon for rotorcraft to operate at
Operating Speed (Formerly § 27.73) Envelope
altitudes that, until recently, were
This proposed rule would redesignate The proposed rule would revise limited to a small number of rotorcraft
§ 27.73 as § 27.49 and add a requirement § 27.79(a)(1) to include the words performing very specialized operations.
to determine the OGE hover ‘‘density altitude’’ after ‘‘7000 feet.’’ The Since more rotorcraft are operating at
performance. Installed engine power proposed rule would also revise these altitudes, safety dictates that
available on normal category helicopters § 27.79(a)(2) by removing the word controllability and maneuverability be
has increased significantly since the ‘‘lesser’’ from the first sentence. This determined above 7,000 feet.
promulgation of the original part 27 change reflects that current OGE The proposed rule would add
requirement, particularly for hot-day weights for helicopters are not § 27.143(d) to require the determination
and high-altitude conditions. As a necessarily less than the maximum of controllability for wind velocities
result, OGE helicopter operations once weight at sea level. Additionally, in from zero to at least 17 knots OGE at
limited to special missions have become § 27.79(b)(2), the term ‘‘greatest power’’ weights selected by the applicant.
common. Most manufacturers present is removed and replaced with language Operations in support of law
OGE hover performance data in that more clearly states the power to be enforcement, search and rescue, and
approved flight manuals, although these used on the remaining engine(s) for media coverage are often performed in
data are not currently required. This multi-engine helicopters. This such a manner that the rotorcraft
change would mandate the current ‘‘minimum installed specification performance in rearward or quartering
industry practice and require that OGE power’’ is the minimum uninstalled flight is important in accomplishing the
hover data be determined throughout specification engine power after it is mission. This new requirement in
the range of weights, altitudes, and corrected for installation losses. The § 27.143(d), in conjunction with the
temperatures. specific text in the proposed rule of the proposed OGE hover requirement of
ambient conditions that define the § 27.49, would increase the level of
Section 27.51 Takeoff
engine power to be used during the safety by requiring additional
The proposed rule would revise the compliance demonstration is consistent performance information.
wording of § 27.51 to recognize that the with existing advisory material and
most critical center-of-gravity (CG) may current industry practice. Section 29.143 Controllability and
not be the extreme forward CG, and Maneuverability
would require that tests be performed at Section 27.143 Controllability and The proposed rule would revise
the most critical CG configuration and at Maneuverability § 29.143(a)(2)(v) to replace the word
the maximum weight for which takeoff This proposed rule would revise ‘‘glide’’ with ‘‘autorotation.’’ This minor
certification is requested. The current § 27.143(a)(2)(v) to replace the word change does not affect the method of
standard requires that tests be ‘‘glide’’ with ‘‘autorotation.’’ This minor compliance but states the required flight
performed at the extreme forward CG change does not affect the method of condition in more traditional rotorcraft
and at a weight selected by the compliance but states the required flight terminology.
applicant for altitudes above sea level. condition in more traditional rotorcraft Paragraph (c) in section § 29.143
Although for most rotorcraft the extreme terminology. would be rewritten to clarify that
controllability on or near the ground demonstration specified in the current explicitly required in current §§ 27.175
must be demonstrated throughout a §§ 27.175(d) and 29.175(d). See and 29.175. The proposed trim points,
range of speeds from zero to at least 17 additional discussion at §§ 27.175 and however, provide data at the most likely
knots. The current part 29 rule could 29.175. operating conditions. Autorotation at
lead some applicants to the conclusion VNE is typically a transient and dynamic
Sections 27.175 and 29.175
that only a 17-knot controllability data flight condition that often places high
Demonstration of Static Longitudinal
point must be considered when, in fact, workload demands on the pilot due
Stability
the most critical speed may be less than primarily to maintaining rotor speed
17 knots. This proposed rule would add The proposals in paragraphs (a) and control and the desired flight path.
paragraph (c)(4) to § 29.143 to explicitly (b) would decrease the speed range During these dynamic conditions of
require that controllability be about the specified trim speeds to more autorotation at VNE that are evaluated
determined for wind velocities up to at representative values than are currently under §§ 27.143 and 29.143,
least 17 knots, at an altitude from contained in the rule. A new paragraph longitudinal static stability is less
standard sea level conditions to the (c) would require an additional level important than in the more stabilized
maximum takeoff and landing altitude flight demonstration point. The current conditions as proposed.
capability of the rotorcraft. This paragraph (c) would be re-designated as This proposed rule would delete the
proposed rule reflects current practice. paragraph (d), and the current paragraph hover demonstration requirements of
This proposed rule would add (d) containing the hover demonstration current §§ 27.175(d) and 29.175(d). The
paragraph (d) to § 29.143 to require that would be deleted. requirement to demonstrate static
controllability be determined for wind Some current requirements in longitudinal stability in a hover has
velocities up to at least 17 knots OGE at §§ 27.175 and 29.175 are not been shown to be unnecessary since the
weights selected by the applicant. appropriate for the newer generation of proper sense and motion of controls
Today, operations in support of law rotorcraft. When the current regulation during hover are evaluated as part of
enforcement, search and rescue, and was written, the cruise demonstration of other required tests. The controllability
media coverage will often be performed 0.7 VH to 1.1 VH typically represented and maneuverability requirements of
in such a manner that the rotorcraft approximately a 30 knots speed §§ 27.143(a) and (c) and 29.143(a) and
performance in rearward or quartering variation for helicopters. Now, the (c) adequately address the safety
flight are of a safety concern. cruise demonstration, between the considerations during hover flight.
maximum and the minimum speeds (1.1
Sections 27.173 and 29.173 Static VH and 0.7 VH), can encompass such a Sections 27.177 and 29.177 Static
Longitudinal Stability large speed range that the trim point and Directional Stability
A minor clarification change is end points actually represent This proposed rule would revise
proposed to paragraph (a) in §§ 27.173 completely different flight regimes §§ 27.177 and 29.177 to change the
and 29.173 to change ‘‘a speed’’ to ‘‘an rather than perturbations about a trim demonstration criteria for static
airspeed.’’ Paragraph (b) would be point in a given flight regime. For some directional stability. The current part 27
combined with paragraph (c) in modern helicopters with a never-exceed and 29 rule contains general language
§§ 27.173 and 29.173 to allow neutral or speed (VNE) in excess of 150 knots, the and relies primarily on a pilot’s
negative static stability in limited areas speed variation for the cruise subjective judgment that he is
of the flight envelope, if adequate demonstration could approach 60 knots, approaching the sideslip limit, which
compensating characteristics are present which makes the maneuver difficult to renders it difficult to make compliance
and the pilot can maintain airspeed perform and does not represent a determinations due to a lack of objective
within 5 knots of the desired trim speed normal variation about a trim point. test criteria. The proposals would
during the conditions specified in These proposals would reduce the provide further objective criteria over
§§ 27.175 and 29.175. speed range for the cruise which the directional stability
The ability to maintain appropriate demonstration to ±10 knots about the characteristics of rotorcraft are
airspeed control during other flight specified trim point. evaluated. The proposed rule also
conditions would be tested under An additional demonstration point at allows for a minimal amount of negative
§§ 27.143 and 29.143. Neutral or a trim airspeed of VNE¥10 knots is stability around each trim point. This
negative static longitudinal stability in proposed to maintain the data coverage recognizes the characteristics exhibited
limited flight domains has been allowed over a speed range similar to that by many rotorcraft that have some
for numerous rotorcraft under contained in the current §§ 27.175(b) airflow blockage of the vertical fin or
equivalent level of safety findings when and 29.175(b). tail rotor at small sideslip angles. This
adequate compensating features have For the demonstration in autorotation, minimal amount of negative stability
been present. The satisfactory the current requirement specifies that does not materially affect the overall
experience gained with these equivalent the rotorcraft be trimmed at speeds safety considerations of static
safety findings has provided the basis found necessary by the Administrator to directional stability.
for the proposed change. Historically, demonstrate stability. The proposed rule
these limited flight domains have been would specify typically used trim Section 27.903 Engines
encountered at the aft limit of the speeds—minimum rate of descent and This proposed rule would revise
weight/CG envelopes during descent, or best angle of glide airspeeds—for the § 27.903 to add a new paragraph (d) to
autorotation, or climb stability stability demonstration. The conditions require engine restart capability. A
demonstrations. Historically, negative required to develop these airspeeds are restart capability is a fundamental
longitudinal control position gradient currently stated in §§ 27.67, 27.71, 29.67 necessity for any aircraft to minimize
versus airspeed has generally been no and 29.71. The proposed rule would the risk of a forced landing. A restart
more than 2 to 3 percent of the total also limit the speed range for capability will enhance safety, even
control travel. demonstration to ±10 knots from the though it will not be useful in every
Additionally, these proposals would trim points. The proposed new trim case such as when there is engine
delete the §§ 27.173(c) and 29.173(c) points and speed ranges may not damage or insufficient altitude to carry
requirements relating to the hover encompass VNE in autorotation as out the restart procedure. A study of
accident and incident data shows a large standards that must be met when additional out-of-ground effect
number of engine failures or flameouts considering a stability augmentation performance data. Proposed § 29.1587
on rotorcraft with a restart capability. A system failure. requires that performance data, in
number of these incidents resulted in addition to current § 29.49 and other
Appendix B to Part 29—Airworthiness
successful in-flight restarts following data, be provided to operators in the
Criteria for Helicopter Instrument
failure due to causes such as snow and RFM.
Flight
ice ingestion, fuel contamination, or fuel Use of: The required performance
mismanagement. The data related to the The proposed rule would amend information would be determined
accident and incident engine failures or paragraph (V)(a) to allow for a minimal during the certification process for
flameouts are contained in the Docket. amount of neutral or negative stability various rotorcraft weights, altitudes, and
The proposed text, taken directly from around trim and would replace the temperatures and would be collected
current § 29.903(e), would require an in- words ‘‘in approximately constant
from rotorcraft certification applicants.
flight restart capability for both single- proportion’’ with ‘‘without
This performance information would be
engine and multiengine rotorcraft. We discontinuity.’’ This is intended to be a
inserted into the RFM and used by
intend that restart procedures be more objective standard that does not
rotorcraft operators to determine
included in the RFM. allow irregularity in the aircraft
whether their rotorcraft was capable of
response to control input. Also, this is
Section 27.1587 Performance performing certain missions in their
consistent with the change that is
Information operating environment.
proposed in § 29.177 of the VFR
Section 27.1587(a) would be revised requirements that proposes more Respondents (including number of):
to include a reference to new § 27.49. specific criteria to evaluate stability We anticipate an average of 4 normal or
Section 27.1587(a)(2)(i) and (ii) would characteristics, but also recognizes a transport category rotorcraft certification
be revised to specifically include minimal amount of negative stability. applicants every 10 years would be
requirements for presenting maximum Additionally, the proposed paragraph required to determine this performance
safe winds for OGE operations would require that the pilot be able to information and provide it to operators
established in the proposed § 27.143. maintain the desired heading without in each RFM. We anticipate 50 rotorcraft
Section 27.1587(b)(1)(i) and (ii) would exceptional skill or alertness. Lastly, in are delivered for each new certification
be deleted. These two paragraphs were paragraph (V)(b)—the word ‘‘cycle’’ is and a RFM must be furnished with each
moved into § 27.1585(a) by Amendment replaced by the correct word, ‘‘cyclic.’’ rotorcraft.
27–21, and inadvertently left in from This proposed rule would revise Frequency: The frequency of
§ 27.1587. paragraphs VII(a)(1) and VII(a)(2). This determining the performance data
change would reorganize the paragraphs would depend on how often an
Section 29.1587 Performance applicant seeks the certification of a
and further specify the standards that
Information rotorcraft. We anticipate four new
must be met when considering a
The proposal to revise § 29.1587 stability augmentation system failure. rotorcraft certifications each 10 years.
would require new performance This performance data would be
information be included in the RFM. Paperwork Reduction Act
provided when the manufacturer
Sections 29.1587(a)(7) and 29.1587(b)(8) This proposal contains the following delivers each rotorcraft to an operator.
would be amended to include the new information collection Based on industry responses, we
requirements for presenting maximum requirements. As required by the anticipate 50 rotorcraft are delivered per
safe winds for OGE operations. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 certification, resulting in 50 manuals.
U.S.C. 3507(d)), the FAA has submitted Annual Burden Estimate: The
Appendix B to Part 27—Airworthiness
the information requirements associated performance data must be collected
Criteria for Helicopter Instrument
with this proposal to the Office of during each certification and disclosed
Flight
Management and Budget for review. in each RFM. Based on industry
The proposed rule would amend Title: Performance and Handling response, we anticipate that it would
paragraph (V)(a) to allow for a minimal Qualities Requirements for Rotorcraft. take 20 hours at $100 per hour to collect
amount of neutral or negative stability Summary: This proposal would revise
the performance data for four
around trim and would replace the the airworthiness standards for normal
certifications every 10 years for an
words ‘‘in approximately constant and transport category rotorcraft
annual collection burden of $200.00
proportion’’ with ‘‘without performance and handling qualities.
($100 * (20/10)). We further anticipate
discontinuity.’’ This is intended to be a This proposal would increase the
2 additional pages would be required to
more objective standard that does not current minimum safety standards to
place the data in the RFM. We estimate
allow irregularity in the aircraft require compliance with certain current
an annual paperwork burden of 120
response to control input. Also, this is industry practices and FAA policies that
pages with an annual reproduction cost
consistent with the change that is result in higher safety standards, and
of $6.00. Therefore, the estimated total
proposed in § 27.177 of the VFR would result in harmonized
annual cost burden of the additional
requirements that proposes more international standards. Proposed
paperwork for this proposed rule would
specific criteria to evaluate stability §§ 27.49(a)(3) and 27.143(d) require all
be $206.00.
characteristics, but also recognizes a applicants seeking certification for a
minimal amount of negative stability. normal category rotorcraft to determine The agency is soliciting comments
Additionally, the proposed paragraph out-of-ground effect performance data, to—
would require that the pilot be able to and the proposed § 27.1587 requires that (1) Evaluate whether the proposed
maintain the desired heading without performance data be provided to information requirement is necessary for
exceptional skill or alertness. This operators in the RFM that must be the proper performance of the functions
proposed rule would also revise furnished with each rotorcraft. For those of the agency, including whether the
paragraph VII(a)(1) and VII(a)(2). This applicants seeking certification for a information will have practical utility;
revision would reorganize the transport category rotorcraft, proposed (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the
paragraphs and further specify the § 29.143(d) requires that they determine agency’s estimate of the burden;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and commerce of the United States. In Benefits of This Rulemaking
clarity of the information to be developing U.S. standards, this Trade
collected; and Act requires agencies to consider The benefits of this NPRM consist of
(4) Minimize the burden of the international standards and, where the value of lives and property saved
collection of information on those who appropriate, that they be the basis of due to avoiding accidents involving part
are to respond, including through the U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded 27 or part 29 rotorcraft. Over the 10-year
use of appropriate automated, Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. period of analysis, the potential benefit
electronic, mechanical, or other 104–4) requires agencies to prepare a of the NPRM would be at least $3.9
technological collection techniques or written assessment of the costs, benefits, million ($2.7 million in present value)
other forms of information technology. and other effects of proposed or final by preventing one accident.
Individuals and organizations may rules that include a Federal mandate
submit comments on the information likely to result in the expenditure by Costs of This Rulemaking
collection requirement by September 25, State, local, or tribal governments, in the
2006, and should direct them to the We estimate the costs of this proposed
aggregate, or by the private sector, of
address listed in the ADDRESSES section rule to be about $558,250 ($364,955 in
$100 million or more annually (adjusted
of this document. Comments also present value) over the 10-year analysis
for inflation with base year of 1995).
should be submitted to the Office of This portion of the preamble period. Manufacturers of 14 CFR part 27
Information and Regulatory Affairs, summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the helicopters would incur costs of
OMB, New Executive Building, Room economic impacts of this proposed rule. $383,250 ($234,039 in present value)
10202, 725 17th Street, NW., We suggest readers seeking greater and manufacturers of 14 CFR part 29
Washington, DC 20053, Attention: Desk detail read the full regulatory helicopters would incur costs of
Officer for FAA. evaluation, a copy of which we have $175,000 ($130,916 in present value).
According to the 1995 amendments to placed in the docket for this rulemaking.
the Paperwork Reduction Act (5 CFR Regulatory Flexibility Determination
In conducting these analyses, FAA
1320.8(b)(3)(vi)), an agency may not has determined that this proposed rule: The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
collect or sponsor the collection of (1) Has benefits that justify its costs, (2) (Pub. L. 96–354) (RFA) establishes ‘‘as a
information, nor may it impose an is not an economically ‘‘significant principle of regulatory issuance that
information collection requirement regulatory action’’ as defined in section agencies shall endeavor, consistent with
unless it displays a currently valid OMB 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, (3) is not the objective of the rule and of
control number. The OMB control ‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and
number for this information collection Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) informational requirements to the scale
will be published in the Federal would not have a significant economic of the business, organizations, and
Register, after the Office of Management impact on a substantial number of small
governmental jurisdictions subject to
and Budget approves it. entities; (5) would not have a significant
regulation.’’ To achieve that principle,
International Compatibility effect on international trade; and (6)
the RFA requires agencies to consider
would not impose an unfunded
In keeping with U.S. obligations flexible regulatory proposals, to explain
mandate on state, local, or tribal
under the Convention on International governments, or on the private sector by the rationale for their actions, and to
Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to exceeding the threshold identified solicit comments. The RFA covers a
comply with International Civil above. These analyses are summarized wide-range of small entities, including
Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards below. small businesses, not-for-profit
and Recommended Practices to the organizations and small governmental
maximum extent practicable. The FAA Total Benefits and Costs of This jurisdictions.
has reviewed the corresponding ICAO Rulemaking
Agencies must perform a review to
Standards and Recommended Practices The estimated cost of this proposed determine whether a rule will have a
and has identified no ‘‘differences’’ with rule is about $558,250 ($364,955 in significant economic impact on a
these proposed regulations. present value). The estimated potential substantial number of small entities. If
Executive Order 12866, DOT benefits of avoiding at least one the agency determines that it will, the
Regulatory Policies and Procedures, helicopter accident are about $3.9 agency must prepare a regulatory
Economic Assessment, Regulatory million ($2.7 million in present value). flexibility analysis as described in the
Flexibility Determination, Trade Impact Who is Potentially Affected by This RFA.
Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Rulemaking However, if an agency determines that
Assessment • Operators of U.S.-registered part 27 a proposed or final rule is not expected
Changes to Federal regulations must or 29 rotorcraft, and to have a significant economic impact
undergo several economic analyses. • Manufacturers of those rotorcraft. on a substantial number of small
First, Executive Order 12866 directs that entities, section 605(b) of the 1980 RFA
Our Cost Assumptions and Sources of
each Federal agency shall propose or provides that the head of the agency
Information
adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned may so certify and a regulatory
determination that the benefits of the • Discount rate—7%.
flexibility analysis is not required. The
intended regulation justify its costs. • Period of analysis—10 years.1
• Value of fatality avoided—$3.0 certification must include a statement
Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act providing the factual basis for this
of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) requires million (Source: ‘‘Economic Values for
FAA Investment & Regulatory determination, and the reasoning should

agencies to analyze the economic be clear.
impact of regulatory changes on small Decisions,’’ (March 2004)).
entities. Third, the Trade Agreements We use the Small Business
1 The 10-year analysis period covers our
Act (Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits agencies Administration (SBA) guideline of 1,500
assumption that manufacturers will seek new
from setting standards that create certification for one large and one small part 27 and
employees or less per firm as the
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign two large part 29 rotorcraft. criterion for the determination of a
small business in commercial air U.S. rotorcraft manufactures Employment COMPLIANCE COSTS
service.2
In order to determine if the proposed Enstrom Helicopter Corpora- Section Cost
rule will have a significant economic tion .................................... 100
Schweizer Aircraft Corpora- 27.49 ..................................... $21,125
impact on a substantial number of small
tion .................................... 400 27.143 ................................... 26,000
entities, a list of all U.S. rotorcraft Erickson Air-Crane ............... 500
manufacturers, who must meet normal 27.173 ................................... (13,000)
Robinson Helicopter Com-
and transport category rotorcraft 27.175 ................................... 3,250
pany, Inc ........................... 700
airworthy standards under 14 CFR parts 27.177 ................................... 17,875
27 and 29, was tabulated. The FAA expects that one large firm 27.903 ................................... 16,250
Using information provided by three and one small firm will seek
Total ............................... 84,500
sources: The World Aviation Directory, certification of a new part 27 normal
Dunn and Bradstreet’s company category rotorcraft over the next ten
databases, and SEC filings through the years. Although most of the proposed The annualized cost for this small
Internet, we examined the publicly requirements intended to revise the operator is estimated at $12,030
available revenue and employment of flight certification requirements are ($84,500 X 0.142378).3
all these businesses, after eliminating current industry standard and support The degree to which a small rotorcraft
those with more than 1,500 employees new FAA rotorcraft policy, some will manufacturer can ‘‘afford’’ the cost of
and subsidiaries of larger businesses. An increase costs, while some will decrease compliance is determined by the
example of a subsidiary business is Bell costs. Sections 27.49, 27.143, 29.143, availability of financial resources. The
Helicopter, which is a subsidiary of 27.175, 29.175, 27.177, and 27.903 will initial implementation costs of the
Textron, Inc. increase costs by requiring
proposed rule may come from either
This methodology resulted in the manufacturers to add additional data
cash flow or be borrowed. As a proxy for
following list of 6 U.S. part 27 rotorcraft and testing procedures to the Rotorcraft
Flight Manual (RFM). Sections 27.173 the firm’s ability to afford the cost of
manufactures with less than 1,500 compliance, we calculated the ratio of
employees. None of the part 29 and 29.173 on static longitudinal
stability would be cost relieving to the the total annualized cost of the
rotorcraft manufacturers has 1,500 or proposed rule as a percentage of annual
fewer employees. manufactures because they delete hover
demonstrations not relevant to safety revenue. None of the small business
and are redundant with other operators potentially affected by this
U.S. rotorcraft manufactures Employment
requirements. We estimate the average proposed rule would incurred costs
Hiller Aircraft Corp. ............... 35 compliance costs for such a small firm greater that 0.2 percent of their annual
Brantly Helicopter Industry ... 35 to be $84,500 as follows: revenue (see table below).
Annual
U.S. rotorcraft manufactures Employment Percentage
revenue
Hiller Aircraft Corp. ...................................................................................................................... 35 $7,500,000 0.16

Brantly Helicopter Industry .......................................................................................................... 35 15,000,000 0.08
Enstrom Helicopter Corporation .................................................................................................. 100 35,000,000 0.03
Schweizer Aircraft Corporation .................................................................................................... 400 35,000,000 0.03
Erickson Air-Crane ....................................................................................................................... 500 35,000,000 0.03
Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc ............................................................................................. 700 80,000,000 0.02
As we expect only one of these standards or engaging in related of any Federal mandate in a proposed or
companies to certificate a new rotorcraft activities that create unnecessary final agency rule that may result in an
in the next 10 years, only one would obstacles to the foreign commerce of the expenditure of $100 million or more
incur compliance costs. We estimated United States. Legitimate domestic (adjusted annually for inflation with the
this compliance cost would be less that objectives, such as safety, are not base year 1995) in any one year by State,
0.2 percent of their total annual considered unnecessary obstacles. The local, and tribal governments, in the
revenue. statute also requires consideration of aggregate, or by the private sector; such
Thus, we determined that no small international standards and, where a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant
entity would incur a substantial appropriate, that they be the basis for regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently
economic impact in the form of higher U.S. standards. This proposed rule uses an inflation-adjusted value of
annual costs as a result of this proposed reflects an international effort to have $120.7 million in lieu of $100 million.
rule. Therefore, the FAA certifies that common certification standards, and This proposed rule does not contain
this proposal would not have a thus is in accord with the Trade such a mandate. The requirements of
significant economic impact on a Agreements Act. Title II do not apply.
substantial number of small entities.
Unfunded Mandates Assessment Executive Order 13132, Federalism
International Trade Impact Assessment
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates The FAA has analyzed this proposed
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) rule under the principles and criteria of
(Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits Federal requires each Federal agency to prepare Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We
agencies from establishing any a written statement assessing the effects determined that this action would not
2 13 CFR part 121.201, Size Standards Used to 3 Uniform Annual Value discounted at 7% over
Define Small Business Concerns, Section 48–49 10-year period.

Transportation, Subsector 481 Air Transportation.
have a substantial direct effect on the regulatory action’’ under Executive (ii) For turbine engine powered
States, on the relationship between the Order 12866, and it is not likely to have helicopters, 2,500 feet pressure altitude
national Government and the States, or a significant adverse effect on the at maximum weight at a temperature of
on the distribution of power and supply, distribution, or use of energy. standard plus 22 °C (standard plus 40
responsibilities among the various °F).
List of Subjects
levels of government, and therefore (3) The out-of-ground effect hovering
would not have federalism implications. 14 CFR Part 27 performance must be determined over
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation the ranges of weight, altitude, and
Regulations Affecting Intrastate
Aviation in Alaska safety, Rotorcraft, Safety. temperature for which certification is
requested, using takeoff power.
Section 1205 of the FAA 14 CFR Part 29 (b) For rotorcraft other than
Reauthorization Act of 1996 (codified at helicopters, the steady rate of climb at
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation
49 U.S.C. 40113(f)) requires the the minimum operating speed must be
safety, Rotorcraft, Safety.
Administrator, when modifying determined over the ranges of weight,
regulations in title 14 of the CFR in a The Proposed Amendment altitude, and temperature for which
manner affecting intrastate aviation in In consideration of the foregoing, the certification is requested, with—
Alaska, to consider the extent to which Federal Aviation Administration (1) Takeoff power; and
Alaska is not served by transportation proposes to amend parts 27 and 29 of (2) The landing gear extended.
modes other than aviation, and to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, as 4. Revise § 27.51 to read as follows:
establish such regulatory distinctions as follows:
he or she considers appropriate. § 27.51 Takeoff.
Because this proposed rule would apply PART 27—AIRWORTHINESS The takeoff, with takeoff power and
to the certification of future designs of STANDARDS: NORMAL CATEGORY r.p.m. at the most critical center of
normal and transport category rotorcraft ROTORCRAFT gravity, and with weight from the
and their subsequent operation, it could, maximum weight at sea level to the
if adopted, affect intrastate aviation in 1. The authority citation for part 27 weight for which takeoff certification is
Alaska. The FAA therefore specifically continues to read as follows: requested for each altitude covered by
requests comments on whether there is Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701- this section—
justification for applying the proposed 44702, 44704. (a) May not require exceptional
rule differently in intrastate operations 2. Amend § 27.25 by adding the word piloting skill or exceptionally favorable
in Alaska. ‘‘weight’’ after the word ‘‘maximum’’ conditions throughout the ranges of
and removing the word ‘‘or’’ at the end altitude from standard sea level
Environmental Analysis conditions to the maximum altitude for
of the sentence in paragraph (a)(1)(ii);
FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA which takeoff and landing certification
removing the word ‘‘and’’ and adding
actions that are categorically excluded is requested, and
the word ‘‘or’’ in its place in paragraph
from preparation of an environmental (b) Must be made in such a manner
(a)(1)(iii); and by adding paragraph
assessment or environmental impact that a landing can be made safely at any
(a)(1)(iv) to read as follows:
statement under the National point along the flight path if an engine
Environmental Policy Act in the § 27.25 Weight limits. fails. This must be demonstrated up to
absence of extraordinary circumstances. (a) * * * the maximum altitude for which takeoff
The FAA has determined this proposed (1) * * * and landing certification is requested or
rulemaking action qualifies for the (iv) The highest weight in which the 7,000 feet density altitude, whichever is
categorical exclusion identified in provisions of §§ 27.79 or 27.143(c)(1), or less.
paragraph 312f and involves no combinations thereof, are demonstrated 5. Revise § 27.75(a) to read as follows:
extraordinary circumstances. if the weights and operating conditions § 27.75 Landing.
Regulations that Significantly Affect (altitude and temperature) prescribed by
those requirements cannot be met; and (a) The rotorcraft must be able to be
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use landed with no excessive vertical
* * * * * acceleration, no tendency to bounce,
The energy impact of the proposed
3. Re-designate § 27.73 as new § 27.49 nose over, ground loop, porpoise, or
rule has been assessed in accordance
and revise to read as follows: water loop, and without exceptional
with the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act (EPCA) Public Law § 27.49 Performance at minimum piloting skill or exceptionally favorable
94–163, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6362) operating speed. conditions, with—
and the Department of Transportation (a) For helicopters— (1) Approach or autorotation speeds
implementing regulations, specifically (1) The hovering ceiling must be appropriate to the type of rotorcraft and
14 CFR 313.4, that defines a ‘‘major determined over the ranges of weight, selected by the applicant;
regulatory action.’’ We have determined altitude, and temperature for which (2) The approach and landing made
that this notice is not a ‘‘major certification is requested, with— with—
regulatory action’’ under the provisions (i) Takeoff power; (i) Power off, for single engine
of the EPCA. Additionally, we have (ii) The landing gear extended; and rotorcraft and entered from steady state
analyzed this proposal under Executive (iii) The helicopter in-ground effect at autorotation; or
Order 13211, Actions Concerning a height consistent with normal takeoff (ii) One-engine inoperative (OEI) for
Regulations that Significantly Affect procedures; and multiengine rotorcraft, with each
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (2) The hovering ceiling determined operating engine within approved
(May 18, 2001). under paragraph (a)(1) of this section operating limitations, and entered from
We have determined that this must be at least— an established OEI approach.
proposed rule is not a ‘‘significant (i) For reciprocating engine powered * * * * *
energy action’’ under the executive helicopters, 4,000 feet at maximum 6. Amend § 27.79 by removing the
order because it is not a ‘‘significant weight with a standard atmosphere; or word ‘‘rotocraft’’ and replacing it with
‘‘rotorcraft’’ in paragraph (b)(3) and be established in which the rotorcraft (1) Critical weight;
revising paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2) and can be operated without loss of control (2) Critical center of gravity;
(b)(2) to read as follows: out-of-ground-effect, with— (3) Power required for level flight at
(1) Weight selected by the applicant; VNE ¥ 10 kt or maximum continuous
§ 27.79 Limiting height-speed envelope. (2) Critical center of gravity; power, whichever is less;
(a) * * * (3) Rotor r.p.m. selected by the (4) The landing gear retracted; and
(1) Altitude, from standard sea level applicant; and (5) The rotorcraft trimmed at VNE ¥
conditions to the maximum altitude (4) Altitude, from standard sea level 10 kt.
capability of the rotorcraft, or 7000 feet conditions to the maximum takeoff and (d) Autorotation. Static longitudinal
density altitude, whichever is less; and landing altitude capability of the stability must be shown in autorotation
(2) Weight, from the maximum weight rotorcraft. at—
at sea level to the weight selected by the * * * * * (1) Airspeeds from the minimum rate
applicant for each altitude covered by 8. Amend § 27.173 by removing the of descent airspeed ¥ 10 kt to the
paragraph (a)(1) of this section. For words ‘‘a speed’’ in the two places in minimum rate of descent airspeed + 10
helicopters, the weight at altitudes paragraph (a) and adding the words ‘‘an kt, with—
above sea level may not be less than the airspeed’’ in both their places; removing (i) Critical weight;
maximum weight or the highest weight paragraph (c); and revising paragraph (b) (ii) Critical center of gravity;
allowing hovering out-of-ground effect, to read as follows: (iii) The landing gear extended; and
whichever is lower. (iv) The rotorcraft trimmed at the
(b) * * * § 27.173 Static longitudinal stability. minimum rate of descent airspeed.
(2) For multiengine helicopters, OEI * * * * * (2) Airspeeds from best angle-of-glide
(where engine isolation features ensure (b) Throughout the full range of airspeed ¥ 10 kt to the best angle-of-
continued operation of the remaining altitude for which certification is glide airspeed + 10 kt, with—
engines), and the remaining engine(s) requested, with the throttle and (i) Critical weight;
within approved limits and at the collective pitch held constant during the (ii) Critical center of gravity;
minimum installed specification power maneuvers specified in § 27.175(a) (iii) The landing gear retracted; and
through (d), the slope of the control (iv) The rotorcraft trimmed at the best
available for the most critical
position versus airspeed curve must be angle-of-glide airspeed.
combination of approved ambient 10. Revise § 27.177 to read as follows:
temperature and pressure altitude positive. However, in limited flight
resulting in 7000 feet density altitude or conditions or modes of operation § 27.177 Static directional stability.
the maximum altitude capability of the determined by the Administrator to be (a) The directional controls must
helicopter, whichever is less, and acceptable, the slope of the control operate in such a manner that the sense
* * * * * position versus airspeed curve may be and direction of motion of the rotorcraft
7. Amend § 27.143 by revising neutral or negative if the rotorcraft following control displacement are in
paragraph (a)(2)(v); re-designating possesses flight characteristics that the direction of the pedal motion with
paragraphs (d) and (e) as paragraphs (e) allow the pilot to maintain airspeed the throttle and collective controls held
and (f) respectively; revising paragraph within ±5 knots of the desired trim constant at the trim conditions specified
(c); and adding a new paragraph (d) to airspeed without exceptional piloting in § 27.175 (a), (b), and (c). Sideslip
read as follows: skill or alertness. angles must increase with steadily
9. Amend § 27.175 by removing increasing directional control deflection
§ 27.143 Controllability and paragraph (d); revising the introductory for sideslip angles up to the lesser of—
maneuverability. text in paragraphs (a) and (b); revising (1) ±25 degrees from trim at a speed
(a) * * * paragraphs (b)(3) and (b)(5); re- of 15 knots less than the speed for
(2) * * * designating paragraph (c) as (d) and minimum rate of descent varying
(v) Autorotation; revising re-designated paragraph (d); linearly to (10 degrees from trim at VNE;
* * * * * and adding a new paragraph (c) to read (2) The steady state sideslip angles
(c) Wind velocities from zero to at as follows: established by § 27.351;
least 17 knots, from all azimuths, must (3) A sideslip angle selected by the
§ 27.175 Demonstration of static
be established in which the rotorcraft longitudinal stability. applicant, which corresponds to a
can be operated without loss of control sideforce of at least 0.1g; or,
(a) Climb. Static longitudinal stability
on or near the ground in any maneuver (4) The sideslip angle attained by
must be shown in the climb condition
appropriate to the type (such as maximum directional control input.
at speeds from Vy ¥ 10 kt, to Vy + 10
crosswind takeoffs, sideward flight, and (b) Sufficient cues must accompany
kt with—
rearward flight)— the sideslip to alert the pilot when the
(1) With altitude, from standard sea * * * * * aircraft is approaching the sideslip
level conditions to the maximum takeoff (b) Cruise. Static longitudinal stability limits.
and landing altitude capability of the must be shown in the cruise condition (c) During the maneuver specified in
rotorcraft or 7000 feet density altitude, at speeds from 0.8 VNE ¥ 10 kt to 0.8 paragraph (a) of this section, the sideslip
whichever is less; with: VNE + 10 kt or, if VH is less than 0.8 VNE, angle versus directional control position
(i) Critical Weight; from VH -10 kt to VH + 10 kt, with— curve may have a negative slope within
(ii) Critical center of gravity; * * * * * a small range of angles around trim,
(iii) Critical rotor r.p.m.; (3) Power for level flight at 0.8 VNE or provided the desired heading can be
(2) For takeoff and landing altitudes VH, whichever is less; maintained without exceptional piloting
above 7000 feet density altitude with— * * * * * skill or alertness.

(i) Weight selected by the applicant; (5) The rotorcraft trimmed at 0.8 VNE 11. Amend § 27.903 by adding a new
(ii) Critical center of gravity; and or VH, whichever is less. paragraph (d) to read as follows:
(iii) Critical rotor r.p.m. (c) VNE. Static longitudinal stability
(d) Wind velocities from zero to at must be shown at speeds from VNE ¥ § 27.903 Engines.
least 17 knots, from all azimuths, must 20 kt to VNE with— * * * * *
(d) Restart capability: A means to angle of sideslip. It must be possible to (v) Autorotation; and
restart any engine in flight must be maintain balanced flight without exceptional
* * * * *
provided. pilot skill or alertness.
(c) Wind velocities from zero to at
(1) Except for the in-flight shutdown * * * * * least 17 knots, from all azimuths, must
of all engines, engine restart capability VII. Stability Augmentation System (SAS). be established in which the rotorcraft
must be demonstrated throughout a (a) If a SAS is used, the reliability of the
can be operated without loss of control
flight envelope for the rotorcraft. SAS must be related to the effects of its
failure. Any SAS failure that would prevent on or near the ground in any manner
(2) Following the in-flight shutdown appropriate to the type (such as
continued safe flight and landing must be
of all engines, in-flight engine restart crosswind takeoffs, sideward flight, and
extremely improbable. It must be shown that,
capability must be provided. for any failure of the SAS that is not shown rearward flight), with—
12. Amend § 27.1587 by removing to be extremely improbable— (1) Critical weight;
paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (b)(1)(ii) and (1) The helicopter is safely controllable (2) Critical center of gravity;
revising the introductory text in when the failure or malfunction occurs at any (3) Critical rotor r.p.m.; and
paragraph (a) and paragraphs (a)(2)(i) speed or altitude within the approved IFR (4) Altitude, from standard sea level
and (a)(2)(ii) to read as follows: operating limitations; and conditions to the maximum takeoff and
(2) The overall flight characteristics of the landing altitude capability of the
§ 27.1587 Performance information. helicopter allow for prolonged instrument
rotorcraft.
(a) The Rotorcraft Flight Manual must flight without undue pilot effort. Additional
unrelated probable failures affecting the (d) Wind velocities from zero to at
contain the following information,
control system must be considered. In least 17 knots, from all azimuths, must
determined in accordance with §§ 27.49
addition— be established in which the rotorcraft
through 27.79 and 27.143(c) and (d):
(i) The controllability and maneuverability can be operated without loss of control
* * * * * requirements in Subpart B of this part must out-of-ground effect, with—
(2) * * be met throughout a practical flight envelope; (1) Weight selected by the applicant;
(i) The steady rates of climb and (ii) The flight control, trim, and dynamic (2) Critical center of gravity;
decent, in-ground effect and out-of- stability characteristics must not be impaired (3) Rotor r.p.m. selected by the
ground effect hovering ceilings, together below a level needed to allow continued safe applicant; and
with the corresponding airspeeds and flight and landing; and (4) Altitude, from standard sea level
other pertinent information including (iii) The static longitudinal and static
directional stability requirements of Subpart
conditions to the maximum takeoff and
the calculated effects of altitude and landing altitude capability of the
temperatures; B must be met throughout a practical flight
envelope. rotorcraft.
(ii) The maximum weight for each
altitude and temperature condition at * * * * * * * * * *
17. Amend § 29.173 by removing the
which the rotorcraft can safely hover in-
PART 29—AIRWORTHINESS words ‘‘a speed’’ in the two places in
ground effect and out-of-ground effect in
STANDARDS: TRANSPORT paragraph (a) and adding the words ‘‘an
winds of not less than 17 knots from all
CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT airspeed’’ in their places; removing
azimuths. These data must be clearly
paragraph (c); and revising paragraph (b)
referenced to the appropriate hover 14. The authority citation for part 29 to read as follows:
charts. In addition, if there are other continues to read as follows:
combinations of weight, altitude and § 29.173 Static longitudinal stability.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701–
temperature for which performance 44702, 44704. * * * * *
information is provided and at which (b) Throughout the full range of
the rotorcraft cannot land and takeoff 15. Amend § 29.25 by adding altitude for which certification is
safely with the maximum wind value, paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows: requested, with the throttle and
those portions of the operating envelope collective pitch held constant during the
§ 29.25 Weight limits.
and the appropriate safe wind maneuvers specified in § 29.175(a)
conditions must be stated in the (a) * * *
through (d), the slope of the control
Rotorcraft Flight Manual; (4) For Category B rotorcraft with 9 or
position versus airspeed curve must be
* * * * * less passenger seats, the maximum
positive. However, in limited flight
13. Amend APPENDIX B TO PART weight, altitude, and temperature at
conditions or modes of operation
27—AIRWORTHINESS CRITERIA FOR which the rotorcraft can safely operate
determined by the Administrator to be
HELICOPTER INSTRUMENT FLIGHT near the ground with the maximum
acceptable, the slope of the control
by revising paragraphs V(a) and VII(a) to wind velocity determined under
position versus airspeed curve may be
read as follows: § 29.143(c) and may include other
neutral or negative if the rotorcraft
demonstrated wind velocities and
Appendix B to Part 27—Airworthiness possesses flight characteristics that
azimuths. The operating envelopes must
Criteria for Helicopter Instrument allow the pilot to maintain airspeed
be stated in the Limitations section of
Flight within (5 knots of the desired trim
the Rotorcraft Flight Manual.
airspeed without exceptional piloting
* * * * * * * * * * skill or alertness.
V. Static lateral-directional stability. 16. Amend § 29.143 by revising 18. Revise § 29.175 to read as follows:
(a) Static directional stability must be paragraph (a)(2)(v); re-designating
positive throughout the approved ranges of paragraphs (d) and (e) as paragraphs (e) § 29.175 Demonstration of static
airspeed, power, and vertical speed. In longitudinal stability.
and (f) respectively; revising paragraph
straight and steady sideslips up to ±10° from
(c); and adding a new paragraph (d) to (a) Climb. Static longitudinal stability
trim, directional control position must

increase without discontinuity with the angle read as follows: must be shown in the climb condition
of sideslip, except for a small range of at speeds from Vy ¥ 10 kt, to Vy + 10
§ 29.143 Controllability and kt with—
sideslip angles around trim. At greater angles
maneuverability. (1) Critical weight;
up to the maximum sideslip angle
appropriate to the type, increased directional (a) * * * (2) Critical center of gravity;
control position must produce an increased (2) * * * (3) Maximum continuous power;
(4) The landing gear retracted; and minimum rate of descent varying APPENDIX B TO PART 29—
(5) The rotorcraft trimmed at Vy. linearly to ±10 degrees from trim at VNE; AIRWORTHINESS CRITERIA FOR
(b) Cruise. Static longitudinal stability (2) The steady-state sideslip angles HELICOPTER INSTRUMENT FLIGHT
must be shown in the cruise condition established by § 29.351; * * * * *
at speeds from 0.8 VNE ¥ 10 kt to 0.8 (3) A sideslip angle selected by the V. Static lateral directional stability.
VNE + 10 kt or, if VH is less than 0.8 VNE, applicant, which corresponds to a (a) Static directional stability must be
from VH ¥ 10 kt to VH + 10 kt, with— sideforce of at least 0.1g; or positive throughout the approved ranges of
(1) Critical weight; (4) The sideslip angle attained by airspeed, power, and vertical speed. In
(2) Critical center of gravity; maximum directional control input. straight and steady sideslips up to ±10° from
(3) Power for level flight at 0.8 VNE or (b) Sufficient cues must accompany trim, directional control position must
VH, whichever is less; the sideslip to alert the pilot when increase without discontinuity with the angle
(4) The landing gear retracted; and approaching sideslip limits. of sideslip, except for a small range of
(5) The rotorcraft trimmed at 0.8 VNE (c) During the maneuver specified in sideslip angles around trim. At greater angles
or VH, whichever is less. paragraph (a) of this paragraph, the up to the maximum sideslip angle
(c) VNE . Static longitudinal stability sideslip angle versus directional control appropriate to the type, increased directional
must be shown at speeds from VNE ¥ position curve may have a negative control position must produce an increased
20 kt to VNE with— slope within a small range of angles angle of sideslip. It must be possible to
(1) Critical weight; around trim, provided the desired maintain balanced flight without exceptional
(2) Critical center of gravity; heading can be maintained without pilot skill or alertness.
(3) Power required for level flight at exceptional piloting skill or alertness. * * * * *
VNE ¥ 10 kt or maximum continuous 20. Amend § 29.1587 by revising VII. Stability Augmentation System (SAS).
power, whichever is less; paragraph (a)(7) and (b)(8) to read as (a) If a SAS is used, the reliability of the
(4) The landing gear retracted; and follows: SAS must be related to the effects of its
(5) The rotorcraft trimmed at VNE ¥ failure. Any SAS failure that would prevent
10 kt. § 29.1587 Performance information. continued safe flight and landing must be
(d) Autorotation. Static longitudinal * * * * * extremely improbable. It must be shown that,
stability must be shown in autorotation (a) * * * for any failure of the SAS that is not shown
at— (7) Out-of-ground effect hover to be extremely improbable—
(1) Airspeeds from the minimum rate performance determined under § 29.49 (1) The helicopter is safely controllable
of descent airspeed ¥ 10 kt to the and the maximum weight for each when the failure or malfunction occurs at any
minimum rate of descent airspeed + 10 altitude and temperature condition at speed or altitude within the approved IFR
kt, with— which the rotorcraft can safely hover in- operating limitations; and
(i) Critical weight; ground effect and out-of-ground effect in (2) The overall flight characteristics of the
(ii) Critical center of gravity; winds of not less than 17 knots from all helicopter allow for prolonged instrument
(iii) The landing gear extended; and azimuths. These data must be clearly flight without undue pilot effort. Additional
(iv) The rotorcraft trimmed at the referenced to the appropriate hover unrelated probable failures affecting the
minimum rate of descent airspeed. charts. control system must be considered. In
(2) Airspeeds from the best angle-of- (b) * * * addition—
glide airspeed ¥ 10kt to the best angle- (8) Out-of-ground effect hover (i) The controllability and maneuverability
of-glide airspeed + 10kt, with— performance determined under § 29.49 requirements in Subpart B must be met
(i) Critical weight; and the maximum safe wind throughout a practical flight envelope;
(ii) Critical center of gravity; demonstrated under the ambient (ii) The flight control, trim, and dynamic
(iii) The landing gear retracted; and conditions for data presented. In
stability characteristics must not be impaired
(iv) The rotorcraft trimmed at the best below a level needed to allow continued safe
addition, the maximum weight for each flight and landing;
angle-of-glide airspeed.
19. Revise § 29.177 to read as follows: altitude and temperature condition at (iii) For Category A helicopters, the
which the rotorcraft can safely hover in- dynamic stability requirements of Subpart B
§ 29.177 Static directional stability. ground-effect and out-of-ground-effect must also be met throughout a practical flight
(a) The directional controls must in winds of not less than 17 knots from envelope; and
operate in such a manner that the sense all azimuths. These data must be clearly (iv) The static longitudinal and static
and direction of motion of the rotorcraft referenced to the appropriate hover directional stability requirements of Subpart
following control displacement are in charts; and B must be met throughout a practical flight
the direction of the pedal motion with * * * * * envelope.
throttle and collective controls held 21. Amend APPENDIX B TO PART * * * * *
constant at the trim conditions specified 29—AIRWORTHINESS CRITERIA FOR
Issued in Washington, DC, on July 18,
in § 29.175 (a), (b), (c), and (d). Sideslip HELICOPTER INSTRUMENT FLIGHT
2006,
angles must increase with steadily by amending paragraph (V)(b) by
removing the word ‘‘cycle’’ and adding Dorenda D. Baker,
increasing directional control deflection
for sideslip angles up to the lesser of— the word ‘‘cyclic’’ in its place; and Acting Director, Aircraft Certification Service.
(1) ±25 degrees from trim at a speed revising paragraphs V(a) and VII(a) to [FR Doc. E6–11726 Filed 7–24–06; 8:45 am]
of 15 knots less than the speed for read as follows: BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

Proposed Rule: Airworthiness Directives: Performance and Handling Qualities Requirements

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

Proposed Rule: Airworthiness Directives: Performance and Handling Qualities Requirements

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Tuesday,

July 25, 2006

14 CFR Parts 27 and 29

FAA Investment & Regulatory determination, and the reasoning should

Hiller Aircraft Corp. ...................................................................................................................... 35 $7,500,000 0.16

Define Small Business Concerns, Section 48–49 10-year period.

above 7000 feet density altitude with— * * * * * skill or alertness.

trim, directional control position must

Você também pode gostar