[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 92 (Friday, May 10, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21894-21901]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11494]
[[Page 21893]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part V
Department of Transportation
_______________________________________________________________________
Federal Aviation Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
14 CFR Part 29
Airworthiness Standards: Transport Category Rotorcraft Performance;
Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and
Regulations
[[Page 21894]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 29
[Docket No. 24802; Amendment No. 29-40]
RIN 2120-AB36
Airworthiness Standards; Transport Category Rotorcraft
Performance
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule adopts new and revised airworthiness standards for
the performance of transport category rotorcraft. The changes define
more clearly the factors for determining takeoff, climb, and landing
performance requirements. These changes provide an improved level of
safety associated with recent technological advances in the design of
turboshaft engines and rotorcraft.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 10, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: T.E. Archer, Policy and Procedures
Group (ASW-110), Rotorcraft Standards Staff, Aircraft Certification
Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0110,
telephone (817) 222-5126.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
This final rule is based on a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
(Notice 90-1), issued January 2, 1990 (55 FR 698, January 8, 1990). The
NPRM was preceded by an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM)
(Notice 85-19) issued October 9, 1985 (50 FR 42126, October 17, 1985),
and by a public meeting on April 30, 1986 (51 FR 4504, February 5,
1986), in Fort Worth, Texas. A transcript of that meeting is contained
in the docket for this rulemaking. Supplemental Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (SNPRM) (Notice 90-1A), issued June 15, 1994 (59 FR 33598,
June 29, 1994), modified Notice 90-1 by including a minimum descent
height of 15 feet.
Amendment 29-21 (48 FR 4373, January 26, 1983) revised the
transport category rotorcraft airworthiness requirements to provide for
an increased level of safety in several areas, including performance.
Subsequently, a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) program to
develop guidance material (Advisory Circulars 27-1 and 29-2A) for
certification of rotorcraft in accordance with the requirements of
Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (Title 14) part 29 (part
29) revealed a need for some additions to and clarification of the
provisions of Amendment 29-21. Those additions and clarification are
included in this amendment.
Amendment 29-21 modified the applicability limits of Categories A
and B of Transport Category Rotorcraft. Category A rotorcraft must meet
a higher level of safety, including the requirement to have multiple
engines, and be able to continue safe flight after an engine failure.
Category B rotorcraft may be either single or multiengine, but the
changes adopted in Amendment 29-21 limited this category further to a
maximum capacity of nine passengers and 20,000 pounds gross weight. No
changes are made to those limits in this amendment.
A significant element of Notice 90-1 was a proposed minimum climb
gradient for the Category A takeoff path. This standard was proposed to
standardize the climb gradient for helicopters regardless of their
airspeeds and to facilitate heliport planning. The present standard
requires a minimum rate of climb for the takeoff path; however,
recently certificated rotorcraft, as well as most rotorcraft currently
under development, produce maximum rates of climb at higher airspeeds
than the previous generation of rotorcraft. For a specific rate of
climb, the climb gradient decreases as climb airspeed increases. This
results in a shallower climb gradient for modern, high-speed rotorcraft
than for older, slow-speed rotorcraft. Notice 90-1 proposed a minimum
climb gradient based on the present rate-of-climb requirement and the
lower airspeed of older rotorcraft. At the time Notice 90-1 was issued,
FAA analysis suggested that this change would have involved an
acceptably small weight (payload) penalty. However, more precise data
supplied by the commenters in response to the notice indicate there
would be a payload penalty of 450 pounds or greater for a current
10,000-pound class helicopter. This could represent as much as 20 to 25
percent of the passenger payload, which one commenter characterized as
totally unacceptable. Upon reconsideration, the FAA agrees that the
proposal would have a significantly more burdensome effect and would
not be cost beneficial, and as noted in the following discussion, the
proposal for requiring minimum climb gradient is not adopted in this
rule.
All interested persons have been given an opportunity to
participate in the making of these amendments, and due consideration
has been given to all comments received. Except for the change
described above and for the nonsubstantive, editorial, and clarifying
changes as discussed herein, the proposals have been adopted as
proposed.
Discussion of Comments
Five commenters each responded to Notices 85-19 and 90-1. These
commenters represent worldwide manufacturers, operators, and
airworthiness authorities. The commenters' recommendations and the
suggested changes are summarized in the following discussions. Four
commenters responded to Notice 90-1A and all agreed with that proposal.
14 CFR 29.1 Applicability
Notice 90-1 proposed to change the reference in paragraph (e) from
Secs. 29.79 to 29.87, which is redesignation of the section number for
the height-velocity envelope. There were no comments; therefore, the
proposal is adopted.
New 14 CFR 29.49 Performance at Minimum Operating Speed (Old
Sec. 29.73)
Notice 90-1 proposed to redesignate Sec. 29.73 as Sec. 29.49 to
relocate the requirements for helicopter hover performance. For
transport category helicopters, hover performance is analogous to the
stall speed for transport category airplanes and provides the basis for
all other performance requirements. Therefore, by placing the
requirements for hovering performance first, the other requirements
more logically follow.
One commenter proposes a requirement for one-engine-inoperative
(OEI) hover performance both in and out-of-ground effect (OGE). This
comment, also made in response to the ANPRM, is beyond the scope of
this rule as proposed in the notice.
This commenter also recommends that OGE controllability (in 17-knot
winds from any direction) should also be required. The FAA disagrees.
Past FAA policy has permitted OGE performance to be presented in zero
wind if a minimum of yaw control remains (i.e., must be able to
generate a positive yaw rate) or to be demonstrated with some wind
condition if the demonstrated conditions are clearly identified in the
Rotorcraft Flight Manual (RFM). The validity of this policy has been
borne out by good service experience; therefore, the 17-knot criteria
are not considered necessary in determining OGE controllability.
Therefore, the FAA considers the calm-wind OGE hover performance data
with no related controllability limit are the minimum data that should
be provided, and the amendment is adopted as proposed. The
[[Page 21895]]
requirement to provide performance information about OGE hover and the
maximum safe wind for the data presented is clarified in the new
Sec. 29.1587(a)(6) and revised Sec. 29.1587(b)(8).
14 CFR 29.51 Takeoff Data: General
Notice 90-1 proposed to change the sections referenced in the
introductory text of paragraph (a) to correspond to the applicable
sections numbered in accordance with these new amendments. No comments
were received; therefore, the proposal is adopted as proposed.
14 CFR 29.53 Takeoff: Category A
This proposal would separate, in the text, the Category A takeoff
requirement from the definition of a decision point. No comments were
received; therefore, the proposal is adopted as proposed.
New 14 CFR 29.55 Takeoff Decision Point: Category A
Notice 90-1 proposed to add this new section to redefine the
takeoff critical decision point (CDP) previously contained in
Sec. 29.53; it further proposed to remove the requirement to identify
the CDP by height and airspeed, since height alone or other factors may
be more appropriate. A commenter suggests that the section title and
other references to ``critical decision point'' be changed to ``takeoff
decision point (TDP).'' The commenter notes that TDP is compatible with
the term ``landing decision point (LDP)'' already in other regulatory
parts. The FAA agrees; accordingly, ``critical decision point'' is
changed to ``takeoff decision point.''
Additionally, a commenter to Sec. 29.59 states that engine failure
and the TDP do not occur at the same time because of necessary pilot-
recognition time. The FAA agrees that a time interval for pilot
recognition of the engine failure must be included when establishing
the TDP. Calculating a pilot-recognition time interval when determining
the TDP is a natural part of the TDP-determining process. Current
industry practice already adequately considers this pilot-recognition
time interval in determining the TDP. Therefore, to explicitly state
this requirement in the regulations imposes no additional economic
burden on manufacturers. Also, to harmonize Title 14 and the Joint
Aviation Requirements (JAR's), the certification requirements for the
Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) of Europe, an explicit adoption of the
pilot-recognition time interval is necessary. Therefore, since a pilot-
recognition time interval is currently being used by manufacturers, and
the FAA and the manufacturers are interested in harmonizing Title 14
and the JAR's, a new paragraph (c) has been added to Sec. 29.55 to
require that a pilot-recognition time interval be included in the TDP
determination.
This section is adopted with changes as discussed.
14 CFR 29.59 Takeoff Path: Category A
Notice 90-1 proposed to move the rejected takeoff requirements to a
new Sec. 29.62 and more clearly define the takeoff path from the start
of the takeoff to completion at 1,000 feet above the takeoff surface.
It also proposed the new phrase ``critical decision point,'' now
changed to ``takeoff decision point'' as explained in new Sec. 29.55.
The most significant proposed change was to establish minimum climb
gradients along the takeoff path. Present requirements specify only a
rate of climb. The use of gradients would have assisted heliport
designers and provided additional safe ground clearance. The FAA
estimated that inclusion of these gradients would introduce only a
slight performance penalty. However, as discussed earlier, more precise
data submitted by commenters indicate that adopting these gradients
would result in an unanticipated decrease in the payload of a 10,000-
pound class rotorcraft. Therefore, present rate-of-climb requirements
are retained; the proposed minimum climb gradient is not adopted; and
the remaining paragraphs of Sec. 29.59 are renumbered accordingly.
One commenter proposes that a new section be introduced to require
information on the takeoff path acceleration segment distance when
accelerating from VTOSS to Vy and that Sec. 29.1587 also be
amended to require these data. The commenter's proposal is beyond the
scope of Notice 90-1; therefore, the proposal is not included in the
amendment as adopted but may be appropriate for future rulemaking.
Another commenter disagrees that engine failure and CDP (now TDP)
occur at the same time. The FAA agrees as discussed previously under
Sec. 29.55. Accordingly, the proposed Sec. 29.59(a)(2) has been
reworded by changing critical decision point to engine failure point;
and by adding the phrase, ``. . . continue to the TDP, and then . . .''
to paragraph (a)(3). These additions clarify that consideration of the
time interval between engine failure and the pilot's recognition of the
failure is necessary in establishing TDP.
Notice 90-1, with respect to loss of altitude after engine failure,
proposed no minimum height during descent to attain VTOSS except
that touchdown should not occur. Also, Notice 90-1 proposed that a
minimum ground clearance be determined during certification and the
data included in the RFM. Several commenters objected to the proposal
and stated that a minimum ground clearance value should be specified in
the rule. Wide support was expressed by European authorities,
manufacturers, and operators to limit the descent to not less than 15
feet above the takeoff surface. Also, this minimum height was reflected
in the European JAA, Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA) 29-2,
Preliminary Issue 1. However, since Notice 90-1 proposed to eliminate
the existing 35-foot minimum height of part 29, requiring a new minimum
height of a specified value in excess of that proposed was more
stringent than that proposed in Notice 90-1. Therefore, the FAA issued
Notice 90-1A to include a minimum descent height of 15 feet and all
commenters agreed. Hence, the minimum descent height of 15 fee is
adopted as proposed by Notice 90-1A. However, the paragraph is shown as
(e) rather than (g) as proposed by Notice 90-1A due to renumbering as
discussed previously.
New 14 CFR 29.60 Elevated Heliport Takeoff Path: Category A
Notice 90-1 proposed to add this section to introduce the
requirements for pinnacle takeoff path, Category A. However, two
commenters suggest using the term ``elevated'' rather than ``pinnacle''
since ``elevated'' is a more common term. The FAA agrees, and the word
``pinnacle'' has been replaced with ``elevated heliport'' wherever
used. Several commenters also recommend that the requirement for
takeoff climb gradients be deleted from this section. Therefore, as in
the ground-level takeoff path, the climb gradients proposed for this
section have also been removed because data submitted by commenters
indicate that adopting these gradients would result in an unanticipated
decrease in payload.
However, the FAA notes that the proposal for this section was not
clear in Notice 90-1. The section, as proposed, would require a
continuous maneuver from the start of the takeoff unit reaching 1,000
feet above the takeoff surface with two specific rate-of-climb
requirements at 200 and 1,000 feet above the takeoff surface. A
continuous climb was never intended by the FAA. For example, if the
descent below the takeoff surface is 200 feet, using a continuous climb
standard would require a total initial climb of 400 feet to regain a
point 200 feet above the takeoff surface. Therefore, climbing at a rate
of 100 feet per minute would take
[[Page 21896]]
4 minutes to regain a point 200 feet above the takeoff surface while
the current One Engine Inoperative (OEI) standards only require that
2\1/2\ minutes of emergency power be available. Hence, the time for
this descent-climb would not be compatible with the time-limited OEI
power level that is permitted. Therefore, this paragraph has been
clarified to indicate that the distances to be measured will be the
vertical magnitude of any descent below the takeoff surface and the
horizontal distance from the start of the takeoff to the point where a
positive rate of climb is established at an airspeed of at least
VTOSS. This will be considered to be the end of the takeoff
distance. (See Sec. 29.61.) From the end of the takeoff distance, climb
data will be used for the remainder of takeoff path planning. The rate-
of-climb requirements at 200 and 1,000 feet above the takeoff surface
will remain the same but will be clearly identified as separate
requirements and not a part of a continued takeoff maneuver. Climb
gradients were also included in the proposal but, as previously
discussed, are not adopted. This section is adopted with changes as
discussed.
New 14 CFR 29.61 Takeoff Distance: Category A
Notice 90-1 proposed to add a new section to define more clearly
the parameters to be used in determining takeoff distance. No comments
were received on this proposal. However, in view of the previous
discussion of elevated heliports and the changes to Sec. 29.60, a
second paragraph is added to more clearly define takeoff distances.
Also, as discussed for the new Sec. 29.59, a requirement for
considering the pilot recognition interval following engine failure is
recognized in the new Sec. 29.61. The addition of Sec. 29.61(b) states
explicitly that the takeoff distance for elevated heliports is defined
the same as that for nonelevated heliports except that there is no
requirement that the rotorcraft remain at least 35 feet above the
takeoff surface. This provision harmonizes Title 14 and the JAR.
Section 29.61(b) relieves applicants from the requirement to attain and
maintain at least 35 fee of altitude when determining the takeoff
distance from an elevated heliport. Thus, the takeoff distance will be
shorter for rotorcraft that take off from an elevated heliport. Thus,
the takeoff distance will be shorter for rotorcraft that take off from
an elevated heliport that the distance needed to reach 35 feet above
the takeoff surface as required by Sec. 29.61(a) for rotorcraft that
take off from a nonelevated heliport. This reduction in takeoff
distance will result from an exchange of the inherent altitude of the
elevated heliport for airspeed and subsequently rate of climb. The FAA
has determined that this relieving provision will neither increase the
economic burden on any applicant nor increase the scope of this rule.
Therefore, the proposal is adopted with the noted changes.
New 14 CFR 29.62 Rejected Takeoff: Category A
Notice 90-1 proposed to separate the text of the rejected takeoff
criteria from the takeoff path section and impose the restriction for
the use of only primary controls while airborne. No comments were
received; therefore, the proposal is adopted with the change of CDP to
TDP, the change of ``takeoff decision'' to ``engine failure,'' and the
addition of ``the rotorcraft continuing to takeoff decision point,'' as
explained in the discussion of new Sec. 29.55.
New 14 CFR 29.64 Climb: General
This new section relocates and clarifies the general climb
requirements. No comments were received; therefore, the proposal is
adopted without change.
14 CFR 29.65 Climb: All Engines Operating
Notice 90-1 proposed to add a general requirement to determine
Category a rotorcraft climb performance. Currently Category A
rotorcraft climb performance is required only when VNE (never-
exceed speed) is less than best climb speed (VY) at sea level. No
comments were received; therefore, the proposal is adopted without
change.
14 CFR 29.67 Climb: One-engine-Inoperative
Notice 90-1 proposed to include the takeoff climb gradients as a
part of the general climb requirement, as well as the OEI climb
requirements to be met at 200 and 1,000 feet above the takeoff surface.
Commenters recommend that the climb gradient requirements be
removed. The FAA agrees because data submitted by commenters indicate
that adopting these gradients would result in an unanticipated decrease
in payload. Therefore, the proposed climb gradient requirements are not
adopted. However, the rate of climb requirements are adopted as
proposed. Also, various clarifying word changes have been made
including adding the words ``climb following'' before ``takeoff'' in
paragraph (a)(2)(ii) to clarify that the unfavorable center of gravity
applies to the climb following takeoff. The proposal is adopted with
the noted changes.
14 CFR 29.75 Landing: General
Notice 90-1 proposed to revise the general landing requirements to
separate specific requirements and to provide references to those
specific landing requirement sections. No comments were received;
therefore, the proposal is adopted without change.
14 CFR 29.77 Landing Decision Point
Notice 90-1 proposed to add the new requirement for designation of
a landing decision point (LDP), which has been an industry practice
although not required in all recent Category A certifications. No
comments were received; therefore, the proposal is adopted without
change except for clarifying that, in accordance with the discussion
for Sec. 29.55, pilot recognition time must be considered.
14 CFR 29.79 Landing: Category A
Notice 90-1 proposed to establish the Category A landing
requirements as a separate section with only minor revision from the
present requirements. One commenter discusses studies and computer
predictions for approaches and landings at elevated heliports but does
not propose any changes. Since no changes were recommended, and the FAA
does not see a need for any changes based on the commenters'
discussion, the proposal is adopted without change.
New 14 CFR 29.81 Landing Distance: Category A
Notice 90-1 proposed a new section to require landing distances to
be determined from specific heights. One commenter suggests that the
proposed flight profile between LDP and touchdown using an elevated
heliport is unduly restrictive. This comment was based on the
commenter's concern that the proposal would require consideration of a
25-foot high screen at the approach edge of the elevated heliport. The
FAA notes that this is not the intent of this section. The proposed
horizontal landing distance determined from a point 25 feet higher than
the elevated heliport need not be contained within the heliport landing
surface. ``Pinnacle'' has been changed to ``elevated heliport'' in
accordance with previous discussions. Therefore, the proposal is
adopted with the change as noted.
New 14 CFR 29.83 Landing: Category B
Notice 90-1 proposed a new Sec. 29.83 that included moving the
Category B landing requirement presently in Sec. 29.75(c) into this new
section and required landing distances to be determined power-on rather
than power-off. One commenter suggests
[[Page 21897]]
deleting the requirement to avoid the unsafe area of the height-
velocity (HV) envelope since Category B rotorcraft with nine or fewer
passengers and less than 20,000 pounds do not have the HV envelope as a
limitation and may transit the unsafe area of the HV envelope during
landing. The FAA disagrees. While the commenter is correct about the HV
envelope not being a limitation for Category B rotorcraft with nine or
fewer passengers, the FAA cannot agree with presenting data that
include normal operations within the unsafe area of the HV envelope.
Certain operations (e.g., external loads and hoist work) are not
necessarily limited by the type certification HV envelope; however, the
operator still should be aware that the operations do not involve
normal procedures, and the operator should evaluate the risk in
accordance with the applicable regulations (e.g., part 133). Therefore,
the proposal is adopted without change.
New 14 CFR 29.85 Balked Landing: Category A (Old Sec. 29.77)
Notice 90-1 proposed to redesignate present Sec. 29.77 as a new
Sec. 29.85, to clarify the relationship between the landing decision
point and balked landing, and to remove the prohibition against
descending below 35 feet above the landing surface. The proposal only
specified that the rotorcraft ``not touch down'' during descent. One
commenter proposes that some minimum height be required. As previously
discussed under Sec. 29.59, the FAA agrees; however, Notice 90-1
proposed to allow the rotorcraft to descend below the current 35-foot
height as long as it does not touch down. Therefore, the FAA issued
Notice 90-1A to include the 15-foot minimum descent height. Three
commenters to Notice 90-1A fully agreed with the proposed changes. One
commenter agreed provided the working for Sec. 29.85(c) read
identically to the wording of Notice 90-1. However, it was necessary to
amend the wording in proposed paragraph (c) to add the minimum descent
height restriction requirements. Otherwise, the wording is identical.
Also, as previously discussed the term ``elevated'' will be used rather
than ``pinnacle.'' Therefore, the proposal is adopted by adding the 15-
foot minimum descent height and the amended wording to paragraph (c)
and by adding the phrase ``failed and failure recognized'' to paragraph
(b) to specify that the time interval for pilot recognition of engine
failure must be considered as discussed in Sec. 29.55.
New 14 CFR 29.87 Height-velocity Envelope (Old Sec. 29.79)
Notice 90-1 proposed to redesignate Sec. 29.79 as a new Sec. 29.87
and to revise the engine power conditions to be used. No comments were
received; therefore, the proposal is adopted with only editorial
changes.
14 CFR 29.1323 Airspeed Indicating System
Notice 90-1 proposed to change the term ``height-speed'' to
``height-velocity'' to agree with other changes in the proposal. No
comments were received; therefore, the proposal is adopted without
change.
14 CFR 29.1587 Performance Information
Notice 90-1 proposed to change this section to conform to other
changes in the proposal. One commenter suggests requiring, as
performance information, the steady gradient of climb for each weight,
altitude, and temperature for which takeoff data are scheduled for the
two conditions between the end of the takeoff and at 1,000 feet above
the takeoff surface. The FAA does not agree. This would require a
significant increase in the number of flight tests for compilation of
data and for FAA verification of this data, with resulting significant
adverse economic impact and no perceived safety benefits. As discussed
with respect to the new Sec. 29.49, the requirement to provide OGE
performance data, including the maximum safe wind for the data
presented, is added to the Category A requirements in
Sec. 29.1587(a)(6). Also, Sec. 29.1587(b)(8) is revised to reflect that
OGE performance data, including maximum safe wind for the data
presented, is no longer optional. Even though the new paragraph (a)(6)
and the revised paragraph (b)(8) were not proposed, they only require
the presentation in the Rotorcraft Flight Manual of the new OGE
performance data, including the maximum wind for the data presented.
The collection of the data is now required by the new Sec. 29.49. New
paragraph (a)(6) and revised paragraph (b)(8) state explicitly what
would otherwise be required during the certification process to
demonstrate compliance with the new required Sec. 29.49. In addition to
clarifying Sec. 29.49(c), the new paragraph (a)(6) for Category A
rotorcraft and the revised paragraph (b)(8) for Category B rotorcraft
have identical provisions and additionally harmonize the FAR and the
JAR. Based on these factors, the minimal burden placed on manufacturers
of presenting the data that they are required to develop, and the
remote likelihood of an adverse comment, it is unnecessary to solicit
prior public comment on these nonsubstantive changes. Therefore, the
proposal is adopted with the noted changes.
Regulatory Evaluation Summary
Changes to federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs Federal agencies to
promulgate new regulations or modify existing regulations only if the
potential benefits to society outweigh the potential costs. Second, the
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies to analyze the
economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Finally, the
Office of Management and Budget directs agencies to assess the effects
of regulatory changes on international trade. In conducting these
assessments, the FAA has determined that this rule: (1) Will generate
benefits exceeding its costs and is not ``significant'' as defined in
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's
Policies and Procedures; (3) will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities; and (4) will not impact
international trade. These analyses, available in the docket, are
summarized below.
Cost/Benefit Analysis
The rule includes 31 changes to 21 sections of part 29. Twenty
eight of the changes are either editorial in nature or update the
regulations to correspond with current technology. Three changes, as
discussed below, were singled out for study because they are more
substantive in terms of cost and/or benefit impact. The FAA has
determined that these requirements will have no or negligible economic
impacts on manufacturers and operators.
Section 29.49(b)--Performance at Minimum Operating Speed (Category
B Hover Performance). This rule renumbers Sec. 29.73 to 29.49, deletes
paragraph (b)(2), and removes the minimum hover performance requirement
for Category B helicopters (but still requires that hover performance
data be developed and provided by the manufacturer). There will be no
cost impact resulting from this change, since test requirements are
unchanged and design changes are not required. Although the same amount
of hover performance data will still be required from manufacturers,
operators will benefit by being able to capitalize on a small increase
in gross weight and payload.
Section 29.49(c)--Performance at Minimum Operating Speed (Out-of-
[[Page 21898]]
Ground Effect Hover Performance). The rule will require that
manufacturers provide out-of-ground effect (OGE) hover ceiling data to
operators. Manufacturers have historically provided this information on
a voluntary basis. Industry sources estimate that requiring OGE hover
data will add, at most, an additional 3 to 5 flight test hours. At a
cost of $24,800 per flight test hour, this represents an additional
cost to manufacturers of $74,400 to $124,000 (in 1994 dollars) per
certification.
OGE hover performance data is needed by operators that conduct
external lift operations. If an operator were to conduct external lift
operations without OGE hover data, the operator might pick up
excessively heavy loads. While a single excessive load would not
necessarily lead to an accident, it could create excessive stress on
the dynamic components of the helicopter that could eventually lead to
fatigue failure of a critical component and, subsequently, an accident.
The expected benefit of averting a single accident entailing just one
serious injury and/or moderate damage to the helicopter would easily
exceed the upper-bound certification cost of $124,000.
Other advantages of requiring that manufacturers provide OGE hover
data are that: (1) Operators will no longer be concerned that
manufacturers might arbitrarily stop providing the data, (2) operators
may feel more confident about the data because the FAA would be
approving it, and (3) the FAA can assure uniformity in the presentation
of data between manufacturers.
Section 29.83--Landing: Category B. The rule will require that
approach and landing tests for Category B rotorcraft be made with power
on rather than with engine power off. This is a more normal flight
profile. This change will benefit pilots by providing more useful data
in the flight manual for flight planning purposes since pilots normally
plan for power-on landings. This will be particularly useful if a
rotorcraft is operating at or near maximum gross weight in or around
unimproved landing areas where landing distances are more critical.
This will also increase the safety of test pilots since they will be
required to perform fewer power-off tests. There are no or negligible
additional costs associated with this change.
Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) was enacted by
Congress to ensure that small entities are not unnecessarily and
disproportionately burdened by government regulations. The RFA requires
a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis if a proposed or final rule would
have a significant economic impact, either detrimental or beneficial,
on a substantial number of small entities. FAA Order 2100.14A,
Regulatory Flexibility Criteria and Guidance, prescribes standards for
complying with RFA review requirements in FAA rulemaking actions. The
Order defines ``small entities'' in terms of size thresholds,
``significant economic impact'' in terms of annualized cost threshold,
and ``substantial number'' as a number which is not less than eleven
and which is more than one-third of the small entities subject to the
proposed or final rule.
The rule will affect manufacturers and operators of future type-
certificated transport category rotorcraft. For manufacturers, Order
2100.14A specifies a size threshold for classification as a small
entity as 75 or fewer employees. Since no part 29 rotorcraft
manufacturer has 75 or fewer employees, the rule will not have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
manufacturers. For operators, the benefits of increased payloads would
probably not exceed the annualized thresholds specified in the Order;
consequently, the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small operators.
International Trade Impact
The rule will have little or no impact on trade for either U.S.
firms doing business in foreign markets or foreign firms doing business
in the United States.
Federalism Implications
The regulations adopted herein will not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that these
amendments do not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, and based on the
findings in the Regulatory Flexibility Determination and the
International Trade Impact Analysis, the FAA has determined that this
regulation is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order
12866. In addition, the FAA certifies that these changes will not have
a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial
number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. All changes are found to have negligible or no cost
impacts. Small entities are not affected because transport rotorcraft
are manufactured by large entities, and trade is not affected since
foreign manufacturers also must comply with the requirements of part
29. This proposal is considered to be nonsignificant under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). A
regulatory evaluation of the changes, including a Regulatory
Flexibility Determination and International Trade Impact Analysis, has
been placed in the docket. A copy may be obtained by contacting the
person identified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.''
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 29
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Rotorcraft, Safety.
The Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends part 29 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR part 29) as follows:
PART 29--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT
1. The authority citation for part 29 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
2. Section 29.1 is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as
follows:
Sec. 29.1 Applicability.
* * * * *
(e) Rotorcraft with a maximum weight of 20,000 pounds or less but
with 10 or more passengers seats may be type certificated as category B
rotorcraft provided the Category A requirements of Secs. 29.67(a)(2),
29.87, 29.1517, and subparts C, D, E, and F of this part are met.
* * * * *
3. Section 29.73 is redesignated as Sec. 29.49 and revised to read
as follows:
Sec. 29.49 Performance at minimum operating speed.
(a) For each Category A helicopter, the hovering performance must
be determined over the ranges of weight, altitude, and temperature for
which takeoff data are scheduled--
(1) With not more than takeoff power;
(2) With the landing gear extended; and
[[Page 21899]]
(3) At a height consistent with the procedure used in establishing
the takeoff, climbout, and rejected takeoff paths.
(b) For each Category B helicopter, the hovering performance must
be determined over the ranges of weight, altitude, and temperature for
which certificate is requested, with--
(1) Takeoff power;
(2) The landing gear extended; and
(3) The helicopter in ground effect at a height consistent with
normal takeoff procedures.
(c) For each helicopter, the out-of-ground effect hovering
performance must be determined over the ranges of weight, altitude, and
temperature for which certification is requested with takeoff power.
(d) For rotorcraft other than helicopters, the steady rate of climb
at the minimum operating speed must be determined over the ranges of
weight, altitude, and temperature for which certification is requested
with--
(1) Takeoff power; and
(2) The landing gear extended.
4. Section 29.51 is amended by revising the introductory text of
paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 29.51 Takeoff data: general.
(a) The takeoff data required by Secs. 29.53, 29.55, 29.59, 29.60,
29.61, 29.62, 29.63, and 29.67 must be determined--
* * * * *
5. Section 29.53 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 29.53 Takeoff: Category A.
The takeoff performance must be determined and scheduled so that,
if one engine fails at any time the start of takeoff, the rotocraft
can--
(a) Return to, and stop safely on, the takeoff area; or
(b) Continue the takeoff and climbout, and attain a configuration
and airspeed allowing compliance with Sec. 29.67(a)(2).
6. A new Sec. 29.55 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 29.55 Takeoff decision point (TDP): Category A.
(a) The TDP is the first point from which a continued takeoff
capability is assured under Sec. 29.59 and is the last point in the
takeoff path from which a rejected takeoff is assured within the
distance determined under Sec. 29.62.
(b) The TDP must be established in relation to the takeoff path
using no more than two parameters; e.g., airspeed and height, to
designate the TDP.
(c) Determination of the TDP must include the pilot recognition
time interval following failure of the critical engine.
7. Section 29.59 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 29.59 Takeoff path: Category A.
(a) The takeoff path extends from the point of commencement of the
takeoff procedure to a point at which the rotorcraft is 1,000 feet
above the takeoff surface and compliance with Sec. 29.67(a)(2) is
shown. In addition--
(1) The takeoff path must remain clear of the height-velocity
envelope established in accordance with Sec. 29.87;
(2) The rotocraft must be flown to the engine failure point; at
which point, the critical engine must be made inoperative and remain
inoperative for the rest of the takeoff;
(3) After the critical engine is made inoperative, the rotorcraft
must continue to the takeoff decision point, and then attain
VTOSS;
(4) Only primary controls may be used while attaining VTOSS
and while establishing a positive rate of climb. Secondary controls
that are located on the primary controls may be used after a positive
rate of climb and VTOSS are established but in no case less than 3
seconds after the critical engine is made inoperative; and
(5) After attaining VTOSS and a positive a climb, the landing
gear may be retracted.
(b) During the takeoff path determination made in accordance with
paragraph (a) of this section and after attaining VTOSS and a
positive rate of climb, the climb must be continued at a speed as close
as practicable to, but not less than, VTOSS until the rotocraft is
200 feet above the takeoff surface. During this interval, the climb
performance must meet or exceed that required by Sec. 29.67(a)(1).
(c) From 200 feet above the takeoff surface, the rotorcraft takeoff
path must be level or positive until a height 1,000 feet above the
takeoff surface is attained with not less than the rate of climb
required by Sec. 29.67(a)(2). Any secondary or auxiliary control may be
used after attaining 200 feet above the takeoff surface.
(d) Takeoff distance will be determined in accordance with
Sec. 29.61.
(e) During the continued takeoff, the rotorcraft shall not descend
below 15 feet above the takeoff surface when the takeoff decision point
is above 15 feet.
8. A new Sec. 29.60 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 29.60 Elevated heliport takeoff path: Category A.
(a) The elevated heliport takeoff path extends from the point of
commencement of the takeoff procedure to a point in the takeoff path at
which the rotorcraft is 1,000 feet above the takeoff surface and
compliance with Sec. 29.67(a)(2) is shown. In addition--
(1) The requirements of Sec. 29.59(a) must be met;
(2) While attaining VTOSS and a positive rate of climb, the
rotocraft may descend below the level of the takeoff surface if, in so
doing and when clearing the elevated heliport edge, every part of the
rotocraft clears all obstacles by at least 15 feet;
(3) The vertical magnitude of any descent below the takeoff surface
must be determined; and
(4) After attaining VTOSS and a positive rate of climb, the
landing gear may be retracted.
(b) The scheduled takeoff weight must be such that the climb
requirements of Sec. 29.67 (a)(1) and (a)(2) will be met.
(c) Takeoff distance will be determined in accordance with
Sec. 29.61.
9. A new Sec. 29.61 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 29.61 Takeoff distance: Category A.
(a) The normal takeoff distance is the horizontal distance along
the takeoff path from the start of the takeoff to the point at which
the rotorcraft attains and remains at least 35 feet above the takeoff
surface, attains and maintains a speed of at least VTOSS, and
establishes a positive rate of climb, assuming the critical engine
failure occurs at the engine failure point prior to the takeoff
decision point.
(b) For elevated heliports, the takeoff distance is the horizontal
distance along the takeoff path from the start of the takeoff to the
point at which the rotorcraft attains and maintains a speed of at least
VTOSS and establishes a positive rate of climb, assuming the
critical engine failure occurs at the engine failure point prior to the
takeoff decision point.
10. A new Sec. 29.62 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 29.62 Rejected takeoff: Category A.
The rejected takeoff distance and procedures for each condition
where takeoff is approved will be established with--
(a) The takeoff path requirements of Secs. 29.59 and 29.60 being
used up to the engine failure point, the rotorcraft continuing to
takeoff decision point, and the rotorcraft landed and brought to a stop
on the takeoff surface;
(b) The remaining engines operating within approved limits;
(c) The landing gear remaining extended throughout the entire
rejected takeoff; and
(d) The use of only the primary controls until the rotorcraft is on
the
[[Page 21900]]
ground. Secondary controls located on the primary control may not be
used until the rotorcraft is on the ground. Means other than wheel
brakes may be used to stop the rotorcraft if the means are safe and
reliable and consistent results can be expected under normal operating
conditions.
11. A new Sec. 29.64 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 29.64 Climb: general.
Compliance with the requirements of Secs. 29.65 and 29.67 must be
shown at each weight, altitude, and temperature within the operational
limits established for the rotorcraft and with the most unfavorable
center of gravity for each configuration. Cowl flaps, or other means of
controlling the engine-cooling air supply, will be in the position that
provides adequate cooling at the temperatures and altitudes for which
certification is requested.
12. Section 29.65 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows and by removing paragraph (c):
Sec. 29.65 Climb: all engines operating.
(a) The steady rate of climb must be determined--
(1) With maximum continuous power;
(2) With the landing gear retracted; and
(3) A Vy for standard sea level conditions and at speeds
selected by the applicant for other conditions.
* * * * *
13. Section 29.67 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. Climb: one-engine-inoperative (OEI).
(a) For Category A rotorcraft, in the critical takeoff
configuration existing along the takeoff path, the following apply:
(1) The steady rate of climb without ground effect, 200 feet above
the takeoff surface, must be at least 100 feet per minute for each
weight, altitude, and temperature for which takeoff data are to be
scheduled with--
(i) The critical engine inoperative and the remaining engines
within approved operating limitations, except that for rotorcraft for
which the use of 30-second/2-minute OEI power is requested, only the 2-
minute OEI power may be used in showing compliance with this paragraph;
(ii) The landing gear extended; and
(iii) The takeoff safety speed selected by the applicant.
(2) The steady rate of climb without ground effect at 1,000 feet
above the takeoff surface must be at least 150 feet per minute for each
weight altitude, and temperature for which takeoff data are to be
scheduled with--
(i) The critical engine inoperative and the remaining engines at
maximum continuous power including OEI maximum continuous power, if
approved, or at 30-minute power for rotorcraft for which certification
for use of 30-minute power is requested;
(ii) The most unfavorable center of gravity for climb following
takeoff;
(iii) The landing gear retracted; and
(iv) The speed selected by the applicant.
(3) The steady rate of climb (or descent) in feet per minute, at
each altitude and temperature at which the rotocraft is expected to
operate and at any weight within the range of weights for which
certification is requested, must be determined with--
(i) The critical engine inoperative and the remaining engines at
maximum continuous power including OEI maximum continuous power, if
approved, and at 30-minute power for rotorcraft for which certification
for the use of 30-minute power is requested;
(ii) The landing gear retracted; and
(iii) The speed selected by the applicant.
(b) For multiengine Category B rotorcraft meeting the Category A
engine isolation requirements, the steady rate of climb (or descent)
must be determined at the speed for best rate of climb (or minimum rate
of descent) at each altitude, temperature, and weight at which the
rotorcraft is expected to operate, with the critical engine inoperative
and the remaining engines at maximum continuous power including OEI
maximum continuous power, if approved, and at 30-minute power for
rotorcraft for which certification for the use of 30-minute power is
requested.
14. Section 29.75 is revised as follows:
Sec. 29.75 Landing: general.
(a) For each rotorcraft--
(1) The corrected landing data must be determined for a smooth,
dry, hard, and level surface;
(2) The approach and landing must not require exceptional piloting
skill or exceptionally favorable conditions; and
(3) The landing must be made without excessive vertical
acceleration or tendency to bounce, nose over, ground loop, porpoise,
or water loop.
(b) The landing data required by Secs. 29.77, 29.79, 29.81, 29.83,
and 29.85 must be determined--
(1) At each weight, altitude, and temperature for which landing
data are approved;
(2) With each operating engine within approved operating
limitations; and
(3) With the most unfavorable center of gravity.
15. Section 29.77 is redesignated as Sec. 29.85 and a new
Sec. 29.77 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 29.77 Landing decision point: Category A.
The landing decision point (LDP) must be established at not less
than the last point in the approach and landing path at which a balked
landing can be accomplished under Sec. 29.85 with the critical engine
failed or failing and with the engine failure recognized by the pilot.
16. Section 29.79 is redesignated as Sec. 29.87 and a new
Sec. 29.79 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 29.79 Landing: Category A.
(a) For Category A rotorcraft--
(1) The landing performance must be determined and scheduled so
that if the critical engine fails at any point in the approach path,
the rotorcraft can either land and stop safely or climb out and attain
a rotorcraft configuration and speed allowing compliance with the climb
requirement of Sec. 29.67(a)(2);
(2) The approach and landing paths must be established with the
critical engine inoperative so that the transition between each stage
can be made smoothly and safely;
(3) The approach and landing speeds must be selected by the
applicant and must be appropriate to the type of rotorcraft; and
(4) The approach and landing path must be established to avoid the
critical areas of the height-velocity envelope determined in accordance
with Sec. 29.87.
(b) It must be possible to make a safe landing on a prepared
landing surface after complete power failure occurring during normal
cruise.
17. A new Sec. 29.81 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 29.81 Landing distance: Category A
The horizontal distance required to land and come to a complete
stop (or to a speed of approximately 3 knots for water landings) from a
point 50 feet above the landing surface (25 feet for Category A
elevated heliport landing operations) must be determined from the
approach and landing paths established in accordance with Sec. 29.79.
18. A new Sec. 29.83 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 29.83 Landing: Category B.
(a) For each Category B rotorcraft, the horizontal distance
required to land and come to a complete stop (or to a speed of
approximately 3 knots for water landings) from a point 50 feet above
the landing surface must be determined with--
[[Page 21901]]
(1) Speeds appropriate to the type of rotocraft and chosen by the
applicant to avoid the critical areas of the height-velocity envelope
established under Sec. 29.87; and
(2) The approach and landing made with power on and within approved
limits.
(b) Each multiengined Category B rotorcraft that meets the
powerplant installation requirements for Category A must meet the
requirements of--
(1) Sections 29.79 and 29.81; or
(2) Paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) It must be possible to make a safe landing on a prepared
landing surface if complete power failure occurs during normal cruise.
19. Redesignated Sec. 29.85 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 29.85 Balked landing: Category A.
For Category A rotocraft, the balked landing path must be
established so that--
(a) With the critical engine inoperative, the transition from each
stage of the maneuver to the next stage can be made smoothly and
safely;
(b) With the critical engine failed and the failure recognized at
the landing decision point on the approach path selected by the
applicant, a safe climbout can be made at speeds allowing compliance
with the climb requirements of Sec. 29.67(a) (1) and (2); and
(c) The rotocraft does not descend below 15 feet above the landing
surface. For elevated heliport operations, descent may be below the
level of the landing surface provided the deck edge clearance of
Sec. 29.60 is maintained and the descent distance below the landing
surface is determined.
20. Redesignated Sec. 29.87 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 29.87 Height-velocity envelope.
(a) If there is any combination of height and forward velocity
(including hover) under which a safe landing cannot be made after
failure of the critical engine and with the remaining engines (where
applicable) operating within approved limits, a height-velocity
envelope must be established for--
(1) All combinations of pressure altitude and ambient temperature
for which takeoff and landing are approved; and
(2) Wright from the maximum weight (at sea level) to the highest
weight approved for takeoff and landing at each altitude. For
helicopters, this weight need not exceed the highest weight allowing
hovering out-of-ground effect at each altitude.
(b) For single-engine or multiengine rotorcraft that do not meet
the Category A engine isolation requirements, the height-velocity
envelope for complete power failure must be established.
Section 29.1323 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(2)(ii) to
read as follows:
Sec. 29.1323 Airspeed indicating system.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) Avoidance of the critical areas of the height-velocity
envelope as established under Sec. 29.87.
* * * * *
22. Section 29.1587 is amended by revising (a)(4), (a)(5), (b)(3)
and (b)(8) and adding a new (a)(6) to read as follows:
Sec. 29.1587 Performance information.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(4) The rejected takeoff distance determined under Sec. 29.62 and
the takeoff distance determined under Sec. 29.61 or Sec. 29.63;
(5) The landing data determined under Sec. 29.81 or Sec. 29.83; and
(6) Out-of-ground effect hover performance determined under
Sec. 29.49 and the maximum safe wind demonstrated under the ambient
conditions for data presented.
(b) * * *
(3) The landing distance, appropriate airspeed, and type of landing
surface, together with all pertinent information that might affect this
distance, including the effects of weight, altitude, and temperature;
* * * * *
(8) Out-of-ground effect hover performance determined under
Sec. 29.49 and the maximum safe wind demonstrated under the ambient
conditions for data presented; and
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, DC, on May 2, 1996.
David R. Hinson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-11494 Filed 5-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M