[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 151 (Friday, August 6, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43016-43021]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-20294]
[[Page 43015]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Department of Transportation
_______________________________________________________________________
Federal Aviation Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
14 CFR Parts 27 and 29
Rotorcraft Load Combination Safety Requirements; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 151 / Friday, August 6, 1999 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 43016]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 27 and 29
[Docket No. 29277; Amendment No. 27-36 and 29-43]
RIN 2120-AG59
Rotorcraft Load Combination Safety Requirements
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule amends the airworthiness standards to provide
improved safety standards for rotorcraft load combination (RLC)
certification. Several accidents occurred in the past 15 years
involving the carriage of humans external to the rotorcraft. These
amendments provide an increased level of safety in the carriage of
humans. Also, significant changes in equipment employed in external
load operations have occurred. This document addresses those advances
in technology and is harmonized to international standards.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 5, 1999.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Mathias, Rotorcraft Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service, Regulations Group, FAA, Fort Worth,
Texas 76193-0111, telephone (817) 222-5123, fax 817-222-5959.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability of Final Rules
Using a modern and suitable communications software, an electronic
copy of this document may be downloaded from the FAA regulations
section of the Fedworld electronic bulletin board service (telephone:
703-321-3339), or the Government Printing Office's (GPO) electronic
bulletin board service (telephone: 202-512-1661).
Internet users may reach the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/
avr/arm/nprm/nprm.htm or the GPO's web page at http://www.access/
gpo.gov/nara for access to recently published rulemaking documents.
Any person may obtain a copy of this final rule by submitting a
request to the FAA, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW, Washington DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680.
Communications must identify the amendment number or docket number of
this final rule.
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM's) and final rules should request
from ARM-1 a copy of Advisory Circular (AC) No. 11-2A, Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the
application procedures.
Small Entity Inquiries
If you are a small entity and have a question, contact your local
FAA official. If you do not know how to contact your local FAA
official, you may contact Charlene Brown, Program Analyst Staff, Office
of Rulemaking, ARM-27, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20591, 1-888-551-1594. Internet
users can find additional information on SBREFA in the ``Quick Jump''
section of the FAA's web page under ``Rulemaking (ARM)'' at http://
www.faa.gov and may send electronic inquiries to the following Internet
address: [email protected].
Background
On November 27, 1991, following an announcement in the Federal
Register (56 FR 63546, December 4, 1991), the ARAC charged the External
Load Working Group to recommend new or revised airworthiness standards
for Class D rotorcraft external loads. The Working Group assigned to
this task included technical specialists knowledgeable in all areas of
external load design and operational requirements. This broad
participation is consistent with FAA policy to involve all known
interested parties early in the rulemaking process.
The working group researched a wide range of data developed by the
FAA, the military, and other nations' airworthiness authorities. Copies
of the research documents are included in the docket.
Although rotorcraft external load operations are routinely
conducted in a safe manner, several preventable accidents and incidents
have occurred during the preceding 15 years. For example, several
preventable inadvertent releases of humans carried external to the
rotorcraft have occurred. Also, significant changes in the equipment
employed in external load operations have occurred such as new rigging
devices. Rotorcraft are now more diverse in design, more maneuverable,
and more powerful.
A study of the issues prompted the Working Group to recommend
updated requirements for modern external load equipment and operational
practices. The working group proposed requirements to (1) decrease the
potential for future accidents and incidents; (2) provide that external
cargo load carrying devices, their release mechanisms, their load
carrying systems, and their flight performance reflect modern
operational needs; (3) provide separate and increased levels of safety
for nonhuman external cargo (NHEC) and human external cargo (HEC)
RLC's; and (4) provide updated standards that harmonize with the Joint
Airworthiness Regulations (JAR).
The FAA evaluated the ARAC recommendations and proposed external
load standards for rotorcraft certificated under 14 CFR parts 27 and 29
in NPRM 98-6 published on July 13, 1998 (63 FR 37745). The FAA received
comments from four commenters. All commenters were generally in favor
of the proposals but offered the following comments:
Discussion of Comments
14 CFR 27.865(b) and 29.865(b)
A commenter recommended that Secs. 27.865(b), 29.865(b),
27.865(b)(3)(ii), and 29.865(b)(3)(ii) be expanded to better define the
lightning requirements for external loads. The commenter further
recommended that operational limitations be required, particularly when
environmental forecasts involve lightning. The FAA believes that the
commenter's concerns are fully and adequately addressed by the current
certification regulations and these proposals. The level of protection
from lightning provided by the current certification regulations,
Secs. 27.610 and 29.610, and proposals Secs. 27.865(b)(3)(ii) and
29.610(b)(3)(ii), clearly defines a reasonable level of safety for the
entire RLC from random lightning strikes during operations. Any
specific operational restriction for a given RLC that clearly relates
to potential lightning strikes will become a flight manual limitation
under current Secs. 27.1583, 29.1583, and 133.45.
Another commenter states that the wording in proposed
Secs. 27.865(b)(3)(i) and 29.865(b)(3)(i) implies that the quick
release system (QRS) must only be capable of releasing the rated load
at 1G. The commenter recommended an improvement to the wording to
require that the QRS be certified to the full limit load capability.
The FAA intends that the QRS must function up to the applicable limit
load defined by the vertical limit load factors and their application
proposed in Secs. 27.865(a) and 29.865(a). The proposal in
Secs. 27.865(b)(3)(i) and 29.865(b)(3)(i) is identical to current
Secs. 27.865(b)(3) and 29.865(b)(3). The wording is commonly understood
and is defined in current advisory material as the maximum external
limit load. However, the FAA agrees that the wording could be
[[Page 43017]]
improved and will insert the word ``limit'' in Secs. 27.865(b0(3)(i)
and 29.865(b)(3)(i).
14 CFR 27.865(c) and 29.865(c)
A commenter stated that Sec. 29.865(c)(5) would require special
procedures and abnormal piloting techniques and should be removed. The
FAA disagrees. Special procedures are not required for any external
load operation involving human external cargo. The only procedures
necessary for external load operations (current or proposed) are those
now required under current regulations such as Secs. 29.1585 and
133.45. No abnormal piloting techniques are intended or foreseen.
A commenter stated that the requirement for performance information
in the proposed Sec. 29.865(c)(6) would be better placed in
Sec. 29.1587, Performance information. The FAA disagrees. Placing the
performance criteria as proposed by the commenter was considered during
formulation of the proposals and rejected. Specific external loads
performance criteria is most readily available and useful in
Secs. 27.865(c)(6) and 29.865(c)(6). The FAA considers the proposed
placement best for clarity, efficiency, and commonality with 14 CFR
part 133 (part 133).
Two commenters recommended creating a new Sec. 27.865(c)(6). The
first commenter noted that part 27 has recently been amended (Amendment
27-33) to add a Category A performance provision and recommended that
Sec. 27.865(c)(6) be added to part 27. The second commenter recommended
revising Sec. 29.865(c)(6) to include multi-engine rotorcraft having
Category A engine isolation design features and adding an identical
Sec. 27.865(c)(6) requirement. The second commenter also recommended
that Sec. 133.45(e)(1) be revised to include Class D operations with
multi-engine part 27 rotorcraft having Category A engine isolation
design features. The FAA agrees in principle that a multi-engine part
27 Category A rotorcraft could provide an adequate level of performance
that would permit a safe Class D operation; however, changing
Sec. 133.45(e)(1) to permit this is beyond the scope of the proposals.
The FAA will consider these changes for future rulemaking.
14 CFR 27.865(d) and 29.865(d)
One commenter was concerned that the proposed wording of
Secs. 27.865(d) and 29.865(d) would mandate flight testing of each
critical configuration and airspeed for each proposed external load.
The FAA did not intend such a requirement. When deemed sufficient,
analysis alone or analysis supported by bench tests may be used for a
given critical configuration and airspeed without the necessity for
flight tests.
General Comments
A commenter stated that a number of the proposed requirements could
benefit from an indication of what an ``acceptable means of
compliance'' would be. The commenter recommended that AC 25.1309-1A be
revised to include these elements. The FAA disagrees. Advisory Circular
(AC) 25.1309-1A contains advisory material for part 25 airplanes. The
AC's for parts 27 and 29 contain an acceptable means of compliance for
rotorcraft.
The FAA adopts the proposals as proposed in NPRM 98-6 except for
adding the word ``limit'' to Secs. 27.865(b)(3(i) and 29.865(b)(3)(i)
as previously discussed.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3507(d)), there are no requirements for information collection
associated with this final rule.
International Compatibility
The FAA has reviewed corresponding International Civil Aviation
Organization international standards and recommended practices and JAA
regulations, where they exist, and has identified or discussed
similarities and differences in these amendments and foreign
regulations.
Regulatory Evaluation Summary
Changes to federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency
shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second,
the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies to analyze the
economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the
Office of Management and Budget directs agencies to assess the effects
of regulatory changes on international trade. Fourth, the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to
prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and other effects
of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to
result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually
(adjusted for inflation). In conducting these analyses, which are
summarized below (and available in the docket), the FAA has determined
that this final rule will generate benefits exceeding its costs and is
not ``a significant regulatory action'' as defined in Executive Order
12866 and the Department of Transportation's Regulatory Policies and
Procedures. In addition, this final rule will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities, will not constitute a
barrier to international trade, and will not result in the expenditure
by State, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100 million or more annually.
The FAA invited the public to provide comments (and related data)
on the assumptions made in the regulatory evaluation for the NPRM. No
comments were received on the preliminary regulatory evaluation.
Costs and Benefits
Costs
The costs of the rule, which will be borne by manufacturers and
operators, are evaluated for the time period extending from its
implementation date through the operating lives of 75 rotorcraft
assumed to be produced under 4 new type certificates (involving 15-year
production runs of 5 rotorcraft per year total under all 4 new type
certificates) and placed into part 133 service. Over the course of this
evaluation period, incremental costs will total approximately $679,000
(1998 dollars) or $449,000 discounted to present value (using an
interest rate of 7 percent and letting ``present'' be the date of
initial type certification application). Of the $679,000 total cost,
$447,000 is attributable to incremental design, analysis, test, and
other certification costs, $30,000 to incremental production costs (75
rotorcraft at $400 each), and $202,500 to incremental weight penalty
fuel costs ($180 per year per rotorcraft over 15-year operating lives
of 75 rotorcraft). On a per-rotorcraft basis, costs will average
approximately $9,000 or $6,000 discounted. These incremental costs will
be offset to some extent by potential cost savings associated with
harmonizing these airworthiness standards with the JAA, streamlining
certification approvals for part 133 operators, and relaxing some of
the requirements for parts 27 and 29 manufacturers (see Benefits
section, below).
Benefits
To estimate the safety benefits of the rule, the FAA reviewed
records of accidents involving part 133 operators that occurred between
mid-1983 and
[[Page 43018]]
1998 that could have been prevented or the losses reduced if the
changes in the rule had been in effect. During this 15-year period,
there were 22 such accidents involving fatal and/or non-fatal injuries
or damage to equipment or both. Ten of the accidents resulted in harm
to persons (either inside or outside of the rotorcraft), totaling nine
fatalities and two serious injuries. Twenty of the 22 accidents
involved either substantial damage (8) or destruction of the rotorcraft
(12).
To provide a basis for comparing the safety benefits and costs of
rulemaking actions, the FAA currently uses a minimum statistical value
of $2.7 million for fatality avoided and $521,800 for a serious injury
avoided. Applying these standards to the casualty losses summarized
above and making allowances for the costs of rotorcraft damage, the
total cost of the 22 accidents was approximately $31.1 million.
The FAA estimates that the final rule could prevent at least 50
percent of the type of accidents summarized above. Applying it
retrospectively yields dollar benefits of approximately $15.5 million
(One-half of $31.1 million). Over the 15-year accident evaluation
period, the part 133 fleet averaged approximately 300 active
rotorcraft. Therefore, the benefits averaged approximately $3,400 per
year per rotorcraft ($15.5 million/15years/300 operating part 133
rotorcraft per year). Applying this per-rotorcraft safety benefit to
the cumulative number of complying rotorcraft results in total safety
benefits of $3.8 million (or $1.1 million discounted to present value).
On a per-rotorcraft basis, these benefits average approximately $51,000
or $14,300 discounted to the present.
In addition to improving safety, the final rule provides some cost-
relief in certain respects. New production rotorcraft will be delivered
with standardized procedures for external load operations, and these
procedures could result in a small savings to part 133 operators.
Further, changes to the preceding regulations that relate to the
primary and backup quick-release devices will reduce production costs
for parts 27 and 29 rotorcraft manufacturers. The changes will also
increase harmonization and commonality between U.S. and European
airworthiness standards. Harmonization will eliminate unnecessary
differences in airworthiness requirements, thus reducing manufacturers'
certification costs.
Comparison of Costs and Benefits
The rule will generate benefits in the form of increased safety and
cost relief (see preceding paragraph--the potential production cost
relief has not been included in the cost/benefit calculation). On a
per-rotorcraft basis, the life-cycle safety benefits will average
approximately $14,300 (discounted) and the costs will average
approximately $6,000 (discounted), yielding a benefit-to-cost ratio of
2.4 to 1. On this basis alone, the rule is cost-beneficial; additional
quantified efficiency and harmonization benefits will increase this
ratio.
Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 establishes ``as a principle
of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with
the objective of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory
and informational requirements to the scale of the business,
organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation.''
To achieve that principle, the Act requires agencies to solicit and
consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for
their actions. The Act covers a wide-range of small entities, including
small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a proposed or
final rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. If the determination is that it will, the
agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA) as
described in the Act.
However, if an agency determines that a proposed or final rule is
not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities, section 605(b) of the 1980 Act provides that
the head of the agency may so certify and an RFA is not required. The
certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for
this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.
The entities that will be affected by this rule consist of
rotorcraft manufacturers (included in Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) 3721, Aircraft and Aircraft Parts Manufacturers)
and external load operators (SIC 4512, 3413, 4522). Manufacturers will
incur additional development, certification, and production costs. In
addition to indirectly incurring all or part of these costs in the form
of higher rotorcraft acquisition costs, operators will incur increased
fuel costs resulting from weight penalties. Although the certification
costs (non-recurring) will be either fully absorbed by the
manufacturer(s), passed on in-total to operator(s) (purchasers), or
more likely, absorbed in some proportion by both, the FAA in this
analysis adopts a conservative approach and allocates total
certification costs to each category in assessing significant economic
impact. Incremental per-unit production costs, however, are assumed to
be fully passed on to purchasers (operators.)
For manufacturers, a small entity is one with 1,500 or fewer
employees. Only 5 rotorcraft manufacturers have 1,500 or fewer
employees and therefore qualify as small entities. However, three of
these are not currently producing new type-certificated rotorcraft, and
a fourth does not produce rotorcraft used for external loads. The fifth
small manufacturer produces specialized smaller rotorcraft, a minority
of which are configured for external load operations. This producer
does not compete with the larger manufacturers. The annualized
certification costs imposed by the rule are estimated to be $10,800 per
manufacturer for each certification and are not considered significant
within the meaning of the RFA.
There are numerous external load operators. The FAA has not
determined how many of these are small operators and if a substantial
number will potentially be impacted by the rule. However, most external
load operations involve specialized activities such as logging,
offshore oil drilling, or emergency rescue operations. The demand for
such operations is highly price-inelastic; the operators can readily
pass on the incremental costs to their customers. Notwithstanding, the
maximum annualized cost per rotorcraft will most likely not be greater
than $618 (discounted) (includes manufacturers' certification and
production costs passed on to the purchaser and increased fuel costs
but excludes potential offsetting cost-savings). This amount probably
equates to less than the cost of 4 hours' operating time (representing
a de minimus portion of annual revenues) and is not considered
significant within the meaning of the Act. In addition, no small
manufacturer or small operator will bear a disproportionate cost burden
nor have a greater likelihood of failing in business compared to larger
entities.
Based on the findings delineated above and consistent with the
objectives and requirements of the RFA as amended, the FAA certifies
that this final rule will not have a significant
[[Page 43019]]
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
International Trade Impact Assessment
Consistent with the Administration's belief in the general
superiority, desirability, and efficacy of free trade, it is the policy
of the Administrator to remove or diminish, to the extent feasible,
barriers to international trade, including both barriers affecting the
export of American goods and services to foreign countries and those
affecting the import of foreign goods and services into the United
States.
In accordance with that policy, the FAA is committed to develop as
much as possible its aviation standards and practices in harmony with
its trading partners. Significant cost savings can result from this,
both to United States' companies doing business in foreign markets, and
foreign companies doing business in the United States. This final rule
is a direct action to respond to this policy by increasing the
harmonization of the U.S. Federal Aviation Regulations with the
European JAR. The result will be a positive step toward removing
impediments to international trade.
Federalism Implications
The regulations herein will not have a substantial direct effect on
the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive
Order 12612, it is determined that this rule will not have sufficient
federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism
assessment.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act),
enacted as Pub. L. 104-4 on March 22, 1995, requires each Federal
agency, to the extent permitted by law, to prepare a written assessment
of the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency
rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year.
Section 204(a) of the Act, 2 U.S.C. 1534(a), requires the Federal
agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by
elected officers (or their designees) of State, local, and tribal
governments on a proposed ``significant intergovernmental mandate.'' A
``significant intergovernmental mandate'' under the Act is any
provision in a Federal agency regulation that will impose an
enforceable duty upon State, local, and tribal governments, in the
aggregate, of $100 million (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one
year. Section 203 of the Act, 2 U.S.C. 1533, which supplements section
204(a), provides that before establishing any regulatory requirements
that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments, the
agency shall have developed a plan that, among other things, provides
for notice to potentially affected small governments, if any, and for a
meaningful and timely opportunity to provide input in the development
of regulatory proposals.
The FAA determines that this final rule does not contain a
significant intergovernmental or private sector mandate as defined by
the Act.
Energy Impact
The energy impact of the rulemaking document has been assessed in
accordance with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) and
Public L. 94-163, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6362). It has been determined
that it is not a major regulatory action under the provisions of the
EPCA.
Environmental Analysis
FAA Order 1050.1D defines FAA actions that may be categorically
excluded from preparation of a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. In
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1D, appendix 4, paragraph 4(j), this
rulemaking action qualifies for a categorical exclusion.
List of Subjects
14 CFR Part 27
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Rotorcraft, Safety.
14 CFR Part 29
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Rotorcraft, Safety.
The Amendments
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends parts 27 and 29 of Chapter I, Title 14, of the
Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 27--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: NORMAL CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT
1. The authority citation for part 27 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44704.
2. Amend Sec. 27.25 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 27.25 Weight limits.
* * * * *
(c) Total weight with jettisonable external load. A total weight
for the rotorcraft with a jettisonable external load attached that is
greater than the maximum weight established under paragraph (a) of this
section may be established for any rotorcraft-load combination if--
(1) The rotorcraft-load combination does not include human external
cargo,
(2) Structural component approval for external load operations
under either Sec. 27.865 or under equivalent operational standards is
obtained,
(3) The portion of the total weight that is greater than the
maximum weight established under paragraph (a) of this section is made
up only of the weight of all or part of the jettisonable external load,
(4) Structural components of the rotorcraft are shown to comply
with the applicable structural requirements of this part under the
increased loads and stresses caused by the weight increase over that
established under paragraph (a) of this section, and
(5) Operation of the rotorcraft at a total weight greater than the
maximum certificated weight established under paragraph (a) of this
section is limited by appropriate operating limitations under
Sec. 27.865(a) and (d) of this part.
3. The undesignated center heading preceding Sec. 27.865 is revised
as set forth below; and in Sec. 27.865 the section heading, paragraph
(a) introductory text and paragraph (b) are revised; paragraphs (c) and
(d) are redesignated as (e) and (f) and revised; and new paragraphs (c)
and (d) are added to read as follows:
External Loads
Sec. 27.865 External loads.
(a) It must be shown by analysis, test, or both, that the
rotorcraft external load attaching means for rotorcraft-load
combinations to be used for nonhuman external cargo applications can
withstand a limit static load equal to 2.5, or some lower load factor
approved under Secs. 27.337 through 27.341, multiplied by the maximum
external load for which authorization is requested. It must be shown by
analysis, test, or both that the rotorcraft external load attaching
means and corresponding personnel carrying device system for
rotorcraft-load combinations to be used for human external cargo
applications can withstand a limit static load equal to 3.5 or some
lower load factor, not less than 2.5, approved under Secs. 27.337
through 27.341, multiplied by the maximum external load for which
[[Page 43020]]
authorization is requested. The load for any rotorcraft-load
combination class, for any external cargo type, must be applied in the
vertical direction. For jettisonable external loads of any applicable
external cargo type, the load must also be applied in any direction
making the maximum angle with the vertical that can be achieved in
service but not less than 30 deg.. However, the 30 deg. angle may be
reduced to a lesser angle if--
* * * * *
(b) The external load attaching means, for jettisonable rotorcraft-
load combinations, must include a quick-release system to enable the
pilot to release the external load quickly during flight. The quick-
release system must consist of a primary quick release subsystem and a
backup quick release subsystem that are isolated from one another. The
quick-release system, and the means by which it is controlled, must
comply with the following:
(1) A control for the primary quick release subsystem must be
installed either on one of the pilot's primary controls or in an
equivalently accessible location and must be designed and located so
that it may be operated by either the pilot or a crewmember without
hazardously limiting the ability to control the rotorcraft during an
emergency situation.
(2) A control for the backup quick release subsystem, readily
accessible to either the pilot or another crewmember, must be provided.
(3) Both the primary and backup quick release subsystems must--
(i) Be reliable, durable, and function properly with all external
loads up to and including the maximum external limit load for which
authorization is requested.
(ii) Be protected against electromagnetic interference (EMI) from
external and internal sources and against lightning to prevent
inadvertent load release.
(A) The minimum level of protection required for jettisonable
rotorcraft-load combinations used for nonhuman external cargo is a
radio frequency field strength of 20 volts per meter.
(B) The minimum level of protection required for jettisonable
rotorcraft-load combinations used for human external cargo is a radio
frequency field strength of 200 volts per meter.
(iii) Be protected against any failure that could be induced by a
failure mode of any other electrical or mechanical rotorcraft system.
(c) For rotorcraft-load combinations to be used for human external
cargo applications, the rotorcraft must--
(1) For jettisonable external loads, have a quick-release system
that meets the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section and that--
(i) Provides a dual actuation device for the primary quick release
subsystem, and
(ii) Provides a separate dual actuation device for the backup quick
release subsystem;
(2) Have a reliable, approved personnel carrying device system that
has the structural capability and personnel safety features essential
for external occupant safety;
(3) Have placards and markings at all appropriate locations that
clearly state the essential system operating instructions and, for the
personnel carrying device system, the ingress and egress instructions;
(4) Have equipment to allow direct intercommunication among
required crewmembers and external occupants; and
(5) Have the appropriate limitations and procedures incorporated in
the flight manual for conducting human external cargo operations.
(d) The critically configured jettisonable external loads must be
shown by a combination of analysis, ground tests, and flight tests to
be both transportable and releasable throughout the approved
operational envelope without hazard to the rotorcraft during normal
flight conditions. In addition, these external loads must be shown to
be releasable without hazard to the rotorcraft during emergency flight
conditions.
(e) A placard or marking must be installed next to the external-
load attaching means clearly stating any operational limitations and
the maximum authorized external load as demonstrated under Sec. 27.25
and this section.
(f) The fatigue evaluation of Sec. 27.571 of this part does not
apply to rotorcraft-load combinations to be used for nonhuman external
cargo except for the failure of critical structural elements that would
result in a hazard to the rotorcraft. For rotorcraft-load combinations
to be used for human external cargo, the fatigue evaluation of
Sec. 27.571 of this part applies to the entire quick release and
personnel carrying device structural systems and their attachments.
PART 29--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT
4. The authority citation for part 29 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44704.
5. Amend Sec. 29.25 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 29.25 Weight limits.
* * * * *
(c) Total weight with jettisonable external load. A total weight
for the rotorcraft with a jettisonable external load attached that is
greater than the maximum weight established under paragraph (a) of this
section may be established for any rotorcraft-load combination if--
(1) The rotorcraft-load combination does not include human external
cargo,
(2) Structural component approval for external load operations
under either Sec. 29.865 or under equivalent operational standards is
obtained,
(3) The portion of the total weight that is greater than the
maximum weight established under paragraph (a) of this section is made
up only of the weight of all or part of the jettisonable external load,
(4) Structural components of the rotorcraft are shown to comply
with the applicable structural requirements of this part under the
increased loads and stresses caused by the weight increase over that
established under paragraph (a) of this section, and
(5) Operation of the rotorcraft at a total weight greater than the
maximum certificated weight established under paragraph (a) of this
section is limited by appropriate operating limitations under
Sec. 29.865 (a) and (d) of this part.
6. The undesignated center heading preceding Sec. 29.865 is revised
as set forth below; and in Sec. 29.865 the section heading, paragraph
(a) introductory text and paragraph (b) are revised; paragraphs (c) and
(d) are redesignated as (e) and (f) and revised; and new paragraphs (c)
and (d) are added to read as follows:
External Loads
Sec. 29.865 External loads.
(a) It must be shown by analysis, test, or both, that the
rotorcraft external load attaching means for rotorcraft-load
combinations to be used for nonhuman external cargo applications can
withstand a limit static load equal to 2.5, or some lower load factor
approved under Secs. 29.337 through 29.341, multiplied by the maximum
external load for which authorization is requested. It must be shown by
analysis, test, or both that the rotorcraft external load attaching
means and corresponding personnel carrying device system for
rotorcraft-load combinations to be used for human external cargo
applications can withstand a limit static load equal to 3.5 or some
lower load factor, not less than 2.5, approved under Secs. 29.337
[[Page 43021]]
through 29.341, multiplied by the maximum external load for which
authorization is requested. The load for any rotorcraft-load
combination class, for any external cargo type, must be applied in the
vertical direction. For jettisonable external loads of any applicable
external cargo type, the load must also be applied in any direction
making the maximum angle with the vertical that can be achieved in
service but not less than 30 deg.. However, the 30 deg. angle may be
reduced to a lesser angle if--
* * * * *
(b) The external load attaching means, for jettisonable rotorcraft-
load combinations, must include a quick-release system to enable the
pilot to release the external load quickly during flight. The quick-
release system must consist of a primary quick release subsystem and a
backup quick release subsystem that are isolated from one another. The
quick release system, and the means by which it is controlled, must
comply with the following:
(1) A control for the primary quick release subsystem must be
installed either on one of the pilot's primary controls or in an
equivalently accessible location and must be designed and located so
that it may be operated by either the pilot or a crewmember without
hazardously limiting the ability to control the rotorcraft during an
emergency situation.
(2) A control for the backup quick release subsystem, readily
accessible to either the pilot or another crewmember, must be provided.
(3) Both the primary and backup quick release subsystems must--
(i) Be reliable, durable, and function properly with all external
loads up to and including the maximum external limit load for which
authorization is requested.
(ii) Be protected against electromagnetic interference (EMI) from
external and internal sources and against lightning to prevent
inadvertent load release.
(A) The minimum level of protection required for jettisonable
rotorcraft-load combinations used for nonhuman external cargo is a
radio frequency field strength of 20 volts per meter.
(B) The minimum level of protection required for jettisonable
rotorcraft-load combinations used for human external cargo is a radio
frequency field strength of 200 volts per meter.
(iii) Be protected against any failure that could be induced by a
failure mode of any other electrical or mechanical rotorcraft system.
(c) For rotorcraft-load combinations to be used for human external
cargo applications, the rotorcraft must--
(1) For jettisonable external loads, have a quick-release system
that meets the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section and that--
(i) Provides a dual actuation device for the primary quick release
subsystem, and
(ii) Provides a separate dual actuation device for the backup quick
release subsystem;
(2) Have a reliable, approved personnel carrying device system that
has the structural capability and personnel safety features essential
for external occupant safety;
(3) Have placards and markings at all appropriate locations that
clearly state the essential system operating instructions and, for the
personnel carrying device system, ingress and egress instructions;
(4) Have equipment to allow direct intercommunication among
required crewmembers and external occupants;
(5) Have the appropriate limitations and procedures incorporated in
the flight manual for conducting human external cargo operations; and
(6) For human external cargo applications requiring use of Category
A rotorcraft, have one-engine-inoperative hover performance data and
procedures in the flight manual for the weights, altitudes, and
temperatures for which external load approval is requested.
(d) The critically configured jettisonable external loads must be
shown by a combination of analysis, ground tests, and flight tests to
be both transportable and releasable throughout the approved
operational envelope without hazard to the rotorcraft during normal
flight conditions. In addition, these external loads--must be shown to
be releasable without hazard to the rotorcraft during emergency flight
conditions.
(e) A placard or marking must be installed next to the external-
load attaching means clearly stating any operational limitations and
the maximum authorized external load as demonstrated under Sec. 29.25
and this section.
(f) The fatigue evaluation of Sec. 29.571 of this part does not
apply to rotorcraft-load combinations to be used for nonhuman external
cargo except for the failure of critical structural elements that would
result in a hazard to the rotorcraft. For rotorcraft-load combinations
to be used for human external cargo, the fatigue evaluation of
Sec. 29.571 of this part applies to the entire quick release and
personnel carrying device structural systems and their attachments.
Issued in Washington, DC, on August 3, 1999.
Jane F. Garvey,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 99-20294 Filed 8-5-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M