[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 77 (Monday, April 22, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19534-19535]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-9129]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Chapter I

[Summary Notice No. PE-2002-28]


Petition for Rulemaking; Summary of Petition Received

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for rulemaking received; request for 
comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Although not required under part 11 of Title 14, Code of 
Federal Regulations (14 CFR), this document contains a summary of a 
petition for rulemaking to amend certain requirements of 14 CFR. While 
the FAA considers the best course of action on this matter, we believe 
the public should be made aware of this petition for rulemaking, and we 
specifically request comments from other aircraft manufacturers who may 
be experiencing problems similar to those encountered by the 
petitioner, Airbus. Neither publication of this document nor the 
inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to 
affect the legal status of any petition or its final disposition. The 
facts presented in this summary are as presented by the petitioner.

DATES: Comments on petitions received must identify the petition docket 
number involved and must be received on or before May 22, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on any petition to the Docket Management 
System, U.S. Department of Transportation, Room Plaza 401, 400 Seventh 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You must identify the docket 
number FAA-2002-11705 at the beginning of your comments. If you wish to 
receive confirmation that FAA received your comments, include a self-
addressed, stamped postcard.
    You may also submit comments through the Internet to http://dms.dot.gov. You may review the public docket containing the petition, 
any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the 
Dockets Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 
Federal holidays. The Dockets Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527) is on 
the plaza level of the NASSIF Building at the Department of 
Transportation at the above address. Also, you may review public 
dockets on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Forest Rawls (202) 267-8033, Office of 
Rulemaking (ARM-1), Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence 
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591.

    Issued in Washington, DC on April 8, 2002.
Donald P. Byrne,
Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations.

Petition for Rulemaking

    Docket No.: FAA-2002-11705.
    Petitioner: Airbus.
    Section of 14 CFR Affected: Appendix M to part 121 and Appendix E 
to part 125 of 14 CFR
    Description of Relief Sought: The rulemaking implemented by FAA in 
August of 1997 (62 FR 38362) substantially improved the requirements 
for recording of up to 88 parameters of flight data for diagnostic use 
in the event of an accident or serious incident. Most of the 
improvement in the recording capability did not directly apply to 
Airbus aircraft, however, because almost all of the additional 
parameters required by FAA had long been incorporated into the standard 
Airbus product specification. However, in a few cases, the very 
detailed specifications adopted in the FAA rule differed slightly from 
the recording parameters that had been implemented in Airbus aircraft. 
In that rulemaking, it was clearly stated that FAA had tailored that 
rule to avoid major equipment redesign or retrofits. The new 
requirements are to be met in stages, with the first 34 parameters 
being treated initially (at the next heavy maintenance check after 
August 18, 1999, but no later than August 20, 2001), followed by 
parameters 35 through 57 (for aircraft manufactured after August 18, 
2000, upon delivery), and finally parameters 58 through 88 (for 
aircraft manufactured after August 19, 2002, upon delivery).
    On August 24, 1999 (64 FR 46117), FAA amended this digital flight 
data recorder (DFDR) resolution recording requirements for several 
parameters for Airbus airplanes. The amendments addressed only the 
first 34 parameters. Similarly, on August 24, 2000, the FAA revised the 
DFDR regulations to accommodate several technical changes related to 
parameters 35 through 57 for Airbus.
    Airbus has now completed its audit of compliance requirements for 
Parameters 58 through 88, and finds three specific technical issues of 
compliance for which it seeks rule changes. Specifically, Airbus seeks 
minor technical changes as specified herein to the recording 
requirements for parameter 83 (cockpit trim control input position--
roll), parameter 84 (cockpit trim control input position--yaw), and 
parameter 88 (cockpit flight control input forces--rudder).
    Airbus notes that the FAA, in adopting the new DFDR recording 
resolution requirements did not intend to require equipment redesign or 
retrofit. The cockpit trim position recording specification changes 
that are requested would be implemented in order to comply with that 
aim. These sensors have been installed on Airbus aircraft for many 
years, and it adds no safety or analytic benefit that Airbus can 
identify to replace these sensors with ones that are literally 
compliant with the regulatory specifications. The resolution deviations 
sought are small, and fully consistent with the smallest increment 
employed in the parameters employed for actual control of the 
respective flight control surfaces.
    With regard to rudder pedal forces, the Airbus implementation 
requires a sensor that sums the rudder pedal forces from the cockpit 
pedals, these having no independent breakaway capability. Therefore, 
though the force is accurately measured, the actual force applied at 
each pedal varies somewhat with pedal ergonomics, adjusted to account 
for size differences from person to person, and also with actual pedal 
position. However, this shortfall in accuracy does not prohibit 
detailed and continuous high-resolution determination of the force that 
is applied to the rudder pedals so as to permit diagnosis of the source 
of movement of the pedals themselves (parameter 14) and the flight 
control surface (parameter 17). In fact, the inaccuracy due to pedal 
position can be corrected based on the measurement of parameter 14, 
leaving only the inaccuracy resulting from ergonomic adjustment. If the 
ergonomic adjustment is known (based on post-accident aircraft 
examination, for example), it, too, can be corrected.
    Specifically, changes are sought to the recording requirements for 
the following parameters as contained in Appendix M to part 121 and 
Appendix E to part 125 of 14 CFR:
    For A310 and A300-6 series aircraft. Parameter 83, cockpit trim 
control input position-roll: Required to be resolved to 0.028 degrees 
(0.2% of operational range of 7 degrees) but is implemented 
with

[[Page 19535]]

a resolution of 0.096 degrees. Note, however, that this resolution is 
nearly identical to the smallest increment used in deflection of the 
roll control surfaces for each model, which is 0.092 degrees in the 
A310 aircraft and 0.091 degrees in the A300-600 aircraft. Thus, 
achieving the additional resolution would provide no substantive 
benefit.
    For A318/319/320/321 series aircraft. Parameter 84, cockpit trim 
control input position-yaw: Required to be resolved to 0.08 degrees 
(0.2% of operational range of 20 degrees but is implemented 
with a resolution of 0.088 degrees. Note, however, that this resolution 
surpasses the smallest increment used to deflect the yaw control 
surfaces for each model, which is 0.112 degrees for the A320 family.
    For A310, A300-600, A318/319/320/321, A330 and A340 (except A340-
500 and -600 models) series aircraft. Parameter 88, cockpit flight 
control input forces-rudder pedal: Required to have accuracy of 5% but 
is implemented with an accuracy of 2.5%-15%, depending upon the 
position of the pedal adjustment for ergonomic reasons, and the exact 
position of the pedals at the time the force is applied. These 
inaccuracies arise from the complex mechanical arrangement necessary to 
transmit pedal forces to the rudder control cables. There are two 
principal sources of this inaccuracy, and it is possible that one or 
both of them may be eliminated in post-accident analysis. However, for 
the purpose of compliance determination, Airbus elects to assume a 
worst case situation where neither inaccuracy can be eliminated, and 
therefore seeks this rule change.
    The first uncertainty and largest source of inaccuracy is that 
associated with ergonomic adjustment of the pedal position to 
accommodate pilots of differing heights. If the pedal position selected 
can in fact be determined (for example by examination of the aircraft 
after an accident or incident), then this inaccuracy can be eliminated. 
The second uncertainty comes from the fact that, for a given pedal 
force, the recorded force varies somewhat depending on the position of 
the rudder pedals when the force is applied. If it is possible (and it 
should be so) to use the recorded rudder pedal position to calculate 
the position inaccuracy in post accident/incident review, then this 
inaccuracy can also be eliminated. Note that the resolution of this 
parameter as recorded complies with the required 0.2% of full range, 
and therefore the functionality of the recorded parameter is not 
adversely affected.
    In the appendix to its petition, Airbus submits specific proposed 
regulatory language. In Appendix M to part 121 and Appendix E to part 
125, Airbus requests that footnotes be added to the recording 
requirements for parameters 83, 84, and 88. For parameter 83, Airbus 
recommends the following footnote: For A310 and A300-600 airplanes, 
resolution = 0.69% (0.096 degrees). For parameter 84, Airbus requests 
the following footnote: For A318/319/320/321 series aircraft, 
resolution = 0.22% (0.088 degrees). For parameter 88, Airbus requests 
the following footnote: For A310, A300-600, A318/319/320/321, A330 and 
A340 (except A340-500 and -600 models) series aircraft, accuracy = 15%.
    According to Airbus, the changes requested are minor and technical 
in nature, and none would significantly affect the ability of accident 
investigators to perform their tasks. Additionally, Airbus contends 
that the changes would neither adversely affect the safety of the 
aircraft, hinder the investigation of accidents or incidents, nor 
compromise the intent of the DFDR rules. Airbus states the changes only 
would account for the differences in Airbus DFDR equipment when 
compared to the precise regulatory requirements.
    Airbus also asserts that a large cost to US operators would 
obviously be involved in redesigning and fitting new equipment to 
effect literal compliance with the recording resolution requirements of 
the current regulations. In addition, with the delivery of new aircraft 
whose implemented DFDR recording equipment differs from that installed 
on existing aircraft, a second set of spares and additional record 
keeping requirements would need to be instituted, further increasing 
costs on an ongoing basis. These added costs would not be balanced by 
an gain in safety or investigative capability deriving from such 
changes. It is, therefore, in the public interest to make the requested 
regulatory modifications so as to obviate an unnecessary and 
unproductive expenditure by US airlines, according to Airbus.
    Airbus requests that the FAA issue a final rule without notice and 
prior public comment.

[FR Doc. 02-9129 Filed 4-19-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M