### Docket No : FAA-2014-1058 Dir ectorate ID: 2014-SW-065-AD Originating Oftice T r ack in g No.: 

### Di sp o sitio n Co mments

Next Step: 

## 181 FRAN 

### D SNPRM 

### 0 The se comments are in respo n se to an SN PRM



### 0 No 

### Comment s/Only Support i ve Comments Received

- Jfthis box is c h ec ked. no signatures are r equi red. No 

### H as the referenc e d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued ? I f yes, list latest revis ion and attach a copy . No te that changes beyond the scope of/he previously published NPRMwi/1 requi re a n ew notice. Contact th e Directorate focal point for gu idance. 

## 1 ,th
.. '-1 

### R\..' 1 ,jon In s tructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commente r ) and provide yo ur recommended r eso luti o n of each i ssue. All comments r e lating to the sa m e iss ue s ho uld b e di sc usse d together. Do not li st a ll of the issues !Tom one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend
. Reference FAA-IR

- M -8 040. 1 C Cha p ter 9
.. 

### I SSUE 1: Select one of t he

following: applicability 

## if

other. explai n: Com menter(s): Airb u s Helicopters; M o del AS365N3 does not have t he refere nced APM ve r s io n o r part number as the E C 1 55 

### BI he li co p te r. Further, th e p os iti on est imation on t he AS365N3 is implemented differently than o n the EC 1558 I helicopter a n d th e AS365N3 does not exhibi t the same anomalous behav i or as the EC l55B 1 discussed in this airworthine ss directive. What change to the A D action is requested? AS365N3 s h o uld be removed from the ap pli cability of th is A D
. Why is the change reque s ted or how is it justified? The AS365N3 and EC 155 B I incorporate diffe rent APM and p os iti o n estimation w it h Garmin GPS is implemented differently between t h e two aircraft s u ch that the anomalou s b e h av io r does not pre sen t itse lf o n the AS365N3 a ir c raft. Do we agree? Yes 

### Jf PARTIALLY AGREE , we agree w ith AS365N 3 has different APM se rie s and part number with different impl ementation of p osition estimation a nd wi ll not exhibit t he anomalous behavior described in this A D because this different iation was not clearly understood at the time this AD was written. We di sagree w ith \ the need to remove the AS365N3 from th e app li cabi lity because the app li cab ili ty in thi s AD is tied to the APM se ries an d part numb er, thus wou ld exclude any aircraft n ot equipped with the applicable ite m s. Make the following c h anges to the AD : None l fN O , we d o n ' t agr ee because li."l'rllllll

**rLHio11:11~** 

### I SSUE 2: Select one of th e following: other 

## if

ot

h er , explain: Discussion sect ion of AD Comment er(s): Airbus Helicopters; 

### Page 1 

### of8

### What. change to the AD action is requested? The AD states · ' du r ing initialization of the GPS , t he Garm in GPS equipment declares the helicopter's position as inva lid on the data output bus , even though the GPS correctly di sp la ys the po s ition and other information." Thi s is inc o rrect. The r oot cau se is because during the test pa ge display of the Gannin, the Garmi n outputs a GPS l ocation as Olathe, KS and identifies this position as va l id (SS M B it set to No rmal Operation in the ARINC429 word). APM PN -163 uses 32 bit integer o r fl oati ng point data (si mple precision LE EE 

### 754 format) to code po si tion s on t he earth. The A P M SW sa mpl es a refere nce po s ition expectantly not fa r from the c ur r ent po s it i o n and code the N / S and EIW position difTerences in floating point format , keeping the arithmet ic practical. T hi s re lative position need s to be extrapo lated between co nsec utive received po s i tio ns and hybrid ized (3 rd orde r and Ssec during initial phase and 30sec time constant during steady operations). Due to the lim ited physical memory s pace available, the integrators u se d in the -163 SW during the extrapolation s tage is limited to+ /

- 1.000.000 which corresponds to +/-1 OOOKm. T herefore the SW takes the initia l aircraft position due to the EC 155 ran ge bein g s ma ll er t h an I 

### OOOKm or 540Nm
. T he refere n ce position i n itia li zation is achieved i n two steps

- ( I) 

### reference po s i tio n samp li ng an d (2) 

### reference position locking. Star ting fro m i n itial state whe r e no po s i tion is yet sa mpled , a position i s sa m p led w hen rece ived va li d > 0.8sec t hen froze n . O n the EC 1 55 the on l y way po s ition i s rece ived is from the Garm in G PS. Atle r th is freeze and if pos iti on i s cont in ua ll y received as valid, hybridization ini ti al i zatio n is mai ntai ned for 2.2sec and l eft r unn ing fo r 3 0 sec. I f no validity ha s been lo s t during t h is t ime (total= 33sec) then t he reference pos ition is locked. I f 

### the va l i d ity i s l ost dur i ng thi s tim e for as litt l e as lOOms then the who l e proce ss is repeate d f r om the sta rt . Once step (2) is l oc k ed it r e mains locked as long as the received position ha s not been received as inva lid fo r at least 60sec. > 60sec received invalid position then the whole pro cess i s re- sta t ted at step (I). 

### Rece ived valid i s the SSM o f bit of ARINC429 Label 310 and 311 

### set to Normal Operation (NO). Fligh t recordings accomplis h ed in Gainesv i lle , FL and Marignane , France reveal ed an in itial position as O l athe , KS (> IOOOKm fro m aircraft) not the actual aircraft position. H owever the pos ition was declared valid by the Garm in (SSM set to N O). When the Garmin correctly transm its the actual airc r aft position and the delta between the tw o received pos i tion s is > lOOOKm a s in this case, it sa turates theN /S and EI W position calculations w hi c h causes the derived estimated ground s peed to re m ain at 0. The grou nd s p eed estimated is taken to act as a damper on the inherent ILS NO R s ignal di s turbanc es . Co nse quen tl y when the estimated gro und s peed i s at 0 this calculation cannot perfonn it s dampening ro l e. Why i s the change requested or how is it justified ? The change i s requ este d to correct the technical details of how the an o mal o us be havio r occurs in this G PS to Autopi l ot M odule interface
. Do we agree? Yes l fYES,weagreebecause

**hctt ~tlfkatl\ll\**  

### Make the fo llowi ngcha ngestotheAD: 

### Ltsl<m; 1 I

**1l~;_\J)** 

### I f PARTiALLY AG REE , 

### we agree with the techn i ca l de sc ription in the AD is not co rrect because th e provided tec h nical desc ri ption co t Tects that error. We di s agree wit h the need to change the AD because the consequence of having the esti mated ground s peed calculated to 0 is tl1e fi nal o ut co me , thus t he re s ult is unchanged. Make the following changes to the A D : None If N O , 

### we d o n 't agree becau se J 1

**~..·n** l•Ur

**lt~ll** )J\ .lk·


### ISSUE 

### 3: Selec t one of th e following: 

### Other 

## If

o th e r. explain: 

### Technical Di sc u ssion Co mment e r(s): Airbus Helic o pters What change to the AD act i on is requested? The AD s tate s Airbu s "p r o poses in the i nterim that pilots , s ho rt l y before taxiing , confirm t hat the Gar m in equipment i s pro perly disp layi ng the he licopter's true pre se nt pos i ti on and the n press the A P RST (a u topi l ot r eset)". T h i s " interim so lution '' is not e ntirely 

### P age 2 of8correctly stated in the AD. The imp o rtant s tep to miti gate the p oss ibili ty of es timated ground speed bein g forced to 0 i s by ensuri n g th e e rro neo u s data prov ided by the Garmin is n ot se n t to the APM. Then a s a seco nd ind ependent mean s to e n s ur e thi s and in case th e pil o t s ove r loo ked that s tep , AP RST is pressed. Why is the change requ es ted or how is it ju s tified ? These two steps pro v ide tw o ind e p e ndent mean s t o e n s ure the APM receives correct true position and th e r e ference position initiali za tion phase starts and comp letes correctly. Thi s wa s flight tested and recorded to show t hat t hi s is in fac t the case . The AD s tat es " this condition is not C CD JTected by resetting the autopi lot before taxiing. Rather, the i ss u e continue s until the autopi lot sys te m i s manuall y disconnected. " Thi s is inconect. Airbus He li co pters in strumented a n airc raft in Florida and France and rec o rded th e res ult s of the procedure. That proce dure was then in s erted into the Fli g ht Manu a l w hich the FAA su b se qu e ntl y approved and the revision w a s publi s hed October 17,2014. D o we a g ree ? Partially Agree If YES , we agree becau se ln-....:1'1 Jll:o.tJiicatum Mak e the following change s to th e AD: I 1st

**uu~** 1lilli.:_:\:S IP till. \1) If 

### PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree w ith the corr ec ti o n s to th e technical di sc u ss io n be ca use the co mmenter provided c larifying information. W e di sagree w ith th e po s i tion that th e interim procedure s adequately miti g ate th e un sa f e condition b ecause the FAA position is th e proce dures ref e renced in the m e nti o n ed flight manual s uppl eme nt do n o t adequately ens ure t h e pil o t ca n ha ve con fid ence that th e G P S to auto pilot is functionin g correctly , p r ior to initiatin g a loca lizer o r VOR approac h
. Make the following c hange s to the AD: None If 

### NO , we don't agree b eca u se
ISSUE 

### 4: Select one of th e following: Service In fo 

## If

ot

h e r. exp lain : Clict..

**her~** lo l: ll h:r

**t~xt.** Co mmenter(s): Airbus Hel i co pt e rs What change to the AD act io n i s re que sted? A HT A AE-155- 14-003-22 was iss u e d prior to validating th e mitigating proced ur e now found in the approved Fli g ht Manual. The procedure f o und in the late st revi s io n of th e FAA Approved Flight Manual is what wa s flight te s ted , recorded and ve rifi e d with EASA. lt i s also what the FAA ha s approved. Why is the change reque s ted or how i s itju s tifi e d ? Airbus Helicopter po s iti o n i s that thi s is the pr o c e dure that s h o u l d be refe re n ced in any co mmuni ca tion
. Thi s is the o nl y proce dure which mitigates th e n o ncompliance of the Garrni n G P S uni t s and th e refo re allows correct LO C and VOR c ap t ure behavior
. D o we agree ? Partiall y Agree If YES , we agree becau se

**lns~rl** 

### justificallon Mak e the following changes to th e AD: 

### l 

### isl

**an~** Lfl 

### ngcs 10 

### th e ;\ 1) I f 

### PARTIALLY AGREE , we agree with AHTA AE-155-14-003-22 h aving b ee n iss ued prior to va lidating the mitigating procedur e n ow found in the approved Flight Manual becau se Th e subject fli g ht manual s upplem ent rev i s io n was approved by EA SA , o n b e half of the 

### FAA , in accordance with th e FAA

E ASA v al i dation proce dure f o r flight m a nual rev i s ions that d o n o t aff ect the l imitations sec tion. A proced ura l anomal y occ urred w h e re i n the appl ica n t sent thi s s pecifi c v alidati o n request to o nl y o n e FAA indi v i dua l, who happe ned to be o ut of the o ffice for an ex tended period of tim e , in s te ad of th e u s ual multiple FAA individual s . P e r the F AA-EASA v alidation procedure , after 2 1 da ys of n o FAA re s p o n se , E ASA acted on the FAA ' s beha l f a nd approved this s upplement. Therefore , the FAA did not have 

### Page 3 of8know l edge of the 

### t1 ight manual revision until after it was app roved by EASA o n be h alf of t he FAA. Re co mmendation s have bee n made for the appli cant to re-instate t he procedure of sending s u c h reque sts for FAA review t o multiple FAA recipients f rom t hi s point forwa rd
. We di sagree w ith the ap propriatene ss ofthis procedure because after following the li sted procedures, the pilot has no feedback indicati o n the system is operati n g correct l y , prior to att empt ing to intercept the localizer / IL S o r VOR radial during t he autopilot coup l ed instru ment approac h
. Make the fo ll ow in g changes to the A D: None If NO , we do n 't agree because**llic:l~** her:: h' t.'nh:r h:xl


### ISS UE 5: Se lect one ofthejollowing: Other 

## If

other, expla in: Int erim Act io ns Co mm e nte r (s): Airbus H e licopte rs What change to the AD action is requested? Ai rb u s He l icopters is makin g a S W evo luti o n to deal with the Gannin GPS units n o ncompliance with t he ARINC429 Spec ifi cation. The aircraft te s tin g of the A P SW co mplete d DE C 2 0 14. Q u a lifi ca tion and Design D e cl aration is curren tl y at the ve ndor
. Once comp l eted , the certificat io n package w ill be se nt to EASA N LT JAN 31,2015. Why i s the c h ange req u ested o r h ow i s it ju s tified? T he FAA is aware of the e ffort by Airbus H e li copters to correct this ano m alo u s behavi or b y way of a software update to the APM. Once that software has be en certified and va lidated , the result in g A PM part number wi ll change, makin g this A D not applicable to aircraft that have been updat e d by approved software. Do we agree? Yes 

### I f 

### YES , we agr ee becau se a mean s to con·ect the a n o m alous behavior is wa rranted, t o remove the unsafe condition. M ake the followi n g c hange s to the AD: None. lfPARTIALLY 

### AGREE , we agree w i th 

### Insert**t~x l**  becau se 

### fn-.cr'ljlt'-lilicatitm Insert tc'<t becaus e I**~~·rt** il .,, f I tl j

.. '! M ake th e following c h anges to the AD: 

## r is! any**~:han!-!es** 

### t<' 

### tht: J\ () If NO , we don't agree becau se lnSL'll 

### ,)ur l'alil)J1ak


### ISSU E 6: Se lect one oj th efollow in g : Othe r 

## If

other , explain: Un safe Condi ti o n Commente r( s): Airbus He li copters What change to the AD act io n is requ ested ? Th e AD sta te s " Th is AD defines the un safe co ndit io n as an autopilot software d esig n that in correctJy calculates the estimated ground speed at ze r o. This cond i tion resu lts in unpredi ctab l e roll osci ll ations during a cou pl e d Very High Frequency Omnid irectio n al Range (VOR) o r Loca li ze r /l n strum ent L anding System (LOC/ IL S) approach , wh ic h co uld re s ul t i n loss of he licopter contro l' ·. The incorrect grou nd s peed estimation only l eads to roll r ate (5 deg/s) and ban k angle limited (0.225 times the air s p eed in kt w ith a maximum at 3 0 de g) r oll mot ion s , n ot " loss of hel ico p ter co ntr ol " as state d in the AD. Flig ht tests ha ve confirmed that t he c rew actions invo l ve d in recove rin g the aircraft are we ll w ithin the pil ot capabilities and o nly res ult in a slight increase of p il ot work l oad, such as routi ne flight plan change (for exam pl e a mi sse d approach). Those conseque n ces are i n acco rd ance w i th AC 29 sub part 

### F , section AC 29.1309 EQUIPMENT, SYSTEMS, AND IN S TALLATIONS , s ubse ct io n b. Procedures , su b sect ion (2) D e finition s of Failure Co nditi on C lassificatio n s , paragraph (i i) MINOR Page 4 

### of8··failure conditions wh ic h would not significantly reduce rotorcraft safety, and wh i ch would in volve crew actions that are well within their capabilities. Why is the change req u ested or h ow i s it justified ? Minor fai l ure condit ions may inc lu de , for example, a s light reduction i n safety margin s or functional capabi liti e s, a s li ght increa se in c rew wor kl oad , suc h as , routine fl i ght pl an changes , or some ph ys ical di sco mf o rt to occ upant s "
. This is why the MINOR c lass i ficati o n h as b ee n reta in ed for th is event. Furth e rmore, the appl ica ti on of th e Fli g h t M a nual SU P 60 proced ure p r events th e g ro und speed from be ing in cor rectl y est i mated and hence ens ure s cot Tect YOR and LOC mode s operation. Do we agree? No If 

### YES , we agree beca u s e lnscn 

### justification Make the fo l lowing cha n ge s to the A D: t.ist 

### an)

**~..,1** u '="-:

**l~ th~**  

### AD I f PARTIALLY A G RE E, we agree wit h

**lns~.rt** lt:\t because lll'>UI 11 l 111....111 11 We disagree with

**rn-.~rt** tc , l becau se ln-.crl

**lll"l**

**ll l~o.a**  **l!llll Maket**  **efo**

**ll owi**  **gc han**  **gestotheAD:** I t 11

**~.1.~1;** t 1.. 

### '\I) 

### If NO , we don 't agree because the FAA dete r mined during si n g le pilot lFR operations , for which these aircraft are approved , a m i t igating design feature is the requirement to have a properly functio n i n g autopilot system. Th e anomalou s behavior exhibited d urin g coupled VOR/LOC/ ILS in s trument approac h es und er in strument meteoro logical co n dition s occurs duri ng the ty pi cally high wo r k loa d approac h phase of flight , p articularly for s in g l e pilot operations. The a ircraft making flight cou r se deviations due to the un expected a nd unpredictab l e ro ll osci ll ations during this pha s e of flight can be expecte d to divert th e s in g l e pilot's atte n tion away from other cri ti cal tasks , c reat in g a n unsafe condition.


### I SSUE 7: Select one ofthe following: Cos ts 

## If

othe r , explain: C lh.:k

**ht:r~** ll1 cnh:r k Commenter(s): A irb u s H e l icopte r s What cha nge to the AD action is re que ste d ? Th e AD s tates '"We esti mate th at t hi s AD w ill affec t 16 he lico pt ers of U.S. R egistry
.. . " O nl y h e li copter s fitted with -163 APM (EC I SS p os t MOD 22 870 ; AS36SN3 p os t MOD 22B7S) and GNS400W in sta ll ed are ex p ose d. Why is t h e cha n ge reque s ted or how is i t justified? There are on l y five aircraft in the US registry which t h at configuration. Do we agree? Yes I f 

### YES , we agree becau se the n u mber of heli copte rs wa s an estimate and based on including the AS36SN3 and possibly more EClSS B l helicopters coming into t he US market. The financial imp act on the US eco nom y is n ot s ig nifi can tl y c han ged with t h e diffe rence in the number of affected aircraft. Make the following c h anges t o the AD: None l f PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with 

### ln ::.ert ll'\l because ln..;erl ju

**llli~..~u.lll** We di sagree with ln-.t..•n te\t because ]Jl<; t..'r l tllslilkathlll Make the following changes to the A D : I ''-' 'll' 

### c 1.11

**~.-•,** \..; 

### t\J) If 

### NO , we don't agree becau se

**Jn-,~n** ll Ur ratiomtlc


### ISS UE 8 : Select one of the following: Other 

### P age 5 of8

### If other. explain : Com pi iance justification Commente r( s) : Airb u s H e li copt ers What change to the AD act io n is requested? Airbus Helicopters In c requ ests from the FAA the rationale of why " performing th e procedures in Paragraphs 4.2 an d 4.3" i s prohibited. Furthermore it is assumed that the reference in para (e) (2) i s incomplete as th ere are man y sectio n s 4.2 a nd 4
. 3. Why is t he change requested or how is it ju stified? As fli g ht tested a nd reco rd ed thi s procedure provides two ind ependent means to p reven t the e r roneous b ut dec l are d valid in form ation b y Gannin from occ urn ng. Do we agree? No If YES, we agree because lns..:rt j11sti fil':tll\10 Make t he following c h a nges to t he AD: (**lu:~** ht:t\: 10

l' fu**l~ '**  t lfPART IALLY AGREE , we agree wit h**ln..,~n** le"'.l b ecause In:-t:rl 

### iustilic1.1tion We disagree with

.... , t ll'\ 1 because 

### lnsc:tl 

### J 1ISll fk•1111 m Make the following chan ges t o the AD: 

### I i st any 

### dwngc" tu**th~.·** 

### \ll I f NO , we don't agree because the referenced steps 4.2 (Re-) Powe r-o n GPS o n Ground or in fli gh t and 4.3 Pre-tax iin g checkli st , in the RFM S SU P. 6 0 are prohibited b eca u se th e re is no indi c ati on , t o the pilot, that e ith er ofthese proced ures successf ull y circ um vente d th e issue, un t il capture o f the IL S/LOC o r VOR is attempted. W ith r egard to the reference to A D paragraph (e) R e quired Actions , s ub para g r aph (2)(ii) , the associat ion with the sectio n s 4
. 2 a nd 

### 4
. 3 i n the last sent e nc e i s in direct r efe re nce to th e preceding sentence , w he rein t he title of t hose steps was provided , fo r c lar i ty. Other t han this comment, there h ave been no inquiries or questions on the intent or the refere nce portion ofthe RFM S
.
ISSUE 

### 9: Select one o.fthe.following: O ther 

### lfother , explain: Request for 

### FAA reval u ation Commenter(s): A irbu s Helicopters What change to the AD action is requested? Re qu est the 

### FAA fli ght test the proced ur e w hich ha s been va lidated by A H an d EASA before makin g a d ete nnin at ion. Why is the change requested or how is it ju s ti fied? In the event the pilot does not apply the updated RFM procedures for GNS

- 400 G P S and AFCS init ial ization, and the ro ll oscillations are present o n LOC in tercept , the situat io n i s eas il y remedied by the pilot. The required action is; 

### 1. M omen tar il y depress th e force trim release 

### 2. l eve l th e h e li co pter 

### 3. Re intercept the loca lize r 4. R elease the force t rim rel e a se 

### 5. Mo ni to r a nd a ll ow t he coup l ed ap p roac h to co ntinu e Do we agree? No If YES , we agree b ecause**l1-;~r1** 1 Lblilit:,ll iPn Make the following c han ges to t h e A D : I 

### isl <Ill\ I 'ill • ' lhl: \I) lf PARTIALLY AGREE , we agree w ith lll'L'I'1**1~\l** becau se**ln~tnju..;tilicalwt1** We disagree wit h

·,.. 1**t~.,** '\ because In- 1 1 .l .111 H: t j, 11 Make the follow in g changes to the A D : 

### I ,tr.;l am dtallh-C" 

### tn 

### tho..· \I'
Page 

### 6 of8If NO , we don't agree because based on discussion with pilots that had experienced this anomalous behavior in flight , the 

### FAA mght test group detennined during si ngle pilot IFR operations a mitigatin g design feature is the requirement to have a prope rl y functioning autopilot system. The anomalous behavior exhibited during COt)pled YOR / LOC/ lLS instrum ent approaches under instrument meteorological conditions occurs dur in g the ty picall y high workload approach phase of flight, pa1 1ic ularly for s in gle pilot operations. The aircraft making unexpected flight course deviations due to the unexpected and unpredictable ro ll oscillations during this phase of flight can b e expected to divert the sing le pilot ' s attention away from other critical tasks , c reati ng an un safe condition.


### ISSUE 10: Se l ect one ojthejollow in g: Costs 

### ljother, explain: 

### Cli.ck here In 1:1H-.:r l!.:'\;1.


# . ' 

## . Commen ter( s) : Airbus Helic opte rs What change to the AD action is requested? The proposed AD effect iv e l y limits the aircraft to DP I FR. Why is the change requested or how i s it ju stified ? Most operators are not staffed for DPlFR and therefore limited to SPY FR. The cost estimate d oes not capture the actual cost of adding pilots for DPIFR operations , potential lost revenue or the increase in emergency response t i me as EMS operators may n ot be able to execute airborne EMS o perati ons. D o we agree? No If 

### YES , we agree because 

### lnsert 

### .iustitkation Make the following changes to the 

### AD: I 1,1 ::111\ 

### changes to the AD lfPARTIALLY AGREE , we agree with Insert tc:-<1 because 

### lnsen iustifi\:ation We di sagree with ln-.er1 lc\1 because**Tnsert iu~titication** **Make** the following changes to the AD: l 1:-.t ·II\**~..h<ill~c** .. 1 rl t: \() If NO , we don't agree because The limitation imposed by this AD is a prohibition of autopilot coupled LOC/ fLS or VOR approache s. A l so , remo v ing (and prohibiting) the RFMS SUP 60 Normal Proce dure ste p s 4.2 (Power-on GPS on Ground or Flight) and 4.3 (Pre-taxiing checklist). There i s no reference t o limiting s ingle pilot or requirin g dual 

### pilot operations for lFR : flight. The intent being there are 

### a va riety of other instrument approach procedures that are not affected by this anomalous behavior and wo uld be available for si ng l e or dual pilot lFR operations.



### For additio n a l i ss ues, do ubl e-click here



### Page 7 of8

### S i gnature Section S ign atur e ind ic at es co nc urre nce w ith t hi s actio n. Originating Office T r ack ing No.: 2014-ASW-065-A D



### AS E
___ 

# <f:

**--, p,;nted~eo,ge**  Schwab 

## i - ;? 9- /6 Date



### Page 8 o f 8