21904 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 27 and 29

[Docket No. 28008; Amendment No. 27–33,

29–39]

RIN 2120–AF65

Rotorcraft Regulatory Changes Based

on European Joint Aviation

Requirements

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) is amending the

airworthiness standards for normal and

transport category rotorcraft. The

changes revise airworthiness standards

for performance, systems, propulsion,

and airframes. The changes increase the

regulatory safety level, clarify existing

regulations, and standardize

terminology. The changes are based on

standards incorporated by the European

Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) for

Joint Aviation Requirements (JAR) 27

and 29. These changes are intended to

harmonize the U.S. rotorcraft

airworthiness standards with the

European JAR.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 8, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Carroll Wright, Regulations Group

Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft

Certification Service, Federal Aviation

Administration, Fort Worth, Texas

76193–0111, telephone (817) 222–5120.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

These amendments are based on

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)

No. 94–36 published in the Federal

Register on December 28, 1994 (59 FR

67068). That notice proposed to amend

the airworthiness standards for both

normal and transport category rotorcraft

based on recommendations from the

Aviation Rulemaking Advisory

Committee (ARAC). By announcement

in the Federal Register (57 FR 58846,

December 11, 1992), the ‘‘JAR/FAR 27

and 29 Harmonization Working Group’’

was chartered by the ARAC. The

working group included representatives

from four major rotorcraft manufacturers

(normal and transport) and

representatives from Aerospace

Industries Association of America, Inc.

(AIA), Association Europeene des

Constructeurs de Material Aerospatial

(AECMA), Helicopter Association

International (HAI), JAA, and the FAA

Rotorcraft Directorate. This broad

participation is consistent with FAA

policy to involve all known interested

parties as early as practicable in the

rulemaking process.

The Harmonization Working Group

was tasked with making

recommendations to the ARAC

regarding JAA Notices of Proposed

Amendment (NPA’s). The ARAC

subsequently recommended that the

FAA revise the airworthiness standards

for normal and transport category

rotorcraft to those currently in the JAR

27 and 29.

The FAA evaluated the ARAC

recommendations and proposed

changes to the rotorcraft airworthiness

standards in 14 CFR parts 27 and 29

(parts 27 and 29). These proposed

changes evolved from the FAA, JAA,

and industry meetings of 1990–1992

and the ARAC recommendations of

1993. The changes proposed to (1)

incorporate current design and testing

practices into the rules by requiring

additional performance data, (2)

incorporate additional powerplant and

rotor brake controls requirements, (3)

incorporate bird-strike protection

requirements, and (4) harmonize the

certification requirements between parts

27 and 29 and the JAR. The proposals

for part 27 included JAA’s harmonized

NPA’s 27-Basic and 27–1, and the

proposals for part 29 included NPA’s

29-Basic and 29–1 through 29–5. This

rule contains the harmonized rule

language of those sections of the NPA’s

except for § 27.602 of NPA 27-Basic and

§ 29.602 of NPA 29–4.

In proposed rule, NPRM 94–36, there

were several instances in which a few

descriptive words were proposed to

either be removed from or added to

regulatory text. These word changes

were adequately described in the

amendatory language to NPRM 94–36

when that proposal was published in

the Federal Register. However, at least

one commenter misunderstood the

amendatory language. Therefore, to

avoid possible misunderstanding about

the final rule language, the paragraphs

with the minor rule language changes

are reproduced in their entirety in this

final rule. Also, the numbering of other

regulations referenced in

§§ 29.1587(a)(4) and (a)(5) has been

changed, and a new § 29.1587(a)(6) has

been added. The current § 29.1587(a)(6),

which is being redesignated in this rule

as § 29.1587(a)(7), was added by the

Transport Category Rotorcraft

Performance Rule published elsewhere

in this issue of the Federal Register.

In this final rule, under the heading

‘‘Appendix C to Part 27—Criteria for

Category A,’’ the NPRM 94–36 cites to

Advisory Circular (AC) material have

been removed since AC material is

advisory only. A note has been added

that informs the reader that there is

appropriate guidance material available.

Further, the requirement to meet

§ 29.571 standards for certification as a

part 27 Category A rotorcraft has been

removed from the Appendix C listing.

The FAA has determined that the

current § 27.571 contains sufficient

certification standards to maintain an

adequate level of safety for part 27

Category A rotorcraft, and an additional

requirement of testing to § 29.571

standards is unnecessary.

Discussion of Comments

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of these amendments. Due

consideration has been given to the

comments received. Comments were

received from the JAA, HAI, Transport

Canada, and the United Kingdom Civil

Aviation Authority (UKCAA).

The JAA agrees with the proposed

rule and the effort to harmonize

certification regulations of the U.S. and

the European communities. To fulfill

harmonization objectives, the JAA

prepared an NPA identical to the NPRM

and will publish the JAR final rule at

the same time as this time as this final

rule for parts 27 and 29.

HAI comments that the proposals

faithfully reflect the recommendation

made to the FAA by the ARAC on

rotorcraft regulatory changes. HAI

further comments that the NPRM

reflects prudent rulemaking to increase

safety, economic viability, and

harmonization within realistic

requirements and urges the adoption of

the proposal.

Transport Canada comments that the

NPRM was not the same as the ARAC

recommendations in that there were

changes in the nonregulatory sections

(preamble) and in the proposed text of

the rule. The commenter states that

these changes cause concern because

the discrepancies may lead to different

interpretations. The commenter notes

that the meaning of § 29.547 was

changed because the word ‘‘main’’ had

been removed in the ARAC

recommendations but was not removed

in the NPRM. This commenter also

states that the requirements of §§ 29.547

and 29.917 are redundant because

§ 29.571 also requires the identification

of the principal structural elements

(PSE) that includes rotors and rotor

drive systems with the establishment of

the inspections and replacement times

for those PSE’s. Additionally, the

commenter says that § 29.610 should

state that it addresses only ‘‘direct

effects’’ of lightning and electricity and
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 21905

that indirect effects are covered

elsewhere in §§ 29.954, 29.863, 29.1309,

etc. This commenter also states that

§ 29.1309 should retain the reference to

§ 29.610. This commenter also suggests

adding a new requirement and

paragraph to Appendix B to part 29 that

would require an additional, selfpowered third attitude indicator.

The FAA agrees with Transport

Canada that editorial changes between

the ARAC recommendations and the

NPRM are a concern because the

differences may lead to different

interpretations. To obviate this concern,

editorial changes have been made in the

final rule language to make it consistent

with the ARAC recommended language.

Also, the FAA agrees with Transport

Canada that the word ‘‘main’’ had been

removed from the introductory

paragraph of § 29.547(c), (d), and (e) in

the ARAC recommended language but,

as previously discussed, had not been

shown as removed in the NPRM rule

language. However, the word ‘‘main’’ is

being removed from this final rule.

The FAA does not agree with this

commenter that §§ 29.547, 29.571, and

29.917 are redundant in requiring

identification of principal structural

elements (PSE’s), which include rotors

and rotor drive systems, and the

establishment of the inspections,

replacement times of those PSE’s.

Section 29.547(b) requires a design

assessment for main and tail rotor

structure components (rotor hub, blades,

pitch control mechanisms, etc); § 29.571

requires fatigue evaluation of structural

components; and § 29.917 requires a

design assessment of the rotor drive

system (drive shafts, transmission,

gearboxes, etc). Therefore, these are non

redundant requirements. The language

is adopted as proposed.

The FAA agrees with the intent of this

commenter’s suggestion that § 29.610

should clearly indicate that it addresses

only ‘‘direct effects’’ of lightning and

electricity. However, this was achieved

in the NPRM by adding the word

‘‘structure’’ between the words

‘‘rotorcraft’’ and ‘‘must’’ in § 29.610(a) to

clarify that this paragraph applied to

rotorcraft structure and not to systems

and equipment. Accordingly, the

language is adopted as proposed.

The FAA does not agree with this

commenter that § 29.1309 should retain

the reference to § 29.610. The NPRM

added the word ‘‘structure’’ to § 29.610

to clarify that the paragraph applied to

rotorcraft structure and not to systems

and equipment. Since § 29.1309(h)

applies to lightning protection of

systems and equipment, it is

inappropriate to reference § 29.610,

which applies to lightning protection of

structures. The commenter’s proposal to

retain the reference to § 29.610 is not

adopted.

The FAA disagrees with this

commenter’s suggestion that a new

requirement and paragraph be added to

part 29, Appendix B, to require an

additional, self-powered third attitude

indicator. Part 29, Appendix B,

paragraph VIII(a)(2) currently requires a

standby attitude indicator that is

independent of the aircraft electrical

generating system. Additionally, part

29, Appendix B, paragraph VIII(b)(5)(iii)

states, ‘‘The equipment, systems, and

installations must be designed so that

one display of the information essential

to the safety of flight that is provided by

the instruments will remain available to

a pilot, without additional crew-member

action, after any single failure or

combination of failures that is not

shown to be extremely improbable

* * *.’’ Currently, the only practical

design to meet the extremely

improbable (10¥9) requirement of part

29, Appendix B, for the display of

information essential to flight safety

after a single failure or combination of

failures is the design that uses a third

attitude indicator powered by a source

other than the aircraft electrical

generating system. However, the FAA

does not wish to limit future alternative

designs that may meet the extremely

improbable standard without a third

attitude indicator. The suggestion of the

commenter to add a requirement for a

self-powered third attitude indicator is

not adopted.

The UKCAA comments that Proposal

No. 13 in NPRM 94–36 proposed to

amend § 29.923(b)(3)(i), to require two

applications of 2-minute power

following each application of 30-second

power, instead of the one application of

2-minute power previously proposed.

The UKCAA fully supports the

proposed changes in NPRM 94–36.

However, the UKCAA further comments

that since publication of NPRM 94–36,

the FAA published Amendment 29–34

(59 FR 47764, September 16, 1994) that

states in part, ‘‘When conducted on a

bench test, the test sequence must be

conducted following stabilization at

take-off power.’’ The commenter states

that the reason for adding this sentence,

as stated in the preamble to Amendment

29–34, remains valid, and this sentence

should therefore be included in the final

rule developed from NPRM 94–36.

The FAA concurs with the UKCAA

that the reason for adding the sentence,

‘‘When conducted on a bench test, the

test sequence must be conducted

following stabilization at take-off

power’’ remains valid and the sentence

should be retained in § 29.923(b)(3)(i).

The sentence was adopted in

Amendment 29–34 due to a

commenter’s statement that if the 5-

minute takeoff power run to qualify the

drive system is conducted as part of the

endurance run, and the 30-second/2-

minute OEI requirements are conducted

on a bench test, then the takeoff power

5-minute run will be conducted twice

on the same set of gears. The FAA did

not intend to duplicate the takeoff

power 5-minute run if the OEI

requirements are conducted on a bench

test, and the sentence was adopted for

clarification. Since the omission of the

sentence in NPRM 94–36 was

inadvertent, since the reasons for

including the sentence remain valid,

and since the sentence is relieving in

nature and does not place any

additional burden on manufacturers, it

is unnecessary to solicit prior public

comment. Therefore, the sentence is

restored as requested by the commenter.

After considering all of the comments,

the FAA has determined that air safety

and the pubic interest support adoption

of the amendments with the changes

noted.

Regulatory Evaluation Summary

Proposed 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 effect of regulatory changes

on small entities. Third, the Office of

Management and Budget directs

agencies to assess the effect of

regulatory changes on international

trade. In conducting these analyses, the

FAA has determined that this rule: (1)

would generate benefits that justify its

costs and is not ‘‘a significant regulatory

action’’ as defined in the Executive

Order; (2) is nonsignificant as defined in

DOT’s Regulatory Policies and

Procedures; (3) would not have a

significant impact on substantial

number of small entities; and (4) will

lessen restraints on international trade.

These analyses, available in the docket,

are summarized below.

Cost-Benefit Analysis

All of the changes to part 27 and all

but four of the changes to part 29 will

impose no or insignificant costs on

rotorcraft manufacturers since they

largely reflect current design practices.

In recent years, manufacturers have

incorporated engineering and structural

improvements into rotorcraft designs
21906 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

that exceed minimum regulatory

requirements with the aim of increasing

operating efficiencies, payload

capabilities, and marketability in world

markets. Many of these improvements

have also inherently improved safety

codification of these improvement and

other changes will ensure continuation

of enhanced safety levels in future

rotorcraft designs.

The changes will also increase

harmonization and commonality

between U.S. and European

airworthiness standards. Harmonization

will eliminate the need to comply with

different FAA and JAA airworthiness

requirements, thus reducing

manufacturers’ certification costs. Based

on experience in a recent certification,

one rotorcraft manufacturer indicated

that complying with different FAA and

JAA requirements resulted in several

hundred thousand dollars of excessive

certification costs (as related to all part

27 and 29 requirements). The duplicate

certification costs avoided by the

harmonized rule alone could outweigh

the relatively modest increase in

certification costs imposed by the few

new requirements. Following is a

summary of the four changes to part 29

that will impose additional costs

totaling approximately $160,000 per

type certification. The safety benefits of

these changes are expected to easily

exceed the incremental costs.

Section 29.547—Main and tail rotor

structure. While manufacturers

currently perform the design assessment

as an integral part of the design

requirements of § 29.917, there will be

some incremental costs to formalize the

existing information. These costs are

included in the cost estimates of

§ 29.917 summarized below. Formal

identification and assessment of critical

component failures will increase safety

by providing more comprehensive

maintenance information to operators.

The benefits of averting a single

accident will exceed the relatively low

incremental costs of compliance.

Section 29.631—Bird strike.

Manufacturers indicate that present

rotorcraft structures can withstand

impacts with 2.2 pound birds; therefore,

no incremental manufacturing costs are

anticipated. Nonrecurring testing and

analysis costs of the requirement are

estimated to be $107,000 per type

certification. A review of National

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)

data for the period 1983–1991 reveals

two rotorcraft accidents caused by bird

strikes. One accident resulted in one

serious injury, one minor injury, and

substantial damage to the rotorcraft (tail

rotor separation); in the other accident,

the rotorcraft was destroyed but there

were no injuries. There is at least an

equal probability of such accidents in

the future, given the tendencies toward

higher operating speeds. The benefits of

averting a single accident will exceed

the incremental costs of the amendment.

Section 29.917—Design. The

incremental costs to formalize existing

design information for the rotor

structure (§ 29.547 above) and drive

system are estimated to total $47,000

per type certification. Formal

identification and assessment of critical

component failures of the rotor drive

system will increase safety by providing

more comprehensive maintenance

information to operators. The benefits of

averting a single accident caused

directly or indirectly by a lack of

relevant data would easily exceed the

incremental costs.

Section 29.1587—Performance

information. Since the required climb

gradient data are already available from

the results of flight tests required to

obtain performance information, the

only additional costs will be those

associated with incorporating the data

into the Flight Manual, estimated to

total $6,000 per type certification. The

availability and accuracy of

performance data are paramount to

operational safety. The benefits of

averting a single accident caused

directly or indirectly by a lack of

relevant performance information will

easily exceed the incremental costs.

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 Federal Regulations. The

RFA requires a Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis if a proposed rule would have

‘‘a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.’’

Based on the criteria of FAA Order

2100.14A, the FAA has determined that

the rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities.

The rule will affect manufacturers of

future type-certificated normal (part 27)

and transport category (part 29)

rotorcraft. For manufacturers, Order

2100.14A defines a small entity as one

with 75 or fewer employees and a

significant economic impact as

annualized costs of $19,000 or more.

The FAA has determined that the rule

will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

manufacturers since (1) no part 29 and

only two part 27 rotorcraft

manufacturers have 75 or fewer

employees, and (2) the annualized

certification costs of the rule are less

than $19,000.

International Trade Impact Assessment

The rule will not constitute a barrier

to international trade, including the

export of American rotorcraft to other

countries and the import of rotorcraft

into the United States. Instead, the

changes will harmonize with

certification procedures of the JAA and

thereby enhance free trade.

Conclusion

For the reasons discussed above,

including 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 this

regulation 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. This regulation is

considered nonsignificant under DOT

Order 2100.5. A final regulatory

evaluation of the regulation, including a

final 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 Parts 27 and

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 Title 14,

Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR

parts 27 and 29) 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. Section 27.1 is amended by adding

a new paragraph (c) to read as follows:

§ 27.1 Applicability.

* * * * *

(c) Multiengine rotorcraft may be type

certificated as Category A provided the

requirements referenced in appendix C

of this part are met.

3. Section 27.65 is amended by

revising paragraphs (b)(2) introductory

text and (b)(2)(ii) to read as follows:
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 21907

§ 27.65 Climb: all engines operating.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(2) The steady rate of climb must be

determined—

* * * * *

(ii) Within the range from sea level up

to the maximum altitude for which

certification is requested;

* * * * *

4. Section 27.1141 is amended by

redesignating existing paragraphs (c)

and (d) as paragraphs (d) and (e) and by

adding a new paragraph (c) to read as

follows:

§ 27.1141 Powerplant controls: general.

* * * * *

(c) Each control must be able to

maintain any set position without—

(1) Constant attention; or

(2) Tendency to creep due to control

loads or vibration.

* * * * *

5. New § 27.1151 is added to read as

follows:

§ 27.1151 Rotor brake controls.

(a) It must be impossible to apply the

rotor brake inadvertently in flight.

(b) There must be means to warn the

crew if the rotor brake has not been

completely released before takeoff.

6. Part 27 is amended by adding a

new appendix C to read as follows:

Appendix C to Part 27—Criteria for

Category A

C27.1 General.

A small multiengine rotorcraft may not be

type certificated for Category A operation

unless it meets the design installation and

performance requirements contained in this

appendix in addition to the requirements of

this part.

C27.2 Applicable part 29 sections. The

following sections of part 29 of this chapter

must be met in addition to the requirements

of this part:

29.45(a) and (b)(2)—General.

29.49(a)—Performance at minimum operating

speed.

29.51—Takeoff data: General.

29.53—Takeoff: Category A.

29.55—Takeoff decision point: Category A.

29.59—Takeoff Path: Category A.

29.60—Elevated heliport takeoff path:

Category A.

29.61—Takeoff distance: Category A.

29.62—Rejected takeoff: Category A.

29.64—Climb: General.

29.65(a)—Climb: AEO.

29.67(a)—Climb: OEI.

29.75—Landing: General.

29.77—Landing decision point: Category A.

29.79—Landing: Category A.

29.81—Landing distance (Ground level sites):

Category A.

29.85—Balked landing: Category A.

29.87(a)—Height-velocity envelope.

29.547(a) and (b)—Main and tail rotor

structure.

29.861(a)—Fire protection of structure,

controls, and other parts.

29.901(c)—Powerplant: Installation.

29.903(b) (c) and (e)—Engines.

29.908(a)—Cooling fans.

29.917(b) and (c)(1)—Rotor drive system:

Design.

29.927(c)(1)—Additional tests.

29.953(a)—Fuel system independence.

29.1027(a)—Transmission and gearboxes:

General.

29.1045(a)(1), (b), (c), (d), and (f)—Climb

cooling test procedures.

29.1047(a)—Takeoff cooling test procedures.

29.1181(a)—Designated fire zones: Regions

included.

29.1187(e)—Drainage and ventilation of fire

zones.

29.1189(c)—Shutoff means.

29.1191(a)(1)—Firewalls.

29.1193(e)—Cowling and engine

compartment covering.

29.1195(a) and (d)—Fire extinguishing

systems (one shot).

29.1197—Fire extinguishing agents.

29.1199—Extinguishing agent containers.

29.1201—Fire extinguishing system

materials.

29.1305(a) (6) and (b)—Powerplant

instruments.

29.1309(b)(2) (i) and (d)—Equipment,

systems, and installations.

29.1323(c)(1)—Airspeed indicating system.

29.1331(b)—Instruments using a power

supply.

29.1351(d)(2)—Electrical systems and

equipment: General (operation without

normal electrical power).

29.1587(a)—Performance information.

Note: In complying with the paragraphs

listed in paragraph C27.2 above, relevant

material in the AC ‘‘Certification of Transport

Category Rotorcraft’’ should be used.

PART 29—AIRWORTHINESS

STANDARDS: TRANSPORT

CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT

7. The authority citation for part 29

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701,

44702, 44704.

8. Section 29.547 is amended by

revising the heading; by revising

paragraph (a); by revising the

introductory text in paragraphs (c), (d),

and (e); by revising paragraph (e)(1)(ii);

and by adding paragraph (b) to read as

follows:

§ 29.547 Main and tail rotor structure.

(a) A rotor is an assembly of rotating

components, which includes the rotor

hub, blades, blade dampers, the pitch

control mechanisms, and all other parts

that rotate with the assembly.

(b) Each rotor assembly must be

designed as prescribed in this section

and must function safely for the critical

flight load and operating conditions. A

design assessment must be performed,

including a detailed failure analysis to

identify all failures that will prevent

continued safe flight or safe landing,

and must identify the means to

minimize the likelihood of their

occurrence.

(c) The rotor structure must be

designed to withstand the following

loads prescribed in §§ 29.337 through

29.341 and 29.351:

* * * * *

(d) The rotor structure must be

designed to withstand loads

simulating—

* * * * *

(e) The rotor structure must be

designed to withstand the limit torque

at any rotational speed, including zero.

In addition:

(1) * * *

* * * * *

(ii) For the main rotor, the limit

engine torque specified in § 29.361.

* * * * *

9. Section 29.610 is amended by

revising the heading; by revising

paragraph (a); and by adding a new

paragraph (d) to read as follows:

§ 29.610 Lightning and static electricity

protection.

(a) The rotorcraft structure must be

protected against catastrophic effects

from lightning.

* * * * *

(d) The electric bonding and

protection against lightning and static

electricity must—

(1) Minimize the accumulation of

electrostatic charge;

(2) Minimize the risk of electric shock

to crew, passengers, and service and

maintenance personnel using normal

precautions;

(3) Provide an electrical return path,

under both normal and static electricity

on the functioning of essential electrical

and electronic equipment.

(4) Reduce to an acceptable level the

effects of lightning and static electricity

on the functioning of essential

electronic equipment.

10. Section 29.629 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 29.629 Flutter and divergence.

Each aerodynamic surface of the

rotorcraft must be free from flutter and

divergence under each appropriate

speed and power condition.

11. Section 29.631 is added before the

undesignated center heading, ‘‘Rotors’’

to read as follows:

§ 29.631 Bird strike.

The rotorcraft must be designated to

ensure capability of continued safe

flight and landing (for Category A) or

safe landing (for Category B) after

impact with a 2.2-lb (1.0 kg) bird when
21908 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

the velocity of the rotorcraft (relative to

the bird along the flight path of the

rotorcraft) is equal to VNE or VH

(whichever is the lesser) at altitudes up

to 8,000 feet. Compliance must be

shown by tests or by analysis based on

tests carried out on sufficiently

representative structures of similar

design.

12. Section 29.917 is amended by

redesignating existing paragraph (b) as

(c) and by adding a new paragraph (b)

to read as follows:

§ 29.917 Design.

* * * * *

(b) Design assessment. A design

assessment must be performed to ensure

that the rotor drive system functions

safely over the full range of conditions

for which certification is sought. The

design assessment must include a

detailed failure analysis to identify all

failures that will prevent continued safe

flight or safe landing and must identify

the means to minimize the likelihood of

their occurrence.

* * * * *

13. Section 29.923 is amended by

revising paragraph (b)(3)(i) to read as

follows:

§ 29.923 Rotor drive system and control

mechanism tests.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(3) * * *

(i) Immediately following any one 5-

minute power-on run required by

paragraph (b)(1) of this section, simulate

a failure for each power source in turn,

and apply the maximum torque and the

maximum speed for use with 30-second

OEI power to the remaining affected

drive system power inputs for not less

than 30 seconds. Each application of 30-

second OEI power must be followed by

two applications of the maximum

torque and the maximum speed for use

with the 2 minute OEI power for not

less than 2 minutes each; the second

application must follow a period at

stabilized continuous or 30 minute OEI

power (whichever is requested by the

applicant). At least one run sequence

must be conducted from a simulated

‘‘flight idle’’ condition. When

conducted on a bench test, the test

sequence must be conducted following

stabilization at take-off power.

* * * * *

14. Section 29.1305 is amended by

redesignating existing paragraphs (a)(6)

through (a)(25) as paragraphs (a)(7)

through (a)(26) and by adding a new

paragraph (a)(6) to read as follows:

§ 29.1305 Powerplant instruments

* * * * *

(a) * * *

(6) An oil pressure indicator for each

pressure-lubricated gearbox.

* * * * *

15. Section 29.1309 is amended by

revising paragraph (h) to read as

follows:

§ 29.1309 Equipment, systems, and

installations

* * * * *

(h) In showing compliance with

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section,

the effects of lightning strikes on the

rotorcraft must be considered.

16. Section 29.1351(d) is revised to

read as follows:

§ 29.1351 General

* * * * *

(d) Operation with the normal

electrical power generating system

inoperative.

(1) It must be shown by analysis, tests,

or both, that the rotorcraft can be

operated safely in VFR conditions for a

period of not less than 5 minutes, with

the normal electrical power generating

system (electrical power sources

excluding the battery) inoperative, with

critical type fuel (from the standpoint of

flameout and restart capability), and

with the rotorcraft initially at the

maximum certificated altitude. Parts of

the electrical system may remain on if—

(i) A single malfunction, including a

wire bundle or junction box fire, cannot

result in loss of the part turned off and

the part turned on;

(ii) The parts turned on are

electrically and mechanically isolated

from the parts turned off; and

(iii) The electrical wire and cable

insulation, and other materials, of the

parts turned on are self-extinguishing

when tested in accordance with

§ 25.1359(d) in effect on September 1,

1977.

(2) Additional requirements for

Category A Rotorcraft.

(i) Unless it can be shown that the

loss of the normal electrical power

generating system is extremely

improbable, an emergency electrical

power system, independent of the

normal electrical power generating

system, must be provided, with

sufficient capacity to power all systems

necessary for continued safe flight and

landing.

(ii) Failures, including junction box,

control panel, or wire bundle fires,

which would result in the loss of the

normal and emergency systems, must be

shown to be extremely improbable.

(iii) Systems necessary for immediate

safety must continue to operate

following the loss of the normal

electrical power generating system,

without the need for flight crew action.

17. Section 29.1587 is amended by

redesignating (a)(6) as (a)(7), by

removing ‘‘and’’ from the end of

paragraph (a)(5), and by adding a new

paragraph (a)(6) to read as follows:

§ 29.1587 Performance Information.

* * * * *

(a) * * *

(6) The steady gradient of climb for

each weight, altitude, and temperature

for which takeoff data are to be

scheduled, along the takeoff path

determined in the flight conditions

required in § 29.67(a)(1) and (a)(2):

(i) In the flight conditions required in

§ 29.67(a)(1) between the end of the

takeoff distance and the point at which

the rotorcraft is 200 feet above the

takeoff surface (or 200 feet above the

lowest point of the takeoff profile for

elevated heliports);

(ii) In the flight conditions required in

§ 29.67(a)(2) between the points at

which the rotorcraft is 200 and 1000 feet

above the takeoff surface (or 200 and

1000 feet above the lowest point of the

takeoff profile for elevated heliports);

and

* * * * *

18. Part 29 Appendix B is amended by

adding a new paragraph VIII(b)(6) to

read as follows:

Appendix B to Part 29—Airworthiness

Criteria for Helicopter Instrument

Flight

* * * * *

VIII * * *

(b) * * *

(6) In determining compliance with the

requirements of § 29.1351(d)(2), the supply of

electrical power to all systems necessary for

flight under IFR must be included in the

evaluation.

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 2, 1996.

David R. Hinson,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96–11493 Filed 5–9–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M