21894 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 29

[Docket No. 24802; Amendment No. 29–40]

RIN 2120–AB36

Airworthiness Standards; Transport

Category Rotorcraft Performance

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rule adopts new and

revised airworthiness standards for the

performance of transport category

rotorcraft. The changes define more

clearly the factors for determining

takeoff, climb, and landing performance

requirements. These changes provide an

improved level of safety associated with

recent technological advances in the

design of turboshaft engines and

rotorcraft.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 10, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: T.E.

Archer, Policy and Procedures Group

(ASW–110), Rotorcraft Standards Staff,

Aircraft Certification Service, Federal

Aviation Administration, Fort Worth,

Texas 76193–0110, telephone (817)

222–5126.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

This final rule is based on a Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) (Notice

90–1), issued January 2, 1990 (55 FR

698, January 8, 1990). The NPRM was

preceded by an Advance Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) (Notice

85–19) issued October 9, 1985 (50 FR

42126, October 17, 1985), and by a

public meeting on April 30, 1986 (51 FR

4504, February 5, 1986), in Fort Worth,

Texas. A transcript of that meeting is

contained in the docket for this

rulemaking. Supplemental Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) (Notice

90–1A), issued June 15, 1994 (59 FR

33598, June 29, 1994), modified Notice

90–1 by including a minimum descent

height of 15 feet.

Amendment 29–21 (48 FR 4373,

January 26, 1983) revised the transport

category rotorcraft airworthiness

requirements to provide for an increased

level of safety in several areas, including

performance. Subsequently, a Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA) program

to develop guidance material (Advisory

Circulars 27–1 and 29–2A) for

certification of rotorcraft in accordance

with the requirements of Title 14 of the

Code of Federal Regulations (Title 14)

part 29 (part 29) revealed a need for

some additions to and clarification of

the provisions of Amendment 29–21.

Those additions and clarification are

included in this amendment.

Amendment 29–21 modified the

applicability limits of Categories A and

B of Transport Category Rotorcraft.

Category A rotorcraft must meet a higher

level of safety, including the

requirement to have multiple engines,

and be able to continue safe flight after

an engine failure. Category B rotorcraft

may be either single or multiengine, but

the changes adopted in Amendment 29–

21 limited this category further to a

maximum capacity of nine passengers

and 20,000 pounds gross weight. No

changes are made to those limits in this

amendment.

A significant element of Notice 90–1

was a proposed minimum climb

gradient for the Category A takeoff path.

This standard was proposed to

standardize the climb gradient for

helicopters regardless of their airspeeds

and to facilitate heliport planning. The

present standard requires a minimum

rate of climb for the takeoff path;

however, recently certificated rotorcraft,

as well as most rotorcraft currently

under development, produce maximum

rates of climb at higher airspeeds than

the previous generation of rotorcraft. For

a specific rate of climb, the climb

gradient decreases as climb airspeed

increases. This results in a shallower

climb gradient for modern, high-speed

rotorcraft than for older, slow-speed

rotorcraft. Notice 90–1 proposed a

minimum climb gradient based on the

present rate-of-climb requirement and

the lower airspeed of older rotorcraft. At

the time Notice 90–1 was issued, FAA

analysis suggested that this change

would have involved an acceptably

small weight (payload) penalty.

However, more precise data supplied by

the commenters in response to the

notice indicate there would be a

payload penalty of 450 pounds or

greater for a current 10,000-pound class

helicopter. This could represent as

much as 20 to 25 percent of the

passenger payload, which one

commenter characterized as totally

unacceptable. Upon reconsideration, the

FAA agrees that the proposal would

have a significantly more burdensome

effect and would not be cost beneficial,

and as noted in the following

discussion, the proposal for requiring

minimum climb gradient is not adopted

in this rule.

All interested persons have been

given an opportunity to participate in

the making of these amendments, and

due consideration has been given to all

comments received. Except for the

change described above and for the

nonsubstantive, editorial, and clarifying

changes as discussed herein, the

proposals have been adopted as

proposed.

Discussion of Comments

Five commenters each responded to

Notices 85–19 and 90–1. These

commenters represent worldwide

manufacturers, operators, and

airworthiness authorities. The

commenters’ recommendations and the

suggested changes are summarized in

the following discussions. Four

commenters responded to Notice 90–1A

and all agreed with that proposal.

14 CFR 29.1 Applicability

Notice 90–1 proposed to change the

reference in paragraph (e) from §§ 29.79

to 29.87, which is redesignation of the

section number for the height-velocity

envelope. There were no comments;

therefore, the proposal is adopted.

New 14 CFR 29.49 Performance at

Minimum Operating Speed (Old § 29.73)

Notice 90–1 proposed to redesignate

§ 29.73 as § 29.49 to relocate the

requirements for helicopter hover

performance. For transport category

helicopters, hover performance is

analogous to the stall speed for transport

category airplanes and provides the

basis for all other performance

requirements. Therefore, by placing the

requirements for hovering performance

first, the other requirements more

logically follow.

One commenter proposes a

requirement for one-engine-inoperative

(OEI) hover performance both in and

out-of-ground effect (OGE). This

comment, also made in response to the

ANPRM, is beyond the scope of this rule

as proposed in the notice.

This commenter also recommends

that OGE controllability (in 17-knot

winds from any direction) should also

be required. The FAA disagrees. Past

FAA policy has permitted OGE

performance to be presented in zero

wind if a minimum of yaw control

remains (i.e., must be able to generate a

positive yaw rate) or to be demonstrated

with some wind condition if the

demonstrated conditions are clearly

identified in the Rotorcraft Flight

Manual (RFM). The validity of this

policy has been borne out by good

service experience; therefore, the 17-

knot criteria are not considered

necessary in determining OGE

controllability. Therefore, the FAA

considers the calm-wind OGE hover

performance data with no related

controllability limit are the minimum

data that should be provided, and the

amendment is adopted as proposed. The
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 21895

requirement to provide performance

information about OGE hover and the

maximum safe wind for the data

presented is clarified in the new

§ 29.1587(a)(6) and revised

§ 29.1587(b)(8).

14 CFR 29.51 Takeoff Data: General

Notice 90–1 proposed to change the

sections referenced in the introductory

text of paragraph (a) to correspond to

the applicable sections numbered in

accordance with these new

amendments. No comments were

received; therefore, the proposal is

adopted as proposed.

14 CFR 29.53 Takeoff: Category A

This proposal would separate, in the

text, the Category A takeoff requirement

from the definition of a decision point.

No comments were received; therefore,

the proposal is adopted as proposed.

New 14 CFR 29.55 Takeoff Decision

Point: Category A

Notice 90–1 proposed to add this new

section to redefine the takeoff critical

decision point (CDP) previously

contained in § 29.53; it further proposed

to remove the requirement to identify

the CDP by height and airspeed, since

height alone or other factors may be

more appropriate. A commenter

suggests that the section title and other

references to ‘‘critical decision point’’ be

changed to ‘‘takeoff decision point

(TDP).’’ The commenter notes that TDP

is compatible with the term ‘‘landing

decision point (LDP)’’ already in other

regulatory parts. The FAA agrees;

accordingly, ‘‘critical decision point’’ is

changed to ‘‘takeoff decision point.’’

Additionally, a commenter to § 29.59

states that engine failure and the TDP do

not occur at the same time because of

necessary pilot-recognition time. The

FAA agrees that a time interval for pilot

recognition of the engine failure must be

included when establishing the TDP.

Calculating a pilot-recognition time

interval when determining the TDP is a

natural part of the TDP-determining

process. Current industry practice

already adequately considers this pilotrecognition time interval in determining

the TDP. Therefore, to explicitly state

this requirement in the regulations

imposes no additional economic burden

on manufacturers. Also, to harmonize

Title 14 and the Joint Aviation

Requirements (JAR’s), the certification

requirements for the Joint Aviation

Authorities (JAA) of Europe, an explicit

adoption of the pilot-recognition time

interval is necessary. Therefore, since a

pilot-recognition time interval is

currently being used by manufacturers,

and the FAA and the manufacturers are

interested in harmonizing Title 14 and

the JAR’s, a new paragraph (c) has been

added to § 29.55 to require that a pilotrecognition time interval be included in

the TDP determination.

This section is adopted with changes

as discussed.

14 CFR 29.59 Takeoff Path: Category A

Notice 90–1 proposed to move the

rejected takeoff requirements to a new

§ 29.62 and more clearly define the

takeoff path from the start of the takeoff

to completion at 1,000 feet above the

takeoff surface. It also proposed the new

phrase ‘‘critical decision point,’’ now

changed to ‘‘takeoff decision point’’ as

explained in new § 29.55. The most

significant proposed change was to

establish minimum climb gradients

along the takeoff path. Present

requirements specify only a rate of

climb. The use of gradients would have

assisted heliport designers and provided

additional safe ground clearance. The

FAA estimated that inclusion of these

gradients would introduce only a slight

performance penalty. However, as

discussed earlier, more precise data

submitted by commenters indicate that

adopting these gradients would result in

an unanticipated decrease in the

payload of a 10,000-pound class

rotorcraft. Therefore, present rate-ofclimb requirements are retained; the

proposed minimum climb gradient is

not adopted; and the remaining

paragraphs of § 29.59 are renumbered

accordingly.

One commenter proposes that a new

section be introduced to require

information on the takeoff path

acceleration segment distance when

accelerating from VTOSS to Vy and that

§ 29.1587 also be amended to require

these data. The commenter’s proposal is

beyond the scope of Notice 90–1;

therefore, the proposal is not included

in the amendment as adopted but may

be appropriate for future rulemaking.

Another commenter disagrees that

engine failure and CDP (now TDP) occur

at the same time. The FAA agrees as

discussed previously under § 29.55.

Accordingly, the proposed § 29.59(a)(2)

has been reworded by changing critical

decision point to engine failure point;

and by adding the phrase, ‘‘. . .

continue to the TDP, and then . . .’’ to

paragraph (a)(3). These additions clarify

that consideration of the time interval

between engine failure and the pilot’s

recognition of the failure is necessary in

establishing TDP.

Notice 90–1, with respect to loss of

altitude after engine failure, proposed

no minimum height during descent to

attain VTOSS except that touchdown

should not occur. Also, Notice 90–1

proposed that a minimum ground

clearance be determined during

certification and the data included in

the RFM. Several commenters objected

to the proposal and stated that a

minimum ground clearance value

should be specified in the rule. Wide

support was expressed by European

authorities, manufacturers, and

operators to limit the descent to not less

than 15 feet above the takeoff surface.

Also, this minimum height was

reflected in the European JAA, Notice of

Proposed Amendment (NPA) 29–2,

Preliminary Issue 1. However, since

Notice 90–1 proposed to eliminate the

existing 35-foot minimum height of part

29, requiring a new minimum height of

a specified value in excess of that

proposed was more stringent than that

proposed in Notice 90–1. Therefore, the

FAA issued Notice 90–1A to include a

minimum descent height of 15 feet and

all commenters agreed. Hence, the

minimum descent height of 15 fee is

adopted as proposed by Notice 90–1A.

However, the paragraph is shown as (e)

rather than (g) as proposed by Notice

90–1A due to renumbering as discussed

previously.

New 14 CFR 29.60 Elevated Heliport

Takeoff Path: Category A

Notice 90–1 proposed to add this

section to introduce the requirements

for pinnacle takeoff path, Category A.

However, two commenters suggest using

the term ‘‘elevated’’ rather than

‘‘pinnacle’’ since ‘‘elevated’’ is a more

common term. The FAA agrees, and the

word ‘‘pinnacle’’ has been replaced with

‘‘elevated heliport’’ wherever used.

Several commenters also recommend

that the requirement for takeoff climb

gradients be deleted from this section.

Therefore, as in the ground-level takeoff

path, the climb gradients proposed for

this section have also been removed

because data submitted by commenters

indicate that adopting these gradients

would result in an unanticipated

decrease in payload.

However, the FAA notes that the

proposal for this section was not clear

in Notice 90–1. The section, as

proposed, would require a continuous

maneuver from the start of the takeoff

unit reaching 1,000 feet above the

takeoff surface with two specific rate-ofclimb requirements at 200 and 1,000

feet above the takeoff surface. A

continuous climb was never intended

by the FAA. For example, if the descent

below the takeoff surface is 200 feet,

using a continuous climb standard

would require a total initial climb of 400

feet to regain a point 200 feet above the

takeoff surface. Therefore, climbing at a

rate of 100 feet per minute would take
21896 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

4 minutes to regain a point 200 feet

above the takeoff surface while the

current One Engine Inoperative (OEI)

standards only require that 21⁄2 minutes

of emergency power be available.

Hence, the time for this descent-climb

would not be compatible with the timelimited OEI power level that is

permitted. Therefore, this paragraph has

been clarified to indicate that the

distances to be measured will be the

vertical magnitude of any descent below

the takeoff surface and the horizontal

distance from the start of the takeoff to

the point where a positive rate of climb

is established at an airspeed of at least

VTOSS. This will be considered to be the

end of the takeoff distance. (See

§ 29.61.) From the end of the takeoff

distance, climb data will be used for the

remainder of takeoff path planning. The

rate-of-climb requirements at 200 and

1,000 feet above the takeoff surface will

remain the same but will be clearly

identified as separate requirements and

not a part of a continued takeoff

maneuver. Climb gradients were also

included in the proposal but, as

previously discussed, are not adopted.

This section is adopted with changes as

discussed.

New 14 CFR 29.61 Takeoff Distance:

Category A

Notice 90–1 proposed to add a new

section to define more clearly the

parameters to be used in determining

takeoff distance. No comments were

received on this proposal. However, in

view of the previous discussion of

elevated heliports and the changes to

§ 29.60, a second paragraph is added to

more clearly define takeoff distances.

Also, as discussed for the new § 29.59,

a requirement for considering the pilot

recognition interval following engine

failure is recognized in the new § 29.61.

The addition of § 29.61(b) states

explicitly that the takeoff distance for

elevated heliports is defined the same as

that for nonelevated heliports except

that there is no requirement that the

rotorcraft remain at least 35 feet above

the takeoff surface. This provision

harmonizes Title 14 and the JAR.

Section 29.61(b) relieves applicants

from the requirement to attain and

maintain at least 35 fee of altitude when

determining the takeoff distance from an

elevated heliport. Thus, the takeoff

distance will be shorter for rotorcraft

that take off from an elevated heliport.

Thus, the takeoff distance will be

shorter for rotorcraft that take off from

an elevated heliport that the distance

needed to reach 35 feet above the takeoff

surface as required by § 29.61(a) for

rotorcraft that take off from a

nonelevated heliport. This reduction in

takeoff distance will result from an

exchange of the inherent altitude of the

elevated heliport for airspeed and

subsequently rate of climb. The FAA

has determined that this relieving

provision will neither increase the

economic burden on any applicant nor

increase the scope of this rule.

Therefore, the proposal is adopted with

the noted changes.

New 14 CFR 29.62 Rejected Takeoff:

Category A

Notice 90–1 proposed to separate the

text of the rejected takeoff criteria from

the takeoff path section and impose the

restriction for the use of only primary

controls while airborne. No comments

were received; therefore, the proposal is

adopted with the change of CDP to TDP,

the change of ‘‘takeoff decision’’ to

‘‘engine failure,’’ and the addition of

‘‘the rotorcraft continuing to takeoff

decision point,’’ as explained in the

discussion of new § 29.55.

New 14 CFR 29.64 Climb: General

This new section relocates and

clarifies the general climb requirements.

No comments were received; therefore,

the proposal is adopted without change.

14 CFR 29.65 Climb: All Engines

Operating

Notice 90–1 proposed to add a general

requirement to determine Category a

rotorcraft climb performance. Currently

Category A rotorcraft climb performance

is required only when VNE (neverexceed speed) is less than best climb

speed (VY) at sea level. No comments

were received; therefore, the proposal is

adopted without change.

14 CFR 29.67 Climb: One-engineInoperative

Notice 90–1 proposed to include the

takeoff climb gradients as a part of the

general climb requirement, as well as

the OEI climb requirements to be met at

200 and 1,000 feet above the takeoff

surface.

Commenters recommend that the

climb gradient requirements be

removed. The FAA agrees because data

submitted by commenters indicate that

adopting these gradients would result in

an unanticipated decrease in payload.

Therefore, the proposed climb gradient

requirements are not adopted. However,

the rate of climb requirements are

adopted as proposed. Also, various

clarifying word changes have been made

including adding the words ‘‘climb

following’’ before ‘‘takeoff’’ in paragraph

(a)(2)(ii) to clarify that the unfavorable

center of gravity applies to the climb

following takeoff. The proposal is

adopted with the noted changes.

14 CFR 29.75 Landing: General

Notice 90–1 proposed to revise the

general landing requirements to separate

specific requirements and to provide

references to those specific landing

requirement sections. No comments

were received; therefore, the proposal is

adopted without change.

14 CFR 29.77 Landing Decision Point

Notice 90–1 proposed to add the new

requirement for designation of a landing

decision point (LDP), which has been an

industry practice although not required

in all recent Category A certifications.

No comments were received; therefore,

the proposal is adopted without change

except for clarifying that, in accordance

with the discussion for § 29.55, pilot

recognition time must be considered.

14 CFR 29.79 Landing: Category A

Notice 90–1 proposed to establish the

Category A landing requirements as a

separate section with only minor

revision from the present requirements.

One commenter discusses studies and

computer predictions for approaches

and landings at elevated heliports but

does not propose any changes. Since no

changes were recommended, and the

FAA does not see a need for any

changes based on the commenters’

discussion, the proposal is adopted

without change.

New 14 CFR 29.81 Landing Distance:

Category A

Notice 90–1 proposed a new section

to require landing distances to be

determined from specific heights. One

commenter suggests that the proposed

flight profile between LDP and

touchdown using an elevated heliport is

unduly restrictive. This comment was

based on the commenter’s concern that

the proposal would require

consideration of a 25-foot high screen at

the approach edge of the elevated

heliport. The FAA notes that this is not

the intent of this section. The proposed

horizontal landing distance determined

from a point 25 feet higher than the

elevated heliport need not be contained

within the heliport landing surface.

‘‘Pinnacle’’ has been changed to

‘‘elevated heliport’’ in accordance with

previous discussions. Therefore, the

proposal is adopted with the change as

noted.

New 14 CFR 29.83 Landing: Category B

Notice 90–1 proposed a new § 29.83

that included moving the Category B

landing requirement presently in

§ 29.75(c) into this new section and

required landing distances to be

determined power-on rather than

power-off. One commenter suggests
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 21897

deleting the requirement to avoid the

unsafe area of the height-velocity (HV)

envelope since Category B rotorcraft

with nine or fewer passengers and less

than 20,000 pounds do not have the HV

envelope as a limitation and may transit

the unsafe area of the HV envelope

during landing. The FAA disagrees.

While the commenter is correct about

the HV envelope not being a limitation

for Category B rotorcraft with nine or

fewer passengers, the FAA cannot agree

with presenting data that include

normal operations within the unsafe

area of the HV envelope. Certain

operations (e.g., external loads and hoist

work) are not necessarily limited by the

type certification HV envelope;

however, the operator still should be

aware that the operations do not involve

normal procedures, and the operator

should evaluate the risk in accordance

with the applicable regulations (e.g.,

part 133). Therefore, the proposal is

adopted without change.

New 14 CFR 29.85 Balked Landing:

Category A (Old § 29.77)

Notice 90–1 proposed to redesignate

present § 29.77 as a new § 29.85, to

clarify the relationship between the

landing decision point and balked

landing, and to remove the prohibition

against descending below 35 feet above

the landing surface. The proposal only

specified that the rotorcraft ‘‘not touch

down’’ during descent. One commenter

proposes that some minimum height be

required. As previously discussed under

§ 29.59, the FAA agrees; however,

Notice 90–1 proposed to allow the

rotorcraft to descend below the current

35-foot height as long as it does not

touch down. Therefore, the FAA issued

Notice 90–1A to include the 15-foot

minimum descent height. Three

commenters to Notice 90–1A fully

agreed with the proposed changes. One

commenter agreed provided the working

for § 29.85(c) read identically to the

wording of Notice 90–1. However, it

was necessary to amend the wording in

proposed paragraph (c) to add the

minimum descent height restriction

requirements. Otherwise, the wording is

identical. Also, as previously discussed

the term ‘‘elevated’’ will be used rather

than ‘‘pinnacle.’’ Therefore, the

proposal is adopted by adding the 15-

foot minimum descent height and the

amended wording to paragraph (c) and

by adding the phrase ‘‘failed and failure

recognized’’ to paragraph (b) to specify

that the time interval for pilot

recognition of engine failure must be

considered as discussed in § 29.55.

New 14 CFR 29.87 Height-velocity

Envelope (Old § 29.79)

Notice 90–1 proposed to redesignate

§ 29.79 as a new § 29.87 and to revise

the engine power conditions to be used.

No comments were received; therefore,

the proposal is adopted with only

editorial changes.

14 CFR 29.1323 Airspeed Indicating

System

Notice 90–1 proposed to change the

term ‘‘height-speed’’ to ‘‘heightvelocity’’ to agree with other changes in

the proposal. No comments were

received; therefore, the proposal is

adopted without change.

14 CFR 29.1587 Performance

Information

Notice 90–1 proposed to change this

section to conform to other changes in

the proposal. One commenter suggests

requiring, as performance information,

the steady gradient of climb for each

weight, altitude, and temperature for

which takeoff data are scheduled for the

two conditions between the end of the

takeoff and at 1,000 feet above the

takeoff surface. The FAA does not agree.

This would require a significant

increase in the number of flight tests for

compilation of data and for FAA

verification of this data, with resulting

significant adverse economic impact

and no perceived safety benefits. As

discussed with respect to the new

§ 29.49, the requirement to provide OGE

performance data, including the

maximum safe wind for the data

presented, is added to the Category A

requirements in § 29.1587(a)(6). Also,

§ 29.1587(b)(8) is revised to reflect that

OGE performance data, including

maximum safe wind for the data

presented, is no longer optional. Even

though the new paragraph (a)(6) and the

revised paragraph (b)(8) were not

proposed, they only require the

presentation in the Rotorcraft Flight

Manual of the new OGE performance

data, including the maximum wind for

the data presented. The collection of the

data is now required by the new § 29.49.

New paragraph (a)(6) and revised

paragraph (b)(8) state explicitly what

would otherwise be required during the

certification process to demonstrate

compliance with the new required

§ 29.49. In addition to clarifying

§ 29.49(c), the new paragraph (a)(6) for

Category A rotorcraft and the revised

paragraph (b)(8) for Category B rotorcraft

have identical provisions and

additionally harmonize the FAR and the

JAR. Based on these factors, the minimal

burden placed on manufacturers of

presenting the data that they are

required to develop, and the remote

likelihood of an adverse comment, it is

unnecessary to solicit prior public

comment on these nonsubstantive

changes. Therefore, the proposal is

adopted with the noted changes.

Regulatory Evaluation Summary

Changes to federal regulations must

undergo several economic analyses.

First, Executive Order 12866 directs

Federal agencies to promulgate new

regulations or modify existing

regulations only if the potential benefits

to society outweigh the potential costs.

Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act

of 1980 requires agencies to analyze the

economic impact of regulatory changes

on small entities. Finally, the Office of

Management and Budget directs

agencies to assess the effects of

regulatory changes on international

trade. In conducting these assessments,

the FAA has determined that this rule:

(1) Will generate benefits exceeding its

costs and is not ‘‘significant’’ as defined

in Executive Order 12866; (2) is not

‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s

Policies and Procedures; (3) will not

have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities;

and (4) will not impact international

trade. These analyses, available in the

docket, are summarized below.

Cost/Benefit Analysis

The rule includes 31 changes to 21

sections of part 29. Twenty eight of the

changes are either editorial in nature or

update the regulations to correspond

with current technology. Three changes,

as discussed below, were singled out for

study because they are more substantive

in terms of cost and/or benefit impact.

The FAA has determined that these

requirements will have no or negligible

economic impacts on manufacturers and

operators.

Section 29.49(b)—Performance at

Minimum Operating Speed (Category B

Hover Performance). This rule

renumbers § 29.73 to 29.49, deletes

paragraph (b)(2), and removes the

minimum hover performance

requirement for Category B helicopters

(but still requires that hover

performance data be developed and

provided by the manufacturer). There

will be no cost impact resulting from

this change, since test requirements are

unchanged and design changes are not

required. Although the same amount of

hover performance data will still be

required from manufacturers, operators

will benefit by being able to capitalize

on a small increase in gross weight and

payload.

Section 29.49(c)—Performance at

Minimum Operating Speed (Out-of-
21898 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

Ground Effect Hover Performance). The

rule will require that manufacturers

provide out-of-ground effect (OGE)

hover ceiling data to operators.

Manufacturers have historically

provided this information on a

voluntary basis. Industry sources

estimate that requiring OGE hover data

will add, at most, an additional 3 to 5

flight test hours. At a cost of $24,800 per

flight test hour, this represents an

additional cost to manufacturers of

$74,400 to $124,000 (in 1994 dollars)

per certification.

OGE hover performance data is

needed by operators that conduct

external lift operations. If an operator

were to conduct external lift operations

without OGE hover data, the operator

might pick up excessively heavy loads.

While a single excessive load would not

necessarily lead to an accident, it could

create excessive stress on the dynamic

components of the helicopter that could

eventually lead to fatigue failure of a

critical component and, subsequently,

an accident. The expected benefit of

averting a single accident entailing just

one serious injury and/or moderate

damage to the helicopter would easily

exceed the upper-bound certification

cost of $124,000.

Other advantages of requiring that

manufacturers provide OGE hover data

are that: (1) Operators will no longer be

concerned that manufacturers might

arbitrarily stop providing the data, (2)

operators may feel more confident about

the data because the FAA would be

approving it, and (3) the FAA can assure

uniformity in the presentation of data

between manufacturers.

Section 29.83—Landing: Category B.

The rule will require that approach and

landing tests for Category B rotorcraft be

made with power on rather than with

engine power off. This is a more normal

flight profile. This change will benefit

pilots by providing more useful data in

the flight manual for flight planning

purposes since pilots normally plan for

power-on landings. This will be

particularly useful if a rotorcraft is

operating at or near maximum gross

weight in or around unimproved

landing areas where landing distances

are more critical. This will also increase

the safety of test pilots since they will

be required to perform fewer power-off

tests. There are no or negligible

additional costs associated with this

change.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980

(RFA) was enacted by Congress to

ensure that small entities are not

unnecessarily and disproportionately

burdened by government regulations.

The RFA requires a Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis if a proposed or

final rule would have a significant

economic impact, either detrimental or

beneficial, on a substantial number of

small entities. FAA Order 2100.14A,

Regulatory Flexibility Criteria and

Guidance, prescribes standards for

complying with RFA review

requirements in FAA rulemaking

actions. The Order defines ‘‘small

entities’’ in terms of size thresholds,

‘‘significant economic impact’’ in terms

of annualized cost threshold, and

‘‘substantial number’’ as a number

which is not less than eleven and which

is more than one-third of the small

entities subject to the proposed or final

rule.

The rule will affect manufacturers and

operators of future type-certificated

transport category rotorcraft. For

manufacturers, Order 2100.14A

specifies a size threshold for

classification as a small entity as 75 or

fewer employees. Since no part 29

rotorcraft manufacturer has 75 or fewer

employees, the rule will not have

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small

manufacturers. For operators, the

benefits of increased payloads would

probably not exceed the annualized

thresholds specified in the Order;

consequently, the rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small operators.

International Trade Impact

The rule will have little or no impact

on trade for either U.S. firms doing

business in foreign markets or foreign

firms doing business in the United

States.

Federalism Implications

The regulations adopted herein will

not have substantial direct effects on the

States, on the relationship between the

national government and the States, or

on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government. Therefore, in

accordance with Executive Order 12612,

it is determined that these amendments

do not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation

of a Federalism Assessment.

Conclusion

For the reasons discussed in the

preamble, and based on the findings in

the Regulatory Flexibility Determination

and the International Trade Impact

Analysis, the FAA has determined that

this regulation is not a significant

regulatory action under Executive Order

12866. In addition, the FAA certifies

that these changes will not have a

significant economic impact, positive or

negative, on a substantial number of

small entities under the criteria of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act. All changes

are found to have negligible or no cost

impacts. Small entities are not affected

because transport rotorcraft are

manufactured by large entities, and

trade is not affected since foreign

manufacturers also must comply with

the requirements of part 29. This

proposal is considered to be

nonsignificant under DOT Regulatory

Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034,

February 26, 1979). A regulatory

evaluation of the changes, including a

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

and International Trade Impact

Analysis, has been placed in the docket.

A copy may be obtained by contacting

the person identified under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT.’’

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 29

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Rotorcraft, Safety.

The Amendment

In consideration of the foregoing, the

Federal Aviation Administration

amends part 29 of Title 14, Code of

Federal Regulations (14 CFR part 29) as

follows:

PART 29—AIRWORTHINESS

STANDARDS: TRANSPORT

CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT

1. The authority citation for part 29

continues to read as follows:

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

44702, 44704.

2. Section 29.1 is amended by revising

paragraph (e) to read as follows:

§ 29.1 Applicability.

* * * * *

(e) Rotorcraft with a maximum weight

of 20,000 pounds or less but with 10 or

more passengers seats may be type

certificated as category B rotorcraft

provided the Category A requirements

of §§ 29.67(a)(2), 29.87, 29.1517, and

subparts C, D, E, and F of this part are

met.

* * * * *

3. Section 29.73 is redesignated as

§ 29.49 and revised to read as follows:

§ 29.49 Performance at minimum

operating speed.

(a) For each Category A helicopter, the

hovering performance must be

determined over the ranges of weight,

altitude, and temperature for which

takeoff data are scheduled—

(1) With not more than takeoff power;

(2) With the landing gear extended;

and
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 21899

(3) At a height consistent with the

procedure used in establishing the

takeoff, climbout, and rejected takeoff

paths.

(b) For each Category B helicopter, the

hovering performance must be

determined over the ranges of weight,

altitude, and temperature for which

certificate is requested, with—

(1) Takeoff power;

(2) The landing gear extended; and

(3) The helicopter in ground effect at

a height consistent with normal takeoff

procedures.

(c) For each helicopter, the out-ofground effect hovering performance

must be determined over the ranges of

weight, altitude, and temperature for

which certification is requested with

takeoff power.

(d) For rotorcraft other than

helicopters, the steady rate of climb at

the minimum operating speed must be

determined over the ranges of weight,

altitude, and temperature for which

certification is requested with—

(1) Takeoff power; and

(2) The landing gear extended.

4. Section 29.51 is amended by

revising the introductory text of

paragraph (a) to read as follows:

§ 29.51 Takeoff data: general.

(a) The takeoff data required by

§§ 29.53, 29.55, 29.59, 29.60, 29.61,

29.62, 29.63, and 29.67 must be

determined—

* * * * *

5. Section 29.53 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 29.53 Takeoff: Category A.

The takeoff performance must be

determined and scheduled so that, if

one engine fails at any time the start of

takeoff, the rotocraft can—

(a) Return to, and stop safely on, the

takeoff area; or

(b) Continue the takeoff and climbout,

and attain a configuration and airspeed

allowing compliance with § 29.67(a)(2).

6. A new § 29.55 is added to read as

follows:

§ 29.55 Takeoff decision point (TDP):

Category A.

(a) The TDP is the first point from

which a continued takeoff capability is

assured under § 29.59 and is the last

point in the takeoff path from which a

rejected takeoff is assured within the

distance determined under §29.62.

(b) The TDP must be established in

relation to the takeoff path using no

more than two parameters; e.g., airspeed

and height, to designate the TDP.

(c) Determination of the TDP must

include the pilot recognition time

interval following failure of the critical

engine.

7. Section 29.59 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 29.59 Takeoff path: Category A.

(a) The takeoff path extends from the

point of commencement of the takeoff

procedure to a point at which the

rotorcraft is 1,000 feet above the takeoff

surface and compliance with

§ 29.67(a)(2) is shown. In addition—

(1) The takeoff path must remain clear

of the height-velocity envelope

established in accordance with § 29.87;

(2) The rotocraft must be flown to the

engine failure point; at which point, the

critical engine must be made

inoperative and remain inoperative for

the rest of the takeoff;

(3) After the critical engine is made

inoperative, the rotorcraft must continue

to the takeoff decision point, and then

attain VTOSS;

(4) Only primary controls may be

used while attaining VTOSS and while

establishing a positive rate of climb.

Secondary controls that are located on

the primary controls may be used after

a positive rate of climb and VTOSS are

established but in no case less than 3

seconds after the critical engine is made

inoperative; and

(5) After attaining VTOSS and a

positive a climb, the landing gear may

be retracted.

(b) During the takeoff path

determination made in accordance with

paragraph (a) of this section and after

attaining VTOSS and a positive rate of

climb, the climb must be continued at

a speed as close as practicable to, but

not less than, VTOSS until the rotocraft

is 200 feet above the takeoff surface.

During this interval, the climb

performance must meet or exceed that

required by § 29.67(a)(1).

(c) From 200 feet above the takeoff

surface, the rotorcraft takeoff path must

be level or positive until a height 1,000

feet above the takeoff surface is attained

with not less than the rate of climb

required by § 29.67(a)(2). Any secondary

or auxiliary control may be used after

attaining 200 feet above the takeoff

surface.

(d) Takeoff distance will be

determined in accordance with § 29.61.

(e) During the continued takeoff, the

rotorcraft shall not descend below 15

feet above the takeoff surface when the

takeoff decision point is above 15 feet.

8. A new § 29.60 is added to read as

follows:

§ 29.60 Elevated heliport takeoff path:

Category A.

(a) The elevated heliport takeoff path

extends from the point of

commencement of the takeoff procedure

to a point in the takeoff path at which

the rotorcraft is 1,000 feet above the

takeoff surface and compliance with

§ 29.67(a)(2) is shown. In addition—

(1) The requirements of § 29.59(a)

must be met;

(2) While attaining VTOSS and a

positive rate of climb, the rotocraft may

descend below the level of the takeoff

surface if, in so doing and when clearing

the elevated heliport edge, every part of

the rotocraft clears all obstacles by at

least 15 feet;

(3) The vertical magnitude of any

descent below the takeoff surface must

be determined; and

(4) After attaining VTOSS and a

positive rate of climb, the landing gear

may be retracted.

(b) The scheduled takeoff weight must

be such that the climb requirements of

§ 29.67 (a)(1) and (a)(2) will be met.

(c) Takeoff distance will be

determined in accordance with § 29.61.

9. A new § 29.61 is added to read as

follows:

§ 29.61 Takeoff distance: Category A.

(a) The normal takeoff distance is the

horizontal distance along the takeoff

path from the start of the takeoff to the

point at which the rotorcraft attains and

remains at least 35 feet above the takeoff

surface, attains and maintains a speed of

at least VTOSS, and establishes a positive

rate of climb, assuming the critical

engine failure occurs at the engine

failure point prior to the takeoff

decision point.

(b) For elevated heliports, the takeoff

distance is the horizontal distance along

the takeoff path from the start of the

takeoff to the point at which the

rotorcraft attains and maintains a speed

of at least VTOSS and establishes a

positive rate of climb, assuming the

critical engine failure occurs at the

engine failure point prior to the takeoff

decision point.

10. A new § 29.62 is added to read as

follows:

§ 29.62 Rejected takeoff: Category A.

The rejected takeoff distance and

procedures for each condition where

takeoff is approved will be established

with—

(a) The takeoff path requirements of

§§ 29.59 and 29.60 being used up to the

engine failure point, the rotorcraft

continuing to takeoff decision point,

and the rotorcraft landed and brought to

a stop on the takeoff surface;

(b) The remaining engines operating

within approved limits;

(c) The landing gear remaining

extended throughout the entire rejected

takeoff; and

(d) The use of only the primary

controls until the rotorcraft is on the
21900 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

ground. Secondary controls located on

the primary control may not be used

until the rotorcraft is on the ground.

Means other than wheel brakes may be

used to stop the rotorcraft if the means

are safe and reliable and consistent

results can be expected under normal

operating conditions.

11. A new § 29.64 is added to read as

follows:

§ 29.64 Climb: general.

Compliance with the requirements of

§§ 29.65 and 29.67 must be shown at

each weight, altitude, and temperature

within the operational limits established

for the rotorcraft and with the most

unfavorable center of gravity for each

configuration. Cowl flaps, or other

means of controlling the engine-cooling

air supply, will be in the position that

provides adequate cooling at the

temperatures and altitudes for which

certification is requested.

12. Section 29.65 is amended by

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows

and by removing paragraph (c):

§ 29.65 Climb: all engines operating.

(a) The steady rate of climb must be

determined—

(1) With maximum continuous power;

(2) With the landing gear retracted;

and

(3) A Vy for standard sea level

conditions and at speeds selected by the

applicant for other conditions.

* * * * *

13. Section 29.67 is revised to read as

follows:

§ Climb: one-engine-inoperative (OEI).

(a) For Category A rotorcraft, in the

critical takeoff configuration existing

along the takeoff path, the following

apply:

(1) The steady rate of climb without

ground effect, 200 feet above the takeoff

surface, must be at least 100 feet per

minute for each weight, altitude, and

temperature for which takeoff data are

to be scheduled with—

(i) The critical engine inoperative and

the remaining engines within approved

operating limitations, except that for

rotorcraft for which the use of 30-

second/2-minute OEI power is

requested, only the 2-minute OEI power

may be used in showing compliance

with this paragraph;

(ii) The landing gear extended; and

(iii) The takeoff safety speed selected

by the applicant.

(2) The steady rate of climb without

ground effect at 1,000 feet above the

takeoff surface must be at least 150 feet

per minute for each weight altitude, and

temperature for which takeoff data are

to be scheduled with—

(i) The critical engine inoperative and

the remaining engines at maximum

continuous power including OEI

maximum continuous power, if

approved, or at 30-minute power for

rotorcraft for which certification for use

of 30-minute power is requested;

(ii) The most unfavorable center of

gravity for climb following takeoff;

(iii) The landing gear retracted; and

(iv) The speed selected by the

applicant.

(3) The steady rate of climb (or

descent) in feet per minute, at each

altitude and temperature at which the

rotocraft is expected to operate and at

any weight within the range of weights

for which certification is requested,

must be determined with—

(i) The critical engine inoperative and

the remaining engines at maximum

continuous power including OEI

maximum continuous power, if

approved, and at 30-minute power for

rotorcraft for which certification for the

use of 30-minute power is requested;

(ii) The landing gear retracted; and

(iii) The speed selected by the

applicant.

(b) For multiengine Category B

rotorcraft meeting the Category A engine

isolation requirements, the steady rate

of climb (or descent) must be

determined at the speed for best rate of

climb (or minimum rate of descent) at

each altitude, temperature, and weight

at which the rotorcraft is expected to

operate, with the critical engine

inoperative and the remaining engines

at maximum continuous power

including OEI maximum continuous

power, if approved, and at 30-minute

power for rotorcraft for which

certification for the use of 30-minute

power is requested.

14. Section 29.75 is revised as

follows:

§ 29.75 Landing: general.

(a) For each rotorcraft—

(1) The corrected landing data must

be determined for a smooth, dry, hard,

and level surface;

(2) The approach and landing must

not require exceptional piloting skill or

exceptionally favorable conditions; and

(3) The landing must be made without

excessive vertical acceleration or

tendency to bounce, nose over, ground

loop, porpoise, or water loop.

(b) The landing data required by

§§ 29.77, 29.79, 29.81, 29.83, and 29.85

must be determined—

(1) At each weight, altitude, and

temperature for which landing data are

approved;

(2) With each operating engine within

approved operating limitations; and

(3) With the most unfavorable center

of gravity.

15. Section 29.77 is redesignated as

§ 29.85 and a new § 29.77 is added to

read as follows:

§ 29.77 Landing decision point: Category

A.

The landing decision point (LDP)

must be established at not less than the

last point in the approach and landing

path at which a balked landing can be

accomplished under § 29.85 with the

critical engine failed or failing and with

the engine failure recognized by the

pilot.

16. Section 29.79 is redesignated as

§ 29.87 and a new § 29.79 is added to

read as follows:

§ 29.79 Landing: Category A.

(a) For Category A rotorcraft—

(1) The landing performance must be

determined and scheduled so that if the

critical engine fails at any point in the

approach path, the rotorcraft can either

land and stop safely or climb out and

attain a rotorcraft configuration and

speed allowing compliance with the

climb requirement of § 29.67(a)(2);

(2) The approach and landing paths

must be established with the critical

engine inoperative so that the transition

between each stage can be made

smoothly and safely;

(3) The approach and landing speeds

must be selected by the applicant and

must be appropriate to the type of

rotorcraft; and

(4) The approach and landing path

must be established to avoid the critical

areas of the height-velocity envelope

determined in accordance with § 29.87.

(b) It must be possible to make a safe

landing on a prepared landing surface

after complete power failure occurring

during normal cruise.

17. A new § 29.81 is added to read as

follows:

§ 29.81 Landing distance: Category A

The horizontal distance required to

land and come to a complete stop (or to

a speed of approximately 3 knots for

water landings) from a point 50 feet

above the landing surface (25 feet for

Category A elevated heliport landing

operations) must be determined from

the approach and landing paths

established in accordance with § 29.79.

18. A new § 29.83 is added to read as

follows:

§ 29.83 Landing: Category B.

(a) For each Category B rotorcraft, the

horizontal distance required to land and

come to a complete stop (or to a speed

of approximately 3 knots for water

landings) from a point 50 feet above the

landing surface must be determined

with—
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 21901

(1) Speeds appropriate to the type of

rotocraft and chosen by the applicant to

avoid the critical areas of the heightvelocity envelope established under

§ 29.87; and

(2) The approach and landing made

with power on and within approved

limits.

(b) Each multiengined Category B

rotorcraft that meets the powerplant

installation requirements for Category A

must meet the requirements of—

(1) Sections 29.79 and 29.81; or

(2) Paragraph (a) of this section.

(c) It must be possible to make a safe

landing on a prepared landing surface if

complete power failure occurs during

normal cruise.

19. Redesignated § 29.85 is revised to

read as follows:

§ 29.85 Balked landing: Category A.

For Category A rotocraft, the balked

landing path must be established so

that—

(a) With the critical engine

inoperative, the transition from each

stage of the maneuver to the next stage

can be made smoothly and safely;

(b) With the critical engine failed and

the failure recognized at the landing

decision point on the approach path

selected by the applicant, a safe

climbout can be made at speeds

allowing compliance with the climb

requirements of § 29.67(a) (1) and (2);

and

(c) The rotocraft does not descend

below 15 feet above the landing surface.

For elevated heliport operations,

descent may be below the level of the

landing surface provided the deck edge

clearance of § 29.60 is maintained and

the descent distance below the landing

surface is determined.

20. Redesignated § 29.87 is revised to

read as follows:

§ 29.87 Height-velocity envelope.

(a) If there is any combination of

height and forward velocity (including

hover) under which a safe landing

cannot be made after failure of the

critical engine and with the remaining

engines (where applicable) operating

within approved limits, a heightvelocity envelope must be established

for—

(1) All combinations of pressure

altitude and ambient temperature for

which takeoff and landing are approved;

and

(2) Wright from the maximum weight

(at sea level) to the highest weight

approved for takeoff and landing at each

altitude. For helicopters, this weight

need not exceed the highest weight

allowing hovering out-of-ground effect

at each altitude.

(b) For single-engine or multiengine

rotorcraft that do not meet the Category

A engine isolation requirements, the

height-velocity envelope for complete

power failure must be established.

Section 29.1323 is amended by revising

paragraph (b)(2)(ii) to read as follows:

§ 29.1323 Airspeed indicating system.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(2) * * *

(ii) Avoidance of the critical areas of

the height-velocity envelope as

established under § 29.87.

* * * * *

22. Section 29.1587 is amended by

revising (a)(4), (a)(5), (b)(3) and (b)(8)

and adding a new (a)(6) to read as

follows:

§ 29.1587 Performance information.

* * * * *

(a) * * *

(4) The rejected takeoff distance

determined under § 29.62 and the

takeoff distance determined under

§ 29.61 or § 29.63;

(5) The landing data determined

under § 29.81 or § 29.83; and

(6) Out-of-ground effect hover

performance determined under § 29.49

and the maximum safe wind

demonstrated under the ambient

conditions for data presented.

(b) * * *

(3) The landing distance, appropriate

airspeed, and type of landing surface,

together with all pertinent information

that might affect this distance, including

the effects of weight, altitude, and

temperature;

* * * * *

(8) Out-of-ground effect hover

performance determined under § 29.49

and the maximum safe wind

demonstrated under the ambient

conditions for data presented; and

* * * * *

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

David R. Hinson,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96–11494 Filed 5–9–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M