Document ID: FAA-2011-0314-0001
Agency: faa
Document Type: Rule
Title: New Task Assignments: Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee; Transport Airplane and Engine Issues
Posted Date: 2011-03-28T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 59 (Monday, March 28, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17183-17185]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7180]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee; Transport Airplane and 
Engine Issues--New Task

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of new task assignment for the Aviation Rulemaking 
Advisory Committee (ARAC).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA assigned ARAC a new task to consider whether changes 
to part 25 are necessary to address rudder pedal sensitivity and rudder 
reversals. This notice is to inform the public of this ARAC activity.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert C. Jones, Propulsion/Mechanical 
Systems Branch, ANM-112, Transport Airplane Directorate, Federal 
Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 
98057, telephone (425) 227-1234, facsimile (425) 227-1149; e-mail 
robert.c.jones@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA established the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee 
(ARAC) to provide advice and recommendations to the FAA Administrator 
on the FAA's rulemaking activities with respect to aviation-related 
issues. This includes obtaining advice and recommendations on the FAA's 
commitments to harmonize Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 
CFR), with its partners in Europe, Canada, and Brazil; in this 
instance, on rudder pedal sensitivity and rudder reversals. The 
committee will address the task under the ARAC's Transport Airplane and 
Engine Issues, and will reestablish the Flight Controls Harmonization 
Working Group, to assist in analysis of this task.
    Recent research shows that regardless of training, pilots make 
inadvertent and erroneous rudder inputs, some of which have resulted in 
pedal reversals. Accident and incident data show airplanes that have 
experienced pedal reversals that surpassed the airplane's structural 
limit load and sometimes ultimate load. One case resulted in loss of 
the vertical fin, the airplane and 265 lives.
    On November 12, 2001, an Airbus A300-600 crashed at Belle Harbor on 
climb-out resulting in 265 deaths and an airplane hull loss. The 
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) found ``that the probable 
cause of this accident was the in-flight separation of the vertical 
stabilizer as a result of the loads beyond ultimate design that were 
created by the first officer's unnecessary and excessive rudder pedal 
inputs. Contributing to these rudder pedal inputs were characteristics 
of the Airbus A300-600 rudder system design and elements of the 
American Airlines Advanced Aircraft Maneuvering Program.''
    In two additional events, commonly known as the Miami Flight 903 
event and the Interflug event, pilot commanded pedal reversals caused 
A300-600/A310 fins to experience loads greater than their ultimate load 
level. Both airplanes survived because they possessed greater strength 
than required by the current standards.
    In January 2008, an Airbus 319 encountered a wake vortex. The pilot 
responded with several pedal reversals. Analysis shows that this caused 
a fin load exceeding limit load by approximately 29 percent. The pilot 
eventually stabilized the airplane and safely landed. The 
Transportation Safety Board (TSB) Canada investigated this event, with 
the NTSB providing accredited representatives.
    On May 27, 2005, a de Havilland DHC-8-100 (Dash 8) airplane 
(registration C-GZKH, serial number 117) was on a passenger revenue 
flight from St. John's to Deer Lake, Newfoundland, with 36 passengers 
and 3 crew on board. During the climb-out from St. John's, the 
indicated airspeed gradually decreased to the point that the airplane 
entered an aerodynamic stall. The airplane descended rapidly, out of 
control, losing 4200 feet before recovery was effected approximately 40 
seconds later. The incident occurred during daylight hours in 
instrument meteorological conditions. There were no injuries and the 
airplane was not damaged. During this event, the pilot commanded a 
pedal reversal.
    The FAA sponsored studies \1\ to understand parameters that affect 
the way pilots use the rudder. These studies included a survey of 
transport pilots from all over the world and real time piloted flight 
simulation. One of the studies found that many experienced pilots 
misused the rudder after wake vortex encounters. A follow-on study 
showed that the key parameter leading to excessive pedal use is short 
pedal travel. The analysis of a survey of large airplane pilots found:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 1. DOT/FAA/AM-10/14, The Rudder Survey Technical Report. For 
a copy, call Sarah Peterson at (405) 954-6840.
    2. DOT/FAA/AR-09-5, Pilot Simulations Study to Develop Transport 
Aircraft Rudder Control System Requirements Phase 1 Simulator Motion 
System Requirements and Initial Results, Authors Hoh, Desrochers, 
Niscoll, 18 April 2007.
    Note: HAI is about to release another report that has additional 
and more important results (essentially that pilot tendency to over-
control correlates very strongly with pedal travel).
    3. DOT/FAA/AR-10/17, Piloted Simulation Study to Develop 
Transport Aircraft Rudder Control System Requirements Phase 2 
Develop Criteria for Rudder Overcontrol, Authors Hoh, Desrochers, 
Niscoll.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. Pilots use the rudder more than previously thought and often in 
ways

[[Page 17184]]

not recommended by the design approval holders (DAHs).
    2. Pilots make erroneous pedal inputs, and some erroneous pedal 
inputs include rudder reversals.
    3. After years of training, many pilots are not aware that they 
should not make pedal reversals, even below design maneuvering speed 
(VA). Note: Over the past 4 years, training and Airplane 
Flight Manual (AFM) changes have directed the pilot not to make cyclic 
control inputs, but events occurred despite this effort.
    4. Pilots in airplane upset situations (e.g., wake vortex 
encounters) may revert to prior training and make excessive pedal 
inputs that they may then counter with pedal reversals.
    The current standards in part 25 address large pedal inputs at 
airspeeds up to the design dive airspeed (VD). This ensures 
safe structural airplane characteristics throughout the flight envelope 
from single full rudder inputs. However, the standard does not address 
the loads imposed by rudder reversals. Additionally, sections of part 
25 require that controls operate with ease and smoothness appropriate 
to their function. However, these standards do not address specific 
control system parameters such as inceptor travel breakout force or 
force gradient.
    The FAA is partially addressing this condition for new designs by 
requiring under Sec.  25.601 that applicants for new type certificates 
show that the design is capable of continued safe flight and landing 
after experiencing rudder pedal reversals. The applicants have been 
able to show compliance with this requirement by appropriate rudder 
controls. These control schemes have been incorporated through software 
and therefore add no weight or maintenance cost to the airplanes. 
However, such controls might only be capable of a limited number of 
pedal reversals before exceeding airframe ultimate loads, and part 25 
may need to address this situation.

The Task

    Excessive use of rudder, beyond its design capabilities, has been 
identified as a contributing factor in several incidents and accidents. 
The FAA is tasking ARAC to consider:
    1. the need to revise 14 CFR part 25, subpart C, to ensure airplane 
structural capability in the presence of rudder reversals and 
associated buildup of sideslip angles through a defined flight envelope 
(see question 1), or
    2. if other sections of the airworthiness standard may more 
appropriately address this concern, such as certain pedal 
characteristics that discourage pilots from making pedal reversals 
(reduce pedal sensitivity).
    If ARAC determines new requirements are necessary, it must 
recommend performance-based standards that allows manufacturers the 
flexibility to design airplanes to meet their needs while ensuring 
airplane safety. ARAC would also need to recommend methods of 
compliance (criteria), such as background simulation or piloted 
simulation, to support the rule change.
    In addition, ARAC must consider the need to revise 14 CFR parts 26, 
121, 125, 129, and 135, or to write airworthiness directives to address 
the safety concerns posed by rudder reversals in the existing transport 
airplane fleet. Finally, ARAC must recommend criteria that can be used 
to determine the need for retrofit.
    ARAC is expected to provide a report that addresses the following 
questions regarding new airplane designs, with rationale for their 
responses. Any disagreement should be documented, including the 
rationale from each party and the reasons for the disagreement.

Questions

    For New Transport Airplanes:
    1. Define what is meant by pilot misuse/use of rudder and rudder 
pedal sensitivity, and determine the appropriate flight envelope that 
should be considered.
    2. Consider what types of part 25 standards can be developed to 
prevent unintended or inappropriate rudder usage, or to ensure that 
unintended usage provides a level of safety commensurate with part 25. 
The working group should consider the following areas of the existing 
airworthiness standard:
    a. Loads.
    b. Maneuverability.
    c. System design.
    d. Control sensitivity.
    e. Warning.
    3. What is the best regulatory approach to address rudder usage? 
For example, is it better to assume certain inputs and provide 
mitigation to ensure safe flight (envelope protection), or to provide 
certain standards to ensure that the pilot will not make (inadvertent 
or inappropriate) inputs?
    4. What changes, if any, to part 25--including details for 
compliance demonstration and guidance--are recommended for new type 
certification applications to prevent unintended improper rudder usage? 
Some considerations include use of analysis, desktop or piloted 
simulation, or actual flight testing.
    5. Are there any regulations or guidance material that might 
conflict with the proposal?
    6. Does current technology exist to support implementation of new 
requirements?
    7. What are the effects and implications of any proposed change 
regarding commonly used system designs? For example, would a new 
standard cause adverse interaction with currently used fly-by-wire 
flight control systems, stability augmentation or auto-flight systems, 
or with current operations?
    8. Does the proposed solution present any issues relating to 
specific flight phases or environmental conditions? If so, what are 
they, and how should they be addressed?
    9. What recommended guidance material is needed?
    10. After reviewing airworthiness standard, safety, cost, benefit, 
and other relevant factors, including recent certification and fleet 
experience, are there any additional considerations that should be 
taken into account?
    11. Is coordination necessary with other harmonization working 
groups (e.g., Human Factors, Flight Test)?
    For Existing Transport Airplanes:
    The report must address the following questions while considering 
existing transport airplane designs, with rationale for the responses. 
Any disagreements should be documented, including the rationale from 
each party and the reasons for the disagreement.
    1. What factors should be considered to determine if retrofit 
should be required?
    2. For airplanes that require retrofit per the criteria, what 
differences should be considered from the requirements developed for 
new transport airplanes?
    3. What are the effects and implications of any proposed retrofit 
standards and guidance for current system designs? For example, would 
the retrofit cause adverse interaction with currently used fly-by-wire 
flight control systems, stability augmentation or auto-flight systems, 
or with current operations?
    4. After reviewing airworthiness standards, safety, cost, benefit, 
and other relevant factors, including recent certification and fleet 
experience, are there any additional considerations that should be 
taken into account?
    5. If improvements are needed to ensure safe rudder usage, what is 
the recommended method to mandate retrofit? (Ad hoc airworthiness 
directives, part 26 rules, etc.) In responding, ARAC should address the 
factors set forth in ``FAA Policy Statement: Safety-A Shared

[[Page 17185]]

Responsibility-New Direction for Addressing Airworthiness Issues for 
Transport Airplanes'' (70 FR 40166, July 12, 2005), and the industry's 
ability to provide the necessary retrofit equipment that might be 
required.
    ARAC should provide information that could lead to requirements in 
rudder load conditions, and/or system design that can be satisfied with 
practical design approaches.
    The FAA will provide a copy of each DOT report mentioned in this 
tasking notice.
    Schedule: The tasks described above are to be accomplished within 
18 months of publication of this tasking notice in the Federal 
Register.

ARAC Acceptance of Task

    ARAC accepted the task and will assign it to the reestablished 
Flight Controls Harmonization Working Group, under Transport Airplane 
and Engine Issues. This working group will use task groups to assist in 
their activities. Nominees should have experience in the areas of 
flight test, flight controls, loads, or human factors. The working 
group serves as support to ARAC and assists in the analysis of assigned 
tasks. ARAC must review and approve the working group's 
recommendations. If ARAC accepts the working group's recommendations, 
it will forward them to the FAA.

Working Group Activity

    The Flight Controls Harmonization Working Group must comply with 
the procedures adopted by ARAC. As part of the procedures, the working 
group must:
    1. Recommend a work plan for completion of the task, including the 
rationale supporting such a plan, for consideration at the next ARAC 
meeting on Transport Airplane and Engine Issues held following 
publication of this notice.
    2. Give a detailed conceptual presentation of the proposed 
recommendations before proceeding with the work stated in item 3 below.
    3. Draft the appropriate documents and required analyses and/or any 
other related materials or documents.
    4. Provide a status report at each ARAC meeting held to consider 
Transport Airplane and Engine Issues.

Participation in the Working Group

    The Flight Controls Harmonization Working Group will be composed of 
technical experts having an interest in the assigned task. A working 
group member need not be a representative or a member of the full 
committee.
    If you have expertise in the subject matter and wish to become a 
member of the working group, write to the person listed under the 
caption FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT expressing that desire. 
Describe your interest in the task and state the expertise you would 
bring to the working group. We must receive all requests by April 25, 
2011. The assistant chair and the assistant executive director will 
review the requests and advise you whether or not your request is 
approved.
    If you are chosen for membership on the working group, you must 
represent your aviation community segment and actively participate in 
the working group by attending all meetings, and providing written 
comments when requested to do so. You must devote the resources 
necessary to support the working group in meeting any assigned 
deadlines. You must keep your management chain and those you may 
represent advised of working group activities and decisions to ensure 
that the proposed technical solutions don't conflict with your 
sponsoring organization's position when the subject being considered is 
presented to ARAC for approval. Once the working group has begun 
deliberations, members will not be added or substituted without the 
approval of the assistant chair, the assistant executive director and 
the working group chair.
    The Secretary of Transportation determined that the formation and 
use of ARAC is necessary and in the public interest in connection with 
the performance of duties imposed on the FAA by law.
    ARAC meetings are open to the public. Meetings of the Flight 
Controls Harmonization Working Group will not be open to the public, 
except to the extent individuals with an interest and expertise are 
selected to participate. The FAA will make no public announcement of 
working group meetings.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 23, 2011.
Pamela Hamilton-Powell,
Executive Director, Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 2011-7180 Filed 3-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P