Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2002/05/08/02-11493/powerplant-controls-on-transport-category-airplanes-general
Timestamp: 2017-10-16 22:20:11
Document Index: 353616155

Matched Legal Cases: ['§\u200925', 'art 25', 'art 25', 'art 25', 'art 25', '§\u200925', 'art 25', '§\u200925', '§\u200925', '§\u200925', '§\u200925', 'art 25', '§\u200925', '§\u200925', 'art 25', '§\u200925', 'art 25', '§\u200925', 'art 25', 'art 25', 'art 25']

Federal Register :: Powerplant Controls on Transport Category Airplanes, General
Powerplant Controls on Transport Category Airplanes, General
A Proposed Rule by the Federal Aviation Administration on 05/08/2002
Send your comments on or before July 8, 2002.
30820-30825 (6 pages)
Docket No. FAA-2002-12244
2120-AH65
What Comments Did ARAC Have Concerning the Proposed Action?
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/02-11493 https://www.federalregister.gov/d/02-11493
The Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes concerning design requirements for powerplant valves controlled from the flight deck. The proposed rule would clarify the requirements for a means to select the intended position of the valve, to indicate the selected position, and to indicate if the valve has not attained the selected position. Adopting this proposal would eliminate regulatory differences between the airworthiness standards of the U.S. and the Joint Aviation Requirements of Europe, without affecting current industry design practices.
Address your comments to Dockets Management System, U.S. Department of Transportation Dockets, Room Plaza 401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You must identify the docket number FAA-2002-12244 at the beginning of your comments, and you should send two copies of your comments. If you wish to receive confirmation that the FAA has received your comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. __.” We will date-stamp the postcard and mail it back to you.
You also may submit comments through the Internet to: http://dms.dot.gov. You may review the public docket containing comments to this proposed regulation in person in the Dockets Office, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Dockets office is on the plaza level of the NASSIF Building at the Department of Transportation at the above address. Also, you may review the public dockets on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov.
Michael McRae, FAA, Propulsion/Mechanical Systems Branch, ANM-112, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98055-4056; telephone 425-227-2123; facsimile 425-227-1320, e-mail mike.mcrae@faa.gov.
The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any Start Printed Page 30821recommended change, and include supporting data. We ask that you send us two copies of written comments.
After initiating the first steps towards harmonization, the FAA and JAA soon realized that traditional methods of rulemaking and accommodating different administrative procedures were neither sufficient nor adequate to make appreciable progress towards fulfilling the goal of harmonization. The FAA then identified the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) as an ideal vehicle for assisting in resolving harmonization issues, and, in 1992, the FAA tasked ARAC to undertake the entire harmonization effort.
The ARAC establishes working groups to develop recommendations for resolving specific airworthiness issues. Tasks assigned to working groups are published in the Federal Register. Although working group meetings are not generally open to the public, the FAA solicits participation in working groups from interested members of the public who possess knowledge or experience in the task areas. Working Start Printed Page 30822groups report directly to the ARAC, and the ARAC must accept a working group proposal before ARAC presents the proposal to the FAA as an advisory committee recommendation.
Under this program, the FAA provides ARAC with an opportunity to review, discuss, and comment on the FAA's draft NPRM. In the case of this rulemaking, ARAC recommended a number of changes to the NPRM. The FAA agrees with the intent of some of those recommendations, but we disagree with others. Those recommendations, and our reasons for disagreeing, are described below in the section entitled “What Comments Did ARAC Have Concerning the Proposed Action?”
This proposed regulation results from the recommendations of ARAC submitted under the FAA's Fast Track Harmonization Program. In this action, the FAA proposes to amend § 25.1141, concerning general design requirements for power plant controls. This action was designated a Category 1 project under the Fast Track program.
The intent of this standard is to mitigate the potential for flightcrews to select an inappropriate position for, or be unaware of the position of, powerplant valves that are controlled from the flight deck.
The current text of 14 CFR 25.1141(f) [amendment 25-72 (55 FR 29785, July 20, 1990)] is:
“(f) Powerplant valve controls located in the cockpit must have—
(2) For power-assisted valves, a means to indicate to the flight crew when the valve—
(ii) Is moving between the fully open and fully closed position.”
The current text of JAR-25.1141(f) (Change 15, October 2000) is:
(1) For manual valves, positive stops or in the case of fuel valves suitable index provisions, in the open and closed positions; and
(2) In the case of valves controlled from the cockpit other than by mechanical means, where the correct functioning of such a valve is essential for the safe operation of the aeroplane, a valve position indicator operated by a system which senses directly that the valve has attained the position selected, unless other indications in the cockpit give the flight crew a clear indication that the valve has moved to the selected position.
(See Advisory Circular Joint (ACJ) 25.1141(f).)”
The JAA also has issued ACJ 25.1141(f), which serves as interpretative material that supplements JAR 25.1141(f). The text of the ACJ is:
“A continuous indicator need not be provided.”
There are four differences between the two standards in paragraph (f)(2). These differences are:
1. To describe the applicable valves, part 25 uses the term “power-assisted.” The JAR uses the phrase “other than by mechanical means.”
2. The JAR uses the phrase “where the correct functioning of such a valve is essential for the safe operation of the aeroplane” to reduce the applicability to be more consistent with the requirements of JAR 25.1309(c) relating to indications. Part 25 does not use such a phrase.
3. For the basic indicating requirement, the JAR uses the phrase “a valve position indicator operated by a Start Printed Page 30823system which senses directly that the valve has attained the position selected.” Part 25 uses the phrase “a means to indicate to the flight crew when the valve is in the fully open or fully closed position, or is moving between the fully open and fully closed position.”
4. By including the phrase “unless other indications in the flight deck give the flightcrew a clear indication that the valve has moved to the selected position,” the JAR specifically acknowledges that a dedicated indication is not required. Part 25 does not.
The only significant differences in the means of compliance are those associated with the differences in the scope of the applicability of the standards.
The FAA proposes to revise the current standard to include the more stringent requirements of the parallel JAR. The text of the rule would be updated, however, so that it more clearly reflects the existing practices that have been found to achieve an acceptable level of safety. Specifically, the proposed revision would require that powerplant valve controls located in the flight deck must provide the crew with means to:
Select each intended position of the valve;
Indicate the selected position of the valve; and
Indicate when the valve has not responded as intended to the selected position or function.
As used in the proposed rule, the “means to indicate” can be:
Provided either by a dedicated “indicator” or through the inherent response of the airplane, system, or valve control;
Provided by either the presence or lack of indication; or
Provided either continuously or on an “as required” basis.
In any case, however, the means to indicate must be clearly evident to the crew.
As used in the proposed rule, the “means to indicate” must comply with all other relevant regulations such as §§ 25.1309(c), 25.1321, 25.1322, etc.
During its review of this proposed rule, ARAC suggested changes to certain parts of the proposed action. Those suggestions and the FAA's response are as follows:
Suggestion 1. The powerplant valve controls should provide the crew with means to “determine”—rather than “indicate”—the selected position of the valve and when the valve has not responded as intended to the selected position or function.
FAA Response to Suggestion 1: The FAA does not agree with this change in wording because such a change would change the purpose of the rule in a way that is not intended or desired, and would go “beyond the scope” of harmonizing this part 25 rule with that of the parallel JAR-25. The intent is for there to be a means that directly or inherently indicates to the flightcrew the position of the valve and any incorrect response of the valve. The intent is not for the flightcrew to have to deliberate and determine these things.
Suggestion 2. The requirement for the powerplant valve controls to provide a means to indicate when the valve has not responded as intended should be accomplished in accordance with the provisions of an upcoming revision to § 25.1322 (Warning, caution, and advisory lights).
FAA Response to Suggestion 2: The FAA agrees with the intent of this suggestion, but considers it inappropriate to (1) refer to rules in transition, and (2) single out one indication requirement (§ 25.1322) when there are other rules that are just as relevant, such as § 25.1321 (Instruments: Installations, Arrangements and visibility). As an alternative, we have added a clarification in the preamble to indicate that the “means to indicate” must necessarily comply with all other relevant regulations, such as §§ 25.1309(c), 25.1321, 25.1322, etc.
Suggestion 3. The ARAC questioned what was meant by the phrase “the means to indicate must be provided * * * through the inherent response of the airplane * * *” The ARAC asked if it meant, for example, when the stick force lightens because of inappropriate fuel transfer to give the airplane an aft center of gravity, or when an engine quits for lack of fuel.
FAA Response to Suggestion 3: The FAA intends for that phrase to potentially include such examples and any others that the applicant claims and the FAA Aircraft Certification Office can substantiate as effective.
The proposed standard continues to address the identified safety issue. It continues to ensure that flight crews will not select an inappropriate position for, or be unaware of the position of, powerplant valves that are controlled from the flight deck. The proposed standard also clarifies the current industry practices that have been found to achieve an acceptable level of safety.
The proposed standard specifically requires a means to indicate when the valve has not responded as intended to the selected position or function, while the current standard only implies this is a requirement for “manual valves.”
Since the proposed rule takes the more “stringent” parts of both part 25 and JAR-25, it may be viewed as increasing the current level of safety. However, the intent of the proposed standard is not to increase the level of safety, but to help standardize current design practices.
In effect, the proposed standard duplicates the current requirements for those applicants who certify their designs to both 14 CFR and the JAR. Since these standards are what have resulted in the existing practices, this “enveloped” standard should also be considered capable of achieving an acceptable level of safety.
One option considered was to delete § 25.1141(f) altogether and rely on § 25.1309(c). However, this would reduce the overall level of safety provided by part 25. Additionally, it would not fulfill the objectives of the FAA's tasking to harmonize standards.
Another option was to revise the text of § 25.1141(f) to state:
“(f) Powerplant valve controls located in the flight deck must have—
(2) For power-assisted valves, a valve position indicator operated by a system which senses directly that the valve has attained the position selected, unless other indications in the flight deck give the flight crew a clear indication that the valve has moved to the selected position.”
While this, like the proposal, represents an “enveloped” standard, it does not reflect the existing practices as clearly and effectively as the proposed standard. Consequently, additional Start Printed Page 30824interpretive and guidance material probably would be needed to make this somewhat dated and narrow iteration of the rule more relevant for modern designs.
The proposed standard would affect manufacturers of transport category airplanes and components. However, manufacturers are either already complying, or fully intend to comply with the more stringent standards as a means of obtaining joint certification.
With the change in the proposed standard, the FAA does not consider that additional advisory material is necessary.
The FAA has determined that this proposal would result in a cost-savings by a reduction in duplicative testing, and that it is not “a significant regulatory action” as defined in Executive Order 12866, nor “significant” as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures. Further, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, would reduce barriers to international trade, and would not impose an Unfunded Mandate on state, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector.
Currently, airplane manufacturers must satisfy both part 25 and the European JAR-25 standards to certificate transport category aircraft in both the United States and Europe. Meeting two sets of certification requirements raises the cost of developing a new transport category airplane often with no increase in safety. In the interest of fostering international trade, lowering the cost of aircraft development, and making the certification process more efficient, the FAA, JAA, and aircraft manufacturers have been working to create, to the maximum possible extent, a single set of certification requirements accepted in both the United States and Europe. As explained in detail previously, these efforts are referred to as harmonization.
This proposal would replace some requirements of existing § 25.1141(f) with the “more stringent” requirements in JAR 25.1141(f) . It also would revise the wording of the section to reflect common industry terminology. This proposed rule results from the FAA's acceptance of recommendations made by ARAC. We have concluded that, for the reasons previously discussed in the preamble, the adoption of the proposed requirements in 14 CFR part 25 is the most efficient way to harmonize these sections and, in so doing, the existing level of safety will be preserved.
There was consensus within the ARAC members, comprised of representatives of the affected industry, that the requirements of the proposed rule will not impose additional costs on U.S. manufacturers of part 25 airplanes. In fact, manufacturers are expected to receive cost-savings by a reduction in the FAA/JAA certification requirements for new airplanes. The cost-savings from this proposed rule would be a reduction in duplicative testing to generate data to demonstrate compliance with each standard. We have reviewed the cost analysis provided by industry through the ARAC process. Based on this analysis, we consider that a full regulatory evaluation is not necessary.
Second, all U.S. transport-aircraft category manufacturers exceed the Small Business Administration small-entity criteria of 1,500 employees for aircraft manufacturers. The current U.S. part 25 airplane manufacturers include: Boeing, Cessna Aircraft, Gulfstream Start Printed Page 30825Aerospace, Learjet (owned by Bombardier), Lockheed Martin, McDonnell Douglas (a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Boeing Company), Raytheon Aircraft, and Sabreliner Corporation.
Section 1205 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3213) requires the Administrator, when modifying regulations in 14 CFR in a manner affecting intrastate aviation in Alaska, to consider the extent to which Alaska is not served by transportation modes other than aviation, and to establish such regulatory distinctions as he or she considers appropriate. Because this proposed rule would apply to the certification of future designs of transport category airplanes and their subsequent operation, it could, if adopted, affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. The FAA, therefore, specifically requests comments on whether there is justification for applying the proposed rule differently to intrastate operations in Alaska.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, and 44704
2. Amend section 25.1141 by revising paragraph (f) to read as follows:
(f) Powerplant valve controls located in the flight deck must provide the flightcrew with means to:
(1) Select each intended position or function of the valve;
(2) Indicate the selected position or function of the valve; and
(3) Indicate when the valve has not responded as intended to the selected position or function.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 26, 2002.
[FR Doc. 02-11493 Filed 5-7-02; 8:45 am]