Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2012/01/11/2012-360/harmonization-of-airworthiness-standards-for-transport-category-airplanes-landing-gear-retracting
Timestamp: 2018-07-19 00:38:41
Document Index: 299877529

Matched Legal Cases: ['§\u200925', '§\u200925', '§\u200925', '§\u200925', '§\u200925', '§\u200925', '§\u200925', '§\u200925', '§\u200925', '§\u200925', '§\u200925', '§\u200925', '§\u200925', '§\u200925', '§\u200921', '§\u200925', '§\u200925', '§\u200925', '§\u200925', '§\u200925', '§\u200925', '§\u200925', '§\u200925', '§\u200925', '§\u200925', '§\u200925', '§\u200925', '§\u200925', '§\u200925', 'art 25', '§\u200925', '§\u200925']

1614-1618 (5 pages)
Amdt. No. 25-136
List of Abbreviations Frequently Used in This Document
List of Acronyms Frequently Used in This Document
D. Associated Advisory Circular Guidance Material
A. Effect of Flightcrew Alerting Rule
B. Wheel Brake Temperature
C. Landing Gear Lock
D. Supercooled Large Drop Rulemaking
E. Lightning as a Discrete Damage Source for Pilot Compartment View
F. Differences Between the NPRM and the Final Rule
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2012-360 https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2012-360
The Federal Aviation Administration amends the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes on landing gear retracting mechanisms and the pilot compartment view. For the landing gear retracting mechanism, this rulemaking adopts the 1-g stall speed as a reference stall speed instead of the minimum speed obtained in a stalling maneuver and adds an additional requirement to keep the landing gear and doors in the correct retracted position in flight. For the pilot compartment view, this rulemaking revises the requirements for pilot compartment view in precipitation conditions. This action eliminates regulatory differences between the airworthiness standards of the U.S. and the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), without affecting current industry design practices.
For technical questions concerning this action, contact Mahinder Wahi, Federal Aviation Administration, Propulsion and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANM-112, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 227-1262; facsimile (425) 227-1320, email mahinder.wahi@faa.gov.
For legal questions about this proposed rule, contact Doug Anderson, FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel (ANM-7), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057; telephone (425) 227-2166; facsimile (425) 227-1007; email Douglas.Anderson@faa.gov.
Term Definition
VS the stalling speed or the minimum steady flight speed at which the airplane is controllable.
VS1 the stalling speed or the minimum steady flight speed obtained in a specific configuration.
VSR reference stall speed and may not be less than a 1-g stall speed.
VSR1 reference stall speed in a specific configuration.
1-g stall speed minimum speed at which the airplane can develop the usable maximum lift force capable of supporting the weight of the airplane.
ALPA Airline Pilots Association
ANAC Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil
JAA European Joint Aviation Authorities
This action harmonizes airworthiness certification standards for landing gear mechanisms and pilot compartment view for transport category airplanes with those of EASA. Harmonizing these airworthiness standards reduces costs to airplane manufacturers and operators while retaining the level of safety.
This rulemaking results from an agreement between the European Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA), the predecessor to EASA, and the FAA to harmonize certain airworthiness standards between the two authorities. Differences between the regulations of the FAA and foreign certification authorities increase the cost and complexity of certification without contributing significantly to safety. These rules result from the recommendations of the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee, through its Mechanical Systems Harmonization Working Group (MSHWG).
The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), Docket No. FAA-2010-1193; Notice No. 10-19 in the Federal Register on January 5, 2011 (76 FR 472). The NPRM proposed to amend the standards for landing gear retraction mechanism and pilot compartment view to harmonize with the corresponding EASA standards. The proposed standards for landing gear addressed reference stall speed, positive means to keep the landing gear and doors in the correct retracted position, gear position indication, and protection of equipment on the landing gear and in the wheel well. The proposed standards for pilot compartment view addressed single failures of rain removal systems, alternatives to the openable side window requirement and certain environmental conditions.
The comment period for the NPRM ended on April 5, 2011.
The FAA received comments from Airbus, Boeing Company, Bombardier, Cessna Aircraft Company, Embraer, Hawker Beechcraft, Transport Canada, and Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA). ALPA, Airbus, Bombardier, and Cessna provided general comments in support of the proposed changes.
Embraer correctly noted that a proposed text change to § 25.729(a)(3) was unnecessary since EASA had already adopted the current FAA standard. The proposed change to § 25.729(a)(3) is therefore withdrawn. Boeing, Transport Canada, and Hawker Beechcraft proposed changes to the regulatory text. Embraer requested that the FAA wait for the final rule issuance of NPRM 10-10, Airplane and Engine Certification Requirements in Supercooled Large Drop, Mixed Phase, and Ice Crystal Icing Conditions (75 FR 37311, June 29, 2010) (Docket No. FAA-2010-0636) before issuing this final rule. Boeing, Transport Canada and Bombardier noted editorial errors which have been corrected.
Advisory Circular AC 25.729-1 has been revised to incorporate acceptable means of compliance to the amended requirements of this rulemaking action. A draft of this AC was made available for public comment during the comment period of the NPRM. The FAA received comments on the AC from the Brazilian Civil Aviation Authority (Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil—ANAC), Transport Canada, Boeing Company, and Embraer. The disposition of the AC public comments is posted along with the final version of the AC on the FAA Regulatory and Guidance Library Web site (http://rgl.faa.gov/).
Boeing recommended the proposed rule for landing gear position indication be revised to be consistent with the new flightcrew alerting rule, § 25.1322. Boeing's rationale is that the proposed wording of § 25.729(e) in the NPRM is inconsistent with retractable landing gear and associated door indication systems on existing FAA type certificated and recent EASA validated airplanes. Boeing also stated the proposed wording and the associated AC guidance material are inconsistent with the quiet and dark flight deck philosophy used on modern airplanes.
The proposed wording would have required “a clear indication or warning must be provided whenever the landing gear position is not consistent with the landing gear selector lever position.” In some situations, an advisory or caution message would be appropriate, not a warning message. Boeing requested a change to make warning, caution, and advisory messages compliant with § 25.1322 and provide information to the flight crew if the gear or doors are not in the commanded position or are in a hazardous configuration. Boeing also recommended deleting § 25.729(e)(7) and rewording paragraph (e) to reference § 25.1322 for alerting.
We agree the specification to provide a “warning” as in the proposed § 25.729(e)(7) is not consistent with the § 25.1322 at the current amendment level. ARAC recommended and EASA adopted the proposed wording prior to the development of the current § 25.1322 requirements. The intent of the wording recommended by ARAC was consistent with the definition of the term “flightcrew alert” in the current § 25.1322. We replaced the wording “clear indication or warning” with “flightcrew alert” to be consistent with § 25.1322. This also addresses the Boeing comment associated with the quiet and dark flightdeck concept. It is not necessary to specifically refer to § 25.1322 in the rule text, as the current version of § 25.1322 will be in the certification basis for new type designs and new significant changes to type design (as determined per 14 CFR § 21.101).
Boeing also noted the regulation does not address other landing gear actuation functions, such as a landing gear lever lock or truck tilt message to prevent retraction or the hazards associated with retracting an out of configuration gear, or the necessary indication for hazards associated with semi-lever gears or tail skid actuation.
The FAA considers that §§ 25.1301, 25.1309 and 25.1322 adequately address identification and alerting of these hazards and provide the applicant the greatest flexibility in the use of such functions. No change to the rule will be made in this regard.
Hawker Beechcraft stated the proposed wording for § 25.729(f)(3), “possible wheel brake temperatures,” is not specific enough. Hawker Beechcraft recommends changing the text to “excessive wheel brake temperatures,” or “wheel brakes overheating.” We note that because § 25.729(f) refers to the “damaging effects of” the temperatures, we believe it is clear the regulation refers to high “possible” temperatures. No changes were made to the rule in response to this comment.
Transport Canada concurs with the new requirement for a positive means to keep the landing gear and doors in the correct retracted position in flight, and would like a similar requirement for a downlock. As proposed, § 25.729(b) is a performance-based rule that requires positive means to keep the landing gear extended in flight and on the ground. Adding specificity to require a downlock, limits design options that would otherwise meet the intent of the rule without increasing the level of safety. No change to the rule was made in this regard.
Embraer suggested the FAA publish the final rule associated with NPRM Notice No. 10-10, previously referenced on page 5, before proceeding with proposed changes to § 25.773(b) in this rulemaking since the NPRM proposed to change § 25.773(b)(1). This rulemaking includes changes to § 25.773(b)(2) and additionally to § 25.773(b)(3) and (4), but proposed no changes to § 25.773(b)(1). Since these rulemaking changes are independent of those proposed in the Supercooled Large Drop NPRM, the FAA does not plan to wait on publishing this rule.
Transport Canada requested we add lightning to the list of discrete damage sources presented in § 25.773(b)(4)(ii). The FAA is not aware of any data that indicates lightning has resulted in the reduction of pilot compartment view, therefore changing the regulatory text is unnecessary.
Except for the editorial correction in the rule title for § 25.729, the withdrawal of proposed text change to § 25.729(a)(3), and the change in amendatory language found in § 25.729(e)(7) from “A clear indication or warning” to “A flightcrew alert,” the changes to §§ 25.729 and 25.773 are adopted as proposed.
Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct 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 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, this Trade Act requires agencies to consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impact of the final rule.
The reasoning for this determination follows: The final rule will amend the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes for landing gear retracting mechanisms and pilot compartment view to harmonize with existing, more stringent European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) requirements. For landing gear retracting mechanisms, the more stringent EASA requirements ensure (1) The landing gear is in the appropriate configuration; (2) the landing gear and its supporting structure, doors, and mechanisms operate properly; (3) the flight crew is aware of the landing gear position status; and (4) critical equipment is protected from tire failure or excessive brake temperatures.
For the pilot compartment view, reliable and safe operation during precipitation is ensured by adoption of the EASA design requirements for flight deck rain removal systems because there will be no single failure of the rain removal system that could lead to a loss of pilot view through both windshields. The effect of this requirement is that, for newly certificated airplanes, manufacturers must provide a separate, mechanically and electrically independent method for clearing the windshield during precipitation. This method may include separate flight deck control switches for left and right windshield wipers. The FAA has determined that installation of the second wiper switch will require minimal additional costs when the system is initially designed to comply with the EASA requirement and received no comments regarding this estimate.
A review of current practices of U.S. manufacturers of transport category airplanes has revealed that only a minority of manufacturers are not already in compliance with the EASA requirements. For these manufacturers, the FAA has determined that additional costs to comply with the EASA requirements will be minimal and that there will be additional safety benefits from adoption of the more stringent EASA requirements. For the majority of manufacturers already in compliance with the EASA requirements as a means of obtaining joint certification, there will be no additional compliance costs or additional safety benefits. We received no comments regarding this cost estimate. However, the final rule will provide benefits from reduced joint certification costs—in the requirements for data collection and analysis, paperwork, and time spent applying for and obtaining approval from the regulatory authorities. The FAA therefore has determined that this final rule will have minimal costs and positive net benefits and does not warrant a full regulatory evaluation.
Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the agency determines that it would, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA. However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.
As noted above, this final rule will impose no or little additional costs on part 25 manufacturers. Moreover, all U.S. manufacturers of transport category airplanes exceed the Small Business Administration small-entity criteria of 1,500 employees. Therefore, the FAA certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic objective, such the protection of safety, and does not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this final rule and determined that it will promote international trade by harmonizing U.S. standards with corresponding EASA regulations thus reducing the cost of joint certification.
An electronic copy of a rulemaking document may be obtained by using the Internet:
2. Amend § 25.729 by revising paragraphs (a)(1)(ii) and (iii), (b), (e) introductory text, and (e)(5), adding paragraph (e)(7), revising paragraphs (f) introductory text and (f)(1), and adding paragraph (f)(3) to read as follows:
3. Amend § 25.773 by revising paragraph (b)(2) and adding paragraphs (b)(3) and (4) to read as follows:
Issued in Washington, DC, on December 27, 2011.
[FR Doc. 2012-360 Filed 1-10-12; 8:45 am]