Design Maneuvering Speed Limitation Statement, 45777-45781 [E9-21478]

Agencies

• Federal Aviation Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 171 (Friday, September 4, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45777-45781]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-21478]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0810; Notice No. 09-10]
RIN 2120-AJ21


Design Maneuvering Speed Limitation Statement

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend the 
airworthiness standards applicable to transport category airplanes to 
clarify that flying at or below the design maneuvering speed does not 
allow a pilot to make multiple large control inputs in one airplane 
axis or single full control inputs in more than one airplane axis at a 
time without endangering the airplane's structure. This proposed 
regulation is the result of an accident investigation and responds to a 
National Transportation Safety Board recommendation. The results of the 
accident investigation indicate that many pilots might have a general 
misunderstanding of what the design maneuvering speed (VA) 
is and the extent of structural protection that exists when an airplane 
is operated at speeds below its VA. This action is being 
taken to prevent this misunderstanding from causing or contributing to 
a future accident.

DATES: 
    Send your comments on or before November 3, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number [Insert 
docket number, for example, FAA-200X-XXXXX] using any of the following 
methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your 
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S. 
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-
140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Bring comments to Docket 
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202-493-2251.
    For more information on the rulemaking process, see the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to 
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you 
provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can 
find and read the electronic form of all comments received into any of 
our dockets, including the name of the individual sending the comment 
(or signing the comment for an association, business, labor union, 
etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the 
Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you 
may visit https://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to 
https://www.regulations.gov at any time and follow the online 
instructions for accessing the docket. Or, go to Docket Operations in 
Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey 
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    Technical Information: Don Stimson, FAA, Airplane and Flight Crew 
Interface Branch, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft 
Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; 
telephone (425) 227-1129; facsimile (425) 227-1149, e-mail 
don.stimson@faa.gov.
    Legal Information: Douglas Anderson, FAA, Office of the Regional 
Counsel, ANM-7, Northwest Mountain Region, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., 
Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-2166; facsimile (425) 227-
1007, e-mail douglas.anderson@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Later in this preamble under the Additional 
Information section, we discuss how you can comment on this proposal 
and how we will handle your comments. Included in this discussion is 
related information about the docket, privacy, and the handling of 
proprietary or confidential business information. We also discuss how 
you can get a copy of this proposal and related rulemaking documents.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in 
Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, section 106 describes 
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation

[[Page 45778]]

Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in 
subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, ``General 
requirements.'' Under that section, the FAA is charged with promoting 
safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing minimum 
standards required in the interest of safety for the design and 
performance of aircraft; regulations and minimum standards in the 
interest of safety for inspecting, servicing, and overhauling aircraft; 
and regulations for other practices, methods, and procedures the 
Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This 
regulation is within the scope of that authority because it 
prescribes--
     New safety standards for the design and performance of 
transport category airplanes; and
     New safety requirements that are necessary for the design, 
production, operations, and maintenance of those airplanes, and for 
other practices, methods, and procedures relating to those airplanes.

Background

    On November 12, 2001, American Airlines Flight 587, an Airbus 
Industrie Model A300-605R airplane, crashed shortly after takeoff from 
New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport. All 260 people aboard 
the airplane and 5 people on the ground were killed. The airplane was 
destroyed by impact forces and a post-crash fire. The National 
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) determined ``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 loads that 
were created by the first officer's unnecessary and excessive rudder 
pedal inputs.''
    The NTSB's investigation revealed that many pilots might have a 
general misunderstanding of what the design maneuvering speed 
(VA) is and the extent of structural protection that exists 
when an airplane is operated at speeds below its VA. The 
NTSB found that many pilots of transport category airplanes believe 
that, as long as they are below the airplane's VA, they can 
make any control input they desire without risking structural damage to 
the airplane.
    VA is a structural design airspeed used in determining 
the strength requirements for the airplane and its control surfaces. 
The structural loads resulting from certain movements of the control 
surfaces at or below VA must be taken into account during 
the design of a transport category airplane. The structural design 
standards only consider a single full control input in any single axis. 
The design standards also consider an abrupt return of the rudder 
control to the neutral position. The standards do not address full 
control inputs in more than one axis at the same time or multiple 
inputs in the same axis. Therefore, the structural design requirements 
do not ensure the airplane structure can withstand multiple control 
inputs in one axis or control inputs in more than one axis at a time at 
any speed, even below VA.
    The NTSB investigation identified what appears to be a widespread 
misunderstanding among pilots about the degree of structural protection 
that exists when full or abrupt flight control inputs are made at 
airspeeds below an airplane's VA. As a result, the NTSB 
recommended that the FAA amend all relevant regulatory and advisory 
materials to clarify that operating at or below maneuvering speed does 
not provide structural protection against multiple full control inputs 
in one axis or full control inputs in more than one axis at the same 
time. (See NTSB safety recommendation A-04-060, which is included in 
the docket for this rulemaking or can be found at https://www.ntsb.gov/Recs/letters/2004/A04_56_62.pdf.)
    14 CFR 25.1583(a)(3) currently requires applicants to provide the 
VA, along with the following statement, in the Airplane 
Flight Manual (AFM): ``Full application of rudder and aileron controls, 
as well as maneuvers that involve angles of attack near the stall, 
should be confined to speeds below this value.'' Although the required 
AFM statement warns pilots against making full rudder or aileron 
control inputs at speeds above VA, it is silent on what 
control inputs can safely be made below VA. Pilots may 
misinterpret the AFM statement to imply that any control input can 
safely be made below VA.
    At the FAA's request, manufacturers of transport category airplanes 
voluntarily revised the AFMs for all major transport category airplane 
types currently in service to include a statement similar to the 
following:
    Avoid rapid and large alternating control inputs, especially in 
combination with large changes in pitch, roll, or yaw (e.g., large 
sideslip angles) as they may result in structural failures at any 
speed, including below VA.

General Discussion of Proposal

    For future airplane designs, this NPRM proposes to amend Sec.  
25.1583(a)(3) to change the requirement associated with the statement 
to be provided in the AFM. The proposed amendment would clarify that 
flying at or below VA does not allow a pilot to make 
multiple large control inputs in one airplane axis or single full 
control inputs in more than one airplane axis at a time without 
endangering the airplane's structure.
    Instead of specifying the exact wording of the statement or set of 
statements to be included in the AFM, the proposed rule would require 
statements, as applicable to the particular design, explaining that:
    (1) Full application of pitch, roll, or yaw controls should be 
confined to speeds below VA; and
    (2) Rapid and large alternating control inputs, especially in 
combination with large changes in pitch, roll, or yaw, and full control 
inputs in more than one axis at the same time should be avoided as they 
may result in structural failures at any speed, including below 
VA.
    This proposed language would give applicants the flexibility to 
provide the required safety information in a way that would best fit 
their airplane design. The proposed revision would only require that 
the warning statement be included in the AFM if it is applicable. A 
warning statement would be unnecessary if the airplane is protected 
from structural damage against all types of control inputs at any 
speed.
    The terms ``rudder and aileron controls'' in the existing 
requirement would be replaced by ``pitch, roll, and/or yaw controls.'' 
Rudders and ailerons are airplane control surfaces commonly used to 
provide control in the yaw and roll axes, respectively. However, other 
control surfaces may be used to either provide or augment control in 
any given axis. The pilot may not always know which control surface is 
being moved for any given control input. Since the statement required 
by Sec.  25.1583(a)(3) is an operating limitation that must be observed 
by the pilot, the proposed text refers to the pilot control inputs by 
control axis rather than by control surface.
    In addition, the existing text ``as well as maneuvers that involve 
angles of attack near the stall'' would be removed. The existing text 
assumes that, for high angle of attack maneuvers below VA, 
the airplane will always stall before structural failure can occur. 
However, this is not always the case. In a pitch-up maneuver, if the 
pitch rate is rapidly increased through an abrupt pitch input, a 
phenomenon known as dynamic overshoot may occur. A dynamic overshoot 
can result in exceeding the airplane's structural limits before the 
airplane stalls. Also, the airplane manufacturer may choose to select a

[[Page 45779]]

higher VA than the minimum value required by 14 CFR part 25 
certification requirements. This results in a structurally stronger 
airplane, but does not ensure the airplane will stall before structural 
failure occurs. The proposed revision addresses these concerns by 
making the limitation against full application of the roll and yaw 
controls also applicable to the pitch axis and by removing the words 
``as well as maneuvers that involve angles of attack near the stall.''

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires 
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information 
collection burdens imposed on the public. We have determined that there 
is no new information collection requirement associated with this 
proposed rule.

International Compatibility

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on 
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with 
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and 
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has 
determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices 
that correspond to these proposed regulations.

Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination, 
International Trade Impact Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic 
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency 
shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination 
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (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, the 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 impacts of this proposed rule.
    Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies 
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. 
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule 
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement 
to that effect and the basis for it be included in the preamble if a 
full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared. 
Such a determination has been made for this proposed rule. The 
reasoning for this determination follows: Since this proposed rule 
would merely require a clarifying change to a statement that 
manufacturers are currently required to provide in the AFM, and there 
are no changes required to airplane design, test, or analysis, the 
expected outcome will be minimal costs. The clarification addresses an 
identified safety issue, so the proposed rule has benefits. Because the 
outcome of the proposed rule is expected to have minimal costs with 
positive benefits, a regulatory evaluation was not prepared. The FAA 
requests comments with supporting justification about the FAA 
determination of minimal impact.
    FAA has, therefore, determined that this proposed rule is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of 
Executive Order 12866, and is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) 
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall 
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable 
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale 
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions 
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required 
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain 
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given 
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide range of small entities, 
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions.
    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 will, 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.
    The FAA believes this proposed rule would not have a significant 
impact on a substantial number of small entities because all United 
States transport-aircraft category manufacturers exceed the Small 
Business Administration small-entity criteria of 1,500 employees.
    Therefore, the FAA certifies that this proposed rule would not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. The FAA solicits comments regarding this determination.

International Trade Impact Assessment

    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 any 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 as 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 proposed rule and determined that 
it ensures the safety of the American public. As a result, this rule is 
not considered as creating an unnecessary obstacle to foreign commerce.

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement 
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final 
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more 
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate 
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently 
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $136.1 million in lieu of $100 
million.

[[Page 45780]]

    This proposed rule does not contain such a mandate. The 
requirements of Title II do not apply.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and 
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We determined that this 
action would not have a substantial direct effect 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, and, therefore, would not have federalism implications.

Regulations Affecting Intrastate Aviation in Alaska

    Section 1205 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 
3213) requires the Administrator, when modifying regulations in title 
14 of the 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 appropriate regulatory 
distinctions. 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 in intrastate operations in Alaska.

Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically 
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or 
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy 
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has 
determined this proposed rulemaking action qualifies for the 
categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 4(j) and involves no 
extraordinary circumstances.

Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or 
Use

    The FAA has analyzed this NPRM under Executive Order 13211, Actions 
Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We have determined that it is not 
a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order because it is 
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866, 
and it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the 
supply, distribution, or use of energy.

Plain English

    Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993) requires each 
agency to write regulations that are simple and easy to understand. We 
invite your comments on how to make these proposed regulations easier 
to understand, including answers to questions such as the following:
     Are the requirements in the proposed regulations clearly 
stated?
     Do the proposed regulations contain unnecessary technical 
language or jargon that interferes with their clarity?
     Would the regulations be easier to understand if they were 
divided into more (but shorter) sections?
     Is the description in the preamble helpful in 
understanding the proposed regulations?
    Please send your comments to the address specified in the Addresses 
section of this preamble.

Additional Information

Comments Invited

    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 recommended change, and 
include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain 
duplicate comments, please send only one copy of written comments, or 
if you are filing comments electronically, please submit your comments 
only one time.
    We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a 
report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel 
concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we 
will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for 
comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has 
closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. 
We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.

Proprietary or Confidential Business Information

    Do not file in the docket information that you consider to be 
proprietary or confidential business information. Send or deliver this 
information directly to the person identified in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. You must mark the 
information that you consider proprietary or confidential. If you send 
the information on a disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD 
ROM and also identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the 
specific information that is proprietary or confidential.
    Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), when we are aware of proprietary information 
filed with a comment, we do not place it in the docket. We hold it in a 
separate file to which the public does not have access, and we place a 
note in the docket that we have received it. If we receive a request to 
examine or copy this information, we treat it as any other request 
under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). We process such a 
request under the DOT procedures found in 49 CFR part 7.

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    You can get an electronic copy of rulemaking documents using the 
Internet by--
    1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (https://www.regulations.gov);
    2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or
    3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at https://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/.
    You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal 
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence 
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Make 
sure to identify the docket number, notice number, or amendment number 
of this rulemaking.
    You may access all documents the FAA considered in developing this 
proposed rule, including economic analyses and technical reports, from 
the internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced in 
paragraph (1).

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Safety, Transportation.

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation 
Administration proposes to amend Chapter I of Title 14, Code of Federal 
Regulations part 25, as follows:

PART 25--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRPLANES

    1. The authority citation for part 25 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.


[[Page 45781]]


    2. Amend Sec.  25.1583 by revising paragraph (a)(3) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  25.1583  Operating limitations.

    (a) * * *
    (3) The maneuvering speed VA and statements, as 
applicable to the particular design, explaining that:
    (i) Full application of pitch, roll, or yaw controls should be 
confined to speeds below VA; and
    (ii) Rapid and large alternating control inputs, especially in 
combination with large changes in pitch, roll, or yaw, and full control 
inputs in more than one axis at the same time, should be avoided as 
they may result in structural failures at any speed, including below 
VA.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 31, 2009.
Dorenda D. Baker,
Director, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E9-21478 Filed 9-3-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P