Special Conditions: Dassault Falcon Model 900 and 900EX Airplanes; Interaction of Systems and Structures, 54923-54926 [2011-22631]
Download as PDF
54923
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
Vol. 76, No. 172
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains regulatory documents having general
applicability and legal effect, most of which
are keyed to and codified in the Code of
Federal Regulations, which is published under
50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by
the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of
new books are listed in the first FEDERAL
REGISTER issue of each week.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 25
[Docket No. NM463; Special Conditions No.
25–443–SC]
Special Conditions: Dassault Falcon
Model 900 and 900EX Airplanes;
Interaction of Systems and Structures
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final special conditions; request
for comments.
AGENCY:
These special conditions are
issued for the Dassault Falcon Model
900 and 900EX airplanes. These
airplanes, as modified by Aviation
Partners Incorporated (API), will have a
novel or unusual design feature
associated with the interaction of
systems and structures regarding
installation of an automated wing-loadalleviation system. The applicable
airworthiness regulations do not contain
adequate or appropriate safety standards
for this design feature. For the Dassault
900 and 900EX models with winglets,
failure of the wing-load-alleviation
system can result in a factor of safety
(FS) below 1.5 as required. These
special conditions contain the
additional safety standards that the
Administrator considers necessary to
establish a level of safety equivalent to
that established by the existing
airworthiness standards.
DATES: The effective date of these
special conditions is August 29, 2011.
We must receive your comments by
October 6, 2011.
ADDRESSES: You must mail two copies
of your comments to: Federal Aviation
Administration, Transport Airplane
Directorate, Attn: Rules Docket (ANM–
113), Docket No. NM463, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98057–3356. You may deliver two
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:32 Sep 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
copies to the Transport Airplane
Directorate at the above address. You
must mark your comments: Docket No.
NM463. You can inspect comments in
the Rules Docket weekdays, except
Federal holidays, between 7:30 a.m. and
4 p.m.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Todd Martin, Airframe/Cabin Safety
Branch, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98057–3356; telephone (425) 227–1178;
facsimile (425) 227–1232.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA
has determined that notice of, and
opportunity for prior public comment
on, these special conditions is
impracticable because these procedures
would significantly delay issuance of
the design approval and thus delivery of
the affected aircraft. In addition, the
substance of these special conditions
has been subject to the public-comment
process in several previous instances
with no substantive comments received.
The FAA therefore finds that good cause
exists for making these special
conditions effective upon issuance.
However, the FAA is requesting
comments to allow interested persons to
submit views that may not have been
submitted in response to the prior
opportunities for comment described
above.
Comments Invited
We invite interested people to take
part in this rulemaking by sending
written comments, data, or views. The
most helpful comments reference a
specific portion of the special
conditions, explain the reason for any
recommended change, and include
supporting data. We ask that you send
us two copies of written comments.
We will file in the docket all
comments we receive, as well as a
report summarizing each substantive
public contact with FAA personnel
about these special conditions. You can
inspect the docket before and after the
comment closing date. If you wish to
review the docket in person, go to the
address in the ADDRESSES section of this
preamble between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
We will consider all comments we
receive by the closing date for
comments. We will consider comments
filed late if it is possible to do so
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
without incurring expense or delay. We
may change these special conditions
based on the comments we receive.
If you want us to acknowledge receipt
of your comments on these special
conditions, include with your
comments a self-addressed, stamped
postcard on which you have written the
docket number. We will stamp the date
on the postcard and mail it back to you.
Background
On February 14, 2007, API applied for
a supplemental type certificate for
winglets on the Dassault Falcon Model
900 and 900EX airplanes. These
airplanes have Allied Signal engines, a
maximum passenger capacity of 19, and
a maximum takeoff weight of up to
49,000 lbs.
The Falcon 900 and 900EX airplanes,
as modified by API, feature a wing-loadalleviation system that precludes
deployment of the air brakes at certain
airspeeds, thereby reducing wing
loading. Special conditions have been
applied on past airplane programs with
similar wing-load-alleviation systems to
require consideration of the effects of
those systems on structures. For the
Dassault 900 and 900EX models with
winglets, failure of the wing-loadalleviation system can result in a FS
below 1.5 as required by § 25.303.
Sections 25.303 and 25.1309 do not take
into account the effects of system
failures on aircraft loads. A special
condition is needed to account for these
effects. These special conditions define
the necessary requirements for assessing
the effects of the air-brake wing-loadalleviation system on structures in the
case of a system failure.
Type Certification Basis
Under the provisions of 14 CFR
21.101, API must show that the Falcon
900 and 900EX airplanes, as changed,
continue to meet the applicable
provisions of the regulations
incorporated by reference in Type
Certificate No. A46EU or the applicable
regulations in effect on the date of
application for the change. The
regulations incorporated by reference in
the type certificate are commonly
referred to as the ‘‘original typecertification basis.’’ The regulations
incorporated by reference in A46EU are
as follows:
14 CFR part 25 at Amendment 25–56
for the Falcon 900, at Amendment 25–
77 for the Falcon 900EX, and at other
E:\FR\FM\06SER1.SGM
06SER1
54924
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
amendment levels for various
commercial designations. In addition,
the certification basis includes certain
special conditions, exemptions,
equivalent levels of safety, and later or
earlier amended sections of part 25 that
are not relevant to these special
conditions.
In addition, if the regulations
incorporated by reference do not
provide adequate standards regarding
the change, the applicant must comply
with certain regulations in effect on the
date of application for the change. The
FAA has determined that the Falcon 900
and 900EX, as modified, must also
comply with some sections of part 25,
as amended by Amendment 25–119.
If the Administrator finds that the
applicable airworthiness regulations
(i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain
adequate or appropriate safety standards
for the Falcon 900 and 900EX airplanes
because of a novel or unusual design
feature, special conditions are
prescribed under the provisions of 14
CFR 21.16.
In addition to the applicable
airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the Falcon 900 and 900EX
airplanes must comply with the fuelvent and exhaust-emission requirements
of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise
certification requirements of 14 CFR
part 36.
The FAA issues special conditions, as
defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance
with § 11.38, and they become part of
the type-certification basis under 14
CFR 21.101.
Special conditions are initially
applicable to the model for which they
are issued. Should the applicant apply
for a supplemental type certificate to
modify any other model included on the
same type certificate to incorporate the
same novel or unusual design feature,
the special conditions would also apply
to the other model.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Novel or Unusual Design Features
The Dassault Falcon Model 900 and
900EX airplanes, as modified by API,
will incorporate the following novel or
unusual design feature:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:01 Sep 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
The Airbrakes 2 inhibit system will be
incorporated to retract, or prevent the
deployment of, the Airbrakes 2 above
320 knots indicated airspeed (KIAS) to
alleviate wing aerodynamic loading.
Applicability
As discussed above, these special
conditions are applicable to the Dassault
Falcon Model 900 and 900EX airplanes
as modified by API. Should API apply
at a later date for a supplemental type
certificate to modify any other model
included on Type Certificate No.
A16EU, to incorporate the same novel or
unusual design feature, the special
conditions would apply to that model as
well.
Conclusion
This action affects only one novel or
unusual design feature on one model
series of airplanes. It is not a rule of
general applicability and affects only
the applicant who applied to the FAA
for approval of this feature on the
airplane.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
The authority citation for these
special conditions is as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701,
44702, 44704.
The Special Conditions
Accordingly, pursuant to the
authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special
conditions are issued as part of the typecertification basis for Dassault Falcon
Model 900 and 900EX airplanes
modified by Aviation Partners
Incorporated.
1. General. The following criteria will
be used in determining the influence of
a system and its failure conditions on
the airplane structure.
2. System fully operative. With the
system fully operative, the following
apply:
a. Limit loads must be derived in all
normal operating configurations of the
system from all the limit conditions
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
specified in part 25 subpart C (or
defined by special condition or
equivalent level of safety in lieu of those
specified in part 25 subpart C), taking
into account any special behavior of
such a system or associated functions,
or any effect on the structural
performance of the airplane that may
occur up to the limit loads. In
particular, any significant nonlinearity
(rate of displacement of control surface,
thresholds, or any other system
nonlinearities) must be accounted for in
a realistic or conservative way when
deriving limit loads from limit
conditions.
b. The airplane must meet the
strength requirements of part 25 (static
strength, residual strength), using the
specified factors to derive ultimate loads
from the limit loads defined above. The
effect of nonlinearities must be
investigated beyond limit conditions to
ensure that the behavior of the system
presents no anomaly compared to the
behavior below limit conditions.
However, conditions beyond limit
conditions need not be considered when
it can be shown that the airplane has
design features that do not allow it to
exceed those limit conditions.
c. The airplane must meet the
aeroelastic stability requirements of
§ 25.629.
3. System in the failure condition. For
any system-failure condition not shown
to be extremely improbable, the
following apply:
a. At the time of occurrence. Starting
from 1-g level-flight conditions, a
realistic scenario, including pilot
corrective actions, must be established
to determine the loads occurring at the
time of failure and immediately after
failure.
(i) For static-strength substantiation,
these loads, multiplied by an
appropriate FS that is related to the
probability of occurrence of the failure,
are ultimate loads to be considered for
design. The FS is defined in Figure 1.
E:\FR\FM\06SER1.SGM
06SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
54925
(2) The limit-gust-and-turbulence
conditions specified in §§ 25.341 and
25.345.
(3) The limit-rolling conditions
specified in § 25.349.
(4) The limit-unsymmetrical
conditions specified in §§ 25.367 and
25.427(b) and (c).
(5) The limit-yaw-maneuvering
conditions specified in § 25.351.
(6) The limit-ground-loading
conditions specified in §§ 25.473 and
25.491.
(ii) For static-strength substantiation,
each part of the structure must be able
to withstand the loads in paragraph
3(b)(i) of these special conditions
multiplied by a FS depending on the
probability of being in this failure state.
The FS is defined in Figure 2.
Qj = (Tj)(Pj)
limit-load conditions specified in part 25
subpart C.
with the normal operating differential
pressure. If the loads induced by the
failure condition have a significant
effect on fatigue or damage tolerance,
then their effects must be taken into
account.
(iv) Freedom from aeroelastic
instability must be shown up to a speed
Where:
Tj = Average time spent in failure condition
j (in hours)
Pj = Probability of occurrence of failure mode
j (per hour)
Note: If Pj is greater than 10¥3 per flight
hour, then a 1.5 FS must be applied to all
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:01 Sep 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
(iii) For residual-strength
substantiation, the airplane must be able
to withstand two-thirds of the ultimate
loads defined in paragraph 3(b)(ii) of
these special condition. For pressurized
cabins, these loads must be combined
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\06SER1.SGM
06SER1
ER06SE11.016
(oscillatory failures) must not produce
loads that could result in detrimental
deformation of primary structure.
b. For the continuation of the flight.
For the airplane in the system-failed
state, and considering any appropriate
reconfiguration and flight limitations,
the following apply:
(i) The loads derived from the
following conditions (or defined by
special condition or equivalent level of
safety in lieu of the following
conditions) at speeds up to VC/MC, or
the speed limitation prescribed for the
remainder of the flight, must be
determined:
(1) The limit-symmetricalmaneuvering conditions specified in
§§ 25.331 and 25.345.
ER06SE11.015
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
(ii) For residual-strength
substantiation, the airplane must be able
to withstand two-thirds of the ultimate
loads defined in subparagraph 3(a)(i) of
these special conditions. For
pressurized cabins, these loads must be
combined with the normal operating
differential pressure.
(iii) Freedom from aeroelastic
instability must be shown up to the
speeds defined in § 25.629(b)(2). For
failure conditions that result in speeds
beyond design cruising speed/mach
number (VC/MC), freedom from
aeroelastic instability must be shown to
increase speeds so that the margins
intended by § 25.629(b)(2) are
maintained.
(iv) Failures of the system that result
in forced-structural vibrations
54926
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
for the remainder of the flight using the
margins defined by § 25.629(b).
V′ = Clearance speed as defined by
Sec. 25.629(b)(2).
V″ = Clearance speed as defined by
Sec. 25.629(b)(1).
Qj = (Tj)(Pj)
indication systems to achieve the
objective of this requirement. These
certification-maintenance requirements
must be limited to components that are
not readily detectable by normal
detection-and-indication systems and
where service history shows that
inspections provide an adequate level of
safety.
b. The existence of any failure
condition, not extremely improbable,
during flight that could significantly
affect the structural capability of the
airplane, and for which the associated
reduction in airworthiness can be
minimized by suitable flight limitations,
must be signaled to the flightcrew. For
example, failure conditions that result
in an FS between the airplane strength
and the loads of part 25 subpart C below
1.25, or flutter margins below V″, must
be signaled to the flightcrew during
flight.
5. Dispatch with known failure
conditions. If the airplane is to be
dispatched in a known system-failure
condition that affects structural
performance, or affects the reliability of
the remaining system to maintain
structural performance, then the
provisions of this special condition
must be met, including the provisions of
paragraph 2 in these special conditions
for the dispatched condition, and
paragraph 3 for subsequent failures.
Expected operational limitations may be
taken into account in establishing Pj as
the probability of failure occurrence for
determining the safety margin in Figure
1. Flight limitations and expected
operational limitations may be taken
into account in establishing Qj as the
combined probability of being in the
dispatched failure condition, and the
subsequent failure condition for the
safety margins in Figures 2 and 3. These
Where:
Tj = Average time spent in failure condition
j (in hours)
Pj = Probability of occurrence of failure mode
j (per hour)
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES_2
Note: If Pj is greater than 10¥3 per flight
hour, then the flutter clearance speed must
not be less than V″.
(v) Freedom from aeroelastic
instability must also be shown up to V′
in Figure 3, above, for any probable
system-failure condition combined with
any damage required or selected for
investigation by § 25.571(b).
Consideration of certain failure
conditions may be required by other
sections of part 25 regardless of
calculated system reliability. Where
analysis shows the probability of these
failure conditions to be less than 10¥9,
criteria other than those specified in this
paragraph may be used for structural
substantiation to show continued safe
flight and landing.
4. Failure indications. For systemfailure detection and indication, the
following apply:
a. The system must be checked for
failure conditions, not extremely
improbable, that degrade the structural
capability below the level required by
part 25 or that significantly reduce the
reliability of the remaining system. As
far as reasonably practicable, the
flightcrew must be made aware of these
failures before flight. Certain elements
of the control system, such as
mechanical and hydraulic components,
may use special periodic inspections,
and electronic components may use
daily checks, in lieu of detection-and-
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:01 Sep 02, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
limitations must be such that the
probability of being in this combined
failure state, and then subsequently
encountering limit-load conditions, is
extremely improbable. No reduction in
these safety margins is allowed if the
subsequent system-failure rate is greater
than 1E¥3 per hour.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on August
29, 2011.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2011–22631 Filed 9–2–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2010–1270; Directorate
Identifier 2001–NE–50–AD; Amendment 39–
16788; AD 2005–25–10R1]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Dowty
Propellers Type R321/4–82–F/8, R324/
4–82–F/9, R333/4–82–F/12, and R334/4–
82–F/13 Propeller Assemblies
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
We are revising an existing
airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. That AD
currently requires initial and repetitive
ultrasonic inspections of propeller hubs,
part number (P/N) 660709201. This new
AD requires introducing a new hub
assembly P/N as an optional terminating
action to the repetitive hub inspections.
This AD was prompted by the need to
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\06SER1.SGM
06SER1
ER06SE11.017
determined from Figure 3. Flutter
clearance speeds V′ and V″ may be
based on the speed limitation specified
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 172 (Tuesday, September 6, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54923-54926]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-22631]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 6, 2011 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 54923]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 25
[Docket No. NM463; Special Conditions No. 25-443-SC]
Special Conditions: Dassault Falcon Model 900 and 900EX
Airplanes; Interaction of Systems and Structures
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final special conditions; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the Dassault Falcon
Model 900 and 900EX airplanes. These airplanes, as modified by Aviation
Partners Incorporated (API), will have a novel or unusual design
feature associated with the interaction of systems and structures
regarding installation of an automated wing-load-alleviation system.
The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for this design feature. For the Dassault
900 and 900EX models with winglets, failure of the wing-load-
alleviation system can result in a factor of safety (FS) below 1.5 as
required. These special conditions contain the additional safety
standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a
level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing
airworthiness standards.
DATES: The effective date of these special conditions is August 29,
2011. We must receive your comments by October 6, 2011.
ADDRESSES: You must mail two copies of your comments to: Federal
Aviation Administration, Transport Airplane Directorate, Attn: Rules
Docket (ANM-113), Docket No. NM463, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356. You may deliver two copies to the Transport
Airplane Directorate at the above address. You must mark your comments:
Docket No. NM463. You can inspect comments in the Rules Docket
weekdays, except Federal holidays, between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Martin, Airframe/Cabin Safety
Branch, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-1178; facsimile (425) 227-1232.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA has determined that notice of, and
opportunity for prior public comment on, these special conditions is
impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay
issuance of the design approval and thus delivery of the affected
aircraft. In addition, the substance of these special conditions has
been subject to the public-comment process in several previous
instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore
finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions
effective upon issuance. However, the FAA is requesting comments to
allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been
submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described
above.
Comments Invited
We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by
sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments
reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. We ask
that you send us two copies of written comments.
We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a
report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
about these special conditions. You can inspect the docket before and
after the comment closing date. If you wish to review the docket in
person, go to the address in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble
between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for
comments. We will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do
so without incurring expense or delay. We may change these special
conditions based on the comments we receive.
If you want us to acknowledge receipt of your comments on these
special conditions, include with your comments a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which you have written the docket number. We will
stamp the date on the postcard and mail it back to you.
Background
On February 14, 2007, API applied for a supplemental type
certificate for winglets on the Dassault Falcon Model 900 and 900EX
airplanes. These airplanes have Allied Signal engines, a maximum
passenger capacity of 19, and a maximum takeoff weight of up to 49,000
lbs.
The Falcon 900 and 900EX airplanes, as modified by API, feature a
wing-load-alleviation system that precludes deployment of the air
brakes at certain airspeeds, thereby reducing wing loading. Special
conditions have been applied on past airplane programs with similar
wing-load-alleviation systems to require consideration of the effects
of those systems on structures. For the Dassault 900 and 900EX models
with winglets, failure of the wing-load-alleviation system can result
in a FS below 1.5 as required by Sec. 25.303. Sections 25.303 and
25.1309 do not take into account the effects of system failures on
aircraft loads. A special condition is needed to account for these
effects. These special conditions define the necessary requirements for
assessing the effects of the air-brake wing-load-alleviation system on
structures in the case of a system failure.
Type Certification Basis
Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.101, API must show that the
Falcon 900 and 900EX airplanes, as changed, continue to meet the
applicable provisions of the regulations incorporated by reference in
Type Certificate No. A46EU or the applicable regulations in effect on
the date of application for the change. The regulations incorporated by
reference in the type certificate are commonly referred to as the
``original type-certification basis.'' The regulations incorporated by
reference in A46EU are as follows:
14 CFR part 25 at Amendment 25-56 for the Falcon 900, at Amendment
25-77 for the Falcon 900EX, and at other
[[Page 54924]]
amendment levels for various commercial designations. In addition, the
certification basis includes certain special conditions, exemptions,
equivalent levels of safety, and later or earlier amended sections of
part 25 that are not relevant to these special conditions.
In addition, if the regulations incorporated by reference do not
provide adequate standards regarding the change, the applicant must
comply with certain regulations in effect on the date of application
for the change. The FAA has determined that the Falcon 900 and 900EX,
as modified, must also comply with some sections of part 25, as amended
by Amendment 25-119.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the Falcon 900 and 900EX airplanes
because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are
prescribed under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.16.
In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the Falcon 900 and 900EX airplanes must comply with the
fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the
noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in
accordance with Sec. 11.38, and they become part of the type-
certification basis under 14 CFR 21.101.
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the applicant apply for a supplemental type
certificate to modify any other model included on the same type
certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature,
the special conditions would also apply to the other model.
Novel or Unusual Design Features
The Dassault Falcon Model 900 and 900EX airplanes, as modified by
API, will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature:
The Airbrakes 2 inhibit system will be incorporated to retract, or
prevent the deployment of, the Airbrakes 2 above 320 knots indicated
airspeed (KIAS) to alleviate wing aerodynamic loading.
Applicability
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the
Dassault Falcon Model 900 and 900EX airplanes as modified by API.
Should API apply at a later date for a supplemental type certificate to
modify any other model included on Type Certificate No. A16EU, to
incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, the special
conditions would apply to that model as well.
Conclusion
This action affects only one novel or unusual design feature on one
model series of airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability
and affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of
this feature on the airplane.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
The Special Conditions
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type-certification basis for Dassault Falcon Model 900 and 900EX
airplanes modified by Aviation Partners Incorporated.
1. General. The following criteria will be used in determining the
influence of a system and its failure conditions on the airplane
structure.
2. System fully operative. With the system fully operative, the
following apply:
a. Limit loads must be derived in all normal operating
configurations of the system from all the limit conditions specified in
part 25 subpart C (or defined by special condition or equivalent level
of safety in lieu of those specified in part 25 subpart C), taking into
account any special behavior of such a system or associated functions,
or any effect on the structural performance of the airplane that may
occur up to the limit loads. In particular, any significant
nonlinearity (rate of displacement of control surface, thresholds, or
any other system nonlinearities) must be accounted for in a realistic
or conservative way when deriving limit loads from limit conditions.
b. The airplane must meet the strength requirements of part 25
(static strength, residual strength), using the specified factors to
derive ultimate loads from the limit loads defined above. The effect of
nonlinearities must be investigated beyond limit conditions to ensure
that the behavior of the system presents no anomaly compared to the
behavior below limit conditions. However, conditions beyond limit
conditions need not be considered when it can be shown that the
airplane has design features that do not allow it to exceed those limit
conditions.
c. The airplane must meet the aeroelastic stability requirements of
Sec. 25.629.
3. System in the failure condition. For any system-failure
condition not shown to be extremely improbable, the following apply:
a. At the time of occurrence. Starting from 1-g level-flight
conditions, a realistic scenario, including pilot corrective actions,
must be established to determine the loads occurring at the time of
failure and immediately after failure.
(i) For static-strength substantiation, these loads, multiplied by
an appropriate FS that is related to the probability of occurrence of
the failure, are ultimate loads to be considered for design. The FS is
defined in Figure 1.
[[Page 54925]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06SE11.015
(ii) For residual-strength substantiation, the airplane must be
able to withstand two-thirds of the ultimate loads defined in
subparagraph 3(a)(i) of these special conditions. For pressurized
cabins, these loads must be combined with the normal operating
differential pressure.
(iii) Freedom from aeroelastic instability must be shown up to the
speeds defined in Sec. 25.629(b)(2). For failure conditions that
result in speeds beyond design cruising speed/mach number
(VC/MC), freedom from aeroelastic instability
must be shown to increase speeds so that the margins intended by Sec.
25.629(b)(2) are maintained.
(iv) Failures of the system that result in forced-structural
vibrations (oscillatory failures) must not produce loads that could
result in detrimental deformation of primary structure.
b. For the continuation of the flight. For the airplane in the
system-failed state, and considering any appropriate reconfiguration
and flight limitations, the following apply:
(i) The loads derived from the following conditions (or defined by
special condition or equivalent level of safety in lieu of the
following conditions) at speeds up to VC/MC, or
the speed limitation prescribed for the remainder of the flight, must
be determined:
(1) The limit-symmetrical-maneuvering conditions specified in
Sec. Sec. 25.331 and 25.345.
(2) The limit-gust-and-turbulence conditions specified in
Sec. Sec. 25.341 and 25.345.
(3) The limit-rolling conditions specified in Sec. 25.349.
(4) The limit-unsymmetrical conditions specified in Sec. Sec.
25.367 and 25.427(b) and (c).
(5) The limit-yaw-maneuvering conditions specified in Sec. 25.351.
(6) The limit-ground-loading conditions specified in Sec. Sec.
25.473 and 25.491.
(ii) For static-strength substantiation, each part of the structure
must be able to withstand the loads in paragraph 3(b)(i) of these
special conditions multiplied by a FS depending on the probability of
being in this failure state. The FS is defined in Figure 2.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06SE11.016
Qj = (Tj)(Pj)
Where:
Tj = Average time spent in failure condition j (in hours)
Pj = Probability of occurrence of failure mode j (per hour)
Note: If Pj is greater than 10-3 per flight hour,
then a 1.5 FS must be applied to all limit-load conditions specified
in part 25 subpart C.
(iii) For residual-strength substantiation, the airplane must be
able to withstand two-thirds of the ultimate loads defined in paragraph
3(b)(ii) of these special condition. For pressurized cabins, these
loads must be combined with the normal operating differential pressure.
If the loads induced by the failure condition have a significant effect
on fatigue or damage tolerance, then their effects must be taken into
account.
(iv) Freedom from aeroelastic instability must be shown up to a
speed
[[Page 54926]]
determined from Figure 3. Flutter clearance speeds V' and V'' may be
based on the speed limitation specified for the remainder of the flight
using the margins defined by Sec. 25.629(b).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06SE11.017
V' = Clearance speed as defined by Sec. 25.629(b)(2).
V'' = Clearance speed as defined by Sec. 25.629(b)(1).
Qj = (Tj)(Pj)
Where:
Tj = Average time spent in failure condition j (in hours)
Pj = Probability of occurrence of failure mode j (per hour)
Note: If Pj is greater than 10-\3\ per flight hour,
then the flutter clearance speed must not be less than V''.
(v) Freedom from aeroelastic instability must also be shown up to
V' in Figure 3, above, for any probable system-failure condition
combined with any damage required or selected for investigation by
Sec. 25.571(b). Consideration of certain failure conditions may be
required by other sections of part 25 regardless of calculated system
reliability. Where analysis shows the probability of these failure
conditions to be less than 10-\9\, criteria other than those
specified in this paragraph may be used for structural substantiation
to show continued safe flight and landing.
4. Failure indications. For system-failure detection and
indication, the following apply:
a. The system must be checked for failure conditions, not extremely
improbable, that degrade the structural capability below the level
required by part 25 or that significantly reduce the reliability of the
remaining system. As far as reasonably practicable, the flightcrew must
be made aware of these failures before flight. Certain elements of the
control system, such as mechanical and hydraulic components, may use
special periodic inspections, and electronic components may use daily
checks, in lieu of detection-and-indication systems to achieve the
objective of this requirement. These certification-maintenance
requirements must be limited to components that are not readily
detectable by normal detection-and-indication systems and where service
history shows that inspections provide an adequate level of safety.
b. The existence of any failure condition, not extremely
improbable, during flight that could significantly affect the
structural capability of the airplane, and for which the associated
reduction in airworthiness can be minimized by suitable flight
limitations, must be signaled to the flightcrew. For example, failure
conditions that result in an FS between the airplane strength and the
loads of part 25 subpart C below 1.25, or flutter margins below V'',
must be signaled to the flightcrew during flight.
5. Dispatch with known failure conditions. If the airplane is to be
dispatched in a known system-failure condition that affects structural
performance, or affects the reliability of the remaining system to
maintain structural performance, then the provisions of this special
condition must be met, including the provisions of paragraph 2 in these
special conditions for the dispatched condition, and paragraph 3 for
subsequent failures. Expected operational limitations may be taken into
account in establishing Pj as the probability of failure occurrence for
determining the safety margin in Figure 1. Flight limitations and
expected operational limitations may be taken into account in
establishing Qj as the combined probability of being in the dispatched
failure condition, and the subsequent failure condition for the safety
margins in Figures 2 and 3. These limitations must be such that the
probability of being in this combined failure state, and then
subsequently encountering limit-load conditions, is extremely
improbable. No reduction in these safety margins is allowed if the
subsequent system-failure rate is greater than 1E-\3\ per
hour.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 29, 2011.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-22631 Filed 9-2-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P