Special Conditions: Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. (BHTI), Model 525 Helicopters; Interaction of Systems and Structures., 88616-88619 [2016-29431]
Download as PDF
88616
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 29
[Docket No. FAA–2016–6939; Notice No. 29–
038–SC]
Special Conditions: Bell Helicopter
Textron, Inc. (BHTI), Model 525
Helicopters; Interaction of Systems
and Structures.
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final special conditions.
AGENCY:
These special conditions are
issued for the BHTI Model 525
helicopter. This helicopter will have a
novel or unusual design feature
associated with fly-by-wire flight
control system (FBW FCS) functions
that affect the structural integrity of the
rotorcraft. The applicable airworthiness
regulations do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for this
design feature. 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: These special conditions are
effective January 9, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Martin R. Crane, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Safety Management Group,
Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 10101
Hillwood Pkwy, Fort Worth, TX 76177;
telephone (817) 222–5110; email
martin.r.crane@faa.gov.
SUMMARY:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Background
On December 15, 2011, BHTI applied
for a type certificate for a new transport
category helicopter designated as the
Model 525. The aircraft is a medium
twin engine rotorcraft. The design
maximum takeoff weight is 20,000
pounds, with a maximum capacity of 16
passengers and a crew of 2.
The BHTI Model 525 helicopter will
be equipped with a FBW FCS. The
control functions of the FBW FCS and
its related systems affect the structural
integrity of the rotorcraft. Current
regulations do not take into account
loads for the rotorcraft due to the effects
of systems on structural performance
including normal operation and failure
conditions with strength levels related
to probability of occurrence. Special
conditions are needed to account for
these features.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:11 Dec 07, 2016
Jkt 241001
Type Certification Basis
Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17,
BHTI must show that the Model 525
helicopter meets the applicable
provisions of part 29, as amended by
Amendment 29–1 through 29–55
thereto. The BHTI Model 525
certification basis date is December 15,
2011, the date of application to the
FAA.
If the Administrator finds that the
applicable airworthiness regulations
(i.e., 14 CFR part 29) do not contain
adequate or appropriate safety standards
for the BHTI Model 525 because of a
novel or unusual design feature, special
conditions are prescribed under the
provisions of § 21.16.
Special conditions are initially
applicable to the model for which they
are issued. Should the type certificate
for that model be amended later to
include any other model that
incorporates the same or similar novel
or unusual design feature, the special
conditions would also apply to the other
model under § 21.101.
In addition to the applicable
airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the BHTI Model 525
helicopter must comply with the noise
certification requirements of 14 CFR
part 36, and the FAA must issue a
finding of regulatory adequacy under
§ 611 of Public Law 92–574, the ‘‘Noise
Control Act of 1972.’’
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
§ 21.17(a)(2).
Novel or Unusual Design Features
The BHTI Model 525 helicopter will
incorporate the following novel or
unusual design features: FBW FCS, and
its related systems (stability
augmentation system, load alleviation
system, flutter control system, and fuel
management system), with control
functions that affect the structural
integrity of the rotorcraft. Current
regulations are inadequate for
considering the effects of these systems
and their failures on structural
performance. The general approach of
accounting for the effect of system
failures on structural performance
would be extended to include any
system where partial or complete
failure, alone or in combination with
any other system’s partial or complete
failure, would affect structural
performance.
Discussion
Active flight control systems are
capable of providing automatic
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
responses to inputs from sources other
than the pilots. Active flight control
systems have been expanded in
function, effectiveness, and reliability to
the point that FBW FCS systems are
being installed on new rotorcraft. As a
result of these advancements in flight
control technology, 14 CFR part 29 does
not provide a basis to achieve an
acceptable level of safety for rotorcraft
so equipped. Certification of these
systems requires issuing special
conditions under the provisions of
§ 21.16.
In the past, traditional rotorcraft flight
control system designs have
incorporated power-operated systems,
stability or control augmentation with
limited control authority, and autopilots
that were certificated partly under
§ 29.672 with guidance from Advisory
Circular 29–2C, Section AC 29.672.
These systems are integrated into the
primary flight controls and are given
sufficient control authority to maneuver
the rotorcraft up to its structural design
limits in 14 CFR part 29 subparts C and
D. The FBW FCS advanced technology
with its full authority necessitates
additional requirements to account for
the interaction of control systems and
structures.
The regulations defining the loads
envelope in 14 CFR part 29 do not fully
account for the effects of systems on
structural performance. Automatic
systems may be inoperative or they may
operate in a degraded mode with less
than full system authority and
associated built-in protection features.
Therefore, it is necessary to determine
the structural factors of safety and
operating margins such that the
probability of structural failures due to
application of loads during FBW FCS
malfunctions is not greater than that
found in rotorcraft equipped with
traditional flight control systems. To
achieve this objective and to ensure an
acceptable level of safety, it is necessary
to define the failure conditions and their
associated frequency of occurrence.
Traditional flight control systems
provide two states, either fully
functioning or completely inoperative.
These conditions are readily apparent to
the flight crew. Newer active flight
control systems have failure modes that
allow the system to function in a
degraded mode without full authority
and associated built-in protection
features. As these degraded modes are
not readily apparent to the flight crew,
monitoring systems are required to
provide an annunciation of degraded
system capability.
E:\FR\FM\08DER1.SGM
08DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Comments
A notice of proposed special
conditions for the BHTI Model 525
helicopter FBW FCS and its related
systems was published in the Federal
Register on May 27, 2016 (81 FR 33606).
We did not receive any comments.
Applicability
As discussed above, these special
conditions are applicable to the BHTI
Model 525 helicopter. Should BHTI
apply at a later date for a change to the
type certificate to include another
model incorporating the same novel or
unusual design feature, the special
conditions would apply to that model as
well.
Conclusion
This action affects only certain novel
or unusual design features on one model
of rotorcraft. It is not a rule of general
applicability.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 29
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.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
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 Bell Helicopter
Textron, Inc., Model 525 helicopters
when a fly-by-wire flight control system
is installed:
Interaction of Systems and Structures
For rotorcraft equipped with systems
that affect structural performance, either
directly or as a result of a failure or
malfunction, the influence of these
systems and their failure conditions
must be taken into account when
showing compliance with the
requirements of Title 14, Code of
Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 29
subparts C and D.
The following criteria must be used
for showing compliance with these
special conditions for rotorcraft
equipped with flight control systems,
autopilots, stability augmentation
systems, load alleviation systems, flutter
control systems, fuel management
systems, and other systems that either
directly or as a result of failure or
malfunction affect structural
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:11 Dec 07, 2016
Jkt 241001
performance. If these special conditions
are used for other systems, it may be
necessary to adapt the criteria to the
specific system.
(a) The criteria defined herein only
address the direct structural
consequences of the system responses
and performance. They cannot be
considered in isolation but should be
included in the overall safety evaluation
of the rotorcraft. These criteria may in
some instances duplicate standards
already established for this evaluation.
These criteria are only applicable to
structure whose failure could prevent
continued safe flight and landing.
Specific criteria that define acceptable
limits on handling characteristics or
stability requirements when operating
in the system degraded or inoperative
mode are not provided in these special
conditions.
(b) Depending upon the specific
characteristics of the rotorcraft,
additional studies may be required that
go beyond the criteria provided in this
special condition in order to
demonstrate the capability of the
rotorcraft to meet other realistic
conditions such as alternative gust or
maneuver descriptions for a rotorcraft
equipped with a load alleviation system.
(c) The following definitions are
applicable to these special conditions:
(1) Structural performance: Capability
of the rotorcraft to meet the structural
requirements of 14 CFR part 29.
(2) Flight limitations: Limitations that
can be applied to the rotorcraft flight
conditions following an in-flight
occurrence and that are included in the
flight manual (e.g., speed limitations
and avoidance of severe weather
conditions).
(3) Operational limitations:
Limitations, including flight limitations,
which can be applied to the rotorcraft
operating conditions before dispatch
(e.g., fuel, payload, and Master
Minimum Equipment List limitations).
(4) Probabilistic terms: The terms
‘‘improbable’’ and ‘‘extremely
improbable’’ are the same as those used
in § 29.1309.
(5) Failure condition: The term
‘‘failure condition’’ is the same as that
used in § 29.1309; however, these
special conditions apply only to system
failure conditions that affect the
structural performance of the rotorcraft
(e.g., system failure conditions that
induce loads, change the response of the
rotorcraft to inputs such as gusts or pilot
actions, or lower flutter margins).
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
88617
Effects of Systems on Structures
(a) General. The following criteria
will be used in determining the
influence of a system and its failure
conditions on the rotorcraft structure.
(b) System fully operative. With the
system fully operative, the following
apply:
(1) Limit loads must be derived in all
normal operating configurations of the
system from all the limit conditions
specified in subpart C (or defined by
special condition or equivalent level of
safety in lieu of those specified in
subpart C), taking into account any
special behavior of such a system or
associated functions or any effect on the
structural performance of the rotorcraft
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.
(2) The rotorcraft must meet the
strength requirements of part 29 (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 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 rotorcraft has
design features that will not allow it to
exceed those limit conditions.
(3) The rotorcraft must meet the
flutter and divergence requirements of
§ 29.629.
(c) System in the failure condition.
For all system failure conditions shown
to be not extremely improbable, the
following apply:
(1) 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 the
failure.
(i) For static strength substantiation,
these loads multiplied by an appropriate
factor of safety that is related to the
probability of occurrence of the failure
are the ultimate loads that must be
considered for design. The factor of
safety is defined in Figure 1.
E:\FR\FM\08DER1.SGM
08DER1
88618
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
(iii) For residual strength
substantiation, the rotorcraft must be
able to withstand two-thirds of the
ultimate loads defined in paragraph
(c)(2)(ii) of these special conditions.
(iv) 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.
(v) Freedom from flutter and
divergence must be shown up to 1.11
VNE (power on and power off).
(vi) Freedom from flutter and
divergence must also be shown up to
1.11 VNE (power on and power off) for
all probable system failure conditions
combined with any damage required or
considered under § 29.571(g) or
§ 29.573(d)(3).
(3) Consideration of certain failure
conditions may be required by other
sections of 14 CFR part 29 regardless of
calculated system reliability. Where the
failure analysis shows the probability of
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 factor of safety must be
applied to all limit load conditions specified
in Subpart C.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:11 Dec 07, 2016
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\08DER1.SGM
08DER1
ER08DE16.008
of the flight) and at the minimum and
maximum main rotor speeds, if
applicable, must be determined:
(A) The limit maneuvering conditions
specified in §§ 29.337 and 29.339.
(B) The limit gust conditions specified
in § 29.341.
(C) The limit yaw maneuvering
conditions specified in § 29.351.
(D) The limit unsymmetrical
conditions specified in § 29.427.
(E) The limit ground loading
conditions specified in § 29.473.
(ii) For static strength substantiation,
each part of the structure must be able
to withstand the loads in paragraph
(c)(2)(i) of these special conditions
multiplied by a factor of safety
depending on the probability of being in
this failure state. The factor of safety is
defined in Figure 2.
ER08DE16.007
divergence must be shown to increased
speeds, so that the margins intended by
paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of these special
conditions are maintained.
(v) 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.
(2) For the continuation of the flight.
For the rotorcraft in the system failed
state, and considering all appropriate
reconfiguration and flight limitations,
the following apply:
(i) The loads derived from the
following conditions (or defined by
special conditions or equivalent level of
safety in lieu of the following
conditions) at speeds up to VNE (power
on and power off) (or the speed
limitation prescribed for the remainder
Qj = (Tj)(Pj)
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
(ii) For residual strength
substantiation, the rotorcraft must be
able to withstand two-thirds of the
ultimate loads defined in paragraph
(c)(1)(i) of these special conditions.
(iii) Freedom from flutter and
divergence must be shown under all
conditions of operation including:
(A) Airspeeds up to 1.11 VNE (power
on and power off).
(B) Main rotor speeds from 0.95
multiplied by the minimum permitted
speed up to 1.05 multiplied by the
maximum permitted speed (power on
and power off).
(C) The critical combinations of
weight, center of gravity position, load
factor, and altitude.
(iv) For failure conditions that result
in excursions beyond operating
limitations, freedom from flutter and
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
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.
(d) Failure indications. For system
failure detection and indication, the
following apply:
(1) The system must be checked for
failure conditions, not extremely
improbable, that degrade the structural
capability below the level required by
14 CFR part 29 or that significantly
reduce the reliability of the remaining
operational portion of the system. As far
as reasonably practicable, the flight
crew 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
other means of detecting failures before
flight will become part of the
certification maintenance requirements
(CMRs) and must be limited to
components that are not readily
detectable by normal detection and
indication systems, and where service
history shows that inspections will
provide an adequate level of safety.
(2) The existence of any failure
condition, shown to be not extremely
improbable, during flight that could
significantly affect the structural
capability of the rotorcraft and for
which the associated reduction in
airworthiness can be minimized by
suitable flight limitations, must be
signaled to the flight crew. For example,
failure conditions that result in a factor
of safety between the rotorcraft strength
and the loads of Subpart C below 1.25,
or flutter and divergence margins below
1.11 VNE (power on and power off),
must be signaled to the crew during
flight.
(e) Dispatch with known failure
conditions. If the rotorcraft is to be
dispatched in a known system failure
condition that affects structural
performance, or that affects the
reliability of the remaining operational
portion of the system to maintain
structural performance, then the
provisions of these special conditions
must be met, including the provisions of
paragraph (b) for the dispatched
condition and paragraph (c) 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 of these special conditions. Flight
limitations and expected operational
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:11 Dec 07, 2016
Jkt 241001
88619
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 Figure 2 of these special conditions.
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 10¥3 per hour.
telephone: 416–375–4000; fax: 416–
375–4539; email: thd.qseries@
aero.bombardier.com; Internet: https://
www.bombardier.com. You may view
this referenced service information at
the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA,
call 425–227–1221. It is also available
on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA–2016–
7267.
Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on November
30, 2012.
Lance Gant,
Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
Examining the AD Docket
[FR Doc. 2016–29431 Filed 12–7–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2016–7267; Directorate
Identifier 2016–NM–015–AD; Amendment
39–18723; AD 2016–24–06]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier,
Inc. Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
We are adopting a new
airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC–8–102,
–103, and –106 airplanes, Model DHC–
8–200 series airplanes, and Model DHC–
8–300 series airplanes. This AD was
prompted by several occurrences of loss
of airspeed data on both pilot and copilot air speed indicators due to the
accumulation of ice on the pitot probes
caused by inoperative pitot probe
heaters. This AD requires replacing the
existing circuit breakers in the pitot
heater system. We are issuing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these
products.
DATES: This AD is effective January 12,
2017.
The Director of the Federal Register
approved the incorporation by reference
of certain publications listed in this AD
as of January 12, 2017.
ADDRESSES: For service information
identified in this final rule, contact
Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical
Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard,
Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada;
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
You may examine the AD docket on
the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA–2016–
7267; or in person at the Docket
Management Facility between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The street address for
the Docket Office (telephone 800–647–
5527) is Docket Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M–30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Assata Dessaline, Aerospace Engineer,
Avionics and Services Branch, ANE–
172, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart
Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY
11590; telephone: 516–228–7301; fax:
516–794–5531.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Discussion
We issued a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would
apply to certain Bombardier, Inc. Model
DHC–8–102, –103, and –106 airplanes,
Model DHC–8–200 series airplanes, and
Model DHC–8–300 series airplanes. The
NPRM published in the Federal
Register on June 28, 2016 (81 FR 41897)
(‘‘the NPRM’’).
Transport Canada Civil Aviation
(TCCA), which is the aviation authority
for Canada, has issued Canadian AD
CF–2016–04, dated February 1, 2016
(referred to after this as the Mandatory
Continuing Airworthiness Information,
or ‘‘the MCAI’’), to correct an unsafe
condition for certain Bombardier, Inc.
Model DHC–8–102, –103, and –106
airplanes, Model DHC–8–200 series
airplanes, and Model DHC–8–300 series
airplanes. The MCAI states:
E:\FR\FM\08DER1.SGM
08DER1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 236 (Thursday, December 8, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 88616-88619]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-29431]
[[Page 88616]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 29
[Docket No. FAA-2016-6939; Notice No. 29-038-SC]
Special Conditions: Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. (BHTI), Model
525 Helicopters; Interaction of Systems and Structures.
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final special conditions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the BHTI Model 525
helicopter. This helicopter will have a novel or unusual design feature
associated with fly-by-wire flight control system (FBW FCS) functions
that affect the structural integrity of the rotorcraft. The applicable
airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety
standards for this design feature. 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: These special conditions are effective January 9, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martin R. Crane, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 10101
Hillwood Pkwy, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email
martin.r.crane@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On December 15, 2011, BHTI applied for a type certificate for a new
transport category helicopter designated as the Model 525. The aircraft
is a medium twin engine rotorcraft. The design maximum takeoff weight
is 20,000 pounds, with a maximum capacity of 16 passengers and a crew
of 2.
The BHTI Model 525 helicopter will be equipped with a FBW FCS. The
control functions of the FBW FCS and its related systems affect the
structural integrity of the rotorcraft. Current regulations do not take
into account loads for the rotorcraft due to the effects of systems on
structural performance including normal operation and failure
conditions with strength levels related to probability of occurrence.
Special conditions are needed to account for these features.
Type Certification Basis
Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, BHTI must show that the Model
525 helicopter meets the applicable provisions of part 29, as amended
by Amendment 29-1 through 29-55 thereto. The BHTI Model 525
certification basis date is December 15, 2011, the date of application
to the FAA.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 29) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the BHTI Model 525 because of a novel
or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the
provisions of Sec. 21.16.
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended
later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar
novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also
apply to the other model under Sec. 21.101.
In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the BHTI Model 525 helicopter must comply with the noise
certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36, and the FAA must issue a
finding of regulatory adequacy under Sec. 611 of Public Law 92-574,
the ``Noise Control Act of 1972.''
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 Sec. 21.17(a)(2).
Novel or Unusual Design Features
The BHTI Model 525 helicopter will incorporate the following novel
or unusual design features: FBW FCS, and its related systems (stability
augmentation system, load alleviation system, flutter control system,
and fuel management system), with control functions that affect the
structural integrity of the rotorcraft. Current regulations are
inadequate for considering the effects of these systems and their
failures on structural performance. The general approach of accounting
for the effect of system failures on structural performance would be
extended to include any system where partial or complete failure, alone
or in combination with any other system's partial or complete failure,
would affect structural performance.
Discussion
Active flight control systems are capable of providing automatic
responses to inputs from sources other than the pilots. Active flight
control systems have been expanded in function, effectiveness, and
reliability to the point that FBW FCS systems are being installed on
new rotorcraft. As a result of these advancements in flight control
technology, 14 CFR part 29 does not provide a basis to achieve an
acceptable level of safety for rotorcraft so equipped. Certification of
these systems requires issuing special conditions under the provisions
of Sec. 21.16.
In the past, traditional rotorcraft flight control system designs
have incorporated power-operated systems, stability or control
augmentation with limited control authority, and autopilots that were
certificated partly under Sec. 29.672 with guidance from Advisory
Circular 29-2C, Section AC 29.672. These systems are integrated into
the primary flight controls and are given sufficient control authority
to maneuver the rotorcraft up to its structural design limits in 14 CFR
part 29 subparts C and D. The FBW FCS advanced technology with its full
authority necessitates additional requirements to account for the
interaction of control systems and structures.
The regulations defining the loads envelope in 14 CFR part 29 do
not fully account for the effects of systems on structural performance.
Automatic systems may be inoperative or they may operate in a degraded
mode with less than full system authority and associated built-in
protection features. Therefore, it is necessary to determine the
structural factors of safety and operating margins such that the
probability of structural failures due to application of loads during
FBW FCS malfunctions is not greater than that found in rotorcraft
equipped with traditional flight control systems. To achieve this
objective and to ensure an acceptable level of safety, it is necessary
to define the failure conditions and their associated frequency of
occurrence.
Traditional flight control systems provide two states, either fully
functioning or completely inoperative. These conditions are readily
apparent to the flight crew. Newer active flight control systems have
failure modes that allow the system to function in a degraded mode
without full authority and associated built-in protection features. As
these degraded modes are not readily apparent to the flight crew,
monitoring systems are required to provide an annunciation of degraded
system capability.
[[Page 88617]]
Comments
A notice of proposed special conditions for the BHTI Model 525
helicopter FBW FCS and its related systems was published in the Federal
Register on May 27, 2016 (81 FR 33606). We did not receive any
comments.
Applicability
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the
BHTI Model 525 helicopter. Should BHTI apply at a later date for a
change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating
the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would
apply to that model as well.
Conclusion
This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features
on one model of rotorcraft. It is not a rule of general applicability.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 29
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 Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., Model
525 helicopters when a fly-by-wire flight control system is installed:
Interaction of Systems and Structures
For rotorcraft equipped with systems that affect structural
performance, either directly or as a result of a failure or
malfunction, the influence of these systems and their failure
conditions must be taken into account when showing compliance with the
requirements of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 29
subparts C and D.
The following criteria must be used for showing compliance with
these special conditions for rotorcraft equipped with flight control
systems, autopilots, stability augmentation systems, load alleviation
systems, flutter control systems, fuel management systems, and other
systems that either directly or as a result of failure or malfunction
affect structural performance. If these special conditions are used for
other systems, it may be necessary to adapt the criteria to the
specific system.
(a) The criteria defined herein only address the direct structural
consequences of the system responses and performance. They cannot be
considered in isolation but should be included in the overall safety
evaluation of the rotorcraft. These criteria may in some instances
duplicate standards already established for this evaluation. These
criteria are only applicable to structure whose failure could prevent
continued safe flight and landing. Specific criteria that define
acceptable limits on handling characteristics or stability requirements
when operating in the system degraded or inoperative mode are not
provided in these special conditions.
(b) Depending upon the specific characteristics of the rotorcraft,
additional studies may be required that go beyond the criteria provided
in this special condition in order to demonstrate the capability of the
rotorcraft to meet other realistic conditions such as alternative gust
or maneuver descriptions for a rotorcraft equipped with a load
alleviation system.
(c) The following definitions are applicable to these special
conditions:
(1) Structural performance: Capability of the rotorcraft to meet
the structural requirements of 14 CFR part 29.
(2) Flight limitations: Limitations that can be applied to the
rotorcraft flight conditions following an in-flight occurrence and that
are included in the flight manual (e.g., speed limitations and
avoidance of severe weather conditions).
(3) Operational limitations: Limitations, including flight
limitations, which can be applied to the rotorcraft operating
conditions before dispatch (e.g., fuel, payload, and Master Minimum
Equipment List limitations).
(4) Probabilistic terms: The terms ``improbable'' and ``extremely
improbable'' are the same as those used in Sec. 29.1309.
(5) Failure condition: The term ``failure condition'' is the same
as that used in Sec. 29.1309; however, these special conditions apply
only to system failure conditions that affect the structural
performance of the rotorcraft (e.g., system failure conditions that
induce loads, change the response of the rotorcraft to inputs such as
gusts or pilot actions, or lower flutter margins).
Effects of Systems on Structures
(a) General. The following criteria will be used in determining the
influence of a system and its failure conditions on the rotorcraft
structure.
(b) System fully operative. With the system fully operative, the
following apply:
(1) Limit loads must be derived in all normal operating
configurations of the system from all the limit conditions specified in
subpart C (or defined by special condition or equivalent level of
safety in lieu of those specified in subpart C), taking into account
any special behavior of such a system or associated functions or any
effect on the structural performance of the rotorcraft 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.
(2) The rotorcraft must meet the strength requirements of part 29
(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
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 rotorcraft has
design features that will not allow it to exceed those limit
conditions.
(3) The rotorcraft must meet the flutter and divergence
requirements of Sec. 29.629.
(c) System in the failure condition. For all system failure
conditions shown to be not extremely improbable, the following apply:
(1) 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 the failure.
(i) For static strength substantiation, these loads multiplied by
an appropriate factor of safety that is related to the probability of
occurrence of the failure are the ultimate loads that must be
considered for design. The factor of safety is defined in Figure 1.
[[Page 88618]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08DE16.007
(ii) For residual strength substantiation, the rotorcraft must be
able to withstand two-thirds of the ultimate loads defined in paragraph
(c)(1)(i) of these special conditions.
(iii) Freedom from flutter and divergence must be shown under all
conditions of operation including:
(A) Airspeeds up to 1.11 VNE (power on and power off).
(B) Main rotor speeds from 0.95 multiplied by the minimum permitted
speed up to 1.05 multiplied by the maximum permitted speed (power on
and power off).
(C) The critical combinations of weight, center of gravity
position, load factor, and altitude.
(iv) For failure conditions that result in excursions beyond
operating limitations, freedom from flutter and divergence must be
shown to increased speeds, so that the margins intended by paragraph
(c)(1)(iii) of these special conditions are maintained.
(v) 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.
(2) For the continuation of the flight. For the rotorcraft in the
system failed state, and considering all appropriate reconfiguration
and flight limitations, the following apply:
(i) The loads derived from the following conditions (or defined by
special conditions or equivalent level of safety in lieu of the
following conditions) at speeds up to VNE (power on and
power off) (or the speed limitation prescribed for the remainder of the
flight) and at the minimum and maximum main rotor speeds, if
applicable, must be determined:
(A) The limit maneuvering conditions specified in Sec. Sec. 29.337
and 29.339.
(B) The limit gust conditions specified in Sec. 29.341.
(C) The limit yaw maneuvering conditions specified in Sec. 29.351.
(D) The limit unsymmetrical conditions specified in Sec. 29.427.
(E) The limit ground loading conditions specified in Sec. 29.473.
(ii) For static strength substantiation, each part of the structure
must be able to withstand the loads in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of these
special conditions multiplied by a factor of safety depending on the
probability of being in this failure state. The factor of safety is
defined in Figure 2.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08DE16.008
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 factor of safety must be applied to all
limit load conditions specified in Subpart C.
(iii) For residual strength substantiation, the rotorcraft must be
able to withstand two-thirds of the ultimate loads defined in paragraph
(c)(2)(ii) of these special conditions.
(iv) 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.
(v) Freedom from flutter and divergence must be shown up to 1.11
VNE (power on and power off).
(vi) Freedom from flutter and divergence must also be shown up to
1.11 VNE (power on and power off) for all probable system
failure conditions combined with any damage required or considered
under Sec. 29.571(g) or Sec. 29.573(d)(3).
(3) Consideration of certain failure conditions may be required by
other sections of 14 CFR part 29 regardless of calculated system
reliability. Where the failure analysis shows the probability of
[[Page 88619]]
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.
(d) Failure indications. For system failure detection and
indication, the following apply:
(1) The system must be checked for failure conditions, not
extremely improbable, that degrade the structural capability below the
level required by 14 CFR part 29 or that significantly reduce the
reliability of the remaining operational portion of the system. As far
as reasonably practicable, the flight crew 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 other means of detecting failures before flight will
become part of the certification maintenance requirements (CMRs) and
must be limited to components that are not readily detectable by normal
detection and indication systems, and where service history shows that
inspections will provide an adequate level of safety.
(2) The existence of any failure condition, shown to be not
extremely improbable, during flight that could significantly affect the
structural capability of the rotorcraft and for which the associated
reduction in airworthiness can be minimized by suitable flight
limitations, must be signaled to the flight crew. For example, failure
conditions that result in a factor of safety between the rotorcraft
strength and the loads of Subpart C below 1.25, or flutter and
divergence margins below 1.11 VNE (power on and power off),
must be signaled to the crew during flight.
(e) Dispatch with known failure conditions. If the rotorcraft is to
be dispatched in a known system failure condition that affects
structural performance, or that affects the reliability of the
remaining operational portion of the system to maintain structural
performance, then the provisions of these special conditions must be
met, including the provisions of paragraph (b) for the dispatched
condition and paragraph (c) 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 of these special conditions. 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 Figure 2 of these special
conditions. 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 10-\3\ per hour.
Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on November 30, 2012.
Lance Gant,
Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-29431 Filed 12-7-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P