Special Conditions: Skyryse, Robinson Helicopter Company Model R66 Helicopter; Interaction of Systems and Structures, 100730-100734 [2024-27713]
Download as PDF
100730
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
(SAE) recommended practice J211/1,
‘‘Instrumentation for Impact Test-Part 1Electronic Instrumentation.’’
(c) The occupant must not interact
with the armrest or other seat
components in any manner significantly
different than would be expected for a
forward-facing seat installation.
4. Pelvis Criteria:
Any part of the load-bearing portion
of the bottom of the ATD pelvis must
not translate beyond the edges of the
seat bottom seat-cushion supporting
structure.
5. Femur Criteria:
Axial rotation of the upper leg (about
the Z-axis of the femur per SAE
Recommended Practice J211/1) must be
limited to 35 degrees from the nominal
seated position. Evaluation during
rebound does not need to be considered.
6. ATD and Test Conditions:
Longitudinal tests conducted to
measure the injury criteria above must
be performed with the FAA Hybrid III
ATD, as described in SAE 1999–01–
1609, ‘‘A Lumber Spine Modification to
the Hybrid III ATD for Aircraft Seat
Tests.’’ The tests must be conducted
with an undeformed floor, at the mostcritical yaw cases for injury, and with
all lateral structural supports (e.g.
armrests or walls) installed.
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Note: The applicant must demonstrate that
the installation of seats via plinths or pallets
meets all applicable requirements.
Compliance with the guidance contained in
policy memorandum PS–ANM–100–2000–
00123, ‘‘Guidance for Demonstrating
Compliance with Seat Dynamic Testing for
Plinths and Pallets,’’ dated February 2, 2000,
may be applied.
7. Head Injury Criteria:
The HIC value must not exceed 1000
at any condition at which the
pretensioner does or does not deploy,
up to the maximum severity pulse that
corresponds to the test conditions
specified in § 25.562. Tests must be
performed to demonstrate this, taking
into account any necessary tolerances
for deployment.
When an airbag is present in addition
to the pretensioner restraint system, and
the anthropomorphic test dummy (ATD)
has no apparent contact with the seat/
structure but has contact with the
airbag, a HIC unlimited score in excess
of 1000 is acceptable provided the
HIC15 score (calculated in accordance
with 49 CFR 571.208) for the contact is
less than 700. ATD head contact with
the seat or other structure, through the
airbag, or contact subsequent to contact
with the airbag, requires a HIC value
that does not exceed 1000.
8. Protection During Secondary
Impacts:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:42 Dec 12, 2024
Jkt 265001
The pretensioner activation setting
must be demonstrated to maximize the
probability of the protection being
available when needed, considering
secondary impacts.
9. Protection of Occupants Other than
50th Percentile:
Protection of occupants for a range of
stature from a 2-year-old child to a 95th
percentile male must be shown. For
shoulder harnesses that include
pretensioners, protection of occupants
other than a 50th percentile male may
be shown by test or analysis. In
addition, the pretensioner must not
introduce a hazard to passengers due to
the following seat configurations:
(a) The seat occupant is holding an
infant.
(b) The seat occupant is a child in a
child-restraint device.
(c) The seat occupant is a pregnant
woman.
10. Occupants Adopting the Brace
Position:
Occupants in the traditional brace
position when the pretensioner activates
must not experience adverse effects
from the pretensioner activation.
11. Inadvertent Pretensioner
Actuation:
(a) The probability of inadvertent
pretensioner actuation must be shown
to be extremely remote (i.e., average
probability per flight hour of less than
10¥7).
(b) The system must be shown not
susceptible to inadvertent pretensioner
actuation as a result of wear and tear, or
inertia loads resulting from in-flight or
ground maneuvers likely to be
experienced in service.
(c) The seated occupant must not be
seriously injured as a result of
inadvertent pretensioner actuation.
(d) Inadvertent pretensioner
activation must not cause a hazard to
the airplane, nor cause serious injury to
anyone who may be positioned close to
the retractor or belt (e.g., seated in an
adjacent seat or standing adjacent to the
seat).
12. Availability of the Pretensioner
Function Prior to Flight:
The design must provide means for a
crewmember to verify the availability of
the pretensioner function prior to each
flight, or the probability of failure of the
pretensioner function must be
demonstrated to be extremely remote
(i.e., average probability per flight hour
of less than 10¥7) between inspection
intervals.
13. Incorrect Seat Belt Orientation:
The system design must ensure that
any incorrect orientation (twisting) of
the seat belt does not compromise the
pretensioner protection function.
14. Contamination Protection:
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
The pretensioner mechanisms and
controls must be protected from external
contamination associated with that
which could occur on or around
passenger seating.
15. Prevention of Hazards:
The pretensioner system must not
induce a hazard to passengers in case of
fire, nor create a fire hazard, if activated.
16. Functionality After Loss of Power:
The system must function properly
after loss of normal airplane electrical
power, and after a transverse separation
in the fuselage at the most critical
location. A separation at the location of
the system does not have to be
considered.
Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on
December 9, 2024.
Patrick R. Mullen,
Manager, Technical Policy Branch, Policy and
Standards Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2024–29442 Filed 12–12–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 27
[Docket No. FAA–2024–0875; Special
Conditions No. 27–058–SC]
Special Conditions: Skyryse, Robinson
Helicopter Company Model R66
Helicopter; Interaction of Systems and
Structures
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final special conditions.
AGENCY:
These special conditions are
issued for the Robinson Helicopter
Company (Robinson) Model R66
helicopter. This helicopter, as modified
by Skyryse, will have a novel or unusual
design feature when compared to the
state of technology envisioned in the
airworthiness standards for normal
category helicopters. This design feature
is a novel control input and fly-by-wire
(FBW) system. 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: Effective December 13, 2024.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Daniel Moore, Airframe Section, AIR–
622, Technical Policy Branch, Policy
and Standards Division, Aircraft
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\13DER1.SGM
13DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Certification Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, 901 Locust, Kansas
City, MO 64106; telephone (303) 342–
1066; email Daniel.E.Moore@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On April 10, 2023, Skyryse applied
for a supplemental type certificate for
removal of the mechanical control
system and installation of a computer
controlled flight control system in the
Model R66 helicopter. The Robinson
Model R66 helicopter, currently
approved under Type Certificate No.
R00015LA, is a single engine normal
category rotorcraft. The maximum takeoff weight is 2,700 pounds, with a
maximum seating capacity of five
passengers.
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Type Certification Basis
Under the provisions of 14 CFR
21.101, Skyryse must show that the
Robinson Model R66 helicopter, as
changed, continues to meet the
applicable provisions of the regulations
listed in Type Certificate No. R00015LA
or the applicable regulations in effect on
the date of application for the change,
except for earlier amendments as agreed
upon by the FAA.
If the Administrator finds that the
applicable airworthiness regulations do
not contain adequate or appropriate
safety standards for the Robinson Model
R66 helicopter 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 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,
these special conditions would also
apply to the other model under § 21.101.
In addition to the applicable
airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the Robinson Model R66
helicopter must comply with the fuelvent and exhaust-emission requirements
of 14 CFR part 34, and the noisecertification 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
§ 21.101.
Novel or Unusual Design Feature
The Robinson Model R66 helicopter
will incorporate the following novel or
unusual design feature:
Novel control input and FBW system.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:42 Dec 12, 2024
Jkt 265001
Discussion
Skyryse has proposed to install an
FBW flight control system (FCS)
intended to replace the current
hydraulicly boosted mechanical primary
FCS, on a Robinson Model R66
helicopter. FBW systems are new to part
27 rotorcraft and as such, the rotorcraft
FCS will now contain control functions
that affect the static strength of
rotorcraft structure.
These special conditions would give
the applicant an option to offset the
structural factor of safety based on the
probability of system failure. These
special conditions apply to systems that
can induce loads on the airframe or
change the response of the rotorcraft to
maneuvers or to control inputs, as a
result of failure. Some potential
examples include part 27 rotorcraft
equipped with FBW or fly-by-light
FCSs, 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.
The FAA has issued special
conditions for the interaction of systems
and structures to other aircraft in the
past (parts 23, 25, and 29). Active flight
control systems are capable of providing
automatic responses to inputs from
sources other than the pilots. These
automatic systems may become
inoperative or may operate in a
degraded mode, which could impact the
loads envelope and rotorcraft static
strength.
Therefore, it is necessary to determine
the structural factors of safety and
operating margins such that the joint
probability of structural failures due to
application of loads during system
malfunctions is not greater than that
found in rotorcraft equipped with
earlier technology control systems. To
achieve this objective, it is necessary to
define the failure conditions with their
associated frequency of occurrence in
order to determine the structural factors
of safety and operating margins that will
ensure an acceptable level of safety.
The 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.
Discussion of Comments
The FAA issued Notice of Proposed
Special Conditions No. 27–24–01–SC
for the Robinson Model R66 helicopter,
as modified by Skyryse, which was
published in the Federal Register on
August 28, 2024 (89 FR 68833).
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
100731
No comments were received, and the
special conditions are adopted as
proposed.
Applicability
As discussed above, these special
conditions are applicable to the
Robinson R66 helicopter. Should
Skyryse apply at a later date for a
supplemental type certificate to modify
any other model included on Type
Certificate No. R00015LA to incorporate
the same novel or unusual design
feature, these special conditions would
apply to that model as well.
Under standard practice, the effective
date of final special conditions would
be 30 days after the date of publication
in the Federal Register. However, as the
certification date for the Robinson R66
helicopter, as modified by Skyryse, is
imminent, the FAA finds that good
cause exists to make these special
conditions effective upon publication.
Conclusion
This action affects only a certain
novel or unusual design feature on one
model of helicopter. It is not a rule of
general applicability and affects only
the applicant who applied to the FAA
for approval of these features on the
helicopter.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 27
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Authority Citation
The authority citation for these
special conditions is as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 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 the Robinson R66
helicopter, as modified by Skyryse.
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 subparts C and D of part
27 of title 14 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR).
The following criteria must be used
for showing compliance with these
special conditions:
(a) The criteria defined herein only
address the direct structural
consequences of the system responses
E:\FR\FM\13DER1.SGM
13DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
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
structures 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 these
special conditions 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 27.
(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,
avoidance of severe weather conditions,
etc.).
(3) Operational limitations:
Limitations, including flight limitations
that can be applied to the rotorcraft
operating conditions before dispatch
(e.g., fuel, payload, and master
minimum equipment list limitations).
(4) Failure condition: The term failure
condition is the same as that used in
§ 27.1309; 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).
(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 any
condition of operation including:
(A) Airspeeds up to 1.11 VNE (power
on and power off).
(B) Main rotor speeds from 0.95 × the
minimum permitted speed up to 1.05 ×
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:42 Dec 12, 2024
Jkt 265001
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 of this part (or
used in lieu of those specified in
subpart C of this part), 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
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
conservative way when deriving limit
loads from limit conditions.
(2) The rotorcraft must meet the
strength requirements of part 27 (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 requirements of § 27.629.
(c) System in the failure condition.
For any system failure condition not
shown to be 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 ultimate loads to be considered for
design. The factor of safety is defined in
figure 1.
the maximum permitted speed (power
on and power off).
(C) The critical combinations of
weight, center of gravity position, load
factor, altitude, speed, and power
condition.
E:\FR\FM\13DER1.SGM
13DER1
ER13DE24.078
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
100732
(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 any appropriate
reconfiguration and flight limitations,
the following apply:
(i) The loads derived from the
following conditions (or used 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 symmetrical
maneuvering conditions specified in
§§ 27.337 and 27.339;
(B) The limit gust conditions specified
in § 27.341;
(C) The limit yaw maneuvering
conditions specified in § 27.351;
(D) The limit unsymmetrical
conditions specified in § 27.427; and
(E) The limit ground loading
conditions specified in § 27.473.
(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.
Qj = (Tj)(Pj)
required or selected for investigation by
either § 27.571(e) or § 27.573(d).
(3) Consideration of certain failure
conditions may be required by other
sections of 14 CFR part 27 regardless of
calculated system reliability. Where
analysis shows the probability of these
failure conditions to be extremely
improbable, 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 shown to be
extremely improbable, that degrade the
structural capability below the level
required by part 27 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 are considered certification
maintenance requirements 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, not shown to be 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 of this part,
below 1.25, or flutter and divergence
margins below 1.11 VNE (power on and
where:
Qj = Probability of being in failure condition
j
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.
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
100733
(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 also be shown up to
1.11 VNE (power on and power off),
including any probable system failure
condition combined with any damage
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:42 Dec 12, 2024
Jkt 265001
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\13DER1.SGM
13DER1
ER13DE24.079
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
100734
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
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) of these special conditions
for the dispatched condition and
paragraph (c) of these special conditions
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 figure 2. 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 flight hour.
Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on
November 21, 2024.
Patrick R. Mullen,
Manager, Technical Policy Branch, Policy and
Standards Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2024–27713 Filed 12–12–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2024–2553; Project
Identifier MCAI–2024–00674–T; Amendment
39–22908; AD 2024–25–06]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS
Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule; request for
comments.
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
AGENCY:
The FAA is adopting a new
airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus SAS Model A318 series
airplanes; Model A319–111, –112, –113,
–114, –115, –131, –132, –133, –151N,
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:42 Dec 12, 2024
Jkt 265001
–153N, and –171N airplanes; Model
A320 series airplanes; and Model A321
series airplanes. This AD was prompted
by reports of jamming of, or inability to
open, the main landing gear (MLG) door
during maintenance operations. This
AD requires repetitive inspection of the
MLG doors, and, depending on findings,
accomplishment of applicable corrective
actions, and prohibits the installation of
affected parts as specified in a European
Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)
AD, which is incorporated by reference.
The FAA is issuing this AD to address
the unsafe condition on these products.
DATES: This AD is effective December
30, 2024.
The Director of the Federal Register
approved the incorporation by reference
of a certain publication listed in this AD
as of December 30, 2024.
The FAA must receive comments on
this AD by January 27, 2025.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments,
using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
regulations.gov. Follow the instructions
for submitting comments.
• Fax: 202–493–2251.
• Mail: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail
address above between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
AD Docket: You may examine the AD
docket at regulations.gov under Docket
No. FAA–2024–2553; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this final rule, the mandatory
continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI), any comments received, and
other information. The street address for
Docket Operations is listed above.
Material Incorporated by Reference:
• For EASA material identified in this
AD, contact EASA, Konrad-AdenauerUfer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany;
telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
ADs@easa.europa.eu; website
easa.europa.eu. You may find this
material on the EASA website at
ad.easa.europa.eu.
• You may view this material at the
FAA, Airworthiness Products Section,
Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call 206–231–3195.
It is also available at regulations.gov
under Docket No. FAA–2024–2553.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Timothy P. Dowling, Aviation Safety
Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue,
Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590;
telephone 206–231–3667; email
timothy.p.dowling@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
The FAA invites you to send any
written data, views, or arguments about
this final rule. Send your comments to
an address listed under the ADDRESSES
section. Include ‘‘Docket No. FAA–
2024–2553; Project Identifier MCAI–
2024–00674–T’’ at the beginning of your
comments. The most helpful comments
reference a specific portion of the final
rule, explain the reason for any
recommended change, and include
supporting data. The FAA will consider
all comments received by the closing
date and may amend this final rule
because of those comments.
Except for Confidential Business
Information (CBI) as described in the
following paragraph, and other
information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments
received, without change, to
regulations.gov, including any personal
information you provide. The agency
will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received
about this final rule.
Confidential Business Information
CBI is commercial or financial
information that is both customarily and
actually treated as private by its owner.
Under the Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt
from public disclosure. If your
comments responsive to this AD contain
commercial or financial information
that is customarily treated as private,
that you actually treat as private, and
that is relevant or responsive to this AD,
it is important that you clearly designate
the submitted comments as CBI. Please
mark each page of your submission
containing CBI as ‘‘PROPIN.’’ The FAA
will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they
will not be placed in the public docket
of this AD. Submissions containing CBI
should be sent to Timothy P. Dowling,
Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600
Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury,
NY 11590; telephone 206–231–3667;
email timothy.p.dowling@faa.gov. Any
commentary that the FAA receives
which is not specifically designated as
CBI will be placed in the public docket
for this rulemaking.
Background
EASA, which is the Technical Agent
for the Member States of the European
E:\FR\FM\13DER1.SGM
13DER1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 240 (Friday, December 13, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 100730-100734]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-27713]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 27
[Docket No. FAA-2024-0875; Special Conditions No. 27-058-SC]
Special Conditions: Skyryse, Robinson Helicopter Company Model
R66 Helicopter; Interaction of Systems and Structures
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final special conditions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the Robinson
Helicopter Company (Robinson) Model R66 helicopter. This helicopter, as
modified by Skyryse, will have a novel or unusual design feature when
compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness
standards for normal category helicopters. This design feature is a
novel control input and fly-by-wire (FBW) system. 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: Effective December 13, 2024.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Moore, Airframe Section, AIR-
622, Technical Policy Branch, Policy and Standards Division, Aircraft
[[Page 100731]]
Certification Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 901 Locust,
Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone (303) 342-1066; email
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On April 10, 2023, Skyryse applied for a supplemental type
certificate for removal of the mechanical control system and
installation of a computer controlled flight control system in the
Model R66 helicopter. The Robinson Model R66 helicopter, currently
approved under Type Certificate No. R00015LA, is a single engine normal
category rotorcraft. The maximum take-off weight is 2,700 pounds, with
a maximum seating capacity of five passengers.
Type Certification Basis
Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.101, Skyryse must show that the
Robinson Model R66 helicopter, as changed, continues to meet the
applicable provisions of the regulations listed in Type Certificate No.
R00015LA or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of
application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed
upon by the FAA.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for
the Robinson Model R66 helicopter 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 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,
these special conditions would also apply to the other model under
Sec. 21.101.
In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the Robinson Model R66 helicopter 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 Sec. 21.101.
Novel or Unusual Design Feature
The Robinson Model R66 helicopter will incorporate the following
novel or unusual design feature:
Novel control input and FBW system.
Discussion
Skyryse has proposed to install an FBW flight control system (FCS)
intended to replace the current hydraulicly boosted mechanical primary
FCS, on a Robinson Model R66 helicopter. FBW systems are new to part 27
rotorcraft and as such, the rotorcraft FCS will now contain control
functions that affect the static strength of rotorcraft structure.
These special conditions would give the applicant an option to
offset the structural factor of safety based on the probability of
system failure. These special conditions apply to systems that can
induce loads on the airframe or change the response of the rotorcraft
to maneuvers or to control inputs, as a result of failure. Some
potential examples include part 27 rotorcraft equipped with FBW or fly-
by-light FCSs, 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.
The FAA has issued special conditions for the interaction of
systems and structures to other aircraft in the past (parts 23, 25, and
29). Active flight control systems are capable of providing automatic
responses to inputs from sources other than the pilots. These automatic
systems may become inoperative or may operate in a degraded mode, which
could impact the loads envelope and rotorcraft static strength.
Therefore, it is necessary to determine the structural factors of
safety and operating margins such that the joint probability of
structural failures due to application of loads during system
malfunctions is not greater than that found in rotorcraft equipped with
earlier technology control systems. To achieve this objective, it is
necessary to define the failure conditions with their associated
frequency of occurrence in order to determine the structural factors of
safety and operating margins that will ensure an acceptable level of
safety.
The 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.
Discussion of Comments
The FAA issued Notice of Proposed Special Conditions No. 27-24-01-
SC for the Robinson Model R66 helicopter, as modified by Skyryse, which
was published in the Federal Register on August 28, 2024 (89 FR 68833).
No comments were received, and the special conditions are adopted
as proposed.
Applicability
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the
Robinson R66 helicopter. Should Skyryse apply at a later date for a
supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on
Type Certificate No. R00015LA to incorporate the same novel or unusual
design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as
well.
Under standard practice, the effective date of final special
conditions would be 30 days after the date of publication in the
Federal Register. However, as the certification date for the Robinson
R66 helicopter, as modified by Skyryse, is imminent, the FAA finds that
good cause exists to make these special conditions effective upon
publication.
Conclusion
This action affects only a certain novel or unusual design feature
on one model of helicopter. It is not a rule of general applicability
and affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of
these features on the helicopter.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 27
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Authority Citation
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 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 the Robinson R66 helicopter, as
modified by Skyryse.
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 subparts C and D of part 27 of title 14 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (14 CFR).
The following criteria must be used for showing compliance with
these special conditions:
(a) The criteria defined herein only address the direct structural
consequences of the system responses
[[Page 100732]]
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
structures 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 these special conditions 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 27.
(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, avoidance
of severe weather conditions, etc.).
(3) Operational limitations: Limitations, including flight
limitations that can be applied to the rotorcraft operating conditions
before dispatch (e.g., fuel, payload, and master minimum equipment list
limitations).
(4) Failure condition: The term failure condition is the same as
that used in Sec. 27.1309; 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 of this part (or used in lieu of those specified in subpart C
of this part), 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 27
(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 requirements of Sec.
27.629.
(c) System in the failure condition. For any system failure
condition not shown to be 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 ultimate loads to be considered for
design. The factor of safety is defined in figure 1.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13DE24.078
(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 any
condition of operation including:
(A) Airspeeds up to 1.11 VNE (power on and power off).
(B) Main rotor speeds from 0.95 x the minimum permitted speed up to
1.05 x the maximum permitted speed (power on and power off).
(C) The critical combinations of weight, center of gravity
position, load factor, altitude, speed, and power condition.
[[Page 100733]]
(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 any appropriate reconfiguration
and flight limitations, the following apply:
(i) The loads derived from the following conditions (or used 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 symmetrical maneuvering conditions specified in
Sec. Sec. 27.337 and 27.339;
(B) The limit gust conditions specified in Sec. 27.341;
(C) The limit yaw maneuvering conditions specified in Sec. 27.351;
(D) The limit unsymmetrical conditions specified in Sec. 27.427;
and
(E) The limit ground loading conditions specified in Sec. 27.473.
(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] TR13DE24.079
Qj = (Tj)(Pj)
where:
Qj = Probability of being in failure condition j
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 also be shown up to
1.11 VNE (power on and power off), including any probable
system failure condition combined with any damage required or selected
for investigation by either Sec. 27.571(e) or Sec. 27.573(d).
(3) Consideration of certain failure conditions may be required by
other sections of 14 CFR part 27 regardless of calculated system
reliability. Where analysis shows the probability of these failure
conditions to be extremely improbable, 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 shown to
be extremely improbable, that degrade the structural capability below
the level required by part 27 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 are
considered certification maintenance requirements 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, not shown to be
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 of this part, below 1.25, or
flutter and divergence margins below 1.11 VNE (power on and
[[Page 100734]]
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) of these special
conditions for the dispatched condition and paragraph (c) of these
special conditions 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 figure 2. 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
flight hour.
Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on November 21, 2024.
Patrick R. Mullen,
Manager, Technical Policy Branch, Policy and Standards Division,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2024-27713 Filed 12-12-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P