[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 157 (Monday, August 16, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49815-49818]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-20195]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 25
[Docket No. FAA-2009-0810; Amendment No. 25-130]
RIN 2120-AJ21
Maneuvering Speed Limitation Statement
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration amends the airworthiness
standards applicable to transport category airplanes to clarify that
flying at or below the design maneuvering speed does not allow a pilot
to make multiple large control inputs in one airplane axis or single
full control inputs in more than one airplane axis at a time without
endangering the airplane's structure. The FAA is issuing this final
rule to prevent pilots from misunderstanding the meaning of an
airplane's maneuvering speed, which could cause or contribute to a
future accident.
DATES: This amendment becomes effective October 15, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions about this
final rule, contact Don Stimson, Airplane and Flight Crew Interface
Branch, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone
(425) 227-1129; facsimile (425) 227-1149, e-mail [email protected].
For legal questions about this final rule, contact Doug Anderson,
Office of the Regional Counsel, ANM-7, Northwest Mountain Region, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-2166;
facsimile (425) 227-1007, e-mail [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Authority for This Rulemaking
The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in
Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, the FAA is charged with promoting
safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing minimum
standards required in the interest of safety for the design and
performance of aircraft. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it prescribes new safety standards for the design of
transport category airplanes.
I. Background
A. Statement of the Problem
On November 12, 2001, American Airlines Flight 587, an Airbus
Industrie Model A300-605R airplane, crashed shortly after takeoff from
New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport. All 260 people aboard
the airplane and 5 people on the ground were killed. The airplane was
destroyed by impact forces and a post-crash fire. The National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) determined ``that the probable cause
of this accident was the in-flight separation of the vertical
stabilizer as a result of the loads beyond ultimate design loads that
were created by the first officer's unnecessary and excessive rudder
pedal inputs.''
The NTSB's investigation revealed that many pilots might have a
general misunderstanding of what the design maneuvering speed
(VA) is and the extent of structural protection that exists
when an airplane is operated at speeds below its VA.
VA is a structural design airspeed used in determining the
strength requirements for the airplane and its control surfaces. The
structural design requirements do not cover multiple control inputs in
one axis or control inputs in more than one axis at a time at any
speed, even below VA.
The NTSB found that many pilots of transport category airplanes
mistakenly believe that, as long as the airplane's speed is below
VA, they can make any control input they desire without
risking structural damage to the airplane. As a result, the NTSB
recommended that the FAA amend all relevant regulatory and advisory
materials to clarify that operating at or below maneuvering speed does
not provide structural protection against multiple full control inputs
in one axis or full control inputs in more than one axis at the same
time.\1\ After making our own assessment, the FAA agrees with the
NTSB's finding and the resulting recommendation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See NTSB safety recommendation A-04-060, which is included
in the docket for this rulemaking or can be found at http://www.ntsb.gov/Recs/letters/2004/A04_56_62.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Summary of the NPRM
This final rule is based on a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM),
Notice No. 09-10, published in the Federal Register on September 4,
2009 (74 FR 45777). In the NPRM, we proposed to amend 14 CFR
25.1583(a)(3) to change the requirement associated with a statement
that must be furnished in the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) explaining
the use of VA to pilots. The proposed amendment was intended
to clarify that, depending on the particular airplane design, flying at
or below VA does not allow a pilot to make multiple large
control inputs in one airplane axis or single full control inputs in
more than one airplane axis at a time without endangering the
airplane's structure. The comment period for the NPRM closed on
November 3, 2009.
C. Summary of the Final Rule
The FAA is adopting this final rule to prevent pilots from
misunderstanding the meaning of VA, which could cause or
contribute to a future accident. The final rule adopts clarifying
changes to certain statements that must be furnished in each AFM
identifying the types of control inputs to avoid because they may
result in structural failure.
This final rule adopts the proposed rule with minor changes that
will resolve a longstanding inconsistency in the current requirements
that would have been left in place by the proposed rule. This
inconsistency, which goes back to at least the 1953 Civil Air
Regulations Part 4b, concerns the reference to ``maneuvering speed
VA'' in the existing Sec. 25.1583(a)(3). Sections 1.2 and
25.335(c) define ``VA'' as the ``design maneuvering speed,''
not the ``maneuvering speed.'' Section 25.1507 defines the
``maneuvering speed'' as an
[[Page 49816]]
operating limitation that must not exceed the design maneuvering speed,
VA. Since the ``maneuvering speed'' can be less than
VA, the reference to ``maneuvering speed VA'' in
the existing Sec. 25.1583(a)(3) is incorrect.
An applicant may wish to establish a maneuvering speed different
from the design maneuvering speed, in order to make it easier for
pilots to use. For example, the design maneuvering speed,
VA, is an equivalent airspeed. Applicants might find it
desirable to provide a maneuvering speed as a calibrated airspeed equal
to or below the corresponding equivalent design maneuvering airspeed at
all altitudes, in order to provide the information in a format that is
consistent with that used on the flight deck airspeed indicator.
In practice, the maneuvering speed has been identified as
VA in AFMs even when it is not always exactly the same as
the design maneuvering speed defined in Sec. 25.335(c). We have no
evidence of this being unsafe and see no reason to prohibit it in the
future. However, in order to address the inconsistency in the
regulations, for Sec. 25.1583(a)(3), we have changed the reference to
``the maneuvering speed VA'' proposed in the NPRM to ``the
maneuvering speed established under Sec. 25.1507'' in this final rule.
For new Sec. 25.1583(a)(3)(i) and (ii), we have also changed the
references to ``VA'' proposed in the NPRM to ``maneuvering
speed'' in this final rule. We will continue to allow applicants to
refer to this maneuvering speed as VA in AFMs.
For small airplanes, part 23 defines an operating maneuver speed
(VO) to serve the same purpose as the maneuvering speed
established under Sec. 25.1507. The part 23 approach has one advantage
in that there is a unique V-speed abbreviation for pilots to use that
differentiates the maneuvering speed used operationally from the design
maneuvering speed used to show compliance with the structural type
certification requirements. We chose not to introduce a new V-speed
term in part 25 because the VA term has historically been
used for transport category airplanes for both the speed to be used
operationally and for design purposes. Using a new V-speed term could
also potentially lead to confusion if different speed terms and
definitions are used for new airplane designs compared to current
designs.
D. Summary of the Comments
The FAA received nine comments on the NPRM from four commenters--
Airbus, the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), the NTSB, and one
private citizen. Airbus, ALPA, and the NTSB all supported the proposed
amendment. ALPA also submitted a comment that was beyond the scope of
the NPRM. Only the private citizen submitted comments specific to the
scope of the NPRM. The private citizen believed the proposed amendment
is too weak and does not address the underlying airplane handling,
structural, and systems issues. Summaries of the comments and our
responses are provided below.\2\ No changes were made to the final rule
in response to the comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The full text of each commenter's submission is available in
the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Discussion of the Comments
A. Proposed Language Unclear
The private citizen stated that the proposed wording does not help
the pilot know at what speed a certain input to the airframe is safe
and what type of input is likely to cause structural failure. The
commenter went on to ask several related questions: How is a pilot to
know what ``rapid and large'' mean? Will the FAA require the AFM to
provide a specific and detailed explanation of exactly what the
particular airplane is capable of withstanding? Will there be an
advisory circular associated with this changed requirement to provide
interpretation and guidance as to acceptable means of compliance?
The proposed wording tells the pilot the types of pilot input at
speeds above and below VA that may lead to structural
failure. As stated in the NPRM, ``full application of pitch, roll, or
yaw controls should be confined to speeds below VA.''
Therefore, at speeds below VA, pilots can make a full
control input in a single direction in the pitch, roll, or yaw axis
without concern for structural failure. (Note: In the final rule, the
term ``VA'' has been replaced with the words ``maneuvering
speed.'') The proposed regulatory language also states that rapid and
large alternating control inputs, especially if combined with large
changes in pitch, roll, or yaw, and full control inputs in more than
one axis (i.e., pitch, roll, or yaw) at the same time, may result in
structural failure at any speed.
The FAA believes the standard dictionary definitions and common
usage of the words ``rapid and large'' accurately convey their meaning.
The FAA does not see a need to provide further interpretation or
guidance as to the meaning of these terms.
B. Applicability
The private citizen noted the proposed amendment is not
retroactive, so it would not fix the problem for existing aircraft.
Although the proposed amendment would not be retroactive, the FAA
has worked with airplane manufacturers to amend their AFMs for all
major transport category airplanes used in U.S. operations. The wording
now in the limitations section of these AFMs meets the requirements of
this final rule.
C. Airplane Handling Problems Not Addressed
The private citizen stated that the underlying handling problem
that led to the Flight 587 accident has not been addressed. In certain
circumstances, a pilot is required to take firm and, if not aggressive,
then immediate and positive action, yet seemingly has no way to know
how much or when this action is likely to break the airplane. The
commenter noted that the dilemma faced by the pilot is that there is
some unspecified (or poorly specified) point where the kind of control
inputs that he would almost routinely need to apply during landing or
takeoff are no longer safe.
The FAA believes the kinds of control inputs that the pilot may
need to apply during takeoff or landing, or to counter an upset,
continue to be safe and are not precluded by this final rule. The
control inputs made by Flight 587's first officer, which included five
alternating full rudder inputs, would not be needed for any reason.
D. Safety Issues Not Addressed
The private citizen noted that the structural and systems issues
arising from the Flight 587 accident have not been addressed. The
commenter believes different kinds of modifications to 14 CFR part 25
would be required, including consideration of composite structure
failure characteristics compared with traditional (metal) structure.
The commenter stated that this rulemaking must not proceed in isolation
from the other recommendations made by the NTSB. This action responds
to only one of seven NTSB safety recommendations.
The commenter is correct in that this final rule responds only to
NTSB Safety Recommendation A-04-60. The other safety issues arising
from the Flight 587 accident are beyond the scope of this rulemaking
and will be addressed by other means.
III. Regulatory Notice and Analysis
Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork
[[Page 49817]]
and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. We have
determined that there is no current or new requirement for information
collection requirement associated with this amendment.
International Compatibility
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform with
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has
determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices
that correspond to these regulations.
IV. Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination,
International Trade Impact Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment
Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency
shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second,
the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires
agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small
entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits
agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to
the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S.
standards, the Trade Act requires agencies to consider international
standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S.
standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L.
104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs,
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of
1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of
the economic impacts of this final rule.
Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations.
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement
to that effect and the basis for it be included in the preamble if a
full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared.
Such a determination has been made for this final rule.
The reasoning for this determination follows. As a result of its
investigation of the crash of American Airlines Flight 587 on November
12, 2001, the NTSB determined ``that the probable cause of the accident
was the in-flight separation of the vertical stabilizer as a result of
the loads beyond ultimate design loads that were created by the first
officer's unnecessary and excessive pedal inputs,'' including five
alternating full rudder inputs. The NTSB's investigation identified
what appears to be a widespread misunderstanding among pilots about the
degree of structural protection that exists when full or abrupt flight
control inputs are made at airspeeds below an airplane's design
maneuvering speed. In fact, even below the design maneuvering speed,
the structural design standards do not ensure the airplane structure
can withstand multiple control inputs in one axis or control inputs in
more than one axis simultaneously. This amendment will require the AFM
to clarify that flying at or below the design maneuvering speed does
not allow a pilot to make multiple large control inputs in one airplane
axis, or single full control inputs simultaneously in more than one
axis, as such control inputs will endanger the airplane's structure. A
similar change has been made voluntarily to the AFM by manufacturers of
transport category airplanes currently in service. Consequently, this
amendment will entail no crew-training costs, as well as no costs of
testing, analysis, or changes to airplane design, and the expected
outcome will be minimal costs.
This amendment addresses an identified safety issue, so the final
rule has benefits. Consequently, the final rule will have minimal costs
and positive net benefits and a full regulatory evaluation was not
prepared. In the NPRM we requested comments on our determination of
positive net benefits and did not receive any.
The FAA has, therefore, determined that this final rule is not a
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866, and is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's
Regulatory Policies and Procedures.
Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA)
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide range of small entities,
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so
certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The
certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for
this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.
As we noted in the NPRM, all U.S. transport category aircraft
manufacturers exceed the Small Business Administration small-entity
criterion of 1,500 employees. We received no comments disputing this
determination. Moreover, we have determined that the rule will have
minimal costs and positive net benefits. Therefore, as the
Administrator, I certify that this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
International Trade Impact Assessment
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related
activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of
the United States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of
standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign
commerce of the United States, so long as the standards have a
legitimate domestic objective, such as the protection of safety, and do
not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective.
The statute also requires consideration of international standards and,
where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA
has assessed the effects of this rule and determined that it would
promote international trade by harmonizing with
[[Page 49818]]
corresponding EASA regulations thus reducing the cost of joint
certification.
Unfunded Mandates Assessment
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $143.1 million.
This final rule does not contain such a mandate. The requirements
of Title II do not apply.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We determined that this
action would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, and, therefore, would not have federalism implications.
Regulations Affecting Intrastate Aviation in Alaska
Section 1205 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat.
3213) requires the Administrator, when modifying regulations in Title
14 of the CFR in a manner affecting intrastate aviation in Alaska, to
consider the extent to which Alaska is not served by transportation
modes other than aviation, and to establish appropriate regulatory
distinctions. In the NPRM, we requested comments on whether the
proposed rule should apply differently to intrastate operations in
Alaska. We did not receive any comments, and we have determined, based
on the administrative record of this rulemaking, there is no need to
make any regulatory distinctions applicable to intrastate aviation in
Alaska.
Environmental Analysis
FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has
determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical
exclusion identified in paragraph 4(j) and involves no extraordinary
circumstances.
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use
The FAA has analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We have determined that it is not
a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order, and it is
unlikely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy.
Availability of Rulemaking Documents
You can get an electronic copy of rulemaking documents using the
Internet by--
1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);
2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or
3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's web page at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.
You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Make
sure to identify the docket number or amendment number of this
rulemaking.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit
http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information
or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its
jurisdiction. If you are a small entity and you have a question
regarding this document, you may contact your local FAA official, or
the person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at
the beginning of the preamble. You can find out more about SBREFA on
the Internet at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Safety, Transportation.
The Amendment
0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends Chapter I of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations part 25, as
follows:
PART 25--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRPLANES
0
1. The authority citation for part 25 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, and 44704.
0
2. Amend Sec. 25.1583 by revising paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 25.1583 Operating limitations.
(a) * * *
(3) The maneuvering speed established under Sec. 25.1507 and
statements, as applicable to the particular design, explaining that:
(i) Full application of pitch, roll, or yaw controls should be
confined to speeds below the maneuvering speed; and
(ii) Rapid and large alternating control inputs, especially in
combination with large changes in pitch, roll, or yaw, and full control
inputs in more than one axis at the same time, should be avoided as
they may result in structural failures at any speed, including below
the maneuvering speed.
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, DC, on August 8, 2010.
J. Randolph Babbitt,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2010-20195 Filed 8-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P