[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 59 (Monday, March 28, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17183-17185]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7180]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee; Transport Airplane and
Engine Issues--New Task
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of new task assignment for the Aviation Rulemaking
Advisory Committee (ARAC).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FAA assigned ARAC a new task to consider whether changes
to part 25 are necessary to address rudder pedal sensitivity and rudder
reversals. This notice is to inform the public of this ARAC activity.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert C. Jones, Propulsion/Mechanical
Systems Branch, ANM-112, Transport Airplane Directorate, Federal
Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98057, telephone (425) 227-1234, facsimile (425) 227-1149; e-mail
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The FAA established the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee
(ARAC) to provide advice and recommendations to the FAA Administrator
on the FAA's rulemaking activities with respect to aviation-related
issues. This includes obtaining advice and recommendations on the FAA's
commitments to harmonize Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14
CFR), with its partners in Europe, Canada, and Brazil; in this
instance, on rudder pedal sensitivity and rudder reversals. The
committee will address the task under the ARAC's Transport Airplane and
Engine Issues, and will reestablish the Flight Controls Harmonization
Working Group, to assist in analysis of this task.
Recent research shows that regardless of training, pilots make
inadvertent and erroneous rudder inputs, some of which have resulted in
pedal reversals. Accident and incident data show airplanes that have
experienced pedal reversals that surpassed the airplane's structural
limit load and sometimes ultimate load. One case resulted in loss of
the vertical fin, the airplane and 265 lives.
On November 12, 2001, an Airbus A300-600 crashed at Belle Harbor on
climb-out resulting in 265 deaths and an airplane hull loss. The
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) found ``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 that were
created by the first officer's unnecessary and excessive rudder pedal
inputs. Contributing to these rudder pedal inputs were characteristics
of the Airbus A300-600 rudder system design and elements of the
American Airlines Advanced Aircraft Maneuvering Program.''
In two additional events, commonly known as the Miami Flight 903
event and the Interflug event, pilot commanded pedal reversals caused
A300-600/A310 fins to experience loads greater than their ultimate load
level. Both airplanes survived because they possessed greater strength
than required by the current standards.
In January 2008, an Airbus 319 encountered a wake vortex. The pilot
responded with several pedal reversals. Analysis shows that this caused
a fin load exceeding limit load by approximately 29 percent. The pilot
eventually stabilized the airplane and safely landed. The
Transportation Safety Board (TSB) Canada investigated this event, with
the NTSB providing accredited representatives.
On May 27, 2005, a de Havilland DHC-8-100 (Dash 8) airplane
(registration C-GZKH, serial number 117) was on a passenger revenue
flight from St. John's to Deer Lake, Newfoundland, with 36 passengers
and 3 crew on board. During the climb-out from St. John's, the
indicated airspeed gradually decreased to the point that the airplane
entered an aerodynamic stall. The airplane descended rapidly, out of
control, losing 4200 feet before recovery was effected approximately 40
seconds later. The incident occurred during daylight hours in
instrument meteorological conditions. There were no injuries and the
airplane was not damaged. During this event, the pilot commanded a
pedal reversal.
The FAA sponsored studies \1\ to understand parameters that affect
the way pilots use the rudder. These studies included a survey of
transport pilots from all over the world and real time piloted flight
simulation. One of the studies found that many experienced pilots
misused the rudder after wake vortex encounters. A follow-on study
showed that the key parameter leading to excessive pedal use is short
pedal travel. The analysis of a survey of large airplane pilots found:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 1. DOT/FAA/AM-10/14, The Rudder Survey Technical Report. For
a copy, call Sarah Peterson at (405) 954-6840.
2. DOT/FAA/AR-09-5, Pilot Simulations Study to Develop Transport
Aircraft Rudder Control System Requirements Phase 1 Simulator Motion
System Requirements and Initial Results, Authors Hoh, Desrochers,
Niscoll, 18 April 2007.
Note: HAI is about to release another report that has additional
and more important results (essentially that pilot tendency to over-
control correlates very strongly with pedal travel).
3. DOT/FAA/AR-10/17, Piloted Simulation Study to Develop
Transport Aircraft Rudder Control System Requirements Phase 2
Develop Criteria for Rudder Overcontrol, Authors Hoh, Desrochers,
Niscoll.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Pilots use the rudder more than previously thought and often in
ways
[[Page 17184]]
not recommended by the design approval holders (DAHs).
2. Pilots make erroneous pedal inputs, and some erroneous pedal
inputs include rudder reversals.
3. After years of training, many pilots are not aware that they
should not make pedal reversals, even below design maneuvering speed
(VA). Note: Over the past 4 years, training and Airplane
Flight Manual (AFM) changes have directed the pilot not to make cyclic
control inputs, but events occurred despite this effort.
4. Pilots in airplane upset situations (e.g., wake vortex
encounters) may revert to prior training and make excessive pedal
inputs that they may then counter with pedal reversals.
The current standards in part 25 address large pedal inputs at
airspeeds up to the design dive airspeed (VD). This ensures
safe structural airplane characteristics throughout the flight envelope
from single full rudder inputs. However, the standard does not address
the loads imposed by rudder reversals. Additionally, sections of part
25 require that controls operate with ease and smoothness appropriate
to their function. However, these standards do not address specific
control system parameters such as inceptor travel breakout force or
force gradient.
The FAA is partially addressing this condition for new designs by
requiring under Sec. 25.601 that applicants for new type certificates
show that the design is capable of continued safe flight and landing
after experiencing rudder pedal reversals. The applicants have been
able to show compliance with this requirement by appropriate rudder
controls. These control schemes have been incorporated through software
and therefore add no weight or maintenance cost to the airplanes.
However, such controls might only be capable of a limited number of
pedal reversals before exceeding airframe ultimate loads, and part 25
may need to address this situation.
The Task
Excessive use of rudder, beyond its design capabilities, has been
identified as a contributing factor in several incidents and accidents.
The FAA is tasking ARAC to consider:
1. the need to revise 14 CFR part 25, subpart C, to ensure airplane
structural capability in the presence of rudder reversals and
associated buildup of sideslip angles through a defined flight envelope
(see question 1), or
2. if other sections of the airworthiness standard may more
appropriately address this concern, such as certain pedal
characteristics that discourage pilots from making pedal reversals
(reduce pedal sensitivity).
If ARAC determines new requirements are necessary, it must
recommend performance-based standards that allows manufacturers the
flexibility to design airplanes to meet their needs while ensuring
airplane safety. ARAC would also need to recommend methods of
compliance (criteria), such as background simulation or piloted
simulation, to support the rule change.
In addition, ARAC must consider the need to revise 14 CFR parts 26,
121, 125, 129, and 135, or to write airworthiness directives to address
the safety concerns posed by rudder reversals in the existing transport
airplane fleet. Finally, ARAC must recommend criteria that can be used
to determine the need for retrofit.
ARAC is expected to provide a report that addresses the following
questions regarding new airplane designs, with rationale for their
responses. Any disagreement should be documented, including the
rationale from each party and the reasons for the disagreement.
Questions
For New Transport Airplanes:
1. Define what is meant by pilot misuse/use of rudder and rudder
pedal sensitivity, and determine the appropriate flight envelope that
should be considered.
2. Consider what types of part 25 standards can be developed to
prevent unintended or inappropriate rudder usage, or to ensure that
unintended usage provides a level of safety commensurate with part 25.
The working group should consider the following areas of the existing
airworthiness standard:
a. Loads.
b. Maneuverability.
c. System design.
d. Control sensitivity.
e. Warning.
3. What is the best regulatory approach to address rudder usage?
For example, is it better to assume certain inputs and provide
mitigation to ensure safe flight (envelope protection), or to provide
certain standards to ensure that the pilot will not make (inadvertent
or inappropriate) inputs?
4. What changes, if any, to part 25--including details for
compliance demonstration and guidance--are recommended for new type
certification applications to prevent unintended improper rudder usage?
Some considerations include use of analysis, desktop or piloted
simulation, or actual flight testing.
5. Are there any regulations or guidance material that might
conflict with the proposal?
6. Does current technology exist to support implementation of new
requirements?
7. What are the effects and implications of any proposed change
regarding commonly used system designs? For example, would a new
standard cause adverse interaction with currently used fly-by-wire
flight control systems, stability augmentation or auto-flight systems,
or with current operations?
8. Does the proposed solution present any issues relating to
specific flight phases or environmental conditions? If so, what are
they, and how should they be addressed?
9. What recommended guidance material is needed?
10. After reviewing airworthiness standard, safety, cost, benefit,
and other relevant factors, including recent certification and fleet
experience, are there any additional considerations that should be
taken into account?
11. Is coordination necessary with other harmonization working
groups (e.g., Human Factors, Flight Test)?
For Existing Transport Airplanes:
The report must address the following questions while considering
existing transport airplane designs, with rationale for the responses.
Any disagreements should be documented, including the rationale from
each party and the reasons for the disagreement.
1. What factors should be considered to determine if retrofit
should be required?
2. For airplanes that require retrofit per the criteria, what
differences should be considered from the requirements developed for
new transport airplanes?
3. What are the effects and implications of any proposed retrofit
standards and guidance for current system designs? For example, would
the retrofit cause adverse interaction with currently used fly-by-wire
flight control systems, stability augmentation or auto-flight systems,
or with current operations?
4. After reviewing airworthiness standards, safety, cost, benefit,
and other relevant factors, including recent certification and fleet
experience, are there any additional considerations that should be
taken into account?
5. If improvements are needed to ensure safe rudder usage, what is
the recommended method to mandate retrofit? (Ad hoc airworthiness
directives, part 26 rules, etc.) In responding, ARAC should address the
factors set forth in ``FAA Policy Statement: Safety-A Shared
[[Page 17185]]
Responsibility-New Direction for Addressing Airworthiness Issues for
Transport Airplanes'' (70 FR 40166, July 12, 2005), and the industry's
ability to provide the necessary retrofit equipment that might be
required.
ARAC should provide information that could lead to requirements in
rudder load conditions, and/or system design that can be satisfied with
practical design approaches.
The FAA will provide a copy of each DOT report mentioned in this
tasking notice.
Schedule: The tasks described above are to be accomplished within
18 months of publication of this tasking notice in the Federal
Register.
ARAC Acceptance of Task
ARAC accepted the task and will assign it to the reestablished
Flight Controls Harmonization Working Group, under Transport Airplane
and Engine Issues. This working group will use task groups to assist in
their activities. Nominees should have experience in the areas of
flight test, flight controls, loads, or human factors. The working
group serves as support to ARAC and assists in the analysis of assigned
tasks. ARAC must review and approve the working group's
recommendations. If ARAC accepts the working group's recommendations,
it will forward them to the FAA.
Working Group Activity
The Flight Controls Harmonization Working Group must comply with
the procedures adopted by ARAC. As part of the procedures, the working
group must:
1. Recommend a work plan for completion of the task, including the
rationale supporting such a plan, for consideration at the next ARAC
meeting on Transport Airplane and Engine Issues held following
publication of this notice.
2. Give a detailed conceptual presentation of the proposed
recommendations before proceeding with the work stated in item 3 below.
3. Draft the appropriate documents and required analyses and/or any
other related materials or documents.
4. Provide a status report at each ARAC meeting held to consider
Transport Airplane and Engine Issues.
Participation in the Working Group
The Flight Controls Harmonization Working Group will be composed of
technical experts having an interest in the assigned task. A working
group member need not be a representative or a member of the full
committee.
If you have expertise in the subject matter and wish to become a
member of the working group, write to the person listed under the
caption FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT expressing that desire.
Describe your interest in the task and state the expertise you would
bring to the working group. We must receive all requests by April 25,
2011. The assistant chair and the assistant executive director will
review the requests and advise you whether or not your request is
approved.
If you are chosen for membership on the working group, you must
represent your aviation community segment and actively participate in
the working group by attending all meetings, and providing written
comments when requested to do so. You must devote the resources
necessary to support the working group in meeting any assigned
deadlines. You must keep your management chain and those you may
represent advised of working group activities and decisions to ensure
that the proposed technical solutions don't conflict with your
sponsoring organization's position when the subject being considered is
presented to ARAC for approval. Once the working group has begun
deliberations, members will not be added or substituted without the
approval of the assistant chair, the assistant executive director and
the working group chair.
The Secretary of Transportation determined that the formation and
use of ARAC is necessary and in the public interest in connection with
the performance of duties imposed on the FAA by law.
ARAC meetings are open to the public. Meetings of the Flight
Controls Harmonization Working Group will not be open to the public,
except to the extent individuals with an interest and expertise are
selected to participate. The FAA will make no public announcement of
working group meetings.
Issued in Washington, DC, on March 23, 2011.
Pamela Hamilton-Powell,
Executive Director, Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 2011-7180 Filed 3-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P