Rule: Airworthiness Directives: Airplane Performance and Handling Qualities in Icing Conditions

Wednesday,
August 8, 2007
Part III
Department of
Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 25
Airplane Performance and Handling
Qualities in Icing Conditions; Final Rule
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2
VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:59 Aug 07, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\08AUR2.SGM 08AUR2
44656 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 8, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION statement in the Federal Register qualities for flight in icing conditions. In
published on April 11, 2000 (Volume addition, the FAA does not have a
Federal Aviation Administration 65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you standard set of criteria defining what
may visit http://dms.dot.gov. airplane performance capability and
14 CFR Part 25 handling qualities are needed to be able
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
[Docket No. FAA–2005–22840; Amendment to operate safely in icing conditions.
Fairness Act
No. 25–121] Finally, § 25.1419 fails to address
The Small Business Regulatory certification approval for flight in icing
RIN 2120–AI14 Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of conditions for airplanes without ice
1996 requires the FAA to comply with protection features.
Airplane Performance and Handling small entity requests for information or
Qualities in Icing Conditions Service history shows that flight in
advice about compliance with statutes icing conditions may be a safety risk for
AGENCY: Federal Aviation and regulations within its jurisdiction. If transport category airplanes. We found
Administration (FAA), DOT. you are a small entity and you have a nine accidents since 1983 in the
ACTION: Final rule. question regarding this document, you National Transportation Safety Board’s
may contact a local FAA official, or the accident database that may have been
SUMMARY: This action introduces new person listed under FOR FURTHER prevented if this rule had been in effect.
airworthiness standards to evaluate the INFORMATION CONTACT. You can find out
In evaluating the potential for this
performance and handling more about SBREFA on the Internet at rulemaking to avoid future accidents,
characteristics of transport category http://www.faa.gov/ we considered only past accidents
airplanes in icing conditions. This regulations_policies/rulemaking/ involving tailplane stall or potential
action will improve the level of safety sbre_act/. airframe ice accretion effects on drag or
for new airplane designs when controllability. We did not consider
Authority for This Rulemaking
operating in icing conditions, and accidents related to ground deicing
harmonizes the U.S. and European The FAA’s authority to issue rules
since this amendment does not change
airworthiness standards for flight in regarding aviation safety is found in
the ground deicing requirements. We
icing conditions. Title 49 of the United States Code.
also limited our search to accidents
DATES: This final rule becomes effective Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the
involving aircraft certificated to the
October 9, 2007. authority of the FAA Administrator.
icing standards of part 25 (or its
Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don predecessor).
describes in more detail the scope of the
Stimson, FAA, Airplane & Flight Crew
agency’s authority. B. NTSB Recommendations
Interface Branch, ANM–111, Transport
This rulemaking is promulgated
Airplane Directorate, Aircraft This amendment addresses the
under the authority described in
Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue following National Transportation
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section
SW., Renton, Washington 98057–3356; Safety Board (NTSB) safety
44701, ‘‘General requirements.’’ Under
telephone: (425) 227–1129; fax: (425) recommendations related to airframe
that section, the FAA is charged with
227–1149, e-mail: don.stimson@faa.gov. icing:1
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: air commerce by prescribing minimum 1. NTSB Safety Recommendation A–
Availability of Rulemaking Documents standards required in the interest of 91–087 2 recommended requiring flight
safety for the design and performance of tests where ice is accumulated in those
You can get an electronic copy using
aircraft. This regulation is within the cruise and approach flap configurations
the Internet by:
scope of that authority because it in which extensive exposure to icing
(1) Searching the Department of
prescribes new safety standards for the conditions can be expected, and
Transportation’s electronic Docket
design of transport category airplanes. requiring subsequent changes in
Management System (DMS) Web page
(http://dms.dot.gov/search); I. Background configuration to include landing flaps.
(2) Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and This safety recommendation resulted
A. Statement of the Problem from an accident that was attributed to
Policies Web page at http://
www.faa.gov/regulations_policies; or Currently, § 25.1419, ‘‘Ice protection,’’ tailplane stall due to ice contamination.
(3) Accessing the Government requires transport category airplanes This amendment requires applicants
Printing Office’s Web page at http:// with approved ice protection features be to investigate the susceptibility of
www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html. capable of operating safely within the airplanes to ice-contaminated tailplane
You can also get a copy by sending a icing conditions identified in appendix stall during airworthiness certification.
request to the Federal Aviation C of part 25. This section requires An accompanying Advisory Circular
Administration, Office of Rulemaking, applicants to perform flight testing and (AC) will provide detailed guidance on
ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue conduct analyses to make this acceptable means of compliance,
SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by determination. Section 25.1419 only including flight tests in icing conditions
calling (202) 267–9680. Make sure to requires an applicant to demonstrate where the airplane’s configuration is
identify the docket number or that the airplane can operate safely in changed from flaps and landing gear
amendment number of this rulemaking. icing conditions if the applicant is retracted to flaps and landing gear in the
Anyone is able to search the seeking to certificate ice protection landing position.
electronic form of all comments features.
received into any of our dockets by the Although an airplane’s performance 1 Refer to appendix 3 of the NPRM for more
name of the individual submitting the capability and handling qualities are details on these safety recommendations (except for
comment (or signing the comment, if important in determining whether an A–96–056, which was not discussed in the NPRM).
2 ‘‘Effect of Ice on Aircraft Handling
submitted on behalf of an association, airplane can operate safely, part 25 does Characteristics (1984 Trials),’’ Jetstream 31—G–
business, labor union, etc.). You may not have specific requirements on JSSD, British Aerospace Flight Test Report
review DOT’s complete Privacy Act airplane performance or handling FTR.177/JM, dated May 13, 1985.
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 8, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 44657
2. NTSB Safety Recommendation A– address supercooled large droplet icing II. Discussion of the Final Rule
96–056 3 recommended revising the conditions.
4. NTSB Safety Recommendation A– A. General Summary
icing certification testing regulation to
ensure that airplanes are properly tested 98–096 is also a result of the same Twelve commenters responded to the
for all conditions in which they are accident discussed under Safety NPRM: Four private citizens, Airbus
authorized to operate, or are otherwise Recommendation A–98–094, above. The Industrie (Airbus), the Air Line Pilots
shown to be capable of safe flight into NTSB recommended the FAA require, Association (ALPA), The Boeing
such conditions. Additionally, if safe during type certification, that Company (Boeing), Dassault Aviation
operations cannot be demonstrated by manufacturers and operators of all (Dassault), the General Aviation
the manufacturer, operational transport category airplanes certificated Manufacturers Association (GAMA), the
limitations should be imposed to to operate in icing conditions install National Transportation Safety Board
prohibit flight in such conditions and stall warning/protection systems that (NTSB), Raytheon Aircraft Company
flightcrews should be provided with the provide a cockpit warning (aural (Raytheon), and the United Kingdom
means to positively determine when warning and/or stick shaker) before the Civil Aviation Authority (U.K. CAA).
they are in icing conditions that exceed onset of stall when the airplane is Seven of these commenters explicitly
the limits for aircraft certification. operating in icing conditions. expressed support for the rule, none
This amendment partially addresses This amendment requires adequate opposed it. Many of the commenters
stall warning margin to be shown with suggested specific improvements or
safety recommendation A–96–056 by
the most critical ice accretion for clarifications. Summaries of their
revising the certification standards to
transport category airplanes approved to comments and our responses (including
ensure that transport category airplanes
fly in icing conditions. Except for the explanations of changes to the final rule
are properly tested for the critical icing
short time before icing conditions are in response to the comments) are
conditions defined in appendix C of
recognized and the ice protection provided below.5
part 25. We are considering future
system activated, this stall warning
rulemaking action to address icing 1. Engine Bleed Configuration for
must be provided by the same means as
conditions beyond those covered by Showing Compliance With § 25.119
for non-icing conditions. Although
appendix C of part 25, and to provide The proposed § 25.119 would require
neither an aural stall warning or stick
flightcrews with a means to positively shaker is required under this applicants to comply with the landing
determine when they are in icing amendment, all recently certificated climb performance requirements in both
conditions that exceed the limits for transport category airplanes have used icing and non-icing conditions.
aircraft certification. either a stick shaker or an aural warning Raytheon stated that proposed
3. NTSB Safety Recommendation A– to warn the pilot of an impending stall. § 25.119(b) is unclear as to whether the
98–094 4 recommended that We do not anticipate any future engine bleed configuration for showing
manufacturers of all turbine-engine transport category airplane designs compliance should include bleed
driven airplanes (including the EMB– without a cockpit warning of an extraction for operation of the airframe
120) provide minimum maneuvering impending stall. and engine ice protection systems (IPS).
airspeed information for all airplane Raytheon pointed out that engine bleed
configurations, phases, and conditions C. Summary of the NPRM
extraction for operating the airframe and
of flight (icing and non-icing This amendment is based on the engine IPS could affect engine
conditions). Also, the NTSB notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), acceleration time, which would affect
recommended that minimum airspeeds Notice No. 05–10, which was published the thrust level used for showing
should take into consideration the in the Federal Register on November 4, compliance. Raytheon noted that the
effects of various types, amounts, and 2005 (70 FR 67278). In the NPRM, we means of compliance in the proposed
locations of ice accumulations, proposed to revise the airworthiness AC addresses this issue, but
including thin amounts of very rough standards for type certification of recommended that it be clarified within
ice, ice accumulated in supercooled transport category airplanes to add a the rule.
large droplet icing conditions, and comprehensive set of new requirements While we agree that engine bleed
tailplane icing. for airplane performance and handling extraction could affect the thrust level
This amendment partially addresses qualities for flight in icing conditions. used to show compliance with
safety recommendation A–98–094 by We also proposed to add requirements § 25.119(b), we disagree that the rule
requiring the same maneuvering that define the ice accretion (that is, the needs to be revised to state the bleed
capability requirements at the minimum size, shape, location, and texture of the configuration. For flight in icing
operating speeds in the most critical ice) that must be considered for each conditions, § 25.21(g)(1) requires
icing conditions defined in appendix C phase of flight. compliance to be shown assuming
of part 25 as are currently required in These changes were proposed to normal operation of the airplane and its
non-icing conditions. We are ensure that minimum operating speeds IPS in accordance with the operating
considering future rulemaking action to determined during certification of all limitations and operating procedures
future transport category airplanes will established by the applicant and
3 National Transportation Safety Board, 1996. ‘‘In- provide adequate maneuver capability provided in the Airplane Flight Manual
Flight Icing Encounter and Loss of Control, in icing conditions for all phases of (AFM). The bleed configuration of the
Simmons Airlines, d.b.a.American Eagle Flight flight and all airplane configurations. engines would be part of the AFM
4184, Avions de Transport Regional (ATR) Model They would also harmonize the FAA’s
72–212, N401AM, Roselawn, Indiana, October 31, operating procedures that must be used
1994.’’ Aircraft Accident Report NTSB/AAR–96/01. regulations with those expected to be to show compliance with § 25.119(b). As
Washington, DC. adopted by the European Aviation noted by Raytheon, the guidance
4 National Transportation Safety Board, 1998. ‘‘In- Safety Agency (EASA). This provided in the AC accompanying this
Flight Icing Encounter and Uncontrolled Collision harmonization would not only benefit
With Terrain, Comair Flight 3272, Embraer EMB– final rule reminds applicants that the
120RT, N265CA, Monroe, Michigan, January 9,
the aviation industry economically, but
1997.’’ Aircraft Accident Report NTSB/AR–98/04. also maintain the necessary high level of 5 The full text of each commenter’s submission is
Washington, DC. aviation safety. available in the Docket.
engine bleed configuration should be holding phase as proposed) and icing conditions if the thrust settings or
considered when showing compliance redesignated as paragraph (a)(6). landing procedures used in icing
with the requirements of this final rule. Finally, applicants would still have conditions would cause an increase in
the option to use a more conservative the landing distance.
2. Using the Landing Ice Accretion To ice accretion in accordance with
Comply With § 25.121(d)(2)(ii) One of the primary safety concerns
paragraph (b) of part II of appendix C. addressed by proposed § 25.125 is to
Boeing proposed using the landing ice Therefore, applicants would have the maintain a minimum speed margin
accretion for showing compliance with option of using the holding ice accretion above the stall speed for an approach
the approach climb gradient as proposed in the NPRM if it was more and landing in icing conditions. This is
requirement in icing conditions, rather critical than the approach ice accretion. achieved by increasing the landing
than the holding ice accretion as approach speed (VREF) if ice on the
proposed in § 25.121(d)(2)(ii). Boeing 3. VREF Comparison at Maximum
Landing Weight airplane results in a significant increase
recommended this change to harmonize in stall speed. Under proposed
with EASA’s proposed rule. Proposed § 25.125(a)(2) would require § 25.125(b)(2)(ii)(B), a significant
We consider it inappropriate to use landing distances to be determined in increase in stall speed relative to this
the landing ice accretion for compliance icing conditions if the landing approach requirement is one that results in an
with § 25.121(d). Section 25.121(d) speed, VREF, for icing conditions increase in VREF of more than 5 knots
specifies the minimum climb capability, exceeds VREF for non-icing conditions
calibrated airspeed, where VREF is not
in terms of a climb gradient, that an by more than 5 knots calibrated
less than 1.23 times the stall speed.
airplane must be capable of achieving in airspeed. Boeing proposed that the VREF
An increase in VREF will increase the
the approach configuration with one speed comparison for icing and non-
distance required by the airplane to land
engine inoperative. This requirement icing conditions in proposed
involves the approach phase of flight, and come to a stop since the airplane
§ 25.125(a)(2) be made at the maximum
which occurs before entering the will touch down at a higher speed. A
landing weight. This proposal would
landing phase. Depending on the IPS significant increase in stall speed in the
harmonize the FAA’s rule with the
design and the procedures for its use, landing configuration due to ice has a
expected EASA final rule. Boeing also
the landing ice accretion (which is secondary effect of increasing the
stated that the proposed rule was
defined as the ice accretion after exiting required landing distance. We proposed
deficient in that it did not specify the
the holding phase and transitioning to in § 25.125(a)(2) that this increase in
weight or weights at which this
the landing phase) may be smaller than landing distance be taken into account.
comparison must be made. The results
the holding ice accretion. For example, Proposed § 25.125(a)(2) resulted from
of this comparison can depend on the
there may be a procedure to use the IPS the secondary effect of a significant
weight at which the comparison is
to remove the ice when transitioning to increase in stall speed in the landing
made.
the landing phase so that the protected We agree that this comparison should configuration due to ice, not to an
areas are clear of ice for landing. It be made at the maximum landing evaluation of all of the possible reasons
would be inappropriate to allow any weight and have revised § 25.125(a)(2) why the required landing distance may
reduction in the ice accretion to be used of the final rule accordingly. We need to be longer in icing conditions.
for the approach climb gradient (in the consider this to be a clarifying change The commenter correctly points out that
approach phase) resulting from using that will not impose an additional a longer landing distance may also be
the IPS in the landing phase. burden on applicants. needed if higher thrust settings or
We note that neither EASA’s Notice of different landing procedures are used in
Proposed Amendment (NPA) covering 4. Landing Distance in Icing Conditions icing conditions.
the same icing-related safety issues As noted in the discussion of the In evaluating the potential costs and
(NPA 16/2004) nor our NPRM define an previous comment, proposed effects of the proposed change, we could
ice accretion specific to the approach § 25.125(a)(2) would require the landing not find any existing airplanes where, if
phase of flight. Both proposals used distance to be determined in icing the requirement proposed by the
holding ice for compliance in icing conditions if the landing approach commenter had been in effect, it would
conditions because holding ice was speed, VREF, for icing conditions have required an applicant to determine
considered to be conservative for this exceeds the non-icing VREF by more a longer landing distance in icing
flight phase. Therefore, we believe that than 5 knots calibrated airspeed. An conditions. In nearly all cases,
it is appropriate to define an additional increase in VREF for icing conditions is applicants have not used different thrust
ice accretion that would be specifically normally caused by an increase in stall or power settings or different
targeted at the approach phase of flight. speed in icing conditions because VREF procedures for landing in icing
We have added the following definition must be at least 1.23 times the stall conditions. Airplane manufacturers
as paragraph (a)(5) in part II of appendix speed. indicated that they did not anticipate
C: Raytheon noted that a change in stall this relationship to change for future
‘‘Approach ice is the critical ice speed is not the only factor that might designs.
accretion on the unprotected parts of the affect landing distance in icing When different thrust or power
airplane, and any ice accretion on the conditions. For example, idle thrust settings or procedures have been used
protected parts appropriate to normal might be adjusted by an engine control for landing in icing conditions, VREF has
IPS operation following exit from the system designed to maintain sufficient also increased by more than 5 knots. In
holding flight phase and transition to bleed flow to support the demands of these cases, applicants would be
the most critical approach engine and airframe ice protection. required by the proposed § 25.125(a) to
configuration.’’ Also, landing procedures for icing determine the landing distance for icing
Section 25.121(d)(2)(ii) is also revised conditions might be different than for conditions, and existing § 25.101(c) and
to refer to this definition. The definition non-icing conditions. Raytheon (f) require applicants to include the
of landing ice is revised to be the ice suggested revising proposed effects of different power or thrust
accretion after exiting from the § 25.125(a)(2) to require that the landing settings or landing procedures on this
approach phase (rather than after the distance must also be determined in landing distance.
Therefore, we see no need to amend most critical for the particular flight only 0.5 g is inadequate, considering the
the proposed requirement as phase. Raytheon stated that because ice relatively high frequency of
recommended by Raytheon. accretion before normal system experiencing 0.5 g in operations. Since
operation is addressed separately in the beginning of the 1980s, the practice
5. Sandpaper Ice Accretion
§ 25.143(j), the controllability of many certification authorities has
Proposed appendix C, part II(a)(6) demonstration required by § 25.143(i)(1) been to require testing to lower load
defined sandpaper ice as a thin, rough should be limited to only the most factors. The industry proposal for
layer of ice. A private citizen notes the critical ice accretion defined in determining the acceptability of a
NPRM did not specifically state how appendix C part II(a) rather than all of
sandpaper ice should be used or control force reversal (as described in
appendix C.
considered in showing compliance with the NPRM) was subjective and would
For purposes of the controllability
any of the proposed airplane demonstrations required by have led to inconsistent evaluations.
performance and handling qualities § 25.143(i)(1), appendix C, parts I and Requiring a push force to zero g removes
requirements. This commenter II(a), (b), (c), and (d) apply. Appendix C, subjectivity in the assessment of the
suggested amending proposed part II(e) only applies to §§ 25.143(j) and airplane’s controllability and provides
§ 25.143(i)(1) to add that if normal 25.207(h), which are the only subpart B readily understood criteria of
operation of the horizontal tail IPS requirements pertaining to flight in acceptability. Any lesser standard
allows ice to form on the tail leading icing conditions before activation of the would not give confidence that the
edge, sandpaper ice must also be IPS. We acknowledge that this limited problem has been fully addressed.
considered in determining the critical applicability of appendix C, part II(e) is We do not consider the requirement
ice accretion. (Proposed § 25.143(i)(1) unclear in the language proposed, and for a push force to be needed to reach
would require applicants to demonstrate we have revised the final rule to include zero g, coupled with allowing a pull
the airplane is safely controllable, per a sentence that specifies this limitation. force of up to 50 pounds during the
the applicable requirements of § 25.143,
with the ice accretion defined in 7. Pushover Maneuver for Ice- recovery, to be inconsistent with our
appendix C that is most critical for the Contaminated Tailplane Stall position that force reversals are
particular flight phase.) Evaluation unacceptable within the normal flight
Appendix C, part II(a) requires Raytheon stated that proposed envelope. The pushover maneuver ends
applicants to use the most critical ice § 25.143(i)(2), which states that a push when zero g is reached (or when full
accretion to show compliance with the force from the pilot must be required down elevator is achieved if zero g
applicable subpart B airplane throughout a pushover maneuver down cannot be reached). The recovery is a
performance and handling requirements to zero g or full down elevator, is separate pull-up maneuver, initiated by
in icing conditions. The determination inconsistent with allowing a pull force the pilot, to regain the original flight
of the most critical ice accretion must for recovery from the maneuver. path. It is acceptable for this maneuver
consider the full range of atmospheric Raytheon noted that the FAA stated in to require a pull force, but the pull force
icing conditions of part I of appendix C the NPRM that a force reversal (that is, must not exceed 50 pounds, which is
as well as the characteristics of the IPS a push force becoming a pull force) is the maximum pitch force permitted by
(per § 25.21(g)(1) and appendix C, part unacceptable, implying that the pilot the existing § 25.143(c) (renumbered as
II(a)). This includes consideration of should only be permitted to relax his or § 25.143(d) by this amendment) for short
thin, rough layers of ice (known as her push force to initiate recovery. The term application of force using one
sandpaper ice) as well as any other type 50-pound limit for recovery in the hand. No changes were made.
of ice accretion that may occur in the proposed § 25.143(i)(2) appears to allow
applicable atmospheric icing up to 50 pounds of force reversal to 8. Pushover Maneuver Limited by
conditions, taking into account the develop during the maneuver, including Design Features Other Than Elevator
operating characteristics of the IPS and at the initiation of recovery from the Power
the flight phase. maneuver. Raytheon stated that they
Since the requirement to use the most object to the proposed requirement and Airbus noted that proposed
critical ice accretion includes continue to support the industry § 25.143(i)(2) would allow the required
consideration of sandpaper ice and proposal for the pushover maneuver pushover maneuver to end before zero
sandpaper ice is not referenced submitted to ARAC by the Flight Test g is reached if the airplane is limited by
elsewhere in the rule, we have removed Harmonization Working Group. The elevator power. Airbus commented that
appendix C, part II(a)(6) from the final industry proposal specified there must safe design characteristics other than
rule. The AC that we are issuing along be no force reversal down to 0.5 g (the limited elevator power may also prevent
with this final rule, or shortly thereafter, limit of the operational flight envelope) an aircraft from reaching zero g during
provides further information on the use and a prompt recovery from zero g (or the pushover maneuver (e.g., flight
of sandpaper ice in showing full down elevator control if zero g envelope protections designed into fly-
compliance. (This AC will be available cannot be obtained) with less than 50 by-wire control systems). Airbus
in the Regulatory Guidance Library pounds of stick force. Raytheon stated proposed revising the proposed rule to
(RGL) when issued.) that the 50-pound pull force was not allow the pushover maneuver to end
intended as a limit for the subsequent before reaching zero g for other safe
6. Critical Ice Accretion for Showing pull-up maneuver during recovery from
Compliance With § 25.143(i)(1) design characteristics that prevent
the push-over test.
reaching zero g.
As noted in the discussion of the The FAA continues to disagree with
We agree with Airbus and have
previous comment, proposed the industry proposal, and Raytheon did

§ 25.143(i)(1) would require applicants not offer any new evidence or rationale revised § 25.143(i)(2) to include
to demonstrate the airplane is safely that would lead us to reconsider our consideration of other design
controllable, per the applicable position. As stated in the NPRM, characteristics of the flight control
requirements of § 25.143, with the ice certification testing and service system that may prevent reaching zero
accretion defined in appendix C that is experience have shown that testing to g in the pushover maneuver.
9. Pitch Force Requirements During a steadily increasing. A gradual change in the landing configuration in icing
Sideslip Maneuver control force is a change that is not conditions, then § 25.207(e) need not be
Raytheon stated that the proposed abrupt and does not have a steep applied to the landing configuration.
requirement for flight in icing gradient. It can be easily managed by a In developing the proposed rule, the
conditions is more stringent than the pilot of average skill, alertness, and FAA accepted a determination by the
requirements applicable to non-icing strength. Control forces in excess of Flight Test Harmonization Working
conditions. Proposed § 25.143(i)(3) those permitted by § 25.143(d) would be Group (FTHWG) that the same handling
would require that any changes in force considered excessive. qualities standards should generally
that the pilot must apply to the pitch 10. Stall Warning in Icing Conditions apply to flight in icing conditions as
control to maintain speed with apply to flight in non-icing conditions.
Existing § 25.207(c) requires at least a In certain areas, however, the FTHWG
increasing sideslip angle must be 3 knot or 3% speed margin between the
steadily increasing with no force decided that the handling qualities
stall warning speed (VSW) and the standards for non-icing conditions were
reversals. Raytheon notes the non-icing reference stall speed (VSR). Existing
subpart B static lateral-directional inappropriate for flight in icing
§ 25.207(d) requires at least a 5 knot or conditions. In these areas, the FTHWG
stability requirements of § 25.177 do not 5% speed margin between VSW and the
specify that the pitch forces cannot recommended alternative criteria for
speed at which the behavior of the flight in icing conditions.
reverse. For example, a push force at airplane gives the pilot a clear and
small sideslip angles that changes to a The stall warning margin was one of
distinctive indication of an acceptable the areas where the FTHWG
pull force as sideslip increases is nature that the airplane is stalled. Under
acceptable. recommended alternative criteria for
proposed § 25.21(g), the stall warning
Raytheon noted that it would not be flight in icing conditions. The FTHWG
requirements of § 25.207(c) and (d)
unusual for an airplane to require an determined that applying the existing
would apply only to non-icing
increase in pull force with increasing stall warning margin requirements of
conditions. For icing conditions,
sideslip. If the tailplane or a portion of § 25.207(c) and (d) to icing conditions
proposed § 25.207(e) requires that stall
it developed aerodynamic separation as would be far more stringent than the
warning be sufficient to allow the pilot
sideslip increases, then to maintain 1– best current practices and would unduly
to prevent stalling when the pilot starts
g flight the elevator hinge moment penalize designs that have not exhibited
the recovery maneuver not less than 3
would require further pull force that safety problems in icing conditions. The
seconds after the onset of stall warning
could be sudden or become excessive. in a one knot per second deceleration. FTHWG further determined the stall
Raytheon notes this undesirable The U.K. CAA noted that proposed warning requirements of the existing
characteristic would comply with § 25.207(e) would allow stall warning in § 25.207(c) and (d) could be made less
proposed § 25.143(i)(3). icing conditions to occur at a speed stringent for icing conditions without
Raytheon and another commenter (a slower than the speed for the maximum compromising safety. As a result, we
private citizen) proposed that the lift capability of the wing (also known proposed the less stringent § 25.207(e)
proposed rule be revised to eliminate as the 1g stall speed). This would not be to address stall warning margin
the requirements that the pitch force be true for non-icing conditions because of requirements for icing conditions in
steadily increasing with increasing § 25.207(c). According to U.K. CAA, if place of § 25.207(c) and (d).
sideslip and that there be no reversal. the stall warning speed is slower than No changes have been made to this
Instead, these commenters suggested the 1g stall speed, the airplane will have final rule as a result of the U.K. CAA’s
that the requirement should be limited little or no maneuvering capability at comment. We acknowledge that the
to ensuring that there is no abrupt or the point that the airplane gives the U.K. CAA has pointed out a deficiency
uncontrollable pitching tendency. pilot a warning of an impending stall. with safety implications in the proposed
The FAA agrees with the commenters The U.K. CAA stated that in an stall warning requirements. However,
that small, gradual changes in the pitch operational scenario, if the airplane U.S. manufacturers’ initial cost analysis
control force may not be objectionable slows to a speed slightly above the stall of the U.K. CAA’s recommended
or unsafe, and that the proposed warning speed, any attempt to changes indicates these changes may
requirement is unnecessarily more maneuver the airplane or further reduce significantly increase the costs of this
stringent than the requirements for non- speed could lead to an immediate stall. rulemaking beyond the benefits
icing conditions. The safety concern is This situation is of most concern to the provided due to uncertainties in how
sudden or large pitch force changes that U.K. CAA in the landing phase because, the increased stall warning margin
would be difficult for the pilot to unlike the cruise or takeoff phases, there requirement would affect airplane type
control. Therefore, we have changed are limited options for the crew to certification testing, certification
§ 25.143(i)(3) in the final rule to read as recover from a stall. The airplane is program schedules, and the design of
follows: already at low altitude and descending stall warning systems.
‘‘Any changes in force that the pilot towards the ground, the power setting is In addition, the U.K. CAA’s
must apply to the pitch control to low, and the potential to trade height for recommended changes would introduce
maintain speed with increasing sideslip speed is extremely limited. significant regulatory differences from
angle must be steadily increasing with Due to this concern, the U.K. CAA EASA’s airworthiness certification
no force reversals, unless the change in recommended making the non-icing requirements, and might not completely
control force is gradual and easily stall warning speed margin resolve the potential safety issue. For
controllable by the pilot without using requirements of § 25.207(c) and (d) also these reasons we believe that additional
exceptional piloting skill, alertness, or apply to icing conditions, but only time and aviation industry participation
strength.’’ when the airplane is in the landing are needed to determine an appropriate
Under this new language, abrupt configuration. Since the proposed way to address this safety concern.
changes in the control force § 25.207(e) was intended to be used in However, we do not believe it is
characteristic, unless so small as to be place of § 25.207(c) and (d) for icing appropriate to delay issuance of this
unnoticeable, would not be considered conditions, the U.K. CAA suggested final rule pending resolution of this
to meet the requirement that the force be that, if § 25.207(c) and (d) are applied to issue.
This final rule significantly improves maneuver is not begun until at least activation point nor the takeoff and
the affected airworthiness standards and three seconds after the onset of stall landing speeds will be affected. This
the benefits of these improvements warning, which is also required by the could be accomplished, for example, by
should be achieved as soon as possible. proposed § 25.207(h)(2)(ii). using an ice detector that would activate
It also satisfies a number of important We do not agree with Raytheon’s the IPS before ice accretes on the wings,
NTSB recommendations. As these comments. Because of human factors or by procedures for activating the IPS
improvements are being implemented, considerations, proposed § 25.207(b) based on environmental conditions
we will continue to work closely with generally requires that the same means conducive to icing, but before ice would
EASA and industry to address the issue of providing a stall warning be used in actually accrete on the wings.
raised by the U.K. CAA. This subject has both icing and non-icing conditions.
been included on EASA’s 2008 Therefore, if a stick shaker is used for 12. Dissipation of Ice Shapes at High
rulemaking agenda, and we will work stall warning in non-icing conditions (as Altitudes and High Mach Numbers
with them in that context to agree on a is the case for most transport category Proposed § 25.253(c) specifies the
harmonized approach. Once these airplanes) it must also be used for stall maximum speed for demonstrating
efforts are completed, we will initiate warning in icing conditions. The reason stability characteristics in icing
new rulemaking, if appropriate, to adopt for this proposed requirement is that in conditions. Proposed § 25.253(c)(3)
any necessary revisions to part 25. icing accidents and incidents where the allows this speed to be limited to the
airplane stalled before the stick shaker speed at which it is demonstrated that
11. Stall and Stall Warning activated, flightcrews have not
Requirements Prior to Activation of the the airframe will be free of ice accretion
recognized the buffeting associated with due to the effects of increased dynamic
IPS ice contamination in time to prevent pressure. Raytheon stated that
Proposed § 25.207(h)(2)(ii) would stalling. Proposed § 25.207(h)(2)(ii) experience has shown that ice shapes
require compliance with the stall allows a different means of providing dissipate quickly at high altitude and
characteristics requirements of § 25.203, stall warning in icing conditions only high Mach numbers. Raytheon
using the stall demonstration prescribed for the relatively short time period suggested revising § 25.253(c)(3) to
by § 25.201, for flight in icing conditions between when the airplane first enters specify the altitude and/or Mach
before the IPS is activated. This icing conditions and when the IPS is number range that ice shapes would
requirement would apply if the stall activated. (This exception to the dissipate.
warning required by § 25.207 is proposed § 25.207(b) is further limited
provided by a different means for flight Although we agree that past
such that it only applies when the
in icing conditions than for non-icing experience shows that ice shapes
procedures for activating the IPS do not
conditions. The stall demonstration dissipate or detach at high altitude and
involve waiting until a certain amount
prescribed by § 25.201 requires that the high Mach numbers, the applicable
of ice has been accumulated.)
stalling maneuver be continued to the Because there is still a safety concern range may vary with airplane type. The
point where the airplane gives the pilot with flightcrews recognizing a stall particular conditions under which the
a clear and distinctive indication of an warning that is provided by a different ice accretions dissipate or detach should
acceptable nature that the airplane is means than the flightcrew would be justified as part of the certification
stalled. normally experience, we consider it program. Since this is consistent with
Raytheon disagreed with this proposal essential that the airplane also be shown proposed § 25.253(c), we made no
because the ice accretion resulting from to have safe stall characteristics. Poor changes to the final rule.
a delay in activating the IPS is a short stalling characteristics with an iced 13. Critical Ice Shapes
term transient condition. According to wing have directly contributed to the
Raytheon, the intent should be to severity of icing accidents involving a Proposed appendix C, part II(a)
demonstrate only the ability to prevent stall in icing conditions. defines how to determine the critical ice
a stall, rather than to also ensure that As for Raytheon’s comment about the accretions for each phase of flight. The
the airplane has good stall cost impacts, we evaluated these as part NTSB commented that for each phase of
characteristics. Raytheon stated that it is of the regulatory evaluation conducted flight, the applicant should be required
unnecessary to consider that the pilot for the NPRM, and we do not agree that to demonstrate that the shape,
might ignore the stall buffeting and the cost impacts associated with this chordwise and spanwise, and the
continue to increase angle-of-attack requirement are excessive. In addition, roughness of the shapes accurately
until the airplane is stalled. To comply the adopted § 25.207 will not require reflect the full range of appendix C
with the proposed rule, Raytheon airplanes with stick pusher stall conditions in terms of mean effective
argued that an airplane with a stick identification systems to have their stick drop diameter, liquid water content, and
pusher stall identification system would pusher activation based on a temperature during each phase of flight.
be required to have its stick pusher contaminated wing leading edge for Additionally, the NTSB suggested that
activation based on a contaminated non-icing conditions. Section we review the justification and selection
wing leading edge for non-icing 25.207(h)(2)(ii) does not apply if the of the most critical ice shape for each
conditions. This would require same stall warning means is used for phase of flight.
increased takeoff and landing speeds non-icing and icing conditions. If a stick Although we believe the proposed
and negatively impact all takeoff and shaker is used for stall warning and if requirements already address the
landing performance. the stick shaker activation point must be NTSB’s concerns, we have revised
Raytheon also stated that the cost advanced due to the effect of the ice appendix C, part II(a) for additional
impacts would be excessive for what is accreted before activation of the IPS, clarity. We added text to state that
only a transient condition. Raytheon’s this would result in the same negative applicants must demonstrate that the
position is that there is no need to effect on takeoff and landing speeds. full range of atmospheric icing
consider the airplane’s handling However, if the procedures for conditions specified in part I of
qualities after it has stalled. It should be activating the IPS ensure that it is appendix C have been considered,
sufficient to show that the pilot can activated before any ice accretes on the including the mean effective drop
prevent stalling if the recovery wings, neither the stick shaker diameter, liquid water content, and
temperature appropriate to the flight to see and respond to ice accumulating history and other experience with other
conditions. on the airplane within 30 seconds. In compliance criteria to determine the
accordance with § 25.21(g), compliance maximum ice accretion that needs to be
14. Takeoff Ice Accretions
must be shown using ice accretions considered. We will continue to address
ALPA noted that the takeoff ice consistent with the AFM operating this issue in the same manner. The AC
accretions defined in proposed procedures. First, applicants must being issued along with this final rule
appendix C, part II(a)(2) do not include determine the ice accretion that would refers to these alternative methods of
the entire takeoff flight path. As defined be on the airplane when the AFM compliance and provides guidance for
in § 25.111, the takeoff flight path ends procedures call for activating the IPS. their use.
at either 1,500 feet above the takeoff Then, the 30-second time period is used
surface, or the height at which the 17. Detection of Icing Conditions
in combination with the continuous
transition from the takeoff to the en maximum icing environment, as defined A private citizen commented that
route configuration is completed and in appendix C of part 25, as a standard icing conditions should be monitored by
the final takeoff speed (VFTO) is reached, for determining the additional ice that more than the pilot’s eyesight. We are
whichever is higher. The takeoff flight could accrete on the airplane before the unable to address the commenter’s issue
path in proposed appendix C, part pilot actually activates the IPS. Since in this rulemaking because this
II(a)(2) ends at 1,500 feet above the the appendix C maximum continuous rulemaking only addresses performance
takeoff surface. ALPA stated that there icing envelope represents at least the and handling qualities requirements for
are many mountainous airport locations 99th percentile of encounters with the current methods of ice detection
where the takeoff configuration must be continuous maximum icing (that is, (which include detection by visual
maintained above 1,500 feet above the 99% of the time, less icing would means). However, we are pursuing
takeoff surface for terrain clearance at occur), it would take significantly longer separate rulemaking for future airplane
maximum takeoff gross weights. Since than 30 seconds in nearly all actual designs relative to allowable methods
winter operations in these locations icing events for the airplane to accrete for detecting icing and determining
often involve icing conditions, ALPA this much ice. when to activate the IPS. In NPRM 07–
requested that the takeoff flight path of As a result of this comment, the FAA 07, ‘‘Activation of Ice Protection,’’
Appendix C, part II(a)(2) be revised to reviewed the proposed AC 25.21–1X published in the Federal Register on
match that of § 25.111. text. Although the use of a-30 second April 26, 2007, we proposed to amend
ALPA’s comment points out an time period in a continuous maximum the airworthiness standards applicable
oversight in the text of the proposal. icing environment is clearly stated, the to transport category airplanes to require
Appendix C, part II(a)(2) has been FAA believes that the text is incomplete a means to ensure timely activation of
revised to include the entire takeoff regarding what we expect applicants to the airframe IPS.
flight path as defined in § 25.111. We consider in determining the ice 18. Delayed Activation of the IPS
consider this to be a technical accretion specified by the AFM
clarification that does not impose a procedures for activating the IPS. The ALPA recommended modifying all
significant additional burden on FAA is revising the proposed AC to rule language to eliminate references
applicants. state that this ice accretion should be and rule provisions for waiting until a
easily recognizable by the pilot under finite amount of ice has accumulated
15. Size of Ice Accretion Before before activating the IPS. ALPA stated
Activation of the IPS all foreseeable conditions (for example,
at night in clouds). No changes have that delayed activation of the IPS has
For the pre-activation ice identified in been made to the regulatory been a factor in several accidents and
Appendix C, part II(e), ALPA did not requirements. incidents. ALPA also pointed out that
support the 30-second time period for the FAA has adopted 17 airworthiness
the flightcrew to see and respond to ice 16. Maximum Size of the Critical Ice directives requiring immediate
accreting on the airplane as stated in Accretion activation of IPS at the first sign of ice
paragraphs 2c(4)(a) and (b) of Appendix Dassault noted that, in Europe, the accretion for a number of airplane types
1, Airframe Ice Accretion, of proposed critical ice accretion is limited to a where the previous practice was to wait
AC 25.21–1X. ALPA believes that the maximum thickness of 3 inches. until a specified amount of ice had
ice accreted during a more operationally Dassault did not find such a limitation accumulated on the airplane. ALPA
realistic timeframe and the potential in the NPRM, nor in the proposed noted that after an exhaustive review of
degradations in aircraft performance advisory circular (AC) 25.21–1X related accident and incident data, ARAC
and handling qualities must be to the NPRM. Dassault noted that this recommended an operating rule that
accounted for during certification in omission could result in carrying out would remove the option of delaying
order to make the proposed performance and handling tests with activation of the IPS.
requirements and acceptable means of unrealistic ice accretions (particularly Except for the airworthiness
compliance an effective combination. those assumed to build up on the directives referenced by ALPA, current
While a well designed human factors unprotected parts of the airplane during regulations do not prohibit AFM
study could determine an appropriate the 45-minute holding flight phase procedures that call for delaying
time, ALPA proposed that at least the 2- referenced in ACs 25.21–X and activation of the IPS until a specified
minute time period contained in 14 CFR 25.1419–1A). amount of ice has accreted. Although
33.77, Foreign object ingestion—ice, be We did not make any changes to the we strongly encourage activating the IPS
used as the time to visually recognize final rule because several existing ACs at the first sign of ice accretion, there
ice is accreting until definitive studies provide guidance for the size of the may be some designs for which delayed
can be completed. most critical ice accretions that should activation is currently acceptable, safe,
The FAA believes that ALPA has be considered. This longstanding and appropriate. For example, some
misunderstood the use of the 30-second guidance considers a 45-minute holding thermal wing IPS can currently be used
time period in the proposed AC 25.21– condition within an icing cloud. Since in either an anti-ice or deice mode. In
1X acceptable means of compliance. this guidance is not regulatory, we have the deice mode, the wing IPS is not
The FAA does not expect the flightcrew accepted applicants’ use of service activated until a certain amount of ice
has accreted. This has not resulted in 21. Aircraft Population Used When comply with earlier regulation
any safety issues, and can be a more Determining Cost Versus Benefit amendments. We have already
economical way of operating the wing GAMA stated that it appeared the cost determined that benefits of the Changed
IPS. proposal considered U.S. manufactured Product Rule exceed the costs.
The purpose of this rulemaking is to aircraft while the benefit section Therefore, we do not estimate the
provide appropriate performance and included international products. GAMA benefits and costs of changed products
handling qualities requirements, believes that the same aircraft for new certification rules.
considering the currently accepted population should be used when 22. Value of Fatalities Avoided
procedures for activating the IPS. determining cost versus benefit.
Establishing new requirements for A private citizen claimed that the
Additionally, GAMA stated that it
acceptable methods for activating the value of the fatalities avoided by this
appeared it was assumed that cost was
IPS is beyond the scope of this proposal would be in the neighborhood
only attributed to entirely new TC
rulemaking. As ALPA noted, however, of $20 billion.
products. GAMA believes it would be The number of averted fatalities and
ARAC has recommended the FAA adopt appropriate to consider the economic injuries is based on the historical
new requirements that would ensure impact to some amount of amended TC accident rate extrapolated into the
flightcrews are provided with a clear and STC projects as well. future. The FAA used $3.0 million for
means to know when to activate the IPS Section 1 of Executive Order 12866
an avoided fatality and $132,700 for the
in a timely manner. We are pursuing states ‘‘Federal agencies should
additional associated medical and legal
separate rulemaking in response to this promulgate only such regulations as are
costs’ for a fatality. The derivation for
ARAC recommendation. In NPRM 07– required by law, are necessary to
these values is discussed in the
07, ‘‘Activation of Ice Protection,’’ interpret the law, or are made necessary
‘‘Economic Values for FAA Investment
published in the Federal Register on by compelling public need, such as
and Regulatory Decisions, A Guide.’’ 6
April 26, 2007, we proposed to amend material failures of private markets to
Without the rule, we expect that over
the airworthiness standards applicable protect or improve the health and safety
the 45-year analysis period,
to transport category airplanes to require of the public, the environment, or the
approximately three accidents will
a means to ensure timely activation of well-being of the American people.’’
occur. These three accidents are
the airframe IPS. We will update the Section 5 states ‘‘In order to reduce the
expected to result in approximately 12
requirements adopted by this final rule regulatory burden on the American
fatalities, six serious injuries, and two
related to the means of activating the people, their families, their
minor injuries. From these values, and
IPS, if necessary, to be consistent with communities, their State, local, and
expected future accidents based on past
any final action resulting from NPRM tribal governments and their industries
accident history, we estimated a benefit
07–07, ‘‘Activation of Ice Protection.’’ * * *.’’ Therefore, regulatory
of about $90 million over the 45-year
evaluations and flexibility analyses
19. Harmonization With EASA’s NPA analysis period.
focus on American people and
Several commenters noted that the American industries. III. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
FAA did not fully harmonize the NPRM American industries, such as
Paperwork Reduction Act
with the EASA’s NPA covering the same manufacturers and operators of aircraft,
icing-related safety issues. They must comply with regulations There are no current or new
recommended harmonizing the two rule promulgated by Federal agencies. requirements for information collection
proposals. Foreign firms are not required to comply associated with this amendment.
with U.S. regulations unless they choose International Compatibility
We worked closely with EASA to
to sell or operate their aircraft in
ensure that there are no significant In keeping with U.S. obligations
America.
regulatory differences between this under the Convention on International
We determined the costs for this
amendment and EASA’s anticipated Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to
proposal by analyzing only American
final rule. However, since EASA’s final comply with International Civil
manufacturing industries, since foreign
rule has not yet been issued, we cannot Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards
firms are not required to comply with
guarantee that the two final rules will be and Recommended Practices to the
U.S. regulations unless they choose to
completely harmonized. We believe that maximum extent practicable. The FAA
sell or operate their aircraft in America.
any differences will be primarily has determined that there are no ICAO
While we do consider foreign
editorial and not significant regulatory Standards and Recommended Practices
manufactured aircraft in the benefit
differences. that correspond to these regulations.
section, we determined the benefits by
20. Accuracy of the Regulatory analyzing only American operators of Economic Assessment, Regulatory
Flexibility Evaluation those aircraft. Hence, the intent of Flexibility Determination, Trade Impact
Executive Order 12866 was satisfied. Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates
GAMA requested that the FAA review We did include amended TCs in the
the regulatory flexibility evaluation in Assessment
analysis. Each TC includes all
the interest of accuracy. derivatives for a particular aircraft Changes to Federal regulations must
We reviewed the regulatory flexibility model. For example, TC No. A16WE undergo several economic analyses.
evaluation and reaffirmed the initially covered only the Boeing 737– First, Executive Order 12866 directs
determination that this proposed rule 100, but was later amended to include each Federal agency to propose or adopt
would not have a significant economic the –200 through –900 Boeing 737 a regulation only upon a reasoned
determination that the benefits of the
impact on a substantial number of small models.

entities. All U.S. part 25 aircraft Future applicants for approval of intended regulation justify its costs.
manufacturers exceed the Small changed products are subject to § 21.101 6 http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/
Business Administration small-entity (Changed Product Rule). There are policy_guidance/benefit_cost/media/050404%20
criteria of 1,500 employees for aircraft several provisions of § 21.101 allowing Critical%20Values%20Dec%2031%20Report
manufacturers. future applicants of changed products to %2007Jan05.pdf.
Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act $52.5 million in additional fuel-burn. the objectives of the rule and of
of 1980 requires agencies to analyze the We estimate the total cost of this final applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and
economic impact of regulatory changes rule to be about $62.3 million and the informational requirements to the scale
on small entities. Third, the Trade seven percent present value cost of the of the businesses, organizations, and
Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 2531–2533) rule will be about $23.0 million. governmental jurisdictions subject to
prohibits agencies from setting regulation. To achieve this principle,
standards that create unnecessary Who Is Potentially Affected by This
agencies are required to solicit and
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the Rulemaking
consider flexible regulatory proposals
United States. In developing U.S. • Operators of part 25 U.S.-registered and to explain the rationale for their
standards, this Trade Act also requires aircraft conducting operations under actions to assure that such proposals are
agencies to consider international FAR Parts 121, 129, and 135, and given serious consideration.’’ The RFA
standards and, where appropriate, use • Manufacturers of those part 25 covers a wide-range of small entities,
them as the basis of U.S. standards. aircraft. including small businesses, not-for-
Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform profit organizations, and small
Our Cost Assumptions and Sources of
Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) requires governmental jurisdictions.
Information
agencies to prepare a written assessment Agencies must perform a review to
of the costs, benefits, and other effects This evaluation makes the following
determine whether a rule will have a
of proposed or final rules that include assumptions:
significant economic impact on a
a Federal mandate likely to result in the 1. This final rule is assumed to
substantial number of small entities. If
expenditure by State, local, or tribal become effective immediately.
the agency determines that it will, the
governments, in the aggregate, or by the 2. The production runs for newly
agency must prepare a regulatory
private sector, of $100 million or more certificated part 25 airplane models is
flexibility analysis as described in the
annually (adjusted for inflation with the 20 years.
3. The average life of a part 25 RFA.
base year of 1995.)
In conducting these analyses, FAA airplane is 25 years. However, if an agency determines that
has determined this rule (1) has benefits 4. We analyzed the costs and benefits a rule is not expected to have a
that justify its costs, is not a ‘‘significant of this final rule over the 45-year period significant economic impact on a
regulatory action’’ as defined in section (20 + 25 = 45) 2006 through 2050. substantial number of small entities,
3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and is not 5. We used a 10-year certification section 605(b) of the RFA provides that
‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s compliance period. For the 10-year life- the head of the agency may so certify
Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (2) cycle period, the FAA calculated an and a regulatory flexibility analysis is
will not have a significant economic average of four new certifications will not required. The certification must
impact on a substantial number of small occur. include a statement providing the
entities; (3) will not reduce barriers to 6. We used $3.0 million as the value factual basis for this determination, and
international trade; and (4) does not of an avoided fatality. the reasoning should be clear.
impose an unfunded mandate on state, 7. New airplane certifications will In the interest of accuracy, one
local, or tribal governments, or on the occur in year one of the analysis time commenter requested we review the
private sector. These analyses, available period. determination we made in the proposed
in the docket, are summarized below. rules regulatory flexibility evaluation.
Benefits of This Rulemaking
We reviewed the determination from the
Introduction The benefits of this final rule consist proposed rule and came to the same
This portion of the preamble of the value of lives saved due to conclusions for this final rule for the
summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the avoiding three accidents involving part reasons discussed below.
economic impacts of a final rule 25 airplanes operating in icing Currently U.S. manufactured part 25
amending part 25 of Title 14, Code of conditions. Based on the historic aircraft type certificate holders include:
Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to change accident rate, we estimate that a total of The Boeing Company, Cessna Aircraft
the regulations applicable to transport 12 fatalities could potentially be Company (a subsidiary of Textron Inc.),
category airplanes certificated for flight avoided by adopting the final rule. Over Raytheon Company, and Gulfstream
in icing conditions. It also includes the 45-year period of analysis, the Aerospace Corporation (a wholly owned
summaries of the regulatory flexibility potential benefit of the propose rule will subsidiary of General Dynamics). All
determination, the international trade be $89.2 million ($23.6 million in United States part 25 aircraft
impact assessment, and the unfunded present value at seven percent). manufacturers exceed the Small
mandates assessment. We suggest Business Administration small-entity
Costs of This Rulemaking
readers seeking greater detail read the criteria of 1,500 employees for aircraft
full regulatory evaluation, a copy of We estimate the costs of this final rule
manufacturers.
which we have placed in the docket for to be about $62.3 million ($23.0 million
this rulemaking. in present value at seven percent) over This rule will add an additional
the 45-year analysis period. The total weighted average monthly fuel burn
Total Benefits and Costs of This cost of $62.3 million equals the fixed cost of about $42 per airplane, which is
Rulemaking certification costs of $9.8 million less than an hour of fuel burn and thus
The estimated potential benefits of incurred in the first year plus the a minimal additional cost to all
avoiding 3 accidents over the 45-year variable annual fuel burn cost of $52.5 operators.
analysis interval are $89.2 million million over the 45-year analysis period. Given that manufacturers are not
($23.6 million in present value at seven small entities and operators incur a
percent). To obtain these benefits, over Regulatory Flexibility Determination minimal additional cost, as the FAA
the 45-year analysis interval, The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 Administrator, I certify that this final
manufacturers will incur additional (Pub. L. 96–354) (RFA) establishes ‘‘as a rule will not have a significant
certification costs of $9.8 million and principle of regulatory issuance that economic impact on a substantial
the operators of these airplanes will pay agencies shall endeavor, consistent with number of small entities.
International Trade Impact Assessment based on the administrative record of operation of the airplane and its ice
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 this rulemaking, that there is no need to protection system in accordance with
(Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits Federal make any regulatory distinctions the operating limitations and operating
agencies from establishing any applicable to intrastate aviation in procedures established by the applicant
standards or engaging in related Alaska. and provided in the Airplane Flight
activities that create unnecessary Manual.
Environmental Analysis
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the (2) No changes in the load
United States. Legitimate domestic FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA distribution limits of § 25.23, the weight
objectives, such as safety, are not actions that are categorically excluded limits of § 25.25 (except where limited
considered unnecessary obstacles. The from preparation of an environmental by performance requirements of this
statute also requires consideration of assessment or environmental impact subpart), and the center of gravity limits
international standards and, where statement under the National of § 25.27, from those for non-icing
appropriate, that they be the basis for Environmental Policy Act in the conditions, are allowed for flight in
U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed absence of extraordinary circumstances. icing conditions or with ice accretion.
the potential effect of this final rule and The FAA has determined this
determined that it will impose the same rulemaking action qualifies for the ■ 3. Amend § 25.103 by revising
costs on domestic and international categorical exclusion identified in paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows:
entities and thus has a neutral trade paragraph 312f and involves no
extraordinary circumstances. § 25.103 Stall speed.
impact.
* * * * *
Unfunded Mandates Assessment Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (b) * * *
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates (3) The airplane in other respects
Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) The FAA has analyzed this final rule (such as flaps, landing gear, and ice
requires each Federal agency to prepare under Executive Order 13211, Actions accretions) in the condition existing in
a written statement assessing the effects Concerning Regulations that the test or performance standard in
of any Federal mandate in a proposed or Significantly Affect Energy Supply, which VSR is being used;
final agency rule that may result in an Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We
have determined that it is not a * * * * *
expenditure of $100 million or more
(adjusted annually for inflation with the ‘‘significant energy action,’’ and it is not ■ 4. Amend § 25.105 by revising
base year 1995) in any one year by State, likely to have a significant adverse effect paragraph (a) to read as follows:
local, and tribal governments, in the on the supply, distribution, or use of
aggregate, or by the private sector; such energy. § 25.105 Takeoff.
a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25 (a) The takeoff speeds prescribed by
regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently § 25.107, the accelerate-stop distance
uses an inflation-adjusted value of Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements. prescribed by § 25.109, the takeoff path
$128.1 million in lieu of $100 million. prescribed by § 25.111, the takeoff
This final rule does not contain such The Amendment distance and takeoff run prescribed by
a mandate. The requirements of Title II § 25.113, and the net takeoff flight path
do not apply. ■ In consideration of the foregoing, the
prescribed by § 25.115, must be
Federal Aviation Administration
Executive Order 13132, Federalism determined in the selected configuration
amends part 25 of Title 14, Code of
for takeoff at each weight, altitude, and
The FAA has analyzed this final rule Federal Regulations, as follows:
ambient temperature within the
under the principles and criteria of
PART 25—AIRWORTHINESS operational limits selected by the
Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We
STANDARDS: TRANSPORT applicant—
determined that this action will not
have a substantial direct effect on the CATEGORY AIRPLANES (1) In non-icing conditions; and
States, or the relationship between the (2) In icing conditions, if in the
■ 1. The authority citation for part 25
national Government and the States, or configuration of § 25.121(b) with the
continues to read as follows:
on the distribution of power and takeoff ice accretion defined in
responsibilities among the various Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, appendix C:
44702, and 44704.
levels of government, and therefore does (i) The stall speed at maximum takeoff
not have federalism implications. ■ 2. Amend § 25.21 by adding a new weight exceeds that in non-icing
Regulations Affecting Intrastate paragraph (g) to read as follows: conditions by more than the greater of
Aviation in Alaska 3 knots CAS or 3 percent of VSR; or
§ 25.21 Proof of compliance.
(ii) The degradation of the gradient of
Section 1205 of the FAA * * * * * climb determined in accordance with
Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat. (g) The requirements of this subpart § 25.121(b) is greater than one-half of
3213) requires the FAA, when associated with icing conditions apply the applicable actual-to-net takeoff flight
modifying its regulations in a manner only if the applicant is seeking path gradient reduction defined in
affecting intrastate aviation in Alaska, to certification for flight in icing § 25.115(b).
consider the extent to which Alaska is conditions.
not served by transportation modes (1) Each requirement of this subpart, * * * * *
other than aviation, and to establish except §§ 25.121(a), 25.123(c), ■ 5. Amend § 25.107 by revising
appropriate regulatory distinctions. In 25.143(b)(1) and (b)(2), 25.149, paragraph (c)(3) and (g)(2) and adding
the NPRM, we requested comments on 25.201(c)(2), 25.207(c) and (d), 25.239, new paragraph (h) to read as follows:
whether the proposed rule should apply and 25.251(b) through (e), must be met
differently to intrastate operations in in icing conditions. Compliance must be § 25.107 Takeoff speeds.
Alaska. We didn’t receive any shown using the ice accretions defined * * * * *
comments, and we have determined, in appendix C, assuming normal (c) * * *
(3) A speed that provides the § 25.121 Climb: One-engine inoperative. (A) The stall speed at maximum
maneuvering capability specified in * * * * * takeoff weight exceeds that in non-icing
§ 25.143(h). (b) Takeoff; landing gear retracted. In conditions by more than the greater of
* * * * * the takeoff configuration existing at the 3 knots CAS or 3 percent of VSR; or
(g) * * * point of the flight path at which the (B) The degradation of the gradient of
(2) A speed that provides the landing gear is fully retracted, and in climb determined in accordance with
maneuvering capability specified in the configuration used in § 25.111 but § 25.121(b) is greater than one-half of
§ 25.143(h). without ground effect: the applicable actual-to-net takeoff flight
(h) In determining the takeoff speeds (1) The steady gradient of climb may path gradient reduction defined in
V1, VR, and V2 for flight in icing not be less than 2.4 percent for two- § 25.115(b).
conditions, the values of VMCG, VMC, engine airplanes, 2.7 percent for three- (d) Approach. In a configuration
and VMU determined for non-icing engine airplanes, and 3.0 percent for corresponding to the normal all-engines-
conditions may be used. four-engine airplanes, at V2 with: operating procedure in which VSR for
■ 6. Amend § 25.111 by revising (i) The critical engine inoperative, the this configuration does not exceed 110
paragraph (c)(3)(iii), (c)(4), and adding a remaining engines at the takeoff power percent of the VSR for the related all-
new paragraph (c)(5) to read as follows: or thrust available at the time the engines-operating landing configuration:
landing gear is fully retracted, (1) The steady gradient of climb may
§ 25.111 Takeoff path. determined under § 25.111, unless there not be less than 2.1 percent for two-
* * * * * is a more critical power operating engine airplanes, 2.4 percent for three-
(c) * * * condition existing later along the flight engine airplanes, and 2.7 percent for
(3) * * * path but before the point where the four-engine airplanes, with—
(iii) 1.7 percent for four-engine airplane reaches a height of 400 feet (i) The critical engine inoperative, the
airplanes. above the takeoff surface; and remaining engines at the go-around
(4) The airplane configuration may (ii) The weight equal to the weight power or thrust setting;
not be changed, except for gear existing when the airplane’s landing (ii) The maximum landing weight;
retraction and automatic propeller gear is fully retracted, determined under (iii) A climb speed established in
feathering, and no change in power or § 25.111. connection with normal landing
thrust that requires action by the pilot (2) The requirements of paragraph procedures, but not exceeding 1.4 VSR;
may be made until the airplane is 400 (b)(1) of this section must be met: and
feet above the takeoff surface; and (i) In non-icing conditions; and (iv) Landing gear retracted.
(5) If § 25.105(a)(2) requires the (ii) In icing conditions with the (2) The requirements of paragraph
takeoff path to be determined for flight takeoff ice accretion defined in (d)(1) of this section must be met:
in icing conditions, the airborne part of appendix C, if in the configuration of (i) In non-icing conditions; and
the takeoff must be based on the § 25.121(b) with the takeoff ice (ii) In icing conditions with the
airplane drag: accretion: approach ice accretion defined in
(i) With the takeoff ice accretion (A) The stall speed at maximum appendix C. The climb speed selected
defined in appendix C, from a height of takeoff weight exceeds that in non-icing for non-icing conditions may be used if
35 feet above the takeoff surface up to conditions by more than the greater of the climb speed for icing conditions,
the point where the airplane is 400 feet 3 knots CAS or 3 percent of VSR; or computed in accordance with paragraph
above the takeoff surface; and (B) The degradation of the gradient of (d)(1)(iii) of this section, does not
(ii) With the final takeoff ice accretion climb determined in accordance with exceed that for non-icing conditions by
defined in appendix C, from the point § 25.121(b) is greater than one-half of more than the greater of 3 knots CAS or
where the airplane is 400 feet above the the applicable actual-to-net takeoff flight 3 percent.
takeoff surface to the end of the takeoff path gradient reduction defined in ■ 9. Amend § 25.123 by revising
path. § 25.115(b). paragraph (a) introductory text and
* * * * * (c) Final takeoff. In the en route paragraph (b) to read as follows:
■ 7. Revise § 25.119 to read as follows: configuration at the end of the takeoff
path determined in accordance with § 25.123 En route flight paths.
§ 25.119 Landing climb: All-engines- § 25.111: (a) For the en route configuration, the
operating. (1) The steady gradient of climb may flight paths prescribed in paragraph (b)
In the landing configuration, the not be less than 1.2 percent for two- and (c) of this section must be
steady gradient of climb may not be less engine airplanes, 1.5 percent for three- determined at each weight, altitude, and
than 3.2 percent, with the engines at the engine airplanes, and 1.7 percent for ambient temperature, within the
power or thrust that is available 8 four-engine airplanes, at VFTO with— operating limits established for the
seconds after initiation of movement of (i) The critical engine inoperative and airplane. The variation of weight along
the power or thrust controls from the the remaining engines at the available the flight path, accounting for the
minimum flight idle to the go-around maximum continuous power or thrust; progressive consumption of fuel and oil
power or thrust setting— and by the operating engines, may be
(a) In non-icing conditions, with a (ii) The weight equal to the weight included in the computation. The flight
climb speed of VREF determined in existing at the end of the takeoff path, paths must be determined at a speed not
accordance with § 25.125(b)(2)(i); and determined under § 25.111. less than VFTO, with—
(b) In icing conditions with the (2) The requirements of paragraph * * *
landing ice accretion defined in (c)(1) of this section must be met: (b) The one-engine-inoperative net
appendix C, and with a climb speed of
(i) In non-icing conditions; and flight path data must represent the
VREF determined in accordance with (ii) In icing conditions with the final actual climb performance diminished by
§ 25.125(b)(2)(ii). takeoff ice accretion defined in a gradient of climb of 1.1 percent for
■ 8. Amend § 25.121 by revising appendix C, if in the configuration of two-engine airplanes, 1.4 percent for
paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) to read as § 25.121(b) with the takeoff ice three-engine airplanes, and 1.6 percent
follows: accretion: for four-engine airplanes—
(1) In non-icing conditions; and to bounce, nose over, ground loop, (3) During an approach and landing.
(2) In icing conditions with the en porpoise, or water loop. (d) The following table prescribes, for
route ice accretion defined in appendix (5) The landings may not require conventional wheel type controls, the
C, if: exceptional piloting skill or alertness. maximum control forces permitted
(i) A speed of 1.18 VSR with the en (c) For landplanes and amphibians, during the testing required by paragraph
route ice accretion exceeds the en route the landing distance on land must be (a) through (c) of this section:
speed selected for non-icing conditions determined on a level, smooth, dry,
by more than the greater of 3 knots CAS hard-surfaced runway. In addition—
or 3 percent of VSR; or (1) The pressures on the wheel
(ii) The degradation of the gradient of braking systems may not exceed those Force, in
climb is greater than one-half of the specified by the brake manufacturer; pounds, applied
applicable actual-to-net flight path (2) The brakes may not be used so as to the control Pitch Roll Yaw
to cause excessive wear of brakes or wheel or rudder
reduction defined in paragraph (b) of pedals
this section. tires; and
(3) Means other than wheel brakes For short term
* * * * *
may be used if that means— application for
■ 10. Revise § 25.125 to read as follows: (i) Is safe and reliable; pitch and roll
(ii) Is used so that consistent results control—two
§ 25.125 Landing.
can be expected in service; and hands avail-
(a) The horizontal distance necessary (iii) Is such that exceptional skill is able for con-
to land and to come to a complete stop not required to control the airplane. trol ................. 75 50
(or to a speed of approximately 3 knots (d) For seaplanes and amphibians, the For short term
for water landings) from a point 50 feet landing distance on water must be application for
above the landing surface must be determined on smooth water. pitch and roll
determined (for standard temperatures, (e) For skiplanes, the landing distance control—one
at each weight, altitude, and wind on snow must be determined on hand available
within the operational limits established for control ...... 50 25
smooth, dry, snow.
For short term
by the applicant for the airplane): (f) The landing distance data must application for
(1) In non-icing conditions; and include correction factors for not more yaw control .... 150
(2) In icing conditions with the than 50 percent of the nominal wind For long term
landing ice accretion defined in components along the landing path application ..... 10 5 20
appendix C if VREF for icing conditions opposite to the direction of landing, and
exceeds VREF for non-icing conditions not less than 150 percent of the nominal (e) Approved operating procedures or
by more than 5 knots CAS at the wind components along the landing conventional operating practices must
maximum landing weight. path in the direction of landing. be followed when demonstrating
(b) In determining the distance in (g) If any device is used that depends compliance with the control force
paragraph (a) of this section: on the operation of any engine, and if limitations for short term application
(1) The airplane must be in the the landing distance would be that are prescribed in paragraph (d) of
landing configuration. noticeably increased when a landing is this section. The airplane must be in
(2) A stabilized approach, with a made with that engine inoperative, the trim, or as near to being in trim as
calibrated airspeed of not less than landing distance must be determined practical, in the preceding steady flight
VREF, must be maintained down to the with that engine inoperative unless the condition. For the takeoff condition, the
50-foot height. use of compensating means will result airplane must be trimmed according to
(i) In non-icing conditions, VREF may in a landing distance not more than that the approved operating procedures.
not be less than: with each engine operating. (f) When demonstrating compliance
(A) 1.23 VSR0; ■ 11. Amend § 25.143 by redesignating with the control force limitations for
(B) VMCL established under paragraphs (c) through (g) as paragraphs long term application that are
§ 25.149(f); and (d) through (h) respectively; adding a prescribed in paragraph (d) of this
(C) A speed that provides the new paragraph (c); revising redesignated section, the airplane must be in trim, or
maneuvering capability specified in paragraphs (d), (e), and (f); amending as near to being in trim as practical.
§ 25.143(h). redesignated paragraph (h) by removing
(ii) In icing conditions, VREF may not * * * * *
the words ‘‘Thrust power setting’’ in the (i) When demonstrating compliance
be less than: fourth column of the table and replacing
(A) The speed determined in with § 25.143 in icing conditions—
them with the words ‘‘Thrust/power (1) Controllability must be
paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section; setting’’; and adding paragraphs (i), and
(B) 1.23 VSR0 with the landing ice demonstrated with the ice accretion
(j) to read as follows: defined in appendix C that is most
accretion defined in appendix C if that
speed exceeds VREF for non-icing § 25.143 General. critical for the particular flight phase;
conditions by more than 5 knots CAS; * * * * * (2) It must be shown that a push force
and (c) The airplane must be shown to be is required throughout a pushover
(C) A speed that provides the safely controllable and maneuverable maneuver down to a zero g load factor,
maneuvering capability specified in with the critical ice accretion or the lowest load factor obtainable if
§ 25.143(h) with the landing ice appropriate to the phase of flight limited by elevator power or other
accretion defined in appendix C. defined in appendix C, and with the design characteristic of the flight control
(3) Changes in configuration, power or critical engine inoperative and its system. It must be possible to promptly
thrust, and speed, must be made in propeller (if applicable) in the minimum recover from the maneuver without
accordance with the established drag position: exceeding a pull control force of 50
procedures for service operation. (1) At the minimum V2 for takeoff; pounds; and
(4) The landing must be made without (2) During an approach and go- (3) Any changes in force that the pilot
excessive vertical acceleration, tendency around; and must apply to the pitch control to
maintain speed with increasing sideslip seconds after the onset of stall warning. prevent stalling without encountering
angle must be steadily increasing with When demonstrating compliance with any adverse flight characteristics when
no force reversals, unless the change in this paragraph, the pilot must perform the speed is reduced at rates not
control force is gradual and easily the recovery maneuver in the same way exceeding one knot per second and the
controllable by the pilot without using as for the airplane in non-icing pilot performs the recovery maneuver in
exceptional piloting skill, alertness, or conditions. Compliance with this the same way as for flight in non-icing
strength. requirement must be demonstrated in conditions.
(j) For flight in icing conditions before flight with the speed reduced at rates (i) If stall warning is provided by the
the ice protection system has been not exceeding one knot per second, same means as for flight in non-icing
activated and is performing its intended with— conditions, the pilot may not start the
function, the following requirements (1) The more critical of the takeoff ice recovery maneuver earlier than one
apply: and final takeoff ice accretions defined second after the onset of stall warning.
(1) If activating the ice protection in appendix C for each configuration (ii) If stall warning is provided by a
system depends on the pilot seeing a used in the takeoff phase of flight; different means than for flight in non-
specified ice accretion on a reference (2) The en route ice accretion defined icing conditions, the pilot may not start
surface (not just the first indication of in appendix C for the en route the recovery maneuver earlier than 3
icing), the requirements of § 25.143 configuration; seconds after the onset of stall warning.
apply with the ice accretion defined in (3) The holding ice accretion defined Also, compliance must be shown with
appendix C, part II(e). in appendix C for the holding § 25.203 using the demonstration
(2) For other means of activating the configuration(s); prescribed by § 25.201, except that the
ice protection system, it must be (4) The approach ice accretion deceleration rates of § 25.201(c)(2) need
demonstrated in flight with the ice defined in appendix C for the approach not be demonstrated.
accretion defined in appendix C, part configuration(s); and ■ 13. Amend § 25.237 by revising
II(e) that: (5) The landing ice accretion defined paragraph (a) to read as follows:
(i) The airplane is controllable in a in appendix C for the landing and go-
pull-up maneuver up to 1.5 g load around configuration(s). § 25.237 Wind velocities.
factor; and (f) The stall warning margin must be (a) For land planes and amphibians,
(ii) There is no pitch control force sufficient in both non-icing and icing the following applies:
reversal during a pushover maneuver conditions to allow the pilot to prevent (1) A 90-degree cross component of
down to 0.5 g load factor. stalling when the pilot starts a recovery wind velocity, demonstrated to be safe
■ 12. Amend § 25.207 by revising maneuver not less than one second after for takeoff and landing, must be
paragraph (b); redesignating paragraphs the onset of stall warning in slow-down established for dry runways and must be
(e) and (f) as paragraphs (f) and (g) turns with at least 1.5 g load factor at least 20 knots or 0.2 VSR0, whichever
respectively; adding a new paragraph normal to the flight path and airspeed is greater, except that it need not exceed
(e); revising redesignated paragraph (f) deceleration rates of at least 2 knots per 25 knots.
and adding paragraph (h) to read as second. When demonstrating (2) The crosswind component for
follows: compliance with this paragraph for takeoff established without ice
icing conditions, the pilot must perform accretions is valid in icing conditions.
§ 25.207 Stall warning. the recovery maneuver in the same way (3) The landing crosswind component
* * * * * as for the airplane in non-icing must be established for:
(b) The warning must be furnished conditions. Compliance with this (i) Non-icing conditions, and
either through the inherent aerodynamic requirement must be demonstrated in (ii) Icing conditions with the landing
qualities of the airplane or by a device flight with— ice accretion defined in appendix C.
that will give clearly distinguishable (1) The flaps and landing gear in any * * * * *
indications under expected conditions normal position; ■ 14. Amend § 25.253 by revising
of flight. However, a visual stall warning (2) The airplane trimmed for straight paragraph (b), and adding a new
device that requires the attention of the flight at a speed of 1.3 VSR; and paragraph (c) to read as follows:
crew within the cockpit is not (3) The power or thrust necessary to
acceptable by itself. If a warning device maintain level flight at 1.3 VSR. § 25.253 High-speed characteristics.
is used, it must provide a warning in * * * * * * * * * *
each of the airplane configurations (h) For flight in icing conditions (b) Maximum speed for stability
prescribed in paragraph (a) of this before the ice protection system has characteristics. VFC/MFC. VFC/MFC is the
section at the speed prescribed in been activated and is performing its maximum speed at which the
paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section. intended function, the following requirements of §§ 25.143(g), 25.147(E),
Except for the stall warning prescribed requirements apply, with the ice 25.175(b)(1), 25.177, and 25.181 must be
in paragraph (h)(2)(ii) of this section, the accretion defined in appendix C, part met with flaps and landing gear
stall warning for flight in icing II(e): retracted. Except as noted in § 25.253(c),
conditions prescribed in paragraph (e) (1) If activating the ice protection VFC/MFC may not be less than a speed
of this section must be provided by the system depends on the pilot seeing a midway between VMO/MMO and VDF/
same means as the stall warning for specified ice accretion on a reference MDF, except that for altitudes where
flight in non-icing conditions. surface (not just the first indication of Mach number is the limiting factor, MFC
* * * * * icing), the requirements of this section need not exceed the Mach number at
(e) In icing conditions, the stall apply, except for paragraphs (c) and (d) which effective speed warning occurs.
warning margin in straight and turning of this section. (c) Maximum speed for stability
flight must be sufficient to allow the (2) For other means of activating the characteristics in icing conditions. The
pilot to prevent stalling (as defined in ice protection system, the stall warning maximum speed for stability
§ 25.201(d)) when the pilot starts a margin in straight and turning flight characteristics with the ice accretions
recovery maneuver not less than three must be sufficient to allow the pilot to defined in appendix C, at which the
requirements of §§ 25.143(g), 25.147(e), droplets of 20 microns, and the ambient air (6) Landing ice is the critical ice accretion
25.175(b)(1), 25.177, and 25.181 must be temperature at ground level of minus 9 on the unprotected surfaces, and any ice
met, is the lower of: degrees Celsius (-9( C). The takeoff maximum accretion on the protected surfaces
icing conditions extend from ground level to appropriate to normal ice protection system
(1) 300 knots CAS; a height of 1,500 feet above the level of the
(2) VFC; or operation following exit from the approach
takeoff surface. flight phase and transition to the final
(3) A speed at which it is
Part II—Airframe Ice Accretions for landing configuration.
demonstrated that the airframe will be
Showing Compliance With Subpart B. (b) In order to reduce the number of ice
free of ice accretion due to the effects of accretions to be considered when
increased dynamic pressure. (a) Ice accretions—General. The most
critical ice accretion in terms of airplane demonstrating compliance with the
■ 15. Amend § 25.773 by revising requirements of § 25.21(g), any of the ice
performance and handling qualities for each
paragraph (b)(1)(ii) to read as follows: accretions defined in paragraph (a) of this
flight phase must be used to show
compliance with the applicable airplane section may be used for any other flight
§ 25.773 Pilot compartment view.
performance and handling requirements in phase if it is shown to be more critical than
* * * * * icing conditions of subpart B of this part. the specific ice accretion defined for that
(b) * * * Applicants must demonstrate that the full flight phase. Configuration differences and
(1) * * * range of atmospheric icing conditions their effects on ice accretions must be taken
(i) * * * specified in part I of this appendix have been into account.
(ii) The icing conditions specified in considered, including the mean effective (c) The ice accretion that has the most
§ 25.1419 if certification for flight in drop diameter, liquid water content, and adverse effect on handling qualities may be
icing conditions is requested. temperature appropriate to the flight used for airplane performance tests provided
conditions (for example, configuration, any difference in performance is
* * * * * speed, angle-of-attack, and altitude). The ice conservatively taken into account.
■ 16. Amend § 25.941 by revising accretions for each flight phase are defined (d) For both unprotected and protected
paragraph (c) to read as follows: as follows: parts, the ice accretion for the takeoff phase
(1) Takeoffice is the most critical ice may be determined by calculation, assuming
§ 25.941 Inlet, engine, and exhaust accretion on unprotected surfaces and any the takeoff maximum icing conditions
compatibility. ice accretion on the protected surfaces defined in appendix C, and assuming that:
* * * * * appropriate to normal ice protection system
(1) Airfoils, control surfaces and, if
operation, occurring between liftoff and 400
(c) In showing compliance with feet above the takeoff surface, assuming
applicable, propellers are free from frost,
paragraph (b) of this section, the pilot accretion starts at liftoff in the takeoff snow, or ice at the start of the takeoff;
strength required may not exceed the maximum icing conditions of part I, (2) The ice accretion starts at liftoff;
limits set forth in § 25.143(d), subject to paragraph (c) of this appendix. (3) The critical ratio of thrust/power-to-
the conditions set forth in paragraphs (e) (2) Final takeoff ice is the most critical ice weight;
accretion on unprotected surfaces, and any (4) Failure of the critical engine occurs at
and (f) of § 25.143.
ice accretion on the protected surfaces VEF; and
■ 17. Amend § 25.1419 by revising the (5) Crew activation of the ice protection
appropriate to normal ice protection system
introductory text to read as follows: operation, between 400 feet and either 1,500 system is in accordance with a normal
feet above the takeoff surface, or the height operating procedure provided in the Airplane
§ 25.1419 Ice protection.
at which the transition from the takeoff to the Flight Manual, except that after beginning the
If the applicant seeks certification for en route configuration is completed and VFTO takeoff roll, it must be assumed that the crew
flight in icing conditions, the airplane is reached, whichever is higher. Ice accretion takes no action to activate the ice protection
must be able to safely operate in the is assumed to start at liftoff in the takeoff system until the airplane is at least 400 feet
continuous maximum and intermittent maximum icing conditions of part I, above the takeoff surface.
maximum icing conditions of appendix paragraph (c) of this appendix. (e) The ice accretion before the ice
(3) En route ice is the critical ice accretion protection system has been activated and is
C. To establish this— on the unprotected surfaces, and any ice performing its intended function is the
* * * * * accretion on the protected surfaces critical ice accretion formed on the
■ 18. Amend appendix C to part 25 by appropriate to normal ice protection system unprotected and normally protected surfaces
adding a part I heading and a new operation, during the en route phase. before activation and effective operation of
paragraph (c) to part I; and adding a new (4) Holding ice is the critical ice accretion the ice protection system in continuous
part II to read as follows: on the unprotected surfaces, and any ice maximum atmospheric icing conditions. This
accretion on the protected surfaces ice accretion only applies in showing
Appendix C of Part 25 appropriate to normal ice protection system
compliance to §§ 25.143(j) and 25.207(h).
operation, during the holding flight phase.
Part I—Atmospheric Icing Conditions (5) Approach ice is the critical ice Issued in Washington, DC, on July 25,
(a) * * * accretion on the unprotected surfaces, and 2007.
(c) Takeoff maximum icing. The maximum any ice accretion on the protected surfaces Marion C. Blakey,
intensity of atmospheric icing conditions for appropriate to normal ice protection system
Administrator.
takeoff (takeoff maximum icing) is defined by operation following exit from the holding
the cloud liquid water content of 0.35 g/m3, flight phase and transition to the most critical [FR Doc. E7–14937 Filed 8–7–07; 8:45 am]
the mean effective diameter of the cloud approach configuration. BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

Rule: Airworthiness Directives: Airplane Performance and Handling Qualities in Icing Conditions

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rule: Airworthiness Directives: Airplane Performance and Handling Qualities in Icing Conditions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wednesday,

Washington, DC. aviation safety. available in the Docket.

previous comment, proposed the industry proposal, and Raytheon did

impact on a substantial number of small models.

You might also like