[Federal Register: December 12, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 239)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 76651-76656]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr12de02-10]
[[Page 76651]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part VII
Department of Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Aviation Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14 CFR Part 25
Airspeed Indicating System Requirements for Transport Category
Airplanes; Final Rule
[[Page 76652]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 25
[Docket No. FAA-2001-9636; Amendment No. 25-109]
RIN 2120-AH26
Airspeed Indicating System Requirements for Transport Category
Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action amends the airworthiness standards for transport
category airplanes concerning the airspeed indicating system. It adds
airspeed indication requirements for speeds greater than and less than
the speed range for which airspeed indication accuracy requirements
currently apply; a requirement that airspeed indications not cause the
pilot undue difficulty between the initiation of rotation and the
achievement of a steady climbing condition during takeoff; and a
requirement to limit the effects of airspeed lag. This amendment
eliminates regulatory differences between the airworthiness standards
of the U.S. and the Joint Aviation Requirements of Europe, without
affecting current industry design practices.
DATES: Effective January 13, 2003.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don Stimson, FAA, Airplane and Flight
Crew Interface Branch, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98055-
4056; telephone 425-227-1129; facsimile 425-227-1320, e-mail
don.stimson@faa.gov
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability of Rulemaking Documents
You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by taking the
following steps:
(1) Go to the search function of the Department of Transportation's
electronic Docket Management System (DMS) web page (http://dms.dot.gov/search
).
(2) On the search page type in the last four digits of the Docket
number shown at the beginning of this document. Click on ``search.''
(3) On the next page, which contains the Docket summary information
for the Docket you selected, click on the document number for the item
you wish to view.
You can also get an electronic copy using the Internet through the
Office of Rulemaking's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/nprm.cfm?nav=nprm
or the Federal Register's Web page at http://
www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html.
You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Make
sure to identify the amendment number or docket number of this
rulemaking.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information
or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its
jurisdiction. Any small entity that has a question regarding this
document may contact their local FAA official, or the person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. You can find out more about
SBREFA on the Internet at our site, http://www.gov/avr/arm/sbrefa.htm.
For more information on SBREFA, e-mail us at 9-AWA-SBREFA@faa.gov.
Background
What Are the Relevant Airworthiness Standards in the United States?
In the United States, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
part 25 contains the airworthiness standards for type certification of
transport category airplanes. Manufacturers of transport category
airplanes must show that each airplane they produce of a different type
design complies with the appropriate part 25 standards. These standards
apply to:
[sbull] Airplanes manufactured within the U.S. for use by U.S.-
registered operators; and
[sbull] Airplanes manufactured in other countries and imported to
the U.S. under a bilateral airworthiness agreement.
What Are the Relevant Airworthiness Standards in Europe?
In Europe, Joint Aviation Requirements (JAR)-25 contains the
airworthiness standards for type certification of transport category
airplanes. The Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) of Europe developed
these standards, which are based on part 25, to provide a common set of
airworthiness standards within the European aviation community. Twenty-
three European countries accept airplanes type certificated to the JAR-
25 standards, including airplanes manufactured in the U.S. that are
type certificated to JAR-25 standards for export to Europe.
What Is ``Harmonization'' and How Did It Start?
Although part 25 and JAR-25 are similar, they are not identical in
every respect. When airplanes are type certificated to both sets of
standards, the differences between part 25 and JAR-25 can result in
substantial added costs to manufacturers and operators. These added
costs, however, often do not bring about an increase in safety. In many
cases, part 25 and JAR-25 may contain different requirements to
accomplish the same safety intent. Consequently, manufacturers are
usually burdened with meeting the requirements of both sets of
standards, without a corresponding increase in the level of safety.
Recognizing that a common set of standards would not only benefit
the aviation industry economically, but also preserve the necessary
high level of safety, the FAA and the JAA began an effort in 1988 to
``harmonize'' their respective aviation standards. The goal of the
harmonization effort is to ensure that:
[sbull] Where possible, standards do not require domestic and
foreign parties to manufacture or operate to different standards for
each country involved; and
[sbull] The standards adopted are mutually acceptable to the FAA
and the foreign aviation authorities.
The FAA and JAA have identified many significant regulatory
differences (SRD) between the wording of part 25 and JAR-25. Both the
FAA and the JAA consider ``harmonization'' of the two sets of standards
a high priority.
What Is ARAC and What Role Does It Play in Harmonization?
After beginning the first steps towards harmonization, the FAA and
JAA soon realized that traditional methods of rulemaking and
accommodating different administrative procedures was neither
sufficient nor adequate to make noticeable progress towards fulfilling
the harmonization goal. The FAA then identified the Aviation Rulemaking
Advisory Committee (ARAC) as an ideal vehicle for helping to resolve
harmonization issues, and, in 1992, the FAA tasked ARAC to undertake
the entire harmonization effort.
The FAA had formally established ARAC in 1991 (56 FR 2190, January
22, 1991), to provide advice and
[[Page 76653]]
recommendations on the full range of the FAA's safety-related
rulemaking activity. The FAA sought this advice to develop better rules
in less overall time and using fewer FAA resources than previously
needed. The committee provides the FAA firsthand information and
insight from interested parties on potential new rules or revisions of
existing rules.
There are 74 member organizations on the committee representing a
wide range of interests within the aviation community. Meetings of the
committee are open to the public, except as authorized by section 10(d)
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
The ARAC sets up working groups to develop recommendations for
resolving specific airworthiness issues. Tasks assigned to working
groups are published in the Federal Register. Although working group
meetings are not generally open to the public, the FAA invites
participation in working groups from interested members of the public
who have knowledge or experience in the task areas. Working groups
report directly to the ARAC, and the ARAC must accept a working group
proposal before ARAC presents the proposal to the FAA as an advisory
committee recommendation.
The activities of the ARAC will not, however, circumvent the public
rulemaking procedures; nor is the FAA limited to the rule language
``recommended'' by ARAC. If the FAA accepts an ARAC recommendation, the
agency continues with the normal public rulemaking procedures. Any ARAC
participation in a rulemaking package is fully disclosed in the public
docket.
What Did the FAA Propose?
In Notice No. 01-05, the FAA proposed to revise Sec. 25.1323 to
add the additional airspeed system indication requirements of JAR
25.1323(c)(2), (3) and (4) (66 FR 26948, May 15, 2001).
JAR 25.1323(c)(2) and (c)(3), which the FAA proposed to adopt as a
new Sec. Sec. 25.1323(d) and (e), respectively, require the indicated
airspeed to change perceptibly and in the same sense in certain speed
regimes. The speed regimes where this requirement applies are the low
speed regime from the stall warning speed to 1.3 VS, and in
the high speed regime from VMO to VMO + 2/
3(VDF - VMO). At speeds below the stall warning
speed and speeds above VMO + 2/3(VDF -
VMO), the indicated airspeed must not change in an incorrect
sense. In other words, the indicated airspeed must not show a decrease
in airspeed when the calibrated airspeed is increasing.
JAR 25.1322(c)(4), which the FAA proposed to adopt as a new Sec.
25.1323(f), states that between the initiation of rotation and the
achievement of a steady climbing condition during takeoff, there must
not be an airspeed indication that would cause the pilot undue
difficulty. The FAA considers an airspeed indication that would affect
the average pilot's ability to maintain the intended takeoff flight
path and takeoff speed profile as an airspeed indication that would
cause undue difficulty. An example of such an airspeed indication would
be a significant pause or variation in the rate of change in airspeed
caused by the diminishing effect of the ground on the airflow pattern
around the airplane as the airplane climbs away after takeoff.
In addition, a new requirement was proposed concerning airspeed
lag. With the advent of electronic instruments in the cockpit, the
pneumatic signals from the pitot and static sources are processed and
digitized in the Air Data Computer (ADC) and then filtered and
transported to the cockpit display. Data processing and filtering cause
a time lag in displaying the airspeed on the cockpit display. This can
be an important consideration in the airspeed indicating system
calibration during ground acceleration. As stated in Sec. 25.1323(b),
the calibration for an accelerated takeoff ground run must determine
the ``system error,'' which is the relation between indicated and
calibrated airspeeds. The system error is the sum of the pneumatic lag
in the pressure lines, airspeed lag due to time lags in processing the
data, and static source position error.
Airspeed lag, which results in airspeed indication errors when the
airspeed is changing, can be a safety issue during takeoff, because the
airspeed is changing rapidly. Airspeed lag may result in the pilot
rotating the airplane for takeoff at a speed higher than the scheduled
rotation speed, resulting in an increased takeoff distance. For an
aborted takeoff, airspeed lag may result in the pilot initiating the
abort at a speed higher than that used in determining the accelerate-
stop distance. A new Sec. 25.1323(g) was proposed to ensure that the
effect of airspeed indicating system lag would not introduce
significant indicated airspeed bias during takeoff or significant
errors in takeoff or accelerate-stop distances. In general, an airspeed
indication error of 3 knots or an error of 100 feet in the takeoff or
accelerate-stop distances would be considered significant under Sec.
25.1323(g).
The FAA considers adding these requirements to part 25 necessary to
harmonize part 25 with JAR-25 to ensure correct indication of changes
in airspeed, and to codify current FAA policy. The JAA intends to
revise JAR-25 in accordance with the harmonization goal. The JAA
distributed Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA) 25F-324, ``Airspeed
Indicating System,'' for comment on January 1, 2002. The NPA proposals
are expected to be included in Change 16 to JAR-25, anticipated to be
published on March 1, 2003.
Adoption of this amendment is intended to benefit the public
interest by standardizing the requirements, concepts, and procedures
contained in the U.S. and European airworthiness standards without
reducing, but potentially enhancing, the current level of safety.
What Is the Effect of the Revised Standard Relative to the Current
Regulations?
The revised standard increases the level of safety relative to 14
CFR part 25 by incorporating the additional JAR requirements. The
additional requirement regarding airspeed lag codifies current FAA
policy.
What Is the Effect of the Revised Standard Relative to Current Industry
Practice?
Since industry practice is to comply with both the FAR and the JAR,
the revised standard neither adds any new or different objective to the
current regulations, nor does it change the way that any current
certification practice is applied. Instead, the intent of the new
paragraphs is to clarify and codify the way that the FAA and JAA have
traditionally applied the related rules.
What Other Options Were Considered and Why Were They Not Selected?
Various options regarding the split between rule and advisory
material were discussed. The FAA considers the option chosen to best
achieve the safety objective while ensuring flexibility in the means of
compliance. The other options that were discussed are described below,
along with the reasons for not selecting them.
The ARAC working group considered incorporating the JAR Advisory
Material-Joint (ACJ) 25.1323(c)(2) and (c)(3) for the proposed speed
requirements into the rule. The working group decided that adopting the
JAR ACJ as the regulatory standard would be too prescriptive and would
preclude the use of other means of compliance that could be found
acceptable. The FAA
[[Page 76654]]
agrees with the working group's determination.
Another consideration was to include quantitative limits on the
allowable level of airspeed bias and takeoff/accelerate-stop distance
errors in the proposed airspeed lag requirement. The ARAC working group
concluded, and the FAA agrees, that the ``one size fits all'' approach
would not be appropriate because a specified speed bias may be a
significant safety issue for one airplane type and not for another.
Also, the FAA's ability to evaluate and approve alternative compliance
approaches may be more difficult to consider if the standard consists
of prescriptive, quantitative values.
Finally, the ARAC working group considered retaining the airspeed
lag policy as policy only and not including it as a regulatory
standard. The working group determined that this means of compliance
did not have a specific regulatory standard against which it was
applied. The FAA agrees with the working group's determination that a
regulatory standard is necessary to assure that future certifications
continue to consider airspeed lag issues.
Adopting this rule eliminates an identified SRD between the wording
of part 25 and JAR-25, without affecting currently accepted industry
design practices. The FAA expects more consistent interpretations of
the rules and improved relations between regulatory authorities by
eliminating this SRD.
Is Existing FAA Advisory Material Adequate?
The FAA plans to revise Advisory Circular (AC) 25-7A, ``Flight Test
Guide for Certification of Transport Category Airplanes,'' to identify
an acceptable means of compliance with the JAR requirements that have
been added to Sec. 25.1323(c). The revision will add the means of
compliance currently accepted by the JAA as one acceptable means of
showing compliance with these requirements. The FAA plans to
incorporate the changes in the next update of AC 25-7A.
AC 25-7A already contains adequate advisory material concerning the
airspeed lag issue. Accordingly, no revision is required to the AC to
address the airspeed lag issue.
What Comments Were Received in Response to the Proposal?
Two commenters responded to the request for comments in Notice No.
01-05. Both agree not only with the proposal, but also with the goal of
harmonization to reduce the differences between part 25 and JAR-25. One
of the commenters provided additional specific comments, as discussed
below.
The commenter notes that the proposed rule harmonizes Sec. 25.1323
at JAR-25 Change 14, Orange Paper 96/1, and states that in order for
harmonization to be fully achieved, the rule should have been
harmonized with Change 15.
The FAA agrees. As noted in the preamble of Notice No. 01-05,
harmonization with JAR-25 Change 15 depended on separate FAA rulemaking
that was underway at that time. The other rulemaking has now been
completed, having been adopted as Amendment 108 to part 25. Therefore,
the term ``1.3 VS'' in Sec. 25.1323(d) has been changed to
``1.23 VSR'' in this final rule to conform to the reference
stall speed basis adopted by Amendment 108. Similar speed references in
Sec. 25.1323(c) were revised accordingly by Amendment 108.
The commenter also points out that the preamble to Notice No. 01-05
contains an incorrect reference to a speed of ``2/3 (VDF -
VMO); this should be ``VMO + 2/3 (VDF
- VMO).'' The FAA concurs and the comment is duly noted.
What Regulatory Analyses and Assessments Has the FAA Conducted?
Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, directs the
FAA to assess both the costs and benefits of a regulatory change. We
are not allowed to propose or adopt a regulation unless we make a
reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation
justify its costs. Our assessment of this amendment indicates that its
economic impact is minimal. Since its costs and benefits do not make it
a ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in the Order, we have
not prepared a ``regulatory impact analysis.'' Similarly, we have not
prepared a ``regulatory evaluation,'' which is the written cost/benefit
analysis ordinarily required for all rulemaking proposals under the DOT
Regulatory and Policies and Procedures. We do not need to do the latter
analysis where the economic impact of a proposal is minimal.
Economic Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination, Trade Impact
Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment
Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs each Federal agency to
propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that
the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies to analyze the
economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the
Trade Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 2531-2533) prohibits agencies from
setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign
commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, this Trade
Agreements Act also requires agencies to consider international
standards and, where appropriate, use them as the basis of U.S.
standards. And fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub.
L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the
costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that
include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State,
local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private
sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation).
In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined that this rule:
[sbull] Has benefits that do justify its costs, is not a
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in the Executive Order,
and is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and
Procedures;
[sbull] Will not have a significant impact on a substantial number
of small entities;
[sbull] Reduces barriers to international trade; and
[sbull] Does not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or
tribal governments, or on the private sector.
The DOT Order 2100.5, ``Regulatory Policies and Procedures,''
prescribes policies and procedures for simplification, analysis, and
review of regulations. If it is determined that the expected impact is
so minimal that the rule does not warrant a full evaluation, a
statement to that effect and the basis for it is included in the
regulation. We provide the basis for this minimal impact determination
below. We received no comments that conflicted with the economic
assessment of minimal impact published in the notice of proposed
rulemaking for this action. Given the reasons presented below, and the
fact that no comments were received to the contrary, we have determined
that the expected impact of this rule is so minimal that the final rule
does not warrant a full evaluation.
Currently, airplane manufacturers must satisfy both the 14 CFR and
the European JAR standards to certificate transport category airplanes
in both the United States and Europe. Meeting two sets of certification
requirements raises the cost of developing a new transport category
airplane, often with no increase
[[Page 76655]]
in safety. In the interest of fostering international trade, lowering
the cost of airplane development, and making the certification process
more efficient, the FAA, JAA, and airplane manufacturers have been
working to create, to the maximum possible extent, a single set of
certification requirements accepted in both the United States and
Europe. This final rule results from the FAA's acceptance of an ARAC
harmonization working group's recommendation, including the group's
determination that the requirements of this rule will not impose
additional costs to U.S. manufacturers of part 25 airplanes.
Specifically, this rule revises the airspeed indicating
requirements of Sec. 25.1323 to: (1) Add airspeed indication
requirements for speeds greater than and less than the speed range for
which airspeed indication accuracy requirements currently apply; (2)
require that airspeed indications not cause the pilot undue difficulty
between the initiation of rotation and the achievement of a steady
climbing condition during takeoff; and (3) codify current FAA policy
concerning airspeed lag. We consider that this rule will neither reduce
nor increase the requirements beyond those that are already met by U.S.
manufacturers to satisfy European airworthiness standards.
As this rule neither increases nor decreases certification
requirements beyond those already in existence, we have determined
there will be no additional cost associated with this rule to part 25
manufacturers. We have not tried to quantify the benefits of this
amendment beyond identifying the expected harmonization benefit. This
amendment eliminates an identified SRD between the wording of part 25
and JAR-25. The elimination of the SRD will provide for a more
consistent interpretation of the rules and, thus, is an element of the
potentially large cost savings of harmonization.
Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612,
directs the FAA to fit regulatory requirements to the scale of the
business, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to the
regulation. We are required to determine whether a proposed or final
action will have a ``significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities'' as defined in the Act.
If we find that the action will have a significant impact, we must
do a ``regulatory flexibility analysis.'' If we find, however, that the
action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities, we are not required to do the analysis. In
this case, the Act requires that we include a statement that provides
the factual basis for our determination.
We have determined that this amendment will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for two
reasons:
First, the net effect of the proposed rule is minimum regulatory
cost relief. The amendment requires that new transport category
aircraft manufacturers meet just the ``more stringent'' European
certification requirement, rather than both the United States and
European standards. Airplane manufacturers already meet or expect to
meet this standard, as well as the existing part 25 requirement.
Second, all United States manufacturers of transport category
airplanes exceed the Small Business Administration small entity
criteria of 1,500 employees for aircraft manufacturers. Those U.S.
manufacturers include:
[sbull] The Boeing Company,
[sbull] Cessna Aircraft Company,
[sbull] Gulfstream Aerospace,
[sbull] Learjet (owned by Bombardier Aerospace),
[sbull] Lockheed Martin Corporation,
[sbull] McDonnell Douglas (a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Boeing
Company),
[sbull] Raytheon Aircraft, and
[sbull] Sabreliner Corporation.
No comments were received that differed with the assessment given
in this section. Since this final rule is minimally cost-relieving and
there are no small entity manufacturers of part 25 airplanes, the FAA
Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
International Trade Impact Analysis
The Trade Agreement Act of 1979, 19 U.S.C. et seq., prohibits
Federal agencies from engaging in any standards or related activities
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are not
considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires
consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that
they be the basis for U.S. standards.
In accordance with that statute, we have assessed the potential
effect of this final rule and have determined that it is consistent
with the statute's requirements by using European international
standards as the basis for U.S. standards.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act), 2 U.S.C. 1531-
1538, 1571, is intended, among other things, to curb the practice of
imposing unfunded Federal mandates on State, local, and tribal
governments. Title II of the Act requires each Federal agency to
prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal
mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in a $100
million or more expenditure (adjusted annually for inflation) in any
one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or
by the private sector; such a mandate is considered to be a
``significant regulatory action.''
This final rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore, the
requirements of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do
not apply.
What Other Assessments Has the FAA Conducted?
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We determined that this
action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We therefore determined that this final rule does not have
federalism implications.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3507(d)), we have determined there are no new requirements for
information collection associated with this final rule.
International Compatibility
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. We have
determined there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices that
correspond to these regulations.
Environmental Analysis
FAA Order 1050.1D defines FAA actions that may be categorically
excluded from preparation of a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
environmental impact statement. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1D,
appendix 4, paragraph 4(j), this
[[Page 76656]]
rulemaking action qualifies for a categorical exclusion.
Energy Impact
The FAA has assessed the energy impact of this final rule in
accordance with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), Public
Law 94-163, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6362), and FAA Order 1053.1. We have
determined that this final rule is not a major regulatory action under
the provisions of the EPCA.
Regulations Affecting Intrastate Aviation in Alaska
Section 1205 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat.
3213) requires the Administrator, when modifying regulations in Title
14 of the CFR in a manner affecting intrastate aviation in Alaska, to
consider the extent to which Alaska is not served by transportation
modes other than aviation, and to establish such regulatory
distinctions as he or she considers appropriate. Because this final
rule would apply to the certification of future designs of transport
category airplanes and their subsequent operation, it could affect
intrastate aviation in Alaska. Because no comments were received
regarding this regulation affecting intrastate aviation in Alaska, we
will apply the rule in the same way that it is being applied
nationally.
Plain Language
In response to the June 1, 1998, Presidential memorandum regarding
the use of plain language, the FAA re-examined the writing style
currently used in the development of regulations. The memorandum
requires Federal agencies to communicate clearly with the public. We
are interested in your comments on whether the style of this document
is clear, and in any other suggestions you might have to improve the
clarity of FAA communications that affect you. You can get more
information about the Presidential memorandum and the plain language
initiative at http://www.plainlanguage.gov.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
The Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends part 25 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations,
as follows:
PART 25--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRPLANES
1. The authority citation for part 25 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, and 44704.
2. Amend Sec. 25.1323 by redesignating paragraphs (d) through (f)
as paragraphs (h) through (j), and adding new paragraphs (d) through
(g) to read as follows:
Sec. 25.1323 Airspeed indicating system.
* * * * *
(d) From 1.23 VSR to the speed at which stall warning
begins, the IAS must change perceptibly with CAS and in the same sense,
and at speeds below stall warning speed the IAS must not change in an
incorrect sense.
(e) From VMO to VMO + 2/3 (VDF -
VMO), the IAS must change perceptibly with CAS and in the
same sense, and at higher speeds up to VDF the IAS must not
change in an incorrect sense.
(f) There must be no indication of airspeed that would cause undue
difficulty to the pilot during the takeoff between the initiation of
rotation and the achievement of a steady climbing condition.
(g) The effects of airspeed indicating system lag may not introduce
significant takeoff indicated airspeed bias, or significant errors in
takeoff or accelerate-stop distances.
(h) Each system must be arranged, so far as practicable, to prevent
malfunction or serious error due to the entry of moisture, dirt, or
other substances.
(i) Each system must have a heated pitot tube or an equivalent
means of preventing malfunction due to icing.
(j) Where duplicate airspeed indicators are required, their
respective pitot tubes must be far enough apart to avoid damage to both
tubes in a collision with a bird.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 3, 2002.
Ali Bahrami,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 02-31341 Filed 12-11-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P