23.787 Baggage and cargo compartments
The corresponding rule in CAR 3 is CAR 3.392.
The corresponding airworthiness criteria is section 4.35, Airship Design Criteria, FAA-P-8110-2, Change 2.
Original Issue and Subsequent
Questions have been raised about Original Part 23, § 23.787(c), which requires an ultimate inertia forward force of 4.5g for to protect passengers from any cargo compartment. This regulation is related to the CAR, which imagined a crew compartment forward, a passenger compartment in the middle followed by a bulkhead and a small cargo/baggage compartment aft. In this concept, the 4.5g was considered satisfactory based on NASA data that showed g forces become less as distance from the nose increases in a typical crash. Our review of all cargo configurations has led to the conclusion that under § 23.561(b) and (e), the restraining devices should meet the 9g requirements. The up and side load inertia forces are not considered to be applicable in this case where the crew would not be subject to injury from upward or sideward cargo movement.
To modify a passenger plane to an all-cargo configuration, the following items should be considered:
a. The cargo compartment should meet the requirements of § 23.787. Special attention should be given to cargo loading placards and the cargo restraint system.
b. The cargo restraint system, including tie downs and the supporting structure to which they are attached, should be substantiated to the emergency landing ultimate inertia forces in § 23.561(b)(2).
c. In an all-cargo configuration, 14 CF R, Part 23, § 23.787 (Civil Air Regulation (CAR) 3, § 3.392) requires protection of the flight crew. Any means of restraining the cargo including walls or cargo nets that meets the applicable rule is an acceptable means of compliance.
d. The floor loading should be re-substantiated to assure the floor structure is not overloaded.
e. Emergency egress from an emergency exit or the entrance door should be verified accessible for the crew.
f. Current § 23.807(a) requires two emer gency exits or doors on opposite sides of Part 23 airplanes for two or more seating capacity. CAR 3, § 3.387(b) requires two emergency exits or doors on opposite sides of CAR 3 airplanes for 5 to 15
Change 1 AC 23-17C 7/16/2012
114 seating capacity. If these emergency exits/doors are in the flight compartment, then all exits in the cabin can be blocked by cargo. If the emergency exits/doors are in the cabin, then a clear path on the floor is needed from the pilot compartment to the exit(s).
g. A supplement to the AFM weight and ba lance section that shows the various permissible cargo loading arrangements and cargo restraints should be furnished.
Guidance on Carriage of Hazardous Cargo for Operators of part 23 Certificated Aircraft
There are no 14 CFR, part 23, airworthiness standards that directly address the design of an aircraft to allow for the carriage of hazardous cargo and passengers simultaneously. FAA cannot, therefore, provide guidance on the issuance of ATCs or STCs specific to this operation.
However, for the carriage of cargo and baggage in general, 14 CFR, part 23, does provide certification requirements for baggage and cargo compartments. Specifically, § 23.787 “Baggage and cargo compartments,” which focuses on the design requirements of the baggage or cargo compartment and its integration with the airframe.
§ 23.855 “Cargo and baggage compartment fire protection” focuses on the shielding, insulation, and flammability requirements of cargo or baggage containers. In addition, this regulation adds additional requirements and tests on cargo and baggage compartments for use in commuter category aircraft.
Title 49, § 175.85, states that hazardous materials may be carried in a main deck cargo compartment of a passenger aircraft. This is provided the compartment meets all certification requirements for a Class B aircraft cargo compartment as defined in 14 CFR, part 25, § 25.857.
The certification requirements for Class B cargo compartments exceed the requirements identified in §§ 23.787 and 23.855. Normally, a Class B cargo compartment is not a certification requirement for a part 23 certificated airplane.
However, a cargo compartment may be certificated, using either an ATC or STC process possibly involving special conditions, if it meets the appropriate airworthiness design standards for a Class B aircraft cargo compartment. Any ATC/STC effort must be coordinated with the responsible ACO.
Once approved, a Class B cargo container installation in a part 23 certificated aircraft does not necessarily entitle the operator to carry hazardous cargo. The operator must also show compliance with the appropriate operational rules and requirements of 14 CFR, part 135, and Title 49 governing the carriage of hazardous cargo. For additional information on part 135 requirements, the operator should contact their local flight standards district office (FSDO).
115 Amendment 23-14 and Subsequent See AC 23-2A, “Flammability Tests.”
A proposed revision in NPRM 71-13 explains this amendment as follows: “This proposal would make it clear that it is not only the cargo shifting that would affect the CG of the airplane that is covered by the rule but it is also cargo shifting which could damage essential controls, equipment etc. In addition, for airplanes in which cargo is carried in the passenger compartment the proposal would make the higherinertia forces of Sec. 23.561(b)(2) applicable to the protection of the passengers.”
Amendment 23-36 and Subsequent A proposed revision in NPRM 94-21 explains the amendment as follows: “Section
23.787(c) is proposed to be revised because, as presently stated, the required ultimate forward inertia force for cargo restraint is not adequate considering the current requirements of Section 23.561. It was the consensus at the conference that cargo restraint should be at least to the ultimate inertia forces of Section 23.561 to adequately protect occupants forward of the cargo. In addition, when designs provide for cargo to be carried in the same compartment with occupants, it is proposed that means be provided to restrain the cargo, at least to the loads resulting from the emergency landing dynamic conditions being proposed in Section
23.562(b)(2). It is considered necessary to protect occupants from cargo being forced into their occupied area as a result of an emergency landing when they are otherwise being adequately protected from serious injury. The increased ultimate static load factors will achieve this objective.”
The rigid movable/removable cargo restraint bulkhead attached to seat rails and to points along the cabin sidewalls and roof is considered a structure per § 23.787(c).
Before this amendment, the loads to design this structure were not defined, but the loads for a cargo restraint system and tie downs in a cargo compartment had to withstand an ultimate inertia force of 4.5g. Even though not defined, some certification programs applied a 4.5g ultimate load factor to design a rigid movable/removable cargo restraint bulkhead in the cabin. The reason was to bring occupant protection to a 9g forward load. In this amendment, the ultimate forward load factor for any cargo restraint system and tie downs has been increased to 9g. In this case, the structure can be designed to no load since the occupant protection of 9g has been met by the cargo restraint system and tie downs.
If this structure separates the occupant compartment from the cargo compartment, only § 23.787(c) applies. Section 23.787(b) is applicable if cargo is carried aft of the occupants in the same occupant compartment. The ultimate load factor in § 23.561 has been increased to 18g by Amendment 23-36.
116 Amendment 23-49 and Subsequent
A proposed revision in NPRM 94-21 explains this amendment as follows: “Section
23.787 would be revised by extending the present requirements for cargo compartments to baggage compartments. As proposed, future baggage compartments on all airplane categories would be required to be placarded for their maximum weight capacity; have a means to prevent the baggage from shifting; and have a means to protect controls, wiring, lines, and equipment or accessories that are located in the compartment and whose damage or failure would affect safe operation of the airplane. These standards have been applicable to cargo compartment design for some time and should be applied to baggage compartments since the same safety factors are involved. Because manufacturers recognize the need for these standards, many of these provisions have been included in the current design of baggage compartments and, therefore, the proposed requirements are not expected to create a significant burden. With this revision the commuter category requirements of Sec.
23.787(g) would be redundant and that requirement is being removed.
Proposed revisions to this section would also move the substance of paragraphs (d) and (f) to a proposed new Sec. 23.855, which will address cargo and baggage compartment fire protection.
Proposed new paragraph (c) of this section would require flight crew emergency exits on all cargo-configured airplanes to meet the requirements of Sec. 23.807. This requirement would provide increased assurance that flight crews of all cargo airplanes will have ready access to an emergency exit.”
23.791 Passenger information signs
No policy available as of December 31, 2007.
There are no corresponding rule or airworthiness criteria in CAR 3 or the Airship Design Criteria.
23.803 Emergency evacuation
There are no corresponding rule or airworthiness criteria in CAR 3 or the Airship Design Criteria.
Amendment 23-34 and Subsequent
See AC 20-118A, “Emergency Evacuation Demonstration,” for information on how to conduct an emergency evacuation demonstration of a commuter category airplane.
If there is a project for a litter installation for non-ambulatory passengers, then the airplane should be evaluated for compliance with the applicable egress requirements.
It is for those passengers who can exit the airplane under their own power per § 23.803. This evaluation can be a simple engineering judgment if it is clear the litter installation will not prevent the safe egress of all non-litter passengers within the allotted time. If there is doubt, a new demonstration should be run that evaluates the ability of non-litter passengers to exit the airplane with special attention to the litter installation and possible obstructions to safe exit.
Amendment 23-46 and Subsequent
This amendment adds a requirement for emergency lighting per § 23.812 to be the only lighting used in an emergency evacuation demonstration. This is when certification of emergency exits is done per § 23.807(d)(4). AC 20-118A is still applicable except for paragraph 5a(3)(vi).
23.805 Flight crew emergency exits
There is no corresponding rule in CAR 3.
The corresponding airworthiness criteria is section 4.36, Airship Design Criteria, FAA-P-8110-2, Change 2.
Amendment 23-46 and Subsequent
Section 23.805 requires two crew compartment exits or a singular hatch if the passenger exits are not convenient and readily accessible to the crew.
Section 23.807(a)(3) requires a single crew compartment exit if there is a door that is likely to block the crew's access to the passenger exits. If a crew compartment exit is necessary under § 23.807(a)(3), the more rigid requirements of § 23.805 are also applicable. In other cases, the crew compartment exits may be required by § 23.805 independent of § 23.807(a)(3). Crew compartment exits that comply with the requirements of § 23.805 would also comply with § 23.807(a)(3) without further showing.
Amendment 23-49 and Subsequent
Crew compartment exits that comply with the requirements of § 23.805 would provide an equivalent level of safety to § 23.787(c). According to the preamble to Amendment 23-49, which added § 23.787(c), “this requirement would provide increased assurance that flight crews of all cargo airplanes will have ready access to an emergency exit.”
23.807 Emergency exits
The corresponding rule in CAR 3 is CAR 3.387.
The corresponding airworthiness criteria is section 4.36, Airship Design Criteria, FAA-P-8110-2, Change 2.
Original Issue and Subsequent
“Seating Capacity” as used in this regulation is defined as the number of occupants, both crew and passengers, for which the airplane is certificated. Thus, removal of installed seats is not justification for removal of certificated emergency exits.
The regulation requires a clear and unobstructed opening. An exemption per 14 CFR, part 11 to § 23.807(b), is acceptable for a seatback that protrudes into the opening if it can be easily pushed forward to clear the exit without requiring an action to unlock/unlatch the seat. If a seatback clears the exit when upright but not when reclined, it is acceptable to placard the seat to be upright during takeoff and landing.
Emergency exits should allow escape without crowding in any probable crash attitude. The inverted position is considered probable for both tail wheel and tricycle gear airplanes. This applies to airplanes with doors, forward sliding canopies, rearward sliding canopies and jettisonable canopies. If escape in an inverted attitude is not obvious or is questionable, then compliance should be shown.
It is not acceptable for certification purposes, except for acrobatic airplanes (§ 23.807(b)(5)), to rely on an emergency procedure requiring canopy jettisoning before an accident occurs. On the acrobatic category, if the canopy is not jettisonable, it should be shown that the canopy could be opened far enough in flight between VSO and VD to enable the occupants to safely exit the airplane. If jettisonable, it should be shown that the canopy trajectory would not cause injury to the occupants while separating from the airplane between VSO and VD. Also, if the canopy is jettisonable, it should be demonstrated that the airplane can be safely flown without the canopy, or that an inadvertent jettisoning is shown to be improbable.
On doors between the pilots' compartment and the passenger compartment that are likely to block the pilots' egress in a minor crash landing, there should be an exit in the pilots' compartment. This does not apply to curtains suspended from a rod at the top and made of flexible material without slats on any side.
Doors or folding doors with rigid-frangible materials may jam in a minor crash.
Acceptance of frangible doors can be shown by the evacuation procedure in section 23.807(a) below or by the conditions for acceptance of rigid doors in section
23.807(b) below. Rigid doors are only acceptable by placarding the doors to be latched in the open position for takeoff and landing, providing the conditions in section 23.807(b) below are in compliance.
a. The purpose of the test is to show th e door between the pilots' compartment and the passenger compartment will not block the pilots' escape if the door is jammed.
Acceptable means of compliance is by showing the door is frangible and the flight crew can egress the airplane without help within the 90-second time limit.
(1) The test should be conducted in an airplane or a mockup that conforms to the production airplane interior configuration that contains a bulkhead and door to be tested. The door should be closed to simulate jamming. If fragments from the broken door could obstruct the escape route of passengers and an emergency evacuation demonstration is required by either airworthiness or operating rules, then consideration should be given to including passenger participants in the test. In this case, refer to § 23.803 for guidance.
(2) Two participants representing a pilot and a copilot will be used in the test.
They should be people with no particular escape abilities. The estimated stature and weights for the participants should be a female 60-inches tall weighing 102 pounds and a male 74-inches tall weighing 210 pounds (fifth to 95th percentile). The female participant will break the door and be the first person through the exit without help from the male participant. Instructions for improving the egress should be limited to those instructions that are provided in either the FAA approved AFM or on related placards, or both.
(3) Determine the lighting simulates night lighting with no moonlight or starlight. Lighting may be allowed at ground level to aid in leaving the area near the airplane providing the lighting is kept low and is shielded so it does not aid in evacuating the airplane.
(4) Participating personnel should be told of the purpose of the demonstration and of the safety precautions. Safety of participants is the responsibility of the applicant and safety procedures should protect the applicants without impacting the test results. Participants may wear protective gear such as helmets, but such gear, tools, or any other device should not be used to break through the door.
(5) The time limit is 90 seconds whether or not passenger participants are used in this demonstration.
(6) Information advising the flight crew th e door is frangible should be placarded on the door(s) and should be noted in the limitations section of the AFM
b. Rigid doors (those with stiff members th at may jam in a minor crash) may be approved providing they are placarded to be latched open during takeoff and landing and under the following conditions:
(1) The opening and latching should be included in the Normal Procedures Section under the Before Takeoff and Before Landing Checklists of the AFM.
(2) With the door latch in the fully ope n position, the latch should be able to withstand the loads from the ultimate forces on the surrounding structure, per § 23.561.
(3) Flight crew members should be able to open and latch the door with their safety belts/shoulder harnesses fastened, if required by either airworthiness or operating rules.
(4) If certification for night operation is sought, the pilots' compartment—with the doors open—should be free from glare and reflections that could interfere with a pilots' vision, per § 23.733.
(5) The doors should be placarded in accordance with § 23.1557. The placards should state the doors are to be latched in an open position before takeoff and landing. Placard information should be in the imitations section of the AFM.
The following should be considered when approving STCs for cargo conversions (no passenger seating) on airplanes with a certification basis of 14 CFR, part 23, including commuter category airplanes:
1. Unless otherwise mentioned, the airplane “seating capacity” is defined as the number of occupants, both crew and passenger, for which the airplane is certificated. Simply removing seats from the seat rails does not change the seating capacity.
2. The § 23.807(a)(3) conditional requirement for one crew compartment exit is applicable to all airplanes with a part 23 certification basis, including commuter category.
3. Airplanes with a crew compartment door that may block the pilots exit must have an exit in the crew compartment. In this circumstance, a normal, utility, or aerobatic category airplane with a certificated passenger seating capacity of zero (cargo only), a minimum of a single accessible exit in the cargo compartment in addition to the crew compartment exit is necessary (reference § 23.807(a)(3).
4. It is not acceptable to remove emergency exits by modifying an existing exit so it no longer complies with 14 CFR, part 23 airworthiness requirements.
However, under certain circumstances, such as in an airplane with more than two exits, it may be permissible to block exits with cargo provided one or more exits remain accessible on each side of the airplane. Implicit within the definition of “readily accessible” is a requirement the unblocked emergency exits have no obstacles such as cargo nets or cargo. Obstacles pose an
123 impediment to the emergency evacuation process that cannot be quantified, when consideration is given to the effect of a post-crash environment. An emergency evacuation demonstration, therefore, is not acceptable as an ELOS since it is not meant to allow alleviation or deviation of specific requirements.
If the airplane is configured for passenger and cargo (Combi), the requirements of this section should be met for the passenger compartment. In addition, cargo should be located: 1) so it does not obstruct either access to or use of any required emergency or regular exit; 2) so it does not obstruct the use of the aisle between the crew and passenger compartment; and 3) so it meets the additional requirements of § 135.87.
Amendment 23-7 and Subsequent A proposed revision in NPRM 67-14 explains this amendment as follows: “Section
23.807 (a) (1) exempts all airplanes with five-or-less occupants from the requirement to have an emergency exit opposite the main door. For airplanes with engines mounted on the wings or on the side of the fuselage, the main door may be blocked by engine fire regardless of the number of occupants. Therefore the five-or-less exemption would be discontinued for these aircraft but would be continued for single engine airplanes and centerline thrust twins.”
Amendment 23-10 and Subsequent Multiseat airplanes must have a second exit on the opposite side from the main door, per § 23.807(a)(1). Both exits must be accessible and must not be blocked with cargo.
Amendment 23-34 and Subsequent A proposed revision in NPRM 83-17 added Amendment 23-34. “The source for this revision is part 135, Appendix A., sections 32(a) and (b); SFAR 41, section 5(e), Doors and Exits, paragraphs (g), (i), and (j)”. This amendment added emergency exit requirements for commuter airplanes. Included are emergency exit marking requirements as well as those in §§ 23.783 and 23.1557. The additional emergency exit marking requirements in § 23.1557(d) on the red operating handle and placard that provides door opening instructions are not mandatory for the passenger entrance door. However, § 23.807(b)(3) requires markings for easy location and operation of the exit even in darkness, and § 23.811(b) requires illuminating the exit sign. As an added safety feature, it is recommended the operating handle be self-illuminated and marked with a red arrow and the word “OPEN” in red letters placed near the head of the arrow. If necessary, other relevant instructions for opening the door should also be in red.
This amendment requires three emergency exits as well as the entrance door for commuter airplanes with passenger seating from 16 to 19. Part 25, § 25.807 requires
124 two Type III emergency exits on opposite sides of the cabin. It is possible for an applicant to use part 25 for emergency exits. To do so requires a petition for exemption for part 11, and compliance to part 25, §§ 25.807, 25.561(b) (3)(iv),
25.783, 25.809, 25.811, 25.812, 25.813, 25.815, and 25.817.
An integral stair, if installed at an entrance door, should be designed so it does not reduce the effectiveness of the door as an emergency exit: 1) under the inertia forces of § 23.561 and 2) following the collapse of one or more legs of the landing gear. A demonstration of this failure mode is beyond the intent of this rule. It should be shown by orthographic drafting techniques or test (that is, ground plane under an airplane to simulate various attitudes) that with the various combinations of collapsed landing gears and resulting airplane attitudes, the exit effectiveness is not reduced.
This is done with no fuselage deformation.
There are no standards for ejection seats in part 23. If an applicant needs an ejection seat to meet the emergency exit requirement in § 23.807, an ELOS will have to be justified.
Emergency Exit Size and Shape Background
For a commuter category airplane with a certificated passenger seating capacity of zero (cargo only), two emergency exits (one on each side) are required as well as the main door (reference § 23.807(d)(1)(i)) regardless of the crew compartment door configuration.
CAR 3.387 and 14 CFR, part 23, § 23.807, have required that all emergency exits have enough size and shape to admit a 19 x 26 inch ellipse. Time to egress through an exit is related to the total open area and the most critical dimension of the exit.
The area of a 19 x 26 inch ellipse is 388 square inches. Studies for emergency evacuation demonstrations with the standard ellipse have shown: 1) the duration to egress was equal or less with other exits having a total open area equal to or greater than 388 square inches and 2) the most critical dimension, width or height, greater than 19 inches, but lacking the shape to admit a 19 x 26 inch ellipse.
Acceptable Means of Compliance Alternatives for compliance to the airworthiness standards are allowed by an ELOS.
One method for determining compliance by an ELOS is by the test procedure below.
Demonstrations have shown the emergency exit size and shape affect the time and ease of an emergency evacuation. An ELOS should only be considered if the exit meets the logical limits that correspond to the standard exit. That is, the total open area is equal or greater than 388 square inches and the most critical dimension, width or height, is not less than 19 inches. These limits for area, width, and height were