AC 27-1B, Chg 3 9/30/2008
(iv) Fatigue strength, and/or fatigue crack propagation characteristics, residual strength of the cracked structure.
(2) Since the design limits, e.g., rotor RPM (maximum and minimum), airspeed, and blade angles (thrust, weight, etc.) affect the fatigue life of the rotor system, it is necessary that flight conditions be conducted at limits that are appropriate for the particular rotorcraft and at the correct combination of these limits. It will be the responsibility of engineering and flight test personnel to determine that the flight strain program proposal includes conditions of flight at the various combinations of rotor RPM, airspeed, thrust, etc., that will be representative of the limits used in service. The flight test personnel should assure that the severity of the maneuvers to be investigated is such that actual service use will not be more severe. Verification that proposed maneuvers are suitable may be achieved by:
(i) Flying a representative set of maneuvers with the applicant's pilot in the test aircraft at noncritical combinations of weight, CG, and speed. (An FAA/AUTHORITY letter for specific test authorization would ordinarily be required.) If the procedure is used, the applicant should provide adequate preliminary flight strain data from development or other tests to confirm a cleared (non-critical) flight envelope for conduct of these representative maneuvers.
Flying a representative set of maneuvers with the applicant's pilot in a similar (certified) model to assess and agree upon the required maneuvers, control deflections, and aircraft rates. The required maneuvers or conditions will be specified in the flight strain program plan.
(iii) Flying a chase aircraft which has a flight envelope appropriate to allow visual confirmation of the proposed and programmed flight maneuvers.
(TV) Observation of telemetered flight data to assure desired control deflections, rates, and aircraft attitudes.
(v) Some combinations of items b(2)(i) through b(2)(iv) above.
(3) Assessing the operation spectrum and the flight loads or strain measurement program will involve airframe, propulsion, and flight test personnel.
(4) Variation in the operating or loading spectrum among models, and variations in the spectrum for a particular model rotorcraft, should be evaluated.
Figure AC 27 MG 11-7 contains typical flight load measurement program conditions to be investigated. An example of a twin turbine spectrum is presented in Figure AC 27 MG 11-9. The tables should be used only as a guide and should be modified as necessary for each particular rotorcraft design.
Page C - 84
(5) The difference in loading spectrum for different models that may be anticipated is illustrated by comparing the percentage of time assigned to level flight conditions, specifically 0.8 V to 1.0 Vu for three different rotorcraft designs as shown in figure AC 27.571-1. (V is the maximum airspeed at maximum continuous power in level flight.) The first column applies to a single-piston-engine powered small rotorcraft used in utility operations. The second column is appropriate for a single-turbine-engine powered seven-place small business and utility rotorcraft. The third column is appropriate for a twin-engine-powered 13 passenger transport rotorcraft. It should be noted that the level flight percentage of occurrences shown in figure AC 27.571-1 for the turbine utility business and turbine transport rotorcraft are examples of particular designs. The high percentage of time shown in this level flight regime could be unconservative for some designs, especially if the stresses under these design conditions produce an infinite fatigue life for the particular component. The fatigue spectrum percentage of occurrences should be modified according to the intended operation usage of the rotorcraft. However, a conservative application should be considered. This variation illustrates the "tailoring" of the loading spectrum for the type of rotorcraft and the anticipated usage.
FIGURE AC 27.571-1 Comparison Percent of Time in Level Flight Turbine Piston Utility Twin Turbine Utility Business Transport
0.8 VNE 25% 0.8 VH 16% 0.8 VH 15%
1.0 VH 15% 0.9 VH 21% 0.9 VH 20%
1.0 VNE 3% 1.0 VH 24% 1.0 VH 38% Total 43% 61% 73%
(6) External cargo operations are a unique and demanding operation. A "logging" operator may use 50 maximum power applications per flight hour to move logs from a cutting site to a hauling site. Power is used to accelerate, decelerate, or hover prior to load release. Lifting loads over an obstruction or natural barrier is another example of very frequent high power applications for takeoff and for hovering over the release area. Similar types of operations require flight loads data to assess the effects on fatigue critical components.
(7) The impact of the external cargo operation on standard configuration limits should be assessed to determine whether or not the component service lives, inspections, etc., will be affected. The assessment may be done by calculating an "external cargo configuration" service life for each critical component. The lowest Page C - 85
AC 27-1B, Chg 3 9/30/2008 service life obtained from standard configuration flight loads data and loading spectrum, or from external cargo configuration flight loads data and loading spectrum or from frequent ground-air-ground cycles is generally the approved service life or replacement time. Since the regulatory maintenance and operating rules do not require recording time in service for the different types of operations, this procedure could be used if an "operational cycles" equation for equivalent flight hours is not approved (see (8) below).
(8) The Airworthiness Limitations Section of the maintenance manual shall contain the required information derived from complying with the standard. If an "operational cycles" equation for "equivalent flight hours" is approved under the standard, the equation is included in this approved section of the manual.
(9) The applicant should plan to conduct a flight loads survey program for both a standard configuration and an external cargo configuration, if applicable. The ground-air-ground cycle is inherent in these conditions. This procedure will avoid delays associated with reinstallation and calibration of equipment.
AC 27.571A. $27.571 (Amendment 27-33) FATIGUE EVALUATION OF FLIGHT STRUCTURE FOR CATEGORY A CERTIFICATION.
a. Explanation. Amendment 27-33 added Appendix C to specify the requirements for Category A certification of normal category rotorcraft. The requirement for fatigue tolerance evaluation will require test evidence to support the analysis.
b. Procedures. For Category A certification, the tests specified in paragraph AC 29.571A are required for fatigue tolerance evaluation.
Paragraph AC 29.571A is repeated in this section.
(1) Fatigue test evidence is necessary for the fatigue evaluation of gears. The test evidence should be provided by rotating tests of complete gearbox specimens operating under power. The tests provide the basis for analysis leading to the establishment of safe life.
(2) The tests are conducted specifically for the purpose of gear tooth evaluation, and components subjected to the tests do not have to be considered serviceable on completion of the test. Excessive wear on bearings and shafts and marking (including spalling) of bearings and gear teeth are acceptable provided no fatigue damage is evident on the gear teeth. However fatigue damage other than tooth fatigue should be considered for test validity and the integrity of the affected part confirmed as necessary.
(3) The test conditions (torque versus number of cycles) should permit the setting of mean strength curves) to be associated with each primary gear in the drive train. The test conditions, should at a minimum, encompass those power levels for which repeated application inservice is expected under normal circumstances. The S-N curves), for the material and type of gear, should be reduced by a factor of safety to Page C - 86
take into account material and manufacturing variability. The factored curve will then be used in conjunction with the flight power spectrum to determine a life (limited or unlimited) for the gears in the primary drive system.
(4) Special procedures, which do not affect fatigue evaluation of the gear teeth, may be allowed to facilitate completion of the test provided they have been justified and they do not affect life determination. These include periodic interruption for inspection, etc., replacement of non-critical parts and the use of special lubricants, special cooling systems, and methods to prevent unrepresentative deflections at the test torque levels.
(5) From evidence in relation to the strength of steel gears of conventional design, it is accepted that adequate fatigue strength can be demonstrated by the use of the above safety factor of 1.4 for a single test, 1.35 for two tests, 1.32 for three tests, and 1.3 for four or more tests. Where several tests are to be conducted, specimens should be selected from different manufacturing batches if practicable.
(6) The demonstration of infinite life for gear teeth will normally require tests of a minimum of 107 cycles duration at factored power levels. Use of shorter duration tests should be justified.
Page C - 87
AC 27-1B, Chg 4 12/1/2011 AC 27.573. § 27.573 (Amendment 27-47) DAMAGE TOLERANCE AND
FATIGUE EVALUATION OF COMPOSITE ROTORCRAFT
STRUCTURES
a. Purpose. This advisory material provides an acceptable means of compliance with the provisions of § 27.573, Amendment 27-47, Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) dealing with the damage tolerance and fatigue evaluation of normal category composite rotorcraft structures. Paragraph f.(6) specifically addresses the advisory guidance applying to damage tolerance and fatigue evaluation as required by § 27.573, Amendment 27-47. Some information contained in AC 27-1B, MG 8 (Amendment 27-30) is repeated and updated, as appropriate, to preserve the "building block" approach for analyses of composite rotorcraft structure for compliance to § 27.573, Amendment 27-47 . (Supplemental guidance can be found in AC 20-107, "Composite Aircraft Structure.") These procedures address the substantiation requirements for composite material system constituents, composite material systems, and composite structures common to rotorcraft. A uniform approach to composite structural substantiation is desirable, but it is recognized that in a continually developing technical area, which has diverse industrial roots both in aerospace and in other industries, variations and deviations from the procedures described here may be necessary. Deviations from this advisory material should be coordinated in advance with the Rotorcraft Directorate.
b. Special Considerations. Since rotorcraft structure is configured uniquely and is inherently subjected to severe cyclic stresses, special consideration is required for the substantiation of all rotorcraft structure, including composites. This special consideration is necessary to ensure that the level of safety intended by the current regulations are attained during the type certification process for all structure with special emphasis on composite structure because of its unique structural characteristics, manufacturing quality and operational considerations, and failure mechanisms.
c. Background.
(1) Historically, rotorcraft have required unique, conservative structural substantiation because of unique configuration effects, unique loading considerations, severe fatigue spectrum effects, and the specialized comprehensive fatigue testing required by these effects. Rotorcraft structural static strength substantiation for both metal and composite structure is essentially identical to that for fixed wing structure once basic loads have been determined. However, rotorcraft structural fatigue substantiation is significantly different from fixed wing fatigue substantiation. Since AC 20-107, as developed, applies to both fixed wing aircraft and rotorcraft, it, of necessity, was finalized in a broad generic form. Accordingly, a need to supplement AC 20-107 for rotorcraft was recognized during type certification programs. One significant difference in traditional rotorcraft fatigue substantiation programs and fixed wing fatigue programs is the use of multiple component fatigue tests for rotorcraft programs rather than just one full-scale test. Also, constant amplitude, accelerated load tests are typically used rather than spectrum tests because of the high frequency loads Page C - 88
common to rotorcraft operations. These rotorcraft fatigue tests have traditionally involved the generation of stress versus life or cycle (S-N) curves for each critical part (most of which are subjected to the cyclic loading of the main or tail rotor system) using a monotonic (sinusoidal) fatigue spectrum based on maximum and minimum service stress values. Unless configuration differences or flight usage data dictate otherwise, the monotonic fatigue spectrum's period is typically based on six ground-air-ground (GAG) cycles for each flight hour of operation. The S-N curves for the substantiation of each detailed part are typically generated by plotting a curved line through three data points (see AC 27-1B, AC 27 MG 11, "Fatigue Evaluation of Rotorcraft Structure"). The three data points selected are a short specimen life (low-cycle fatigue), an intermediate specimen life and a long specimen life (high-cycle fatigue). Each raw data point is generated by monotonically fatigue testing at least two full-scale parts to failure or run out for each data point on the S-N curve. The raw data point values are then reduced by an acceptable statistical method to a single value for plotting to ensure proper reliability of the associated S-N curve. Order 8110.9, "Handbook on Vibration Substantiation and Fatigue Evaluation of Helicopter and Other Power Transmission Systems" and AC 27-1B, AC 27 MG 11, "Fatigue Evaluation of Rotorcraft Structure", contain comprehensive discussions of the S-N curve generation process. The rotorcraft S-N curve process contrasts sharply with the fixed wing process of using a single full-scale fatigue article (usually an entire wing or airframe, which constitutes a single full-scale assembly data point), generic material or full-scale assembly S-N data (e.g., Metallic Materials Properties Development and Standardization (MMPDS), formerly the MIL-HDBK-5 for metals; Composites Materials Handbook-17 (CMH-17), formerly the MIL-HDBK-17 for composites; or AC 23-13, "Fatigue, Fail-Safe, and Damage Tolerance Evaluation of Metallic Structure for Normal, Utility, Acrobatic, and Commuter Airplanes, which replaced AFS-120-73-2 for full-scale assemblies), a non-monotonic spectrum, and relatively large scatter factors to verify or determine the design fatigue life of the full-scale airplane.
(2) Also, rotorcraft have employed and mass-produced composite designs in primary structure (typically main and tail rotor blades) since the early 1950's. This was 10 or more years before composites were type certificated for primary fixed-wing structure in either military or civil aircraft applications (with some notable limited production exceptions, such as the Windecker fixed wing aircraft). In any case, the early 1950 period was well before a clear, detailed understanding of composite structural behavior (especially in the areas of macroscopic and microscopic failure mechanisms and modes) was relatively common and readily available in a usable format for the average engineer working in this field. It also predated the initial issuance of AC 20-107. Currently, much composite design information is proprietary, either to government, industry or both, and many data gathering methods have not been completely standardized. Consequently, a significant variation from laboratory to laboratory in material property value determination methods and results can exist. The early rotor blade designs (as well as current designs) are by nature relatively low strain, tension structure designs. Also, by nature, these designs are not damage or flaw critical. Thus, by circumstance as much as design, early composite rotor blade and other composite rotorcraft designs incorporated an acceptable fatigue tolerance level of Page C - 89
AC 27-1B, Chg 4 12/1/2011 safety. In the 1980's, more test data, analytical knowledge, and analytical methodology became available to more completely substantiate a composite design. Current 14 CFR parts 27 and 29 contain many sections to be considered in substantiating composite rotorcraft structure. This advisory material provides the current or updated information from AC 27-1B, MG 8, Amendment 27-30 to supplement the general guidance of AC 20-107 and provides compliance guidance for the requirements of § 27.573 Amendment 27-47 for rotorcraft composite structure.
d. Definitions. The following basic definitions are provided as a convenient reading reference. CMH-17, and other sources, contain more complete glossaries of definitions.
(1) A-Basis Allowable. The "A" mechanical property value is the value above which at least 99 percent of the population of values is expected to fall, with a confidence level of 95 percent.
(2) Accidental Damage. Discrete damage, which may occur in service use or in manufacturing due to impacts or collisions, such as dents, scratches, gouges, abrasions, disbonds, splintering, and delaminations.
(3) Active Multiple Load Path. Structure providing two or more load paths that are all loaded during operation to a similar load spectrum.
(4) Allowables. Both A-basis and B-basis values statistically derived and used for a particular composite design.
(5) As-Manufactured. Product or component that has passed the applicable quality control process and has been found to conform to the approved design within the allowable tolerances.
(6) Autoclave. A closed apparatus usually equipped with variable conditions of vacuum, pressure, and temperature. It is used for bonding, compressing or curing materials.
(7) B-Basis Allowable. The "B" mechanical property value is the value above which at least 90 percent of the population of values is expected to fall, with a confidence level of 95 percent.
(8) Balanced Laminate. A composite laminate in which all laminae at angles other than 0° occur only in + pairs (not necessarily adjacent).
(9) Bond. The adhesion of one surface to another, with or without the use of an adhesive as a bonding agent.
(10) Catastrophic Failure. An event that could prevent continued safe flight and landing.
Page C - 90
(11) Cocure. The process of curing several different materials in a single step.
Examples include the curing of various compatible resin system pre-pregs, using the same cure cycle, to produce hybrid composite structure or the curing of compatible composite materials and structural adhesives, using the same cure cycle, to produce sandwich structure or skins with integrally molded fittings.
(12) Component. A major section of the airframe structure (e.g., wing, fin, body, horizontal stabilizer), which can be tested as a complete unit to qualify the structure.
(13) Coupon. A small test specimen (e.g., usually a flat laminate) for evaluation of basic lamina or laminate properties or properties of generic structural features (e.g., bonded or mechanically fastened joints).
(14) Cure. To change the properties of a thermosetting resin irreversibly by chemical reaction (i.e., condensation, ring closure, or addition). Cure may be accomplished by addition of curing (crosslinking) agents, with or without a catalyst, and with or without heat.
(15) Damage. A generic term for structural anomalies caused by manufacturing (processing, fabrication, assembly or handling) or service usage. Trimming, fastener installation, or foreign object impact are potential sources of damage, along with fatigue and environmental effects.
(16) Damage Tolerance. The attribute of the structure that permits it to retain its required residual strength for a period of use after the structure has sustained a given level of fatigue, corrosion, accidental or discrete source damage.
(17) Damage Tolerant Fail-Safe. The capability of structure remaining after a partial failure to withstand design limit loads without catastrophic failure within an inspection period.
(18) Damage Tolerant Safe Life. Capability of structure with damage present to survive expected repeated loads of variable magnitude without detectable damage growth and to maintain ultimate load capability throughout service life of the rotorcraft.
(19) Delamination. The separation of the layers of material in a laminate.
(20) Design Limit Loads. The maximum loads to be expected in service, as defined by § 27.301(a).
(21) Detail. A non-generic structural element of a more complex structural member (e.g., specific design configured joints, splices, stringers, stringer runouts, or major access holes).
Page C - 91
AC 27-1B, Chg 4 12/1/2011
(22) Disbond. A lack of proper adhesion in a bonded joint. This may be isolated or may cover a majority of the bond area. It may occur at any time in the cure or subsequent life of the bond area and may arise from a wide variety of causes.
(23) Element. A generic part of a more complex structural member (e.g., skin, stringers, shear panels, sandwich panels, joints, or splices).
(24) Environment. External, non-accidental conditions (excluding mechanical loading), separately or in combination, that can be expected in service and which may affect the structure (e.g., temperature, moisture, UV radiation, and fuel).
(25) Fatigue or Environmental Damage. Structural damage related to fatigue or environmental effects such as delaminations, disbonds, splintering, or cracking.
(25) Fiber. A single homogeneous strand of material, essentially one-dimensional in the macro-behavior sense, used as a principal constituent in advanced composites because of its high axial strength and modulus.
(26) Fiber Volume. The volume of fiber present in the composite. This is usually expressed as a percentage volume fraction or weight fraction of the composite.
(28) Fill. The 90° yarns in a fabric, also called the woof or weft.
(29) Glass Transition. The reversible change in an amorphous polymer or in amorphous regions of a partially crystalline polymer from (or to) a viscous or rubbery condition to (or from) a hard and relatively brittle one.
(30) Glass Transition Temperature. The approximate midpoint of the temperature range over which the glass transition takes place.
(31) Hybrid. Any mixture of fiber types (e.g., graphite and glass).
(32) Impregnate. An application of resin onto fibers or fabrics by several processes: hot melt, solution coat, or hand lay-up.
(33) Intrinsic or discrete manufacturing defects. Intrinsic or discrete imperfections or flaws related to manufacturing operations, processing or assembly, such as voids, gaps, porosity, inclusions, fiber dislocation, disbonds, and delaminations.
(34) Lamina. A single ply or layer in a laminate in which all fibers have the same fiber orientation.
(35) Laminate. A product made by bonding together two or more layers or laminae of material or materials.
(36) Low Strain Level. As used herein, is defined as a principal, elastic axial gross strain level that for a given composite structure provides for no flaw growth and thus Page C - 92
provides damage tolerance of the maximum defects allowed during the certification process using the approved design fatigue spectrum.
(37) Material System. The combination of single constituents chosen (e.g., fiber and resin).
(38) Material System Constituent. A single constituent (ingredient) chosen for a material system (e.g., a fiber, a resin).
(39) Matrix. The essentially homogeneous material in which the fibers or filaments of a composite are embedded in resins, which are mainly thermoset polymers in aircraft structure.
(40) Maximum Structural Temperature. The temperature of a part, panel or structural element due to service parameters such as incident heat fluxes, temperature, and air flow at the time of occurrence of any critical load case, (i.e., each critical load case has an associated maximum structural temperature). This term is synonymous with the term "maximum panel temperature."
(41) Multiple Load Path. Structure providing two or more separate and distinct paths of structure that will carry limit load after complete failure of one of the members.
(42) Passive Multiple Load Path. Structure providing load paths with one or more of the members (or areas of a member) relatively unloaded until failure of the other member or members.
(43) Point Design. An element or detail of a specific design, which is not considered generically applicable to other structure for the purpose of substantiation
(e.g., lugs and major joints). Such a design element or detail can be qualified by test or by a combination of test and analysis.
(44) Porosity. A condition of trapped pockets of air, gas, or void within a solid material, usually expressed as a percentage of the total nonsolid volume to the total volume (solid + nonsolid) of a unit quantity of material.
(45) Pre-Preg, Preimpregnated. A combination of mat, fabric, nonwoven material, tape, or roving already impregnated with resin, usually partially cured, and ready for manufacturing use in a final product that will involve complete curing. Pre-preg is usually drapable, tacky, and can be easily handled.
(46) Principal Structural Element (PSE). A structural element that contributes significantly to the carrying of flight or ground loads and whose failure can lead to catastrophic failure of the rotorcraft.
(47) Residual Strength. The strength retained for some period of unrepaired use after a failure or partial failure due to fatigue, accidental, or discrete source of damage.
Page C - 93
AC 27-1B, Chg 4 12/1/2011
(48) Resin. An organic material with indefinite and usually high molecular weight and no sharp melting point.
(49) Resin Content. The amount of matrix present in a composite by either percent weight or percent volume.
(50) Secondary Bonding. The joining together, by the process of adhesive bonding, of two or more already-cured composite parts, during which the only chemical or thermal reaction occurring is the curing of the adhesive itself. The joining together of one already-cured composite part to an uncured composite part, through the curing of the resin of the uncured part, is also considered for the purposes of this advisory circular to be a secondary bonding operation. (See COCURE).
(51) Shelf Life. The lengths of time a material, substance, product, or reagent can be stored under specified environmental conditions and continue to meet all applicable specification requirements and remain suitable for its intended function.
(52) Strain Level. As used herein, is defined as the principal axial gross strain of a part or component due to the principal load or combinations of loads applied by a critical load case considered in the structural analysis (e.g., tension, bending, bending-tension).
Strain level is generally measured in thousandths of an inch per unit inch of part or microinches/inch (e.g., .003 in/in equals 3000 microinches/inch).
(53) Subcomponent. A major three-dimensional structure, which can provide complete structural representation of a section of the full structure (e.g., stub box, section of a spar, wing panel, wing rib, body panel, or frames).
(54) Symmetrical Laminate. A composite laminate in which the ply orientation is symmetrical about the laminate midplane.
(55) Tape. Hot melt impregnated fibers forming unidirectional pre-preg.
(56) Thermoplastic. A plastic that repeatedly can be softened by heating and hardened by cooling through a temperature range characteristic of the plastic, and when in the softened stage, can be shaped by flow into articles by molding or extrusion.
(57) Thermoset (Or Chemset). A plastic that once set or molded cannot be re-set or remolded because it undergoes a chemical change; (i.e., it is substantially infusible and insoluble after having been cured by heat or other means).
(58) Warp. Yarns extended along the length of the fabric (in the 0° direction) and being crossed by the fill yarns (90° fibers).
(59) Work Life. The period during which a compound, after mixing with a catalyst, solvent, or other compounding constituents, remains suitable for its intended use.
e. Related Regulatory and Guidance Material.
Page C - 94
Document Title FAA Order 8110.9 Handbook on Vibration Substantiation and Fatigue Evaluation of Helicopter and other Power Transmission Systems AC 27-1B, MG 11 "Fatigue Evaluation of Rotorcraft Structure" AC 20-107 "Composite Aircraft Structure" AC 21-26 "Quality Control for the Manufacture of Composite Materials" CMH - 17 "Composite Materials Handbook" AC 29-2C, MG 11 "Fatigue Tolerance Evaluation of Transport Category Rotorcraft Metallic Structure" DOT/FAA/CT-86/39 Whitehead, R.S., Kan, H.P., Cordero, R., and Seather, R., "Certification Testing Methodology for Composite Structuresi, October 1986.
f. Procedures for Substantiation of Rotorcraft Composite Structure. The composite structures evaluation has been divided into eight basic regulatory areas to provide focus on relevant regulatory requirements. These eight areas are: fabrication requirements;
basic constituent, pre-preg and laminate material acceptance requirements, and material property determination requirements; protection of structure; lightning protection; static strength evaluation; damage tolerance and fatigue evaluation; dynamic loading and response evaluation; and special repair and continued airworthiness requirements. Original as well as alternate or substitute material system constituents
(e.g., fibers, resins), material systems (combinations of constituents and adhesives), and composite designs (e.g., laminates, cocured assemblies, bonded assemblies) should be qualified in accordance with the methodology presented in the following paragraphs. Each regulatory area will be addressed in turn. It is important to remember that proper certification of a composite structure is an incremental, building block process, which involves phased FAA/AUTHORITY involvement and incremental approval in each of the various areas outlined herein. It is recommended that a FAA/AUTHORITY certification team approach be used for composite structural substantiation. The team should consist of FAA/AUTHORITY and cognizant members of the applicant's organization. Personnel who are composites specialists (or are otherwise knowledgeable in the subject) should be primary team member candidates.
Once selected, it is recommended that team meetings be held periodically (possibly in conjunction with type boards) during certification to ensure the building block certification process is accomplished as intended. The team should assure that permanent documentation in the form of reports or other FAA/AUTHORITY acceptable documents are included in the certification data package. The documentation includes but is not limited to the structural substantiation reports (both analysis and test), manufacturing processes and quality control, and Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (maintenance, overhaul, and repair manuals). The Airworthiness Limitations Section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness is approved by FAA engineering. Engineering practices for many of the areas identified below are available in CMН-17.
Page C - 95