failure or caution indicators. The extent to which such instruments or devices direct the proper corrective action is also considered.
(3) The number, urgency, and complexity of operating procedures with particular consideration given to the specific fuel management schedule imposed by center of gravity, structural or other considerations of an airworthiness nature, and to the ability of each engine to operate at all times from a single tank or source which is automatically replenished if fuel is also stored in other tanks.
(4) The degree and duration of concentrated mental and physical effort involved in normal operation and in diagnosing and coping with malfunctions and emergencies.
(5) The extent of required monitoring of the fuel, hydraulic, electrical, electronic, deicing, and other systems while en route.
(6) The actions requiring a crewmember to be unavailable at his assigned duty station, including: observation of systems, emergency operation of any control, and emergencies in any compartment.
(7) The degree of automation provided in the aircraft systems to afford (after failures or malfunctions) automatic crossover or isolation of difficulties to minimize the need for any flight crew action to guard against loss of hydraulic or electric power to flight controls or to other essential systems.
(8) The communications and navigation workload.
(9) The possibility of increased workload associated with any emergency that may lead to other emergencies.
AC 29.1525. § 29.1525 (Amendment 29-24) KINDS OF OPERATION.
This rule states that the kinds of operation to which the rotorcraft is limited are established by demonstrated compliance with applicable certification requirements (primarily flight) and the equipment requirements established for that kind of operation.
The basic flight characteristics requirements of Part 29 are suitable for day VFR approval. Additional night considerations appear in § 29.141(c) and in the operating rules. IFR requirements are addressed in § 29.141(c) and Appendix B to Part 29.
Additional IFR equipment requirements are contained in the operating rules. Icing certification criteria are contained in paragraph AC 29.877. External load requirements for certification may be found in §§ 29.25(c) and 29.865(c) in addition to Part 133.
Related § 29.1525(d) further requires that the approved kinds of operation must be listed in the operating limitations section of the Rotorcraft Flight Manual. The Page G - 16
equipment that is necessary for a specific kind of operation other than basic day VFR operation should also be listed in the limitations section of the RFM.
AC 29.1527. § 29.1527 (Amendment 29-15) MAXIMUM OPERATING ALTITUDE.
a. Explanation. This rule requires that the maximum altitude for operation of the rotorcraft must be established as an operating limitation. The rule is intended to establish en route altitude as an operating limit. The requirements for maximum takeoff and landing altitude are contained in other portions of the rule. (See discussion in paragraph AC 29.45.b(3).) T he en route limit may be established by any of the preceding subparts of the rule involving flight, structural, powerplant, equipment or related functional requirements of those subparts. Maximum operating altitude is ordinarily specified initially by the manufacturer and substantiated throughout the type certification program by each engineering discipline. Maximum operating altitude must be established in terms of pressure altitude unless the pilot is provided with some equally functional means of observing specified altitude limits (e.g., a density altitude indicator if maximum altitude is specified in terms of density altitude). A related requirement in § 29.1583 specifies that maximum operating altitude must be established as an operating limitation in the Rotorcraft Flight Manual and further that any limiting factors must be identified and explained.
b. Procedures. Each FAA/AUTHORITY engineering discipline must assure that data and testing are adequate to properly substantiate and qualify all critical components to the maximum operating altitude of the rotorcraft. The design or maximum substantiated altitude should be specified in the Type Inspection Authorization. The flight test program mu st include at least one test flight to the maximum approved altitude and this flight must include functional testing of all critical aircraft components. Due to specific requi rements in § 29.21(b), no extrapolation of these results is allowed.
AC 29.1529. § 29.1529 (Amendment 29-20) INSTRUCTIONS FOR CONTINUED AIRWORTHINESS (MAINTENANCE MANUAL).
a. Airworthiness Limitations Section
(1) Explanation. The FAA/AUTHORIT Y has long recognized the necessity to have a maintenance manual for rotorcraft due to the unique and generally complicated and critical design features.
(i) Airworthiness Limitations Section.
(A) Amendment 29-4, October 1968, established the requirement for a separate and specific airworthiness limitations section. Section 43.15 was already in place. New § 43.16 was added to the maintenance rules, and § 91.163(c) was added to the operating rules to require compliance with this section of the maintenance manual.
Page G – 17
AC 29-2C, Chg 1 2/12/03 (B) Amendment 29-20, October 1980, revised the rule and added Appendix A containing requirements for preparation of instructions for continued airworthiness, including the airworthiness limitations section. Instructions for continued airworthiness replaced “rotorcraft maintenance manual” in the standard. The maintenance rules, §§ 43.15 and 43.16, and § 91.163(c) of the operating rules also refer to, or require, compliance with certain parts of the instructions for continued airworthiness. The airworthiness limitations were intended to define the limits of the type certification approval of the fatigue characteristics of “critical flight structure.”
(ii) Rotorcraft type designs are unique in comparison to airplane designs in that transmissions and rotors and some elements of flight control systems have critical components that may be adversely affected by operating conditions and time in service. The FAA/AUTHORITY-approved airworthiness limitations section may include such items as gear sets, bearings, etc., of the rotorcraft type design if a finite life was established during the type certification program and/or if the FAA/AUTHORITY determined that mandatory inspections and/or replacement of the component (part) was necessary to maintain airworthiness of the rotorcraft. For example, a drive spline, gear, or bearing was serviceable after concluding the ground endurance test and/or FAA/AUTHORITY flight test program. However, an FAA/AUTHORITY-mandated inspection or replacement of the component was considered essential for airworthiness of the rotorcraft type design and necessary for type certification. Time between overhaul (TBO) of components is not part of the airworthiness limitations. If an inspection or replacement of a part in an assembly is required, the inspection interval or replacement time and the part number should be included in the limitations. The inspection interval or replacement time may or may not coincide with the recommended overhaul interval of the assembly. (See t he comments for Proposal 8-25, § XX.4 in the preamble of Amendment 29-20 (45 FR 60154, September 11, 1980). Note that parts considered unserviceable at the conclusion of the ground endurance test of § 29.923 are not acceptable for type certification.
(iii) Certain components must be identified by part number (or equivalent) and serial number (or equivalent). Sect ion 29.1529(a)(1) and (2) of Amendment 29-4 and § 45.14 of Amendment 45-12 list the requirements. The part number of parts and/or components requiring inspections and/or replacement as a result of § 29.571 or other standards must be listed in the airworthiness limitations section of the manual or another separate, segregated section of the manual appropriate to the rules.
(2) Procedures.
(i) General.
(A) The rule of Amendment 29-4 and its predecessor stated that the maintenance manual must contain all information that the applicant considers essential for proper maintenance. Amendment 29- 4 also added the requirement for an airworthiness limitations section. Amendment 29-20 revised § 29.1529 and added Page G - 18
Appendix A that now contains the requirements for content and preparation of the manual. The airworthiness limitations section of the manual, and any revisions thereto, must be FAA/AUTHORITY approved. The “continued airworthiness” sections, which contain the manufacturer’s recommendations for continued airworthiness are not FAA/AUTHORITY approved.
(B) The airworthiness limitations section contains information derived primarily but not solely from the data approved under § 29.571. In addition to replacement times and inspections, where appropriate, some of the basic usage assumptions made in the fatigue evaluation, which the operator can reliably assess (such as numbers of ground-air-ground cycles) should be identified. These should be noted in the airworthiness limitations so that the operator may take appropriate action (see MG 8 and MG 11). Approval of this section of the manual must be completed before type certification. See Part 29, Appendix A, paragraph A29.4 of Amendment 29-20. (For further information, see the comments for Proposal 8-25, § XX.4 in the preamble of Amendment 29-20 (45 FR 60154, September 11, 1980)).
(C) Part 29, Appendix A, paragraphs A29.3(a) and (b) pertain to the content of the instructions for continued airworthiness. For example, scheduling, overhauls (including recommended overhaul periods or TBO), inspections, and servicing information are included in this section of the manual.
(ii) Identifying and Serializing Fatigue Critical Components.
(A) Part numbers and serial numbers must be applied to fatigue life limited components as noted in §§ 45.14 and 29.1529(a)(1) and (2) of Amendment 29-4. Electric arc marking m ethods should not be used due to possible internal arcing, pitting of surfaces, and changes in physical or chemical characteristics due to the local high temperature at the arcs.
(B) Vibrating pencils, nameplates, or permanent inks may be used.
However, serial numbers should be applied on each part such that material is upset or displaced on the part, thereby attaining a more permanent number. When material is upset or displaced, the component's integrity and fatigue tolerance must not be compromised, for example, the least critical or lowest stressed area should be used.
(C) For small parts, the rule (§ 45.14) allows markings that are equivalent to part and serial numbers. Markings or symbols may be used to enable the identification of a part as one for which a replacement time, inspection interval, or related procedure is specified in the airworthiness limitations section. The FAA/AUTHORITY-stated identification of such small parts is clearly essential for safety and may not be relieved. With adoption of Amendment 29-20, the marking requirements that were contained in § 29.1529 are now contained in § 45.14, Amendment 45-12.
Page G - 19
AC 29-2C, Chg 1 2/12/03
(iii) As a recommendation, a draft copy of the manual should be available to the FAA/AUTHORITY for use during the F&R program if such a program is conducted under § 21.35(b). The content of the manual may be limited to the information necessary to maintain the aircraft during the F&R program. The manual must be completed and furnished with each aircraft receiving an airworthiness certificate, § 21.50(a) and (b).
(A) For rotorcraft certified to § 29.1529(a)(2) of Amendment 29-4, changes to the airworthiness limitations shall be furnished on request. See § 21.50(a).
(B) For rotorcraft certified to § 29.1529 of Amendment 29-20, changes to the manual shall be made available to those that need the manual. See § 21.50(b).
(iv) Service experience may dictate additional and subsequent (to type certification) changes to the airworthiness limitations section. AD’s may be used to revise the limitations. (The relationship between AD’s and the process of changing these limitations is covered in the preamble of Amendment 29-4 (33 FR 14104;
September 18, 1968.) Whenever the revised limitations are made restrictive for aircraft in service, the Administrative Procedures Act requires “notice and public procedure” to persons that may be affected and to satisfy the requirement for notification of the changes and identification of the correct issue of the airworthiness limitations, if appropriate. This procedure is also used for restrictive or reduced operation limitations in the RFM.
(v) FAA Order 8620.2, November 2, 1978, Applicability and Enforcement of Manufacturers Data, may be reviewed for further information. This does not reflect the rule changes made in October 1980 but applies to prior standards.
b. How to Prepare Instructions for Continued Airworthiness
(1) Explanation. The FAA/AUTHORITY recognized the need for Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to maintain the rotorcraft in an airworthy condition.
(i) Amendment 29-20, 45 FR 60178, September 11,1980, states the applicant must prepare Instructions for Continued Airworthiness in accordance with Appendix A of this part that are acceptable to the Administrator.
(ii) FAR/JAR § 21.50(b), Amendment 21-51, 45 FR 60170, September 11, 1980, requires the holder of a design approval to furnish at least one set of complete Instructions for Continued Airworthiness prepared in accordance with § 27.1529 of this chapter. The design approval can include either the type certificate or supplemental type certificate for an aircraft or aircraft engine for which application was made after January 28, 1981. The approved and accepted set of complete Instructions for Continued Airworthiness should be furnished upon delivery or upon issuance of the first standard airworthiness certificate for the affected aircraft, whichever occurs later.
Page G - 20
(iii) The ICAs or ICA supplements are also required for PMAs, major design change, or alteration approvals that the existing ICAs do not adequately cover.
In such instances, it is the responsibility of the PMA holder, or the person who receives the design change or alteration approval to produce the required ICAs and distribute them in accordance with the requirements of § 21.50(b). The acceptance for these ICAs or supplements should follow the procedure in Section b(2).
(2) Procedure
(i) General. When the rule requires Instructions for Continued Airworthiness for a rotorcraft, its rotors, and appliances, the applicant must prepare Instructions for Continued Airworthiness in accordance with Appendix A to FAR/JAR Part 29, that are acceptable to the FAA/AUTHORITY.
(ii) Guidance. The FAA/AUTHORITY has guidance material to ass ist an applicant in preparing Instructions for Continued Airworthiness for the type design change. AC 29-2C, Appendix A, provides a detailed template describing the requirements, standard industry practices, and guidance for Instructions for Continued Airworthiness.
(iii) Preparation. The applicant must prepare Instructions for Continued Airworthiness that is applicable to the type of certification. The holder of a design approval for a type certificate normally will comply with all requirements specified in Appendix A to FAR/JAR Part 29. The holder of a design approval for a supplemental type certificate would only comply with requirements specified in Appendix A to FAR/JAR Part 29 that are applicable to their type design change.
(iv) Submittal. The applicant must submit to the FAA/AUTHORITY the applicant’s Instructions for Continued Airworthiness, and any authorized publication referenced in the applicant’s Instructions for Continued Airworthiness, i.e., FAA/AUTHORITY-accepted engine and appliance Instructions for Continued Airworthiness.
(v) Evaluation (A) The FAA/AUTHORITY will evaluate the applicant’s Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to determine that they meet the requirements of FAR/JAR § 29.1529 and Appendix A to FAR/JAR Part 29.
(B) For a type certificate the determination is made in two parts. The first is an FAA/AUTHORITY review followed by FAA/AUTHORITY personnel conducting an Aircraft Maintainability Evaluation or equivalent, when requested to determine the acceptability of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness. For a supplemental type certificate the determination is made by an FAA/AUTHORITY review, unless the supplemental type certificate affects multiple major appliances or systems; then the process for type certificate would be used.
Page G - 21
AC 29-2C, Chg 1 2/12/03
(vi) Acceptance as per Authority procedures. For FAA, acceptance of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness is indicated by a signed and dated acceptance statement on the List of Effective Pages in the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness.
AC 29.1529A. § 29.1529 (Amendment 29-26) INSTRUCTIONS FOR CONTINUED AIRWORTHINESS (MAINTENANCE MANUAL).
a. Explanation. Amendment 91- 21, 54 FR 41211, October 5, 1989, recodified certain paragraphs in FAR Part 91. This revision corrects a reference from FAR § 91.163 to FAR § 91.403.
b. Procedures. Correct the references in paragraph AC 29.1529a(1) from §§ 43.15, 43.16, and 91.163(c) to §§ 43.15, 43.16, and 91.403 of the operating rules.
Page G - 22
SUBPART G - OPERATING LIMITATIONS AND INFORMATION
MARKINGS AND PLACARDS AC 29.1541. § 29.1541 GENERAL . (SEE PARAGRAPH AC 29.1543).
AC 29.1543. §§ 29.1541, 29.1543, 29.1545, and 29.1549 (Amendment 29-26) INSTRUMENT MARKINGS: GENERAL
a. Background and Explanation.
(1) Aircraft instruments have historically been marked in a variety of ways and with an interesting assortment of symbols. During this period, a limited number of regulatory requirements have been incorporated in the part 29, Subpart G, “Markings and Placards,” and these efforts have standardized some basic aspects of instrument marking for rotorcraft. As rotorcraft hav e become increasingly complex with increased number of engines, OEI ratings, more sophisticated instrumentation, etc., the need for more specific standards has greatly increased.
(2) It is vitally important that instrument markings be standardized among rotorcraft. When markings are not standardi zed, considerable confusion and additional workload may be introduced into the cockpit environment. If markings are not standard, it is conceivable that a marking in one rotorcraft could mean the opposite of a similar marking in another rotorcraft. The results of such a situation could be disastrous when pilots fly several rotorcraft models, and particularly in transport rotorcraft under 12,500 pounds, which do not require a pilot type rating.
(3) The following guidance is offered for the purpose of obtaining a general standardization of instrument markings. It is realized that there are a great many variations in instrument presentations for which all guidance may not apply. This is particularly true of new designs, such as cathode ray tube (CRT) displays currently being presented. It is of overriding import ance that the philosophies included here be administered, even if specific guidance cannot be applied for particular designs.
Instrument markings are provided to aid interpretation of instruments quickly and accurately. Good instrument markings should indicate operating conditions at a glance.
The best markings are ordinarily the simplest markings.
b. Procedures.
(1) Limits. Each maximum allowable lim it substantiated for safe operation must be marked with a red line. This marking should be a red radial line for circular gauges. If there is a minimum allowable limit for safe operation, this value should also be marked with a red (radial) line. The use of multip le red (radial) lines should be avoided except where their use is readily usable by the pilot. Normally, no more than one maximum and one minimum red radial line should be incorporated on any one instrument to minimize Page G – 23
AC 29-2C, Chg 4 5/1/2014 confusion and avoid potential aircrew errors; however, use of multiple red radial lines may be permitted if such marking can be presented in an acceptable manner.
(2) Normal Operating Range. Each normal operating range should be marked with a green arc or green line which does not extend beyond the maximum and minimum values for continuous safe operation. Discontinuities in width have been used when normal ranges vary with other parameters. Integrating instruments in place of these markings should be encouraged although there may be no regulatory requirement for them. An equivalent safety finding is r equired for electronic displays if the applicant decides not to use green to mark normal operating ranges.
(3) Cautionary Ranges. Time limited ranges, precautionary ranges, or ranges for which special operating procedures are required should be marked with a yellow arc or yellow line. If a yellow range is used to indicate a special operating procedure, information describing the special procedure should be included in the RFM.
(4) OEI Markings. OEI ratings repr esent a special challenge for retaining simplicity and clarity in powerplant instrument markings. OEI ratings are eligible to be used only during an extremely small portion of total flight time; therefore, they should not dominate the presentation or obscure other markings. They are needed only for reference. Indices for 2½-minute and 30-mi nute power may be marked above the takeoff power redline on engine power instruments. OEI reference markings should be clearly distinct from the normal all-engines operating markings. One acceptable means of marking OEI limits has been narrow dashed radials with yellow for 30-minute, and red for 2½-minute limits. OEI markings should be c onsistent between gauges. For example, a 30-minute marking on an N1 or torque gauge should be similar in appearance to the 30- minute marking on the engine temperature gauge.
(5) Red Arcs or Ranges. Sections 29.1549(d) and 29.1553 allow the use of red arcs. Experience has proven that when red arcs are used to indicate maximum or minimum values, the meaning of a red line loses its significance. Therefore, the use of red ranges or arcs to indicate limit values should be discouraged. Red is conventionally used to represent a limit (maximum or minimum) for which an aircraft or component has been substantiated. A “range” of limits for a given parameter is not consistent with the definition of the terms “limit,” “minimum,” or “maximum.” In addition, a red arc tends to imply that more than one value is limiting, that a scale is provided to show operation within a range of values, and that an absolute limit may not exist until the extreme of a red range is attained. These implicati ons must be avoided wherever possible by specifying a single limiting value and marking it with a single red line (radial). If readings in excess of that value were indicated, it would then be obvious to the crew that a limit had been exceeded. A red arc may be used to i ndicate a transient vibration range as indicated in § 29.1549(d); however, if the range is a cautionary range and not a prohibited range, use of a yellow arc is recommended. The fuel quantity indicator configuration described in § 29.1553 is considered a special application of red arcs.
Occasionally a red arc has been utilized when limits vary with other parameters.
Page G - 24
Discontinuities in width could conceivably represent limits when other parameters are considered. The use of integrating instru ments would alleviate much of the problem and should be encouraged although it is recognized that there may be no regulatory requirement for them.
(6) Flight Evaluation. In evaluat ing quantity indicator markings, the final criterion must be: “Are the markings adequate for correct interpretation by the crew?”
FAA/AUTHORITY evaluations of quantity indicator markings should begin early in a certification program utilizing a cockpit or aircraft mock-up whenever possible. All required quantity indicators and quantity indicator markings must be readable from each pilot station. Depending on cockpit and window geometry, quantity indicators should be evaluated in direct sunlight unless they are located high on the panel underneath a substantial glare shield. Evaluation in dire ct sunlight is especially important for any displays using light bars of digital lighting segments, such as digital radar altimeter presentations or vertical scale instruments using light segments. Required quantity indicators must be readable without upper body movement or extensive head movement by the crew. Evaluators should be especially alert to any scale markings or range markings which are obscured by parallax, as such features are unacceptable. If the aircraft is to be approved for night operation, each required indicator must also be evaluated during night lighting conditions. The same visibility requirements apply for night; however, the evaluator should particularly look for lighting features which may change or obscure the colored markings. Except for minor changes, lighting should be evaluated in flight in order to correctly evaluate vibration effects and various background lighting conditions.
(7) Digital Instruments.
(i) For purposes of this discussion, two types of digital indicator are considered: (1) an indicator which consists of a column of light segments which illuminate sequentially to display changing values, and (2) an indicator which consists of horizontal and vertical line segments in the configuration of a block “8” to display numerical values. Both indicator types wo rk well for parameters where trend information is generally not needed such as engine oil pressure or temperature. However, for rapidly changing parameters such as engine exhaust gas temperature, torque, or RPM, trend information may not be attainable. AC 20-88A (guidelines on the marking of power plant instruments) specifies that instrument markings are intended to provide necessary information at a glance. Trend information for power indicators is vitally important for safe operation of a rotorcraft, and this information must be obtainable at a glance. For the columnar light segments, the ability to quickly detect trend information is largely a function of the resolution provided by single segments (e.g.; if there are two segments for each percent RPM, the ability to detect trend information is better than if there is only one segment for each percent RPM). For digita l indicators displaying numerical values, trend information may be unattainable because rapidly changing parameters produce a blur, and this design may be unsuitable as a single source of information. The evaluator should use a great deal of caution to assure adequate trend information is available in primary power and rotor indicators of digital design.
Page G – 25
AC 29-2C, Chg 4 5/1/2014
(ii) Another area of concern in digital and moving tape instruments is the ability to determine when limits are being approached. Color code markings are frequently incorporated on the moving face of a tape or digital presentation. In such cases, it is mandatory that limit markings be affixed adjacent to the presentation, or that another means be provided so that the pilot can anticipate approaching a limit. The beginning and end of normal and cautionary ranges should be marked adjacent to the display. The entire range need not be color c oded adjacent to the display if the colors are integral on the face of the tape or in the individual digital segments. Marking of limit values solely on the tape or in the colored light segments alone is unsatisfactory.
Marking of digital indicators displaying numerical values is adequately addressed in AC 20-88A, paragraph 6.
(iii) Appropriate failure modes should be evaluated during the system analysis. This will ordinarily include portions of the digital display. Such failures should be detectable whenever they affect reading accuracy. As a result of this analysis, the system may incorporate a test feature which assures all digital segments operate satisfactorily. This feature should be encouraged.
(8) Additional Markings. To keep markings standardized and uncomplicated, only the FAA/AUTHORITY-approved ranges and limits should be included. Items such as manufacturer’s recommended values or manufacturer’s warranty information are inappropriate for instrument markings and should not be included. Such information may be presented elsewhere. Transient limit s may be indicated by a small red index such as a dot or triangle. Information def ining allowable conditions for each transient index should be in the RFM (e.g., maximum for starting, 12 seconds).
(9) Airspeed Indicator. While the foregoing information is generally applicable to airspeed indicators, some particular features warrant additional attention.
(i) A red cross-hatched radial line should be located at power-off VNE if that value is less than power-on VNE.
(ii) Many rotorcraft have erratic, unreliable, or nonrepeatable airspeed indications at low speed which warrant caution when operating in that speed range. In such cases, a yellow arc on the instrument with appropriate flight manual explanation has been found acceptable.
(iii) Indicated airspeed values should be utilized for all airspeed indicator markings.
(iv) Airspeed “bugs” may be used to highlight important takeoff, landing, or limit speeds. This concept may genera lly be encouraged; however, there are a maximum number of “bugs” that can be utilized without confusion for any given indicator. Typically, two “bugs” are accept able; three or more are questionable. “Bugs” may also be used on a variety of instruments other than the airspeed indicator.
Page G - 26
(10) Additional Reference Material. Additional procedures for marking powerplant instruments are contained in AC 20-88A. Where conflicts for rotorcraft exist between AC 20-88A and this document, the more recently dated publication should be utilized.
Page G – 27