A fixed and uniformly supported steel plate (loaded only in uniform compression without any springback) is acceptable. Floors or floor coverings such as dirt, clay, wood, or sand are not acceptable. Selection of the critical fuel tank is important. Factors such as size, fuel cell design and construction, and material(s) should be accounted for when selecting the critical tank. The applicant may elect to drop only a bare fuel cell, not a surrounding structural airframe segment with a fuel cell installed. If so, the applicant must show that puncture hazards to the fuel cell have been eliminated.
(• If the applicant elects to perform the drop test with surrounding aircraft structure, the cell should be enclosed in enough surrounding structure (production or simulated) so that the airframe/fuel tank interaction during the 50-foot drop is realistically evaluated. This allows the fuel-tight integrity of the "as installed" fuel cell to be evaluated and may provide protection in some designs due to the energy absorption of the surrounding airframe when crushed by impact. This provides realistic testing of fuel cell rupture points caused by installation design features, projections, excessive deformation and local tearout of fittings, joints, or lacings. The amount of actual (or simulated) structure included in the test requires engineering evaluation, risk assessment, and detailed analysis and may require subassembly (e.g., joint) tests for proper determination. Typically, the structure surrounding and extending 1 foot forward and aft of the fuel cell is adequate. This structure has a high probability of causing crash-induced fuel cell leakage. Each application should be examined individually to include all potential structural hazards. If the surrounding structure is clearly shown not to be a contributing hazard for the drop test, and if the applicant elects to do so, the fuel cell may be conservatively dropped alone. This determination should be carefully made by a detailed engineering evaluation. The evaluation should use standard, finite element-based programs (e.g., 'KRASH", NASTRAN, etc.) or similar programs submitted during certification, subassembly or component tests. Elimination of the surrounding structure for the drop test configuration is not trivial. If elimination is applied for, the data should clearly and conclusively show that the surrounding structure is not an impact hazard. In any case, the drop height is a constant 50 feet. The work that determines the test article configuration should be summarized, documented, and approved.
If the drop test is used to show partial compliance with the underfloor tuel cell load factors of § 29.952(b)(3), test plans should be approved. Minor spillage from the open vents is allowed. Full compliance to these load factors should be shown by static analysis and/or tests. The intent is to provide a fuel cell that is fuel tight and does not unduly crush the occupiable volume or overly stiffen energy absorbing underfloor structure under vertical impact.
(iii) Immediately after the drop test, the tank should be placed in the same axial orientation from which it was dropped and visually examined for leakage. Minor spillage from the open vents is allowed. After 15 minutes, the tank should be reexamined and any new leakage or seepage sources noted and recorded. Any evidence of fluid on the plastic floor cover or tank wrapping sheet should be noted and 704 Par 447
7/30/97 АС 29-2B recorded. Any fluid leakage or seepage constitutes a test failure. This procedure should be repeated immediately with the tank inverted and the vents plugged. The inversion procedure will identify any leak sources on the upper surfaces.
(2) Section 29.952(b) provides three sets of static load factors for design and static analysis of fuel tanks, other fuel system components of significant mass and their installations. "Installation" is structurally defined as the fuel cell's attachment to the airframe and any additional local (point design) airframe structure affected significantly by fuel cell crash loads (i.e., that would fail or deform to the extent that a fuel spill or a ballistic hazard would occur in a survivable impact). Section 29.952(d) significantly limits the amount of local airframe structure to be considered. The provision of load factors by zone ensures the fuel-tight integrity necessary to minimize PCF in a survivable impact. Unless explicitly shown by both analysis and test that the probability of fuel leakage in a survivable impact is 1 × 10° or less, each tank and its installation must be designed and analyzed to one set of these load factors.
Section 29.952(b)(1) provides load factors for the design and static analysis of fuel cells and their attachments inside the cabin volume. These load factors are provided to prevent crash-induced fuel cell ballistics hazards to and fuel spills (that may cause a PCF) directly on occupants from local structural failures in a survivable impact.
(її) Section 29.952(b)(2) provides load factors for design and static analysis of fuel cells and their attachments located above or behind the cabin volume.
These load factors are provided to prevent injury or death from a fuel cell behind or above the occupied volume that is loosened by impact and to prevent fuel spills (which may cause a PCF) in a survivable impact.
(ії) Section 29.952(b)(3) provides load factors identical to those of § 29.561 for design and static analysis of fuel cells and attachments located in areas other than inside, behind, or above the cabin volume. Since many fuel cells are located under the cabin floor, these load factors provide fuel-tight structural protection in a survivable impact.
(iv) For some crash resistant semi-rigid bladder and flexible liner fuel cell installations, the 50-foot drop test (reference § 29.952(a)) can (with some additional rational analysis simultaneously satisfy both the drop test requirement and the vertical down load factor (-Nz) requirement of § 29.952(b)(3) for the fuel cell itself and its installation. This approach reduces the certification burden.
(V) For applicants that seek to substantiate the -Ny load factor requirement of § 29.952(b)(3) using the 50-foot drop test, additional substantiation is required for § 29.952(b)(3) (as is currently practiced) for the fuel cell under the loading of the remaining three load factors and the remaining rotorcraft structure under the loading of all four load factors. In some cases, substantiation of the remaining three Par 447 705
load factors can be further simplified by a successful drop test if the fuel cell is symmetric (i.e., structurally equivalent in all four directions).
(3) Section 29.952(c) requires self-sealing breakaway fuel fittings at all fuel tank-to-line connections, tank-to-tank interconnects, and other points (e.g., fuel lines penetrating firewalls or bulkheads) where a reasonable probability (as determined by engineering evaluation, service history, analysis, test or a combination) of impact-induced hazardous relative motion exists that may cause fuel leakage to an ignition source and create a PCF during a survivable impact. In some coupling installations (such as fuel line-to-tuel tank connections), the tank coupling half should be sufficiently recessed into the tank or otherwise protected so that hazardous relative motion (of the fuel cell relative to its surroundings) following an impact-induced coupling failure does not cause a tearout or deformation of the tank half of the separated coupling that would release fuel. The only exceptions are either- Installations that use equivalent devices such as extensible lines (hoses with enough slack or stretch to absorb relative motion without leakage) or motion absorbing fittings (rotational or linearly extensible joints); or
(ii) Installations that conclusively show by a combination of experience, tests, and analysis to have a probability of fuel loss to an ignition source in a survivable crash of 1 × 10-9 or less.
(4) Section 29.952(c)(1) specifies the basic design features required for self-sealing breakaway couplings.
(5) Section 29.952(c)(1)(i) defines the design load (strength) conditions necessary to separate a breakaway coupling. These loads should be determined from analysis and/or test, reference Paragraph d(6). The minimum ultimate failure load (strength) is the load that fails the weakest component in a fluid-carrying line based on that component's ultimate strength. This load comes from local deformation between the coupling and its surrounding structure during a worst-case survivable impact. A failure test of three specimens of the weakest component in each line that contains a coupling should be conducted in the critical loading mode. (If a single critical loading mode cannot be clearly identified, each of the three most critical loading modes should be tested.) The three specimen test results should be averaged. The average value is then used to size the breakaway fuel coupling. [For standard specification (i.e., "off the shelf) hardware, equivalent testing may have already been accomplished and, if no other mitigating circumstances in the design and installation exist, need not be repeated.] To assure separation of the coupling prior to fuel line failure and to prevent inadvertent actuation, the design load that separates the coupling should be between 25 and 50 percent of the minimum ultimate failure load (strength) of the line's weakest component. The critical loads should be compared to the normal service loads calculated and measured at the coupling location to insure unintended service failures do not occur. Typically this criterion is readily satisfied by the natural design because 706 Par 447
working loads are much less than crash-induced loads. A separation load less than 300 pounds should not be used regardless of the line size. The minimum 300-pound load is necessary to prevent ground maintenance failures. A fatigue analysis and/or test (reference Paragraph d(10)) should be performed to ensure the installation is either a safe-life design or has a conservative, mandatory replacement time. The simplified method of section 9(a) of AC 20-95 may normally be used because of the low ratio of working-load-to-crash-induced failure load. However, since fatigue failures have occurred in service, all fatigue sources (especially high-cycle vibratory sources) should be evaluated. Fracture critical materials should be avoided, and damage toierant materials utilized. Also, if airframe deformation due to flight loads is significant, its effect on the couplings should be checked to ensure that static or low-cycle fatigue failures do not occur prior to the part's intended retirement life. Large flight load deformations are not usually present in rotorcraft.
(6) Section 29.952(c)(1)(ii) requires a self-sealing breakaway coupling to separate when the minimum breakaway load (reference Paragraph d(5) and § 29.952(c)(1)(i)) is met or exceeded in a survivable impact. The loading modes (each of which produces a breakaway load) are determined by analyzing and/or testing the surrounding structure to determine the probable impact forces and directions. The modes usually occurring are tension, bending, shear, compression, or a combination (reference Figure 447-1). The coupling should be designed and tested to separate at the lowest ultimate impact load (lowest critical mode) as long as the minimum working load criterion of § 29.952(c)(1)(i) is also satisfied. Each breakaway coupling design should be tested in accordance with the following (reference MIL-STD-1290) or equivalent procedures. It should be noted that the ratio of the ultimate failure load of the weakest component in the fuel line and the normal service load (i.e., the peak load or approved clipped peak load experienced during a typical flight) of that component should be as high as possible and still meet the other load criteria of this section.
Typically, this ratio should not be less than 5.
(i) Static Tests. Each breakaway coupling design should be subjected to tension and shear loads to verify and establish the design load required for separation, nature of separation, leakage during valve actuation, general valve functioning, and leakage following valve actuation. The rate of load application should not be greater than 20 inches per minute. Tests to be used where applicable are shown in Figure 447-1.
Dynamic Tests. Each breakaway coupling design should be proof-tested under dynamic loading conditions. The couplings should be tested in the three most likely anticipated modes of separation as defined in Paragraph d(5). The test configurations should be similar to those shown in Figure 447-1. The load should be applied in less than 0.005 second, and the velocity change experienced by the loading jig should be 36 +3 feet per second.
Par 447 707
(7) Section 29.952(c)(1)(iii) requires that breakaway couplings be visually inspectable to determine that the coupling is locked together (fuel-tight) and remains open during normal operations. Visual means (such as, an axial misalignment between the two coupling halves, a designed-in visual indicator, a combination or other acceptable criteria) should be considered and specified in the maintenance manual rejection criteria for operational inspections. Inspectability and phased inspection requirements should be evaluated. Special inspections after severe maneuvers or hard landings should be required.
(8) Section 29.952(c)(1)(iv) requires breakaway couplings to have design provisions that prevent uncoupling or unintended closing by operational shocks, vibrations, or accelerations. These provisions depend on both the coupling's design and installation location. The structural environment should be defined, analyzed, and compared with coupling specifications and certification data so that inadvertent decoupling or closing does not occur. A phased inspection requirement should be considered.
(9) Section 29.952(c)(1)(v) requires a coupling design to not release more than its entrapped fuel quantity when the coupling has separated and each end is sealed off.
The entrapped fuel is determined by the coupling design and is essentially the fuel trapped between the seals when separation occurs (See breakaway coupling definition). This is usually less than 8 ounces of fuel per coupling. Most coupling designs will leak slightly after separation. This is acceptable but the leak rate should be 5 drops per minute, or less, per coupling half. Specifications defining the entrapped volume of fuel should be approved. If the coupling is not approved or manufactured to an acceptable military or civil specification, the qualification testing of d(6) should be conducted.
(10) Section 29.952(c)(2) requires that each breakaway coupling or equivalent device either in a single fuel feed line or a complex fuel feed system (e.g. a multiple feed line or multitank cross feed system) be designed, tested, installed, inspected, maintained, or a combination, so that the probability of inadvertent fuel shutoff in flight is 1 × 10-5 , or less, as required by § 29.955(a). This should be determined by reliability and failure analysis, other analysis, tests, or a combination and should be documented and approved. Continued airworthiness should be ensured by phased inspections, specific component replacement schedules, or a combination.
This section also requires each coupling or equivalent device to meet the fatigue requirements of § 29.571 to prevent leakage. (See the fatigue discussion in Paragraph d(5).) The typical method of compliance with § 29.571 used for rotor system parts may not be necessary to meet § 29.952(c)(2). An S-N curve may not need to be generated using full-scale specimen fatigue tests if the conservative method of Section 9(a) of AC 20-95, "Fatigue Evaluation of Rotorcraft Structure" can be applied successtully.
708 Par 447
(11) Section 29.952(c)(3) requires that an equivalent device, used instead of a breakaway coupling, not produce a load, during or after a survivable impact, on the fuel line to which it attaches greater than 25-50 percent of the ultimate load (strength) of the line's weakest component. This minimizes crash-induced fuel spills that may cause a PCF. The ultimate strength of the weakest component should be determined by analysis and/or tests. At least three specimens of the component should be tested to failure in the critical loading mode and the results averaged. [For standard specification
(i.e., "off the shelf") hardware, equivalent testing may have already been accomplished and, if no other mitigating circumstances in the design and installation exist, need not be repeated.] The average value is then used to size the equivalent device. Each equivalent device must meet the fatigue requirements of § 29.571 to prevent fatigue-induced leakage. Equivalent devices should be statically and dynamically tested in an identical manner (where feasible) to breakaway couplings (reference Paragraph d(6)). All fuel hoses and hose assemblies (whether or not they are used in lieu of breakaway fittings) should meet the following (reference MIL-STD-1290) or equivalent requirements. Any stretchable hoses used as equivalent devices should be able to elongate a minimum of 20 percent without leaking fuel. All other hoses used as equivalent devices should have a minimum of 20-30 percent slack. It should be noted that the ratio of the ultimate failure load of the weakest component in the fuel line and the normal service load (i.e., the peak or approved clipped peak load experienced during a typical flight) of that component should be as high as possible and still meet the other load criteria of this section.
Typically, this ratio should not be less than 5.
All hose assemblies should meet or exceed the cut resistance, tensile strength, and hose-fitting pullout strength criteria of MIL-H-25579 (USAF), MIL-H-38360, or equivalent standards.
(її) Hoses should neither pull out of their end fittings nor should the end fittings break at less than the minimum loads shown in Figure 447-3 when the assemblies are tested as described in d(11) (ill) below. In addition to the strength requirements, the hose assemblies should be capable of elongating to a minimum of 20 to 30 percent by stretch, slack, or a combination without fluid spillage.
(ili) Hose assemblies should be subjected to pure tension loads and to loads applied at a 90° angle to the longitudinal axis of the end fitting, as shown in Figure 447-2. Loads should be applied at a constant rate not exceeding 20 inches per minute.
(12) Section 29.952(d) requires frangible or deformable structural attachments to be used to install fuel tanks and other major system components to each other and to the airframe when crash-induced hazardous relative motion could cause local rupture and tearout of the component, spill fuel to an ignition source, and create a PCF. If it can be conclusively determined that the probability of fuel spillage is 1 x 10°9 or less, no further action is required. Typically, frangible designs are much Par 447 709
easier to certify than deformable designs because the scatter in failure loads is much less. Also, some standard frangible military hardware (e.g., frangible bolts) is readily available. This is not so for deformable designs. Each frangible or deformable structural attachment and its installation should be reviewed to insure that, after an impact failure (i.e., separation or deformation), it does not become a puncture or tear-out hazard and cause fuel spillage.
(13) Section 29.952(d)(1) defines the impact design load conditions necessary to deform a deformable attachment or to separate a frangible attachment.
These loads should be determined from analysis and/or test (reference Paragraph d(14)), and verified during certification. All impact loading modes (tension, bending, compression, shear, and a combination) should be analyzed and the minimum critical frangible or deformable design load determined, based on the ultimate strength of the attachment's weakest component. The critical load should be compared to the normal service loads calculated and measured at the attachment's location to insure unintended service failures do not occur. (Normally, this criterion is readily satisfied because working loads are much less than impact loads.) A fatigue check should be conducted to ensure that the attachments meet the requirements of § 29.571.
Typically, this can be accomplished using the simplified method of Section 9(a) of AC 20-95 because of the low ratio of working-load-to-crash-induced failure load.
However, because of service history, all fatigue sources (especially high cycle vibratory sources) should be reviewed. The standard method of compliance with § 29.571 used for rotor system parts may not be necessary to meet § 29.952(d) (3). An S-N curve may not need to be generated using full-scale specimen fatigue tests, if the conservative method of Section 9(a) of AC 20-95 can be applied successfully. Fracture critical materials should be avoided and ductile, damage tolerant materials utilized. Phased inspections to ensure continued airworthiness should be considered. Special inspections after severe maneuvers or hard landings should be required. A breakaway or deformation load less than 300 pounds (based on maintenance considerations) is not permitted. If airtrame deformation due to flight loads is significant, its effect should be checked to ensure that a static failure or low cycle fatigue failure does not occur.
Large flight load deflections are not usually present in rotorcraft.
(14) Section 29.952(d)(2) requires a frangible or locally deformable attachment to function when the minimum breakaway or deformation load (reference § 29.952(d)(1)) is met or exceeded in a survivable impact. The minimum breakaway or deformation load is the load that either breaks or deforms each of the frangible or deformable attachments) of each fuel cell, fuel line, or other critical fuel system component to the airframe. Each breakaway/deformation load must be between 25 percent to 50 percent of the load which would cause failure (i.e., impact induced tearout and subsequent fuel leakage) of the attachment to fuel cell, fuel line, or other critical component interface. This is necessary in some installations to prevent tearout of the structural attachment from the fuel cell component to which it is attached and the resultant fuel leakage in a survivable impact. The primary loading modes (each of which will produce a breakaway or deformation load) must all be considered to 710 Par 447
7/30/97 АС 29-2B determine the minimum load. This is done by analyzing the surrounding structure (reference Paragraph d(13)) to determine the three most probable impact failure forces and their directions. The attachment should then be tested to insure it breaks or deforms at the lowest ultimate crash (impact) load as long as the minimum working load criterion of § 29.952(d)(1) is also satisfied. It should be noted that the ratio of the ultimate failure load of the weakest component in the frangible or deformable component's load path and the normal service load (l.e., the peak load or approved clipped peak load experienced during a typical flight) of that component should be as high as possible and still meet the other load criteria of this section. Typically this ratio should not be less than 5. The following certification tests (reference MIL-STD-1290) or equivalent should be conducted on each franglible or deformable attachment design.
(i> Static Tests. Each frangible or deformable device should be tested in the three most likely anticipated modes of failure as defined in Paragraph d(13). Test loads should be applied at a constant rate not exceeding 20 inches per minute until failure occurs.
(її) Dynamic Tests. Each frangible or deformable attachment should be tested under dynamic loading conditions. The attachment should be tested in the three most likely failure modes as determined in Paragraph d(13). The test load should be applied in less than 0.005 second, and the velocity change experienced by the loading jig should be 36 13 feet per second. It should be noted that the dynamic load pulse is a ramp function starting at either 0 or some small test fixture preload and reaching the previously determined failure load in 0.005 seconds. The velocity change of the test jig is also a ramp function starting at 0 and reaching a final velocity of 36t3 ft./sec. in 0.005 seconds. These ramps functions simulate the dynamic conditions of a survivable impact under which the frangible/deformable attachment must perform its intended function.
(15) Section 29.952(d)(3) requires a frangible or locally deformable attachment to meet the fatigue requirements of § 29.571 to eliminate premature fatigue failure. The simplified method of AC 20-95 may be used. Because of service history, all fatigue sources (especially high-cycle vibratory sources) should be reviewed.
Fracture critical materials should be avoided and ductile, damage tolerant materials utilized.
(16) Section 29.952(e) requires that, as far as practicable, fuel amd fuel containment devices be adequately separated from occupiable areas and potential ignition sources. Several generic categories of ignition sources and potential PCF-producing contact scenarios exist. The intent of the section is to define all possible leak and ignition sources that could be activated in a survivable impact and to provide design features to eliminate or minimize them such that the occurrence of PCF is minimized and escape time is maximized. Adequate separation should be accomplished by a thorough design review, potential PCF hazard analysis, and detailed Par 447 711
design trade studies. The resultant findings should be documented and approved. The following PCF hazards and any other such hazards should be documented, minimized by design to the maximum practicable extent, and their resolution documented and FAA/AUTHORITY approved. Conditions to be reviewed should include, but are not limited to, the following:
(i) High temperature ignition sources.
(A) Tank fillers or overboard fuel drains should not be located adjacent to engine intakes or exhausts so that fuel vapors could be ingested and ignited.
(B) Fuel lines should not be located in any occupiable area unless they are shrouded or otherwise designed to prevent spillage and subsequent ignition during and immediately following a survivable impact.
(C) Fuel tanks should not be located in or immediately adjacent to engine compartments, engine induction or exhaust areas, heaters, bleed air ducts, hot air-conditioning ducts, or any other hot surface.
(D) Fuel lines should be kept to a minimum in the engine compartment. Fluid lines should not be located immediately adjacent to engine exhaust areas, heaters, bleed air ducts, hot air-conditioning ducts, or any other hot surface.
(E) Fuel lines should not be located where they can readily spill, spray, or mist onto hot surfaces or into engine induction or exhaust areas. These locations should be determined for each aircraft design by considering probable structural deformation hazards in relation to the fuel system.
(i1) Electrical ignition sources.
(A) Fuel tanks and lines should not be located in electrical compartments.
(B) Electrical components and wiring should be separated from fuel lines and vent openings kept to a minimum in fuel areas.
(C) Electrical wiring should be hermitically sealed, and equipment should be explosion proofed in areas where they are immersed in or otherwise directly subjected to fuel and vapors and should meet § 29.1309 or should be otherwise protected such that ignition is extremely improbable.
(D) Electrical sensor lines that penetrate fuel tank walls should be protected from abrasion or guillotine cutting during a survivable impact by use of potting, rubber plugs or grommets, or other equivalent means and should be designed 712 Par 447
with sufficient local slack, or equivalent means, to prevent both the wires and their protective mountings from being cut by or torn from fuel tank walls by local deformation.
(E) Electrical wires should be designed with sufficient slack or equivalent means to accommodate structural deformation without creating an ignition source.
(F) Electrical wires that could be subjected to severe local abrasion, cutting, or other damage during a survivable impact should be protected locally by nonconductive shields or shrouds.
(G) Electrical wires that are not sufficiently separated from heat or ignition sources to avoid potential contact during a survivable impact should be locally shrouded with a nonconductive fireproof shroud.
(iii) Friction spark, chemical, and electrostatic ignition sources. Fuel lines and tanks should be designed and located to eliminate fuel or fuel vapor ignition from potential mechanical friction spark ignition sources, chemical ignition sources, and electrostatic ignition sources having a high probability of being activated or created during a survivable impact.
(iv) Separation of fuel tanks and occupiable areas. Fuel tanks should be located as far as practicable from all occupiable areas. This minimizes potential PCF sources in occupiable areas and the potential for occupant saturation with fuel on impact. The design should be reviewed to minimize these potential hazards. Fuel tanks should also be removed, as far as practicable, from other potentially hazardous areas such as engine compartments, electrical compartments, under heavy masses
(e.g., transmissions, engines, etc.), over landing gear, and other probable areas of significant impact damage, including rollover and skidding damage.
Euel Line Shielding. Areas of the fuel line system where the probability of spilled fuel reaching potential ignition sources or occupiable areas is greater than extremely improbable should be shielded with drainable fireproof shrouds.
Shrouds should be drainable to allow periodic inspections for internal fuel leaks. The design should be reviewed to ensure these criteria are met.
(VI) Flow Diverters and Drain Holes.
(A) Drainage holes should be located in all fuel tank compartments to prevent the accumulation of spilled fuel within the aircraft. Holes should be large enough to prevent clogging by typical debris and to prevent fluid accumulation from surface tension force blockage.
(B) Drip fences and drainage troughs should be used to prevent gravity-induced flow of spilled fuels from reaching any ignition sources such as hot Par 447 713
engine areas, electrical compartments, or other potential hot spots. Drip fences and troughs are also necessary to prevent PCF by routing spilled fuel around ignition sources to drainage holes to minimize fuel accumulation inside the fuselage. Recurring inspection requirements to ensure holes and troughs remain airworthy should be identified. These criteria should be met, as far as practicable, for all postcrash attitudes. This is readily accomplished for the standard landing attitude, but is more difficult for other abnormal attitudes. However, the design should be thoroughly reviewed to insure maximum compliance without adversely impacting other safety and design criteria such as aerodynamic smoothness.
(vii) Fuel Drain System. The fuel drain system and its attachments to the airframe should be designed and constructed, as far as practicable, to be crash resistant. The following and other appropriate means should be considered for a crash resistant design. Tank drains should be recessed or otherwise protected so that they are minimally damaged by impact. Attachment of fuel drains to the airtrame should be made with either frangible fasteners or equivalent means to prevent impact induced tearout and leakage. The number of drains should be minimized by design techniques such as those that avoid low points in the lines. Drain lines should be made of ductile materials or otherwise designed to provide impact tolerance. Drain line connections, fittings, and other components should be designed to meet the fatigue requirements of § 29.571 and § 29.952(d)(3). This ensures that unintended partial or full fatigue failures do not occur in normal operations that, if undetected, could compromise the CRFS's intended level-of-safety for the mitigation of post crash fire in a survivable impact. Drain valves should be designed to have positive locking provisions in the closed position in accordance with § 29.999(b)(2).
(17) Section 29.952(f) specifies that fuel tanks, fuel lines, electrical wires, and electrical devices must be designed and constructed, as far as practicable, to be crash resistant. Typical mechanical design criteria necessary to minimize fuel spillage sources, ignition sources, and their mutual contact in a survivable impact (i.e., provide crash resistance) are stated by the following subparagraphs. These mechanical design criteria should be incorporated in each design to the maximum practicable extent.
Compliance is accomplished and assessed by a thorough design review and potential PCF hazard analysis with findings and solutions that are documented and approved.
Any additional PCF hazards that are identified should be documented, included, addressed equally, and eliminated to the maximum practicable extent. Engineering evaluation, analysis, and tests are all required to determine the maximum level of practicability.
They should not initiate or contribute to a post crash fire in an otherwise survivable impact. A hazard analysis should show which components are critical in this regard and should be assessed in detail for hazard elimination purposes.
(il) Fuel and electrical lines and components should be located away from each other, away from probable crash impact areas, and away from areas where 714 Par 447
structural deformation or large objects (such as engines or transmissions) may, by crushing or penetration, cause fuel spillage or create an electrical ignition source, or both.
(ili) Fuel and electrical lines and components should be located separately and away from areas where impact and severing by rotor blades during a survivable impact are probable.
(iv) Fuel and electrical lines and components should be in no danger of being punctured or severed during a survivable impact by locally stiff vertical understructure such as a collapsed landing gear strut.
(v) Fuel and electrical lines and components should be routed separately in areas of maximum protection, such as along heavier structural members, and away from areas where significant damage is probable.
(vi) Fuel and electrical lines and components running through hazardous areas or directly through structure, such as a bulkhead, should be locally separated and protected from over-extension, severe abrasion and guillotine cutting by frangible panels, suitable clearance, rubber grommets, braided armor shielding (which should be nonconductive for electrical lines), or other equivalent means.
(vii) Fuel lines routed directly to instruments, transducers, or other equivalent devices should be crash resistant, in accordance with § 29.1337(a) (2), to minimize leakage in case of line rupture induced during a survivable impact.
(vill) Electrical wires routed directly into electrical boxes or instruments should be designed with sufficient local slack and locally routed in the least probable damage direction and zone, or otherwise protected to minimize the probability of damage-induced arcing.
(ix) Fuel lines routed directly into fuel tanks or other fuel system components should be locally routed in the least probable damage direction and zone, or otherwise protected, to minimize the probability of damage-induced fuel leaks.
(x) Fuel pumps mounted inside fuel tanks should be rigidly attached to the fuel tank only. If the pump is airframe mounted and has structural significance, it should have a frangible or deformable attachment (reference Paragraph 12). Electrical boost pumps, if used, should be installed with a minimum of 6 inches of slack wire at the pump connection. The pump wires should be shrouded to prevent cutting in a survivable impact. Nonsparking, breakaway wire disconnects or other equivalent means may be used in lieu of the 6 inches of slack wire.
Par 447 715