AD 2014-12-11

This AD is effective September 8, 2014.

For service information identified in this AD, contact Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, Attn: Manager, Commercial Technical Support, mailstop S581A, 6900 Main Street, Stratford, CT, telephone (203) 383-4866, email address tsslibrary@sikorsky.com, or at http://www.sikorsky.com. You may review a copy of the referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.

John Coffey, Flight Test Engineer, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; telephone (781) 238-7173; email: john.coffey@faa.gov.

On December 10, 2009, at 74 FR 65496, the Federal Register published our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Sikorsky Model S-92A helicopters. The NPRM proposed to require revising the RFM SA S92A-RFM-003, Part 1, Section 1, Operating Limitations, Types of Operation, by removing the statement “RESCUE HOIST: Category `A' only External load operations with Class `D' external loads.” The NPRM proposed replacing that statement with “HOIST: Class D external loads PROHIBITED.” Also, the NPRM proposed replacing the words “RESCUE HOIST” in the RFM with “HOIST”. The NPRM was prompted by a mistake in the RFM, which allowed “Class D” rotorcraft load combinations for HEC operations for this model helicopter. The Model S-92A RFM did not include the required one-engine inoperative hover performance and procedures.

On September 13, 2012, at 77 FR 56581, the Federal Register published our supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM), which proposed to revise the actions of the NPRM. The SNPRM proposed to allow Class D external load operations if the appropriate operating limitations are included in the RFM, instead of prohibiting rotorcraft load combinations for HEC operations. The proposed requirements were intended to require appropriate operating limitations to allow operators to perform Class D external load-combination operations, including HEC, in this model helicopter that now meets the Category A performance standard.

After our SNPRM (77 FR 56581, September 13, 2012) was published, we received comments from one commenter.

Sikorsky generally concurs with the corrective action but requests that Paragraph (d)(3)(i) of the SNPRM (77 FR 56581, September 13, 2012), which requires removing a note from the RFM, be deleted from the AD. Sikorsky commented that removing the note is not appropriate with respect to applying the 150 pound penalty for the hoist. Sikorsky states that the 150 pound penalty applies to the drag of the hoist being installed on the aircraft and, if one would first determine the maximum gross weight by the chart and then apply the penalty, they would always be limited to 150 pounds below the maximum gross weight of the helicopter. Sikorsky states the note is required so pilots do not erroneously apply a 150 pound penalty to their weight when they are maximum gross weight limited instead of performance limited. As the note only applies when the aircraft is performance limited, Sikorsky requests that it not be removed.

We agree that the correct instructions need to be inserted in the Required Actions section, but disagree with Sikorsky's request. Not removing the note would result in keeping the incorrect instructions from the original Limitations section. But we are including a requirement to add the following note to the Weight Limits section of the RFM to address Sikorsky's comments and to provide accurate instructions: “NOTE: If conditions permit, the pilot may go to the right of the 26,500 pound line on Figure 1-2 to determine the maximum gross weight and then subtract a 150 pound hoist decrement. The maximum gross weight for category `A' operations cannot exceed 26,500 pounds (12,020) kilograms.”

We have reviewed the relevant information, considered the comment received, and determined that an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed with the changes described previously. We also changed the formatting of this AD to meet current publication requirements. These changes are consistent with the intent of the proposals in the SNPRM (77 FR 56581, September 13, 2012), and will not increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.

We estimate that this AD affects 65 helicopters in the U.S. registry. The costs for inserting a correction to the RFM are expected to be minimal.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and

(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):