FAA Revisits Helicopter Certification Standards
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FAA Revisits Helicopter Certification Standards
The FAA has begun the process that could lead to rewriting the standards for normal- and transport-category helicopters certified under Parts 27 and 29 of the FARs. On Friday, the agency formally issued a request for public comment due on or before May 23. Federal Register, Volume 78 Issue 36 (Friday, February 22, 2013) Specifically, the FAA is seeking comments on whether it should revise the maximum weight and passenger-seat capacity for helicopters in both categories and make airworthiness standards “more efficient and adaptable to future technology.” Currently, helicopters with a maximum gross weight of more than 7,000 pounds or with 10 or more passenger seats must be certified under the more stringent transport category, Part 29. Last year, the FAA denied Bell Helicopter’s request for a Part 27 exemption to allow its 429 light twin to operate at weights between 7,001 and 7,500 pounds. Bell is appealing that decision. In its denial, the FAA noted that granting Bell’s request could upset FAA/EASA regulatory “harmonization,” but the agency held open the possibility of revisiting Part 27 requirements, which it is doing now.
From Aviation International News
From Aviation International News
Sounds like the money got to the right campaign's coffers!
A bit harsh there SAS!
I think the initiative is correct - weight (mass) is an outdated and arbitrary concept. How many people can you kill in one go, is far more relevant!
Key questions are here:
I think the initiative is correct - weight (mass) is an outdated and arbitrary concept. How many people can you kill in one go, is far more relevant!
Key questions are here:
(a) To what extent do you believe the current rotorcraft
certification standards need to be amended to remain relevant over the
next 20 years, given the rapid pace of advances in technology?
(b) Should the current rotorcraft certification standards be
completely changed, or are weight and number of passengers still
relevant for determining certification?
(c) If you believe certification should continue to be based on
weight and number of passengers, to what extent should the existing
standards be updated, and how?
(d) As revisions to regulatory certification standards would
require participation in a rulemaking committee over a substantial
period of time, to what extent would you be willing to participate?
certification standards need to be amended to remain relevant over the
next 20 years, given the rapid pace of advances in technology?
(b) Should the current rotorcraft certification standards be
completely changed, or are weight and number of passengers still
relevant for determining certification?
(c) If you believe certification should continue to be based on
weight and number of passengers, to what extent should the existing
standards be updated, and how?
(d) As revisions to regulatory certification standards would
require participation in a rulemaking committee over a substantial
period of time, to what extent would you be willing to participate?
What does it matter how many passengers are involved?
Should we use plastic fuel tanks on the 350 or require crashworthy tanks on all aircraft no matter the size or seating?
Should passenger seats be crash tolerant on all aircraft or just those that carry ten passengers or more?
Should we have CVR's and Data Recorders on all aircraft or just large aircraft?
At some point the discussion has to focus upon what value (Dollars/Pounds Sterling/Franc's) we place on a human life.....as technological improvements cost money and those costs have to be justified.
Should we use plastic fuel tanks on the 350 or require crashworthy tanks on all aircraft no matter the size or seating?
Should passenger seats be crash tolerant on all aircraft or just those that carry ten passengers or more?
Should we have CVR's and Data Recorders on all aircraft or just large aircraft?
At some point the discussion has to focus upon what value (Dollars/Pounds Sterling/Franc's) we place on a human life.....as technological improvements cost money and those costs have to be justified.
What does it matter how many passengers are involved?
technological improvements cost money and those costs have to be justified.
It would depend upon whether you limit your "value" to sheer money or not. In reality are we not really talking but about one passenger?
If we limit the threshold to Ten or more Pax....that means the first nine don't matter at all but the Tenth does.
That has always been my angst over the More than Nine Seats concept.....especially when the Operator takes a 14 seat aircraft and configures it for nine seats and two pilots....conveniently avoiding the threshold.
So I ask you 212MAN......just what is the "Value" of a single human life?
If we limit the threshold to Ten or more Pax....that means the first nine don't matter at all but the Tenth does.
That has always been my angst over the More than Nine Seats concept.....especially when the Operator takes a 14 seat aircraft and configures it for nine seats and two pilots....conveniently avoiding the threshold.
So I ask you 212MAN......just what is the "Value" of a single human life?
So I ask you 212MAN......just what is the "Value" of a single human life?
SASless, you ask a moral question when what's being considered are a combination of technical and economic factors in where one draws a line on a mandatory risk mitigation requirement, which is based on (as you very well know from your years of flying) the problem of weight costing you money, and features adding weight.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 28th Feb 2013 at 15:10.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Oregon, US
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well Said, Lonewolf.
Its not that the first nine lives do not matter, not at all.
Risk assesments require drawing lines, lines that are some times arbitrary or debatable.
Its easy to see that one standard would not work for all aircraft.
Would the same set of laws serve a single seat ag operator and a 121 carrier?
What a a 121 carrier and somone who flies helicopter tours in a 206? Obviously not!
at some point there needs to be threshold where you draw the line between a high level of safety requirements, and the highest level of safety requirements.
If you make the highest level requirements across the board the small helicopters cease to exist.
Many Years ago I asked Tim Tucker why robinson does not use bladders in their fuel tanks. His reply:
It would be nice, what about frangible fuel fittings or some other nice safety features? Bladders and those other things add weight and cost, you add that weight and you have to design the airfame to take that extra weight, you do that by adding to the strength and weight of other components, you nickel and dime yourself to a point where before you know it you have a million dollar R44 which is essentially a robinson version of a 206. Robinson fills a niche, let people decide by where they spend their money whether a bladder is that important to them.
I think history would show he was correct.
I agree, the "weight class" really is arbitrary, its the 9 limit that should stay.
Its not that the first nine lives do not matter, not at all.
Risk assesments require drawing lines, lines that are some times arbitrary or debatable.
Its easy to see that one standard would not work for all aircraft.
Would the same set of laws serve a single seat ag operator and a 121 carrier?
What a a 121 carrier and somone who flies helicopter tours in a 206? Obviously not!
at some point there needs to be threshold where you draw the line between a high level of safety requirements, and the highest level of safety requirements.
If you make the highest level requirements across the board the small helicopters cease to exist.
Many Years ago I asked Tim Tucker why robinson does not use bladders in their fuel tanks. His reply:
It would be nice, what about frangible fuel fittings or some other nice safety features? Bladders and those other things add weight and cost, you add that weight and you have to design the airfame to take that extra weight, you do that by adding to the strength and weight of other components, you nickel and dime yourself to a point where before you know it you have a million dollar R44 which is essentially a robinson version of a 206. Robinson fills a niche, let people decide by where they spend their money whether a bladder is that important to them.
I think history would show he was correct.
I agree, the "weight class" really is arbitrary, its the 9 limit that should stay.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Near the Mountains
Age: 67
Posts: 345
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So I ask you 212MAN......just what is the "Value" of a single human life?
That was the calculation arrived at by a man trying to supply a higher standard of lifejacket, complete with breathing kit and servicing included, on a long-term contract basis to an offshore oil company in the North Sea some years ago. The level of kit/service being offered was rejected on the basis of cost balanced against the company's assessment of the risk/cost of accident.
I don't remember all the details as he explained them to me but the £7k stuck pretty clearly in my mind.
A pretty sobering thought.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North America
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In 2009 FAA concluded a Small Airplane Certification Process Study that considered General Aviation for the next 20-years. One of the major recommendations from that study was to restructure Part 23 into performance and complexity based divisions instead of weight and propulsion based divisions. I don’t know if that recommendation generated any action, but it sounds similar to the current interest in restructuring the Rotorcraft Airworthiness Standards.
