25.1420 Fed Register

Vol.
79 Tuesday,
No. 213 November 4, 2014
Part III
Department of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 25 and 33
Airplane and Engine Certification Requirements in Supercooled Large Drop,
Mixed Phase, and Ice Crystal Icing Conditions; Final Rule
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:18 Nov 03, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\04NOR2.SGM 04NOR2
65508 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and Policy Branch, ANE–111, Engine operation of those airplanes, and for
and Propeller Directorate Standards other practices, methods, and
Federal Aviation Administration Staff, Aircraft Certification Service, 12 procedures relating to those airplanes
New England Executive Park, and engines.
14 CFR Parts 25 and 33 Burlington, MA 01803; telephone (781)
Overview of Final Rule
[Docket No. FAA–2010–0636; Amendment 238–7149; facsimile (781) 238–7199;
Nos. 25–140 and 33–34] email john.fisher@faa.gov. The FAA is adopting this final rule to
For part 25 legal questions contact revise certain regulations in Title 14,
RIN 2120–AJ34 Douglas Anderson, FAA, Office of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
Regional Counsel, ANM–7, Northwest part 25 (Airworthiness Standards:
Airplane and Engine Certification Mountain Region, 1601 Lind Avenue
Requirements in Supercooled Large Transport Category Airplanes) and part
SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; 33 (Airworthiness Standards: Aircraft
Drop, Mixed Phase, and Ice Crystal telephone (425) 227–2166; facsimile
Icing Conditions Engines) related to the certification of
(425) 227–1007; email transport category airplanes and turbine
AGENCY: Federal Aviation douglas.anderson@faa.gov. airplane engines in icing conditions. We
Administration (FAA), DOT. For part 33 legal questions contact are also creating the following new
ACTION: Final rule.
Vince Bennett, FAA, Office of the regulations: § 25.1324—Angle of attack
Regional Counsel, ANE–007, New systems; § 25.1420—Supercooled Large
SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation England Region, 12 New England Drop Icing Conditions; Appendix O to
Administration is amending the Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; Part 25—Supercooled Large Drop Icing
airworthiness standards applicable to telephone (781) 238–7044; facsimile Conditions; Appendix C to Part 33 (this
certain transport category airplanes (781) 238–7055; email vincent.bennett@ is intentionally left blank as a
certified for flight in icing conditions faa.gov. placeholder for potential future
and the icing airworthiness standards SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: rulemaking unrelated to icing); and
applicable to certain aircraft engines. Appendix D to Part 33 Mixed Phase and
Authority for This Rulemaking
The regulations will improve safety by Ice Crystal Icing Envelope (Deep
addressing supercooled large drop icing The FAA’s authority to issue rules on Convective Clouds). To improve the
conditions for transport category aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the safety of transport category airplanes
airplanes most affected by these icing United States Code. Subtitle I, Section operating in supercooled large drop
conditions; mixed phase and ice crystal 106 describes the authority of the FAA (SLD), mixed phase, and ice crystal
conditions for all transport category Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation icing conditions, these regulations will:
airplanes; and supercooled large drop, Programs, describes in more detail the
• Require airplanes most affected by
mixed phase, and ice crystal icing scope of the agency’s authority.
This rulemaking is under the SLD icing conditions to meet certain
conditions for all turbojet, turbofan, and safety standards in an expanded
turboprop engines. authority described in Subtitle VII, Part
A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ‘‘General certification icing environment that
DATES: Effective January 5, 2015. includes freezing drizzle and freezing
requirements.’’ Under that section, the
ADDRESSES: For information on where to FAA is charged with promoting safe rain. These safety standards include
obtain copies of rulemaking documents flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by airplane performance and handling
and other information related to this prescribing minimum standards qualities requirements.
final rule, see ‘‘How To Obtain required in the interest of safety for the • Expand the engine and engine
Additional Information’’ in the design and performance of aircraft; installation certification, and some
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of regulations and minimum standards in airplane component certification
this document. the interest of safety for inspecting, regulations (for example, angle of attack
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For servicing, and overhauling aircraft; and and airspeed indicating systems) to
part 25 technical questions contact regulations for other practices, methods, include freezing drizzle, freezing rain,
Robert Hettman, FAA, Propulsion/ and procedures the Administrator finds mixed phase, and ice crystal icing
Mechanical Systems Branch, ANM–112, necessary for safety in air commerce. conditions.
Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft This regulation is within the scope of Summary of the Costs and Benefits of
Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue that authority because it prescribes— the Final Rule
SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; • New safety standards for the design
telephone (425) 227–2683; facsimile and performance of certain transport The benefits and costs are
(425) 227–1320; email robert.hettman@ category airplanes and aircraft engines; summarized in the table below. As
faa.gov. and shown in the table, the total estimated
For part 33 technical questions • New safety requirements necessary benefits exceed the total estimated costs
contact John Fisher, FAA, Rulemaking for the design, production, and for this final rule.
2012$ 7% Present value
Benefit Cost Benefit Cost
Part 33 Engines ............................................................................. Qualitative ......... $13,936,000 Qualitative ........ $11,375,927

Large Part 25 Airplanes ................................................................. $362,319,857 ... 14,126,333 $76,861,295 ..... $11,531,295
Other Part 25 Airplanes ................................................................. $220,570,582 ... 33,198,788 $50,028,690 ..... $19,385,401
Total ........................................................................................ $582,890,439 ... 61,261,121 $126,889,985 ... $42,292,624
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 65509
Background • Devise requirements to assess the and use of aircraft. Also, expand the
Safety concerns about the adequacy of ability of an airplane to either safely appendix C icing certification envelope
the icing certification standards were operate without restrictions in SLD and to include freezing drizzle/freezing rain
brought to the forefront of public and mixed phase conditions or safely and mixed water/ice crystal conditions,
governmental attention by a 1994 operate until it can exit these as necessary (A–96–54 supersedes A–
accident in Roselawn, Indiana, conditions. 81–116 and –118).
involving an Avions de Transport • Study the effects icing requirement
changes could have on §§ 25.773, Pilot 2. A–96–56
Régional (ATR) ATR 72 series airplane.
The National Transportation Safety compartment view; 25.1323, Airspeed Revise the icing certification testing
Board (NTSB), with assistance from indicating system; and 25.1325, Static regulation to ensure that airplanes are
ATR, the FAA, the French Direction pressure systems. properly tested for all conditions in
Général de l’Aviation Civile, Bureau • Consider the need for a regulation which they are authorized to operate, or
D’Enquetes et D’Analyses, the National on ice protection for angle of attack are otherwise shown to be capable of
Aeronautics and Space Administration probes. safe flight into such conditions. If safe
(NASA), and others, conducted an The FAA ultimately determined that operations cannot be demonstrated by
extensive investigation of this accident. the revised icing certification standards the manufacturer, operational
This investigation determined that should include SLD, mixed phase, and limitations should be imposed to
freezing drizzle-sized drops created a ice crystal icing conditions. This rule is prohibit flight in such conditions, and
ridge of ice on the wing’s upper surface based on ARAC’s recommendations to flightcrews should be provided with the
aft of the deicing boots and forward of the FAA. means to positively determine when
the ailerons. The investigation further A. Related Actions they are in icing conditions that exceed
concluded that this ridge of ice the limits for aircraft certification.
ARAC’s IPHWG submitted additional
contributed to an uncommanded roll of C. Summary of the Notice of Proposed
icing rulemaking recommendations to
the airplane. Based on these findings, Rulemaking
the FAA that led to the Part 25 and Part
the NTSB recommended changes to the
121 Activation of Ice Protection final The notice of proposed rulemaking
icing certification requirements.
The atmospheric icing conditions for rules.3 For certain airplanes certificated (NPRM), Notice No. 10–10, published in
certification are specified in part 25, for flight in icing, those rulemaking the Federal Register on June 29, 2010
appendix C. The atmospheric condition actions revise the certification and (75 FR 37311), is the basis for this final
(freezing drizzle) that contributed to the operating rules for flight in icing rule. After receiving several requests to
Roselawn accident is outside the icing conditions by requiring either extend the public comment period, the
envelope currently used for certifying installation of ice detection equipment FAA extended the comment period by
transport category airplanes. The term or changes to the airplane flight manual 30 days to September 29, 2010, with a
‘‘icing envelope’’ is used in part 25, (AFM) to ensure timely activation of the document published in the Federal
appendix C, and in this rule to refer to airframe ice protection system. Register on August 16, 2010 (75 FR
the environmental icing conditions Although those rulemaking actions 49865).
within which the airplane must be address flight in icing conditions, they To improve the safety of transport
shown to be able to safely operate. The do not directly impact this final rule. category airplanes operating in SLD,
term ‘‘transport category airplanes’’ is mixed phase, and ice crystal icing
B. NTSB Recommendations
used throughout this rulemaking conditions, the FAA proposed new
The NTSB issued NTSB Safety regulations in the NPRM to:
document to include all airplanes type-
certificated to part 25 regulations.
Recommendation Numbers A–96–54 • Expand the certification icing
Another atmospheric icing and A–96–56 as a result of the Roselawn environment to include freezing drizzle
environment outside the current icing accident previously discussed. This and freezing rain environments.
envelope is freezing rain. The FAA has rulemaking partially addresses those • Require airplanes most affected by
not required airplane manufacturers to NTSB recommendations. The FAA is SLD icing conditions to meet certain
show that airplanes can operate safely considering separate rulemaking safety standards in the expanded
in a freezing drizzle or freezing rain activities associated with revisions to 14 certification icing environment,
icing environment. CFR part 23 regulations for small including airplane performance and
As a result of this accident and airplanes and 14 CFR part 121 handling qualities requirements.
consistent with related NTSB operational regulations to complete the • Expand the engine and engine
recommendations,1 the FAA tasked the FAA response to these NTSB installation certification regulations,
Aviation Rulemaking Advisory recommendations. The NTSB and some airplane component
Committee (ARAC),2 through its Ice recommendations are as follows: certification regulations (for example,
Protection Harmonization Working angle of attack and airspeed indicating
1. A–96–54 systems), to include freezing rain
Group (IPHWG), to do the following:
• Define an icing environment that Revise the icing criteria published in environments, freezing drizzle
includes SLD conditions. 14 CFR parts 23 and 25, in light of both environments, mixed phase, and ice
• Consider the need to define a mixed recent research into aircraft ice crystal icing conditions. For certain
phase icing environment (supercooled accretion under varying conditions of regulations, we proposed using a subset
liquid and ice crystals). liquid water content (LWC), drop size of these icing conditions.
distribution, and temperature, and
recent developments in both the design D. General Overview of Comments
1 NTSB Safety Recommendations A–96–54 and

A–96–56 are available in the rule Docket No. FAA– The FAA received comments from 31
2010–0636 and on the Internet at http:// 3 Part 25 Activation of Ice Protection, Docket No. commenters during the public comment
www.ntsb.gov/doclib/recletters/1996/A96_48_ FAA–2007–27654, published in the Federal period: Five private citizens, the
69.pdf. Register on August 3, 2009 (74 FR 38328). Part 121
2 Published in the Federal Register on December Activation of Ice Protection, Docket No. FAA–2009–
Aerospace Industries Association (AIA),
8, 1997 (62 FR 64621). http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/ 0675, published in the Federal Register on August Airbus Industrie (Airbus), AirDat LLC,
pkg/FR-1997-12-08/pdf/97-32034.pdf. 22, 2011 (76 FR 52241). the Airline Pilots Association (ALPA),
American Kestrel Company, LLC, Discussion of Public Comments and finding of which icing conditions the
(AKC), The Boeing Company, Final Rule airplane was in, unless on-board droplet
Bombardier, Cessna, Dassault Aviation, size and LWC measurement means and
Proposed Appendix O to Part 25
Embraer, Eurocopter, the European droplet data processing are provided.
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), Foster In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to Regarding the flight research project’s
Technology, LLC, the General Aviation expand the existing icing conditions lack of on-board ability to document
identified in appendix C of part 25 to aircraft performance degradation from
Manufacturers Association (GAMA), GE
include new SLD icing conditions icing, we agree. However, obtaining
Aviation, Gulfstream, Goodrich Sensors
defined in a new appendix O. The FAA measurements of aircraft performance
and Integrated Systems (GSIS), made changes to appendix O as a result within icing conditions was the lowest
Honeywell Engines, the National of comments received, but the general priority objective of the flight research
Research Council (NRC), the NTSB, format remains unchanged. Appendix O project. The primary objectives of the
Pratt & Whitney Canada, the Regional is structured like part 25, appendix C, test were to identify icing conditions
Airline Association (RAA), the Swiss with part I defining icing conditions and beyond those covered in appendix C of
Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA), part II defining airframe ice accretions part 25, and to identify a method for
Snecma, Transport Canada Civil for showing compliance with the presenting the data in a way that could
Aviation (TCCA), and Turbomeca. Each airplane performance and handling be used as an engineering standard.
commenter submitted multiple qualities requirements of part 25, Specific aircraft performance and
comments. subpart B. handling degradations in icing
Twelve commenters stated specific Three private citizens provided conditions are unique for each aircraft
comments related to the flight data design. Performance degradation and
support for the rulemaking, recognized
collection approach used to acquire handling qualities criteria for appendix
the efforts made by the ARAC working
information about SLDs, the flight data C and appendix O icing encounters will
group, and suggested specific changes used, and the analysis approach to need to be determined by the design
intended to clarify the regulations or to generate the SLD engineering standards approval holder for each aircraft design
clarify the intent. The NTSB and two in part 25, appendix O. We will address based on the applicable regulations,
private citizens were disappointed that these three commenters as a group. guidance materials, and testing as
the rulemaking took so long. One concern was with the methods necessary to demonstrate compliance.
Fourteen commenters stated neither related to collecting and evaluating SLD This final rule specifies the expanded
support nor opposition, but suggested icing conditions. One commenter stated environmental icing conditions for
specific changes or identified areas for that the research aircraft were well consideration during the certification
clarification. equipped to document the environment; process as well as the performance and
however, both research aircraft had handling qualities that must be
Two commenters, a rotorcraft serious deficiencies regarding their on- demonstrated.
manufacturer and a rotorcraft engine board ability to document aircraft Regarding the sufficiency of the flight
manufacturer, opposed the proposed performance degradation from icing. test data to form a statistically reliable
changes to §§ 33.68 and 33.77. These Two commenters were concerned that database, we disagree. In developing
commenters suggested the FAA make only the database jointly created by appendix O, we used all historically
provisions to exclude rotorcraft from the Environment Canada and NASA was available flight research data on SLD,
revised regulations. used to define the SLD icing conditions. not just the Environment Canada-NASA
Two private citizens expressed Another commenter was concerned flight test data. This broad collection of
concern for the data and methods used about the statistical significance of the data is statistically similar to the data
to define the SLD conditions proposed data collected and did not think there that was used to develop appendix C.
in part 25, appendix O. was enough flight test evidence Regarding the comments about our
collected to provide the same level of proposed definition of SLD in appendix
One commenter suggested that the probability established for part 25, O, we also disagree. The University of
FAA should begin a certification appendix C, icing conditions. Two Wyoming data were included in the
process toward use of a new commenters stated that the flight test FAA master database on SLD icing
methodology for detecting ice over a campaign failed to relate their data conditions. However, these data were
pitot inlet, for which the commenter has collection results to previously not used to support the final
filed a provisional patent. published results, such as those determinations for the LWC values for
The FAA received additional published by the University of the appendix O engineering standards.
comments in a letter dated June 21, Wyoming. Specifically, the commenters The University of Wyoming aircraft was
2011, signed by four private citizens. noted that appendix O does not contain not equipped with two-dimensional
The letter provided additional data for a LWC greater than 0.45 grams optical array probes, which were
explanation for previously submitted per cubic meter. deemed essential by the IPHWG.
comments. The FAA also considered One commenter also stated that other Without the probes, it was not possible
this additional information while published analysis methods for an SLD to distinguish between cloud drops and
drafting this final rule. encounter, such as the University of ice particles. Therefore, the University
Wyoming LWC/drop size technique, of Wyoming cloud data were not
The FAA made changes to the final result in the most adverse icing considered usable for supporting the
rule in response to the public conditions and are not contained within analysis of SLD LWC/drop size
comments. Summaries of the issues appendix O. The commenter also noted properties for appendix O. As a result,
raised by the public comments and FAA that a clear distinction does not exist the Environment Canada-NASA
responses, including explanations of between the icing conditions defined in database was used to determine the
changes, are provided below. The full part 25, appendix C, and the conditions engineering standards because of the
text of each commenter’s submission is defined in part 25, appendix O. This quality of the data contained therein
available in the docket for this uncertainty would leave the pilot with and the analysis methods used in that
rulemaking. the responsibility of making a scientific database. Both the quality of the data
and the analysis method used by the the effect of greatly increasing power report DOT/FAA/AR–09/10.5 Figure 11
database ensured the accuracy of the requirements for electro-thermal deicing of that report shows a plot of
definition for appendix O icing systems. Several commenters also temperature versus LWC for appendix O
conditions. suggested that figures 1, 3, 4, and 6 of freezing drizzle environments that is
Regarding the comment that the appendix O would be easier to use if the valid for the reference distance of 17.4
University of Wyoming LWC/drop size corner data points were defined in the nautical miles (32.2 km). Appendix C
technique results in the most adverse figures. and appendix O define environmental
icing conditions and are not contained We agree. We reviewed the figures conditions that overlap one another as
within appendix O, we disagree. That proposed in the NPRM and the data the conditions transition from appendix
analysis technique suggests that one used by the IPHWG to generate the C to appendix O. Therefore, there is not
type of icing condition would be severe figures. We revised figures 1 and 4 to a clear mass distribution boundary that
for all airplanes, regardless of the type reflect the lower water content values can be defined.
of ice protection system used, or the proposed by the IPHWG, but the water One commenter, a private citizen,
extent of the protection. Appendix O content in appendix O is still higher noted that the NPRM did not identify
contains a variety of icing conditions, than within appendix C at the same the vertical extent for part 25, appendix
not just those deemed most severe using temperature. The higher water content O, figure 6. We disagree. The pressure
the University of Wyoming analysis may increase the power requirements altitude range and vertical extent for
technique. for some electro-thermal deicing system freezing rain were provided in appendix
In response to other comments, designs, but not to the extent that may O, part I, paragraph (b) in the NPRM
figures 1 and 4 of appendix O have been located under figure 3. We clarified
have been necessary with the water
revised in this final rule to reflect the appendix O, part I, by moving all of the
contents proposed in the NPRM. The
LWC proposed by the IPHWG. As a general text describing the
environmental conditions defined in
result, freezing drizzle conditions with meteorological parameters, including
appendix O are valid conditions that
a median volume diameter (MVD) vertical extent, ahead of the figures.
will need to be considered for
greater than 40 microns fall within the
applicable future designs. Our review of One commenter suggested that the
adverse region that would be identified
the data used to generate the scaling icing conditions in appendix O should
using the University of Wyoming LWC/
factor curve in figure 7 indicates that the be revised to reflect water drop
drop size technique. No changes to
figure 7 proposed by the IPHWG in the distribution as a function of mean
appendix O were made as a result of
task 2 working group report was effective diameter (MED) as opposed to
these comments.
With regard to the comment incorrect; 4 figure 7 in the NPRM was MVD. We do not agree. MED is the term
suggesting that the pilot will have to correct. Therefore, figure 7 in this final used in part 25, appendix C.
make a scientific finding to determine rule remains as proposed in the NPRM. Examination of National Advisory
which icing conditions the airplane is Figures 1, 3, 4, and 6 of appendix O in Committee for Aeronautics (NACA)
in, we disagree. For those types of this final rule have been revised to references 6 shows that MED is the same
airplanes most vulnerable to SLD icing identify the corner data points for as MVD if certain assumptions are made
conditions, the level of operations in clarity. about the drop distribution, namely that
SLD icing conditions for which the GSIS asked if there is a scientific basis it is one of the Langmuir distributions.
airplane is approved will be determined for applying the horizontal extent of MVD, as the more general term, is
during the airplane certification process 17.4 nautical miles. GSIS also noted that applicable to any drop distribution.
in accordance with § 25.1420. If the same MVD, temperature, and LWC Since the drop distribution described in
approval is requested for operations in at altitude exist in both appendix O and appendix O does not follow a Langmuir
a portion of the icing conditions defined appendix C and asked the FAA to distribution, MVD is more appropriate.
in appendix O, then the airplane clearly define the mass distribution We did not change the final rule or
manufacturer will have to show that the boundary between appendix O and appendix O as a result of this comment.
pilot can determine if the operational appendix C. A private citizen commented that
envelope for which the airplane is Our application of the 17.4 nautical appendix O should define a time to use
certified has been exceeded as required mile horizontal extent in appendix O for delayed recognition of entry into
by § 25.1420(a)(2). Since part of the was made on a practical basis and not icing conditions and the time to exit
certification will be evaluating the on a purely scientific basis; it was icing conditions. We do not agree. The
means used to distinguish when the selected for consistency with the responsibility for proposing delayed
airplane is in icing conditions outside appendix C continuous maximum icing recognition times, delayed ice
the certified envelope, the pilot will not conditions with which designers are protection system activation times, or
be faced with the ambiguity of trying to already familiar. We are unaware of any times required to exit icing conditions,
determine the distribution of water scientific reasons for not applying the based on unique operational procedures
drops in the environment in which he 17.4 nautical mile horizontal extent in or performance characteristics of the ice
or she is flying. this manner. protection system, rests with the
Several commenters said that The LWC values in appendix O are applicant. We did not change the rule
proposed figures 1, 4, and 7 in appendix based on an analysis of the data from based on this comment.
O of the NPRM were different than what the jointly created Environment Canada- Boeing suggested a change to
was proposed by the IPHWG, and that NASA flight research SLD database, appendix O, part I, paragraph (c), to add
the FAA did not provide an explanation an equation to determine the LWC for
for those differences. The commenters
4 The data used to complete the IPHWG report is

also noted that the higher LWC detailed in report DOT/FAA/AR–09/10, Data and 5 A copy of the report is in the rule Docket No.
contained in the figures proposed in the Analysis for the Development of an Engineering FAA–2010–0636.
NPRM could have a significant impact Standard for Supercooled Large Drop Conditions, 6 National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics
dated March 2009. A copy of the report is available Technical Note 2738, A Probability Analysis of the
on an applicant’s design. GSIS in the rule Docket No. FAA–2010–0636. The data Factors Conducive to Aircraft Icing in the United
specifically noted that the higher water used for figure 7 are described on pages 34–39 of States, by William Lewis and Norman R. Bergrun,
content defined in appendix O will have that report. July 1952.
horizontal distances other than 17.4 paragraph (b)(2), and not just to the fashion that duplicates either the flight
nautical miles. transit time through one appendix O or ground test environment.
We agree that adding such an cloud and one appendix C cloud The NRC of Canada’s comments
equation could be beneficial. The specified in paragraph (b)(2)(ii). reflected concerns about how the water
equation proposed by Boeing, however, Embraer commented that it would be drop distribution curves in appendix O
expressed horizontal distance in clearer to describe the total holding time are to be used. Further, a private citizen
kilometers, which would be in a separate paragraph (b)(2)(iii) that commented that the droplet diameters
inconsistent with other figures in says: ‘‘The total exposure to the icing for appendix O conditions can only be
appendix O. Instead of the equation conditions need not exceed 45 reproduced in a few icing wind tunnels.
proposed by Boeing, we added to minutes.’’ We agree, and changed We do not agree that available
appendix O, part I, paragraph (c), a appendix O, part II, paragraph (b)(2), to engineering tools (icing wind tunnels
similar equation that uses units of indicate that the total exposure time for and tankers, ice accretion prediction
nautical miles. holding ice does not need to exceed 45 codes, and other analysis methods) are
Several commenters noted that minutes. inadequate for showing compliance
appendix O, part II, paragraph (b)(5)(ii), with the new rule. We recognize that the
in the NPRM made reference to Availability of Engineering Tools To current engineering tools available to
§§ 25.143(k) and 25.207(k). However, Show Compliance With the Rule show compliance with the new SLD
§§ 25.143(k) and 25.207(k) do not exist Several commenters stated that rule have not been validated in every
in the current part 25 and were not available engineering tools (icing wind aspect, and also have some limitations.
added by the NPRM. tunnels and tankers, ice accretion We also recognize that for freezing rain,
We agree. The references to those prediction codes, and other analysis few validated engineering tools are
sections were inadvertently included in methods) are inadequate for showing available. However, methods are
the NPRM. We revised appendix O to compliance with the new rule. available to simulate freezing drizzle.
delete the statement referencing Bombardier commented that without Further, we recognize that relying upon
§§ 25.143(k) and 25.207(k). validated tools, it is not practical to available simulation methods, combined
Airbus noted that part II, paragraph implement the requirements proposed with engineering judgment, will be
(c)(7)(v) of appendix O states that crew in the NPRM. Bombardier believed that required for finding compliance with
activation of the ice protection system is efforts should be focused on the appendix O requirements of part 25,
in accordance with a normal operating implementing incremental regulatory especially for freezing rain conditions.
procedure provided in the AFM, except changes in parallel with the appropriate After reviewing the current state of
that after beginning the takeoff roll, it technological developments to meet that available compliance methods and
must be assumed that the crew does not regulatory change. engineering tools, the FAA has
take any action to activate the ice Boeing commented similarly, stating determined that there is sufficient
protection system until the airplane is at that the FAA and NASA had developed capability for applicants to effectively
least 400 feet above the takeoff surface. a plan several years ago to align the demonstrate compliance with this final
Airbus commented that this appears to timing of the new regulations with the rule. The IPHWG evaluated the current
be a direct cut and paste from the availability of validated engineering capabilities of these tools in 2008–2009
appendix C regulations and tools and test capabilities for SLD during a review requested by industry
recommended removing the sentence. conditions. Boeing added that the tools members through ARAC. The IPHWG
Airbus claimed that while this is and test facilities necessary to evaluation of SLD engineering tools,
perhaps understandable for appendix C effectively demonstrate compliance which proposed methods of compliance
icing conditions, it would seem with the regulations are not available, based on the current state of the
reasonable to expect the crew to activate and that this lack of availability will be available engineering tools, supports the
the wing anti-ice system (WAIS) prior to particularly problematic for applicants FAA conclusion. The FAA considered
takeoff if there are SLD icing conditions desiring to operate within appendix O estimates provided by industry and has
within 400 feet of the runway, whether conditions. Boeing noted that the made adjustments to the proposed
the AFM specifically states that it is current situation will require applicants economic evaluation, which is
required or not. to either use highly conservative incorporated in the economic evaluation
We do not agree. The rule addresses approaches, build new icing wind for this final rule. This adjustment
flightcrew actions occurring after tunnel facilities, or expend great efforts increases the cost for complying with
beginning the takeoff roll, while Airbus’ to conduct extensive flight testing in the requirements of this final rule;
comment refers to actions that the search of a meteorological condition, however, this final rule remains cost
flightcrew would take before beginning which occurs very infrequently. Boeing beneficial. A summary of the final
the takeoff. Nevertheless, the FAA does said that this was not the approach regulatory evaluation is provided in the
not expect flightcrews to be aware of all anticipated by industry, and that it will ‘‘Regulatory Notices and Analyses’’
SLD icing conditions that may exist up impose a severe burden on many section of this final rule and the
to a height of 400 feet above the takeoff applicants beyond that established in complete document is included in the
surface, nor do we agree that it would the economic evaluation of the public docket.
be reasonable to expect the flightcrew to proposed regulation, without adding As to freezing drizzle, the current
activate the WAIS prior to takeoff if any commensurate safety benefit. icing wind tunnel test capabilities for
there was no procedure telling them to AKC also commented that current test SLD icing conditions have been
do so. We did not change the rule based facilities are limited in their ability to demonstrated. However, we recognize
on this comment. produce freezing drizzle, in particular that some limitations exist: Icing wind
Embraer commented that the last drop distributions greater than 40 tunnel spray systems evaluated during
sentence in appendix O, part II, microns MVD. The water drop the IPHWG’s review do not support bi-
paragraph (b)(2)(ii), which proposed to distribution curves provided in modal mass distributions (mass ‘‘peaks’’
define the holding ice conditions in part appendix O are not produced by any for two different drop sizes) provided in
25, appendix O, part II, paragraph (b)(2), facility known to AKC, and there are no appendix O and do not produce realistic
should be applicable to the whole of facilities that produce freezing rain in a freezing rain simulations for the
majority of those conditions. NASA O. However, the IPHWG task 2 report technical justification used to exclude
examined alternate spray methods to and the NPRM only addressed airplane airplanes with a MTOW of 60,000
simulate portions of a bi-modal spray accidents and incidents; it did not pounds or greater. Airbus, AIA, Boeing,
using spray sequencing techniques to include rotorcraft. Eurocopter and and GAMA provided comments in
approximate drop distributions found in Turbomeca proposed provisions to response to the NPRM to support the
natural conditions (reference: American exclude rotorcraft from the new engine proposed applicability based on MTOW
Institute of Aeronautics and requirements. The FAA did not receive because airplanes with a MTOW of
Astronautics report AIAA 2005–76, any comments providing specific 60,000 pounds or greater have not
Simulation of a Bimodal Large Droplet support for the proposed applicability to previously experienced accidents or
Icing Cloud in the NASA Icing Research rotorcraft. incidents associated with flight in SLD.
Tunnel 7). NASA demonstrated the We agree. The IPHWG did not review Embraer and Pratt & Whitney Canada
water spray sequencing technique for an rotorcraft accidents or incidents in icing comments to the NPRM specifically
airfoil with unprotected surfaces and conditions and did not propose noted support for AIA’s position.
the results showed rougher ice accretion rulemaking associated with rotorcraft.
textures than appendix C ice shapes. As a result, we revised the proposed A review of the IPHWG analysis
Experience indicates that SLD icing § 33.68 to separate the icing indicates that airplanes with a MTOW
conditions generally result in rougher requirements for turboshaft engines of 60,000 pounds or greater have not
ice accretion textures. NASA has also used for rotorcraft from turbojet, experienced accidents or incidents
developed preliminary scaling methods turbofan, and turboprop engines used associated with flight in SLD. The FAA
for SLD test applications and has for airplanes. The icing requirements originally considered including all new
developed large droplet algorithm pertaining to turboshaft engines are airplanes in the applicability for
improvements to its ice accretion unchanged and require that turboshaft § 25.1420, regardless of MTOW;
prediction code by adding SLD engines operate safely throughout the however, the projected costs of
subroutines. Other ice accretion code icing conditions defined in part 29, extending the rule to include airplanes
developers have incorporated SLD appendix C. Section 33.68 now requires with a MTOW of 60,000 pounds or
capabilities in their respective that turbojet, turbofan, and turboprop greater exceeded the projected benefits
computational tools. A number of icing engines not installed on rotorcraft due to the positive in-service history
wind tunnel owners have tested SLD operate safely throughout the icing (i.e., lack of accidents) of these airplanes
icing conditions in their facilities and conditions defined in part 25, appendix in SLD.
are capable of performing tests for at C, the SLD conditions defined in part
The commenters did not present any
least a portion of the appendix O 25, appendix O, and the mixed phase
new data or information that was not
environments. and ice crystal conditions defined in
part 33, appendix D. discussed within the IPHWG, or
Regarding flight testing, § 25.1420
requires that applicants provide analysis discussed within the NPRM. The
Applicability of Proposed § 25.1420 commenters that opposed limiting the
to establish that ice protection for the
various airplane components is In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to applicability of the rule suggested that
adequate, taking into account the add a new § 25.1420. Proposed lift and control surface size, or wing
various operational configurations. § 25.1420 would have required specific chord length, are important parameters
Section 25.1420 also describes flight airplanes certified for flight in icing affecting sensitivity to a given ice
testing in natural or simulated icing conditions to be capable of either: (1) accretion. They based their opposition
conditions, as necessary, to support the Operating safely within the new SLD on airplane weight, in part, because the
analysis. The IPHWG acknowledged the icing conditions defined in part 25, ratio of wing and control surface sizes
difficulties in flight testing in natural appendix O; (2) operating safely in a to airplane weight varies between
SLD, and agreed it would not be portion of the new appendix O airplane designs.
specifically required under § 25.1420. conditions, with the capability to detect We agree that design features such as
We concur, and have left flight testing when conditions beyond those used for control surface size and wing chord
as an option in the regulation. Until the certification have been encountered, length are important parameters, which
engineering tools become more mature, and then safely exit all icing conditions; can affect the sensitivity of a wing to the
flight tests in natural appendix O icing or (3) have a means to detect when icing conditions described in part 25,
conditions may be necessary to achieve appendix O icing conditions are appendix O. As proposed in the NPRM,
certification for unrestricted flight in encountered, and be capable of safely in order to issue a rule with estimated
appendix O conditions in accordance exiting all icing conditions. The FAA costs commensurate with the estimated
with § 25.1420(a)(3). proposed to limit the applicability of benefits, the applicability of § 25.1420 is
§ 25.1420 to airplanes that have a
Proposed Revisions to § 33.68 Should limited based on airplane weight due to
maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) of
Not Apply to Engines Installed on the positive service histories of certified
less than 60,000 pounds, or airplanes
Rotorcraft airplanes.
equipped with reversible flight controls
Eurocopter and Turbomeca noted the regardless of MTOW. If future designs for larger airplanes
proposed part 33 changes would apply The applicability of § 25.1420 was contain novel or unusual design features
to all turbine engines, including discussed within the IPHWG and that affect this successful in-service
turboshaft engines intended for consensus could not be reached. A history, and those design features make
installation in rotorcraft. The proposed discussion of this issue was provided in the airplane more susceptible to the
the NPRM under the heading effects of flight in SLD icing conditions,
revision to § 33.68 would require all

turbine engines to be capable of ‘‘Differences from the ARAC the FAA can issue special conditions to
operating in the extended icing Recommendations.’’ Bombardier, ALPA, provide adequate safety standards. The
conditions defined in part 25, appendix EASA, Goodrich, Gulfstream, the NTSB, FAA issues special conditions in
and the TCCA provided comments to accordance with § 21.16. No changes
7 A copy of this report is available in the rule the NPRM that supported the majority have been made to the applicability of
Docket No. FAA–2010–0636. position of the IPHWG, questioning the § 25.1420 as a result of these comments.
Clarification of Definitions 23 airplanes to the applicability, as that reports of dual engine flameouts in high
Embraer noted that § 25.1420(b) uses is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. altitude icing conditions believed to
the terms ‘‘simulated icing tests’’ and However, we chartered an Aviation include ice crystals. AIA, Airbus,
‘‘simulated ice shapes’’ in various Rulemaking Committee (ARC) to review Boeing, and GAMA supported the
subparagraphs. Embraer suggested that the IPHWG’s rulemaking addition of mixed phase and ice crystal
subparagraphs § 25.1420(b)(1) and (b)(2) recommendations for part 25 and to conditions, such as those defined in part
use the phrase ‘‘artificial ice’’ as defined make similar recommendations for part 33, appendix D.
23. The ARC transmitted a report Honeywell commented that the
in Advisory Circular (AC) 25–28,
detailing part 23 rulemaking current lack of and/or immature state of
Compliance of Transport Category
recommendations to the FAA in a letter engine test facilities to demonstrate
Airplanes with Certification
dated February 19, 2011, and provided compliance to part 33, appendix D,
Requirements for Flight in Icing
supplemental recommendations in a could result in a significant increase in
Conditions, instead of ‘‘simulated icing
letter dated April 27, 2011. The ARC an applicant’s activities to show
tests.’’
We do not agree. Section transmitted its recommendations for a compliance because of the additional
25.1420(b)(1) and (b)(2) describe test final task in early 2012. We are studying flight testing required to locate the ice
these recommendations and may pursue crystal conditions. Honeywell also
methods, not the resulting ice shapes.
additional rulemaking for part 23 noted that flying in actual ice crystal
The terminology ‘‘simulated icing tests’’
airplanes. conditions would put the flightcrew at
is used in § 25.1420 consistently with
We agree that severe icing conditions, considerable risk. Honeywell
§ 25.1419. We added definitions for
including SLD, can create dangerous recommended that appendix D be
‘‘Simulated Ice Shape’’ and ‘‘Simulated
flight conditions for both current and removed until test facilities have
Icing Test’’ to § 25.1420 that are
future airplanes. However, we do not developed the capabilities to run tests
consistent with previously issued
agree that the part 25 and part 33 rule for ice crystal conditions. Honeywell
guidance.
changes discussed in this amendment also suggested that the FAA make
AIA, Boeing, and GAMA suggested a
should apply to existing airplanes. Such research funds available to facilities to
clarification to the definition of
a retroactive application would, in develop this capability.
‘‘reversible flight controls.’’ AIA and
effect, be changing the certification basis We agree, in part. We agree that only
GAMA suggested that the addition of
of operational airplanes to correct an limited capability exists for testing
servo tab inputs in the examples
unsafe condition, something generally engines in ice crystal conditions. We
provides a more complete and accurate
done by airworthiness directive (AD). also agree that flightcrews unnecessarily
description.
To address the unsafe condition, we operating in icing conditions puts them
We agree and have clarified the
have already issued ADs to mandate at risk. We do not agree, however, that
definition of ‘‘reversible flight controls’’
procedures to activate the ice protection appendix D should be removed until
to include the example of servo tab
equipment at the first sign of ice test facilities develop the capabilities to
inputs. In addition, since the definition
accretion, and to incorporate procedures run tests for ice crystal conditions, or
of ‘‘reversible flight controls’’ is
into the AFM so the flightcrew can that FAA make funds available for
necessary to determine the applicability
identify when they are in severe icing research to develop these capabilities.
of § 25.1420, we added the definition to
conditions that exceed certificated Section 33.68(e) allows for certification
§ 25.1420.
limitations, and safely exit. demonstration by test, analysis, or
Applicability of Proposed Appendix O New airworthiness standards are not combination of the two. Consistent with
Icing Conditions to Part 23 Airplanes intended to correct an unsafe condition; ARAC Engine Harmonization Working
and Previously Certified Part 25 rather, they are intended to improve the Group (EHWG) recommendations, until
Airplanes level of safety for new airplane designs. ice crystal tools and test techniques
The NTSB and a private citizen In the context of SLD, we are have been developed and validated, the
commented that the icing conditions considering operational rules to engine manufacturer may use a
proposed in appendix O should be mandate certain elements of the comparative analysis to specific field
applicable to part 23 airplanes because airworthiness standards adopted in this events. This analysis should show that
they are the type of airplanes most rulemaking for previously certified the new engine cycle or design feature,
affected by flight into icing conditions. airplanes. However, those requirements or both, would result in acceptable
The NTSB also stated that the proposed are beyond the scope of this rulemaking engine operation when operating in the
rule should be expanded beyond newly and require separate rulemaking action. ice crystal environment defined in
certified airplanes to include all deice appendix D to part 33. This comparative
boot-equipped airplanes currently in Applicability of Part 33, Appendix D, to analysis should also take into account
service that are certified for flight in § 25.1093, Induction System Icing both suspected susceptible design
icing conditions (reference NTSB Safety Protection, and § 33.68, Induction features, as well as mitigating design
Recommendation A–07–16).8 The NTSB System Icing features. We did not change the rule
pointed out SLD is an atmospheric The NTSB supported changes to based on this comment.
condition that can create dangerous §§ 33.68 and 33.77, noting that since we GSIS suggested that provisions be
flight conditions for both the current issued an icing-related AD for the made for a detect-and-exit strategy for
fleet of aircraft and newly certified Beechjet 400A no additional reports of part 33, appendix D, conditions; similar
aircraft. unsafe icing conditions on that airplane to what was proposed in the NPRM for
Regarding the applicability of have been noted. The FAA infers that part 25, appendix O, conditions.
proposed appendix O to part 23 the NTSB was referring to AD 2006–21– We disagree. We do not believe part
airplanes, we disagree with adding part 02.9 That AD was issued following 33, appendix D, conditions can be
detected with enough time to exit before
8 NTSB Safety Recommendation A–07–16 is 9 AD 2006–21–02, Docket No. FAA–2006–26004, damage occurs. Therefore, a detect-and-
available in the rule Docket No. FAA–2010–0636 published in the Federal Register on October 10,
and on the Internet at http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/ 2006 (71 FR 29363), is applicable to Raytheon airplanes; and Raytheon (Mitsubishi) Model MU–
recletters/2007/A07_12_17.pdf. (Beech) Model 400, 400A, and 400T series 300 airplanes.
exit strategy for part 33, appendix D, loss. Although these nine events are of category airplanes. In addition, the
conditions is inappropriate. As concern, the EHWG did not judge them engine requirements in §§ 33.68 and
proposed in the NPRM, the mixed phase to be safety significant. 33.77 for operation in all icing
and ice crystal icing conditions defined An additional 14 in-flight events were conditions still apply to engines
in part 33, appendix D, have been added not clearly identifiable as SLD events installed on part 25 airplanes regardless
to §§ 25.1093(b)(1) and 33.68(a). but were described as heavy icing below of the airplanes’ MTOW. The
22,000 feet and resulted in fan damage applicability of appendix O conditions
Applicability of Proposed Appendix O and/or high vibrations. These events did in § 25.1093(b) as a function of airplane
to § 25.1093, Induction System Icing not clearly fall within conditions weight is consistent with the revised
Protection, and § 33.68, Induction defined in either appendix C or applicability of § 25.1420, which
System Icing appendix O. However, the general establishes minimum airworthiness
AIA, Airbus, Boeing, and GAMA description of the icing conditions and standards for detection and safe
provided comments that there are no engine damage is consistent with operation in appendix O conditions.
known events that support a safety reports of engine damage that occurred Airplanes that have been susceptible to
concern due to engine induction system within the icing conditions defined in performance issues while operating in
icing in SLD aloft. In particular, the appendix O, so those might have been SLD icing conditions have been smaller
EHWG evaluated known icing-related SLD events. airplanes with a MTOW less than
engine events since 1988 and found no After reviewing the data, the EHWG 60,000 pounds.
events in SLD aloft. The EHWG credited clearly identified SLD as a threat for Section 25.1093(b) was revised to
this result to the current rigorous engine damage during ground provide relief for larger airplanes
compliance to part 25, appendix C, operations. Furthermore, the EHWG because of the successful in-service
conditions for engines. The commenters could not rule out SLD as a potential in- history of existing larger airplane
believe that the safety of these systems flight safety threat, and decided to designs and larger airplane engine inlet
for flight in appendix O conditions has include it as part of its designs. As previously discussed, the
already been proven by service history. recommendations to the FAA. As changes to the requirements in §§ 33.68
The commenters state that continuing to proposed in the NPRM, the part 25, and 33.77 are intended to improve the
certify future systems to the appendix O, SLD icing conditions have level of safety for turbine engines used
requirements for appendix C icing been added to § 33.68. Also, as proposed on all airplanes, including large
conditions, in conjunction with in the NPRM, § 33.77 contains airplanes, while operating in SLD
consideration of excellent service requirements to demonstrate engine conditions. If future designs for larger
history of similar designs in appendix O capability to ingest the applicable airplanes contain novel or unusual
conditions, should be acceptable minimum ice slab defined in Table 1 of design features that affect this
assurance of the safety of future designs. § 33.77. The ice slab sizes defined in successful in-service history, and those
The commenters suggested that Table 1 of § 33.77 are a function of the design features make the airplane more
consideration of the icing conditions engine inlet diameter. Turbojet, susceptible to the effects of flight in SLD
defined in appendix O be removed from turbofan, and turboprop engine icing conditions, the FAA can issue
§ 25.1093. manufacturers must demonstrate, in special conditions to provide adequate
We agree that there are no known part, that the engine will continue to safety standards.
events that support a safety concern due operate throughout its power range in Boeing, AIA, and GAMA also
to engine induction system icing in SLD the icing conditions defined in part 25, provided comments on the results of an
aloft. However, there have been reports appendix O, and following ingestion of SLD analysis, including the use of the
of engine fan damage or high vibration an ice slab that is a function of the NASA Lewis Ice Accretion Program,
while operating in SLD icing conditions. engine inlet diameter. The changes to commonly referred to as LEWICE. The
The ARAC database on engine events the requirements in §§ 33.68 and 33.77 analysis yielded overly conservative
contains 231 icing events reported by are intended to improve the level of accreted ice mass calculations resulting
engine manufacturers from safety for turbojet, turbofan, and in large amounts of ice on the radome.
approximately 1988 through 2003, and turboprop engines used on transport The results from this analysis indicated
includes part 25, appendix C; part 25, category airplanes in icing conditions, to Boeing that radome ice shedding
appendix O; and part 33, appendix D in part because of reports of engine would be a concern, and it would
events. Although the intent of the event damage or high engine vibrations while require ice protection on the currently
database was to focus on icing events operating in SLD conditions. unprotected radome surfaces to reduce
outside of appendix C, there are several We agree large airplanes that have ice build-up to acceptable limits. The
appendix C events included in this likely encountered appendix O weight increase for radome ice
database. The event database does not conditions have had a successful in- protection equipment would result in
include any accidents. service history with no clearly increased fuel burn and increased
The EHWG identified 46 part 25, identifiable safety significant events. operational costs that were not included
appendix O (SLD) events. All events After considering the comments in the IPHWG economic analysis.
occurred on the ground and resulted in received, we revised § 25.1093(b), Boeing also stated that most large
fan damage and/or high vibrations so a compared to what was proposed in the airplanes are operating without
precise effect on the safety of these NPRM, so consideration of the icing restrictions today and are safely
events was not discernible. conditions described in appendix O encountering SLD conditions.
Additionally, the EHWG identified does not apply to airplanes with a Analytical methods used by Boeing to
nine additional events that it thought MTOW equal to or greater than 60,000 determine SLD ice accretions on
might have been related to operations in pounds. As proposed in the NPRM, the radomes show considerably higher ice
SLD icing conditions: Four were in- applicability of the icing conditions mass accretions than either past
flight and all nine were on tail mounted described in part 25, appendix C; part calculations or past experience has
engine configurations. Again, the events 33, appendix D; and falling and blowing indicated for other icing conditions.
resulted in fan damage and/or high snow remain applicable to all turbine These analyses were never presented to
vibrations, with indeterminable power engine installations on transport the IPHWG and details were not
included with Boeing’s comments to Section 25.773 does not require the one suspected SLD event 10 included in
support the FAA’s evaluation of windshield to be completely free of ice the IPHWG list of applicable events, the
Boeing’s methods. As previously in all icing conditions. Therefore, this NTSB Performance Group reported that
discussed, we revised § 25.1093(b) requirement does not preclude using ice the flight data recorder derived drag
compared to what was proposed in the accreting in certain locations on the increment was much higher than an
NPRM. For the purposes of compliance windshield as an indication that the increment measured in flight test with
with § 25.1093(b), the icing conditions airplane is in icing conditions beyond intercycle ice (by a factor of 2 near the
defined in appendix O are not those in which it is approved to operate. time where the pilot lost control of the
applicable to airplanes with a MTOW We did not change the rule based on airplane). The NTSB report does not
equal to or greater than 60,000 pounds. these comments. speculate what caused the large drag
To show compliance with § 25.1093(b), Applicability of Proposed Appendix O increment, but it could have been
analysis may be used for the radome as to § 25.1323, Airspeed Indicating airframe SLD ice accretion, propeller
a potential airframe ice source. For System, § 25.1324, Angle of Attack SLD ice accretion, or a combination of
compliance with § 25.1093(b), System, and § 25.1325, Static Pressure both. In addition, appendix J in AC 20–
applicants may use qualitative analysis Systems 73A, Aircraft Ice Protection, dated
supported by similarity to a previous August 16, 2006, documents a flight test
design with a successful service history AIA, Airbus, Boeing, and GAMA
commented that there are no known encounter in which suspected SLD
to show that ice accretions ingested into caused a severe performance penalty
the engine from the new airplane design events that support an in-flight safety
concern for angle of attack systems in due to propeller ice accretion. FAA
will be less than the ice slab size research tests, documented in report
presented in § 33.77 Table 1, ‘‘Minimum SLD aloft. They believe the safety of
these component systems for flight in DOT/FAA/AR–06/60, Propeller Icing
Ice Slab Dimensions Based on Engine Tunnel Test on a Full-Scale Turboprop
Inlet Size.’’ appendix O conditions has already been
proven by service history. The Engine,11 have duplicated the event
Applicability of Proposed Appendix O commenters recommended the reference discussed in the AC, and showed that
to § 25.773, Pilot Compartment View to appendix O be removed from the propeller ice accretion and resulting
requirements in §§ 25.1323, 25.1324, propeller efficiency loss is greater in
AIA, Airbus, Boeing, and GAMA SLD compared to appendix C
and 25.1325.
commented that there are no known We do not agree. If certification for conditions.
events that support a safety concern due flight in icing is desired, part 25
to windshield icing in SLD aloft. The After further consideration, we have
requires the airplane to be capable of revised § 25.929 to require a means to
commenters state the safety of these safely operating in icing conditions. The
systems for flight in appendix O prevent or remove hazardous ice
airplane and its components are taken accumulations that could form in the
conditions has been proven by service into account during flight in icing
history. They believe that continuing to icing conditions defined in appendix C
certification programs. For these and the portions of appendix O for
certify future systems to the reasons, all icing conditions should be
requirements for appendix C icing which the airplane is approved for
considered. Sections 25.1323, 25.1324, flight. As compared to the NPRM, the
conditions, in conjunction with and 25.1325 include considerations for
consideration of excellent service phrase ‘‘defined in appendices C and O’’
the SLD icing environment defined in has been replaced with ‘‘defined in
history of similar designs in appendix O part 25, appendix O.
conditions, should be an acceptable appendix C and in the portions of
assurance of the safety of future designs. Applicability of Proposed Appendix O appendix O of this part for which the
One commenter, an individual, to § 25.929, Propeller Deicing airplane is approved for flight.’’
commented that § 25.773 should not be AIA and GAMA commented that A private citizen commented that the
changed, as ice accretion on the there are no known events that support words ‘‘would jeopardize engine
windshield is one of the few indications a safety concern with propeller icing in performance’’ in the last portion of
used to recognize the condition. SLD. In particular, AIA and GAMA § 25.929(a) makes this requirement
We do not agree. Section 25.773 is noted the EHWG evaluated all known specific to engine performance. The
intended to ensure that a clear portion icing-related events since 1988 and commenter requested that the words be
of the windshield is maintained in icing found no events in SLD aloft. The stricken from the regulation. The
conditions, which enhances safety in commenters credit the current rigorous commenter did not provide justification
icing conditions. For airplanes certified compliance using appendix C to substantiate his proposed change.
to detect appendix O conditions, or a conditions for this result. The We do not agree. First, we did not
portion of appendix O conditions, and commenters believe the safety of these propose a change to this portion of the
required to exit all icing conditions systems for flight in appendix O rule. Second, we reviewed the wording
when the icing conditions used for conditions has already been proven by presented by the IPHWG and agree with
certification have been exceeded, the service history. They further believe that its intent and its phrasing. Its
pilot must have a clear view out the continuing to certify future systems to applicability is broader than just an
windshield; not only when the airplane the requirements for appendix C icing engine rule. We did not change the rule
is in appendix O icing conditions, but conditions, in conjunction with based on this comment.
also during the time it takes to detect consideration of excellent service
and exit all icing conditions within history of similar designs in appendix O 10 NTSB Investigation No. DFCA01MA031,
which the airplane is not approved to conditions, should be acceptable
Embraer EMB–120 Zero Injury Incident Near West

operate. For airplanes not certified with assurance for the safety of future Palm Beach, Florida on March 19, 2001, http://
the detect-and-exit strategy, appendix C designs. www.ntsb.gov.
11 FAA Data Report DOT/FAA/AR–06/60,
and appendix O conditions need to be We do not agree. Propeller icing is
Propeller Icing Tunnel Test on a Full-Scale
considered for the entire time the typically not implicated in events Turboprop Engine, dated March 2010. A copy of
airplane is in the applicable icing because ice accretion on the propeller is this report is available in the rule Docket No. FAA–
conditions. usually not visible in flight. However, in 2010–0636.
Engine and Engine Installation §§ 25.1093(b)(2) and 25.1521(c)(3) based A private citizen suggested a word
Requirements on these comments, to reflect these change to our proposed wording of
The RAA commented that current changes and recent developments with § 33.68(d). In the NPRM, we proposed to
facilities lack the capability to test large EASA. change § 33.68(d) to state that the engine
AIA, GAMA, and a private citizen should be run at ground idle speed for
turbofans at very cold temperatures,
commented that the MVD for high LWC a minimum of 30 minutes in each of the
and, while new sites may come on-line
in Table 2 of § 33.68 may be difficult to icing conditions shown in Table 2. The
in the future, such facilities could not be
achieve in practice due to icing facility commenter suggested replacing the
constructed to comply with the
constraints, and may result in repetitive phrase ‘‘should be run’’ with ‘‘must
proposed test conditions. The RAA also
equivalent level of safety (ELOS) demonstrate the ability to acceptably
pointed out that future airplanes would
findings. Expanding the upper limits of operate.’’ The commenter noted that use
not be certified for operations below
droplet size ranges will allow flexibility
zero degrees Fahrenheit when ‘‘freezing of the word ‘‘should’’ is ambiguous and
in test demonstrations. An upper limit
fog’’ is present, so it would create a contrary to existing § 33.68, which uses
of 30 microns for glaze ice conditions
restriction to what is currently the word ‘‘must.’’ Furthermore, the
(points 1 and 3 in Table 1) and 23
considered a safe operating condition. commenter suggested that eliminating
microns for rime ice conditions (point 2
Airbus, AIA, Boeing, GAMA, GE, and the word ‘‘run’’ would be more
in Table 1) can be accepted if the critical
a private citizen suggested that the consistent with the demonstration
point analysis shows that the engine is
choice of ambient temperature for the tested to equivalent or greater severity. methods for snow, ice, and large drop
ground freezing fog rime icing AIA, GAMA, and a private citizen glaze ice conditions (i.e., test, analysis,
demonstration should be driven by also suggested changes to the drop or combination of both) shown in Table
critical point analysis, as required by diameters in Table 1 of § 33.68, noting 2 of § 33.68.
§ 33.68(b)(1). This analysis could also be that practical application of the required We agree and have clarified
used to show that a more critical point conditions dictates a wider acceptable §§ 25.1093(b)(2) and 33.68(d) to state
does not exist at temperatures below the droplet diameter range, without that the engine must operate at ground
Table 1, condition 2, test temperatures measurably impacting the severity of the idle speed in the specified icing
in § 33.68. Airbus, AIA, Boeing, GAMA, intended engine test demonstration. conditions.
GE, a private citizen, and RAA further We agree. Although the commenters
suggested that the applicant should be did not provide any data to validate the Alternatives to Rulemaking
permitted to use analysis to demonstrate suggested change in drop diameters, we
safe operation of the engine at are aware of test facility limitations, and Several commenters said that
temperatures below the required test concur that the upper tolerance of drop operational solutions have proven to be
demonstration temperature. If safe size is limiting for some test facilities. extremely effective in managing weather
operation is shown by this analysis, a As a result, the proposed ±3 micron related risks (e.g., thunderstorms and
temperature limitation would not be droplet tolerance has been removed and windshear). They suggested that the
required for the AFM. a range for the MVDs is specified FAA should have been, or should start,
Airbus also suggested a further change instead. This will still provide an placing at least as much emphasis on
to § 25.1093(b)(2) to ensure that the test adequate safety margin. Likewise, the advancing alternatives to rulemaking as
is performed in accordance with aircraft upper drop size limit has also been it does on creating new certification
procedures to provide adequate increased to represent current test requirements. ALPA encouraged
conservatism. These procedures are facility capabilities while preserving an continuous research and development
defined in collaboration with the engine adequate safety margin. Section 33.68, of technical systems that would
manufacturer and may be defined on the Table 1, has been revised to reflect these automatically detect the presence of
basis of engine certification or changes. hazardous ice, measure the rate of
development test results. AIA and GAMA also suggested that accumulation, and then alert the crew as
EASA and the FAA have recently the ground test conditions in Table 1, appropriate to take action in order to
addressed cold ground fog conditions. condition (iii), of § 25.1093 and Table 2, avoid a potentially unsafe flight
Specifically, the choice of ambient condition 4, of § 33.68(d) should have a condition. AirDat, LLC, commented that
temperature for the ground freezing fog consistent range of droplet sizes based the FAA may have overlooked state-of-
rime icing demonstration should be on the values from part 25, appendix O. the-art meteorological tools, including
driven by critical point analysis (as We agree. We changed Table 2, airborne sensors, that are commercially
required by § 33.68(b)(1)). We condition 4, in § 33.68 by removing the available today, fully deployed, and in
determined this analysis may also be maximum drop diameter so it is operation. AIA, Airbus, Boeing, and
used to show that at colder temperatures consistent with Table 1, condition (iii), GAMA commented that the IPHWG did
below the Table 1, condition 2, test in § 25.1093. Table 2 in § 33.68 was also not thoroughly consider any alternatives
temperatures in § 33.68, a more critical revised to correct the conversion of to new rulemaking because the tasking
point does not exist. The analysis may degrees Centigrade to degrees statement did not include this option.
also be used to demonstrate safe Fahrenheit.
operation of the engine at temperatures A private citizen remarked that We agree in part. We agree that
below the required test demonstration. including parenthetical examples in the careful operations and new technologies
If an applicant does not show unlimited rule text of § 33.68(a)(3) was not helpful may often enhance safety. However, we
cold temperature operation, then the and may be construed to be note that rulemaking is at the discretion
minimum ambient temperature that was exclusionary of other pertinent, topical of the agency, and we have exercised
demonstrated through test and analysis considerations. Furthermore, their our discretionary rulemaking authority
should also be a limitation. Finally, the absence does not diminish the clarity or in this instance. This rule provides
acceleration to takeoff power or thrust understanding of the requirement. additional safety for the flying public
should be accomplished in accordance We agree. We removed the when icing conditions are encountered,
with the procedures defined in the parenthetical examples from the and it will improve the level of safety
AFM. As a result, we changed regulatory text in § 33.68. of future airplane designs.
Applicability of Mixed Phase and Ice stream. Airbus mentioned that one test Foster Technology, LLC (Foster), is an
Crystal Conditions to Airspeed facility has made significant engineering consulting firm that has
Indicating Systems improvements in its capability to filed a provisional patent that includes
We received several comments reproduce icing conditions but it is a methodology for detecting ice over a
suggesting that the mixed phase and ice limited by the size of the test article it pitot inlet, providing a corrected
crystal environment in part 33, can accommodate. However, no test airspeed, and removing ice deposits.
appendix D, should be used instead of facilities are currently capable of Foster suggested that the FAA should
the mixed phase and ice crystal reproducing the full range of icing certify its new methodology.
environment that was proposed in Table conditions and flight conditions
We agree that existing regulations
1 of § 25.1323. AIA, Airbus, Boeing, and required by part 33, appendix D.
Considering the state of the art of the would allow certification of a new pitot
GAMA stated the NPRM acknowledged probe with ice detection capability.
new information is available to guide engineering tools, there is a need for an
agreed means of compliance. However, we would certify a new pitot
development of an ice crystal envelope probe as part of a product’s type design
appropriate for evaluation of airspeed We agree that the mixed phase and ice
crystal environment in part 33, to be approved for installation, not the
indication systems. They also noted that methodology described by Foster. If
proposed Table 1 of § 25.1323 does not appendix D, should be used instead of
the mixed phase and ice crystal Foster seeks independent certification of
reflect the current understanding of the a new pitot probe, we suggest Foster
ice crystal environment, nor does it environment proposed in Table 1 of
§ 25.1323. Therefore, §§ 25.1323 and complete and submit an application for
include known pitot icing events, which
25.1324 have been revised to add a a supplemental type certificate, at
are published in ‘‘Interim Report no. 2,’’
requirement to prevent malfunctions in which time we will evaluate the new
Bureau D’Enquetes et D’Analyses pour
la securite d’aviation civile (BEA) F– the mixed phase and ice crystal probe.
GZCP.12 GSIS recommended that Table environment defined in part 33,
appendix D. Heavy Rain Requirements for Airspeed
1 of § 25.1323, which defines a subset of Indication and Angle of Attack Systems
With regard to comments suggesting
part 33, appendix D, conditions, should
that testing at sea level atmospheric Airbus and EASA fully supported a
be removed. Instead, the rule should
conditions may not be a conservative new requirement to cover the heavy rain
require that airspeed indication systems
assumption, or that ice crystal
must not malfunction in any of the conditions being considered in the
concentrations at an exterior mounted
conditions specified in appendix D. NPRM. Airbus commented that some
EASA stated that the proposed probe could be higher than the free
testing at high LWCs, such as those
environment in Table 1 of § 25.1323 stream conditions, we agree. The
conditions defined in part 33, appendix proposed in the NPRM, would help to
would not address known events of ensure that water drainage in rain
airspeed indicating system D, are atmospheric conditions. These
atmospheric conditions include conditions, especially at takeoff, is
malfunctions. EASA also fully adequate. A private citizen commented
supported including in part 25, the parameters for total water content as a
function of temperature, altitude, and that the maximum freezing rain static
proposed mixed phase and ice crystal temperature under consideration would
parameters in proposed part 33, horizontal extent. We also agree that
altitude may be an important parameter. be unlikely to result in ice accretion and
appendix D. TCCA suggested that the is not in line with figure 4 of appendix
FAA reconsider the icing conditions for Altitude is a parameter identified in part
33, appendix D, and must be considered O. AIA, Boeing, and GAMA commented
the airspeed indicating system proposed that the proposed expanded parameters,
in the NPRM within Table 1 of when developing the test conditions
and supporting analysis necessary to the source of which was not provided,
§ 25.1323 and include the ¥60 °C
show compliance. do not appear congruous with hard data
conditions described in part 33,
We also agree that depending on from extensive icing research. GSIS
appendix D, instead.
Airbus supported the application of airplane size and the location of the commented that it wanted to
appendix D icing conditions to pitot and probe, the ice water content at the probe understand how the specific values for
pitot-static probes, but pointed out it is may be higher than the ice water LWC, horizontal extent, and mean
necessary to develop an acceptable content values defined in part 33, droplet diameter were determined and
means of compliance that takes into appendix D. Since part 33, appendix D, what the technical justifications are for
account the capabilities of the existing describes atmospheric conditions, the these levels.
engineering tools (for example, models potential for higher ice crystal
We consider analysis of heavy rain
concentrations at the probe location
and icing tunnels) and provide guidance conditions as proposed in the NPRM to
compared to the atmospheric
on these new requirements. GSIS also be necessary to substantiate that water
concentrations defined in part 33,
commented that recent testing suggests drainage from the airspeed indication
appendix D, must be considered when
testing at sea level atmospheric and angle of attack systems is adequate.
developing the test conditions and
conditions may not be a conservative If the water drainage is inadequate, then
supporting analysis necessary to show
assumption for ice crystal testing. the residual water may freeze as the
NRC noted the requirements of compliance. Installation effects could be
evaluated with a combination of pitot probes or angle of attack sensors
§ 25.1323 do not appear to take into are subjected to below freezing
computational fluid dynamics codes
account the effects of displacing the free temperatures as the airplane climbs
and icing tunnels. Devices mounted on
stream ice water content around the following takeoff. The heavy rain
smaller surfaces could be assessed in an
fuselage of the airplane. If the probe is conditions are not intended as an icing
icing tunnel. However, if the device is
in a region affected by this, then the condition as described in the NPRM.

mounted on the fuselage and tunnel
concentration detected by the probe The heavy rain LWC is based on heavy
blockage effects would preclude a
would be higher than that of the free rainfall data documented in MIL–STD–
meaningful icing tunnel test, then codes
12 This report can be found on the BEA Web site that adequately predict the shadowing 210C, Military Standard: Climatic
at http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2009/f- and concentration effects may be Information to Determine Design and
cp090601e2.en/pdf/f-cp090601e2.en.pdf. acceptable compliance methods. Test Requirements for Military Systems
and Equipment.13 The same rain data on the airplane. As a result, failure to nautical miles. Based on these facts,
was used for the AIA Propulsion provide proper pitot probe deicing may Airbus concluded that short cloud
Committee Study, Project PC 338–1 not be detected. EASA suggested that a exposures are the most critical.
documented in part 33, appendix B. new regulation be created to explicitly However, the new appendix D
Heavy rain conditions have been added cover abnormal functioning of the definition implies that the longest
to §§ 25.1323 and 25.1324. However, the heating system for externally mounted clouds are the most critical for engines
conditions have been revised compared probes. and auxiliary power units (APUs), and
to the conditions proposed in the NPRM We do not agree. If insufficient adds a factor of 2 to the conservatism of
by removing temperature as a functioning of an externally mounted the definitions already defined in EASA
parameter. probe creates an unsafe operating documents CS–E 780, Tests in Ice-
condition, then warning information Forming Conditions, and AMC 25.1419,
Applicability of the Icing Requirements must be provided to the flightcrew in Ice Protection.14 Airbus commented that
in Part 25, Appendix O, and Part 33, accordance with § 25.1309(c). Since we it is inappropriate to add an additional
Appendix D, to All Airspeed Indicating did not propose warning information factor of 2 to the icing conditions for
Systems specific to failure modes for certain long exposures in appendix D icing
EASA and TCCA suggested that externally mounted probes in the NPRM conditions considering the uncertainty
§§ 25.1323 and 25.1324 be revised to and the public did not have the in the new rule.
include the icing certification of all opportunity to comment, we consider We do not agree. We acknowledge
external probes for flight instruments. the EASA proposal to be beyond the that a TAT sensor anomaly may be one
EASA proposed a specific regulation scope of this rulemaking. No changes to indicator of ice crystals; however, it is
including, but not limited to, pitot, the final rule have been made as a result not a very reliable indicator. The
pitot-static, static, angle-of-attack, of EASA’s proposal. amount and concentration of ice crystals
sideslip angle, and temperature sensors. required to create a TAT sensor anomaly
The regulation proposed by EASA Expand the Parameters for Part 33,
is not understood. Also, the TAT sensor
would require addressing the icing Appendix D
anomaly was only present in a portion
conditions in part 25, appendix C; part AIA, Boeing, and GAMA commented of the engine events in the EHWG
25, appendix O; and part 33, appendix that part 33, appendix D, should be database. Therefore, the TAT anomaly
D. Similarly, since total air temperature expanded to reflect new engine power data cannot accurately show cloud
(TAT) is an input to calculating true loss and airspeed data loss events in ice extent. Additionally, detailed review of
airspeed, Goodrich requested crystal conditions. Appendix D is based the event data indicated that once the
clarification of whether or not TAT on a theoretical model, and Airbus TAT probe iced over enough to cause an
sensors should be considered part of the agreed that the conditions in appendix indication anomaly, the engine often
airspeed indicating system when D should be applied. would demonstrate a power upset very
addressing ‘‘preventing malfunction’’ in We do not agree that appendix D soon after the TAT probe anomaly. This
part 25, appendix O, and part 33, should be expanded in this final rule. period of time was insufficient for the
appendix D, environments as described The majority of recent airspeed data pilot to take action since the ice
in § 25.1323(i). anomalies occurred within the altitude accretion within the engine had already
We do not agree with the commenters’ and temperature range described in part progressed to an advanced stage.
suggestions to include icing 33, appendix D. We know of only one Therefore, we concluded that TAT
requirements for all external probes and temporary loss of airspeed data event probe anomalies are poor precursor
sensors in §§ 25.1323 and 25.1324. just outside or at the perimeter of the indications of the ice crystal threat to
Section 25.1323(i) has traditionally altitude and temperature range in part engines, in terms of reliability of the
applied to pitot probes (indicated 33, appendix D. Other conditions indication and the time period in
airspeed), and the FAA did not propose described in appendix D, such as what advance of power loss. When
a change to this applicability in the the ice water content actually was establishing the cloud extent factor in
NPRM. As such, we did not intend to during the loss of airspeed data event, part 33, appendix D, the EHWG and
include TAT sensors, or other externally are unknown because it was not FAA did take into account EASA CS–E–
mounted instrument probes in measured. We agree that appendix D is 780 cloud definition requirements.
§ 25.1323(i). In addition, § 25.1324 was based on a theoretical atmospheric However, the EHWG was not able to
proposed specifically for angle-of-attack model. We are continuing to support the validate the analysis used to develop the
sensors. Revising §§ 25.1323 and research necessary to validate the part cloud extent factor in EASA CS–E–780.
25.1324 so that all externally mounted 33, appendix D, conditions with flight The cloud extent factor proposed by the
flight instrument probes and sensors test data, and it would be premature to EHWG for part 33, appendix D,
must operate in the various icing expand the appendix D environment at represents the most accurate cloud
conditions is beyond the scope of this this time. Expansion of part 33, extent factor that can be established
rulemaking. We did not change the rule appendix D, is out of scope of the using the available data. No changes
in response to these comments. originally proposed rulemaking. We did were made as a result of these
not change appendix D based on these comments.
Proposal To Add Indication System for
comments. Snecma commented that the y-axis
External Probes
Airbus commented that using the value in proposed part 33, appendix D,
EASA advised that some failures of EHWG event database and referring to figure D3, was incorrect. The value
the pitot probe heating resistance may the flight distance between a TAT should be 0.6 but the NPRM showed the
not be seen by the flightcrew due to the sensor anomaly and the engine event,
value as zero.
low current detection system installed one can see that almost half of the We concur. We also found that both
engine events occurred at a flight the x- and y-axis values proposed in the
13 A copy of MIL–STD–210C, dated January 9,
distance equal to or less than 10 NPRM were incorrect. We changed part
1987, is available in the rule Docket No. FAA–
2010–0636. MIL–STD–210 has since been
nautical miles from the occurrence of
superseded by MIL–HDBK–310, dated June 23, the TAT anomaly, with the majority of 14 Both of these documents are available on the
1997, which is also available in the rule docket. events happening within less than 4 EASA Web site at http://www.easa.europa.eu.
33, appendix D, figure D3, to depict the We proposed to retain the provision better aligns the definition of the takeoff
correct axis values. The lowest x-axis from Amendment 25–121 for not and final takeoff ice with that of the
value is now 1 and the lowest y-axis requiring compliance with § 25.251(b) takeoff path used for determining
value is now 0.6. through (e) in appendix C icing takeoff performance under §§ 25.111,
Several commenters noted that the conditions and extend it to include 25.113, and 25.115.
horizontal cloud length proposed in the appendix O icing conditions. Although
Request To Revise § 25.629
NPRM was stated in statute miles, and Amendment 25–121 only addressed
commented it should be provided in appendix C icing conditions, the TCCA commented that for airplanes
nautical miles. The commenters conclusion that compliance to exempt from § 25.1420, no evaluation of
suggested that changing to nautical § 25.251(b) through (e) need not be aeroelastic stability is required in
miles would make the distance shown in icing conditions was based on appendix O icing conditions. For that
measurement consistent with other a review of in-service experience in all reason, TCCA recommended that all
tables and figures in appendix D. icing conditions, not just appendix C icing considerations be included
We agree, and changed Table 1 to icing conditions. Therefore, including directly in § 25.629.
§ 25.251(b) through (e) within the We do not agree. Section 25.629(b)(1)
identify that the horizontal cloud length
exceptions listed in § 25.21(g) for requires aeroelastic stability evaluations
is depicted in nautical miles.
certifications is equally applicable to of the airplane in normal conditions.
Several commenters asked why we For airplanes approved for operation in
included the reference to ‘‘Reference 1’’ either appendix C or appendix O
conditions. No changes were made to icing conditions, ice accumulations are
in the text immediately following Table considered a normal condition under
1 in proposed part 33, appendix D, the final rule as a result of this
comment. the rule. Since § 25.629 does not
especially considering the material specifically distinguish between various
constituting ‘‘Reference 1’’ was not Dassault commented that the
proposed ice accretion definitions in types of icing conditions, all icing
identified anywhere within the NPRM. conditions for which the airplane is
part II of appendix O did not include an
We agree. We removed the reference approved are considered normal
ice accretion specific to the flight phase
to ‘‘Reference 1’’ from the final rule. conditions. For airplanes exempt from
covered by § 25.121(a). Dassault added
Establishing New Operating Limitations that the ice accretion used for showing § 25.1420, or for which approval is not
compliance with § 25.121(a)(1) should sought for flight in appendix O icing
TCCA stated that it was not clear if conditions, § 25.629(d)(3) requires that
be the accretion occurring between
the proposed requirements to exit all ice accumulations due to inadvertent
liftoff and the point at which the
icing conditions were applicable only to icing encounters must be considered for
landing gear is fully retracted. Dassault
in-flight icing encounters, or if they airplanes not approved for operation in
requested that the FAA add the
were also applicable to the takeoff phase icing conditions. The intent is to
following definition: ‘‘Takeoff—landing
of flight. consider ice accumulations due to
gear extended ice is the most critical ice
We agree that clarification is needed. accretion on unprotected surfaces, and inadvertent icing encounters from any
We changed § 25.1533(c) to clarify that any ice accretion on protected surfaces icing conditions for which the airplane
the additional limitations apply to all appropriate to normal ice protection is not approved, including appendix O
phases of flight. system operation, occurring between conditions. We did not change the rule
Additional Requirements for Safe liftoff and the point at which the as a result of this comment.
Operation landing gear is fully retracted, assuming Miscellaneous Issues
accretion starts at liftoff in the icing
AIA, Boeing, and GAMA commented conditions defined in Part I of this After the FAA issued the NPRM to
that proposed appendix O, paragraph (b) appendix.’’ this rulemaking, we issued a final rule
does not define takeoff ice accretions for Instead of adding a definition for the for Harmonization of Various
airplanes not certified for takeoff in ice accretion during the initial takeoff Airworthiness Standards for Transport
appendix O conditions. Therefore, they segment covered by § 25.121(a), we have Category Airplanes—Flight Rules
suggested that § 25.207(e)(1), which reconsidered this issue and determined (docket number FAA–2010–0310). That
defines stall warning requirements for that this flight segment does not last final rule revised § 25.21(g)(1) to add the
takeoff with ice accretions, should be long enough for significant ice requirement that the stall warning
added to the list of exceptions specified accretions to occur, even in appendix O margin requirements of § 25.207(c) and
in § 25.21(g)(3). icing conditions. Therefore, we added (d) must be met in the landing
We agree. We added the stall warning § 25.121(a) to the list of requirements in configuration in the icing conditions of
requirements in § 25.207(e)(1) to the § 25.21(g)(4) that do not have to be met appendix C. That final rule also revised
exceptions listed in § 25.21(g)(3). As a with appendix O ice accretions. We also § 25.253(c) to define the maximum
result, applicants will not need to agree that our proposed definition for speeds at which the static lateral-
determine the stall warning margin for takeoff ice was inadequate. We did not directional stability requirements of
takeoff with appendix O ice accretions intend to require that applicants include § 25.177(a) through (c) and the
for airplanes not certified to take off in the small effect (if any) of ice accretion directional and lateral control
appendix O icing conditions. from the point of liftoff to the end of the requirements of § 25.147(f) must be met
TCCA commented that exposure to takeoff distance in determining the in the icing conditions of appendix C.
appendix O icing conditions may result takeoff distance under § 25.113, which We have retained those changes in
in icing accretions further aft on the appendix C definition and the §§ 25.21(g)(2) and 25.253(c) of this final
fuselage, wing and stabilizer surfaces, proposed appendix O definition may rule. For consistency, we also revised
and control surfaces, beyond what have implied. Therefore, we revised the § 25.21(g)(4) to require that § 25.207(c)
would normally be obtained in definitions of takeoff ice and final and (d) must be met in the landing
appendix C conditions. Therefore, takeoff ice in part 25, appendix C and configuration in the appendix O icing
TCCA suggested that compliance to appendix O, such that the ice accretion conditions for which certification is
§ 25.251(b) through (e) should be shown begins at the end of the takeoff distance, sought. This revision is a logical
for appendix O conditions. not at the point of liftoff. This change outgrowth of the notice in this
rulemaking because the purpose of successful in-service history, and those Regulatory Notices and Analyses
§ 25.21(g)(4) is to ensure safe operation design features make the airplane more
Regulatory Evaluation
in appendix O conditions during all susceptible to the effects of flight in SLD
phases of flight, including the landing icing conditions, the FAA can issue Changes to Federal regulations must
phase. special conditions to provide adequate undergo several economic analyses.
The FAA finds that clarifying the safety standards. First, Executive Order 12866 and
applicability of the proposed icing A private citizen identified potential Executive Order 13563 direct that each
conditions to APU installations is flightcrew training issues associated Federal agency shall propose or adopt a
necessary. Section 25.901(d) currently with this rulemaking. The commenter regulation only upon a reasoned
requires that each auxiliary power unit noted that while practical test standards determination that the benefits of the
installation must meet the applicable for post-stall recovery procedures are intended regulation justify its costs.
provisions of the subpart. This clearly related to icing safety, they are Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act
requirement is unchanged by this not regulatory and may be changed of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) requires
rulemaking. The FAA considers without formal notice. The commenter agencies to analyze the economic
§ 25.1093(b) to be applicable to APU also remarked that a common pilot impact of regulatory changes on small
installations because they are turbine input characteristic to add power and entities. Third, the Trade Agreements
engines. An essential APU is used to maintain the pitch angle of the airplane Act (Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits agencies
provide air and/or power necessary to has been observed on the flight data from setting standards that create
maintain safe airplane operation. A non- recorder time histories related to several unnecessary obstacles to the foreign
essential APU is used to provide air icing related accidents. In some cases, commerce of the United States. In
and/or power as a matter of convenience nose up pitch input was applied even developing U.S. standards, this Trade
and may be shutdown without against the nose down force being Act requires agencies to consider
jeopardizing safe airplane operation. applied by the airplane’s ‘‘stick pusher’’ international standards and, where
The FAA has traditionally required that appropriate, that they be the basis of
that is designed to rapidly reduce the
essential APU installations continue to U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded
angle of attack. The commenter noted
operate in part 25, appendix C, icing Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L.
that these habit patterns are developed
conditions. Non-essential APU 104–4) requires agencies to prepare a
and reinforced as the required response
installations either have restricted written assessment of the costs, benefits,
in simulator training in accordance with
operation or are required to demonstrate and other effects of proposed or final
FAA practical test standards for stall
that operation in icing conditions does rules that include a Federal mandate
identification and recovery for
not affect the safe operation of the likely to result in the expenditure by
minimum altitude loss. For example,
airplane. References to part 25, State, local, or tribal governments, in the
‘‘Minimum altitude loss’’ is trained as
appendix O, and part 33, appendix D, aggregate, or by the private sector, of
‘‘zero altitude loss.’’
have been added to § 25.1093(b). $100 million or more annually (adjusted
As previously discussed, the The flightcrew training issues
addressed by the commenter are for inflation with base year of 1995).
applicability of appendix O conditions This portion of the preamble
in § 25.1093(b) excludes all turbine important safety considerations.
However, flightcrew training is beyond summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the
engine installations that are used on economic impacts of this final rule. We
airplanes with a MTOW equal to or the scope of this rulemaking because
this rulemaking addresses design suggest readers seeking greater detail
greater than 60,000 pounds. The FAA read the full regulatory evaluation, a
still considers APUs to be turbine requirements. On July 6, 2010, the FAA
published Safety Alert for Operators copy of which we have placed in the
engines that must comply with the docket for this rulemaking.
installation requirements in §§ 25.901 (SAFO) 10012. The SAFO discusses the
possible misinterpretation of the In conducting these analyses, the FAA
and 25.1093; therefore, this rulemaking has determined that this final rule: (1)
is not creating separate requirements for practical test standards language
‘‘minimal loss of altitude.’’ 15 Has benefits that justify its costs, (2) is
APU installations. Essential APU not an economically ‘‘significant
installations must continue to operate in In addition, on September 30, 2010,
regulatory action’’ as defined in section
the icing conditions applicable under the FAA established the Stick Pusher
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, (3) is ‘‘not
§ 25.1093(b). Non-essential APU and Adverse Weather Event Training
significant’’ as defined in DOT’s
installations must not affect the safe Aviation Rulemaking Committee. One of
Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4)
operation of the airplane when the icing the rulemaking committee objectives is
will not have a significant economic
conditions applicable under to identify the best goals, procedures,
impact on a substantial number of small
§ 25.1093(b) are inadvertently and training practices that will enable
entities; (5) will not create unnecessary
encountered. air carrier pilots to accurately and
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the
Also as previously discussed, the consistently respond to unexpected
United States; and (6) will not impose
applicability of appendix O conditions stick pusher activations, icing
an unfunded mandate on state, local, or
in § 25.1093(b) was revised to provide conditions, and microburst and
tribal governments, or on the private
relief for larger airplanes because of the windshear events.16 The ARC has
sector by exceeding the threshold
successful in-service history of existing submitted recommendations to the
identified above. These analyses are
larger airplane and larger airplane FAA, which are being considered for
summarized below.
turbine engine inlet designs. If future additional rulemaking activities. Such
APU installations contain novel or activities are beyond the scope of this Total Benefits and Costs of This Final
unusual design features that affect this rulemaking. Rule
15 This document can be found at http:// 16 A copy of the charter is available at http://
www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_ www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_
operators/airline_safety/safo/all_safos/media/2010/ offices/avs/offices/afs/afs200/media/208_ARC_
SAFO10012.pdf. Charter.pdf.
TABLE 1—TOTAL BENEFITS AND COSTS OF THIS RULE

2012$ 7% Present value
Benefit Cost Benefit Cost
Part 33 Engines ............................................................................. Qualitative ......... $13,936,000 Qualitative ........ $11,375,927

Large Part 25 Airplanes ................................................................. $362,319,857 ... 14,126,333 $76,861,295 ..... 11,531,295
Other Part 25 Airplanes ................................................................. $220,570,582 ... 33,198,788 $50,028,650 ..... 19,385,401
Total ........................................................................................ $582,890,439 ... 61,261,121 $126,889,985 ... 42,292,624

* Details may not add to row or column totals due to rounding.
Persons Potentially Affected by This Both Costs and Benefits are expressed Viewed from a breakeven analysis
Final Rule in 2012 dollars. using only preventable fatalities, with
each fatality valued at $9.1 million, this
Part 25 airplane manufacturers, Benefits of This Final Rule rule has benefits exceeding costs with
Engine manufacturers, and
The FAA has analyzed events that only 7 fatalities prevented.
Operators of affected equipment.
would have been prevented if this final Costs of This Final Rule
Assumptions rule were in place at the time of
The total estimated costs are shown in
The deliveries and affected fleets are certification. The events were evaluated
Table 1. We obtained the basis of our
analyzed over appropriate time periods for applicability and preventability in
cost estimates from the industry. Since
and are customized based upon actual context with the requirements contained
the NPRM, we have modified the
historical data. The fleet development is in this final rule.
estimates based upon industry
customized to the various (and For the categories of airplanes, first, comments and clarifications to those
different) airplane types. We we develop casualty rates for fatalities, comments. The compliance costs are
conservatively assume that all injuries, investigations, and destroyed analyzed in context of the part 25 and
certifications will occur in 2015 and airplanes based on historical ice-related part 33 certification requirements.
deliveries will occur in the following accidents. Next, we multiply the total As summarized in Table 2, the cost
year. As production time spans differ by annual affected airplanes by the annual categories in the regulatory evaluation
size of airplane, it is important for the risk per airplane. Lastly, we multiply incorporate both certification and
reader to focus on present value benefits the casualty rates by the projected operational costs. We analyze each cost
and costs. number of part 25 newly certificated category separately. The cost categories
Present Value Discount rate—7% deliveries. When summed over time, the in this evaluation are the same as those
Value of an Averted Fatality—$9.1 total estimated benefits are shown in provided by industry to comply with
million in 2012 Table 1. the requirements contained in this rule.
TABLE 2—COST SUMMARY

Nominal cost 7% PV cost
Engine Certification Cost ............................................................................................................................. $7,936,000 $6,478,140

Engine Capital Cost ..................................................................................................................................... 6,000,000 4,897,787
Total Engine Cost ................................................................................................................................. 13,936,000 11,375,927
New Large Airplane Certification Cost ........................................................................................................ 14,126,333 11,531,295

Large Airplane Hardware Cost .................................................................................................................... 0 0
Large Airplane Fuel Cost ............................................................................................................................. 0 0
Total Large Airplane Cost .................................................................................................................... 14,126,333 11,531,295
Other Airplane Certification Cost ................................................................................................................. 19,066,026 15,563,557

Other Airplane Hardware Cost .................................................................................................................... 2,475,000 1,312,609
Other Airplane Fuel Burn Cost .................................................................................................................... 11,657,762 2,509,236
Total Other Airplane Costs ................................................................................................................... 33,198,788 19,385,401
Total Costs .................................................................................................................................... 61,261,121 42,292,624

* Details may not add to row or column totals due to rounding.
Alternatives Considered alternative, the proposed design Alternative 2—Limit the scope of
requirements would extend to all applicability to small transport category

Alternative 1—Make the entire rule
applicable to all airplanes. transport category airplanes. This airplanes.
alternative was rejected because this Although this alternative would
Not all the requirements in this rule
alternative would add significant costs decrease the estimated cost, the FAA
extend to large transport category
airplanes (those with a MTOW greater without a commensurate increase in believes that medium and large
than 60,000 pounds). Under this benefits. airplanes are at risk of an SLD icing
event. The FAA does not want a Raytheon Aircraft, and Sabreliner commerce of the United States.
significant proportion of the future fleet Corporation. Because all U.S. transport- Pursuant to these Acts, the
to be disproportionately at risk. category airplane manufacturers have establishment of standards is not
more than 1,500 employees, none are considered an unnecessary obstacle to
Regulatory Flexibility Determination
considered small entities. the foreign commerce of the United
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 United States aircraft engine States, so long as the standard has a
(Pub. L. 96–354) (RFA) establishes as a manufacturers include General Electric, legitimate domestic objective, such as
principle of regulatory issuance that CFM International, Pratt & Whitney, the protection of safety, and does not
agencies shall endeavor, consistent with International Aero Engines, Rolls-Royce operate in a manner that excludes
the objectives of the rule and of Corporation, Honeywell, and Williams imports that meet this objective. The
applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and International. All but one exceeds the statute also requires consideration of
informational requirements to the scale Small Business Administration small- international standards and, where
of the businesses, organizations, and entity criteria for aircraft engine appropriate, that they be the basis for
governmental jurisdictions subject to manufacturers. Williams International is U.S. standards.
regulation. To achieve this principle, the only one of these manufacturers that The FAA has assessed the effect of
agencies are required to solicit and is a U.S. small business. this final rule and determined that it
consider flexible regulatory proposals The FAA estimated that Williams will not be an unnecessary obstacle to
and to explain the rationale for their International engines power the foreign commerce of the United
actions to assure that such proposals are approximately four percent of the States as the purpose of this rule is to
given serious consideration. The RFA engines on active U.S. airplanes. ensure aviation safety.
covers a wide-range of small entities, Assuming that future deliveries of
including small businesses, not-for- newly certificated airplanes with Unfunded Mandates Assessment
profit organizations, and small Williams International engines will
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
governmental jurisdictions. have the same percentage as the active
Agencies must perform a review to Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4)
fleet, we calculated that this final rule
determine whether a rule will have a requires each Federal agency to prepare
will add about 0.2 percent of their
significant economic impact on a a written statement assessing the effects
annual revenue. We do not consider a
substantial number of small entities. If of any Federal mandate in a proposed or
cost of 0.2 percent of annual revenue
the agency determines that it will, the final agency rule that may result in an
significant.
agency must prepare a regulatory expenditure of $100 million or more (in
flexibility analysis as described in the Operators 1995 dollars) in any one year by State,
RFA. In addition to the certification cost local, and tribal governments, in the
However, if an agency determines that incurred by manufacturers, operators aggregate, or by the private sector; such
a rule is not expected to have a will incur fuel costs due to the a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant
significant economic impact on a estimated additional impact of weight regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently
substantial number of small entities, changes from equipment on affected uses an inflation-adjusted value of
section 605(b) of the RFA provides that airplanes. On average, operators affected $143.1 million in lieu of $100 million.
the head of the agency may so certify by the final rule will incur no additional This final rule does not contain such a
and a regulatory flexibility analysis is annual fuel costs for newly certificated mandate; therefore, the requirements of
not required. The certification must large part 25 airplanes, and $189, in Title II do not apply.
include a statement providing the present value, in additional fuel costs Paperwork Reduction Act
factual basis for this determination, and for other newly certificated part 25
the reasoning should be clear. Our airplanes. This final rule will apply to The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
initial determination was that the airplanes that have yet to be designed; (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the
proposed rule would not have a there will be no immediate cost to small FAA consider the impact of paperwork
significant economic impact on a entities. The other airplane annual fuel and other information collection
substantial number of small entities. We cost of $189, in present value, is not burdens imposed on the public. The
received no public comments regarding significant in terms of total operating information collection requirements
our initial determination. As such, this expenses. We do not consider these associated with this final rule have been
final rule will not have a significant annual fuel costs a significant economic previously approved by the Office of
economic impact on a substantial impact. Management and Budget (OMB) under
number of small entities for the This final rule will not have a the provisions of the Paperwork
following reasons. significant economic impact on a Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
substantial number of airplane 3507(d)) and have been assigned OMB
Airplane and Engine Manufacturers manufacturers, engine manufacturers, or Control Number 2120–0018.
Airplane and engine manufacturers operators. Therefore, as the FAA International Compatibility and
will be affected by the requirements Administrator, I certify that this rule Cooperation
contained in this rule. will not have a significant economic
For airplane manufacturers, we use impact on a substantial number of small (1) In keeping with U.S. obligations
the size standards from the Small entities. under the Convention on International
Business Administration for Air Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to
Transportation and Aircraft International Trade Analysis conform to International Civil Aviation
Manufacturing specifying companies The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 Organization (ICAO) Standards and
having less than 1,500 employees as (Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the Recommended Practices to the
small entities. The current United States Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. maximum extent practicable. The FAA
part 25 airplane manufacturers include L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies has reviewed the corresponding ICAO
Boeing, Cessna Aircraft, Gulfstream from establishing standards or engaging Standards and Recommended Practices
Aerospace, Learjet (owned by in related activities that create and has identified no differences with
Bombardier), Lockheed Martin, unnecessary obstacles to the foreign these regulations.
(2) Executive Order 13609, Promoting Executive Order 13211, Regulations List of Subjects
International Regulatory Cooperation, That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
14 CFR Part 25
promotes international regulatory Distribution, or Use
cooperation to meet shared challenges Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting
The FAA analyzed this final rule and recordkeeping requirements, Safety,
involving health, safety, labor, security, under Executive Order 13211, Actions
environmental, and other issues and to Transportation.
Concerning Regulations that
reduce, eliminate, or prevent Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 14 CFR Part 33
unnecessary differences in regulatory Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The Aircraft, Aviation safety.
requirements. The FAA has analyzed agency has determined that it is not a
this action under the policies and ‘‘significant energy action’’ under the The Amendment
agency responsibilities of Executive executive order and it is not likely to In consideration of the foregoing, the
Order 13609, and has determined that have a significant adverse effect on the Federal Aviation Administration
this action will have no effect on supply, distribution, or use of energy. amends chapter I of title 14, Code of
international regulatory cooperation. Federal Regulations as follows:
How To Obtain Additional Information
Environmental Analysis Rulemaking Documents PART 25—AIRWORTHINESS
STANDARDS: TRANSPORT
FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA An electronic copy of a rulemaking CATEGORY AIRPLANES
actions that are categorically excluded document may be obtained by using the
from preparation of an environmental Internet— ■ 1. The authority citation for part 25
assessment or environmental impact 1. Search the Federal eRulemaking continues to read as follows:
statement under the National Portal (http://www.regulations.gov); Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701,
Environmental Policy Act in the 2. Visit the FAA’s Regulations and 44702 and 44704.
absence of extraordinary circumstances. Policies Web page at http://
■ 2. Amend § 25.21 by revising
The FAA has determined this www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ or
paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) and adding
rulemaking action qualifies for the 3. Access the Government Printing paragraphs (g)(3) and (4) to read as
categorical exclusion identified in Office’s Web page at http:// follows:
paragraph 4(j) and involves no www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
extraordinary circumstances. collection.action?collectionCode=FR. § 25.21 Proof of compliance.
Copies may also be obtained by * * * * *
Regulations Affecting Intrastate sending a request (identified by notice, (g) * * *
Aviation in Alaska amendment, or docket number of this (1) Paragraphs (g)(3) and (4) of this
Section 1205 of the FAA rulemaking) to the Federal Aviation section apply only to airplanes with one
Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat. Administration, Office of Rulemaking, or both of the following attributes:
3213) requires the FAA, when ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue (i) Maximum takeoff gross weight is
SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by less than 60,000 lbs; or
modifying its regulations in a manner
calling (202) 267–9680. (ii) The airplane is equipped with
affecting intrastate aviation in Alaska, to
reversible flight controls.
consider the extent to which Alaska is Comments Submitted to the Docket
(2) Each requirement of this subpart,
not served by transportation modes Comments received may be viewed by except §§ 25.121(a), 25.123(c),
other than aviation, and to establish going to http://www.regulations.gov and 25.143(b)(1) and (2), 25.149,
appropriate regulatory distinctions. In following the online instructions to 25.201(c)(2), 25.239, and 25.251(b)
the NPRM, the FAA requested search the docket number for this through (e), must be met in the icing
comments on whether the proposed rule action. Anyone is able to search the conditions specified in Appendix C of
should apply differently to intrastate electronic form of all comments this part. Section 25.207(c) and (d) must
operations in Alaska. The agency did received into any of the FAA’s dockets be met in the landing configuration in
not receive any comments, and has by the name of the individual the icing conditions specified in
determined, based on the administrative submitting the comment (or signing the Appendix C, but need not be met for
record of this rulemaking, that there is comment, if submitted on behalf of an other configurations. Compliance must
no need to make any regulatory association, business, labor union, etc.). be shown using the ice accretions
distinctions applicable to intrastate defined in part II of Appendix C of this
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
aviation in Alaska. part, assuming normal operation of the
Fairness Act
airplane and its ice protection system in
Executive Order Determinations The Small Business Regulatory accordance with the operating
Executive Order 13132, Federalism Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of limitations and operating procedures
1996 requires FAA to comply with established by the applicant and
The FAA has analyzed this final rule small entity requests for information or provided in the airplane flight manual.
under the principles and criteria of advice about compliance with statutes (3) If the applicant does not seek
Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The and regulations within its jurisdiction. certification for flight in all icing
agency determined that this action will A small entity with questions regarding conditions defined in Appendix O of
not have a substantial direct effect on this document, may contact its local this part, each requirement of this
FAA official, or the person listed under subpart, except §§ 25.105, 25.107,
the States, or the relationship between

the Federal Government and the States, the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 25.109, 25.111, 25.113, 25.115, 25.121,
or on the distribution of power and heading at the beginning of the 25.123, 25.143(b)(1), (b)(2), and (c)(1),
responsibilities among the various preamble. To find out more about 25.149, 25.201(c)(2), 25.207(c), (d), and
levels of government, and, therefore, SBREFA on the Internet, visit http:// (e)(1), 25.239, and 25.251(b) through (e),
does not have Federalism implications. www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ must be met in the Appendix O icing
rulemaking/sbre_act/. conditions for which certification is not
sought in order to allow a safe exit from § 25.21(g), from the point where the defined in Appendices C and O of this
those conditions. Compliance must be airplane is 400 feet above the takeoff part, as applicable, in accordance with
shown using the ice accretions defined surface to the end of the takeoff path. § 25.21(g), if:
in part II, paragraphs (b) and (d) of * * * * * * * * * *
Appendix O, assuming normal ■ 5. Amend § 25.119 by revising ■ 8. Amend § 25.125 by revising
operation of the airplane and its ice paragraph (b) to read as follows: paragraphs (a)(2), (b)(2)(ii)(B), and
protection system in accordance with (b)(2)(ii)(C) to read as follows:
the operating limitations and operating § 25.119 Landing climb: All-engines-
procedures established by the applicant operating. § 25.125 Landing.
and provided in the airplane flight * * * * * (a) * * *
manual. (b) In icing conditions with the most (2) In icing conditions with the most
(4) If the applicant seeks certification critical of the landing ice accretion(s) critical of the landing ice accretion(s)
for flight in any portion of the icing defined in Appendices C and O of this defined in Appendices C and O of this
conditions of Appendix O of this part, part, as applicable, in accordance with part, as applicable, in accordance with
each requirement of this subpart, except § 25.21(g), and with a climb speed of § 25.21(g), if VREF for icing conditions
§§ 25.121(a), 25.123(c), 25.143(b)(1) and VREF determined in accordance with exceeds VREF for non-icing conditions
(2), 25.149, 25.201(c)(2), 25.239, and § 25.125(b)(2)(ii). by more than 5 knots CAS at the
25.251(b) through (e), must be met in ■ 6. Amend § 25.121 by revising maximum landing weight.
the Appendix O icing conditions for paragraphs (b)(2)(ii) introductory text, (b) * * *
which certification is sought. Section (c)(2)(ii) introductory text, and (d)(2)(ii) (2) * * *
25.207(c) and (d) must be met in the to read as follows: (ii) * * *
landing configuration in the Appendix (B) 1.23 VSR0 with the most critical of
O icing conditions for which § 25.121 Climb: One-engine-inoperative. the landing ice accretion(s) defined in
certification is sought, but need not be * * * * * Appendices C and O of this part, as
met for other configurations. (b) * * * applicable, in accordance with
Compliance must be shown using the (2) * * * § 25.21(g), if that speed exceeds VREF
ice accretions defined in part II, (ii) In icing conditions with the most selected for non-icing conditions by
paragraphs (c) and (d) of Appendix O, critical of the takeoff ice accretion(s) more than 5 knots CAS; and
assuming normal operation of the defined in Appendices C and O of this (C) A speed that provides the
airplane and its ice protection system in part, as applicable, in accordance with maneuvering capability specified in
accordance with the operating § 25.21(g), if in the configuration used to § 25.143(h) with the most critical of the
limitations and operating procedures show compliance with § 25.121(b) with landing ice accretion(s) defined in
established by the applicant and this takeoff ice accretion: Appendices C and O of this part, as
provided in the airplane flight manual. * * * * * applicable, in accordance with
(c) * * * § 25.21(g).
(2) * * * * * * * *
paragraph (a)(2) introductory text to (ii) In icing conditions with the most
read as follows: critical of the final takeoff ice ■ 9. Amend § 25.143 by revising
accretion(s) defined in Appendices C paragraphs (c) introductory text, (i)(1),
§ 25.105 Takeoff. and (j) introductory text to read as
and O of this part, as applicable, in
(a) * * * follows:
accordance with § 25.21(g), if in the
(2) In icing conditions, if in the
configuration used to show compliance § 25.143 General.
configuration used to show compliance
with § 25.121(b) with the takeoff ice
with § 25.121(b), and with the most * * * * *
accretion used to show compliance with (c) The airplane must be shown to be
critical of the takeoff ice accretion(s)
§ 25.111(c)(5)(i): safely controllable and maneuverable
defined in Appendices C and O of this
part, as applicable, in accordance with * * * * * with the most critical of the ice
§ 25.21(g): (d) * * * accretion(s) appropriate to the phase of
(2) * * * flight as defined in Appendices C and
* * * * * (ii) In icing conditions with the most
O of this part, as applicable, in
■ 4. Amend § 25.111 by revising critical of the approach ice accretion(s)
accordance with § 25.21(g), and with the
paragraphs (c)(5)(i) and (ii) to read as defined in Appendices C and O of this
critical engine inoperative and its
follows: part, as applicable, in accordance with
propeller (if applicable) in the minimum
§ 25.21(g). The climb speed selected for
§ 25.111 Takeoff path. drag position:
non-icing conditions may be used if the
* * * * * climb speed for icing conditions, * * * * *
(c) * * * computed in accordance with paragraph (i) * * *
(5) * * * (d)(1)(iii) of this section, does not (1) Controllability must be
(i) With the most critical of the takeoff exceed that for non-icing conditions by demonstrated with the most critical of
ice accretion(s) defined in Appendices C more than the greater of 3 knots CAS or the ice accretion(s) for the particular
and O of this part, as applicable, in 3 percent. flight phase as defined in Appendices C
accordance with § 25.21(g), from a and O of this part, as applicable, in
height of 35 feet above the takeoff accordance with § 25.21(g);
paragraph (b)(2) introductory text to
surface up to the point where the * * * * *
read as follows:
airplane is 400 feet above the takeoff (j) For flight in icing conditions before
surface; and § 25.123 En route flight paths. the ice protection system has been
(ii) With the most critical of the final * * * * * activated and is performing its intended
takeoff ice accretion(s) defined in (b) * * * function, it must be demonstrated in
Appendices C and O of this part, as (2) In icing conditions with the most flight with the most critical of the ice
applicable, in accordance with critical of the en route ice accretion(s) accretion(s) defined in Appendix C, part
II, paragraph (e) of this part and defined in Appendix C, part II, ■ 14. Amend § 25.903 by adding a new
Appendix O, part II, paragraph (d) of paragraph (e) of this part and Appendix paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:
this part, as applicable, in accordance O, part II, paragraph (d) of this part, as
with § 25.21(g), that: applicable, in accordance with § 25.903 Engines.
* * * * * § 25.21(g). The stall warning margin in (a) * * *
straight and turning flight must be (3) Each turbine engine must comply
sufficient to allow the pilot to prevent with one of the following paragraphs:
paragraphs (b), (e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4),
stalling without encountering any (i) Section 33.68 of this chapter in
(e)(5), and (h) introductory text as
adverse flight characteristics when: effect on January 5, 2015, or as
follows:
* * * * * subsequently amended; or
§ 25.207 Stall warning. ■ 11. Amend § 25.237 by revising
(ii) Section 33.68 of this chapter in
* * * * * paragraph (a)(3)(ii) to read as follows: effect on February 23, 1984, or as
(b) The warning must be furnished subsequently amended before January 5,
either through the inherent aerodynamic § 25.237 Wind velocities. 2015, unless that engine’s ice
qualities of the airplane or by a device (a) * * * accumulation service history has
that will give clearly distinguishable (3) * * * resulted in an unsafe condition; or
indications under expected conditions (ii) Icing conditions with the most (iii) Section 33.68 of this chapter in
of flight. However, a visual stall warning critical of the landing ice accretion(s) effect on October 1, 1974, or as
device that requires the attention of the defined in Appendices C and O of this subsequently amended prior to February
crew within the cockpit is not part, as applicable, in accordance with 23, 1984, unless that engine’s ice
acceptable by itself. If a warning device § 25.21(g). accumulation service history has
is used, it must provide a warning in * * * * * resulted in an unsafe condition; or
each of the airplane configurations ■ 12. Amend § 25.253 by revising (iv) Be shown to have an ice
prescribed in paragraph (a) of this paragraph (c) introductory text to read accumulation service history in similar
section at the speed prescribed in as follows: installation locations which has not
paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section. resulted in any unsafe conditions.
§ 25.253 High-speed characteristics.
Except for the stall warning prescribed * * * * *
in paragraph (h)(3)(ii) of this section, the * * * * *
stall warning for flight in icing (c) Maximum speed for stability
characteristics in icing conditions. The paragraph (a) to read as follows:
conditions must be provided by the
same means as the stall warning for maximum speed for stability § 25.929 Propeller deicing.
characteristics with the most critical of (a) If certification for flight in icing is
flight in non-icing conditions.
the ice accretions defined in
* * * * * sought there must be a means to prevent
Appendices C and O of this part, as
(e) * * * or remove hazardous ice accumulations
applicable, in accordance with
(1) The most critical of the takeoff ice that could form in the icing conditions
§ 25.21(g), at which the requirements of
and final takeoff ice accretions defined defined in Appendix C of this part and
§§ 25.143(g), 25.147(f), 25.175(b)(1),
in Appendices C and O of this part, as in the portions of Appendix O of this
25.177(a) through (c), and 25.181 must
applicable, in accordance with part for which the airplane is approved
be met, is the lower of:
§ 25.21(g), for each configuration used for flight on propellers or on accessories
in the takeoff phase of flight; * * * * * where ice accumulation would
(2) The most critical of the en route ■ 13. Amend § 25.773 by revising jeopardize engine performance.
ice accretion(s) defined in Appendices C paragraph (b)(1)(ii) to read as follows: * * * * *
and O of this part, as applicable, in § 25.773 Pilot compartment view. ■ 16. Amend § 25.1093 by revising
accordance with § 25.21(g), for the en paragraph (b) to read as follows:
* * * * *
route configuration; (b) * * *
(3) The most critical of the holding ice (1) * * * § 25.1093 Induction system icing
accretion(s) defined in Appendices C (ii) The icing conditions specified in protection.
and O of this part, as applicable, in Appendix C of this part and the * * * * *
accordance with § 25.21(g), for the following icing conditions specified in (b) Turbine engines. Except as
holding configuration(s); Appendix O of this part, if certification provided in paragraph (b)(3) of this
(4) The most critical of the approach for flight in icing conditions is sought: section, each engine, with all icing
ice accretion(s) defined in Appendices C (A) For airplanes certificated in protection systems operating, must:
and O of this part, as applicable, in accordance with § 25.1420(a)(1), the (1) Operate throughout its flight
accordance with § 25.21(g), for the icing conditions that the airplane is power range, including the minimum
approach configuration(s); and certified to safely exit following descent idling speeds, in the icing
(5) The most critical of the landing ice detection. conditions defined in Appendices C and
accretion(s) defined in Appendices C (B) For airplanes certificated in O of this part, and Appendix D of part
and O of this part, as applicable, in accordance with § 25.1420(a)(2), the 33 of this chapter, and in falling and
accordance with § 25.21(g), for the icing conditions that the airplane is blowing snow within the limitations
landing and go-around configuration(s). certified to safely operate in and the established for the airplane for such
* * * * * icing conditions that the airplane is operation, without the accumulation of
(h) The following stall warning certified to safely exit following ice on the engine, inlet system
margin is required for flight in icing detection. components, or airframe components

conditions before the ice protection (C) For airplanes certificated in that would do any of the following:
system has been activated and is accordance with § 25.1420(a)(3) and for (i) Adversely affect installed engine
performing its intended function. airplanes not subject to § 25.1420, all operation or cause a sustained loss of
Compliance must be shown using the icing conditions. power or thrust; or an unacceptable
most critical of the ice accretion(s) * * * * * increase in gas path operating
temperature; or an airframe/engine condition, without adverse effect, duration at power), the associated
incompatibility; or followed by an acceleration to takeoff minimum ambient temperature, and the
(ii) Result in unacceptable temporary power or thrust in accordance with the maximum time interval. These
power loss or engine damage; or procedures defined in the airplane flight conditions must be used in the analysis
(iii) Cause a stall, surge, or flameout manual. During the idle operation, the that establishes the airplane operating
or loss of engine controllability (for engine may be run up periodically to a limitations in accordance with
example, rollback). moderate power or thrust setting in a § 25.1521.
(2) Operate at ground idle speed for a manner acceptable to the Administrator. (3) For the purposes of this section,
minimum of 30 minutes on the ground Analysis may be used to show ambient the icing conditions defined in
in the following icing conditions shown temperatures below the tested appendix O of this part, including the
in Table 1 of this section, unless temperature are less critical. The conditions specified in Condition 3 of
replaced by similar test conditions that applicant must document the engine Table 1 of this section, are not
are more critical. These conditions must run-up procedure (including the applicable to airplanes with a maximum
be demonstrated with the available air maximum time interval between run- takeoff weight equal to or greater than
bleed for icing protection at its critical ups from idle, run-up power setting, and 60,000 pounds.
TABLE 1—ICING CONDITIONS FOR GROUND TESTS

Water concentration Mean effective particle
Condition Total air temperature Demonstration
(minimum) diameter
1. Rime ice condition ..... 0 to 15 °F (18 to ¥9 °C) Liquid—0.3 g/m3 ............ 15–25 microns ............... By test, analysis or combination of
the two.
2. Glaze ice condition .... 20 to 30 °F (¥7 to ¥1 Liquid—0.3 g/m3 ............ 15–25 microns ............... By test, analysis or combination of
°C). the two.
3. Large drop condition 15 to 30 °F (¥9 to ¥1 Liquid—0.3 g/m3 ............ 100 microns (minimum) By test, analysis or combination of
°C). the two.
* * * * * conditions as defined in part 33, (2) For airplanes certificated in

■ 17. Amend § 25.1323 by revising Appendix D, of this chapter; the icing accordance with § 25.1420(a)(2), the
paragraph (i) to read as follows: conditions defined in Appendix C of icing conditions that the airplane is
this part; and the following icing certified to safely operate in and the
§ 25.1323 Airspeed indicating system. conditions specified in Appendix O of icing conditions that the airplane is
* * * * * this part: certified to safely exit following
(i) Each system must have a heated (1) For airplanes certificated in detection.
pitot tube or an equivalent means of accordance with § 25.1420(a)(1), the (3) For airplanes certificated in
preventing malfunction in the heavy icing conditions that the airplane is accordance with § 25.1420(a)(3) and for
rain conditions defined in Table 1 of certified to safely exit following airplanes not subject to § 25.1420, all
this section; mixed phase and ice crystal detection. icing conditions.
TABLE 1—HEAVY RAIN CONDITIONS FOR AIRSPEED INDICATING SYSTEM TESTS

Altitude range Liquid water Horizontal extent Droplet MVD
content
(ft) (m) (km) (nmiles) (μm)
(g/m3)
0 to 10 000 ....................................... 0 to 3000 ......................................... 1 100 50 1000

6 5 3 2000
15 1 0.5 2000
* * * * * (a) For airplanes certificated in ■ 19. Amend § 25.1325 by revising

accordance with § 25.1420(a)(1), the paragraph (b) to read as follows:
■ 18. Amend part 25 by adding a new
icing conditions that the airplane is
section § 25.1324 to read as follows: § 25.1325 Static pressure systems.
certified to safely exit following
§ 25.1324 Angle of attack system. detection. * * * * *
(b) Each static port must be designed
Each angle of attack system sensor (b) For airplanes certificated in
and located so that:
must be heated or have an equivalent accordance with § 25.1420(a)(2), the
(1) The static pressure system
means of preventing malfunction in the icing conditions that the airplane is
performance is least affected by airflow
heavy rain conditions defined in Table certified to safely operate in and the
variation, or by moisture or other
1 of § 25.1323, the mixed phase and ice icing conditions that the airplane is
foreign matter; and
crystal conditions as defined in part 33, certified to safely exit following

(2) The correlation between air
Appendix D, of this chapter, the icing detection.
pressure in the static pressure system
conditions defined in Appendix C of (c) For airplanes certificated in and true ambient atmospheric static
this part, and the following icing accordance with § 25.1420(a)(3) and for pressure is not changed when the
conditions specified in Appendix O of airplanes not subject to § 25.1420, all airplane is exposed to the icing
this part: icing conditions. conditions defined in Appendix C of
this part, and the following icing the components or models of the ■ 22. Amend § 25.1533 by adding a new
conditions specified in Appendix O of components. paragraph (c) to read as follows:
this part: (2) Laboratory dry air or simulated
(i) For airplanes certificated in icing tests, or a combination of both, of § 25.1533 Additional operating limitations.
accordance with § 25.1420(a)(1), the models of the airplane. * * * * *
icing conditions that the airplane is (3) Flight tests of the airplane or its (c) For airplanes certified in
certified to safely exit following components in simulated icing accordance with § 25.1420(a)(1) or (2),
detection. conditions, measured as necessary to an operating limitation must be
(ii) For airplanes certificated in support the analysis. established to:
accordance with § 25.1420(a)(2), the (4) Flight tests of the airplane with (1) Prohibit intentional flight,
icing conditions that the airplane is simulated ice shapes. including takeoff and landing, into icing
certified to safely operate in and the (5) Flight tests of the airplane in conditions defined in Appendix O of
icing conditions that the airplane is natural icing conditions, measured as this part for which the airplane has not
certified to safely exit following necessary to support the analysis. been certified to safely operate; and
detection. (c) For an airplane certified in
(iii) For airplanes certificated in accordance with paragraph (a)(2) or (3) (2) Require exiting all icing conditions
accordance with § 25.1420(a)(3) and for of this section, the requirements of if icing conditions defined in Appendix
airplanes not subject to § 25.1420, all § 25.1419(e), (f), (g), and (h) must be met O of this part are encountered for which
icing conditions. for the icing conditions defined in the airplane has not been certified to
* * * * * Appendix O of this part in which the safely operate.
■ 20. Amend part 25 by adding a new airplane is certified to operate. ■ 23. Amend Appendix C to part 25, in
§ 25.1420 to read as follows: (d) For the purposes of this section, part II, by revising paragraph (a)(1), the
the following definitions apply: second sentence of paragraph (a)(2), and
§ 25.1420 Supercooled large drop icing (1) Reversible Flight Controls. Flight
conditions.
paragraph (d)(2) to read as follows:
controls in the normal operating
(a) If certification for flight in icing configuration that have force or motion Appendix C to Part 25
conditions is sought, in addition to the originating at the airplane’s control * * * * *
requirements of § 25.1419, an airplane surface (for example, through
with a maximum takeoff weight less PART II—AIRFRAME ICE ACCRETIONS
aerodynamic loads, static imbalance, or FOR SHOWING COMPLIANCE WITH
than 60,000 pounds or with reversible trim or servo tab inputs) that is SUBPART B
flight controls must be capable of transmitted back to flight deck controls.
operating in accordance with (a) * * *
This term refers to flight deck controls (1) Takeoff ice is the most critical ice
paragraphs (a)(1), (2), or (3), of this connected to the pitch, roll, or yaw accretion on unprotected surfaces and any
section. control surfaces by direct mechanical ice accretion on the protected surfaces
(1) Operating safely after encountering linkages, cables, or push-pull rods in appropriate to normal ice protection system
the icing conditions defined in such a way that pilot effort produces operation, occurring between the end of the
Appendix O of this part: motion or force about the hinge line. takeoff distance and 400 feet above the
(i) The airplane must have a means to (2) Simulated Icing Test. Testing takeoff surface, assuming accretion starts at
detect that it is operating in Appendix conducted in simulated icing the end of the takeoff distance in the takeoff
O icing conditions; and conditions, such as in an icing tunnel or maximum icing conditions defined in part I
(ii) Following detection of Appendix behind an icing tanker.
of this Appendix.
O icing conditions, the airplane must be (2) * * * Ice accretion is assumed to start
(3) Simulated Ice Shape. Ice shape at the end of the takeoff distance in the
capable of operating safely while exiting fabricated from wood, epoxy, or other
all icing conditions. takeoff maximum icing conditions of part I,
materials by any construction paragraph (c) of this Appendix.
(2) Operating safely in a portion of the
technique. * * * * *
icing conditions defined in Appendix O
of this part as selected by the applicant: ■ 21. Amend § 25.1521 by redesignating (d) * * *
(i) The airplane must have a means to paragraph (c)(3) as paragraph (c)(4), (2) The ice accretion starts at the end of the
revising newly redesignated paragraph takeoff distance.
detect that it is operating in conditions
that exceed the selected portion of (c)(4), and adding new paragraph (c)(3) * * * * *
Appendix O icing conditions; and to read as follows:
■24. Amend part 25 by adding new
(ii) Following detection, the airplane § 25.1521 Powerplant limitations. Appendix O to read as follows:
must be capable of operating safely
while exiting all icing conditions. * * * * * Appendix O to Part 25—Supercooled
(3) Operating safely in the icing (c) * * * Large Drop Icing Conditions
conditions defined in Appendix O of (3) Maximum time interval between
engine run-ups from idle, run-up power This Appendix consists of two parts. Part
this part. I defines this Appendix as a description of
(b) To establish that the airplane can setting and duration at power for ground supercooled large drop icing conditions in
operate safely as required in paragraph operation in icing conditions, as defined which the drop median volume diameter
(a) of this section, an applicant must in § 25.1093(b)(2). (MVD) is less than or greater than 40 mm, the
show through analysis that the ice (4) Any other parameter for which a maximum mean effective drop diameter
protection for the various components limitation has been established as part (MED) of Appendix C of this part continuous
of the airplane is adequate, taking into of the engine type certificate except that maximum (stratiform clouds) icing
a limitation need not be established for conditions. For this Appendix, supercooled
account the various airplane operational large drop icing conditions consist of freezing
configurations. To verify the analysis, a parameter that cannot be exceeded
during normal operation due to the drizzle and freezing rain occurring in and/or
one, or more as found necessary, of the below stratiform clouds. Part II defines ice
following methods must be used: design of the installation or to another accretions used to show compliance with the
(1) Laboratory dry air or simulated established limitation. airplane performance and handling qualities
icing tests, or a combination of both, of * * * * * requirements of subpart B of this part.
PART I—METEOROLOGY extent standard distance of 17.4 nautical (6) Altitude and temperature envelope:
In this Appendix icing conditions are miles. Figure 6.
defined by the parameters of altitude, vertical (5) Drop diameter distribution: Figure 2. (c) Horizontal extent.
(6) Altitude and temperature envelope: The liquid water content for freezing
and horizontal extent, temperature, liquid
Figure 3. drizzle and freezing rain conditions for
water content, and water mass distribution as
(b) Freezing Rain (Conditions with spectra horizontal extents other than the standard
a function of drop diameter distribution. maximum drop diameters greater than 500
(a) Freezing Drizzle (Conditions with 17.4 nautical miles can be determined by the
mm): value of the liquid water content determined
spectra maximum drop diameters from (1) Pressure altitude range: 0 to 12,000 ft
100mm to 500 mm): from Figure 1 or Figure 4, multiplied by the
MSL.
(1) Pressure altitude range: 0 to 22,000 feet factor provided in Figure 7, which is defined
(2) Maximum vertical extent: 7,000 ft.
MSL. (3) Horizontal extent: Standard distance of by the following equation:
(2) Maximum vertical extent: 12,000 feet. 17.4 nautical miles. S = 1.266 ¥ 0.213 log10(H)
(3) Horizontal extent: Standard distance of (4) Total liquid water content. Where:
17.4 nautical miles. Note: LWC in grams per cubic meter (g/m3) S = Liquid Water Content Scale Factor
(4) Total liquid water content. based on horizontal extent standard distance (dimensionless) and
Note: Liquid water content (LWC) in grams of 17.4 nautical miles. H = horizontal extent in nautical miles
per cubic meter (g/m3) based on horizontal (5) Drop Diameter Distribution: Figure 5. BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
ER04NO14.001</GPH>
FIGURE 2 - Appendix 0, Freezing Drizzle, Drop Diameter Distribution
1
en
~ 0.8
2
Q,) 0.6 .. ·.....!....,........................... .
-
.;;:::
l 20.4
::I
E
::I 0.2 ..........•• !.•I•I•!····
............. .- .. •.................. :
0 .. i !Freezing Drizzle MVD H40 micron

0
101 102 103
Diameter (microns)
1
2
en
~ 0.8 ::I·
Q,) 0.6 . :... ·...:...
.;;:::
-
l 20.4
: : ~ ~
0
::I
E
::I 0.2
• .• !Freezing Drizzle
.MVDITII .
:>, 40 micron
0
101 102 103
Diameter (microns)
ER04NO14.002</GPH>
FIGURE 3 -Appendix 0, Freezing Drizzle, Temperature and Altitude
-30~------~--------~------~--------~------~
0 5 10 15 20 25
Pressure Altitude (1 000-feet)
FIGURE 4 - Appendix 0, Freezing Rain, Liquid Water Content
....
Q)
~
:-2 0.1
::::l
C"
ER04NO14.004</GPH>
:.J
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5
Ambient Temperature (degrees Celsius)
ER04NO14.003</GPH>
FIGURE 5 - Appendix 0, Freezing Rain, Drop Diameter Distribution
en
~ 0.8
::;?!
0.6
-
Q)
.:::::
cao.4
::I
E
::I 0.2
(.)
en
~ 0.8
::;?!
0.6
-
Q)
.:::::
cao.4
::I
E .
:
.
:. .~
0.2
::I
(.)
o~~~--~~~~~~----~~~~~LL--~~
· !Fr~~~irig Rain MVD ; 4p microns
101 102 103
Diameter (microns)
ER04NO14.005</GPH>
FIGURE 6 -Appendix 0, Freezing Rain, Temperature and Altitude
~ 0
"iii
Q)
u
en
Q)
-5
~
C)
~ -10
,_...
~
~
li! -15
Q)
c..
E
~-20
"'E
Q)
:..c
E -25
<(
5 10 15 20 25
Pressure Altitude (1 000-feet)
ER04NO14.006</GPH>
BILLING CODE 4910–13–C (3) For an airplane certified in accordance horizontal extent in the most critical of the
PART II—AIRFRAME ICE ACCRETIONS with § 25.1420(a)(3), the ice accretions for icing conditions defined in part I of this
FOR SHOWING COMPLIANCE WITH each flight phase are defined in part II, Appendix and one cloud with a horizontal
SUBPART B OF THIS PART paragraph (c) of this Appendix. extent of 17.4 nautical miles in the
(b) Ice accretions for airplanes certified in continuous maximum icing conditions
(a) General. accordance with § 25.1420(a)(1) or (2). defined in Appendix C of this part.
The most critical ice accretion in terms of (1) En route ice is the en route ice as (iii) Except the total exposure to holding
airplane performance and handling qualities defined by part II, paragraph (c)(3), of this ice conditions does not need to exceed 45
for each flight phase must be used to show Appendix, for an airplane certified in minutes.
compliance with the applicable airplane accordance with § 25.1420(a)(2), or defined (3) Approach ice is the more critical of the
performance and handling qualities by part II, paragraph (a)(3), of Appendix C of holding ice defined by part II, paragraph
requirements for icing conditions contained this part, for an airplane certified in (b)(2), of this Appendix, or the ice calculated
in subpart B of this part. Applicants must accordance with § 25.1420(a)(1), plus: in the applicable paragraphs (b)(3)(i) or (ii) of
demonstrate that the full range of (i) Pre-detection ice as defined by part II,
atmospheric icing conditions specified in part II, of this Appendix:
paragraph (b)(5), of this Appendix; and (i) For an airplane certified in accordance
part I of this Appendix have been considered, (ii) The ice accumulated during the transit
including drop diameter distributions, liquid with § 25.1420(a)(2), the ice accumulated
of one cloud with a horizontal extent of 17.4
water content, and temperature appropriate during descent from the maximum vertical
nautical miles in the most critical of the icing
to the flight conditions (for example, extent of the icing conditions defined in part
conditions defined in part I of this Appendix
configuration, speed, angle of attack, and I of this Appendix to 2,000 feet above the
and one cloud with a horizontal extent of
altitude). 17.4 nautical miles in the continuous landing surface in the cruise configuration,
(1) For an airplane certified in accordance maximum icing conditions defined in plus transition to the approach configuration,
with § 25.1420(a)(1), the ice accretions for Appendix C of this part. plus:
each flight phase are defined in part II, (2) Holding ice is the holding ice defined (A) Pre-detection ice, as defined by part II,
paragraph (b) of this Appendix. by part II, paragraph (c)(4), of this Appendix, paragraph (b)(5), of this Appendix; and
(2) For an airplane certified in accordance for an airplane certified in accordance with (B) The ice accumulated during the transit
with § 25.1420(a)(2), the most critical ice § 25.1420(a)(2), or defined by part II, at 2,000 feet above the landing surface of one
accretion for each flight phase defined in part paragraph (a)(4), of Appendix C of this part, cloud with a horizontal extent of 17.4
II, paragraphs (b) and (c) of this Appendix, for an airplane certified in accordance with nautical miles in the most critical of the icing
must be used. For the ice accretions defined § 25.1420(a)(1), plus: conditions defined in part I of this Appendix
in part II, paragraph (c) of this Appendix, (i) Pre-detection ice as defined by part II, and one cloud with a horizontal extent of
only the portion of part I of this Appendix paragraph (b)(5), of this Appendix; and 17.4 nautical miles in the continuous
in which the airplane is capable of operating (ii) The ice accumulated during the transit maximum icing conditions defined in
ER04NO14.007</GPH>
safely must be considered. of one cloud with a 17.4 nautical miles Appendix C of this part.
(ii) For an airplane certified in accordance § 25.1420(a)(1) and (2). It is the pre-existing Appendix, to 2,000 feet above the landing
with § 25.1420(a)(1), the ice accumulated ice accretion that may exist from operating in surface in the cruise configuration, plus
during descent from the maximum vertical icing conditions in which the airplane is transition to the approach configuration and
extent of the maximum continuous icing approved to operate prior to encountering the flying for 15 minutes at 2,000 feet above the
conditions defined in part I of Appendix C icing conditions requiring an exit, plus the landing surface; or
to 2,000 feet above the landing surface in the ice accumulated during the time needed to (ii) Holding ice as defined by part II,
cruise configuration, plus transition to the detect the icing conditions, followed by two paragraph (c)(4), of this Appendix.
approach configuration, plus: minutes of further ice accumulation to take (6) Landing ice is the ice accretion on the
(A) Pre-detection ice, as defined by part II, into account the time for the flightcrew to unprotected surfaces, and any ice accretion
paragraph (b)(5), of this Appendix; and take action to exit the icing conditions, on the protected surfaces appropriate to
(B) The ice accumulated during the transit including coordination with air traffic normal ice protection system operation,
at 2,000 feet above the landing surface of one control. resulting from the more critical of the:
cloud with a horizontal extent of 17.4 (i) For an airplane certified in accordance (i) Ice accretion defined by part II,
nautical miles in the most critical of the icing with § 25.1420(a)(1), the pre-existing ice paragraph (c)(5)(i), of this Appendix, plus ice
conditions defined in part I of this Appendix accretion must be based on the icing accumulated in the icing conditions defined
and one cloud with a horizontal extent of conditions defined in Appendix C of this in part I of this Appendix during a descent
17.4 nautical miles in the continuous part. from 2,000 feet above the landing surface to
maximum icing conditions defined in (ii) For an airplane certified in accordance a height of 200 feet above the landing surface
Appendix C of this part. with § 25.1420(a)(2), the pre-existing ice with a transition to the landing configuration,
(4) Landing ice is the more critical of the accretion must be based on the more critical followed by a go-around at the minimum
holding ice as defined by part II, paragraph of the icing conditions defined in Appendix climb gradient required by § 25.119, from a
(b)(2), of this Appendix, or the ice calculated C of this part, or the icing conditions defined height of 200 feet above the landing surface
in the applicable paragraphs (b)(4)(i) or (ii) of in part I of this Appendix in which the to 2,000 feet above the landing surface, flying
part II of this Appendix: airplane is capable of safely operating. for 15 minutes at 2,000 feet above the landing
(i) For an airplane certified in accordance (c) Ice accretions for airplanes certified in surface in the approach configuration, and a
with § 25.1420(a)(2), the ice accretion defined accordance with §§ 25.1420(a)(2) or (3). For descent to the landing surface (touchdown)
by part II, paragraph (c)(5)(i), of this an airplane certified in accordance with in the landing configuration; or
Appendix, plus a descent from 2,000 feet § 25.1420(a)(2), only the portion of the icing (ii) Holding ice as defined by part II,
above the landing surface to a height of 200 conditions of part I of this Appendix in paragraph (c)(4), of this Appendix.
feet above the landing surface with a which the airplane is capable of operating (7) For both unprotected and protected
transition to the landing configuration in the safely must be considered. parts, the ice accretion for the takeoff phase
icing conditions defined in part I of this (1) Takeoff ice is the most critical ice must be determined for the icing conditions
Appendix, plus: accretion on unprotected surfaces, and any defined in part I of this Appendix, using the
(A) Pre-detection ice, as defined in part II, ice accretion on the protected surfaces, following assumptions:
paragraph (b)(5), of this Appendix; and occurring between the end of the takeoff (i) The airfoils, control surfaces, and, if
(B) The ice accumulated during an exit distance and 400 feet above the takeoff applicable, propellers are free from frost,
maneuver, beginning with the minimum surface, assuming accretion starts at the end snow, or ice at the start of takeoff;
climb gradient required by § 25.119, from a of the takeoff distance in the icing conditions (ii) The ice accretion starts at the end of the
height of 200 feet above the landing surface defined in part I of this Appendix. takeoff distance;
through one cloud with a horizontal extent (2) Final takeoff ice is the most critical ice (iii) The critical ratio of thrust/power-to-
of 17.4 nautical miles in the most critical of accretion on unprotected surfaces, and any weight;
the icing conditions defined in part I of this ice accretion on the protected surfaces (iv) Failure of the critical engine occurs at
Appendix and one cloud with a horizontal appropriate to normal ice protection system VEF; and
extent of 17.4 nautical miles in the operation, between 400 feet and either 1,500 (v) Crew activation of the ice protection
continuous maximum icing conditions feet above the takeoff surface, or the height system is in accordance with a normal
defined in Appendix C of this part. at which the transition from the takeoff to the operating procedure provided in the airplane
(ii) For an airplane certified in accordance en route configuration is completed and VFTO flight manual, except that after beginning the
with § 25.1420(a)(1), the ice accumulated in is reached, whichever is higher. Ice accretion takeoff roll, it must be assumed that the crew
the maximum continuous icing conditions is assumed to start at the end of the takeoff takes no action to activate the ice protection
defined in Appendix C of this part, during a distance in the icing conditions defined in system until the airplane is at least 400 feet
descent from the maximum vertical extent of part I of this Appendix. above the takeoff surface.
the icing conditions defined in Appendix C (3) En route ice is the most critical ice (d) The ice accretion before the ice
of this part, to 2,000 feet above the landing accretion on the unprotected surfaces, and protection system has been activated and is
surface in the cruise configuration, plus any ice accretion on the protected surfaces performing its intended function is the
transition to the approach configuration and appropriate to normal ice protection system critical ice accretion formed on the
flying for 15 minutes at 2,000 feet above the operation, during the en route flight phase in unprotected and normally protected surfaces
landing surface, plus a descent from 2,000 the icing conditions defined in part I of this before activation and effective operation of
feet above the landing surface to a height of Appendix. the ice protection system in the icing
200 feet above the landing surface with a (4) Holding ice is the most critical ice conditions defined in part I of this Appendix.
transition to the landing configuration, plus: accretion on the unprotected surfaces, and This ice accretion only applies in showing
(A) Pre-detection ice, as described by part any ice accretion on the protected surfaces compliance to §§ 25.143(j) and 25.207(h).
II, paragraph (b)(5), of this Appendix; and appropriate to normal ice protection system (e) In order to reduce the number of ice
(B) The ice accumulated during an exit operation, resulting from 45 minutes of flight accretions to be considered when
maneuver, beginning with the minimum within a cloud with a 17.4 nautical miles demonstrating compliance with the
climb gradient required by § 25.119, from a horizontal extent in the icing conditions requirements of § 25.21(g), any of the ice
height of 200 feet above the landing surface defined in part I of this Appendix, during the accretions defined in this Appendix may be
through one cloud with a horizontal extent holding phase of flight. used for any other flight phase if it is shown
of 17.4 nautical miles in the most critical of (5) Approach ice is the ice accretion on the to be at least as critical as the specific ice
the icing conditions defined in part I of this unprotected surfaces, and any ice accretion accretion defined for that flight phase.
Appendix and one cloud with a horizontal on the protected surfaces appropriate to Configuration differences and their effects on
extent of 17.4 nautical miles in the normal ice protection system operation, ice accretions must be taken into account.
continuous maximum icing conditions resulting from the more critical of the: (f) The ice accretion that has the most
defined in Appendix C of this part. (i) Ice accumulated in the icing conditions adverse effect on handling qualities may be
(5) Pre-detection ice is the ice accretion defined in part I of this Appendix during a used for airplane performance tests provided
before detection of flight conditions in this descent from the maximum vertical extent of any difference in performance is
Appendix that require exiting per the icing conditions defined in part I of this conservatively taken into account.
PART 33—AIRWORTHINESS (b) Operate throughout its flight (A) Demonstration in altitude flight
STANDARDS: AIRCRAFT ENGINES power range, including minimum simulation test facility: A duration of 10
descent idle rotor speeds achievable in minutes consistent with a simulated
■ 25. The authority citation for part 33 flight, in the icing conditions defined flight descent of 10,000 ft (3 km) in
is revised to read as follows: for turbojet, turbofan, and turboprop altitude while operating in Continuous
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, engines in Appendices C and O of part Maximum icing conditions defined in
44702, 44704. 25 of this chapter, and for turboshaft Appendix C of part 25 of this chapter for
■ 26. Revise § 33.68 to read as follows: engines in Appendix C of part 29 of this turbojet, turbofan, and turboprop
chapter. In addition: engines, and for turboshaft engines in
§ 33.68 Induction system icing. (1) It must be shown through Critical the icing conditions defined in
Each engine, with all icing protection Point Analysis (CPA) that the complete Appendix C of part 29 of this chapter,
systems operating, must: ice envelope has been analyzed, and plus 40 percent liquid water content
(a) Operate throughout its flight that the most critical points must be margin, at the critical level of airspeed
power range, including the minimum demonstrated by engine test, analysis, or and air temperature; or
descent idle rotor speeds achievable in a combination of the two to operate (B) Demonstration in ground test
flight, in the icing conditions defined acceptably. Extended flight in critical facility: A duration of 3 cycles of
for turbojet, turbofan, and turboprop flight conditions such as hold, descent, alternating icing exposure
engines in Appendices C and O of part approach, climb, and cruise, must be corresponding to the liquid water
25 of this chapter, and Appendix D of addressed, for the ice conditions content levels and standard cloud
this part, and for turboshaft engines in defined in these appendices. lengths starting in Intermittent
Appendix C of part 29 of this chapter, Maximum and then in Continuous
(2) It must be shown by engine test,
without the accumulation of ice on the Maximum icing conditions defined in
analysis, or a combination of the two
engine components that: Appendix C of part 25 of this chapter for
that the engine can operate acceptably
(1) Adversely affects engine operation turbojet, turbofan, and turboprop
for the following durations:
or that causes an unacceptable engines, and for turboshaft engines in
permanent loss of power or thrust or (i) At engine powers that can sustain the icing conditions defined in
unacceptable increase in engine level flight: A duration that achieves Appendix C of part 29 of this chapter,
operating temperature; or repetitive, stabilized operation for at the critical level of air temperature.
(2) Results in unacceptable temporary turbojet, turbofan, and turboprop (c) In addition to complying with
power loss or engine damage; or engines in the icing conditions defined paragraph (b) of this section, the
(3) Causes a stall, surge, or flameout in Appendices C and O of part 25 of this following conditions shown in Table 1
or loss of engine controllability. The chapter, and for turboshaft engines in of this section unless replaced by
applicant must account for in-flight ram the icing conditions defined in similar CPA test conditions that are
effects in any critical point analysis or Appendix C of part 29 of this chapter. more critical or produce an equivalent
test demonstration of these flight (ii) At engine power below that which level of severity, must be demonstrated
conditions. can sustain level flight: by an engine test:
TABLE 1—CONDITIONS THAT MUST BE DEMONSTRATED BY AN ENGINE TEST

Supercooled water Median volume drop
Condition Total air temperature concentrations Duration
diameter
(minimum)
1. Glaze ice conditions ........ 21 to 25 °F (-6 to -4 °C) ..... 2 g/m3 ................................. 25 to 35 microns ....... (a) 10-minutes for power
below sustainable level
flight (idle descent).
(b) Must show repetitive,
stabilized operation for
higher powers (50%,
75%, 100%MC).
2. Rime ice conditions ......... -10 to 0 °F (-23 to -18 °C) .. 1 g/m3 ................................. 15 to 25 microns ....... (a) 10-minutes for power
below sustainable level
flight (idle descent).
(b) Must show repetitive,
stabilized operation for
higher powers (50%,
75%, 100%MC).
3. Glaze ice holding condi- Turbojet and Turbofan, Alternating cycle: First 1.7 20 to 30 microns ....... Must show repetitive, sta-
tions. only: 10 to 18 °F (-12 to g/m3 (1 minute), Then 0.3 bilized operation (or 45
(Turbojet, turbofan, and tur- -8 °C). g/m3 (6 minute). minutes max).
boprop only).
Turboprop, only: 2 to 10 °F ............................................. ....................................
(-17 to -12 °C).
4. Rime ice holding condi- Turbojet and Turbofan, 0.25 g/m3 ............................ 20 to 30 microns ....... Must show repetitive, sta-
tions. only: -10 to 0 °F (-23 to bilized operation (or 45
(Turbojet, turbofan, and tur- -18 °C). minutes max).

boprop only).
Turboprop, only: 2 to 10 °F ............................................. ....................................
(-17 to -12 °C).
(d) Operate at ground idle speed for operation, the engine may be run up minimum ambient temperature
a minimum of 30 minutes at each of the periodically to a moderate power or capability in the engine operating
following icing conditions shown in thrust setting in a manner acceptable to manual as mandatory in icing
Table 2 of this section with the available the Administrator. Analysis may be conditions. The applicant must
air bleed for icing protection at its used to show ambient temperatures demonstrate, with consideration of
critical condition, without adverse below the tested temperature are less expected airport elevations, the
effect, followed by acceleration to critical. The applicant must document following:
takeoff power or thrust. During the idle any demonstrated run ups and
TABLE 2—DEMONSTRATION METHODS FOR SPECIFIC ICING CONDITIONS

Supercooled water con- Mean effective par-
Condition Total air temperature centrations Demonstration
ticle diameter
(minimum)
1. Rime ice condition ........... 0 to 15 °F (-18 to -9 °C) ..... Liquid—0.3 g/m3 ................. 15–25 microns ........... By engine test.
2. Glaze ice condition .......... 20 to 30 °F (-7 to -1 °C) ..... Liquid—0.3 g/m3 ................. 15–25 microns ........... By engine test.
3. Snow ice condition .......... 26 to 32 °F (-3 to 0 °C) ...... Ice—0.9 g/m3 ...................... 100 microns ............... By test, analysis or com-
(minimum) .................. bination of the two.
4. Large drop glaze ice con- 15 to 30 °F (-9 to -1 °C) ..... Liquid—0.3 g/m3 ................. 100 microns (min- By test, analysis or com-
dition (Turbojet, turbofan, imum). bination of the two.
and turboprop only).
(e) Demonstrate by test, analysis, or (c) Ingestion of ice under the (e) Compliance with the requirements
combination of the two, acceptable conditions of this section may not— of this section must be demonstrated by
operation for turbojet, turbofan, and (1) Cause an immediate or ultimate engine ice ingestion test under the
turboprop engines in mixed phase and unacceptable sustained power or thrust following ingestion conditions or by
ice crystal icing conditions throughout loss; or validated analysis showing equivalence
Appendix D of this part, icing envelope * * * * * of other means for demonstrating soft
throughout its flight power range, body damage tolerance.
(d) For an engine that incorporates a
including minimum descent idling (1) The minimum ice quantity and
speeds. protection device, compliance with this
section need not be demonstrated with dimensions will be established by the
■ 27. Amend § 33.77 by adding engine size as defined in Table 1 of this
respect to ice formed forward of the
paragraph (a) and revising paragraphs protection device if it is shown that— section.
(c) introductory text, (c)(1), (d), and (e) (2) The ingested ice dimensions are
to read as follows: (1) Such ice is of a size that will not
pass through the protective device; determined by linear interpolation
§ 33.77 Foreign object ingestion ice. (2) The protective device will between table values, and are based on
(a) Compliance with the requirements withstand the impact of the ice; and the actual engine’s inlet hilite area.
of this section must be demonstrated by (3) The ice stopped by the protective (3) The ingestion velocity will
engine ice ingestion test or by validated device will not obstruct the flow of simulate ice from the inlet being sucked
analysis showing equivalence of other induction air into the engine with a into the engine.
means for demonstrating soft body resultant sustained reduction in power (4) Engine operation will be at the
damage tolerance. or thrust greater than those values maximum cruise power or thrust unless
* * * * * defined by paragraph (c) of this section. lower power is more critical.
TABLE 1—MINIMUM ICE SLAB DIMENSIONS BASED ON ENGINE INLET SIZE

Engine Inlet Hilite area Thickness Width Length
(sq. inch) (inch) (inch) (inch)
0 ................................................................................................................................................. 0.25 0 3.6

80 ............................................................................................................................................... 0.25 6 3.6
300 ............................................................................................................................................. 0.25 12 3.6
700 ............................................................................................................................................. 0.25 12 4.8
2800 ........................................................................................................................................... 0.35 12 8.5
5000 ........................................................................................................................................... 0.43 12 11.0
7000 ........................................................................................................................................... 0.50 12 12.7
7900 ........................................................................................................................................... 0.50 12 13.4
9500 ........................................................................................................................................... 0.50 12 14.6
11300 ......................................................................................................................................... 0.50 12 15.9
13300 ......................................................................................................................................... 0.50 12 17.1
16500 ......................................................................................................................................... 0.5 12 18.9
20000 ......................................................................................................................................... 0.5 12 20.0
Appendix C [Added and Reserved] Appendix D to Part 33—Mixed Phase

and Ice Crystal Icing Envelope (Deep
■ 28. Amend part 33 by adding and Convective Clouds)
reserving a new Appendix C.
The ice crystal icing envelope is depicted
■29. Amend part 33 by adding a new in Figure D1 of this Appendix.
Appendix D to read as follows: BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
Within the envelope, total water content from sea level to higher altitudes and scaled over a range of ambient temperature within
(TWC) in g/m3 has been determined based by a factor of 0.65 to a standard cloud length the boundaries of the ice crystal envelope
upon the adiabatic lapse defined by the of 17.4 nautical miles. Figure D2 of this specified in Figure D1 of this Appendix.
convective rise of 90% relative humidity air Appendix displays TWC for this distance
ER04NO14.008</GPH>
Ice crystal size median mass dimension TABLE 1—SUPERCOOLED LIQUID The TWC levels displayed in Figure D2 of
(MMD) range is 50–200 microns (equivalent PORTION OF TWC this Appendix represent TWC values for a
spherical size) based upon measurements standard exposure distance (horizontal cloud
near convective storm cores. Horizontal cloud length) of 17.4 nautical miles that must be
The TWC can be treated as completely Temperature LWC— adjusted with length of icing exposure.
length—nautical
range—deg C g/m3
glaciated (ice crystal) except as noted in the miles
Table 1 of this Appendix.
0 to –20 ........... ≤50 .................. ≤1.0
0 to –20 ........... Indefinite .......... ≤0.5
< –20 ............... .......................... 0
ER04NO14.009</GPH>
Issued under authority provided by 49

U.S.C. 106(f) and 44701(a) in Washington,
DC, on October 22, 2014.
Michael P. Huerta,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2014–25789 Filed 11–3–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–C
ER04NO14.010</GPH>

25.1420 Fed Register

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

25.1420 Fed Register

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

25.1420 Fed Register

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vol.

2012$ 7% Present value

Benefit Cost Benefit Cost

Part 33 Engines ............................................................................. Qualitative ......... $13,936,000 Qualitative ........ $11,375,927

Total ........................................................................................ $582,890,439 ... 61,261,121 $126,889,985 ... $42,292,624

1 NTSB Safety Recommendations A–96–54 and

4 The data used to complete the IPHWG report is

revision to § 33.68 would require all

Embraer EMB–120 Zero Injury Incident Near West

in a region affected by this, then the condition as described in the NPRM.

unusual design features that affect this rulemaking. Rule

TABLE 1—TOTAL BENEFITS AND COSTS OF THIS RULE

Benefit Cost Benefit Cost

Part 33 Engines ............................................................................. Qualitative ......... $13,936,000 Qualitative ........ $11,375,927

Total ........................................................................................ $582,890,439 ... 61,261,121 $126,889,985 ... 42,292,624

TABLE 2—COST SUMMARY

Engine Certification Cost ............................................................................................................................. $7,936,000 $6,478,140

Total Engine Cost ................................................................................................................................. 13,936,000 11,375,927

New Large Airplane Certification Cost ........................................................................................................ 14,126,333 11,531,295

Total Large Airplane Cost .................................................................................................................... 14,126,333 11,531,295

Other Airplane Certification Cost ................................................................................................................. 19,066,026 15,563,557

Total Other Airplane Costs ................................................................................................................... 33,198,788 19,385,401

Total Costs .................................................................................................................................... 61,261,121 42,292,624

requirements would extend to all applicability to small transport category

the States, or the relationship between

margin is required for flight in icing detection. components, or airframe components

TABLE 1—ICING CONDITIONS FOR GROUND TESTS

* * * * * conditions as defined in part 33, (2) For airplanes certificated in

TABLE 1—HEAVY RAIN CONDITIONS FOR AIRSPEED INDICATING SYSTEM TESTS

0 to 10 000 ....................................... 0 to 3000 ......................................... 1 100 50 1000

* * * * * (a) For airplanes certificated in ■ 19. Amend § 25.1325 by revising

crystal conditions as defined in part 33, certified to safely exit following

FIGURE 2 - Appendix 0, Freezing Drizzle, Drop Diameter Distribution

0 .. i !Freezing Drizzle MVD H40 micron

FIGURE 3 -Appendix 0, Freezing Drizzle, Temperature and Altitude

FIGURE 4 - Appendix 0, Freezing Rain, Liquid Water Content

FIGURE 5 - Appendix 0, Freezing Rain, Drop Diameter Distribution

FIGURE 6 -Appendix 0, Freezing Rain, Temperature and Altitude

TABLE 1—CONDITIONS THAT MUST BE DEMONSTRATED BY AN ENGINE TEST

(Turbojet, turbofan, and tur- -18 °C). minutes max).

TABLE 2—DEMONSTRATION METHODS FOR SPECIFIC ICING CONDITIONS

TABLE 1—MINIMUM ICE SLAB DIMENSIONS BASED ON ENGINE INLET SIZE

0 ................................................................................................................................................. 0.25 0 3.6

Appendix C [Added and Reserved] Appendix D to Part 33—Mixed Phase

Issued under authority provided by 49

You might also like