l-'sderai- Register I -'-Vol. 52. No. 57 I Wednesday. March 25. 1987 / Rules and Regulations
`
`.
`
`throug_h September 30. 1909. These
`airplanes have an expected lifespan
`well into the next century.
`_
`The past rule allowed these derivative
`air-lanes to operate with flight recorder
`technology that dates back to the 1950's.
`In the past. cockpit voice recorders and
`flight recorders were not required of the
`commuter airline industry based on the
`premise that the level of passenger
`service was not sufficient to iustify -
`installing these recorders. increased
`operation of the short-to-medium-range
`airplanes by the commuter airline
`industry. however. has placed them
`actueriaily in s more severe operational
`environment than airplanes type
`certificated through September so. 1969.
`creating. the need for additional data
`"collection.
`Discussion
`
`-
`
`_ .. DEPARTMENT or ramsronrxnoa
`Fpdorel Aviation Administration’
`'.
`, 14 cm rans's1,“121.125,ane.1jas
`‘ [Docket No. 2u1s;'Amuienuar Moust-
`WD, 121-191, 1254.
`136-23]"
`'
`"
`' Fttghtttecorderssndcockpttvotoe
`Ftecordsre
`~
`-
`.
`.
`
`SUPPLEMEll‘I'A|W INFDRIIITIOII:
`
`Regulatory History
`. These amendments are based on
`Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM}
`No. B5-1. published in the Federal
`Register on lanuary 8. 1935 [50 FR 949].
`All comments received in response to
`NPRM No. 35-1 were considered in
`adopting these amendments.
`
`ltllllcfi: Federal Aviation
`Administration (FAA). DOT. '
`Acnou: Final rule.
`
`-
`
`’
`
`_
`
`'
`
`'
`
`'
`
`'
`
`'
`
`f
`
`'
`
`-
`
`llackground
`For those operations conducted under
`Parts 91 and 125 of the Federal Aviation
`Regulations [FAR]. there are no
`susslsnlw: This amendment requires
`requirements that either a flight recorder
`improved {digital} flight recorders with
`or acocitpil voice recorder {CV11} be
`additional data parameters for airplanes
`installed. However. in the Interest of
`type certificated before 1989 and '
`safety. the Federal Aviation
`operated in Part 121 operations.-Review
`Administration {FAA} has always
`of National -Transportation Safety Board
`encouraged the installation of approved
`' ~_ ‘hccidentfincldent files for ]anua' "1933
`flight recorders and approved cockpit
`'
`to February 1983 revealed the‘ high
`voice recorders in airplanes used in
`'
`‘ "failure rate of the metal foil i'light_'
`-_ those operations.
`recorders. The data reveeledihat 37
`_
`fiection 121.843 of the PAR requires
`' " recorders [48 percent] had one or more
`operators to equip eech'lut'bine~powered .
`'m'alfunctionlng parameters preceding
`' airplane, and each airplane certificated
`the accidentfincidenl preventing the
`for operation above _25.0D0 feet with an -
`"_r'ec'crdiI1g or readout pertinent data. As '
`approved flight recorder. For airplanes
`’ at-estilt. post-accident flight recorder
`' having an original type certificate issued
`ertarninttlion cannot be relied upon to —
`lh'rtiugi*'_t September 30,1969. the flight-
`' provide accident investigators-with
`recerdcr parameters must include time." '
`‘ siiffictent iufdnnatlon to accurately
`‘altitude. airspeed. vertical acceleration:
`‘assess an ‘causal interrelationship
`hizdding. and radio transmission keying. "
`between men. machine. and -
`-
`-
`'
`"Airplanes having an-original type
`'envir__oru'nenL The requirement of a
`ceniiioate issued after September so.
`‘digital flight recorder with additional --
`.'19t19.’are'requiredto have additional
`data "urametars is deemed the-minimum
`flight recorder parameters-indicating
`' isten irrd necessary-toensure thatail oi’
`'_' pitch attitude. roll attitude. side-slip
`' the underlying causal fsctorsof en
`-angle or lateral acceleration. pitch-trim
`' accident are'ide“ntifled. The amendment‘ .
`‘position. control coiumnor pitch control-
`‘also requires co_c_l-;pi_Lvoi_ee recorders on '
`.‘ surfaceposlticn. control wheel or lateral
`"' "newly manufactured muittengina.
`.
`control-siirfece position. rudder pedal or
`-
`' "turbine-poweredairplanes certificated:
`.
`yaw control surface position. thrust of
`-
`to carry's_i3gu_rrg1ors passengers. _.
`;
`.
`-' requiring two Pilots by type .~.e..un..u;...‘
`". '°°"";h "°“3'"°' "°"'“‘"‘ "them “‘““"
`reverser. trailing edge flap. or cockpit
`oropereting rules for those operations
`I flap or cockpit flap control position.
`conducted under Part 135. The ,
`The (NH provisions for Part 121
`-"amendment also specifies that for those 1
`- opsr-ators'requi.re a CV}! for each large -
`operators conducting operations under
`turbine-powered or large pressurized
`Part 91'end Part'125 that have installed
`. airplane with four reciprocating engines.
`appi-oveducoclcpit voice recorders. the
`-Part 135 does not require operators to.
`Administrator will not use the record In
`have flight recorders but does require
`my civil penalty or certificate action.
`turboiet airplanes configured to carry
`These amendments were based _on
`ten passengers or more to have a cockpit
`- ‘recommendations from a study.
`voice recorder'lnstalled.
`'
`‘
`conducted by Trans ‘Systems.
`Since these provisions were adopted. '
`Corporation and a number of safety ‘
`there has been a dramatic change in the‘
`_ recommendations by the National
`-sir carrier Industry. Deregulation has
`Transportation Safety Board.
`-
`contributed to that change by allowing
`esrscrtvs oars: May '20. 1987.
`existing Part 121- carriers to pull out of
`Jon I-urrruen rm-onusriou course-r:
`short-to-medium‘-range markets. thereby‘
`Frank Rock. Federal Aviation
`' creating a demand being filled by a
`Administration. Office of Airworthiness.
`rapidly expanding commuter airline
`industry. To meet the equipment needs
`Aircraft. Engineering Division. Technical
`. Anelyslsflranclt. AW5-—1flJ. 800- '
`' of lheexpanding commuter airline
`-
`Inde cadence Avenue. SW.. '
`industry. manufacturers have developed
`7 new fuel-efficient airplanes. including
`. Was ington. DC-20591: telephone [zoz]. --
`20'.’-95137.
`derivatives of airplanes type certificated
`
`'
`
`'
`. This amendment revises §D1.35 and
`adds a new § 125.202 that spécifies that '
`the Admiriiatretor will not use the
`cockpit voice recorder" record in 'eny_
`civil penalty or certiftceleaction. The
`purpose is to encours e operators‘ to
`' voluntarily install coc
`..
`‘
`it voice
`recorders in airplsnest at are used in
`those operations where they are: not
`required. The installed equipment must
`be approved and must continue to .meet
`the airworthiness requirements under
`which the airplane is type certificated
`and operated.
`.
`This amendment substantively revises
`' H t2'1.‘3-13 and 135.151. For operations
`conducted under Part-' 121.. this role
`requires retrofitting all airplanes type
`certificated through September 30. 1999
`-{currently using a six-parameter i'oil--
`typeflight recorder]: with at six.»
`-parameterafldigitai flight recorder within I
`'- 2 years‘ from the effective date of the
`amendment. in addition. these flight
`recorders niust he upgraded to 11- ,
`parameter-digital flight recorders within
`7 years after the effective date of this‘
`amendment. The 11 parameters consist
`Ioi. those currently required plus the ’
`following: [1] Pitch attitude: [2] roll
`attitude: [3] longitudinal acceieretiom‘-[-I]
`control column or pitch control surface
`.p-oalllflfti and [5] -thrust of each engine.
`They are required to perform within the
`ranges. accuracies. and recording
`'
`intervals specified in Appendix B of Part
`121.
`
`-
`
`_
`
`'
`
`'
`
`All newly manufactured airplanes"
`having an original type certificate issued
`through September 30.1959. are required‘ "
`to‘have '1?-pararaeter digital flight
`recorders installed after 2 years from‘ the .-
`effective date of this amendment.
`'
`'
`
`The requirements for airplanes type’
`certificated after September 30. 1969. do .
`not change except for the substitution of
`
`BOEING
`Ex.‘ 1010
`
`

`
`9623
`Federal Register I Vol. 52. No. 57 I Wednesday. March 25. 1987 I Rules and Regulations
`
`
`longitudinal acceleration for lateral
`acceleration.
`-
`"
`=
`"
`For those operations conducted under
`Part 135. the amendment requires the
`installation of a CVR for all multlengtne.
`turbine-powered airplanes certificated
`to carry six or more passengers and
`requiring two pilots by certification 0
`'
`'
`operating rules. that are newly
`'
`manufactured 2 years from the effective
`date of this amendment.
`"Manufactured" means when the
`airplane inspection acceptance records
`reflect that the airplane is complete and
`meets the FAA-approved type design
`data. An airplane manufactured and
`then placed into storage prior to sale is
`considered manufactured on the date it
`is completed prior .to being placed in
`storage.
`~
`Discussion of Comments
`
`in response to NPRM No. 85-1. the
`FAA received comtnentq from 29
`.
`interested persons.The majority of the
`comments received express opposition
`to the proposals based upon the costs
`involved in complying with the proposed
`requirements. More specifically. most of
`the opposition is directed to the-digital.
`flight data recorder proposals.
`The proposals in NPRM No. 85-1
`address three issues: [1] Recorder
`information to be osedonly for accident
`investigation purposes: [2] digital flight
`data recorders in specific airplanes
`operated under Part 121 of the FAR: and
`[3] cockpit voice recorders in specific
`newly manufactured airplanes operated
`under Part 135 of the FAR. For
`discusssion and analysis purposes. each
`issue will he addressed separately.
`"in its comments on NPRM No. 85-1.
`the National Transportation Safety
`Board {NTSBJ states that the FAA has
`not entirely satisfied the intent of all its
`safety recommendations made to the
`FAA concerning enhancement of flight
`recorder standards required to provide
`adequate data for accident and incident
`investigation purposes and identifies six
`specific shortcomings. All the issues
`raised by the NTSB in its comments to
`NPRM No. 85-1 had been forwarded-
`previously to the FAA as NTSB safety
`recommendations. These issues were
`considered in the development of the
`NPRM and have been addressed by
`FAA formal responses to the
`recommendations. the NPRM. or the
`preamble to this rule.
`Since 195?. the NTSB has issued a
`total of 53 recommendations regarding
`CVR's and flight recorders. Of this total.
`38 recommendations were’ forwarded to
`the FAA. The remaining 15
`recommendations were issued to
`industry groups such as iJ.8. air carriers.
`the Air Line Pilots Association. the
`
`-
`
`Allied Pilots Association. airplane and
`rotorcraii manufacturers. etc. Of the 15
`industry recommendations. 5 remain
`open [A-82-101 through -105].
`Of the {ill NTSB recommendations
`isimed to the FAA. 26 recommendations ~
`are "CLOSED" through FAAINTSB stab‘
`coordination and 12 recommendations
`remain in an "OPEN" status. The FAA is‘
`continuing to address these remaining 12
`' "OPEN" recomJnendaiions.'l'he
`following is a summary of the "0PEN'"
`recommendations that are mentioned in
`the N'l'SB's comments to the docket.
`Recommendations A-82-007 and -108
`recommend requirements for improved
`CVR'a and flight recorders for rotorcraft
`and are being dealt with under a
`separate rulentaking action.
`Recommendation A-83-105
`recommends the development of a
`'
`technical standard order _['I'S0}‘fcs'
`.' CVR's and fli
`lrecordsrs. Proposed
`T30-C111. w ich contains standards for
`CV}! and flight recorders and combined
`CVR's}illghi recorders. was published in
`the Federal Register on April 12. 1985.
`The final version of the ‘PS0 is presently
`undergoing internal FAA coordination
`'
`prior to issuance.
`Recommendations A-82-064 through
`-006 recommend that flight recorders
`currently required on‘ fixed-wingalrcraft
`operated under Part 121 be improved
`and that such aircraft manufactured
`after a certain data be equipped for
`Right recorders with additional
`'
`parameters.
`Recommendations A-82-107 and -109
`through -111 recommend that turboiet
`flxed—wing aircraft certificated for six or
`more passengers not now required to
`have CVR's or flight recorders be
`required to have CVR's and flight
`reccrderewith additional parameters.
`In its comments to the docket
`' regarding Recommendations A-—ll2-Otis!
`through -066. the NTSB requested that
`the FAA reconsider its action on
`'
`Recommendation A-8.2-060 and require ‘
`32 parameters for flight recorders on
`newly manufactured fixed—wing aircraft
`operated under Part 121. The FAA has
`determined that an increase in the
`required parameters to 17 represents an
`appropriate balance of costs and
`benefits.
`In its comments to the docket on
`Recommendations A~B2r107 and -109
`through -111. the NTSB aclmowledged
`that the FAA has satisfied its
`recommendation with’ respect to CVR
`requirements for aircraft operating
`under Part ‘[35. The NTSB urged the
`FAA to require flight recorders for all
`rnultiengine turbine-powered aircraft
`operated uncier'Part_135. Tlts.FA‘A
`agrees with the N'I'SB_ that requiring
`flight recorders on muliiengins turbine-
`
`_
`
`’
`
`_
`
`powared aircreftoperated under Part
`135 would provide helpful accident
`investigation information. However. the
`FAA continues to believe that the
`benefits of such reglulation would not be
`communsurate wit
`the associated v
`costs. .
`-
`in its comments to' the docket. the
`NTSB states that the rule does not
`provide flexibility to accommodate
`advancing technology. The FAA agrees
`that changes in aeronautical technology
`may at some future date require changes
`to this rule. However. to issue a rule that
`includes the degree of flexibility
`necessary to accommodate future
`technology that is not-presently defined
`is impracticable. when new design
`features are identified. the FAA can and
`will evaluate them (hiring development
`of'the type certification basis and take
`whatever actions are necessary to
`maintain the required safety level. if
`additional parameters or interfaces
`between electronic systems cell for
`special requirements. they will be issued
`as appropriate. Consistent with
`.
`rulemaiting policy and as experience is
`gained with such future novel
`‘
`technologies. consideration will be given
`to revising the appropriate rules. in the
`new. fly-by-wire aircraft control system
`design, the one-to-one-correlation from
`crew input to the resulting control
`system response does not exist. That.
`and other new design features. may
`require the FAA to propose and adopt
`' additional parameters to be recorded.
`over those currently required by the
`operating rules.
`The NTSB continues to urge that the
`FAA initiate further rulemaking to
`require flight recorders in multienglnc.
`turbine-powered. fixed-wing airplanes
`operated under Part st or 125. A careful
`review of the benefits required to offset
`the cost of requiring flight recorders in
`‘the class of airplanes recommended by
`the NTSB operating under Part 91 or 12.5
`shows that the anticipated benefits will
`not support such a requirement. The rule
`does encourage the installation of such
`equipment by stating that flight recorder
`records will not be used by the
`Administrator in any civil penalty or
`certificate action.
`in its comments to the docket. the '
`NTSB stated that it was disturbed that
`the FAA has not taken the initiative to
`propose rulemaking consistent with the
`standards recently adopted by the
`lntemetionai Civil Aviation
`Organization (ICAO). This amendment
`is consistent with the recent
`Amendment 17 to ICAO Annex 8. Part I.
`The NTSB. in its comments. ‘intenningles
`ICAO "requirements" and lC.A0-
`“recommendations." Requirements are
`
`\
`
`BOEING
`EX. 1010
`
`

`
`Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 57 / Wednesday. March 25. 1987 I Rules and Regulations
`9624
`
`binding on the ICAO member states.
`while recommendations are not. This
`amendment is in full agreement with the
`ICAO requirements in 5 0.3 of Annex 0
`and in many respects is in agreement
`with the ICAO recommendations in that
`section. Attachment D to ICAO Annex
`6. "Part I. contains detailed flight
`, recorder guidance to member states. in
`that attachment. [CAO recommends the
`_ 32«parsrnetsr flight recorders for certain
`.typss of airplanes. The FAA agrees with
`-both ICAO_ and the NTSB that more data’ '
`is always preferable and also agrees
`-with the [CAD position that the
`increased'data parameters be ~
`recommendations and not required
`parameters. The FAA believes that the
`parameters specified in this amendment
`are sufficient toidentify accident
`" probable~cause_and that the additional
`parameters {up to 32) have'noi‘been ~- ._,.
`shown to be cost beneficial.
`
`Recorder Information for Accident
`Investigation
`‘
`One commenter supports the
`proposed amendments to £591.35 and
`125.202. A second commenter opposes
`the amendments. contending that the
`FAA should use the data as necessary
`to improve piloting s|:l|ls{The' FAA does
`not agree that the Administrator should
`use the cockpit voice recorder record in
`any civil penalty or certificate action.-As
`stated in the notice. the purpose is to
`encourage operators to voluntarily
`install cockpit voice recorders in
`airplanes where they are not required.
`The information from the record is to
`determine the cause of the accident and
`4
`not to place blame. Improvement of
`piloting skills can be obtained by
`current requirements. such as the
`biennial flight checks.
`
`Digital Flight Data Recorcler
`The FAA received seven comments
`supporting the notice as it relates to the
`digital flight data recorder proposals.
`One commenter contends that any
`airline retrofit requirement can be
`satisfied by equipment currently in
`production and agrees with the FAA's
`estimates’ of equipment costs. This
`commenterasserts that his estimate of
`rnaintenancscost savings to airlines
`which replace foil recorders with digital
`flight recorders reflects a savings of
`success annually based on a too-
`sirplane fleet.
`--
`Another commenter agrees with the
`requirement to replace metal foil-type
`recorders with digital types because
`accident investigation would be
`simplified and accomplished with
`greater accuracy but expresses concern -
`that the 2-year period for replacement of
`. existing metal foil-typerecorders-with .
`
`.
`
`digital types may not be realistic. The
`commenter asserts that the assumption
`was made that the new digital recorders
`- would be directly interchangeable with
`_
`existing foil-type recorders in all
`installations. Although many metal foil-
`type recorders in service are packaged -
`in rectangular [standard 5‘: Air
`- Trans
`port Rated.(ATlt] long] containers.
`almost 1.4.00 Lockheed Model 1090
`-
`metal foil-type recorders packaged in a
`spherical container have been delivered .
`to customers. and many are still in
`service today. This commenter also
`recommends that the two-phase [2-year!
`7-year] plan be replaced with a single-
`phase program for incorporation of the
`11 parameter recorder and that the time
`limit for completion be compatible with
`existing airline maintenance cycles. The -
`FAA recognizes that the Lockheed
`M_r1d§_l__1t_l9C recorthir is configured
`differently from the standard lii,A'l"R
`long container but still believes that the
`2-year phase-in period. with proper
`planning. is sufficient to reconfigure the
`mounting rack for installation o the new
`recorder.
`_
`' Two commenters. while supporting
`the proposed rule. believe that the
`requirements should be further _
`expanded to maximize the information
`available from accident investigations
`and contend there is sufficlent
`iustification to require all airplanes
`operated under Part 121 and type
`certificated through September 30. 1939.
`to be upgraded to the 17-parameter
`digital recorder within 2 years from the
`effective date of the amendment. The
`FAA agrees that 17 parameters would
`derive more information from the
`accident. However. the 11 parameters
`required for the aircraft type-certificated
`through September 30. 1969. via the 2-
`' step program will enhance the accident
`data available to investigators with
`minimum cost and out-of-service time
`for the airplane. The FAA does not
`believe that the additional ti parameters
`will provide the safety benefit necessary
`to offset 'the additional cost. Both
`commenters are of the opinion that all
`' airplanes involved in Part 135
`operations should be required to carry
`the digital flight recorders within 2 years.
`. from the adoption of the amendment.‘
`One of the commenlers also questions
`the use of a single sramster for
`,
`measuring engine t ust and believes a
`more accurate method is to measure the
`NI speed and fuel flow for each engine.
`The FAA considers these issues to be
`- outside the scope of this current
`rulernalcing action.
`-
`One other commenter considers the _
`1-'7-parameter digital recorder as being
`too limited and not consistent with '
`recently adopted Intemstional Civil
`
`_
`
`-
`
`Aviation Organization IICAOI
`requirements'[32 parameters) applicable
`to airplanes over tltl.tllO pounds. The
`FAA evaluated these issues in" the ‘trans
`Systems study while preparing the
`notice and concluded that based on the
`infonnatlon available at that time. the
`proposals were the most cost beneficial
`in terms of accident prevention through"
`accident investigations. it should also be -
`pointed out that the final IGAO ' "
`document addresses only new
`certificates of airworthiness issued after-
`19B9. Tire comment is outsidethe scope
`-
`of the notice. and there is insufficient _
`justification by the commenter to issue a
`supplemental notice that addresses the
`recent ICAO stsnrlards. The FAA
`concludes that the existing alr.carrier_ -
`fleet oi’ 2,000 plus transport category .
`airplanes do need the new digital type '
`11-parameter recorder. and this
`'
`regulatory action should proceed.
`'- Another commenter agrees with the
`proposals and believes they are"'“"‘ '- -
`necessary to ensure that adequate data
`is available for accident investigations.
`The commenter contends that in the .
`affected airplanes. there will be_
`,
`adequate room. and little weight penalty
`for the digital flight recorder to be
`installed and serviced without difficulty.
`The FAA agrees with these comments.
`One commenter states that the
`it) it B-
`requirement for converting
`parameter digital recorder should be
`deleted as it is unlikely to enhance
`accident investigation to any extent and
`recommends requiring the 11-parameter
`recorder in 7 years. The FAA does not
`agree because adequate time has been
`allotted for foil-type recorders to be
`replaced and then expanded to the 11-
`parameter recorder _without undue
`hardship In the airline industry.
`Research of the National Transportation
`- Safety Board INTER] records indicates
`that ‘ill percent of the recorders
`recovered from accidents or incidents
`were not functioning. The foil-type
`recordar- would likely increase in failure
`rate over the 7-year period. resulting in
`increased inspections. decreased time
`between overhaul. and possible increase
`in FAR maintenance violations. as well
`as not having the data available in the
`event-of an accident or incident. There
`is a definite need to replace the-foil
`recorders as soon as possible.
`In addition to the above. the FAA
`received is responses to the notice
`expressing opposition to the digital flight
`recorder proposals on the basis of the
`economic impact of cornplyingwlth the ‘
`proposed requirements. Five
`'
`'
`commenters provided estimated cost
`figures for retrofitting their CV—ssc
`turbopropeller airplanes--to comply with
`
`_
`
`BOHNG
`. Ex.1010
`
`

`
`the proposed req:_ii_rems-nts; These‘
`estirnetesrangad from 316.000 to
`per airplane modification. Estimated
`coét figures that were provldéd for other
`models of airplanes cemewithin the .
`-
`above ,low and high estimates per
`airplane modification: -in addition. one '.
`cominenter notes thetthe FAA -.
`-
`estimated costs in the notice did not
`consider the loss of value on currently
`owned flight recorders. and this
`commenter estimates this velueiet $03100 '_
`_per recorder. With the loss of $5.090 per,
`recoi-der added to his‘estin'i‘at'e. lhis, -
`‘brings the total estimated cosflo
`- approldmately $0.500 below -the average
`of the low‘ and hlghestimatas above.
`Another commenter states that he has
`observed a price increase per flight
`recorder of approximately $5.000 to
`$6.000 since the issuance oi NPRM No.
`85-1. To properly respond to these
`comments. the-_ FAA hespigspared a"
`detailed cost estimate using the latest
`available ini'ormation.in its Regulatory
`Evaluation. and the FAA considers
`these costs the most realistic in
`determining the cost of compliance with
`the final rule.
`The NTSB suggests the addition of
`longitudinal acceleration as-e
`parameter. The NTSB contends that
`longitudinal acceleration is vital for-
`determlning the silent oi’ ‘wind shear.
`braking. and airplane -perfonnance and
`is a much more significant parameter
`than some others presently recorded.
`The N'l‘Sl‘l is responsible for detennining
`the probable cause of and contributing
`factors to an accident and is the prime
`user oi.’ the flight recorder data. The FAA
`agrees with the NTSB that the
`longitudinal accelerometer is necessary
`in identifying the contributing factors to
`an accident or incident. and has
`changed the requirements lor the 11-
`parameter recorder by substituting
`longitudinal acceleration for. pitch trim
`for the post-September 30. 1909,
`.
`certificated airplanes. In addition. the
`FAA has substituted longitudinal
`acceleration in place oi’ lateral
`acceleration for newly manufactured _
`airplanes. The FAA has reviewed type
`design data for airplanes affected and -
`finds that otherthsn the reconnection cl’
`wiring at the tri-axle accelerometers in
`the post-September access airplane.
`and.the substitution oi a longitudinal
`accelerometer for pitch trim-synclufo or _
`a potentiometer in the t-1-parameter
`airplane type certiiicated‘ through
`September 30. 1969. these changes are
`not significant.
`-
`v
`-
`5
`I
`Another commenter opposes the
`- digital iiislrt recorder proposal but does
`not operate any-airplanes that require
`modification to comply with the _
`
`'
`
`‘
`
`‘
`
`-
`
`'
`
`.
`
`'
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`Register I Vol. 52. No. 5.7 / Wednesday. March 25, 19.37 [Rules and Regulations
`' $50.t'iil0 pe_ralrpl_ririe'i'or compl=y‘ingiwit'h'-'
`proposal. This commenter did not
`the proposed requirement would be
`.
`provide an information or data to
`sighliicant. However. novintonnstion or
`suPP!-irt th s opposition. The F.AA’does ' "
`data wasprovided to show how this
`not agree with thiscommenter. '
`'
`figure was derived. Most prudent
`One commenter contends the l'oll—type
`operators will not incur these extremely
`iligh'_t recorders are satisfactory ior the
`high costs to comply with this final rule. '
`older turbopro ellerudriven airplanes
`The‘ basis for this conclusion is
`bscatlsetheir salsa and operating
`explained In the section oi the _,-. .. -
`-
`environment is suiilciently different
`regulatory avelusiion'discuisi'1'Ig _F,AA's -
`from that of turhoiat-powered airplanes.
`"t‘t:tlponse_ to these comments. A pilot-
`The FAA does not agree that jhe.loil—-‘ - - ‘
`-induhéd accident can occur any time
`type l'_ecorder..ls adaquate”ln _th_e.curranl '
`. with any airplane. andthe accident
`accident investigation-e'nv'i1'-onment
`- history of a specific airplane type should
`- beceiise hi’ the inaccuracies that can
`not he a_ basis for exclusion from this
`occur between the routine maintenance _
`regulation. Eve:-y'_si:cident must be
`times and the operations checithefore '
`‘
`evaluated to determine the probable
`ilight.'A recent review oi N'I'SB__ accident
`canal: and related events. and these
`files has found the inservica failure rate
`types of airplanes are operated in
`of the foil recorders to be unacceptable.
`sufficient numbers in passengér servicd
`_j
`Several commenters state that many
`oi the older affected aiI’plana's will likely" to-require the some accident
`investigation tools as other Part 121
`he retired shortly litter the anticipated
`airplanes.
`-
`effective date in early 1937. The FAA
`One commenter recommends that
`does not agree that the older airplanes
`airplanes type certificated prior to
`should be exempted because of a
`January 1.1950. be exempt from the
`supposed early-retirement front service.
`proposed requirements. The FAA does
`Certain operators may retire their
`_
`. not
`agree with this recommendation.
`affected airplanes from their fleets. but
`because every accident must be
`these airplanes most likely will be in
`adequately investigated to determined
`service with other operatora..and the
`the p'r'oba_ble cause and identity actions
`requirements will continue to _be
`to prevent accidents at’ that nature.
`applicable. Because the airplanes -
`' comply with the new rules. .the operator
`O_ne commenter contends that the
`has a more marketable and valuable .
`estimated nonrecurring cost tor the
`airplane at the time the airplane is
`proposed 2-phase retrofit of digital flight
`placed on the market. The FAA does
`recorders on its association's member
`fleet is $49.5 million for 2.000 airplanes,
`agree that an airplane in service for a -
`not counting cash loss due to out-oi'-
`considerablelength oi time may be
`fI}
`service time. and contends that the
`. considered to have a low probability
`. FAA's cost estimates are inconsistent.
`operational and mechanical ‘fem-prises."
`Furthermore.-this commenter asserts
`However, unanticipated events such as
`that the FAA‘s stated basis for the
`fatigue may still occur and human factor
`information is relevant in accident
`proposed rule is based upon erroneous
`infonnatlon and s eculstive estimates of
`investigations involving old and new .
`iuture._"unltnown awards" that would
`airplanes alike. A digital flight recorder.
`_ as an investigative tool will provide
`be identified by the expanded parameter
`digital recorders: that the FAA did not
`insight intotheee issues.
`One commenter. an all-cargo carrier .
`present any date that conclusively
`shows that the probable cause of any
`operating under Part 121 with nine CV-
`U.S; air carrier accident could not be
`sso airplanes. states that the‘ additional
`. datenulnad because of theuse o_i' ti-
`. cost to comply with the proposed-
`. requirements would create a serious -
`‘ parameter foil-type recorders: and that
`- financial hardship on the company. "l'hl_s
`properly maintained ti-parameter-flight
`. recorders have not served the industry
`commenter contends that: The recent '
`-
`accidentdeta tor CV-so airplanes -does .
`and Govsitnment well in developing
`accident prevention measures. This
`'_ not Iugflfy any need ii; changeihg type
`' oi ll
`.'. commenter recommends the notice be
`lght recorder in use: the cveeso .
`. withdrawn because of the lack of
`_' airplane des
`and operating .. . ..
`.
`environment
`as not change in-the past ,.
`'
`, adquate justllicatlon presented by the
`. FAA. In addition. this commenter
`25 years: and. the additional parameters
`that if the FAA daciderto
`. recommends
`and significant additional co_st have not
`t recorders‘
`.. require the improve lligh
`been testified on a cost varsus- illliht
`.
`safety benefit basis. Furthermore. this
`regardless of the airline saiety record. a
`. commenter contends that the cost to
`'
`- single-step program Ihat_ provides at
`_
`least 7 years [or accomplishment would .
`retrol'it_the digital flight recorder tn'his
`minimiznthe impact oaths airlines. r-
`.
`-
`cv-sac airplanes could easily run as .
`. Ftirthennqre. the FAA should rpevaluate
`high as 3450.000. The FAA recognizes .
`its cost. versus benefit estimates using
`_ that this corn_menter‘s ‘contention of -
`
`-
`
`»
`
`.
`
`-
`
`.
`
`_
`
`.
`
`.
`
`'
`
`9825 '
`
`'
`_;
`-
`
`--
`
`-
`
`I
`
`'
`
`-
`
`‘
`
`"
`
`BOElNG
`EX. 1010
`
`

`
`Federal Register I Vol. 52. No. 57 I Wednesday. March 25. 1987 I Rules and Regulations
`
`economic data presented in this
`response and by other commenters. Tile
`FAA has-reevaluated’ the cost data. and
`the Regulatory Evaluation reflects these
`changes. With respect to the basis for
`this rule change. experience has shown
`that-unexpected accident scenarios'snd‘_
`unusual combinations of circumstances
`will occur.
`
`,
`Another commenter. while not
`opposing the proposal. recommends
`deleting the 6-parameter step in the
`program and recommends going directly
`to the 11-parameter digital flight
`recorder requirements. because the 2-
`yeer implementation period for retrofit
`is considered unrealistic. This would
`permit installations to coincide with
`maintenance schedules. This commenter
`also states that the notice assumed that
`,foi|—type recorders are apparently
`interchangeable with digital types in all
`cases and states that the digital flight
`recorders and the spherical configured
`foii-type are not. in fact. directly
`interchangeable as assumed. As
`previously stated. the FAA does not
`agree that the implementation program
`should be lengthened or that the 2-year
`implementation program is unrealistic.
`This commenter presented no
`information to support this assertion.
`The FAA has reevaluated the. time
`frames for impleruentation against the
`availability of modification kits and/or
`digital recorders necessary for
`complying with these requirements and
`continues to find them achievable and
`realistic. Further. a slight additional cost
`for replacing the spherical foil recorder
`with the rectangular digital recorder is
`reflected in the revised Regulatory
`Evaluation.
`One commenter recommends that
`5 121.3-t3[c)[6) and [d)[6) be changed to