Easy Access Rules for Large Rotorcraft (CS-29)

ED Decision 2018/007/R

This AMC replaces FAA AC 29 MG 10.

(a) Definitions

(1)Ditching: a controlled emergency landing on water, deliberately executed in accordance with rotorcraft flight manual (RFM) procedures, with the intent of abandoning the rotorcraft as soon as practicable.

NOTE: Although the term ‘ditching’ is most commonly associated with the design standards related to CS 29.801, a rotorcraft equipped to the less demanding requirements of CS 29.802, when performing an emergency landing on water, would nevertheless be commonly described as carrying out the process of ditching. The term ‘ditching’ is therefore used in this AMC in this general sense.

(2) Emergency flotation system (EFS): a system of floats and any associated parts (e.g. gas cylinders, means of deployment, pipework and electrical connections) that is designed and installed on a rotorcraft to provide buoyancy and flotation stability in a ditching.

(b)Explanation

(1)Approval of emergency flotation equipment is performed only if requested by the applicant. Operational rules may accept that a helicopter conducts flights over certain sea areas provided it is fitted with approved emergency flotation equipment (i.e. an EFS), rather than being certified with full ditching provisions.

(2)Emergency flotation certification encompasses emergency flotation system loads (as specified in CS 29.802) and design, and rotorcraft flotation stability.

(3) Failure of the EFS to operate when required will lead to the rotorcraft rapidly capsizing and sinking. Operational experience has shown that localised damage or failure of a single component of an EFS can lead to the loss of the complete system. Therefore, the design of the EFS needs careful consideration.

(4) The sea conditions on which certification with emergency flotation is to be based are selected by the applicant and should take into account the expected sea conditions in the intended areas of operation. Capsize resistance is required to meet the same requirements as for full ditching approval, but with the allowable capsize probability being set at 10 %. The default wave climate specified in this requirement is that of the northern North Sea, as it represents a conservative condition. This might be considered inappropriate in so far as it represents a hostile sea area. The applicant may therefore propose a different wave climate based on data from a non-hostile sea area. The associated certification will then be limited to the geographical region(s) thus represented. Alternatively, a non-hostile default wave climate might be agreed, with no associated need for geographical limits to the certification. The significant wave height, and any geographical limitations (if applicable, see the AMC to 29.801(e) and 29.802(c)) should be included in the RFM as performance information.

(5) During scale model testing, appropriate allowances should be made for probable structural damage and leakage. Previous model tests and other data from rotorcraft of similar configurations that have already been substantiated based on equivalent test conditions may be used to satisfy the emergency flotation requirements. In regard to flotation stability, test conditions should be equivalent to those defined in the AMC to 29.801(e) and 29.802(c).

(6) CS 29.802 requires that in sea conditions for which certification with emergency flotation is requested by the applicant, the probability of capsizing in a 5-minute exposure is acceptably low in order to allow the occupants to leave the rotorcraft and enter the life rafts. This should be interpreted to mean that up to and including the worst-case sea conditions for which certification with emergency flotation is requested by the applicant, the probability that the rotorcraft will capsize should be not higher than the target stated in CS 29.802(c). An acceptable means of demonstrating post-ditching flotation stability is through scale model testing using irregular waves. The AMC to 29.801(e) and 29.802(c) contains a test specification that has been developed for this purpose.

(7) Providing a ‘wet floor’ concept (water in the cabin) by positioning the floats higher on the fuselage sides and allowing the rotorcraft to float lower in the water can be a way of increasing the stability of a ditched rotorcraft (although this would need to be verified for the individual rotorcraft type for all weight and loading conditions), or it may be desirable for other reasons. This is permissible provided that the mean static level of water in the cabin is limited to being lower than the upper surface of the seat cushion (for all rotorcraft mass and centre of gravity cases, with all flotation units intact), and that the presence of water will not unduly restrict the ability of occupants to evacuate the rotorcraft and enter the life raft.

(8) The sea conditions approved for ditching should be stated in the performance information section of the RFM.

(9)It should be shown by analysis or other means that the rotorcraft will not sink following the functional loss of any single complete ditching flotation unit. Experience has shown that in water-impact events, the forces exerted on the emergency flotation unit that first comes into contact with the water surface, together with structural deformation and other damage, can render the unit unusable. Maintenance errors may also lead to a flotation unit failing to inflate. The ability of occupants to egress successfully is significantly increased if the rotorcraft does not sink. However, this requirement is not intended for any other purpose, such as aiding in the salvage of the rotorcraft. Therefore, consideration of the remaining flotation units remaining inflated for an especially long period, i.e. longer than required in the upright floating case, is not required.

(c) Procedures

(1) Flotation system design

(i) Structural integrity should be established in accordance with CS 29.563. For a rotorcraft with a seating capacity of maximum 9 passengers, CS 29.802(a) only requires the floats and their attachments to the rotorcraft to be designed to withstand the load conditions defined in CS 29.563. Other parts of the rotorcraft (e.g. fuselage underside structure, chin windows, doors) do not need to be shown to be capable of withstanding these load conditions. All parts of rotorcraft with a seating capacity of 10 passengers of more should be designed to withstand the load conditions defined in CS 29.563 (i.e. the same design standards as for full ditching approval).

(ii) Rotorcraft handling qualities should be verified to comply with the applicable certification specifications throughout the approved flight envelope with floats installed. Where floats are normally deflated and deployed in flight, the handling qualities should be verified for the approved operating envelopes with the floats in:

(A)the deflated and stowed condition;

(B) the fully inflated condition; and

(C) the in-flight inflation condition; for float systems which may be inflated in flight, rotorcraft controllability should be verified by test or analysis taking into account all possible emergency flotation system inflation failures.

(iii)Reliability should be considered in the basic design to assure approximately equal inflation of the floats to preclude excessive yaw, roll, or pitch in flight or in the water:

(A) Maintenance procedures should not degrade the flotation system (e.g. introducing contaminants that could affect normal operation, etc.).

(B) The flotation system design should preclude inadvertent damage due to normal personnel traffic flow and wear and tear. Protection covers should be evaluated for function and reliability.

(C) The designs of the floats should provide means to minimise the likelihood of damage or tear propagation between compartments. Single compartment float designs should be avoided.

(iv) The floats should be fabricated from highly conspicuous material to assist in locating the rotorcraft following a ditching (and possible capsize).

(2) Flotation system inflation

Emergency flotation systems (EFSs) which are normally stowed in a deflated condition and are inflated either in flight or after water contact should be evaluated as follows:

(i)The emergency flotation system should include a means to verify system integrity prior to each flight.

(ii) If a manual means of inflation is provided, the float activation switch should be located on one of the primary flight controls and should be safeguarded against inadvertent actuation.

(iii)The maximum airspeeds for intentional in-flight actuation of the emergency flotation system and for flight with the floats inflated should be established as limitations in the RFM unless in-flight actuation is prohibited by the RFM.

(iv) Activation of the emergency flotation system upon water entry (irrespective of whether or not inflation prior to water entry is the intended operation mode) should result in an inflation time short enough to prevent the rotorcraft from becoming excessively submerged.

(v)A means should be provided for checking the pressure of the gas stowage cylinders prior to take-off. A table of acceptable gas cylinder pressure variation with ambient temperature and altitude (if applicable) should be provided.

(vi) A means should be provided to minimise the possibility of over-inflation of the flotation units under any reasonably probable actuation conditions.

(vii)The ability of the floats to inflate without puncturing when subjected to actual water pressures should be substantiated. A demonstration of a full-scale float immersion in a calm body of water is one acceptable method of substantiation. Precautions should also be taken to avoid floats being punctured due to the proximity of sharp objects, during inflation in flight or with the helicopter in the water, and during subsequent movement of the helicopter in waves. Examples of objects that need to be considered are aerials, probes, overboard vents, unprotected split-pin tails, guttering and any projections sharper than a three dimensional right angled corner.

(viii) CS 29.802(d) requires the rotorcraft to not sink following the functional loss of any complete flotation unit. Complete flotation unit shall be taken to mean a discrete, independently located float. The qualifying term ‘complete’ means that the entire structure of the flotation unit must be considered, not limited to any segregated compartments.

The loss of function of a flotation unit is most likely to be due to damage that occurs in a water impact. However, there may be other reasons, such as undetected damage during maintenance, or incorrect maintenance. All reasonably probable causes for the loss of functionality of a flotation unit, and the resultant effect(s) on the remainder of the inflation system, should therefore be taken into account.

In the case of inflatable flotation units, irrespective of whether the intended operation is to deploy the system before or after water entry, the following shall be taken into account when assessing the ability of the rotorcraft to remain afloat;

—Following the functional loss of a deployed flotation unit, the capability to maintain pressure in the remaining inflation units should be justified on the basis of the design of the inflation system, for example:

—individual inflation gas sources per flotation unit;

—installation of non-return valves at appropriate locations.

—Following the functional loss of a non-deployed flotation unit, the capability of the remaining flotation units to deploy should be justified on the basis of the design of the inflation system, for example:

—functionality of inflation gas sources integrated with the functionally lost flotation unit in question should also either be assumed to be lost, or justification for otherwise provided;

—the degree of inflation of remaining undamaged flotation units, which share parts of the inflation system with the damaged unit, bearing in mind the damaged unit will be venting, should be determined.

(3) Injury prevention during and following water entry.

An assessment of the cabin and cockpit layouts should be undertaken to minimise the potential for injury to occupants in a ditching. This may be performed as part of the compliance with CS 29.785. Attention should be given to the avoidance of injuries due to leg/arm flailing, as these can be a significant impediment to occupant egress and subsequent survivability. Practical steps that could be taken include:

(i) locating potentially hazardous items away from the occupants;

(ii) installing energy-absorbing padding onto interior components;

(iii) using frangible materials; and

(iv) designs that exclude hard or sharp edges.

(4) Water entry procedures.

Tests or simulations (or a combination of both) should be conducted to establish procedures and techniques to be used for water entry. These tests/simulations should include determination of the optimum pitch attitude and forward velocity for ditching in a calm sea, as well as entry procedures for the most severe sea condition to be certified. Procedures for all failure conditions that may lead to a ‘land immediately’ action (e.g. one engine inoperative, all engines inoperative, tail rotor/drive failure) should be established.

(5) Flotation stability tests.

An acceptable means of flotation stability testing is contained in AMC to 29.801(e) and 29.802(c). Note that model tests in a wave basin on a number of different rotorcraft types have indicated that an improvement in seakeeping performance can consistently be achieved by fitting float scoops.

(6)Occupant egress and survival.

The ability of the occupants to deploy life rafts, egress the rotorcraft, and board the life rafts should be evaluated. For configurations which are considered to have critical occupant egress capabilities due to the life raft locations or the emergency exit locations and proximity of the float (or a combination of both), an actual demonstration of egress may be required. When a demonstration is required, it may be conducted on a full-scale rotorcraft actually immersed in a calm body of water or using any other rig or ground test facility shown to be representative. The demonstration should show that floats do not impede a satisfactory evacuation. Service experience has shown that it is possible for occupants to have escaped from the cabin but to have not been able to board a life raft and to have had difficulty in finding handholds to stay afloat and together. Handholds or lifelines should be provided on appropriate parts of the rotorcraft. The normal attitude of the rotorcraft and the possibility of a capsize should be considered when positioning the handholds or lifelines.

[Amdt No: 29/5]

ED Decision 2018/007/R

(a)Each crew and passenger area must have means for rapid evacuation in a crash landing, with the landing gear:

(1)extended; and

(2)retracted;

considering the possibility of fire.

(b)Passenger entrance, crew, and service doors may be considered as emergency exits if they meet the requirements of this paragraph and of CS 29.805 to 29.815.

(c)If certification with ditching provisions is requested by the applicant:

(1) ditching emergency exits must be provided such that following a ditching, in all sea conditions for which ditching capability is requested by the applicant, passengers are able to evacuate the rotorcraft and step directly into any of the required life rafts;

(2) any exit provided for compliance with (1), irrespective of whether it is also required by any of the requirements of CS 29.807, must meet all the requirements of CS 29.809(c), CS 29.811(a), (c), (d), (e) and CS 29.812(b); and

(3) flotation devices, whether stowed or deployed, may not interfere with or obstruct the ditching emergency exits.

(d)Except as provided in sub-paragraph (e), the following categories of rotorcraft must be tested in accordance with the requirements of Appendix D to demonstrate that the maximum seating capacity, including the crew-members required by the operating rules, can be evacuated from the rotorcraft to the ground within 90 seconds:

(1)Rotorcraft with a seating capacity of more than 44 passengers.

(2)Rotorcraft with all of the following:

(i)Ten or more passengers per passenger exit as determined under CS 29.807(b).

(ii)No main aisle, as described in CS 29.815, for each row of passenger seats.

(iii)Access to each passenger exit for each passenger by virtue of design features of seats, such as folding or break-over seat backs or folding seats.

(e)A combination of analysis and tests may be used to show that the rotorcraft is capable of being evacuated within 90 seconds under the conditions specified in CS 29.803(d) if the Agency finds that the combination of analysis and tests will provide data, with respect to the emergency evacuation capability of the rotorcraft, equivalent to that which would be obtained by actual demonstration.

[Amdt No: 29/5]

ED Decision 2003/16/RM

(a)The demonstration must be conducted either during the dark of the night or during daylight with the dark of night simulated. If the demonstration is conducted indoors during daylight hours, it must be conducted inside a darkened hangar having doors and windows covered. In addition, the doors and windows of the rotorcraft must be covered if the hangar illumination exceeds that of a moonless night. Illumination on the floor or ground may be used, but it must be kept low and shielded against shining into the rotorcraft’s windows or doors.

(b)The rotorcraft must be in a normal attitude with landing gear extended.

(c)Safety equipment such as mats or inverted liferafts may be placed on the floor or ground to protect participants. No other equipment that is not part of the rotorcraft’s emergency evacuation equipment may be used to aid the participants in reaching the ground.

(d)Except as provided in paragraph (a), only the rotorcraft’s emergency lighting system may provide illumination.

(e)All emergency equipment required for the planned operation of the rotorcraft must be installed.

(f)Each external door and exit and each internal door or curtain must be in the take-off configuration.

(g)Each crewmember must be seated in the normally assigned seat for take-off and must remain in that seat until receiving the signal for commencement of the demonstration. For compliance with this paragraph, each crewmember must be:

(1)A member of a regularly scheduled line crew; or

(2)A person having knowledge of the operation of exits and emergency equipment.

(h)A representative passenger load of persons in normal health must be used as follows:

(1)At least 25% must be over 50 years of age, with at least 40% of these being females.

(2)The remaining 75% or less, must be 50 years of age or younger, with at least 30% of these being females.

(3)Three life-size dolls, not included as part of the total passenger load, must be carried by passengers to simulate live infants 2 years old or younger, except for a total passenger load of fewer than 44 but more than 19, one doll must be carried. A doll is not required for a 19 or fewer passenger load.

(4)Crewmembers, mechanics, and training personnel who maintain or operate the rotorcraft in the normal course of their duties may not be used as passengers.

(i)No passenger may be assigned a specific seat except as the Agency may require. Except as required by paragraph (g), no employee of the applicant may be seated next to an emergency exit, except as allowed by the Agency.

(j)Seat belts and shoulder harnesses (as required) must be fastened.

(k)Before the start of the demonstration, approximately one-half of the total average amount of carry-on baggage, blankets, pillows and other similar articles must be distributed at several locations in the aisles and emergency exit access ways to create minor obstructions.

(l)No prior indication may be given to any crewmember or passenger of the particular exits to be used in the demonstration.

(m)There must not be any practising, rehearsing or description of the demonstration for the participants nor may any participant have taken part in this type of demonstration within the preceding 6 months.

(n)A pre-take-off passenger briefing may be given. The passengers may also be advised to follow directions of crewmembers, but not be instructed on the procedures to be followed in the demonstration.

(o)If safety equipment, as allowed by paragraph (c), is provided, either all passenger and cockpit windows must be blacked out or all emergency exits must have safety equipment to prevent disclosure of the available emergency exits.

(p)Not more than 50% of the emergency exits in the sides of the fuselage of a rotorcraft that meet all of the requirements applicable to the required emergency exits for that rotorcraft may be used for demonstration. Exits that are not to be used for the demonstration must have the exit handle deactivated or must be indicated by red lights, red tape, or other acceptable means placed outside the exits to indicate fire or other reasons why they are unusable. The exits to be used must be representative of all the emergency exits on the rotorcraft and must be designated subject to approval by the Agency. If installed, at least one floor level exit (Type I; CS 29.807(a)(1)) must be used as required by CS 29.807(c).

(q)All evacuees must leave the rotorcraft by a means provided as part of the rotorcraft’s equipment.

(r)Approved procedures must be fully utilised during the demonstration.

(s)The evacuation time period is completed when the last occupant has evacuated the rotorcraft and is on the ground.

ED Decision 2018/007/R

This AMC supplements FAA AC 29.803 and AC 29.803A.

(a)Explanation

At Amendment 5, the usage of the term ‘ditching emergency exit’ was changed.

CS 29.803(c) was created with the intention that the rotorcraft design will allow all passengers to egress the rotorcraft and enter a life raft without undue effort or skill, and with a very low risk of falling and entering the water surrounding of the ditched rotorcraft. Boarding a life raft from the water is difficult, even in ideal conditions, and survival time is significantly increased once aboard a life raft, particularly if the survivor has remained at least partly dry. CS 29.803(c) requires that ditching emergency exits be provided to facilitate boarding into each of the required life rafts.

(b)Procedures

(1) The general arrangement of most rotorcraft and the location of the deployed life rafts may be such that the normal entry/egress doors will best facilitate entry to a life raft. It should also be substantiated that the life rafts can be restrained in a position that allows passengers to step directly from the cabin into the life rafts. This is expected to require provisions to enable a cabin occupant to pull the deployed life raft to the exit, using the retaining line, and maintain it in that position while others board.

(2)It is not considered disadvantageous if opening the normal entry/egress doors will result in water entering the cabin provided that the depth of water would not be such as to hinder evacuation. However, it should be substantiated that water pressure on the door will not excessively increase operating loads.

(3)If exits such as normal entry/egress doors, which are not already being used to meet the requirements for emergency exits or underwater emergency exits (or both), are used for compliance with CS 29.803(c)(1), they should be designed to meet certain of the standards applied to emergency exits. Their means of opening should be simple and obvious and not require exceptional effort (see CS 29.809(c)), their means of access and opening should be conspicuously marked, including in the dark (see CS 29.811(a)), their location should be indicated by signs (see CS 29.811(c) and (d)), and their operating handles should be clearly marked (see CS 29.811(e)).

[Amdt No: 29/5]

ED Decision 2018/007/R

(a)For rotorcraft with passenger emergency exits that are not convenient to the flight crew, there must be flight crew emergency exits, on both sides of the rotorcraft or as a top hatch, in the flight crew area.

(b)Each flight crew emergency exit must be of sufficient size and must be located so as to allow rapid evacuation of the flight crew. This must be shown by test.

(c)Underwater emergency exits for flight crew. If certification with ditching provisions is requested by the applicant, none of the flight crew emergency exits required by (a) and (b) may be obstructed by water or flotation devices after a ditching and each exit must be shown by test, demonstration, or analysis to provide for rapid escape when the rotorcraft is in the upright floating position or capsized. Each operational device (pull tab(s), operating handle, ‘push here’ decal, etc.) must be shown to be accessible for the range of flight crew heights as required by CS 29.777(b) and for both the case of an un-deformed seat and a seat with any deformation resulting from the test conditions required by CS 29.562.

[Amdt No: 29/5]

ED Decision 2018/007/R

This AMC supplements FAA AC 29.805 and replaces AC 29.805A.

(a) Explanation

To facilitate a rapid escape, flight crew underwater emergency exits should be designed for use with the rotorcraft in both the upright position and in any foreseeable floating attitude. The flight crew underwater emergency exits should not be obstructed during their operation by water or floats to the extent that rapid escape would not be possible or that damage to the flotation system may occur. This should be substantiated for any rotorcraft floating attitude, upright or capsized, and with the emergency flotation system intact and with any single compartment failed. With the rotorcraft capsized and floating, the flight crew emergency exits should be usable with the cabin flooded.

(b) Procedures

(1) It should be shown by test, demonstration or analysis that there is no interference with the flight crew underwater emergency exits from water or from any stowed or deployed emergency flotation devices, with the rotorcraft in any foreseeable floating attitude.

(2) Flight crew should be able to reach the operating device for their underwater emergency exit, whilst seated, with restraints fastened, with seat energy absorption features at any design position, and with the rotorcraft in any attitude.

(3)Likely damage sustained during a ditching should be considered.

(4) It is acceptable for the underwater emergency exit threshold to be below the waterline when the rotorcraft is floating upright, but in such a case, it should be substantiated that there is no obstruction to the use of the exit and that no excessive force (see FAA AC 29.809) is required to operate the exit.

(5) It is permissible for flight crew to be unable to directly enter life rafts from the flight crew underwater emergency exits and to have to take a more indirect route, e.g. by climbing over a forward flotation unit. In such a case, the feasibility of the exit procedure should be assessed. Handholds may need to be provided on the rotorcraft.

(6) To make it easier to recognise underwater, the operating device for the underwater emergency exit should have black and yellow markings with at least two bands of each colour of approximately equal widths. Any other operating feature, e.g. highlighted ‘push here’ decal(s) for openable windows, should also incorporate black-and-yellow-striped markings.

[Amdt No: 29/5]

ED Decision 2018/007/R

(a)Type. For the purpose of this CS-29, the types of passenger emergency exit are as follows:

(1)Type I. This type must have a rectangular opening of not less than 0.61 m wide by 1.22 m (24 inches wide by 48 inches) high, with corner radii not greater than one-third the width of the exit, in the passenger area in the side of the fuselage at floor level and as far away as practicable from areas that might become potential fire hazards in a crash.

(2)Type II. This type is the same as Type I, except that the opening must be at least 0.51 m wide by 1.12 m (20 inches wide by 44 inches) high.

(3)Type III. This type is the same as Type I, except that:

(i)The opening must be at least 0.51 m wide by 0.91 m (20 inches wide by 36 inches) high; and

(ii)The exits need not be at floor level.

(4)Type IV. This type must have a rectangular opening of not less than 0.48 m wide by 0.66 m (19 inches wide by 26 inches) high, with corner radii not greater than one-third the width of the exit, in the side of the fuselage with a step-up inside the rotorcraft of not more than 0.74 m (29 inches).

Openings with dimensions larger than those specified in this paragraph may be used, regardless of shape, if the base of the opening has a flat surface of not less than the specified width.

(b)Passenger emergency exits: side-of fuselage. Emergency exits must be accessible to the passengers and, except as provided in sub-paragraph (d), must be provided in accordance with the following table:

(c)Passenger emergency exits; other than side of-fuselage. In addition to the requirements of subparagraph (b):

(1)There must be enough openings in the top, bottom, or ends of the fuselage to allow evacuation with the rotorcraft on its side; or

(2)The probability of the rotorcraft coming to rest on its side in a crash landing must be extremely remote.

(d)Underwater emergency exits for passengers. If certification with ditching provisions is requested by the applicant, underwater emergency exits must be provided in accordance with the following requirements and must be proven by test, demonstration, or analysis to provide for rapid escape with the rotorcraft in the upright floating position or capsized.

(1)One underwater emergency exit in each side of the rotorcraft, meeting at least the dimensions of a Type IV exit for each unit (or part of a unit) of four passenger seats. However, the passenger seat-to-exit ratio may be increased for exits large enough to permit the simultaneous egress of two passengers side by side.

(2)Flotation devices, whether stowed or deployed, may not interfere with or obstruct the underwater emergency exits.

(e)Ramp exits. One Type I exit only, or one Type II exit only, that is required in the side of the fuselage under sub-paragraph (b), may be installed instead in the ramp of floor ramp rotorcraft if:

(1)Its installation in the side of the fuselage is impractical; and

(2)Its installation in the ramp meets CS 29.813.

(f)Tests. The proper functioning of each emergency exit must be shown by test.

[Amdt No: 29/5]

ED Decision 2023/001/R

This AMC replaces FAA AC 29.807 and AC 29.807A.

(a) Explanation

CS-29 Amendment 5 re-evaluates the need for and the concept behind emergency exits for rotorcraft approved with ditching provisions. Prior to CS-29 Amendment 5, rotorcraft that had a passenger seating configuration, excluding pilots’ seats, of nine seats or less were required to have one emergency exit above the waterline in each side of the rotorcraft, having at least the dimensions of a Type IV exit. For rotorcraft that had a passenger seating configuration, excluding pilots’ seats, of 10 seats or more, one emergency exit was required to be located above the waterline in one side of the rotorcraft and to have at least the dimensions of a Type III exit, for each unit (or part of a unit) of 35 passenger seats, but no less than two such exits in the passenger cabin, with one on each side of the rotorcraft. These exits were referred to as ‘ditching emergency exits’.

Operational experience has shown that in a ditching in which the rotorcraft remains upright, use of the passenger doors can be very beneficial in ensuring a rapid and orderly evacuation onto the life raft(s). However, when a rotorcraft capsizes, doors may be unusable and the number and availability of emergency exits that can be readily used underwater will be crucial to ensuring that passengers are able to escape in a timely manner. Experience has shown that the number of emergency exits required in the past by design requirements has been inadequate in a capsized situation, and a common design solution has been to use the passenger cabin windows as additional emergency egress means by including a jettison feature. The jettison feature has commonly been provided by modifying the elastomeric window seal such that its retention strength is either reduced, or can be reduced by providing a removable part of its cross section, i.e. the so called ‘push out’ window, although other design solutions have been employed. The provision of openable windows has been required by some air operations regulations.

In recognition of this identified need for an increased number of exits for underwater escape, Amendment 5 created a new set of exit terminology and CS 29.807(d)(1) was revised to require one pair of ‘underwater emergency exits’, i.e. one on each side of the rotorcraft, to be provided for each unit, or part of a unit, of four passenger seats.

This new terminology was seen as better describing the real intent of this higher number of required emergency exits for rotorcraft approved with ditching provisions.

Furthermore, CS 29.813(d)(1) requires passenger seats to be located relative to these exits in a way that best facilitates escape. The objective is for no passenger to be in a worse position than the second person to egress through an exit. The size of each underwater emergency exit should at least have the dimensions of a Type IV exit (0.48 m x 0.66 m or 19 in. x 26 in.).

The term ‘ditching emergency exit’ is retained for the exits required by the newly created CS 29.803(c). These exits are required to enable passengers to step directly into the life rafts when the rotorcraft remains upright. This is the normally expected case in a ditching and thus it is considered that this term is appropriate to describe these exits.

It is intended that training and briefing materials for passengers carried on helicopters that meet these new requirements will be designed to reflect the two types of emergency exits (ditching and underwater emergency exits) and the two associated scenarios that are assumed for their intended use (directly boarding a life raft from an upright helicopter following ditching, and immediate underwater escape should the helicopter capsize, respectively).

(b) Procedures

(1) The number and the size of underwater emergency exits should be as specified in paragraph (a) above.

(2)Care should be taken regarding oversized exits to avoid them becoming blocked if more than one passenger attempts to use the same exit simultaneously.

(3) A higher seat-to-exit ratio may be accepted if the exits are large enough to allow the simultaneous escape of more than one passenger. For example, a pair of exits may be approved for eight passengers if the size of each exit provides an unobstructed area that encompasses two ellipses of 0.48 m x 0.66 m (19 in. x 26 in.) side by side.

(4) Test, demonstration, compliance inspection, or analysis is required to substantiate that an exit is free from interference from stowed or deployed emergency flotation devices. In the event that an analysis or inspection is insufficient or that a given design is questionable, a test or demonstration may be required. Such a test or demonstration would consist of an accurate, full-size replica (or true representation) of the rotorcraft and its flotation devices, both while stowed and after their deployment.

(5) The cabin layout should be designed so that the seats are located relative to the underwater emergency exits in compliance with CS 29.813(d)(1).

[Amdt No: 29/5]

[Amdt No: 29/11]

ED Decision 2018/007/R

(a)Each emergency exit must consist of a door, openable window, or hatch in the external walls of the fuselage and must provide an unobstructed opening to the outside.

(b)Each emergency exit must be openable from the inside and from the outside.

(c)The means of opening each emergency exit must be simple and obvious and may not require exceptional effort.

(d)There must be means for locking each emergency exit and for preventing opening in flight inadvertently or as a result of mechanical failure.

(e)There must be means to minimise the probability of the jamming of any emergency exit in a minor crash landing as a result of fuselage deformation under the ultimate inertial forces in CS 29.783(d).

(f)Except as provided in sub-paragraph (h), each land-based rotorcraft emergency exit must have an approved slide as stated in sub-paragraph (g), or its equivalent, to assist occupants in descending to the ground from each floor level exit and an approved rope, or its equivalent, for all other exits, if the exit threshold is more than 1.8 m (6 ft) above the ground:

(1)With the rotorcraft on the ground and with the landing gear extended;

(2)With one or more legs or part of the landing gear collapsed, broken, or not extended; and

(3)With the rotorcraft resting on its side, if required by CS 29.803(d).

(g)The slide for each passenger emergency exit must be a self-supporting slide or equivalent, and must be designed to meet the following requirements:

(1)It must be automatically deployed, and deployment must begin during the interval between the time the exit opening means is actuated from inside the rotorcraft and the time the exit is fully opened. However, each passenger emergency exit which is also a passenger entrance door or a service door must be provided with means to prevent deployment of the slide when the exit is opened from either the inside or the outside under non-emergency conditions for normal use.

(2)It must be automatically erected within 10 seconds after deployment is begun.

(3)It must be of such length after full deployment that the lower end is self-supporting on the ground and provides safe evacuation of occupants to the ground after collapse of one or more legs or part of the landing gear.

(4)It must have the capability, in 12.9 m/s (25-knot) winds directed from the most critical angle, to deploy and, with the assistance of only one person, to remain usable after full deployment to evacuate occupants safely to the ground.

(5)Each slide installation must be qualified by five consecutive deployment and inflation tests conducted (per exit) without failure, and at least three tests of each such five-test series must be conducted using a single representative sample of the device. The sample devices must be deployed and inflated by the system’s primary means after being subjected to the inertia forces specified in CS 29.561(b). If any part of the system fails or does not function properly during the required tests, the cause of the failure or malfunction must be corrected by positive means and after that, the full series of five consecutive deployment and inflation tests must be conducted without failure.

(h)For rotorcraft having 30 or fewer passenger seats and having an exit threshold of more than 1.8 m (6 ft) above the ground, a rope or other assist means may be used in place of the slide specified in sub-paragraph (f), provided an evacuation demonstration is accomplished as prescribed in CS 29.803(d) or (e).

(i)If a rope, with its attachment, is used for compliance with sub-paragraph (f), (g) or (h), it must -

(1)Withstand a 182 kg (400-pound) static load; and

(2)Attach to the fuselage structure at or above the top of the emergency exit opening, or at another approved location if the stowed rope would reduce the pilot’s view in flight.

(j) If certification with ditching provisions is requested by the applicant, each underwater emergency exit must meet the following:

(1)means of operation, markings, lighting and accessibility, must be designed for use in a flooded and capsized cabin;

(2) it must be possible for each passenger to egress the rotorcraft via the nearest underwater emergency exit, when capsized, with any door in the open and secured position; and

(3)a suitable handhold, or handholds, adjacently located inside the cabin to assist passengers in locating and operating the exit, as well as in egressing from the exit, must be provided.

[Amdt No: 29/5]

ED Decision 2018/007/R

This AMC supplements FAA AC 29.809 and AC 29.809A.

(a) Explanation

CS 29.809 covers all types of emergency exit. These may be a door, openable window or hatch. These terms are used to cover the three generic types expected. The term door implies a floor level, or close to floor level, opening. Openable window is self-explanatory, and hatch is used for any other configuration, irrespective of its location or orientation, e.g. located in the cabin ceiling, side wall or floor.

CS-29 Amendment 5 added a new requirement (j) to CS 29.809 related to the design, installation and operation of underwater emergency exits. Underwater emergency exits should be optimised for use with the rotorcraft capsized and flooded.

So-called ‘push-out’ windows (see AMC 29.807(d)) have some advantages in that they are not susceptible to jamming and may open by themselves in a water impact due to flexing of the fuselage upon water entry and/or external water pressure.

Openable windows might require an appreciable pushing force from the occupant. When floating free inside a flooded cabin, and perhaps even if still seated, generation of this force may be difficult. An appropriately positioned handhold or handholds adjacent to the underwater emergency exit(s) should be provided to facilitate an occupant in generating the opening force. Additionally, in the design of the handhold, consideration should be given to it assisting in locating the underwater emergency exit and in enabling buoyancy forces to be overcome during egress.

Consideration should be given to reducing the potential confusion caused by the lack of standardisation of the location of the operating devices (pull tab, handle) for underwater emergency exits. For instance, the device could be located next to the handhold. The occupant then has only to find the handhold to locate the operating device. Each adjacent occupant should be able to reach the handhold and operating device whilst seated, with restraints fastened, with seat energy absorption features in any design position, and with the rotorcraft in any attitude. If a single underwater emergency exit is designed for the simultaneous egress of two occupants side by side, a handhold and an operating device should be within reach of each occupant seated adjacent to the exit.

The risk of a capsize during evacuation onto the life rafts can be mitigated to some extent by instructing passengers to open all the underwater emergency exits as a matter of course soon after the helicopter has alighted on the water, thus avoiding the delay due to opening the exits in the event that the exits are needed. This may be of particular benefit where the helicopter has a ditching emergency exit which overlaps one or more underwater emergency exits when open (e.g. a sliding door). Such advice should be considered for inclusion in the documentation provided to the helicopter operator.

(b) Procedures

(1) Underwater emergency exits should be shown to be operable with the rotorcraft in any foreseeable floating attitude, including with the rotorcraft capsized.

A particular issue exists in regard to doors (e.g. a sliding door) which overlap underwater emergency exits when open, and which are designated as the ditching emergency exits as required by CS 29.803(c). In the case of a rotorcraft with such an arrangement, it should be substantiated that passengers could still have a viable egress route should the helicopter capsize after the door has been opened but before all occupants have egressed.

Where the open door does not offer an opening of sufficient size and location to provide immediate and usable underwater egress possibility for all occupants, wherever they are located, the intent could be achieved by opening two push-out windows, one in the fuselage and one in the open door. Such a solution will depend on the rotorcraft design ensuring that the windows will be sufficiently aligned when the door is fully opened and secured (the resultant unobstructed opening should permit at least an ellipse of 0.48 m x 0.66 m (19 in. x 26 in.) to pass through it). Availability of such an opening is more likely if the windows are opened by cabin occupants as a matter of course following a ditching, as explained in (a) above.

(2) Underwater emergency exits should be designed so that they are optimised for use with the rotorcraft capsized. For example, the handhold(s) should be located close to the bottom of the window (top if inverted) to assist an occupant in overcoming the buoyancy loads of an immersion suit, and it should be ensured that markings and lighting will help identify the exit(s)and readily assist in an escape.

(3) The means to open an underwater emergency exit should be simple and obvious and should not require any exceptional effort. Designs with any of the following characteristics (non-exhaustive list) are considered to be non-compliant:

(i) more than one hand is needed to operate the exit itself (use of the handhold may occupy the other hand);

(ii) any part of the opening means, e.g. an operating handle or control, is located remotely from the exit such that it would be outside of a person’s direct vision when looking directly at the exit, or that the person should move away from the immediate vicinity of the exit in order to reach it; and

(iii) the exit does not meet the opening effort limitations set by FAA AC 29.809.

(4) It should be possible to readily grasp and operate any operating handle or control using either a bare or a gloved hand.

(5) Handholds, as required by CS 29.809(j)(3), should be mounted close to the bottom of each underwater emergency exit such that they fall easily to hand for a normally seated occupant. In the case of exits between face-to-face seating, the provision of two handholds is required. Handholds should be designed such that the risk is low of escapees’ clothing or emergency equipment snagging on them.

(6) The operating handle or tab for underwater emergency exits should be located next to the handhold.

[Amdt No: 29/5]

ED Decision 2023/001/R

(a)Each emergency exit, its means of access, and its means of opening must be conspicuously marked for the guidance of occupants using the exits in daylight or in the dark.

(b)The identity and location of each passenger emergency exit must be recognisable from a distance equal to the width of the cabin.

(c)The location of each passenger emergency exit must be indicated by a sign visible to occupants approaching along the main passenger aisle. There must be a locating sign:

(1)Next to or above the aisle near each floor emergency exit, except that one sign may serve two exits if both exits can be seen readily from that sign; and

(2)On each bulkhead or divider that prevents fore and aft vision along the passenger cabin, to indicate emergency exits beyond and obscured by it, except that if this is not possible the sign may be placed at another appropriate location.

(d)Each passenger emergency exit marking and each locating sign must have white letters on a red background or a universal emergency exit symbol, of adequate size. These signs must be self or electrically illuminated, and have a minimum luminescence (brightness) of at least 0.51 candela/m2 (160 microlamberts). The colours of a text-based sign may be reversed if this will increase the emergency illumination of the passenger compartment.

(e)The location of each passenger emergency exit operating handle and instructions for opening must be shown:

(1)For each emergency exit, by a marking on or near the exit that is readable from a distance of 0.76 m (30 inches); and

(2)For each Type I or Type II emergency exit with a locking mechanism released by rotary motion of the handle, by:

(i)A red arrow, with a shaft at least 19 mm (¾ inch) wide and a head twice the width of the shaft, extending along at least 70° of arc at a radius approximately equal to three-fourths of the handle length; and

(ii)The word ‘open’ in red letters 25 mm (l inch) high, placed horizontally near the head of the arrow.

(f)Each emergency exit, and its means of opening, must be marked on the outside of the rotorcraft. In addition, the following apply:

(1)There must be a 51 mm (2-inch) coloured band outlining each passenger emergency exit, except small rotorcraft with a maximum weight of 5 670 kg (12 500 pounds) or less may have a 51 mm (2-inch) coloured band outlining each exit release lever or device of passenger emergency exits which are normally used doors.

(2)Each outside marking, including the band, must have colour contrast to be readily distinguishable from the surrounding fuselage surface. The contrast must be such that, if the reflectance of the darker colour is 15% or less, the reflectance of the lighter colour must be at least 45%. ‘Reflectance’ is the ratio of the luminous flux reflected by a body to the luminous flux it receives. When the reflectance of the darker colour is greater than 15%, at least a 30% difference between its reflectance and the reflectance of the lighter colour must be provided.

(g)Exits marked as such, though in excess of the required number of exits, must meet the requirements for emergency exits of the particular type. Emergency exits need only be marked with the word ‘Exit’ or a universal emergency exit symbol.

(h) If certification with ditching provisions is requested by the applicant, in addition to the markings required by (a) above:

(1) each underwater emergency exit required by CS 29.805(c) or CS 29.807(d), its means of access and its means of opening, must be provided with highly conspicuous illuminated markings that illuminate automatically and are designed to remain visible with the rotorcraft capsized and the cabin or cockpit, as appropriate, flooded; and

(2)each operational device (pull tab(s), operating handle, ‘push here’ decal, etc.) for these emergency exits must be marked with black and yellow stripes.

[Amdt No: 29/5]

[Amdt No: 29/11]

ED Decision 2023/001/R

EMERGENCY EXIT SIGNS

Emergency exit signs should consist of a consistent type throughout the rotorcraft. They may be letter-based or symbolic, as outlined below.

Letter-based emergency exit signs should use letters with a height to stroke width ratio of not more than 7:1 nor less than 6:1.

Symbolic emergency exit signs should be white and green in compliance with European Standard (EN) ISO 7010:2012 ‘Graphical symbols — Safety colours and safety signs — Registered safety signs’.

The green area of the sign should constitute at least half of the total area of the sign.

In the area determination of an emergency exit sign, no part of the sign outside of the white background (text signs) or green element (symbolic signs) — for instance, a surrounding contrasting border — should be included.

Minimum size

For each emergency exit sign required by CS 29.811(c), a sign using English letters of at least 25 mm (1 inch) height, or a white symbolic element (i.e. that part incorporating the green ‘running man’) of at least 40 mm (1.6 inches) height, with an overall area of at least 64.5 cm2 (10 square inches) should be acceptable provided that the centrelines of the forward most and rearward most emergency exits are no more than 6 m (19.8 feet) apart.

Examples of acceptable designs of symbolic exit signs

Direction of running man

There may be a reason to choose a particular movement direction of the ‘running man’; for instance, where a sign required by CS 29.811(c) is placed to the left or right of the emergency exit. The ‘running man’ should not suggest movement away from the emergency exit.

[Amdt No: 29/11]

ED Decision 2023/001/R

This AMC supplements FAA AC 29.811 and AC 29.811A.

(a) Explanation

This AMC provides additional means of compliance and guidance material relating to underwater emergency exit markings.

CS-29 Amendment 5 extended the requirements for exit markings to remain visible in a submerged cabin. CS 29.811(h) requires all underwater emergency exits (i.e. for both passengers and flight crew) and the exits and doors for use when boarding life rafts (as required by CS 29.803(c)) to be provided with additional conspicuous illuminated markings that will continue to function underwater.

Disorientation of occupants may result in the normal emergency exit markings in the cockpit and passenger cabin being ineffective following the rotorcraft capsizing and the cabin flooding. Additional and more highly conspicuous illuminated markings should be provided along the periphery of each underwater emergency exit, giving a clear indication of the aperture.

(b)Procedures

(1) The additional markings of underwater emergency exits should be in the form of illuminated strips that give a clear indication in all environments (e.g. at night, underwater) of the location of an underwater emergency exit. The markings should be sufficient to highlight the full periphery.

(2) The additional illuminated markings should function automatically, when needed, and remain visible for at least 10 minutes following rotorcraft flooding. The method chosen to automatically activate the system (e.g. water immersion switch(es), tilt switch(es), etc.) should be such as to ensure that the markings are illuminated immediately, or are already illuminated, when the rotorcraft reaches a point where a capsize is inevitable.

(3) The location of the operating device for an underwater emergency exit (e.g. a handle, or pull tab in the case of a ‘push-out’ window) should be distinctively illuminated. The illumination should provide sufficient lighting to illuminate the handle or tab itself in order to assist in its identification. In the case of openable windows, the optimum place(s) for pushing out (e.g. in a corner) should be illuminated.

(4) To make it easier to recognise underwater, the operating device for the underwater emergency exit should have black and yellow markings with at least two bands of each colour of approximately equal widths. Any other operating features, e.g. highlighted ‘push here’ decal(s) for openable windows, should also incorporate black- and yellow-striped markings.

[Amdt No: 29/5]

[Amdt No: 29/11]

ED Decision 2018/007/R

For Category A rotorcraft, the following apply:

(a)A source of light with its power supply independent of the main lighting system must be installed to:

(1)Illuminate each passenger emergency exit marking and locating sign; and

(2)Provide enough general lighting in the passenger cabin so that the average illumination, when measured at 1.02 m (40-inch) intervals at seat armrest height on the centre line of the main passenger aisle, is at least 0.5 lux (0.05 foot-candle).

(b)Exterior emergency lighting must be provided at each emergency exit as required by CS 29.807(a) and at each ditching emergency exit required by CS 29.803(c)(1). The illumination may not be less than 0.5 lux (0.05 foot-candle) (measured normal to the direction of incident light) for a minimum width equal to the width of the emergency exit on the ground surface where an evacuee is likely to make first contact outside the cabin, with landing gear extended, and if applicable, on the raft surface where an evacuee is likely to make first contact when boarding the life raft. The exterior emergency lighting may be provided by either interior or exterior sources with light intensity measurements made with the emergency exits open.

(c)Each light required by sub-paragraph (a) or (b) must be operable manually from the cockpit station and from a point in the passenger compartment that is readily accessible. The cockpit control device must have an ‘on’, ‘off’, and ‘armed’ position so that when turned on at the cockpit or passenger compartment station or when armed at the cockpit station, the emergency lights will either illuminate or remain illuminated upon interruption of the rotorcraft’s normal electric power.

(d)Any means required to assist the occupants in descending to the ground must be illuminated so that the erected assist means is visible from the rotorcraft.

(1)The assist means must be provided with an illumination of not less than 0.3 lux (0.03 foot-candle) (measured normal to the direction of the incident light) at the ground end of the erected assist means where an evacuee using the established escape route would normally make first contact with the ground, with the rotorcraft in each of the attitudes corresponding to the collapse of one or more legs of the landing gear.

(2)If the emergency lighting subsystem illuminating the assist means is independent of the rotorcraft’s main emergency lighting system, it:

(i)Must automatically be activated when the assist means is erected;

(ii)Must provide the illumination required by sub-paragraph (d)(1); and

(iii)May not be adversely affected by stowage.

(e)The energy supply to each emergency lighting unit must provide the required level of illumination for at least 10 minutes at the critical ambient conditions after an emergency landing.

(f)If storage batteries are used as the energy supply for the emergency lighting system, they may be recharged from the rotorcraft’s main electrical power system provided the charging circuit is designed to preclude inadvertent battery discharge into charging circuit faults.

[Amdt No: 29/5]

ED Decision 2018/007/R

(a)Each passageway between passenger compartments, and each passageway leading to Type I and Type II emergency exits, must be:

(1)Unobstructed; and

(2)At least 0.51 m (20 inches) wide.

(b)For each emergency exit covered by CS 29.809(f), there must be enough space adjacent to that exit to allow a crew member to assist in the evacuation of passengers without reducing the unobstructed width of the passageway below that required for that exit.

(c)There must be access from each aisle to each Type III and Type IV exit; and

(1)For rotorcraft that have a passenger seating configuration, excluding pilot seats, of 20 or more, the projected opening of the exit provided must not be obstructed by seats, berths, or other protrusions (including seatbacks in any position) for a distance from that exit of not less than the width of the narrowest passenger seat installed on the rotorcraft;

(2)For rotorcraft that have a passenger seating configuration, excluding pilot seats, of 19 or less, there may be minor obstructions in the region described in sub-paragraph (1), if there are compensating factors to maintain the effectiveness of the exit.

(d)If certification with ditching provisions is requested:

(1) passenger seats must be located in relation to the underwater emergency exits provided in accordance with CS 29.807(d)(1) in a way to best facilitate escape with the rotorcraft capsized and the cabin flooded; and

(2) means must be provided to assist cross-cabin escape when capsized.

[Amdt No: 29/5]

ED Decision 2018/007/R

This AMC supplements FAA AC 29.813.

(a) Explanation

The provision for underwater emergency exits for passengers (see CS 29.807(d)) is based on the need to facilitate egress in the case of a capsize occurring soon after the rotorcraft has alighted on the water or in the event of a survivable water impact in which the cabin may be immediately flooded. The time available for evacuation is very short in such situations, and therefore, CS-29 Amendment 5 has increased the safety level by mandating additional exits, in the form of underwater emergency exits, to both shorten available escape routes and to ensure that no occupant should need to wait for more than one other person to escape before being able to make their own escape. The provision of an underwater emergency exit in each side of the fuselage of at least the size of a Type IV exit for each unit (or part of a unit) of four passenger seats will make this possible, provided that seats are positioned relative to the exits in a favourable manner.

Critical factors in an evacuation are the distance to an emergency exit and how direct and obvious the exit route is, taking into account that the passengers are likely to be disorientated.

Furthermore, consideration should be given to occupants having to make a cross-cabin escape due to the nearest emergency exit being blocked or otherwise unusable.

(b)Procedures

(1) The most obvious layout that maximises achievement of the objective that no passenger is in a worse position than the second person to egress through an exit is a four-abreast arrangement with all the seats in each row located appropriately and directly next to the emergency exits. However, this might not be possible in all rotorcraft designs due to issues such as limited cabin width, the need to locate seats such as to accommodate normal boarding and egress, and the installation of items other than seats in the cabin. Notwithstanding this, an egress route necessitating movement such as along an aisle, around a cabin item, or in any way other than directly towards the nearest emergency exit, to escape the rotorcraft, is not considered to be compliant with CS 29.813(d).

(2) If overall rotorcraft configuration constraints do not allow for easy and direct achievement of the above, one alternative may be to provide one or more underwater emergency exits larger than a Type IV in each side of the fuselage.

(3) The means provided to facilitate cross-cabin egress should be accessible to occupants floating freely in the cabin, should be easy to locate and should, as far as practicable, provide continuous visual and tactile cues to guide occupants to an exit. An effective solution could take the form of guide bars/ropes fitted to the front of the seat row structure below seat cushion height, in order to be accessible to passengers floating freely inside a capsized cabin. Where it is impractical for guide bars to be run across the full width of the cabin, e.g. due to the presence of an aisle, the ends of the guide bars should be designed to make them easier to find, e.g. enlarged and highlighted/lit end fittings to provide additional visual and tactile location cues. The provisions should be designed to minimise the risk of escapees’ clothing or emergency equipment snagging on them.

[Amdt No: 29/5]

ED Decision 2003/16/RM

The main passenger aisle width between seats must equal or exceed the values in the following table:

* A narrower width not less than 0.23 m (9 inches) may be approved when substantiated by tests found necessary by the Agency.

ED Decision 2003/16/RM

(a)Each passenger and crew compartment must be ventilated, and each crew compartment must have enough fresh air (but not less than 0.3 m3 (10 cu ft) per minute per crew member) to let crew members perform their duties without undue discomfort or fatigue.

(b)Crew and passenger compartment air must be free from harmful or hazardous concentrations of gases or vapours.

(c)The concentration of carbon monoxide may not exceed one part in 20 000 parts of air during forward flight. If the concentration exceeds this value under other conditions, there must be suitable operating restrictions.

(d)There must be means to ensure compliance with sub-paragraphs (b) and (c) under any reasonably probable failure of any ventilating, heating, or other system or equipment.

ED Decision 2003/16/RM

Each combustion heater must be approved.

FIRE PROTECTION

ED Decision 2003/16/RM

(a)Hand fire extinguishers. For hand fire extinguishers the following apply:

(1)Each hand fire extinguisher must be approved.

(2)The kinds and quantities of each extinguishing agent used must be appropriate to the kinds of fires likely to occur where that agent is used.

(3)Each extinguisher for use in a personnel compartment must be designed to minimise the hazard of toxic gas concentrations.

(b)Built-in fire extinguishers. If a built-in fire extinguishing system is required:

(1)The capacity of each system, in relation to the volume of the compartment where used and the ventilation rate, must be adequate for any fire likely to occur in that compartment.

(2)Each system must be installed so that:

(i)No extinguishing agent likely to enter personnel compartments will be present in a quantity that is hazardous to the occupants; and

(ii)No discharge of the extinguisher can cause structural damage.

ED Decision 2012/022/R

Based on EU legislation¹², in new installations of hand fire extinguishers for which the certification application is submitted after 31 December 2014, Halon 1211, 1301 and Halon 2402 are unacceptable extinguishing agents.

The guidance regarding hand fire extinguishers in FAA Advisory Circular AC 20-42D is considered acceptable by the Agency. See AMC 29.1197 for more information on Halon alternatives.

[Amdt 29/3]

ED Decision 2003/16/RM

For each compartment to be used by the crew or passengers:

(a)The materials (including finishes or decorative surfaces applied to the materials) must meet the following test criteria as applicable:

(1)Interior ceiling panels, interior wall panels, partitions, galley structure, large cabinet walls, structural flooring, and materials used in the construction of stowage compartments (other than underseat stowage compartments and compartments for stowing small items such as magazines and maps) must be self-extinguishing when tested vertically in accordance with the applicable portions of Appendix F of CS-25, or other approved equivalent methods. The average burn length may not exceed 0.15 m (6 in) and the average flame time after removal of the flame source may not exceed 15 seconds. Drippings from the test specimen may not continue to flame for more than an average of 3 seconds after falling.

(2)Floor covering, textiles (including draperies and upholstery), seat cushions, padding, decorative and non-decorative coated fabrics, leather, trays and galley furnishings, electrical conduit, thermal and acoustical insulation and insulation covering, air ducting, joint and edge covering, cargo compartment liners, insulation blankets, cargo covers, and transparencies, moulded and thermoformed parts, air ducting joints, and trim strips (decorative and chafing) that are constructed of materials not covered in sub-paragraph (a)(3), must be self-extinguishing when tested vertically in accordance with the applicable portion of Appendix F of CS-25, or other approved equivalent methods. The average burn length may not exceed 0.20 m (8 in) and the average flame time after removal of the flame source may not exceed 15 seconds. Drippings from the test specimen may not continue to flame for more than an average of 5 seconds after falling.

(3)Acrylic windows and signs, parts constructed in whole or in part of elastometric materials, edge lighted instrument assemblies consisting of two or more instruments in a common housing, seat belts, shoulder harnesses, and cargo and baggage tiedown equipment, including containers, bins, pallets, etc., used in passenger or crew compartments, may not have an average burn rate greater than 64 mm (2.5 in) per minute when tested horizontally in accordance with the applicable portions of Appendix F of CS-25, or other approved equivalent methods.

(4)Except for electrical wire and cable insulation, and for small parts (such as knobs, handles, rollers, fasteners, clips, grommets, rub strips, pulleys, and small electrical parts) that the Agency finds would not contribute significantly to the propagation of a fire, materials in items not specified in sub-paragraphs (a)(l), (a)(2), or (a)(3) may not have a burn rate greater than 0.10 m (4 in) per minute when tested horizontally in accordance with the applicable portions of Appendix F of CS-25, or other approved equivalent methods.

(b)In addition to meeting the requirements of sub-paragraph (a)(2), seat cushions, except those on flight-crew member seats, must meet the test requirements of Part II of Appendix F of CS-25, or equivalent.

(c)If smoking is to be prohibited, there must be a placard so stating, and if smoking is to be allowed:

(1)There must be an adequate number of self-contained, removable ashtrays; and

(2)Where the crew compartment is separated from the passenger compartment, there must be at least one illuminated sign (using either letters or symbols) notifying all passengers when smoking is prohibited. Signs which notify when smoking is prohibited must:

(i)When illuminated, be legible to each passenger seated in the passenger cabin under all probable lighting conditions; and

(ii)Be so constructed that the crew can turn the illumination on and off.

(d)Each receptacle for towels, paper, or waste must be at least fire-resistant and must have means for containing possible fires;

(e)There must be a hand fire extinguisher for the flight-crew members; and

(f)At least the following number of hand fire extinguishers must be conveniently located in passenger compartments:

ED Decision 2023/001/R

CS 29.853 (a) and (b) refer directly to CS-25 flammability requirements. Furthermore, CS 29.853(d) sets a fire containment requirement for waste containers that is essentially the same as that set by CS 25.853(h).

Accordingly, the relevant guidance for complying with CS-25 flammability requirements that is found in AC 25-17A and PS-ANM-25.853-R2 may be used when showing compliance with the requirement of CS 29.853.

[Amdt No: 29/11]

ED Decision 2023/001/R

PROHIBITION OF SMOKING

CS 29.853(c) requires that if smoking is to be prohibited, a placard so stating must be installed.

A single placard, installed such that it is clearly visible to all passengers whilst seated, is an acceptable means of compliance. Alternatively, more than one placard may be installed, in locations such that at least one placard is clearly visible to each passenger when seated.

A placard may have a text-based design, or may utilise symbols that clearly express the intent.

[Amdt No: 29/11]

ED Decision 2003/16/RM

(a)Each cargo and baggage compartment must be constructed of, or lined with, materials in accordance with the following:

(1)For accessible and inaccessible compartments not occupied by passengers or crew, the material must be at least fire-resistant.

(2)Materials must meet the requirements in CS 29.853(a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3) for cargo or baggage compartments in which:

(i)The presence of a compartment fire would be easily discovered by a crew member while at the crew member’s station;

(ii)Each part of the compartment is easily accessible in flight;

(iii)The compartment has a volume of 5.6 m3 (200 cu ft) or less; and

(iv)Notwithstanding CS 29.1439(a), protective breathing equipment is not required.

(b)No compartment may contain any controls, wiring, lines, equipment, or accessories whose damage or failure would affect safe operation, unless those items are protected so that:

(1)They cannot be damaged by the movement of cargo in the compartment; and

(2)Their breakage or failure will not create a fire hazard.

(c)The design and sealing of inaccessible compartments must be adequate to contain compartment fires until a landing and safe evacuation can be made.

(d)Each cargo and baggage compartment that is not sealed so as to contain cargo compartment fires completely without endangering the safety of a rotorcraft or its occupants must be designed, or must have a device, to ensure detection of fires or smoke by a crew member while at his station and to prevent the accumulation of harmful quantities of smoke, flame, extinguishing agents, and other noxious gases in any crew or passenger compartment. This must be shown in flight.

(e)For rotorcraft used for the carriage of cargo only, the cabin area may be considered a cargo compartment and, in addition to sub-paragraphs (a) to (d), the following apply:

(1)There must be means to shut off the ventilating airflow to or within the compartment. Controls for this purpose must be accessible to the flight crew in the crew compartment.

(2)Required crew emergency exits must be accessible under all cargo loading conditions.

(3)Sources of heat within each compartment must be shielded and insulated to prevent igniting the cargo.

ED Decision 2003/16/RM

(a)Combustion heater fire zones. The following combustion heater fire zones must be protected against fire under the applicable provisions of CS 29.1181 to 29.1191, and CS 29.1195 to 29.1203:

(1)The region surrounding any heater, if that region contains any flammable fluid system components (including the heater fuel system), that could:

(i)Be damaged by heater malfunctioning; or

(ii)Allow flammable fluids or vapours to reach the heater in case of leakage.

(2)Each part of any ventilating air passage that:

(i)Surrounds the combustion chamber; and

(ii)Would not contain (without damage to other rotorcraft components) any fire that may occur within the passage.

(b)Ventilating air ducts. Each ventilating air duct passing through any fire zone must be fireproof. In addition –

(1)Unless isolation is provided by fireproof valves or by equally effective means, the ventilating air duct downstream of each heater must be fireproof for a distance great enough to ensure that any fire originating in the heater can be contained in the duct; and

(2)Each part of any ventilating duct passing through any region having a flammable fluid system must be so constructed or isolated from that system that the malfunctioning of any component of that system cannot introduce flammable fluids or vapours into the ventilating airstream.

(c)Combustion air ducts. Each combustion air duct must be fireproof for a distance great enough to prevent damage from backfiring or reverse flame propagation. In addition:

(1)No combustion air duct may communicate with the ventilating airstream unless flames from backfires or reverse burning cannot enter the ventilating airstream under any operating condition, including reverse flow or malfunction of the heater or its associated components; and

(2)No combustion air duct may restrict the prompt relief of any backfire that, if so restricted, could cause heater failure.

(d)Heater controls; general. There must be means to prevent the hazardous accumulation of water or ice on or in any heater control component, control system tubing, or safety control.

(e)Heater safety controls. For each combustion heater, safety control means must be provided as follows:

(1)Means independent of the components provided for the normal continuous control of air temperature, airflow, and fuel flow must be provided, for each heater, to automatically shut off the ignition and fuel supply of that heater at a point remote from that heater when any of the following occurs:

(i)The heat exchanger temperature exceeds safe limits.

(ii)The ventilating air temperature exceeds safe limits.

(iii)The combustion airflow becomes inadequate for safe operation.

(iv)The ventilating airflow becomes inadequate for safe operation.

(2)The means of complying with sub-paragraph (e)(1) for any individual heater must:

(i)Be independent of components serving any other heater whose heat output is essential for safe operation; and

(ii)Keep the heater off until restarted by the crew.

(3)There must be means to warn the crew when any heater whose heat output is essential for safe operation has been shut off by the automatic means prescribed in sub-paragraph (e)(1).

(f)Air intakes. Each combustion and ventilating air intake must be where no flammable fluids or vapours can enter the heater system under any operating condition:

(1)During normal operation; or

(2)As a result of the malfunction of any other component.

(g)Heater exhaust. Each heater exhaust system must meet the requirements of CS 29.1121 and 29.1123. In addition:

(1)Each exhaust shroud must be sealed so that no flammable fluids or hazardous quantities of vapours can reach the exhaust systems through joints; and

(2)No exhaust system may restrict the prompt relief of any backfire that, if so restricted, could cause heater failure.

(h)Heater fuel systems. Each heater fuel system must meet the powerplant fuel system requirements affecting safe heater operation. Each heater fuel system component in the ventilating airstream must be protected by shrouds so that no leakage from those components can enter the ventilating airstream.

(i)Drains. There must be means for safe drainage of any fuel that might accumulate in the combustion chamber or the heat exchanger. In addition –

(1)Each part of any drain that operates at high temperatures must be protected in the same manner as heater exhausts; and

(2)Each drain must be protected against hazardous ice accumulation under any operating condition.

ED Decision 2003/16/RM

Each part of the structure, controls, and the rotor mechanism, and other parts essential to controlled landing and (for Category A) flight that would be affected by powerplant fires must be isolated under CS 29.1191, or must be:

(a)For Category A rotorcraft, fire-proof; and

(b)For Category B rotorcraft, fire-proof or protected so that they can perform their essential functions for at least 5 minutes under any foreseeable powerplant fire conditions.

ED Decision 2003/16/RM

(a)In each area where flammable fluids or vapours might escape by leakage of a fluid system, there must be means to minimise the probability of ignition of the fluids and vapours, and the resultant hazards if ignition does occur.

(b)Compliance with sub-paragraph (a) must be shown by analysis or tests, and the following factors must be considered:

(1)Possible sources and paths of fluid leakage, and means of detecting leakage.

(2)Flammability characteristics of fluids, including effects of any combustible or absorbing materials.

(3)Possible ignition sources, including electrical faults, overheating of equipment, and malfunctioning of protective devices.

(4)Means available for controlling or extinguishing a fire, such as stopping flow of fluids, shutting down equipment, fireproof containment, or use of extinguishing agents.

(5)Ability of rotorcraft components that are critical to safety of flight to withstand fire and heat.

(c)If action by the flight crew is required to prevent or counteract a fluid fire (e.g. equipment shutdown or actuation of a fire extinguisher), quick acting means must be provided to alert the crew.

(d)Each area where flammable fluids or vapours might escape by leakage of a fluid system must be identified and defined.

EXTERNAL LOADS

ED Decision 2018/007/R

(a)It must be shown by analysis, test, or both, that the rotorcraft external load attaching means for rotorcraft-load combinations to be used for non-human external cargo applications can withstand a limit static load equal to 2.5, or some lower load factor approved under CS 29.337 through 29.341, multiplied by the maximum external load for which authorisation is requested. It must be shown by analysis, test, or both that the rotorcraft external-load attaching means and any complex personnel-carrying device system for rotorcraft-load combinations to be used for human external cargo applications can withstand a limit static load equal to 3.5 or some lower load factor, not less than 2.5, approved under CS 29.337 through 29.341, multiplied by the maximum external load for which authorisation is requested. The load for any rotorcraft-load combination class, for any external cargo type, must be applied in the vertical direction. For jettisonable rotorcraft-load combinations, for any applicable external cargo type, the load must also be applied in any direction making the maximum angle with the vertical that can be achieved in service but not less than 30°. However, the 30° angle may be reduced to a lesser angle if:

(1)An operating limitation is established limiting external load operations to those angles for which compliance with this paragraph has been shown; or

(2)It is shown that the lesser angle cannot be exceeded in service.

(b)The external-load attaching means, for jettisonable rotorcraft-load combinations, must include a quick-release system (QRS) to enable the pilot to release the external load quickly during flight. The QRS must consist of a primary quick-release subsystem and a backup quick-release subsystem that are isolated from one another. The QRS, and the means by which it is controlled, must comply with the following:

(1)A control for the primary quick- release subsystem must be installed either on one of the pilot's primary controls or in an equivalently accessible location and must be designed and located so that it may be operated by either the pilot or a crew member without hazardously limiting the ability to control the rotorcraft during an emergency situation.

(2)A control for the backup quick-release subsystem, readily accessible to either the pilot or another crew member, must be provided.

(3)Both the primary and backup quick-release subsystems must:

(i)Be reliable, durable, and function properly with all external loads up to and including the maximum external limit load for which authorisation is requested.

(ii)Be protected against electromagnetic interference (EMI) from external and internal sources and against lightning to prevent inadvertent load release.

(A)The minimum level of protection required for jettisonable rotorcraft-load combinations used for non-human external cargo is a radio frequency field strength of 20 volts per metre.

(B)The minimum level of protection required for jettisonable rotorcraft-load combinations used for human external cargo is a radio frequency field strength of 200 volts per metre.

(iii)Be protected against any failure that could be induced by a failure mode of any other electrical or mechanical rotorcraft system.

(c)For rotorcraft-load combinations to be used for human external cargo applications, the rotorcraft must:

(1)For jettisonable external loads, have a QRS that meets the requirements of sub-paragraph (b) and that:

(i)Provides a dual actuation device for the primary quick-release subsystem, and

(ii)Provides a separate dual actuation device for the backup quick-release subsystem.

(2)Enable the safe utilisation of complex personnel-carrying device systems to transport occupants external to the helicopter or to restrain occupants inside the cabin. A personnel-carrying device system is considered complex if:

(i)it does not meet an European Norm (EN) standard under Directive 89/686/EEC¹³ or Regulation (EU) 2016/425¹⁴, as applicable, or subsequent revision;

(ii) it is designed to restrain more than a single person (e.g. a hoist or cargo hook operator, photographer, etc.) inside the cabin, or to restrain more than two persons outside the cabin; or

(iii) it is a rigid structure such as a cage, a platform or a basket.

Complex personnel-carrying device systems shall be reliable and have the structural capability and personnel safety features essential for external occupant safety through compliance with the specific requirements of CS 29.865, CS 29.571 and other relevant requirements of CS-29 for the proposed operating envelope.

(3)Have placards and markings at all appropriate locations that clearly state the essential system operating instructions and, for complex personnel-carrying device systems, ingress and egress instructions,

(4)Have equipment to allow direct intercommunication among required crew members and external occupants,

(5)Have the appropriate limitations and procedures incorporated in the flight manual for conducting human external cargo operations, and

(6)For human external cargo applications requiring use of Category A rotorcraft, have one-engine-inoperative hover performance data and procedures in the flight manual for the weights, altitudes, and temperatures for which external load approval is requested.

(d)The critically configured jettisonable external loads must be shown by a combination of analysis, ground tests, and flight tests to be both transportable and releasable throughout the approved operational envelope without hazard to the rotorcraft during normal flight conditions. In addition, these external loads must be shown to be releasable without hazard to the rotorcraft during emergency flight conditions.

(e)A placard or marking must be installed next to the external-load attaching means clearly stating any operational limitations and the maximum authorised external load as demonstrated under CS 29.25 and this paragraph.

(f)The fatigue evaluation of CS 29.571 does not apply to rotorcraft-load combinations to be used for non-human external cargo except for the failure of critical structural elements that would result in a hazard to the rotorcraft. For rotorcraft-load combinations to be used for human external cargo, the fatigue evaluation of CS 29.571 applies to the entire quick-release and complex personnel-carrying device structural systems and their attachments.

[Amdt No: 29/5]

ED Decision 2018/015/R

This AMC provides further guidance and acceptable means of compliance to supplement FAA AC 29-2C Change 7 AC 29.865B § 29.865 (Amendment 29-43) EXTERNAL LOADS to meet EASA’s interpretation of CS 29.865. As such, it should be used in conjunction with the FAA AC but should take precedence over it, where stipulated, in the showing of compliance.

AMC No 1 below addresses the specificities of complex personnel-carrying device systems for human external cargo applications.

AMC No 2 below contains a recognised approach to the approval of simple PCDSs if required by the applicable operating rule or if an applicant elects to include simple PCDSs within the scope of type certification.

[Amdt No: 29/5]

[Amdt No: 29/6]

ED Decision 2018/015/R

a.Explanation

(1)This AMC contains guidance for the certification of helicopter external-load attaching means and load-carrying systems to be used in conjunction with operating rules such as Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on Air Operations¹⁵. CS 29.25 also concerns, in part, jettisonable external cargo.

(2) CS 29.865 provides a minimum level of safety for large category rotorcraft designs to be used with operating rules, such as Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on Air Operations. Certain aspects of operations, such as microwave tower and high-line wirework, may also be regulated separately by other agencies or entities. For applications that could come under the regulations of more than one agency or entity, special certification emphasis will be required by both the applicant and the approving authority to assure all relevant safety requirements are identified and met. Potential additional requirements, where thought to exist, are noted herein.

(3) The CS provisions for external loads (29.865) do not discern the difference between a crew member and a compensating passenger when either is carried external to the rotorcraft. Both are considered to be HEC.

b.Definitions

(1)Backup quick-release subsystem (BQRS): the secondary or ‘second choice’ subsystem used to perform a normal or emergency jettison of external cargo.

(2)Cargo: the part of any rotorcraft-load combination that is removable, changeable, and is attached to the rotorcraft by an approved means. For certification purposes, ‘cargo’ applies to HEC and non-human external cargo (NHEC).

(3) Cargo hook: a hook that can be rated for both HEC and NHEC. It is typically used by being fixed directly to a designated hard point on the rotorcraft.

(4) Dual actuation device (DAD): this is a sequential control that requires two distinct actions in series for actuation. One example is the removal of a lock pin followed by the activation of a ‘then free’ switch or lever for load release to occur (in this scenario, a load release switch protected only by an uncovered switch guard is not acceptable). For jettisonable HEC applications, a simple, covered switch does not qualify as a DAD. Familiarity with covered switches allows the pilot to both open and activate the switch in one motion. This has led to inadvertent load release.

(5) Emergency jettison (or complete load release): the intentional, instantaneous release of NHEC or HEC in a preset sequence by the quick-release system (QRS) that is normally performed to achieve safer aircraft operation in an emergency.

(6) External fixture: a structure external to and in addition to the basic airframe that does not have true jettison capability and has no significant payload capability in addition to its own weight. An example is an agricultural spray boom. These configurations are not approvable as ‘External Loads’ under CS 29.865.

(7) External Load System. The entire installation related to the carriage of external loads to include not only the hoist or hook, but also the structural provisions and release systems. A complex PCDS is also considered to be part of the external load system.

(8) Hoist: a hoist is a device that exerts a vertical pull, usually through a cable and drum system (i.e. a pull that does not typically exceed a 30-degree cone measured around the z-rotorcraft axis).

(9) Hoist demonstration cycle (or ‘one cycle’): the complete extension and retraction of at least 95 % of the actual cable length, or 100 % of the cable length capable of being used in service (i.e. that would activate any extension or retraction limiting devices), whichever is greater.

(10) Hoist load-speed combinations: some hoists are designed so that the extension and retraction speed slows as the load increases or nears the end of a cable extension. Other hoist designs maintain a constant speed as the load is varied. In the latter designs, the load-speed combination simply means the variation in load at the constant design speed of the hoist.

(11) Human external cargo (HEC): a person (or persons) who, at some point in the operation, is (are) carried external to the rotorcraft.

(12) Non-human external cargo (NHEC): any external cargo operation that does not at any time involve a person (or persons) carried external to the rotorcraft.

(13)Normal jettison (or selective load release): the intentional release, normally at optimum jettison conditions, of NHEC.

(14) Personnel-carrying device system (PCDS) is a device that has the structural capability and features needed to transport occupants external to the helicopter during HEC or helicopter hoist operations. A PCDS includes but is not limited to life safety harnesses (including, if applicable, a quick-release and strop with a connector ring), rigid baskets and cages that are either attached to a hoist or cargo hook or mounted to the rotorcraft airframe.

(15) Primary quick-release subsystem (PQRS): the primary or ‘first choice’ subsystem used to perform a normal or emergency jettison of external cargo.

(16) Quick-release system (QRS): the entire release system for jettisonable external cargo (i.e. the sum total of both the primary and backup quick-release subsystem). The QRS consists of all the components including the controls, the release devices, and everything in between.

(17) Rescue hook (or hook): a hook that can be rated for both HEC and NHEC. It is typically used in conjunction with a hoist or equivalent system.

(18) Rotorcraft-load combination (RLC): the combination of a rotorcraft and an external load, including the external-load attaching means.

(19)Spider: a spider is a system of attaching a lowering cable or rope or a harness to an NHEC (or HEC) RLC to eliminate undesirable flight dynamics during operations. A spider usually has four or more legs (or load paths) that connect to various points of a PCDS to equalise loading and prevent spinning, twisting, or other undesirable flight dynamics.

(20) True jettison capability: the ability to safely release an external load using an approved QRS in 30 seconds or less.

NOTE: In all cases, a PQRS should release the external load in less than 5 seconds. Many PQRSs will release the external load in milliseconds, once the activation device is triggered. However, a manual BQRS, such as a set of cable cutters, could take as much as 30 seconds to release the external load. The 30 seconds would be measured starting from the time the release command was given and ending when the external load was cut loose.

(21) True payload capability: the ability of an external device or tank to carry a significant payload in addition to its own weight. If little or no payload can be carried, the external device or tank is an external fixture (see definition above).

(22) Winch: a winch is a device that can employ a cable and drum or other means to exert a horizontal (i.e. x-rotorcraft axis) pull. However, in designs that utilise a winch to perform a hoist function by use of a 90-degree cable direction change device (such as a pulley or pulley system), the winch system is considered to be a hoist.

c. Procedures

The following certification procedures are provided in the most general form. Where there are significant differences between the cargo types, the differences are highlighted.

(1) General Compliance Procedures for CS 29.865: The applicant should clearly identify both the RLC and the applicable cargo types (NHEC or HEC) for which an application is being made. The structural loads and operating envelopes for each applicable cargo type should be determined and used to formulate the flight manual supplement and basic loads report. The applicant should show by analysis, test, or both, that the rotorcraft structure, the external-load attaching means, and the complex PCDS, if applicable, meet the specific requirements of CS 29.865 and any other relevant requirements of CS-29 for the proposed operating envelope.

NOTE: the approved maximum internal gross weight should never be exceeded for any approved HEC configuration (or simultaneous NHEC and HEC configuration).

(2)Reliability of the external load system, including the QRS.

(i)The hoist, QRS, and rescue hook system should be reliable for all phases of flight and the applicable configurations for those phases (i.e. operating, stowed, or unstowed) for which approval is sought. The hoist should be disabled (or an overriding, fail-safe mechanical safety device such as either a flagged removable shear pin or a load-lowering brake should be utilised) to prevent inadvertent load unspooling or release during any extended flight phases in which hoist operation is not intended. Loss of hoist operational control should also be considered.

(ii)A failure of the external load system (including QRS, hook, complex PCDS where applicable, and attachments to the rotorcraft) should be shown to be extremely improbable (i.e. 1 × 10-9 failures per flight) for all failure modes that could cause a catastrophic failure, serious injury or a fatality anywhere in the total airborne system. Uncontrolled high-speed descent of the hoist cable would fall into this category. All significant failure modes of lesser consequence should be evaluated and shown to be at least improbable (i.e. 1 × 10-5 failures per flight).

(iii)The reliability of the system should be demonstrated by completion and approval of the following:

(A)A functional hazard assessment (FHA) to determine the hazard severity of failures associated with the external load system. The effect of the flailing cable after a load release should be considered.

(B)A fault tree analysis (FTA) or equivalent to verify that the hazard classification of the FHA has been met.

(C) A system safety assessment (SSA) to demonstrate compliance with the applicable certification requirements.

(D) An analysis of the non-redundant external load system components that constitute the primary load path (e.g. beam, cable, hook), to demonstrate compliance with the applicable structural requirements.

(E)A repetitive test of all functional devices that cycles these devices under critical structural conditions, operational conditions, or a combination of both at least 10 times each for NHEC and 30 times for HEC. This is applicable to both primary and backup subsystems. It is assumed that only one hoist cycle will typically occur per flight. This rationale has been used to determine the 10 demonstration cycles for NHEC applications and 30 demonstration cycles for HEC applications. However, if a particular application requires more than one hoist cycle per flight, then the number of demonstration cycles should be increased accordingly by multiplying the test cycles by the intended higher cycle number per flight. These repetitive tests may be conducted on the rotorcraft or by using a bench simulation that accurately replicates the rotorcraft installation.

(F)An environmental qualification for the proposed operating environment. This review includes consideration of low and high temperatures (typically – 40 °C (– 40 °F) to + 65.6 °C (+ 150 °F), altitudes to 12 000 feet, humidity, salt spray, sand and dust, vibration, shock, rain, fungus, and acceleration. The appropriate rotorcraft sections of RTCA Document DO-160/ EUROCAE ED-14 for high and low temperature and vibration are considered to be acceptable for environmental qualification. The environmental qualification will address icing for those external load systems installed on rotorcraft approved for flight into icing conditions.

(G)Qualification of the hoist itself to the appropriate electromagnetic interference (EMI) and lightning threat levels specified for NHEC or HEC, as applicable. This qualification can occur separately or as part of the entire on-board QRS.

(3)Testing.

(i) Hoist system load-speed combination ground tests. The load versus-speed combinations of the hoist should be demonstrated on the ground (either using an accurate engineering mock-up or a rotorcraft) by showing repeatability of the no load-speed combination, the 50 per cent load-speed combination, the 75 per cent load-speed combination, and the 100 per cent (i.e. system rated limit) load-speed combination. If more than one operational speed range exists, the preceding tests should be performed at the most critical speed.

(A) At least 1/10 of the hoist demonstration cycles (see definition) should include the maximum aft angular displacement of the load from the vertical, applied for under CS 29.865(a).

(B) A minimum of six consecutive, complete operation cycles should be conducted at the system's 100 per cent (i.e. system limit rated) load-speed combination.

(C) In addition, the demonstration should cover all normal and emergency modes of intended operation and should include operation of all control devices such as limit switches, braking devices, and overload sensors in the system.

(D) All quick disconnect devices and cable cutters should be demonstrated at 0 per cent, 25 per cent, 50 per cent, 75 per cent, and 100 per cent of system limit load or at the most critical percentage of limit load. Note: some hoist designs have built-in cable tensioning devices that function at the no load-speed combination, as well as at other load-speed combinations. This device should work during the no load-speed and other load-speed cable-cutting combinations.

(E) Any devices or methods used to increase the mechanical advantage of the hoist should also be demonstrated.

(F) During a portion of each demonstration cycle, the hoist should be operated from each station from which it can be controlled.

(ii)Hoist and rescue hook systems or cargo hook systems flight test: an in-flight demonstration test of the hoist system should be conducted for helicopters designed to carry NHEC or HEC. The rotorcraft should be flown to the extremes ofthe applicable manoeuvre flight envelope and to all conditions that are critical to strength, manoeuvrability, stability, and control, or any other factor affecting airworthiness. Unless a lesser load is determined to be more critical for either dynamic stability or other reasons, the maximum hoist system rated load or, if less, the maximum load requested for approval (and the associated limit load data placards) should be used for these tests. The minimum hoist system load (or zero load) should also be demonstrated in these tests.

(iii) CS 29.865(d) Flight test Verification Work: flight test verification work that thoroughly examines the operational envelope should be conducted with the external cargo carriage device for which approval is requested (especially those that involve HEC). The flight test programme should show that all aspects of the operations applied for are safe, uncomplicated, and can be conducted by a qualified flight crew under the most critical service environment and, in the case of HEC, under emergency condition. Flight tests should be conducted for the simulated representative NHEC and HEC loads to demonstrate their in-flight handling and separation characteristics. Each placard, marking, and flight manual supplement should be validated during flight testing.

(A) General: flight testing or an equivalent combination of analysis, ground tests, and flight tests should be conducted under the critical combinations of configurations and operating conditions for which basic type certification approval is sought. The critical load condition of the intended cargo (e.g. rocks, lumber, radio towers, HEC) may be defined by a heavy weight and low area cargo or a low weight and high area cargo. The effects of these load conditions should be evaluated throughout the operational aspects of cargo loading, take-off, cruise up to maximum allowable speed with cargo, jettison, and landing. The helicopter handling with different cable conditions should include lateral transitions and quick stops up to the helicopter approved low airspeed limitations. Additional combinations of external load and operating conditions may be subsequently approved under relevant operational requirements as long as the structural limits and reliability considerations of the basic certification approval are not exceeded (i.e. equivalent safety is maintained). The qualification flight test of this subparagraph is intended to be accomplished primarily by analysis or bench testing. However, at least one in-flight, limit load drop test should be conducted for the critical load case. If one critical load case cannot be clearly identified, then more than one drop test might be necessary. Also, in-flight tests for the minimum load case (i.e. typically the cable hook itself) with the load trailing both in the minimum and maximum cable length configurations should be conducted. Any safety-of-flight limitations should be documented and placed in the RFM or RFMS. In certain low-gross weight, jettisonable HEC configurations, the complex PCDS may act as a trailing aerofoil that could result in entangling the complex PCDS with the rotorcraft. These configurations should be assessed on a case-by-case basis by analysis or flight test to ensure that any safety-of-flight limitations are clearly identified and placed in the RFM or RFMS (also see PCDS).

(B)Separation characteristics of jettisonable external loads. For all jettisonable RLCs of any applicable cargo type, satisfactory post-jettison separation characteristics of all loads should meet the minimum criteria that follow:

(1) Separate functioning of the PQRS and BQRS resulting in a complete, immediate release of the external load without interference by the rotorcraft or external load system.

(2) No damage to the helicopter during or following actuation of the QRS and load jettisoning.

(3) A jettison trajectory that is clear of the helicopter.

(4) No inherent instability of the jettisonable (or just jettisoned) HEC or NHEC while in proximity to the helicopter.

(5) No adverse or uncontrollable helicopter reactions at the time of jettison.

(6) Stability and control characteristics after jettison that are within the originally approved limits.

(7) No adverse degradation on helicopter performance characteristics after jettison.

(C) Jettison requirements for jettisonable external loads: for representative cargo types (low, medium, and high density loads on long and short lines), emergency and normal jettison procedures should be demonstrated (by a combination of analysis, ground tests, and flight tests) in sufficient combinations of flight conditions to establish a jettison envelope that should be placed in the flight manual.

(D)QRS demonstration. Repetitive jettison demonstrations that use the PQRS, which may be accomplished during ground or flight tests, should be conducted. The BQRS should be utilised at least once.

(E)QRS reliability (i.e. failure modes) affecting flight performance. The FHA of the QRS (see paragraph c.(2) above) should show that any single system failure will not result in unsatisfactory flight characteristics, including any QRS failures resulting in asymmetric loading conditions.

(F)Flight test weight and CG locations: all flight tests should be conducted at the extreme or critical combinations of weight and longitudinal and lateral CG conditions within the applied for flight envelope. Typically the two load conditions would be a heavy weight and low area cargo, and a low weight and high area cargo. The rotorcraft should remain within approved weight and CG limits, both with the external load applied, and after jettison of the load.

(G)Jettison Envelopes. Emergency and normal jettison demonstrations should be performed at sufficient airspeeds and descent rates to establish any restrictions for satisfactory separation characteristics. Both the maximum and minimum airspeed limits and the maximum descent rate for safe separation should be determined. The sideslip envelope as a function of airspeed should be determined.

(H)Altitude. Emergency and normal jettison demonstrations should be performed at altitudes that are consistent with the approvable operational envelope and with the manoeuvres necessary to overcome any adverse effects of the jettison.

(I)Attitude. Emergency and normal jettison demonstrations should be performed from all attitudes that are appropriate to normal and emergency operational usage. Where the attitudes of HEC or NHEC with respect to the helicopter may be varied, the most critical attitude should be demonstrated. This demonstration would normally be accomplished by bench testing.

(4)Rotorcraft Flight Manual (RFM) and Rotorcraft Flight Manual Supplement (RFMS):

(i)General.

(A) Present appropriate flight manual procedures and limitations for all HEC operations.

(1)The approval of an external loads equipment design in accordance with CS 29.865 does not provide an approval to conduct external loads operations. Therefore, the following should be included as a limitation in the RFM or RFMS:

—The external load equipment certification approval does not constitute an operational approval; an operational approval for external load operations must be granted by the competent authority.

(2) The RFM or RFMS that will be approved through the certification activity should not contain any references to the previously used RLC classes.

(B)For non-HEC designs, the following limitation should be included within the RFM or RFMS:

—The external load system does not comply with the CS-29 certification provisions for Human External Cargo (HEC).

(C)The RFM or RFMS may contain suitable text to clarify whether the external load system meets the applicable certification provisions for lifting an external load free of land or water and whether the load is jettisonable.

(D)The RFM or RFMS should contain emergency procedures detailing the steps to be taken by the flight crew during emergencies such as an engine failure, hoist failure, flight director or autopilot failure, etc.

(E)The RFM or RFMS normal procedures should explain the required procedures to conduct a safe external load operation. Such information may include the methods for attachment and normal release of the external load.

(ii) HEC installations.

(A) For HEC installations, the following additional information/limitation should be included in the RFM or RFMS:

(1)That the external load system meets the CS-29 certification specifications for Human External Cargo (HEC).

(2)Operation of the external load equipment with HEC requires the use of an approved Personnel Carrying Device Systems (PCDS). NOTE: for a simple PCDS, also refer to AMC No. 2 to 29.865

(B)Crew member communications.

(1) The flight manual should clearly define the method of communication between the flight crew and the HEC. These instructions and manuals should be validated during flight testing.

(2)If the external load system does not include equipment to allow direct intercommunication among required crew members and external occupants, the following limitation may be included within the limitations section of the RFM or RFMS:

—This external load system does not include equipment to allow direct intercommunication among required crew members and external occupants. Operating this external load equipment with HEC is not authorised unless appropriate equipment to allow direct intercommunication between required crew members and external occupants has an airworthiness approval.

(iii) Additional RFM or RFMS requirements are contained within each applicable paragraph of this AMC.

(5)Continued airworthiness.

(i)Instructions for Continued Airworthiness: maintenance manuals (and RFM supplements) developed by applicants for external load applications should be presented for approval and should include all appropriate inspection and maintenance procedures. The applicant should provide sufficient data and other information to establish the frequency, extent, and methods of inspection of critical structure, systems, and components. CS 29.1529 and Appendix A to CS-29 requires this information to be included in the maintenance manual. For example, maintenance requirements for sensitive QRS squibs should be carefully determined, documented, approved during certification, and included as specific mandatory scheduled maintenance requirements that may require either ‘daily’ or ‘pre-flight’ checks (especially for HEC applications).

(ii)Hoist system continued airworthiness. The design life of the hoist system and any limited life components should be clearly identified, and the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the maintenance manual should include these requirements. For STCs, a maintenance manual supplement should be provided that includes these requirements. Note: the design life of a hoist and cable system is typically between 5 000 and 8 000 cycles. Some hoist systems have usage time meters installed. Others may have cycle counters installed. Cycle counters should be considered for HEC operations and high-load or other operations that may cause low-cycle fatigue failures.

(6) CS 29.865(a) Static Structural Substantiation and CS 29.865(f) Fatigue Substantiation Procedures: The following static structural substantiation methods and fatigue substantiation should be used:

(i) Critical Basic Load Determination. The critical basic loads and corresponding flight envelope are determined by statically substantiating the gross weight range limits, the corresponding vertical limit load factors (NZW) and the safety factors applicable for the type of external load for which the application is being made.

NOTE: in cases where NHEC or HEC can have more than one shape, centre of gravity, centre of lift, or be carried at more than one distance in-flight from the rotorcraft attachment, a critical configuration for certification purposes may not be determinable. If such a critical configuration can be determined, it may be examined for approval as a ‘worst case’ to satisfy a particular certification criterion or several criteria, as appropriate. If such a critical configuration cannot be determined, the extreme points of the operational external load configuration envelope should be examined, with consideration given to any other points within the envelope that experience or any other rationale indicates as points that need to be investigated.

(ii) Vertical Limit and Ultimate Load Factors. The basic NZW is converted to the ultimate load by multiplying the maximum vertical limit load by the appropriate safety factor (for restricted category approvals, see the guidance in paragraph AC 29 MG 5 of FAA AC 29-2C Change 7). This ultimate load is used to substantiate all the existing structure affected by, and all the added structure associated with, the load-carrying device, its attachments and its cargo. Casting factors, fitting factors, and other dynamic load factors should be applied where appropriate.

(A) NHEC applications. In most cases, it is acceptable to perform a standard static analysis to show compliance. A vertical limit load factor (NZW) of 2.5 g is typical for heavy gross weight NHEC hauling configurations (ref.: CS 29.337). This vertical load factor should be applied to the maximum external load for which the application is being made, together with a minimum safety factor of 1.5.

(B)HEC applications.

(1)If a safety factor of 3.0 or more is used, it is acceptable to perform a standard static analysis to show compliance. The safety factor should be applied to the yield strength of the weakest component in the system (QRS, complex PCDS, and attachment load path). If a safety factor of less than 3.0 is used, both an analysis and a full-scale ultimate load test of the relevant parts of the system should be performed.

(2)Since HEC applications typically involve lower gross weight configurations, a higher vertical limit load factor is required to assure that the limit load is not exceeded in service. The applicant should use either the conservative value of 3.5 g or an analytically derived maximum vertical limit load factor for the requested operating envelope. Linear interpolation between the vertical load factors of the maximum and minimum design weights may be used. However, in no case may the vertical limit load factor be less than 2.5 g for any HEC application.

(3)For the purpose of structural analysis or test, applicants should assume a 101.2-kg (223-pound) man as the minimum weight of each occupant carried as HEC.

NOTE: if the HEC is engaged in work tasks that employ devices of significant added weight (e.g. heavy backpacks, tools, fire extinguishers, etc.), the total weight of the 101.2-kg (223-pound) man and their equipment should be assumed in the structural analysis or test.

(iii) Critical Structural Case. For applications involving more than one RLC class or cargo type, the structural substantiation is required only for the most critical case. The most critical case should be determined by rational analysis.

(iv) Jettisonable Loads. For the substantiating analyses or tests of all jettisonable external loads, including HEC, the maximum external load should be applied at the maximum angle that can be achieved in service, but not less than 30 degrees. The angle should be measured from the sling-load-line to the rotorcraft vertical axis (z axis) and may be in any direction that can be achieved in service. The 30-degree angle may be reduced in some or all directions if it is impossible to obtain due to physical constraints or operating limitations. The maximum allowable cable angle should be determined and approved. The angle approved should be based on structural requirements, mechanical interference limits, and flight-handling characteristics over the most critical conditions and combinations of conditions in the approved flight envelope.

(v) Hoist System Limit Load.

NOTE: if a hoist cable or a long-line cable is utilised, a new dynamic system is established. The characteristics of the system should be evaluated to assure that either no hazardous failure modes exist or that they are acceptably minimised. For example, the hoist cable or long-line cable may exhibit a natural frequency that could be excited by sources internal to the overall structural system (i.e. the rotorcraft) or by sources external to the system. Another example is the loading effect of the cable acting as a spring between the rotorcraft and the suspended external load.

(A) Determine the basic loads that would result in the failure or unspooling of the hoist or its installation, respectively.

NOTE: this determination should be based on static strength and any significant dynamic load magnification factors.

(B) Select the lower of the two values as the ultimate load of the hoist system installation.

(C)Divide the selected ultimate load by 1.5 to determine the true structural limit load of the system.

(D) Determine the manufacturer’s approved ‘limit design safety factor’ (or that which the applicant has applied for). Divide this factor into the true structural limit load (from (C) above) to determine the hoist system’s working (or placarded) limit load.

(E) Compare the system’s derived limit load to the applied for one ‘g’ payload multiplied by the maximum downward vertical load factor (NZWMAX) to determine the critical payload’s limit value.

(F) The critical payload limit should be equal to or less than the system’s derived limit load for the installation to be approvable.

(vi)Fatigue Substantiation Procedures

NOTE: the term ‘hazard to the rotorcraft’ is defined to include all hazards to either the rotorcraft, to the occupants thereof, or both.

(A)Fatigue evaluation of NHEC applications. Any critical components of the suspended system and their attachments (e.g. the cargo hook, or bolted or pinned truss attachments), the failure of which could result in a hazard to the rotorcraft, should be included in an acceptable fatigue analysis.

(B)Fatigue evaluation of HEC applications. The entire external load system, including the complex PCDS, should be reviewed on a component-by-component basis to determine which, if any, components are fatigue critical. These components should be analysed or tested to ensure that their fatigue life limits are properly determined, and the limits should then be placed in the limited life section of the maintenance manual.

(7) CS 29.865(b) and CS 29.865(c) Procedures for Quick-Release Systems and Cargo Hooks: for jettisonable RLCs of any applicable cargo type, both a primary quick-release system (PQRS) and a backup quick-release system (BQRS) are required. Features that should be considered are:

(i) The PQRS, BQRS and their load-release devices and subsystems (such as electronically actuated guillotines) should be separate (i.e. physically, systematically, and functionally redundant).

(ii) The controls for the PQRS should be installed on one of the pilot’s primary controls, or in an equivalently accessible location. The use of an ‘equivalent accessible location’ should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and utilised only where equivalent safety is clearly maintained.

(iii) The controls for the BQRS may be less sophisticated than those of the PQRS. For instance, manual cable cutters are acceptable provided they are listed in the flight manual as a required device and have a dedicated, placarded storage location.

(iv) The PQRS should release the external load in less than 5 seconds. The BQRS should release the external load in less than 30 seconds. This time interval begins the moment an emergency is declared and ends when the load is released.

(v) Each quick-release device should be designed and located to allow the pilot or a crew member to accomplish external cargo release without hazardously limiting the ability to control the rotorcraft during emergency situations. The flight manual should reflect the requirement for a crew member and their related functions.

(vi)CS 29.865(c)(1) QRS Requirements for Jettisonable HEC Operations.

(A)For jettisonable HEC operations, both the PQRS and BQRS are required to have a dual activation device (DAD) for external cargo release. The DAD should be designed to require two actions with a definite change of direction of movement, such as opening a switch or pushbutton cover followed by a definite change of direction in order to activate the release switch or pushbutton. Any possibility of opening the switch cover and inadvertently releasing the load with a single motion is not acceptable. An additional level of safety may also be provided through the use of Advisory and Caution messages. For example, an advisory ‘ON’ message might be illuminated when the pilot energises (but not arms) the system with a master switch. A cautionary ‘ARMED’ message would then illuminate when the pilot opens the switch guard. In this case, a possible unwanted flip of the switch guard would be immediately recognised by the crew. The switch design should be evaluated by ground or flight test. The RFM or RFMS should contain a clear description of the DAD functionality that includes the associated safety features, normal and emergency procedures, and applicable advisory and caution messages.

(B)The DAD is intended for emergency use during the phases of flight in which the HEC is carried or retrieved. The DAD can be used for both NHEC and HEC operations. However, because it can be used for HEC, the instructions for continued airworthiness should be carefully reviewed and documented. The DAD can be operated by the pilot from a primary control or, after a command is given by the pilot, by a crew member from a remote location. Additional safety precautions (such as a lock wire) should be considered for remote hoist console in the cabin. Any emergency release function provided by a remote hoist console should also be designed to protect against inadvertent activation during the hoist operation. If the backup DAD is a cable cutter, it should be properly secured, placarded and readily accessible to the crew member who is intended to use it.

(vii)CS 29.865(b)(3)(ii) Electromagnetic Interference. Protection of the QRS against potential internal and external sources of EMI and lightning is required. This is necessary to prevent an inadvertent load release from sources such as lightning strikes, stray electromagnetic signals, and static electricity.

(A)Jettisonable NHEC systems should not be adversely affected when exposed to the electrical field of a minimum of 20 volts per metre (i.e. CAT U or equivalent) radio-frequency (RF) field strength per RTCA Document DO-160/ EUROCAE ED-14.

(B)Jettisonable HEC systems should not be adversely affected when exposed to the electrical field of a minimum of 200 volts per metre (i.e. CAT Y) RF field strength per RTCA Document DO-160/ EUROCAE ED-14.

(1)These RF field threat levels may need to be increased for certain special applications such as microwave tower and high voltage high line repairs. Separate criteria for special applications under multi-agency regulation (such as IEEE or OSHA standards) should also be addressed, as applicable, during certification. When necessary, the Special Condition process can be used to establish a practicable level of safety for specific high voltage or other special application conditions. The helicopter High-intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF) safety assessment should consider the effects on helicopter flight safety due to a HIRF-induced failure or malfunction of external load systems, such as an uncommanded hoist winch activation without the ability to jettison, or an uncommanded load jettison. The appropriate failure effect classification should be assigned based on this assessment, and compliance should be demonstrated with CS 29.1317 and the guidance in AMC 20-158. This should not be limited to the cable cutter devices or load jettison subsystems only. In some designs, an uncommanded load release or a hoist winch activation could also result from a failure of the command and control circuits of the system.

(2)An approved standard rotorcraft test, which includes the full HIRF frequency and amplitude external and internal environments, on the QRS and any applicable complex PCDS, or the entire rotorcraft including the QRS and any applicable complex PCDS, could be substituted for the jettisonable NHEC and HEC systems tests as long as the RF field strengths directly on the QRS and PCDS are shown to equal or exceed those defined by paragraphs c.(7)(vii)(A) and c.(7)(vii)(B) above for NHEC and HEC respectively.

(3)The EMI levels specified in paragraphs c.(7)(vii)(A) and c.(7)(vii)(B) above are total EMI levels to be applied to the QRS (and affected QRS component) boundary. The total EMI level applied should include the effects of both external EMI sources and internal EMI sources. All aspects of internally generated EMI should be carefully considered including peaks that could occur from time-to-time due to any combination of on-board systems being operated. For example, special attention should be given to EMI from hoist operations that involve the switching of very high currents. Those currents can generate significant voltages in closely spaced wiring that, if allowed to reach some squib designs, could activate the device. Shielding, bonding, and grounding of wiring associated with operation of the hoist and the quick-release mechanism should be clearly and adequately evaluated in design and certification. When recognised good practices for such installation are applied, an analysis may be sufficient to highlight that the maximum possible pulse generated into the squib circuit will have an energy content orders of magnitude below the squib no-fire energy. If insufficient data is available for the installation and/or the squib no fire energy, this evaluation may require testing. One acceptable test method to demonstrate the adequacy of QRS shielding, bonding, and grounding would be to actuate the hoist under maximum load, together with likely critical combinations of other aircraft electrical loads, and demonstrate that the test squibs (which are more EMI sensitive than the squibs specified for use in the QRS) do not inadvertently operate during the test.

(8) Cargo Hooks or Equivalent Devices and their Related Systems. All cargo hooks or equivalent devices should be approved to acceptable aircraft industry standards. The applicant should present these standards, and any related manufacturer’s certificates of production or qualification, as part of the approval package.

(i) General. Cargo hook systems should have the same reliability goals and should be functionally demonstrated under the critical loads for NHEC and HEC, as appropriate. All engagement and release modes should be demonstrated. If the hook is used as a quick-release device, then the release of critical loads should be demonstrated under conditions that simulate the maximum allowable bank angles and speeds and any other critical operating conditions. Demonstration of any re-latching features and any safety or warning devices should also be conducted. Demonstration of actual in-flight emergency quick-release capability may not be necessary if the quick-release capability can be acceptably simulated by other means.

NOTE: Cargo hook manufacturers specify particular shapes, sizes, and cross sections for lifting eyes to assure compatibility with their hook design (e.g. Breeze Eastern Service Bulletin CAB-100-41). Experience has shown that, under certain conditions, a load may inadvertently hang up because of improper geometry at the hook-to-eye interface that will not allow the eye to slide off an open hook as intended.

For both NHEC and HEC designs, the phenomenon of hook dynamic roll-out (inadvertent opening of the hook latch and subsequent release of the load) should be considered to assure that QRS reliability goals are not compromised. This is of particular concern for HEC applications. Hook dynamic roll-out occurs during certain ground-handling and flight conditions that may allow the lifting eye to work its way out of the hook.

Hook dynamic roll-out typically occurs when either the RLC’s sling or harness is not properly attached to the hook, is blown by down draft, is dragged along the ground or through water, or is otherwise placed into a dangerous hook-to-eye configuration.

The potential for hook dynamic roll-out can be minimised in design by specifying particular hook-and-eye shape and cross-section combinations. For non-jettisonable RLCs, a pin can be used to lock the hook-keeper in place during operations.

Some cargo hook systems may employ two or more cargo hooks for safety. These systems are approvable. However, a loss of any load by a single hook should be shown to not result in a loss of control of the rotorcraft. In a dual hook system, if the hook itself is the quick-release device (i.e. if a single release point does not exist in the load path between the rotorcraft and the dual hooks), the pilot should have a dual PQRS that includes selectable, co-located individual quick releases that are independent for each hook used. A BQRS should also be present for each hook. For cargo hook systems with more than two hooks, either a single release point should be present in the load path between the rotorcraft and the multiple hook system, or multiple PQRSs and BQRSs should be present.

(ii) Jettisonable Cargo Hook Systems. For jettisonable applications, each cargo hook:

(A) should have a sufficient amount of slack in the control cable to permit cargo hook movement without tripping the hook release;

(B)should be shown to be reliable.

(C) For HEC systems, unless the cargo hook is to be the primary quick-release device, each cargo hook should be designed so that operationally induced loads cannot inadvertently release the load. For example, a simple cargo hook should have a one-way, spring-loaded gate (i.e. ‘snap hook’) that allows load attachment going into the gate but does not allow the gate to open (and subsequently lose the HEC) when an operationally induced load is applied in the opposite direction. For HEC applications, cargo hooks that also serve as quick-release devices should be carefully reviewed to assure they are reliable.

(iii)Other Load Release Types. In some current configurations, such as those used for high-line operations, a load release may be present that is not on the rotorcraft but is on the PCDS itself. Examples are a tension-release device that lets out line under an operationally induced load, or a personal rope cutter. For long-line/sling operations, a load release may also be present that is not on the rotorcraft but is a remote release system. The long-line remote release allows the pilot to not release the line itself during repetitive loading operations. The release of the load by a dedicated switch at the pilot controls, through the secondary hook on a long line, presents additional risks due to the possibility of the long line impacting the tail or the main rotor after a release, due to its elasticity. These devices are acceptable if:

(A)The off-rotorcraft release is considered to be a ‘third release’ means. This type of release is not a substitute for a required release (i.e. PQRS or BQRS);

(B)The cargo hook release, and the long line remote release are placed on the primary controls in a way that avoids confusion during operation. One example of compliance would be to place the cargo hook release on the cyclic, and the long line remote release on the collective, to avoid any possible confusion in the operation;

(C)The RFM or RFMS includes a description of the new control in the cockpit, and its function and an RFM or RFMS note to the pilot is included, indicating that the helicopter hook emergency release procedures are fully applicable;

(D)The release meets all the other relevant requirements of CS 29.865 and the methods of this AMC or equivalent methods; and

(E)The release has no operational or failure modes that would affect continued safe flight and landing under any operations, critical failure modes, conditions, or combinations of these.

For long-line remote release, the following points should be considered:

(1) The long line should not be of an elastic material that allows spring up/rebound when unloaded or elevated dynamics when loaded.

(2) The long line should have a residual weight that allows its release from the helicopter hook when the long line is unloaded.

(3)The RFM or RFMS should include all operating procedures to ensure that the long line does not impact the rotors after cargo release or during unloaded flight phases.

(4)The hook should be designed to minimise inadvertent activation. An example may be a protective device (cage) around the locking mechanism of the long line hook.

(5)A means should be provided to prevent any fouling of cables in the event of a rotation of the external load. An example may be the inclusion of a swivel or slip ring.

(6)Installation of a long line that is provided with electrical wiring to control the hook will generally represent a new electromagnetic coupling path from the external area to the internal systems that may not have been considered for type certification. As such, the impact of this installation on the coupling to helicopter systems, due to direct connection or cross talk to wiring, should be addressed as part of compliance with CS 29.610, 29.1316 and 29.1317.

(9)Cable

(i)Cable attachment. Either the cable should be positively attached to the hoist drum and this attachment should have ultimate load capability or an equivalent means should be provided to minimise the possibility of inadvertent, complete cable unspooling.

(ii)Cable length and marking. A length of cable closest to the cable's attachment to the hoist drum should be visually marked to indicate to the operator that the cable is near full extension. The length of the cable to be marked is a function of the maximum extension speed of the system and the operator's reaction time needed to prevent cable run out. It should be determined during certification demonstration tests. In no case should the length be less than 3.5 drum circumferences.

(iii)Cable stops. Means should be present to automatically stop cable movement quickly when the system's extension and retraction operational limits are reached.

(10) CS 29.865(c)(2) PCDS: for all HEC applications that use complex PCDSs, an approval is required. The complex PCDS may be either previously approved or is required to be approved during certification. In either case, its installation should be approved.

NOTE: Complex PCDS designs can include relatively complex devices such as multiple occupant cages or gondolas. The purpose of the PCDS is to provide a minimum acceptable level of safety for personnel being transported outside the rotorcraft. The personnel being transported may be healthy or injured, conscious or unconscious.

(i) Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on Air Operations contains the minimum performance specifications and standards for simple PCDSs, such as HEC body harnesses.

(ii) Static Strength. The complex PCDS should be substantiated for the allowable ultimate load and loading conditions as determined under paragraph c(6) above.

(iii) Fatigue. The complex PCDSs should be substantiated for fatigue as determined under paragraph c(6) above.

(iv)Personnel Safety. For each complex PCDS design, the applicant should submit a design evaluation that assures the necessary level of personnel safety is provided. As a minimum, the following should be evaluated.

(A) The complex PCDS should be easily and readily entered or exited.

(B) It should be placarded with its proper capacity, the internal arrangement and location of occupants, and ingress and egress instructions.

(C)For door latch fail-safety, more than one fastener or closure device should be used. The latch device design should provide direct visual inspectability to assure it is fastened and secured.

(D) Any fabric used should be durable and should be at least flame-resistant.

(E)Reserved

(F) Occupant retention devices and the related design safety features should be used as necessary. In simple designs, rounded corners and edges with adequate strapping (or other means of HEC retention relative to the complex PCDS) and head supports or pads may be all the safety features that are necessary. Complex PCDS designs may require safety features such as seat belts, handholds, shoulder harnesses, placards, or other personnel safety standards.

(v)EMI and Lightning Protection. All essential, affected components of the complex PCDS, such as intercommunication equipment, should be protected against RF field strengths to a minimum of RTCA Document DO-160/ EUROCAE ED-14 CAT Y.

(vi) Instructions for Continued Airworthiness. All instructions and documents necessary for continued airworthiness, normal operations and emergency operations should be completed, reviewed and approved during the certification process. There should be clear instructions to describe when the complex PCDS is no longer serviceable and should be replaced in part or as a whole due to wear, impact damage, fraying of fibres, or other forms of degradation. In addition, any life limitations resulting from compliance with paragraphs c.(10)(ii) and (iii) should be provided.

(vii)Flotation Devices. Complex PCDSs that are intended to have a dual role as flotation devices or life preservers should meet the relevant requirements for ‘Life Preservers’. Also, any complex PCDS design to be used in the water should have a flotation kit. The flotation kit should support the weight of the maximum number of occupants and the complex PCDS in the water and minimise the possibility of the occupants floating face down.

(viii) Considerations for flight testing. It should be shown by flight tests that the device is safely controllable and manoeuvrable during all requested flight regimes without requiring exceptional piloting skill. The flight tests should entail the complex PCDS weighted to the most critical weight. Some complex PCDS designs may spin, twist or otherwise respond unacceptably in flight. Each of these designs should be structurally restrained with a device such as a spider, a harness, or an equivalent device to minimise undesirable flight dynamics.

(ix) Medical Design Considerations. Complex PCDSs should be designed to the maximum practicable extent and placarded to maximise the HEC’s protection from medical considerations such as blocked air passages induced by improper body configurations and excessive losses of body heat during operations. Injured or water-soaked persons may be exposed to high body heat losses from sources such as rotor washes and airstreams. The safety of occupants of complex PCDSs from transit-induced medical considerations can be greatly increased by proper design.

(x) Hoist operator safety device. When hoisting operations require the presence of a hoist operator on board, appropriate provisions should be provided to allow the hoist operator to perform their task safely. These provisions shall include an appropriate hoist operator restraint system. This safety device is typically composed of a safety harness and a strap attached to the cabin used to adequately restrain the hoist operator inside the cabin while operating the hoist. For certification approval, the hoist operator safety device should comply with CS 29.561(b)(3) for personnel safety. The applicant should submit a design evaluation that assures the necessary level of personnel safety is provided. As a minimum, the following should be evaluated:

(A)The strap attaching point on the body harness should be appropriately located in order to minimise as far as is practicable the likelihood of injury to the wearer in the case of a fall or crash.

(B) The safety device should be designed to be adjustable so that the strap is tightened behind the hoist operator.

(C) The strap should allow the hoist operator to detach themselves quickly from the cabin in emergency conditions (e.g. crash, ditching). For that purpose, it should include a QRS including a DAD.

(D) The safety device should be easily and readily donned or doffed.

(E) It should be placarded with its proper capacity and lifetime limitation.

(F) Any fabric used should be durable and should be at least flame resistant.

(11) CS 29.865(c)(4) Intercom Systems for HEC Operations: for all HEC operations, the rotorcraft is required to be equipped for, or otherwise allow, direct intercommunication under any operational conditions among crew members and the HEC. An intercommunications system may also be approved as part of the external load system, or alternatively, a limitation may be placed in the RFM or RFMS as described under paragraph c.(4)(ii)(B)(2) of this AMC.

(12) CS 29.865(c)(6) Limitations for HEC Operations: for jettisonable HEC operations, a rotorcraft may be required by operations requirements to meet the Category A engine isolation requirements of CS-29 and to have one-engine-inoperative/out-of-ground effect (OEI/OGE) hover performance capability in its approved, jettisonable HEC weight, altitude, and temperature envelope.

(i) In determining OEI hover performance, dynamic engine failures should be considered. Each hover verification test should begin from a stabilised hover at the maximum OEI hover weight, at the requested in-ground-effect (IGE) or OGE skid or wheel height, and with all engines operating. At this point, the critical engine should be failed and the aircraft should remain in a stabilised hover condition without exceeding any rotor limits or engine limits for the operating engine(s). As with all performance testing, engine power should be limited to the minimum specification power.

(ii) Normal pilot reaction time should be used, following the engine failure, to maintain the stabilised hover flight condition. When hovering OGE or IGE at the maximum OEI hover weight, an engine failure should not result in an altitude loss of more than 10 per cent or 4 feet, whichever is greater, of the altitude established at the time of engine failure. In either case, a sufficient power margin should be available from the operating engine(s) to regain the altitude lost during the dynamic engine failure and to transition to forward flight.

(iii) Consideration should also be given to the time required to recover (winch up and bring aboard) the human external cargo and to transition to forward flight. This time increment may limit the use of short-duration OEI power ratings. For example, for a helicopter that sustains an engine failure at a height of 40 feet, the time required to re-stabilise in a hover, recover the external load (given the hoist speed limitations), and then transition to forward flight (with minimal altitude loss) would likely preclude the use of the 30-second engine ratings and may encroach upon the 2 ½-minute ratings. Such an encroachment into the 2 ½-minute ratings is not acceptable.

(iv) The rotorcraft flight manual (RFM) should contain information that describes the expected altitude loss, any special recovery techniques, and the time increment used for recovery of the external load when establishing maximum weights and wheel or skid heights. The OEI hover chart should be placed in the performance section of the RFM or RFM supplement. The allowable altitude extrapolation for the hover data should not exceed 2 000 feet.

(13) For helicopters that incorporate engine-driven generators, the hoist should remain operational following an engine or generator failure. A hoist should not be powered from a bus that is automatically shed following the loss of an engine or generator. Maximum two-engine generator loads should be established so that when one engine or generator fails, the remaining generator can assume the entire rotorcraft electrical load (including the maximum hoist electrical load) without exceeding the approved limitations.

(14)CS 29.865(e) External Loads Placards and Markings: placards and markings should be installed next to the external-load attaching means, in a clearly noticeable location, that state the primary operational limitations — specifically including the maximum authorised external load. Not all operational limitations need be stated on the placard (or equivalent markings); only those that are clearly necessary for immediate reference in operations. Other more detailed operational limitations of lesser immediate importance should be stated either directly in the RFM or in an RFM supplement.

(15)Other Considerations

(i) Agricultural Installations (AIs): AIs can be approved for either jettisonable or non-jettisonable NHEC or HEC operations as long as they meet relevant certification and operations requirements and follow appropriate compliance methods. However, most current AI designs are external fixtures (see definition), not external loads. External fixtures are not approvable as jettisonable external cargo because they do not have a true payload (see definition), true jettison capability (see definition), or a complete QRS. Many AI designs can dump their solid or liquid chemical loads by use of a ‘purge port’ release over a relatively long time period (i.e. greater than 30 seconds). This is not considered to be a true jettison capability (see definition) since the external load is not released by a QRS and since the release time span is typically greater than 30 seconds (ref.: b(20) and c(7)). Thus, these types of AIs should be approved as non-jettisonable external loads. However, other designs that have the entire AI (or significant portions thereof) attached to the rotorcraft, that have short time frame jettison (or release) capabilities provided by QRSs that meet the definitions herein and that have no post-jettison characteristics that would endanger continued safe flight and landing may be approved as jettisonable external loads. For example, if all the relevant criteria are properly met, a jettisonable fluid load can be approved as an NHEC external cargo. FAA AC 29-2C Change 7 AC 29 MG 5 discusses other AI certification methodologies.

(ii) External Tanks: external tank configurations that have true payload (see definition) and true jettison capabilities (see definition) should be approved as jettisonable NHEC. External tank configurations that have true payload capabilities but do not have true jettison capabilities should be approved as non-jettisonable NHEC. An external tank that has neither a true payload capability nor true jettison capability is an external fixture; it should not be approved as an external load under CS 29.865. If an external tank is to be jettisoned in flight, it should have a QRS that is approved for the maximum jettisonable external tank payload and is either inoperable or is otherwise rendered reliable to minimise inadvertent jettisons above the maximum jettisonable external tank payload.

(iii)Logging Operations: These operations are very susceptible to low-cycle fatigue because of the large loads and relatively high load cycles that are common to this industry. It is recommended that load-measuring devices (such as load cells) be used to assure that no unrecorded overloads occur and to assure that cycles producing high fatigue damage are properly considered. Cycle counters are recommended to assure that acceptable cumulative fatigue damage levels are identifiable and are not exceeded. As either a supplementary method or an alternate method, maintenance instructions should be considered to assure proper cycle counting and load recording during operations.

[Amdt No: 29/5]

[Amdt No: 29/6]