CS 29.601 Design

ED Decision 2003/16/RM

(a) The rotorcraft may have no design features or details that experience has shown to be hazardous or unreliable.

(b) The suitability of each questionable design detail and part must be established by tests.

CS 29.602 Critical parts

ED Decision 2003/16/RM

(a) Critical part - A critical part is a part, the failure of which could have a catastrophic effect upon the rotorcraft, and for which critical characteristics have been identified which must be controlled to ensure the required level of integrity.

(b) If the type design includes critical parts, a critical parts list shall be established. Procedures shall be established to define the critical design characteristics, identify processes that affect those characteristics, and identify the design change and process change controls necessary for showing compliance with the quality assurance requirements of Part-21.

CS 29.603 Materials

ED Decision 2003/16/RM

The suitability and durability of materials used for parts, the failure of which could adversely affect safety, must –

(a) Be established on the basis of experience or tests;

(b) Meet approved specifications that ensure their having the strength and other properties assumed in the design data; and

(c) Take into account the effects of environmental conditions, such as temperature and humidity, expected in service.

CS 29.605 Fabrication methods

ED Decision 2003/16/RM

(a) The methods of fabrication used must produce consistently sound structures. If a fabrication process (such as gluing, spot welding, or heat- treating) requires close control to reach this objective, the process must be performed according to an approved process specification.

(b) Each new aircraft fabrication method must be substantiated by a test program.

CS 29.607 Fasteners

ED Decision 2003/16/RM

(a) Each removable bolt, screw, nut, pin or other fastener whose loss could jeopardise the safe operation of the rotorcraft must incorporate two separate locking devices. The fastener and its locking devices may not be adversely affected by the environmental conditions associated with the particular installation.

(b) No self-locking nut may be used on any bolt subject to rotation in operation unless a non-friction locking device is used in addition to the self-locking device.

CS 29.609 Protection of structure

ED Decision 2003/16/RM

Each part of the structure must:

(a) Be suitably protected against deterioration or loss of strength in service due to any cause, including:

(1) Weathering;

(2) Corrosion; and

(3) Abrasion; and

(b) Have provisions for ventilation and drainage where necessary to prevent the accumulation of corrosive, flammable, or noxious fluids.

CS 29.610 Lightning and static electricity protection

ED Decision 2016/025/R

(a) The rotorcraft structure must be protected against catastrophic effects from lightning.

(b) For metallic components, compliance with sub-paragraph (a) may be shown by:

(1) Electrically bonding the components properly to the airframe; or

(2) Designing the components so that a strike will not endanger the rotorcraft.

(c) For non-metallic components, compliance with sub-paragraph (a) may be shown by:

(1) Designing the components to minimise the effect of a strike; or

(2) Incorporating acceptable means of diverting the resulting electrical current to not endanger the rotorcraft.

(d) The electrical bonding and protection against lightning and static electricity must:

(1) Minimise the accumulation of electrostatic charge;

(2) Minimise the risk of electrical shock to crew, passengers, and servicing and maintenance personnel using normal precautions;

(3) Provide an electrical return path, under both normal and fault conditions, on rotorcraft having grounded electrical systems; and

(4) Reduce to an acceptable level the effects of static electricity on the functioning of essential electrical and electronic equipment.

[Amdt 29/4]

CS 29.611 Inspection provisions

ED Decision 2003/16/RM

There must be means to allow close examination of each part that requires:

(a) Recurring inspection;

(b) Adjustment for proper alignment and functioning; or

(c) Lubrication.

CS 29.613 Material strength properties and design values

ED Decision 2003/16/RM

(a) Material strength properties must be based on enough tests of material meeting specifications to establish design values on a statistical basis.

(b) Design values must be chosen to minimise the probability of structural failure due to material variability. Except as provided in subparagraphs (d) and (e), compliance with this paragraph must be shown by selecting design values that assure material strength with the following probability:

(1) Where applied loads are eventually distributed through a single member within an assembly, the failure of which would result in loss of structural integrity of the component, 99% probability with 95% confidence; and

(2) For redundant structures, those in which the failure of individual elements would result in applied loads being safely distributed to other load-carrying members, 90% probability with 95% confidence.

(c) The strength, detail design, and fabrication of the structure must minimise the probability of disastrous fatigue failure, particularly at points of stress concentration.

(d) Material specifications must be those contained in documents accepted by the Agency.

(e) Other design values may be used if a selection of the material is made in which a specimen of each individual item is tested before use and it is determined that the actual strength properties of that particular item will equal or exceed those used in design.

CS 29.619 Special factors

ED Decision 2003/16/RM

(a) The special factors prescribed in CS 29.621 to 29.625 apply to each part of the structure whose strength is:

(1) Uncertain;

(2) Likely to deteriorate in service before normal replacement; or

(3) Subject to appreciable variability due to:

(i) Uncertainties in manufacturing processes; or

(ii) Uncertainties in inspection methods.

(b) For each part of the rotorcraft to which CS 29.621 to 29.625 apply, the factor of safety prescribed in CS 29.303 must be multiplied by a special factor equal to:

(1) The applicable special factors prescribed in CS 29.621 to 29.625; or

(2) Any other factor great enough to ensure that the probability of the part being under strength because of the uncertainties specified in sub-paragraph (a) is extremely remote.

CS 29.621 Casting factors

ED Decision 2003/16/RM

(a) General. The factors, tests, and inspections specified in sub-paragraphs (b) and (c) must be applied in addition to those necessary to establish foundry quality control. The inspections must meet approved specifications. Subparagraphs (c) and (d) apply to structural castings except castings that are pressure tested as parts of hydraulic or other fluid systems and do not support structural loads.

(b) Bearing stressed and surfaces. The casting factors specified in sub-paragraphs (c) and (d):

(1) Need not exceed 1.25 with respect to bearing stresses regardless of the method of inspection used; and

(2) Need not be used with respect to the bearing surfaces of a part whose bearing factor is larger than the applicable casting factor.

(c) Critical castings. For each casting whose failure would preclude continued safe flight and landing of the rotorcraft or result in serious injury to any occupant, the following apply:

(1) Each critical casting must:

(i) Have a casting factor of not less than 1.25; and

(ii) Receive 100% inspection by visual, radiographic, and magnetic particle (for ferro-magnetic materials) or penetrant (for non ferromagnetic materials) inspection methods or approved equivalent inspection methods.

(2) For each critical casting with a casting factor less than 1.50, three sample castings must be static tested and shown to meet:

(i) The strength requirements of CS 29.305 at an ultimate load corresponding to a casting factor of 1.25; and

(ii) The deformation requirements of CS 29.305 at a load of 1.15 times the limit load.

(d) Non critical castings. For each casting other than those specified in sub-paragraph (c), the following apply:

(1) Except as provided in sub-paragraphs (d)(2) and (3), the casting factors and corresponding inspections must meet the following table:

(2) The percentage of castings inspected by non visual methods may be reduced below that specified in sub-paragraph (d)(1) when an approved quality control procedure is established.

(3) For castings procured to a specification that guarantees the mechanical properties of the material in the casting and provides for demonstration of these properties by test of coupons cut from the castings on a sampling basis:

(i) A casting factor of 1.0 may be used; and

(ii) The castings must be inspected as provided in sub-paragraph (d)(1) for casting factors of ‘1.25 to 1.50’ and tested under sub-paragraph (c)(2).

CS 29.623 Bearing factors

ED Decision 2003/16/RM

(a) Except as provided in sub-paragraph (b), each part that has clearance (free fit), and that is subject to pounding or vibration, must have a bearing factor large enough to provide for the effects of normal relative motion.

(b) No bearing factor need be used on a part for which any larger special factor is prescribed.

CS 29.625 Fitting factors

ED Decision 2003/16/RM

For each fitting (part or terminal used to join one structural member to another) the following apply:

(a) For each fitting whose strength is not proven by limit and ultimate load tests in which actual stress conditions are simulated in the fitting and surrounding structures, a fitting factor of at least 1.15 must be applied to each part of:

(1) The fitting;

(2) The means of attachment; and

(3) The bearing on the joined members.

(b) No fitting factor need be used:

(1) For joints made under approved practices and based on comprehensive test data (such as continuous joints in metal plating, welded joints, and scarf joints in wood); and

(2) With respect to any bearing surface for which a larger special factor is used.

(c) For each integral fitting, the part must be treated as a fitting up to the point at which the section properties become typical of the member.

(d) Each seat, berth, litter, safety belt, and harness attachment to the structure must be shown by analysis, tests, or both, to be able to withstand the inertia forces prescribed in CS 29.561(b)(3) multiplied by a fitting factor of 1.33.

CS 29.629 Flutter and divergence

ED Decision 2003/16/RM

Each aerodynamic surface of the rotorcraft must be free from flutter and divergence under each appropriate speed and power condition.

CS 29.631 Bird strike

ED Decision 2021/016/R

(See AMC1 29.631)

The rotorcraft must be designed to ensure a continued safe flight and landing (for Category A) or a safe landing (for Category B) after a strike with a 1.0-kg (2.2-lb) bird when the velocity of the rotorcraft relative to the bird along the flight path of the rotorcraft is equal to V_NE or V_H ‘True Airspeed’ (TAS), whichever is less, at altitudes up to 2 438 m (8 000 ft). The applicant must demonstrate compliance through tests, or analysis based on tests that are carried out on sufficiently representative structures of similar design.

[Amdt No: 29/10]

AMC1 29.631 Bird strike

ED Decision 2021/016/R

This AMC supersedes AC 29.631 of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Advisory Circular (AC) 29 2C. The applicant should consider this AMC to demonstrate compliance with CS 29.631.

(a) To demonstrate the remaining capability of the rotorcraft after a single bird strike, the applicant should evaluate the following parts of the rotorcraft:

(1) the windshield directly in front of the occupants and its supporting frame, which should be capable of withstanding a bird strike without penetration; and

(2) other exposed structures, systems, and equipment, particularly flight control surfaces (including the main and tail rotors) and any exposed flight control system components.

(i) The applicant should make a final selection of the areas to be evaluated based on a comprehensive hazard analysis of the following:

(A) the damage to the structures, equipment, or systems that are exposed to the trajectory of the bird, based on conservative assumptions; and

(B) the criticalities of those exposed items and their capability to ensure a continued safe flight and landing (for Category A) or a safe landing (for Category B).

(ii) When performing the hazard analysis, the applicant should consider the following effects of a bird strike:

(A) direct effects to ensure the integrity of the structures and the functionality of the systems or equipment (also considering shock loads) that are critical for a continued safe flight and landing (for Category A) or a safe landing (for Category B), as applicable; and

(B) induced effects to examine the possible consequences of pieces ejected from the structures, systems, or equipment that are struck by a bird on other structures, systems, and equipment.

Note: the capability to withstand multiple bird strikes is only evaluated for engines as specified under CS-E 800 ‘Bird Strike and Ingestion’.

(b) For the demonstration under point (a), the altitude range within which the velocity VH is evaluated should be defined and should not exceed 2 438 m (8 000 ft).

[Amdt No: 29/10]