MG 1  Certification procedure for rotorcraft avionics equipment

ED Decision 2018/015/R15/R

This AMC provides further guidance and acceptable means of compliance to supplement FAA AC 27-1B Change 7 MG 1, which is the EASA acceptable means of compliance, as provided for in AMC 27 General. However, some aspects of the FAA AC are deemed by EASA to be at variance with EASA’s interpretation or its regulatory system. EASA’s interpretation of these aspects is described below. The paragraphs of FAA AC 27-1B Change 7 MG 1 that are not amended below are considered to be EASA acceptable means of compliance.

a. Pre-test Requirements

(4)

(i)  Environment. An appropriate means for environmental testing is set forth in Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics (RTCA) Document DO-160. Applicants should submit test reports showing that the laboratory-tested categories, such as temperature, vibration, altitude, etc., are compatible with the environmental demands placed on the rotorcraft. This can be achieved by determining the specific local environmental conditions in which the equipment will be installed and establishing the compatibility with the required DO-160 environmental condition.

b.  Test Procedures

(4)

(v)  Localiser performance should be checked for rotor modulation in approach while varying the rotor RPM throughout its normal range.

(A)  Localiser intercept. In the approach configuration and a distance of at least 10 NM from the localiser facility, fly toward the localiser front course, inbound, at an angle of at least 50 degrees. Perform this manoeuvre from both left and right of the localiser beam. No flags should appear during the period of time in which the deviation indicator moves from full deflection to on course. If the total antenna pattern has not been shown to be adequate by ground checks or by VOR flight evaluation, additional intercepts should be made. The low limits of interception should be determined.

(B)  Localiser tracking. While flying the localiser inbound and not more than 5 miles before reaching the outer marker, change the heading of the rotorcraft to obtain full needle deflection. Then fly the rotorcraft to establish localiser on course operation. The localiser deviation indicators should direct the rotorcraft to the localiser on course. Perform this manoeuvre with both a left and a right needle deflection. Continue tracking the localiser until over the transmitter. Conduct at least three acceptable front, and if applicable, back course flights to 200 feet or less above the threshold.

(5)

(ii)  Glideslope Intercept. The glideslope should be intercepted at both short and long distances in order to ensure correct functioning. Observe the glideslope deviation indicator for proper crossover as the aircraft flies through the glide path. No flags should appear between the time when the needle leaves the full-scale fly-up position and when it reaches the full-scale fly-down position.

(v)  Glideslope performance should be sampled for rotor modulation during the approach, while varying the rotor RPM throughout its normal range.

(6)

(iii)  Technical. Approach the markers at a reasonable ground speed and at an altitude of 1 000 feet above ground level. While passing over the outer and middle markers with the localiser deviation indicator centred, the annunciators should illuminate for an appropriate duration. Check that the intensity of the indicator lights is acceptable in bright sunlight and at night. For slower rotorcraft, the duration should be proportionately longer.

(12)  Inertial Navigation. AC 20-138 (current version) contains the basic criteria for the engineering evaluation of an inertial navigation system (INS). Further tailoring and refinement of the guidance contained within AC 20-138 may be required by the applicant in order to make it fully applicable to the rotorcraft domain.

(18)

(iv)  Flight Test.

(B)  The suitable glide path angles at low speed (< 70 kt KIAS) should be evaluated for IFR certificated aircraft.

(1) Evaluate:

(ix)  If the glide path angle for IFR aircraft has not been evaluated, then a limitation should be included in the rotorcraft flight manual or rotorcraft flight manual supplement. This limitation should limit IFR coupled RNAV approach operations to an appropriate and justifiably conservative glide path angle and the minimum approach airspeed that meet flight manual limitations. This is necessary until evaluations are accomplished and the determination is made that the autopilot-GPS integration supports steep-angle, low speed operations.

[Amdt No: 27/6]

MG4 Full Authority Digital Electronic Controls (FADEC)

ED Decision 2008/009/R

Note: Certification procedures identified in MG4 refer specifically to the FAA regulatory system. For guidance on EASA procedures, reference should be made to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1702/2003 (as amended) (Part­21), AMC­20 (and specifically AMC 20­1 and 20­3) and to EASA internal working procedures, all of which are available on EASA's web site: http://www.easa.europa.eu/

[Amdt 27/2]

MG5 Agricultural dispensing equipment installation

ED Decision 2016/024/R

Certification procedures identified in MG5 refer specifically to the FAA regulatory system and are not fully applicable to the EASA regulatory system due to the different applicability of restricted certification. The EASA regulatory system does not encompass a restricted certification category for design changes or Supplemental Type Certificates.

The certification basis of design changes or Supplemental Type Certificates for agricultural dispensing is to be established in accordance with 21.A.101 of Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 748/2012, on a case-by-case basis through compliance with the applicable airworthiness requirements contained in MG5, supplemented by any special conditions in accordance with 21.A.16B of Regulation (EU) No 748/2012 that are appropriate to the application and specific operating limitations and conditions. If appropriate to the proposed design, compliance with the above could be achieved through the provisions contained in 21.A.103(a)2(ii) or 21.A.115(b)2 of Regulation (EU) No 748/2012.

[Amdt 27/4]

MG 6  Emergency Medical Service (EMS) systems installations, including interior arrangements, equipment, Helicopter Terrain Awareness and Warning System (HTAWS), radio altimeter, and Flight Data Monitoring System (FDMS)

ED Decision 2018/015/R

This AMC provides further guidance and acceptable means of compliance to supplement the FAA AC 27-1B Change 7 MG6, which is the EASA acceptable means of compliance, as provided for in AMC 27 General. However, some aspects of the FAA AC are deemed by EASA to be at variance with EASA’s interpretation or its regulatory system. EASA’s interpretation of these aspects is described below. Paragraphs of FAA AC 27-1B Change 7 MG6 that are not amended below are considered to be EASA acceptable means of compliance:

a. Explanation. This AMC pertains to EMS configurations and associated rotorcraft airworthiness standards. EMS configurations are usually unique interior arrangements that are subject to the appropriate airworthiness standards (CS-27 or other applicable standards) to which the rotorcraft was certified. No relief from the standards is intended except through the procedures contained in Regulation (EU) No 748/2012 (namely Part-21 point 21.A.21(c)). EMS configurations are seldom, if ever, done by the original manufacturer.

(1) Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 specifies the minimum equipment required to operate as a helicopter air ambulance service provider. This equipment, as well as all other equipment presented for evaluation and approval, is subject to compliance with airworthiness standards. Any equipment not essential to the safe operation of the rotorcraft may be approved provided the use, operation, and possible failure modes of the equipment are not hazardous to the rotorcraft Safe flight, safe landing, and prompt evacuation of the rotorcraft, in the event of a minor crash landing, for any reason, are the objectives of the EASA’s evaluation of interiors and equipment unique to EMS.

i. For example, a rotorcraft equipped only for transportation of a non-ambulatory person (e.g. a police rotorcraft with one litter) as well as a rotorcraft equipped with multiple litters and complete life support systems and two or more attendants or medical personnel may be submitted for approval. These configurations will be evaluated to the airworthiness standards appropriate to the rotorcraft certification basis.

ii. Small category rotorcraft should comply with flight crew and passenger safety standards, which will result in the need to re-evaluate certain features of the baseline existing type certified rotorcraft related to the EMS arrangement, such as doors and emergency exits, and occupant protection. Compliance with airworthiness standards results in the following features that should be retained as part of the rotorcraft’s baseline type design: an emergency interior lighting system, placards or markings for doors and exits, exit size, exit quantity and location, exit access, safety belts and possibly shoulder harnesses or other restraint or passenger protection means. The features, placards, markings, and ‘emergency’ systems required as part of the rotorcraft’s baseline type design should be retained unless specific replacements or alternate designs are necessary for the EMS configuration to comply with airworthiness standards.

(2) Many EMS configurations of small rotorcraft are typically equipped with the following:

i. attendant and medical personnel seats, which may swivel;

ii. multiple litters, some of which may tilt;

iii. medical equipment stowage compartments;

iv. life support and other complex medical equipment;

v. human infant incubator (‘isolette’);

vi. curtains or other interior light shielding for the flight crew compartment;

vii. external loudspeakers and search lights;

viii. special internal and external communication radio equipment;

ix. FDMS;

x. radio altimeter;

xi. HTAWS.

(3) All helicopter air ambulance service providers are required to operate at all times in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 965/2012, which also defines the equipment required for an operational approval to be obtained.

b. Procedures

(2) Evacuation and interior arrangements

iii. When an evacuation demonstration is determined to be appropriate for compliance, 90 seconds should be used as the time interval for evacuation of the rotorcraft. Attendants and flight crew, trained in the evacuation procedures, may be used to remove the litter patient(s). It is preferable for the patient(s) to remain in the litter; however, the patient(s) may be removed from the litter to facilitate rapid evacuation through the exit. The patient(s) is (are) not ambulatory during the demonstration. Evacuation procedures should be included if isolettes are part of the interior. The demonstration may be conducted in daylight with the dark of the night simulated and the rotorcraft in a normal attitude with the landing gear extended. For the purpose of the demonstration, exits on one side (critical side) should be used. Exits on the opposite side are blocked and not accessible for the demonstration.

(3) Restraint of occupants and equipment

The emergency landing conditions specified in CS 27.561(b) dictate the design load conditions. See FAA AC 27-1, sections 27.561 and 27.785, for further information.

i. Whether seated or recumbent, the occupants must be protected from serious injury as prescribed in CS 27.785. Swivel seats and tilt litters may be used provided they are substantiated for the appropriate loads for the position selected for approval. Placards or markings may be used to ensure proper orientation for flight, take-off, or landing and emergency landing conditions. The seats and litters should be listed in the type design data for the configuration. See paragraph b.(17) for substitutions.

(6) Interior or ‘medical’ lights

The view of the flight crew must be free from glare and reflections that could cause interference. Curtains that meet flammability standards may be used. Complete partition or separation of the flight crew and passenger compartment is not prudent. Means for visual and verbal communication are usually necessary. Refer to FAA AC 27-1, section 27.773, which addresses pilot visibility aspects.

[Amdt No: 27/4]

[Amdt No: 27/6]

MG 16  Certification guidance for rotorcraft Night Vision Imaging System (NVIS) aircraft lighting systems

ED Decision 2018/015/R

This AMC provides further guidance and acceptable means of compliance to supplement FAA AC 27-1B Change 7 MG 16, which is the EASA acceptable means of compliance, as provided for in AMC 27 General. However, some aspects of the FAA AC are deemed by EASA to be at variance with EASA’s interpretation or its regulatory system. EASA’s interpretation of these aspects is described below. Paragraphs of FAA AC 27-1B Change 7 MG 16 that are not amended below are considered to be EASA acceptable means of compliance.

d.  References (use the current versions of the following references).

(1)  Regulatory (CS-27).

(2)  Other references

e.  Background.

(7) Night vision goggles (NVGs) enhance a pilot’s night vision by amplifying certain energy frequencies. The NVGs for civil use are based on performance criteria in ETSO-C164 and RTCA Document DO-275. These NVGs are known as ‘Class B NVGs’ because they have filters applied to the objective lenses that block energy below the wavelength of 665 nanometres (nm). The Class B objective lens filter allows more use of colour in the cockpit, with truer reds and ambers. The ETSO specifies Class B NVGs for civil use. Because NVGs will amplify energy that is not within the range of the filter, it is important that the NVIS lighting system keeps those incompatible frequencies out of the cockpit. However, there are NVGs in civil use that do not conform to the ETSO-C164 standard because they have Class A filters on their objective lenses. Class A filters block energy below the wavelength of 625 nm. As a result, Class A NVGs amplify more wavelengths of visible light, so they require special care in the use of colour in the cockpit. Applicants are advised that Class A NVGs are deemed to be not acceptable for certification by EASA.

(9)  Point 21.A.91 of Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 748/2012 contains the criteria for the classification of changes to a type certificate. For NVIS-approved rotorcraft, experience has shown that some changes, which are classified as being minor according to the AMC to 21.A.91 for unaided flight, may have an appreciable effect on the cockpit/cabin lighting characteristics, and thus on crew vision through the NVGs. Therefore, the classification of design changes of NVIS-approved rotorcraft should take into account the effects on cockpit/cabin lighting characteristics and the NVIS.

f.  Procedures.

(6)  Required equipment, instrument arrangement and visibility.

(i)  In addition to the instruments and equipment required for flight at night, the following additional instruments and equipment will typically be necessary for NVG operations (to be defined for each rotorcraft). The applicable operational regulations that specify aircraft equipment required for night and NVG operations should be reviewed.

(A)  NVIS lighting.

(B)  A helmet with suitable NVG mount for each pilot and crew member required to use NVGs.

(C)  NVGs for each pilot and crew members required to use NVGs.

(D)  Point SPA.NVIS.110(b) of Annex V (Part-SPA) to Regulation (EU) 965/2012 on air operations, and the associated AMC and GM, requires a radio altimeter with an analogue representation. It is recommended that an applicant carries out a careful evaluation of the radio altimeter human-machine interface (including the presentation of height and the possibility of selecting the DH) to establish that it is able to provide the crew with the necessary information.

(E)  A slip/skid indicator.

(F) A gyroscopic attitude indicator.

(G)  A gyroscopic direction indicator or its equivalent.

(H) A vertical speed indicator or its equivalent.

(I)  Communications and navigation equipment necessary for the successful completion of an inadvertent IMC procedure in the intended area of operations.

(J) Any other aircraft or personal equipment required for the operation (e.g. curtains, NVG stowage, extra batteries for NVGs).

[Amdt No: 27/6]

MG 17  Guidance on analysing an Advanced Flight Controls (AdFC) System

ED Decision 2018/015/R15/R

The guidance contained within FAA AC 27-1B Change 7 MG 17 has been deemed by EASA to be at variance with EASA’s interpretation or its regulatory system, and it therefore should not be considered to be EASA acceptable means of compliance.

[Amdt No: 27/6]

MG 21  Guidance on creating a system level Functional Hazard Assessment (FHA)

ED Decision 2018/015/R15/R

The guidance contained within FAA AC 27-1B Change 7 MG 21 has been deemed by EASA to be at variance with EASA’s interpretation or its regulatory system, and it therefore should not be considered to be EASA acceptable means of compliance.

[Amdt No: 27/6]

MG 23  Automatic Flight Guidance and Control Systems (AFGCS) installation in CS-27 Rotorcraft

ED Decision 2018/015/R15/R

This AMC provides further guidance and acceptable means of compliance to supplement FAA AC 27-1B Change 7 MG 23, which is the EASA acceptable means of compliance, as provided for in AMC 27 General. However, some aspects of the FAA AC are deemed by EASA to be at variance with EASA’s interpretation or its regulatory system. EASA’s interpretation of these aspects is described below. Paragraphs of FAA AC 27-1B Change 7 MG 23 that are not amended below are considered to be EASA acceptable means of compliance.

a.  Purpose.

(1)  The following Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics (RTCA) documents are considered to be guidance for showing compliance with the relevant certification specifications for the installation of automatic flight control guidance and control systems (AFGCS).

(i)  RTCA Document DO-325, Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS) for Automatic Flight Guidance and Control Systems and Equipment, issued 8 December 2010.

(ii)  RTCA Document DO-336, Guidance for Certification of Installed Automatic Flight Guidance and Control Systems (AFGCS) for Part 27/29 Rotorcraft, issued 21 March 2012.

(2) RTCA Document DO-325 contains the minimum operational performance standards (MOPS) for AFGCS equipment.

 DO-336 provides guidance on the certification of AFGCS in rotorcraft. It invokes parts of DO-325 as the performance standards that are applicable for the installation of AFGCS equipment in rotorcraft. It provides guidance on conducting a safety assessment. Lastly, DO-336 provides lists of the regulations that can be applicable to an AFGCS installation, and potential methods of compliance with those regulations.

(3)  The guidance contained in DO-336 and DO-325 is not mandatory and provides guidance for showing compliance with the applicable provisions of CS-27.

 Note: following this guidance alone does not guarantee acceptance by EASA. EASA may require additional substantiation or design changes as a basis for finding compliance.

b.  Guidance for the use of RTCA Documents DO-325 and DO-336.

RTCA Document DO-336 has two primary focus items: to highlight the requirements for a proper safety assessment (Chapter 8) and the compliance demonstration (Chapter 9).

Note: each of these should be discussed with EASA very early in the certification programme, and included in the certification plan.

c.  References.

(1)  CS-27 provisions

(2)  AMC/ACs (available at http://rgl.faa.gov/ or https://www.easa.europa.eu/document-library/certification-specifications/group/amc-20-general-acceptable-means-of-compliance-for-airworthiness-of-products-parts-and-appliances#group-table)

(3)  Industry standards (RTCA documents are available at www.rtca.org and SAE international documents are available at www.sae.org):

[Amdt No: 27/6]