WORKING DRAFT CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY BRITISH CIVIL AIRWORTHINESS REQUIREMENTS TaR-25 TAA PAPER No. 25C-260 LARGE wea AEROPLANES ISSUE 1 7 November 1995 ADs Ss INTRODUCTION The attached NPA is sponsored by the JAA Structures Study Group and is intended, in conjunction with FAA NPRM 95-14, to harmonise the structural loads design requirements of FAR Part 25 and JAR-25, introducing changes which have been developed in co-operation with FAA and industry through the auspices of ARAC. These proposals augment and supersede the proposals introduced by NPA 25C- 247, PROPOSALS Please see attached NPA for the justification and the proposed text. DISW/I3/1-17WORKING DRAFT NPA 25C-260 6 September 1995 JAR-25 LARGE AEROPLANES : ORIGIN Structures Study Group ‘This notice proposes to revise the structural loads design requirements of the Joint Aviation Requirements (JAR) for large aeroplanes by incorporating changes developed in co-operation with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) of USA,and the European and American aviation industry through the Aviation Rulemaking, Advisory Commitee (ARAC). This action is necessary because differences between current JAR and U.S.requirements impose unnecessary costs on aircraft manufacturers. These proposals are intended to achieve common requirements and language between the structural requirements of the Joint Aviation Requirements (JAR-25) and part 25 of the FAR without reducing the level of safety provided by the regulations. ‘The proposals herein augment and supercede the proposals introduced by the Notice of Proposed ‘Amendment (NPA) 25C-247. D4L/13/2-17BACKGROUND TO THE PROPOSALS ‘The manufacturing, marketing and certification of large aeroplanes is increasingly an international ‘endeavour. In order for European manufacturers to export transport aeroplanes to other countries the aeroplane must be designed to comply, not only with the Joint Airworthiness Requirements (JAR- 25), but also with the transport airworthiness requirements of the countries to which the aeroplane is, to be exported. ~ Tt was to address this problem within Europe that the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) developed JAR-25 to harmonise the various airworthiness codes of the Europeaycouitrisg Although JAR-25 was developed in a format similar to Part 25 of the FAR there are differences in methodologies and criteria that often result in the necessity to address the same design objective with more than one kind of analysis or test in order to satisfy both the JAR and FAR airworthiness codes. These differences result in additional costs to the large aeroplane manufacturers and additional costs to the JAA and FAA that must continue to monitor compliance with the two different airworthiness codes. In 1988, the FAA, in co-operation with the JAA and other organisations representing the American and European aerospace industries, began a process to harmonise the airworthiness requirements of the United States and the airworthiness requirements of Europese. objective was to achieve common requirements for the certification of transport acroplanes without a substantive change in the level of safety provided by the regulations. Other airworthiness authorities such as Transport Canada have also participated in this process. i ay In 1992, the harmonisation effort was undertaken by the Aviation Regulatory Advisory Committee (ARAC). A working group of industry and government structural loads specialists of Europe, the United States, and Canada was chartered by notice in the Federal Register (58 FR 13819, March 15, 1993). ‘The harmonisation effort has now progressed to a point where some specific proposals have been developed by the working group for the structural loads requirements of Subpart C "Structure". This Notice of Proposed Amendment contains some of the proposals necessary to achieve harmonisation for the loads requirements of the JAR and the FAR. The JAA and FAA are also considering other proposals for furure rulemaking. ‘A comparison of the proposals in this NPA with the current version of FAR 25 may not show identical wording between the proposed JAR and the equivalent FAR sections since, in many cases, proposals are being made to change both the JAR and the FAR versions at the same time. However, the proposals in this notice, when taken in context with the Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) currently proposed by the FAA will achieve essentially the same requirements for the loads requirements of Subpart C of JAR-25 and Subpart C of FAR 25. Ds1/13/3-17WORKING DRAFT ‘The pitching manoeuvre resulting from the maximum deflection of the control surface is specified in § 25.331(cX1). This manoeuvre is commonly known as the “unchecked” pitching manoeuvre since it is not arrested by an opposite control input. Differences in the terminology used in the JAR and the FAR have led to differences in the way the rule has been applied. The FAA has interpreted this as a manoeuvre that applies to the entire aeroplane that must be caried.out until the normal load factor is reached. Consequently, this manoeuvre could result in high pitting rates which may be important in determining gyroscopic loads resulting from rotating machinerauch as propellers and large fans. ‘The equivalent JAR section, however, allows the manoeuvre 5 bettemiinated when the maximum ‘tail load is reached; and the rule has been interpreted by the JAA as primarily applying to the determination of empennage loads. Itis proposed that § 25.331(c)(1) should continue to specifically allow the "unchecked manoeuvre" to be terminated when the tal load reaches a maximum.’ The manoeuvre and resulting loads would still be considered to apply to the entire aeroplane but, for the purposes of determining these aeroplane loads, the manoeuvre could be terminated when the maximum tail load is reached. However, for the purpose of determining the pitching rate used in calculating the gyroscopic loads of § 25.371, the manoeuvre would be considered tobe carried out until thé maximum limit load factor on the aeroplane is reached. In this regard § 2537148 also evised as discussed below. Itis proposed to revise § 25.335 (a) (2) by replacing the 43 knot speed margin between Vp and Vc with a variable margin based on the variation of gust speeds with altitude. This new margin would be approximately equal to 43 knots at sea level and would vary proportionately to the gust velocities specified in § 25.341 (2) (4) of the Orange Paper OP 91/1. An alternative margin established by a rational investigation, provided for in the current rule, would no longer be allowed since the proposed criteria are considered to provide the minimum acceptable margin between Vz and Vc. It is proposed to revise § 25.335(b)(2) by stating a minimum speed margin for atmospheric variations ‘of 0.07 Mach that could be selected without the need to perform the extensive analyses currently required by ACJ25.335(b)(2). Studies by industry have shown that for a conventional aircraft a margin of approximately 0.07 Mach to account for atmospheric disturbances is necessary. However, it is recognised that some aircraft may have design characteristics that would allow a lower margin provided a rational anal aeroplane. The 0.07 Mach is considered to be the minimum safe margin without justification for a of the effects of atmospheric disturbances is carried out for the lower value, Since margins as low as the current margins could still be allowed, if justified, this proposal would not have a significant impact on design. D41/13/4-17Section 25.345(d) is revised to specify more clearly the design conditions. Itis revised to make it clear that this is a manoeuvring flight condition in the landing configuration at specified landing speeds and weights and not an actual ground loading condition. In the Orange Paper OP 91/1 concerning discrete gust design criteria, gust conditions were removed from the yawing conditions specified in § 25.351 and that paragraph was retitled "Yawing manoeuvring conditions.” It is proposed in this NPA to further revise § 25.351, by introducing further clarifying changes designed to eliminate confusion concerning thgspecific design cases required by this section. These proposals are based upon the existing JARurather than the existing FAR that requires a 300 pound pilot effort load to be withstood up the desigizlive speed Vip. ‘The corresponding FAR change would have little effect on most transport aeroplanes since they usually have devices which limit the effect of rudder control forge on surface deflection. The control pedals and affected systems would still be designed to comply with the 300 pound condition at Vs In any case, the requirement to withstand 300 pounds at all speeds up to ‘the design dive speed is considered to be excessive and unrealistic for modem transport aeroplanes. Paragraph 25.371 conceming "Gyroscopic loads" is revised as noted above in the discussion of the pitching manoeuvre of § 25.331(c)(1). In addition, itis proposed to require that the highest pitching rates derived from all rational flight and landing conditions be used to determine the gyroscopic loads. To be consistent with the proposed changes to FAR 25 tis paragraph will continue to apply to auxiliary power units as well as engines. Although § 25.415 "Ground gust conditions” is currently identical in the JAR and FAR, itis proposed to increase the ground gust velocity from the current maximum of 88 feet per second (about 52 kknots) to 65 knots. JAR-25 currently bas a requirement (§ 25.519) that covers ground loads during jacking and tie-down, JAR 25.519 establishes a 65 knot wind speed for ground gusts during jacking and tie-down and specifically requires these gusts to be applied to the control surfaces. This renders the current § 25.415 of the JAR and FAR "Ground gust conditions” inconsistent with § 25.519 of JAR-25 and inconsequential for design. The ARAC working group has determined that control surfaces should continue to be addressed only under § 25.415 so this paragraph is being upgraded to achieve the same effect as the JAR 25.519 by incorporating the 65 knots wind speed. The formula presented in § 25.415 would also be simplified in that the 65 knots wind speed would be contained within the numerical constant (14.3) for the formula used to calculate the ground gust load, It is proposed to revise and reorganise §§ 25.473, 25.479 and 25.481 and 25.489 in order to clarify the requirement to consider structural dynamic effects in the landing conditions and to clarify which requirements are full aeroplane rational de tions and which are static design loading cases. In view of changes being proposed for the FAR, these proposals would provide identical language for Dal/13/5-17these sections of the JAR and FAR. The requirement for consideration of dynamic landing conditions is currently required in § 25.473(¢) of JAR-25 by specific language, and in § 25.305(c) of the FAR by genera! language. ‘A proposal is also being made to adda new requirement in § 25.479 of the FAR to consider lateral rift in the landing condition. The current JAR requirement (§ 25.479(c\(4)), which covers this subject, is being incorporated into paragraph (4)(2) of the proposed. JAR 25.479. This is a rational aeroplane load requirement that i in addition to the requirements of § 25.485 that include specified side loads on the landing gear. The new proposed requirements are equivalent to existing requirements and are consistent with the current design practice {for wansport aeroplanes. [Although the language for § 25.483 of JAR-25 and § 25,483 of the FAR are currently identical, differences in interpretation have occurred. Itis proposed to clarify the language to define the requirement as a “one gear” landing condition instead of a “one wheel" condition in order to resolve confusion that arises in treating multi-wheeled units. The rule would be retitled "One gear landing" and the language in the rule would be revised to reflect this terminology. Itis also proposed to clarify § 25.491 of SAR-25 in order to eliminate differences in interpretation. I ‘would be revised to clarify that it applies equally to take-off, taxi and landing roll by changing the title to "Taxi, takeoff and landing roll". In addition, the reference to § 25.235 would be eliminated and the language of § 25.235 would be incorporated directly into the rule, An advisory circular (AC 25.491-1) and harmonised ACJ material is also being developed that will describe acceptable means of compliance with this rule. “The requirements concerning nosegear stecring are different between the JAR and FAR in that § 25.499(e) of JAR-25 requires a factor of 1.33 on the maximum steering torque and also for the ‘vertical ground reaction which is combinéd.with the stering torque. This factor is over and above the 1.3 safety factor normally applied to limit loads. The FAR provides the same requirement ‘without any additional factor. The ARAC working group considered that there was merit in considering the maximum steering torque in combination with a ground reaction that is greater than. the static one, however they saw insufficient justification for an additional factor on the maximum steering torque. Therefore itis proposed thatthe rule be revised to remove the 1.33 factor from the maximum steering torque only. A related FAA proposal would add the 1.33 factor to the vertical ground reaction in § 25.499(e) of FAR 25 therefore resulting in an identical requirement. JAR 25.511(b) currently specifies a minimum side-to-side distribution ratio for loads on twin wheel units of 55:45. U.S, manufacturers have shown that for all conventional aircraft designs the FAR 25 SD paris) 417WORKING DRAFT rational analysis has always covered the JAR unsymmetrical tyre load distribution. Therefore, for harmonisation it is proposed that JAR should adopt the FAR text. JAR 25.561(c) currently requires the application of a 1.33 factor to the loads used to design the restraints of items of mass if the failure of those items could injure occupants in an emergency landing. At the same time as introducing a similar requirement into FAR 25 it is also proposed to revise § 25.561(c) to clarify that the 1.33 factor applies only to items of mass that are frequently removed during normal operation. / NX paryisyb-arWORKING DRAFT 1. By amending JAR 25.331 by revising paragraph (c) as follows and by deleting ACI25.331(6)(2) § 25.331 General. tty (©) Pitch manoewvre conditions. The conditions in sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) of this paragraph must be investigated. The movement of the pitch coalra] surfaces may be adjusted to take into account limitations imposed by the maximum pilot efforipesibiyoypasgraph 25.397(6), control system stops and any indirect effect imposed by limitations in the Output side of the control system (for example stalling torque or maximum rate obtainable by a power control system). (1) Maximum pitch control displacement at Vjgg Toe aeroplane is assumed to be flying in steady level flight (point Aj, § 25.333(b)) and the cockpit pitch control is suddenly moved to obtain extreme nose up pitching acceleration. In defining the tail load, the response of the aeroplane must be taken into account. Aeroplane loads which occur subsequent to the time when normal acceleration at the c.g. exceeds the positive limit manoeuvring load factor (at point Az in § 25.333(b)), or the resulting tailplane n« reaches its maximum, whichever occurs first, need not be considered 2. By amending JAR 25.335 by revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (b)(2) to read as follows: § 25.335 Design airspeeds @ tf . (2) Except as provided in sub-paragraph 25.335(d((2), Vc may not be less than Vp + 1.32 Ure (with Upef as specified in subparagraph 25.341(aXS)()). However, Vc need not exceed the maximum speed in level flight at maximum continuous power for the corresponding altitude. sett, = @ to tse ® tt (2) The minimum speed margin must be enough to provide for atmospheric variations (such as horizontal gusts, and penetration of jet streams and cold fronts) and for instrument errors and airframe production variations. These factors may be considered on a probability basis. The margin at altitude where Mc is limited by compressibility effects must not be less than 0.07M unless a lower DA1/13/8-17‘margin is determined using a rational analysis that includes the effects of any automatic systems. In any case, the margin may not be reduced to less than 0.05M. 3. By amending JAR 25.345 by revising paragraph (4) to read as follows: § 25.345 High lift devices. (d) The aeroplane must be designed for a manoeuvring load inde ‘5g at the maximum take-off weight with the wing-flaps and similar high lift devices in, if landengeonfigvrations. “Me 4. By revi |AR 25.351 and its title to read as follows:/ oo § 25.331 Yaw manoeuvre conditions. aw ey ‘The aeroplane must be designed for loads resulting from-the:yaw manceuvre conditions: specified in paragraphs (a) through (4) of this section at speeds from Viyc to Vp- Unbalanced aerodynamic moments about the centre of gravity must be reacted in a rational or conservative ‘manner considering the aeroplane inertia forces.-lm computing the til loads the yawing velocity may bbe assumed to be zero. A egiaaey (a) With the aeroplane in unaccelerated flight azero'yaw, itis assumed thatthe cockpit rudder control is suddenly displaced to achieve the resulting rudder deflection, as limited by: (1) the control system or control surface stops; or (2) limit pilot force of 300 pounds from Viyc to VA and 200 pounds from Vc/Mc to Vp/Mp, with a linear variation between Vi and VOMG (b) With the cockpit rudder control deflected so as always to maintain the maximum rudder deflection available within the limitations specified in paragraph (a) of this section, it is assumed that the aeroplane yaws to the overswing sideslip angle. (c) With the aeroplane yawed to the static equilibrium sideslip angle, it is assumed that the cockpit rudder control is held so as to achieve the maximum rudder deflection available within the limitations specified'in paragraph (a) ofthis section. (6) With the aeroplane awed to the static equilibrium sidestip angle of paragraph (c) of this section, it is assumed that the cockpit rudder control is suddenly returned to neutral, 5. By revising JAR 25.371 to read as follows: § 25.371 Gyroscopic loads. ‘The structure supporting any engine or auxiliary power unit must be designed for the loads, including the gyroscopic loads, arising from the conditions specified in §§ 25.331. 25.341(a), 25.349, D41/13/9-17WORKING DRAFT 25.351, 25.473, 25.479, and 25.481, with the engine or auxiliary power unit at the maximum rpm appropriate to the condition, For the purposes of compliance with this paragraph, the pitch manoeuvre in § 25.331(c)(1) must be carried out until the positive limit manoeuvring load factor (point Az in § 25.333(b)) is reached. 6, By amending JAR 25.415 by revising paragraph (2)(2) to read as follows: ores ~ (2) The control system stops nearest the surfaces, the control system locks, and the parts of the systems (if any) between these stops and locks and the control surface homs, must be designed for limit hinge moments H, in foot pounds, obtained frof the formula, H = 14.3 KeS, where:~ SiN K imit hinge moment factor for ground gusts derived in paragraph (b) of this section. — = mean chord of the control surface aft of the hinge line (ft); S = area of the control surface aft of the hinge line (sq.ft); 7. By revising JAR 25.473 to read 2s follows: § 25.473 Landing load conditions and assumptiot (a) For the landing conditions specified in §§ 25.479 to 25.485 the aeroplane is assumed to contact the ground: “* fem ene (1) In the attitudes defined in § 25.479 and § 25.481. (2) With a limit descent velocity of 10 fps at the design landing weight (the maximum weight for landing conditions at maximum descent velocity); and (3) With a limit descent velocity of 6 fps at the design take-off weight (the maximum weight for landing conditions at a reduced descent velocity), (4) The prescribed descent velocities may be modified if itis shown that the aeroplane has design features that make it impossible to develop these velocities. (b) Aeroplane lif, not exceeding aeroplane weight, may be assumed, unless the presence of systems or procedures significantly affects the lift. (©) The method of analysis of aeroplane and landing gear loads must take into account at least the following elements: (2) Landing gear dynamic characteristics. (2) Spin-up and spring back. (3) Rigid body response. D41/13/10-17(4) Structural dynamic response of the airframe, if significant. (d) The limit inertia load factors corresponding to the required limit descent velocities must bbe Validated by tests as defined in § 25.723(a). (e) The coefficient of friction between the tyres and the ground may be established by considering the effects of skidding velocity and tyre pressure. However, this coefficient of friction need not be mere than 0.8. 8. By revising JAR 25.479 to read as follows: § 25.479 Level landing conditions. (a) In the level attitude, the aeroplane is assumed to contact the ground at faivardvelocity components, ranging from VL to 1.25 VL2 parallel to the ground under the conditions prescribed in § 25.473 with (1) V1 equal to Vgo (TAS) at the appropriate landing weight and in standard sea level conditions; and (2) Vip equal to Vgo (TAS) at the appropriate landing weight and altitudes in 2 hot day temperature of 41 degrees F. above standard. ) The effects of increased contact speed must bei landings exceeding 10 knots is requested. ne Spe (b) For the level landing attitude for aeroplane wheels, the conditions specified in this section must be investigated with the aeroplane horizontal reference line horizontal in accordance with Figure 2 of Appendix A-of JAR-25. (©) For the level landing attitude for aeroplanes with nose wheels, shown in Figure 2 of “Appendix A of JAR-25, the conditions specified irthis section must be investigated assuming the following attnudes: Loe (1) Anattitude in which the main wheels are assumed to contact the ground with the nose be ‘wheel just clear of the ground; and ab (2) If reasonably attainable at the specified descent and forward velocities an attitude in which the nose and main wheels are assumed to contact the ground simultaneously. (@ In addition to the loading conditions prescribed in paragraph (a) ofthis section, but with maximum vertical ground reactions calculited from paragraph (a), the following apply: (1) The landing gear and directly affected attaching structure must be designed for the maximum vertical ground reaction combined with an aft acting drag component of not less than 25% of this maximum vertical ground reaction. (2) The most severe combination of loads that are likely to arise during a lateral drift landing must be taken into account, In absence of a more rational analysis of this condition, the following must be investigated: DS1/13/11-17WORKING DRAFT (@) A vertical load equal to 75% of the maximum ground reaction of § 25.473(a)(2) must be considered in combination with a drag and side load of 40% and 25%, respectively, ofthat vertical load. (i) The shock absorber and tyre deflections must be assumed to be 75% of the deflection corresponding to the maximum ground reaction of § 25.473(a\(2). This load case need not be considered in combination with flat tyres. (3) The combination of vertical and drag components is considered to be acting at the whee! axle centreline. sy ay Ra, 9. By amending JAR 25.481 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: § 25.481 Tail down landing conditions. a (@) In the tail-down attitude, the aeroplane is assumed to contact the ground at forward velocity components, ranging from Vi to VL parallel to the ground under the conditions prescribed in § 25.473 with: tal os Qo ort @ tre 10. By amending JAR 25.483 by revising the title, the introductory text, and paragraph (a) to read as follows: os he § 25.483 One-gear landing conditions. For the one-gear landing conditions, the aeroplane is assumed to be in the level attitude and to contact the ground on one main landing gear, in accordance with Figure 4 of Appendix A of JAR-25. In this attinude: (a) The ground reactions must be the same as those obtained on that side under § 25.479(d1), and wore a a 11. By revising JAR 25.485 to read as follows: § 25.485 Side load conditions. In addition to § 25.479(d)(2) the following conditions must be considered: @ cre ® fe D41/13/12-1712; By revising JAR 25.491 and its tide as follows and by deleting ACJ 25.491 {§ 25.491 Taxi, takeoff and landing roll. Within the range of appropriate ground speeds and approved weights, the aeroplane structure and landing gear are assumed to be subjected to loads not less than those obtained when the aircraft is ‘operating over the roughest ground that may reasonably be expected in normal operation. 3. By amending JAR 25.499 by revising paragraph (e) as follows: § 25.499 Nose-wheel yaw and steering. (e) With the aeroplane at design ramp weight, and the nose seargpany 2 Herable postion, the combined application of full normal steering torque and vertical foree equal to 133 times the maximum static reaction on the nose gear must be considered itedesigning the nose gear, its attaching structure, and the forward fuselage structure. 14, By amending JAR 25.511(b) by deleting certain text as follow: delete: "The resulting side to side distribution on the unit must not be assumed less than the ratio 33:45. For ‘sin wheel units a loading distribution inthe ratio. $245 may bensidered in leu of the rational analysis of this sub-paragraph (b).” Sa, ew 15, By amending JAR 25.561 by revising paragraph (c) as follows: § 25.561 General . . fee 8 eile (©) For equipment, cargo in the passenger compartments and any other large masses, the following apply: Aes (1) These items must be positioned so that if they break loose they will be unlikely to: (D Cause direct injury to occupant (ii) Penetrate fuel tanks or lines or cause fire or explosion hazard by damage to adjacent systems; or (Giiy Nullify any of the escape facilites provided for use after an emergency landing (2) When such positioning is not practical (e.g. fuselage mounted engines or auxiliary power units) each such item of mass shall be restrained under all loads up to those specified in paragraph (b)3) of this section. The local attachments for these items should be designed to withstand 1.33 times the specified loads if these items are subject to severe wear and tear through frequent removal (e.g. quick change interior items). D41/13/13-17WORKING DRAFT IUSTIFICATIONS 25.331(c) Manoeuvring pitching conditions Currently the JAR formulation of the unchecked pitching manceuvre allows the response analysis to be terminated once the maximum tail load is reached. Experience has shown that continuing the response analysis beyond this point does not produce higher design loads on the aeroplane. However although this approach ensures the highest dec loads are covered, in some circumstances, the highest pitching velocities may not be. Pitching velocity is important in determining the most severe gyroscopic effects so to guarantee that these effects are covered.adequately it may be necessary to continue the analysis up to the point at which the design magpeunrelad ctor is reached. JAR 25.335 Design airspeeds . ‘The current § 25.335 (a}(2) has a fixed 43 knot speed margin between Vp and Vc, The ARAC Loads and Dynamics Working Group have determined that it would be more rational to have a variable margin based on the variation of gust speeds with altiude. This proposed new margin would be approximately equal to 43 knots at sea level but would vary proportionately to the gust velocities specified in § 25.341 (a) (4) ofthe Orange Paper OP 91/1. This ensures equivalent safety withthe current requirement by aligning the speed differential with design gust amplitudes based upon current ay , Itis proposed to increase the ground gust velocity:contained within § 25.415 from the current maximum of 88 feet per second (about 52 knots) to 65 knots. In effect this is simply transferring the control surface load requirement from § 25.519 to a more appropriate location JAR 25.519 establishes a 65 knot wind speed for ground gusts during jacking and tie-down and specifically requires these gusts to Seapplied tothe doitol surfaces. This proposals intended to ‘maintain the current level of control surface 2nd contol system strength required by JAR. D41/13/15-17WORKING DRAFT JAR 25.473 Landing load conditions and assumptions JAR 25.479 Level landing conditions. JAR 25.481 Tail down landing conditions. JAR 25.485 Side load conditions. These proposals merely reorganise §§ 25.473; 25.479 and 25.481 and 25.485 in order to clarify the requirement to consider structural dynamic effects in the landing conditions and to clarify which requirements ae full aeroplane rational design conditions and which are static design loading cases. In view of changes being proposed for the FAR, these proposalguld provide identical language for these sections of the JAR and FAR. The requirement for consideration of dynamic landing conditions is currently required in § 25.473(e) of JAR-25 aabretieliomase, and in § 25.305(2) of the FAR by general language, [tis not intended that these fvisions will lead Yaany changes in certification loads. te JAR 25.483(a) One Gear Landing " / This proposal clarifies the language to define the requirement as a “one gear” landing condition, instead of a “one whee!" condition in order to resolve confusion that arises in treating multi-wheeled units ‘The one whee! lateral drift landing condition. does not provide a significant loading condition over and above the symmetric condition. This case,does not exist currently in FAR 25. For harmonisation it is proposed to delete this minor condition. JAR 25.491 Taxi, takeoff and landing roll. This proposal revises this paragraph to clarify that it applies equally to take-off, taxi and landing roll by changing the title to "Taxi, takeoff and landing roll". In addition, the reference to § 25.235 would be eliminated and the language of § 25.235 would be incorporated directly into the rule. An advisory circular (AC 25.491-1) and harmonised ACS material is also being developed that will describe acceptable means of compliance with this rule. JAR 25.499 Nose-wheel yaw and steering. It was considered by the ARAC Loads and Dynamics Working Group that sufficient strength will be available to nose wheel steering mechanisms by designing to the limit maximum steering torque without additional factors. It was accepted as reasonable to combine maximum steering torque with a vertical reaction greater than the static one. Therefore, this proposal would remove the 1.33 factor from the maximum steering torque but retain the factor on vertical reaction. A related FAA proposal would add the 1.33 factor to the vertical ground reaction in § 25.499(e) of FAR 25 therefore resulting in an identical requirement. D41/13/16-17JAR 25511(b) Wheel Limit Loads U.S. manufacturers can show that for all conventional aircraft designs the FAR 25 rational analysis thas always covered the JAR 55:45 unsymmetrical tyre load distribution. Therefore, for harmonisation it is proposed that JAR should adopt the FAR text. JAR 25.561 General ‘This proposal would clarify that the 1.33 factor applies only to items of mass that are frequently removed during normal operation. No change in requirement severtty oftpplication is intended SAFETY AND ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS 4 “These proposals are intended to achieve common requirements and language between the structural requirements of the Joint Aviation Requirements (AR-25)aifPart25 ofthe FAR without reducing the level of safety provided by the regulations. Since mostmanufactrers wil already design to both TAR-25 and FAR 25 it is not expected that these changes Will result in a significant increase or decrease in intended design loads. Neither is it expected that there will bea significant increase in work required to show compliance wth hse requirements, Therefore thee in atipated increase in economic burden. PALEY Since, in some areas, improved clarity could oo p change existing design practices. Therefore, in rare cases some manufacturers may see some'change in certification loads different to those used previously. Nevertheless, changes will only serve to bring loads level with the standard chat was always intended and ensure a Siform interpretation. DA1/13/17-17