JAR 23 and FAR 23 Comparison part 2

901 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
901
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
11
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

JAR 23 and FAR 23 Comparison part 2

  1. 1. Applicability FAR 23 JAR 23 Sec. 23.425 Gust loads. Units are in English CS 23.443 Gust loads Units are in Metric Sec. 23.561 Emergency Landing Conditions General. (e) Except as provided in Sec. 23.787(c), the supporting structure must be designed to restrain, under loads up to those specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, each item of mass that could injure an occupant if it came loose in a minor crash landing. (1) For engines mounted inside the fuselage, aft of the cabin, it must be shown by test or analysis that the engine and attached accessories, and the engine mounting structure— (i) Can withstand a forward acting static ultimate inertia load factor of 18.0 g plus the maximum takeoff engine thrust; or (ii) The airplane structure is designed to preclude the engine and its attached accessories from entering or protruding into the cabin should the engine mounts fail. Units are in English EMERGENCY LANDING CONDITIONS CS 23.561 General (e) Except as provided in CS 23.787 (c) the supporting structure must be designed to restrain, under loads up to those specified in subparagraph (b) (3) , each item of mass that could injure an occupant if it came loose in a minor crash landing. Units are in Metric
  2. 2. Applicability FAR 23 JAR 23 Sec. 23.571 Metallic pressurized cabin structures. These loads must be multiplied by a factor of 1.15 unless the dynamic effect of failure under static load are otherwise considered. (c) The damage tolerance evaluation of Sec. 23.573(b). (d) If certification for operation above 41,000 feet is requested, a damage tolerance evaluation of the fuselage pressure boundary per § 23.573(b) must be conducted. CS 23.571 Metallic pressurised cabin structures These loads must be multiplied by a factor of 1.15 unless the dynamic effects of failure under static load are otherwise considered. (c) The damage tolerance evaluation of CS 23.573(b). Sec. 23.629 Flutter. (1) Proper and adequate attempts to induce flutter have been made within the speed range up to VD/MD, or VDF/MDF for jets; (2) The vibratory response of the structure during the test indicates freedom from flutter; (3) A proper margin of damping exists at VD/MD, or VDF/MDF for jets; and (4) As VD/MD (or VDF/MDF for jets) is approached, there is no large or rapid reduction in damping. (c) Any rational analysis used to predict freedom from flutter, control reversal and divergence must cover all speeds up to 1.2 VD/1.2 MD, limited to Mach 1.0 for CS 23.629 Flutter (1) Proper and adequate attempts to induce flutter have been made within the speed range up to VD; (2) The vibratory response of the structure during the test indicates freedom from flutter; (3) A proper margin of damping exists at VD; and (4) There is no large and rapid reduction in damping as VD is approached. (c) Any rational analysis used to predict freedom from flutter, control reversal and divergence must cover all speeds up to 1·2 VD.
  3. 3. Applicability FAR 23 JAR 23 Sec. 23.691 Artificial stall barrier system. If the function of an artificial stall barrier, for example, stick pusher, is used to show compliance with Sec. 23.201(c), the system must comply with the following: (a) With the system adjusted for operation, the plus and minus airspeeds at which downward pitching control will be provided must be established. (b) Considering the plus and minus airspeed tolerances established by paragraph (a) of this section, an airspeed must be selected for the activation of the downward pitching control that provides a safe margin above any airspeed at which any unsatisfactory stall characteristics occur. (c) In addition to the stall warning required by Sec. 23.207, a warning that is clearly distinguishable to the pilot under all expected flight conditions without requiring the pilot's attention, must be provided for faults that would prevent the system from providing the required pitching motion. (d) Each system must be designed so that the artificial stall barrier can be quickly and positively disengaged by the pilots to prevent unwanted downward pitching of the airplane by a quick release (emergency) control that meets the requirements of Sec. 23.1329(b). No corresponding section in CS-23
  4. 4. Applicability FAR 23 JAR 23 Sec. 23.691 Artificial stall barrier system. (e) A preflight check of the complete system must be established and the procedure for this check made available in the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM). Preflight checks that are critical to the safety of the airplane must be included in the limitations section of the AFM. (f) For those airplanes whose design includes an autopilot system: (1) A quick release (emergency) control installed in accordance with Sec. 23.1329(b) may be used to meet the requirements of paragraph (d), of this section, and (2) The pitch servo for that system may be used to provide the stall downward pitching motion. (g) In showing compliance with Sec. 23.1309, the system must be evaluated to determine the effect that any announced or unannounced failure may have on the continued safe flight and landing of the airplane or the ability of the crew to cope with any adverse conditions that may result from such failures. This evaluation must consider the hazards that would result from the airplane's flight characteristics if the system was not provided, and the hazard that may result from unwanted downward pitching motion, which could result from a failure at airspeeds above the selected No corresponding section in CS-23
  5. 5. Applicability FAR 23nit JAR 23 Sec. 23.703 Takeoff warning system. For all airplanes with a maximum weight more than 6,000 pounds and all jets, unless it can be shown that a lift or longitudinal trim device that affects the takeoff performance of the airplane would not give an unsafe takeoff configuration when selected out of an approved takeoff position, a takeoff warning system must be installed and meet the following requirements: (c) For the purpose of this section, an unsafe takeoff configuration is the inability to rotate or the inability to prevent an immediate stall after rotation. CS 23.703 Take-off warning system For commuter category aeroplanes, unless it can be shown that a lift or longitudinal trim device that affects the take-off performance of the aircraft would not give an unsafe take-off configuration when selected out of an approved take-off position, a take-off warning system must be installed and must meet the following requirements: Sec. 23.725 Limit drop tests. Sec. 23.727 Reserve energy absorption drop tests. Units are in english CS 23.725 Limit drop tests CS 23.727 Reserve energy absorption drop tests Units are in Metric
  6. 6. Applicability FAR 23nit JAR 23 Sec. 23.735 Brakes. Units are in english (e) For airplanes required to meet § 23.55, the rejected takeoff brake kinetic energy capacity rating of each main wheel brake assembly may not be less than the kinetic energy absorption requirements determined under either of the following methods— CS 23.735 Brakes Units are in Metric (e) In addition, for commuter category aeroplanes, the rejected take-off brake kinetic energy capacity rating of each mainwheel brake assembly must not be less than the kinetic energy absorption requirements determined under either of the following methods

×