You are using an unsupported browser. This web site is designed for the current versions of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, or Safari.
The Office of the Federal Register publishes documents on behalf of Federal agencies but does not have any authority over their programs. We recommend you directly contact the agency associated with the content in question.
If you have comments or suggestions on how to improve the www.ecfr.gov website or have questions about using www.ecfr.gov, please choose the 'Website Feedback' button below.
If you would like to comment on the current content, please use the 'Content Feedback' button below for instructions on contacting the issuing agency
Enhanced content is provided to the user to provide additional context.
This content is from the eCFR and is authoritative but unofficial.
Navigate by entering citations or phrases (eg: 1 CFR 1.1 49 CFR 172.101 Organization and Purpose 1/1.1 Regulation Y FAR).
Choosing an item from citations and headings will bring you directly to the content. Choosing an item from full text search results will bring you to those results. Pressing enter in the search box will also bring you to search results.
Background and more details are available in the Search & Navigation guide.
| Fatigue Evaluation | 29.571 – 29.573 | |||||||
| ||||||||
Docket No. 5084, 29 FR 16150, Dec. 3, 1964, unless otherwise noted.
This content is from the eCFR and may include recent changes applied to the CFR. The official, published CFR, is updated annually and available below under "Published Edition". You can learn more about the process here.
Subscribe to: 14 CFR Part 29 Subpart C - Fatigue Evaluation
No changes found for this content after 1/03/2017.
View the most recent official publication:
These links go to the official, published CFR, which is updated annually. As a result, it may not include the most recent changes applied to the CFR. Learn more.
Information and documentation can be found in our developer resources.
The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is the official legal print publication containing the codification of the general and permanent rules published in the Federal Register by the departments and agencies of the Federal Government. The Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (eCFR) is a continuously updated online version of the CFR. It is not an official legal edition of the CFR.
Learn more about the eCFR, its status, and the editorial process.
(a) A fatigue tolerance evaluation of each principal structural element (PSE) must be performed, and appropriate inspections and retirement time or approved equivalent means must be established to avoid catastrophic failure during the operational life of the rotorcraft. The fatigue tolerance evaluation must consider the effects of both fatigue and the damage determined under paragraph (e)(4) of this section. Parts to be evaluated include PSEs of the rotors, rotor drive systems between the engines and rotor hubs, controls, fuselage, fixed and movable control surfaces, engine and transmission mountings, landing gear, and their related primary attachments.
(b) For the purposes of this section, the term—
(1) Catastrophic failure means an event that could prevent continued safe flight and landing.
(2) Principal structural element (PSE) means a structural element that contributes significantly to the carriage of flight or ground loads, and the fatigue failure of that structural element could result in catastrophic failure of the aircraft.
(c) The methodology used to establish compliance with this section must be submitted to and approved by the Administrator.
(d) Considering all rotorcraft structure, structural elements, and assemblies, each PSE must be identified.
(e) Each fatigue tolerance evaluation required by this section must include:
(1) In-flight measurements to determine the fatigue loads or stresses for the PSEs identified in paragraph (d) of this section in all critical conditions throughout the range of design limitations required by § 29.309 (including altitude effects), except that maneuvering load factors need not exceed the maximum values expected in operations.
(2) The loading spectra as severe as those expected in operations based on loads or stresses determined under paragraph (e)(1) of this section, including external load operations, if applicable, and other high frequency power-cycle operations.
(3) Takeoff, landing, and taxi loads when evaluating the landing gear and other affected PSEs.
(4) For each PSE identified in paragraph (d) of this section, a threat assessment which includes a determination of the probable locations, types, and sizes of damage, taking into account fatigue, environmental effects, intrinsic and discrete flaws, or accidental damage that may occur during manufacture or operation.
(5) A determination of the fatigue tolerance characteristics for the PSE with the damage identified in paragraph (e)(4) of this section that supports the inspection and retirement times, or other approved equivalent means.
(6) Analyses supported by test evidence and, if available, service experience.
(f) A residual strength determination is required that substantiates the maximum damage size assumed in the fatigue tolerance evaluation. In determining inspection intervals based on damage growth, the residual strength evaluation must show that the remaining structure, after damage growth, is able to withstand design limit loads without failure.
(g) The effect of damage on stiffness, dynamic behavior, loads, and functional performance must be considered.
(h) Based on the requirements of this section, inspections and retirement times or approved equivalent means must be established to avoid catastrophic failure. The inspections and retirement times or approved equivalent means must be included in the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness required by Section 29.1529 and Section A29.4 of Appendix A of this part.
(i) If inspections for any of the damage types identified in paragraph (e)(4) of this section cannot be established within the limitations of geometry, inspectability, or good design practice, then supplemental procedures, in conjunction with the PSE retirement time, must be established to minimize the risk of occurrence of these types of damage that could result in a catastrophic failure during the operational life of the rotorcraft.
[Doc. No. FAA-2009-0413, Amdt. 29-55, 76 FR 75442, Dec. 2, 2011]
(a) Each applicant must evaluate the composite rotorcraft structure under the damage tolerance standards of paragraph (d) of this section unless the applicant establishes that a damage tolerance evaluation is impractical within the limits of geometry, inspectability, and good design practice. If an applicant establishes that it is impractical within the limits of geometry, inspectability, and good design practice, the applicant must do a fatigue evaluation in accordance with paragraph (e) of this section.
(b) The methodology used to establish compliance with this section must be submitted to and approved by the Administrator.
(c) Definitions:
(1) Catastrophic failure is an event that could prevent continued safe flight and landing.
(2) Principal Structural Elements (PSEs) are structural elements that contribute significantly to the carrying of flight or ground loads, the failure of which could result in catastrophic failure of the rotorcraft.
(3) Threat Assessment is an assessment that specifies the locations, types, and sizes of damage, considering fatigue, environmental effects, intrinsic and discrete flaws, and impact or other accidental damage (including the discrete source of the accidental damage) that may occur during manufacture or operation.
(d) Damage Tolerance Evaluation:
(1) Each applicant must show that catastrophic failure due to static and fatigue loads, considering the intrinsic or discrete manufacturing defects or accidental damage, is avoided throughout the operational life or prescribed inspection intervals of the rotorcraft by performing damage tolerance evaluations of the strength of composite PSEs and other parts, detail design points, and fabrication techniques. Each applicant must account for the effects of material and process variability along with environmental conditions in the strength and fatigue evaluations. Each applicant must evaluate parts that include PSEs of the airframe, main and tail rotor drive systems, main and tail rotor blades and hubs, rotor controls, fixed and movable control surfaces, engine and transmission mountings, landing gear, other parts, detail design points, and fabrication techniques deemed critical by the FAA. Each damage tolerance evaluation must include:
(i) The identification of all PSEs;
(ii) In-flight and ground measurements for determining the loads or stresses for all PSEs for all critical conditions throughout the range of limits in § 29.309 (including altitude effects), except that maneuvering load factors need not exceed the maximum values expected in service;
(iii) The loading spectra as severe as those expected in service based on loads or stresses determined under paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section, including external load operations, if applicable, and other operations including high-torque events;
(iv) A threat assessment for all PSEs that specifies the locations, types, and sizes of damage, considering fatigue, environmental effects, intrinsic and discrete flaws, and impact or other accidental damage (including the discrete source of the accidental damage) that may occur during manufacture or operation; and
(v) An assessment of the residual strength and fatigue characteristics of all PSEs that supports the replacement times and inspection intervals established under paragraph (d)(2) of this section.
(2) Each applicant must establish replacement times, inspections, or other procedures for all PSEs to require the repair or replacement of damaged parts before a catastrophic failure. These replacement times, inspections, or other procedures must be included in the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness required by § 29.1529.
(i) Replacement times for PSEs must be determined by tests, or by analysis supported by tests, and must show that the structure is able to withstand the repeated loads of variable magnitude expected in-service. In establishing these replacement times, the following items must be considered:
(A) Damage identified in the threat assessment required by paragraph (d)(1)(iv) of this section;
(B) Maximum acceptable manufacturing defects and in-service damage (i.e., those that do not lower the residual strength below ultimate design loads and those that can be repaired to restore ultimate strength); and
(C) Ultimate load strength capability after applying repeated loads.
(ii) Inspection intervals for PSEs must be established to reveal any damage identified in the threat assessment required by paragraph (d)(1)(iv) of this section that may occur from fatigue or other in-service causes before such damage has grown to the extent that the component cannot sustain the required residual strength capability. In establishing these inspection intervals, the following items must be considered:
(A) The growth rate, including no-growth, of the damage under the repeated loads expected in-service determined by tests or analysis supported by tests;
(B) The required residual strength for the assumed damage established after considering the damage type, inspection interval, detectability of damage, and the techniques adopted for damage detection. The minimum required residual strength is limit load; and
(C) Whether the inspection will detect the damage growth before the minimum residual strength is reached and restored to ultimate load capability, or whether the component will require replacement.
(3) Each applicant must consider the effects of damage on stiffness, dynamic behavior, loads, and functional performance on all PSEs when substantiating the maximum assumed damage size and inspection interval.
(e) Fatigue Evaluation: If an applicant establishes that the damage tolerance evaluation described in paragraph (d) of this section is impractical within the limits of geometry, inspectability, or good design practice, the applicant must do a fatigue evaluation of the particular composite rotorcraft structure and:
(1) Identify all PSEs considered in the fatigue evaluation;
(2) Identify the types of damage for all PSEs considered in the fatigue evaluation;
(3) Establish supplemental procedures to minimize the risk of catastrophic failure associated with the damages identified in paragraph (d) of this section; and
(4) Include these supplemental procedures in the Airworthiness Limitations section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness required by § 29.1529.
[Doc. No. FAA-2009-0660, Amdt. 29-59, 76 FR 74664, Dec. 1, 2011]