CAA CONSULTATIVE DRAFT CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY JOINT AVIATION REQUIREMENTS PAPER NO. 2530D- =: ne i. 25acD-236 ak peronines Structures 3SSUE 2 Study Group 24th December 1996 sv INTRODUCTION This NPA is sponsored by the JAA Structures Study Group. It arises as a result of the development of FAA NPRM 89-24, which was adoopted as a Final Rule on 29 J 92 and pulished as amendment 25-77 to FAR Part 25. Structures Study Group agreed with the basic idea behind these changes, there were some areas of disagreement which prevented its adoption inte JAR. Harmonisation activity with the FAA and industry has therefore been undertaken through the A-R-A.C. Loads and Dynamics Harmonisation Working Group. This NPA represents the outcome of that Group and presents the basis for fully harmonised requirements concerning flutter, divergence, vibrations and buffet for FAR Part 25 and JAR-25. Th PROPOSAL Please see attached Darrs2i-20CAA CONSULTATIVE DRAFT BACKGROUND TO THE PROPOSALS ‘The term "aeroelastic” is applied to an iraporsant class of phenomena which involves the murual interaction between the inertial, aerodynamic, and elastic forces in a structure. These forces can imeract to give rise to a variety of acroelastic conditions ranging from transiect or dynamic responses asa result of external forces (vibration or buffeting) to aeroelastic instabilities (fluter or divergence) ‘The important distinction berween response and instability phenomena is that instabilities are self excited, that is, they can exist even in smooth air in the absence of any external forces. A slight Perturbation of the structure at or above the critical airspeed is all that is needed to initiate the ‘asuble condition which then may be maintained cr grow to destructive proportions in the absence of any external forees. Few aroclastic phenomena fit neatly into classification where exact definitions can be considered to apply without qualification. As an aid to better understanding of the proposals in this NPA the {following definitions are provided. They should be considered to apply to classical aeroelastic phenomena and used with a certain amount of judgement since not even the experts in the field would agree completely on any set of definitions. 1, Vibration: An oscillation of the sucture or of a control surface resulting from an independent external excitation. Buffeting: A random oscillation of the structure resulting from unsteady aerodynamic forces, usually associated with separated flow. Flatter: An unstable self-excited structural oscillation at a definite ‘frequency where energy is extracted from the airstream by the motion of the structure. The deformation and motion of the structure result in forces on the structure that tend to maintain or augment the motion. The displacement modes associated with potential flutter instabilities are often called “flutter modes" even though they may be well damped or do not become unstable within the flight envelope. 4+ Whirl Flatter: Fluner in which the aerodynamic and gyroscopic forces associated with rotations and displacements in the plane of a propeller or large turbofan play an important role. The displacement modes associated with whirl fluner are frequently calied "whir] modes". Divergence: A static instability at a speed where the aerodynamic forces resulting from the deformation of the structure exceed the elastic restoring forces resulting from the same deformation. 6 Control Reversal: A condition in which the imended effects of displacing a given ‘component of the control system are completely overcome by the aeroelastic effects of structural deformation, resulting in reversed coramand at higher speeds. 7. Deformation Instability: The loss of aeropiane stability and control as a result of the aeroelastic effects of structural deformation. Many of the above terms have been used in the airworthiness regulations and associated advisory ‘material for many years and there is no intent to redefine these phenomena or require consideration of new phenomena by this proposal. Davsza-20 2Regulations dealing with fluter and divergence for transport category aeroplanes were first invoduced in part 04 of the U.S. Civil Air Regulations (CAR) in the 1940's. A safety margin was cesmblished by requiring that the aeroplane was designed to be free from fluter and divergence at an airspeed 20 percent greater than the maximum design dive speed. Fluner analyses, using the available theoretical methods of that time, were used to show compliance. The 20 percent margin ‘was intended to account for the inaccuracy in the analytical prediction of the flutter speed, as established by those early methods, and to provide for production and service variations. A 20 perceat margin was chosen as the safety margin for civil aeroplanes after comparing analytical studies with the results of model testing conducted by the U.S. Army Air Corps. Based on the same smudies and tests, a 15 percent margin was chosen by the U.S. Army Air Corps as the safety margin for the related U.S. military specification. ‘The fluter requirement of part 04 evoived into section 4b.308 of the CAR, where developing fail- safe philosophy continued to change the scope of the flumer and divergence substantiation requirements. Among the early fail-safe provisions were the requirements that control surface tabs and fluter damper systems be fail-safe. A more comprehensive fail-safe requirement was adopted into the U.S. Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) part 25 in 1964 and required compliance with the single failure criteria for the entire aeroplane, as well as compliance with special provisions for turbopropeller aeroplanes. The most recent substantive change in the fail-safe provisions was the addition of a requirement in § 25.629(d) of the FAR for freedom from fluner with any combination of failures not shown to be extremely improbable (Amendment 25-46, 43 FR 50578; October 30, 1978). This same standard has formed the basis for JAR-25 flutrer requirements up to the present time, ‘The design margin for the fail-safe design conditions has been the margin between design cruise speed, Vc/Mc and design dive speed, Vp/Mp. This margin originally was 25 percent, but has since been reduced by the incorporation of an upset criterion to establish Vp/Mp (§ 25.335(b)). This criterion generally results in a margin of between 15 and 20 percent on modem conventional ‘wansport aeropianes at altinides where V¢ is not limited by Mach number. While the scope of the flutter requirements was being widened by additional fail-safe criteria, the ability of the industry to substantiate freedom from fluter and other aeroelastic instability phenomena was continually improving. At the time the 20 percent margin was established, the analytical capability was minimal and unreliable without a large speed margin. Current analytical methods employ finite element solutions with advanced unsteady aerodynamic theories and can accommodate aeroplanes of complex configurations. In addition, model testing, ground vibration testing and flight flumer testing techniques have all undergone significant improvements. Complete aeroplane experimental modal analyses are now commonplace. Furthermore the cost of these analytical methods and testing techniques bas been kept reasonable by the advances in computer technology. ‘At present the requirement to withstand vibration and buffet, is contained in JAR 25.251. As this isa Subpart B requirement, there is a tendency to interpret the vibration and buffet requirements as, applicable to flight requirements only. Also, because of the reference to the fail-safe requirements of JAR 25.629(4), JAR 25.251 literally requires that freedom from excessive vibration be demonstrated ‘with failure conditions. The rule also continues to reference the structural design dive speed Vp rather than a flight speed such as Vpp. Da813-20CAA CONSULTATIVE DRAFT Proposal: 1. By revising JAR 25.251 to read as follows: JAR 25.251 Vibrating and buffeting. (a) The aeroplane must be demonstrated in flight to be free from any vibration and buffeting that ‘would prevent continued safe flight in any likely operating condition. (®) Each part of the aeroplane must be demonswated in flight to be free from excessive vibration under any appropriate speed and power conditions up to Vp/Mp. The maximum speeds shown must be used in establishing the operating limitations of the aeroplane in accordance with JAR 25.1505. 2. By revising JAR 25305 by adding sub-paragraphs (e) and (f) as follows: (2) The acropiane must be designed to withstand any vibration and buffeting that might occur in any likely operating condition up to Vp/Mp, including stall and probable inadvertent excursions beyond the boundaries of the buffet onset envelope. This must be shown by analysis, flight tests, or other tests found necessary by.the Authority. (D) Unless shown to be extremely improbable, the aeroplane must be designed to withstand any forced structural vibration resulting irom any failure, malfunction or adverse condition in the flight contol system. These loads must be teated in accordance with a procedure to be agreed by the Authority. 3. By revising JAR 25.629 to read as follows: JAR 25.629 Aeroelastic stability requirements. (a) General. The acroelastic stability evaluations required under this paragraph include flutter, divergence, control reversal and any undue loss of stability and control as a result of structural deformation, The aeroelastic evaluation must include whirl modes associated with any propeller or rotating device that contributes significant dynamic forces. Compliance with this paragraph must be shown by analyses, tests, or some combination thereof as found necessary by the Authority (see ACJ 25.629). (b) Aeroelastic stability envelopes. The aeroplane must be designed to be free from aeroelastic insability for all configurations and design conditions within the acroelastic stability envelopes as follows: (1) For normal conditions without failures, malfunctions, or adverse conditions, all ‘combinations of altitudes and speeds encompassed by the Vp/Mp versus altitude envelope enlarged at all points by an increase of 15 percent in equivalent airspeed at constant Mach ‘number and constant altitude. In addition, a proper margin of stability must exist at all speeds up to Vp/Mp and, there must be no large and rapid reduction in stability as Vp/Mp is approached. The enlarged envelope may be limited to Mach 1.0 when Mp is less than 1.0 at all design altinudes; and (2) For the conditions described in JAR 25.629(d) below, for all approved altitudes, any airspeed up to the greater airspeed defined by: (i) The Vp/Mp envelope determined by JAR 25.335(b); or, (ii) An altitude-airspeed envelope defined by a 15 percent increase in equivalent airspeed above Vc at constant altitude, from sea level to the altitide of the Daire2is-20intersection of 1.15 Vc with the extension of the constant cruise Mach number line, Mo, thea a linear variation in equivalent airspeed to Mc+.0S at the altitude of the lowest Vo/Mc intersection; then, at higher altinides, up to the maximum flight altitude, the boundary defined by a.0$ Mach increase in Mc at constant altinide; and (i) Failure conditions of certain systems must be treated in accordance with JAR 25.302. (©) Balance weights. If balance weights are used, their effectiveness and stength, including supporting structure, must be substantiated. (@) Failures, malfimctions, and adverse conditions. The failures, malfunctions, and adverse conditions which must be considered in showing compliance with this paragraph are: (1) Any critical fuel leading conditions, not shown to be exremely improbable, which may result from mismanagement of fuel. (2) Any failure in any fluter control system not shown to be extremely improbable. (3) For aeroplanes not approved for operation in icing conditions, the maximum likely ice accumulation expected as a result of an inadvertent encounter. (4) Failure of any single element of the structure supporting any engine, independently mounted propeller shaft, large auxiliary power unit, or large externally mounted aerodynamic body (such as an external fuel tank). (5) For aeroplanes with engines that have propellers or large rotating devices capable cf significant dynamic forces, any single failure of the engine sructure that would reduce the rigidity of the rotational axis. (6) The absence of aerodynamic or gyroscopic forces resulting from the most adverse combination of feathered propellers or other rotating devices capable of significant dynamic forces. In addition, the effect of a single feathered propeller or rotating device must be coupled with the failures of sub-paragraphs (4X4) and (4X5) of this paragraph. (7) Any single propeller or rotating device capable of significant dynamic forces rotating at the highest likely overspeed. (8) Any damage or failure condition, required or selected for investigation by JAR 25.571 The single structeral failures described in sub-paragraphs (4X4) and(d)(S) of this paragraph need not be considered in showing compliance with this paragraph if, (The structural element could not fail due to discrete source damage resulting from the conditions described in JAR 25.571(e) and 25.903(4); and (ii) A damage tolerance investigation in accordance with JAR 25.571(b) shows that the maximum extent of damage assumed for the purpose of residual strength evaluation does not involve complete failure of the structural element. (9) Any damage, failure or malfunction, considered under JAR 25.631, 25.671, 25.672, and 25.1309. (10) Any other combination of failures, malfunctions, or adverse conditions not shown to be exremely improbable. (e) Flight flutter testing. Full scale flight flumer tests at speeds up to VpF/Mpp must te conducted for new type designs and for modifications to a type design unless the modifications heve been shown to have an insignificant effect on the aeroelastic stability. These tests must demonswaie that the aeroplane has a proper margin of damping at all speeds up to VpF/Mp, and that there is no large and rapid reduction in damping as Vpf/Mpp is approached. If a failure, malfunction, or adverse condition is simulated during flight test in showing compliance with sub-paragraph (d) of this paragraph, the maximum speed investigated need not to exceed VEC/MFC if it is shown, by correlation of the flight test data with other test data or analyses, that the aeroplane is free from any acroelastic instability at all speeds within the altirade-airspeed envelope described in sub-paragraph (0X2) of this paragraph. Darrexs-20CAA CONSULTATIVE DRAFT 4. By inserting the following ACJ. ACT 25,629 Aeroelastic stability requirements - Acceptable means of compliance See JAR 25.629 1. General. The general requirement for demonstrating freedom from aeroelastic instability is contained in JAR 25.629, which also sets forth specific requirements for the investigation of these aeroelastic phenomena for various aeroplane configurations and flight conditions. Additionally, there are other conditions defined by the JAR paragraphs listed below to be investigated for asroelastic stability to assure safe flight Many of the conditions contained in this ACJ pertain only to the current version of JAR 25. Type design changes to aeroplanes certified to an earlier JAR 25 change must meet the certification basis established for the modified aeroplane. JAR 25.251 - Vibration and buffeting JAR 25.305 - Strength and deformation JAR 25.335 - Design airspeeds JAR 25.343 - Design fuel and oil loads JAR 25.571 - Damage-tolerance and fatigue evaluation of structure JAR 25.629 - Aeroelastic stability requirements JAR 25.631 - Bird swike damage JAR 25.671 - General (Control systems) JAR 25.672 - Stability augmentation and automatic and power operated systems JAR 25.1309 - Equipment, systems and installations JAR 25.1329 - Automatic pilot system JAR 25.1419 - Ice protection 2. Aeroelastic Stability Envelope 2.1. For nominal conditions without failures, malfunctions, or adverse conditions. freedom from aeroelastic instability is required to be shown for all combinations of airspeed and altitude encompassed by the design dive speed (Vp) and design dive Mach number (Mp) versus altitude envelope enlarged at all points by an increase of 15 percent in equivalent airspeed at both constant Mach number and constant altitude. Figure 1A represents a typical design envelope expanded to the Fequired aeroelastic stability envelope. Note that some required Mach number and airspeed combinations correspond to altitudes below standard sea level. 22, The acroelastic sibility envelope may be limited to a maximum Mach number of 1.0 when Mp is less than 1.0’and there’is to large-and rapid reduction in damping as Mp is approached. 23. _ Some configurations and conditions that are required to be investigated by JAR 25.629 and other JAR 25 regulations consist of failures, malfunctions or adverse conditions Aeroelastic stability investigations of these conditions need to be carried out only within the design airspeed versus altitude envelope defined by: (the Vp/Mp envelope determined by JAR 25.335(b); or, (ii)__ an altitude-airspeed envelope defined by a 15 percent increase in equivalent airspeed above Vc at constant altitude, from sea level up to the altitude of the intersection of 1.15 Vc with the ‘emension of the constant cruise Mach number line, Mc, then a linear variation in equivalent airspeed Da1ex6-20to Mc + .05 at the altinude of the lowest V¢/Mc intersection; then at higher altitudes, maximum flight altitude, the boundary defined by a.05 Mach increase in Mc at constan up to th t altimide, Figure 1B shows the minimum aeroelastic stability envelope for fail-safe conditions, whic! is a composite of the highest speed at each altitude from either the Vp env altinide-airspeed envelope based on the defined V¢ and Mc. pe oF the consrructed Fail-safe design speeds, other than the enes defined above, may be used for certain system failure conditions when specifically authorised by other rules or special conditions prescribed in the certification basis of the aeroplane. FIGURE 1A. MINIMUM REQUIRED AEROELASTIC STABILITY MARGIN an FIGURE 1B MINIMUM FAIL-SAFE CLEARANCE ENVELOPE,CAA CONSULTATIVE DRAFT 3. Configurations and Conditions. Tae following paragraphs provide a summary of the configurations and conditions to be investigated in demonstrating compliance with JAR 25. Specific jesiga configurations may warrant additional considerations not discussed in this ACI. 3.1. Nominal Configurations and Conditions. Nominal configurations and conditions of the ‘aeroplane are those that are likely to exist in normal operation. Freedom from aeroelasic instability should be shown throughcut the expanded clearance envelope described in paragraph 2.1 above for: 3.11, The range of fuel and payload combinations, including zero fuel in the wing, for which certification is requested. 3.12. Configurations with any likely ice mass accumulations on unprotected surfaces for aeroplanes approved for operaticn in icing conditions 3.1.3. All normal combinations of autopilot, yaw damper, or other automatic flight control systems. 3.1.4. All possible engine settings and combinations of settings from idle power to maximum available thrust including the conditions of one engine stopped and windmilling, in order to address the influence of gyroscopic loads and thrust on asroelastic stability. 32. Failures, Malfunctions. and Adverse Conditions. Tae following conditions should be investigated for aeroelastic instability within the fail-safe envelope defined in paragraph 2.3 above. 3.2.1. Any critical fuel loading conditions, not shown to be exremely improbable, which may result from mismanagement of fuel. 3.2.2. Any single failure in any fluner control system. 3.23. Fer aeroplanes not approved for operation in icing conditions, any likely ice accumulation expected as a result of an inadvertent encounter. For aeroplanes approved for operation in icing conditions, any likely ice accumulation expected as the result of any single failure in the de-icing system, or any combination of failures not shown to be extremely improbable. 5.2.4. Failure of any single element of the structure supporting any engine, independently mounted propeller shaft, large auxiliary power unit, or large extemally mounted aerodynamic body (such as an extemal fuel tank), 32.5. For aeroplanes with engines that have propellers or large rotating devices capable of significant dynamic forces, any single failure of the engine structure that would reduce the rigidity of the rotational axis 3.2.6. The absence of aerodynamic or gyroscopic forces resulting from the most adverse combination of feathered propellers or other rotating devices capable of significant dynamic forces. In addition, the effect of a single feathered propeller or rotating device must be coupled with the failures of paragraphs 3.2.4 and 3.2.5 above. 3.2.7. Any single propeller or rotating device capable of significant dynamic forces rotating at the highest likely overspeed. 32.8. Any damage or failure condition, required or selected for investigation by JAR 25.571. The single structural failures described in sub-paragraphs 3.2.4 and 3.2.5 above need not be considered in showing compliance with this paragraph if, 417828-20(A) The scuctural clement could not fail due to discrete source damage resulting from the conditions described in JAR 25.571(e) and JAR 25.903(d); and (B) A damage tolerance investigation in accordance with JAR 25.571(b) shows that the maximum extent of damage assumed for the purpose of residual strength evaluation does not involve complete failure of the structural element. 32.9. Any damage, failure or malfunction, considered under JAR 25.631, 25.671, 25,672, and 25.1309. This includes the condition of two or more engines stopped or windmilling for the design range of fuei and payload combinations, including zero fuel. 3.2.10 Any other combination of failures, malfunctions, or adverse conditions not shown to be extremely improbable. 4. Detail Design Requirements. 4.1, Main surfaces, such as wings and stabilisers, should be designed to meet the aeroelastic stability criteria for nominal conditions and should be investigated for meeting fail-safe criteria ty considering stiffness changes due to discrete damage or by reasonable parametric variations of design values. 42. Control surfaces, including tabs, should be investigated for nominal conditions and for failure modes that include single structural failures (such as actuator disconnects, hinge failures, or, in the case of aerodynamic balance panels, failed seals), single and dual hydraulic system failures and any other combination of failures not shown to be extremely improbable. Where other structural ‘components contribute to the aeroelastic stability of the system, failures of those components should be considered for possible adverse effects. 43. Where aeroelastic stability relies on control system stiffness and/or damping, additional conditions should be considered. ‘The actuation system should continuously provide, at least, the minimum stiffness or damping required for showing acroelastic stability without regard to probability of occurrence for: (@___- more than one engine stopped or windmilling, (i) any discrete single failure resulting in a change of the structural modes of vibration (for example: 2 disconnect or failure of a mechanical +lement, or a structural failure of a hydraulic element, such as a hydraulic line, an actuator, a spool hi using or a vaive); (iii) any damage or faijure conditions considered under JAR 25.571, 25.631 and 25.671. ‘The actuation system minimum requirements should also be continuously met after any combination of failures not shown to be exwemely improbable (occurrence less than 10-9 per flight hour). However, certain combinations of failures, such as dual electric or dual hydraulic system failures, or any single failure in combination with any probable electic or hydraulic system failure GAR 25.671), are not normally considered exremely improbable regardless of probability calculations. The reliability assessment should be part of the substantiation documentation. In practice, meeting the above conditions may involve design concepts such as the use of check valves and accumulators, computerised pre-flight system checks and shortened inspection intervals to protect against undetected failures. 44 Consideration of free play may be incorporated as a variation in stiffness to assure adequate limits are established for wear of components such as control surface actuators, hinge bearings, and ‘engine mounts in order to maintain aeroelastic stability margins. Da17829-20CAA CONSULTATIVE DRAFT 45. _ If balance weights are used on control surfaces, their effectiveness and suength. including ‘that of their support stucture, should be substantiated, 46 The amomatic flight contol system should not imersct with the airframe to produce an acroelastic instability. When analyses indicate possible adverse coupling, tests should be performed to determine the dynamic characteristics of acwiation systems such as servo-boost, fully powered servo-control systems, closed-loop asroplane flight conmrel systems, stability augmentation systems, and other related powered-conrel systems. 5. Compliance. Demonswation of compliance with acroelastic stability requirements for an aircraft configuration may be shown by analyses, tests, or some combination thereof. In most instances, analyses are required to determine aeroelastic stability margins for normal operations, as well as for possible failure conditions. Wind tunnel fluner medel tests, where applicable, may be used to supplement fluer analyses. Ground testing may be used to collect stiffness or modal data for the aircraft or components. Flight testing may be used to demonswate compliance of the aircraft design throughout the design speed envelope. 3.1. Analytical Investigations. Analyses should normally be used to investigate the aeroelastic Stability of the aircraft throughout its design flight envelope and as expanded by the required speed margins. Analyses are used to evaluate acroelasic stability sensitive parameters such as asrodynamic coefficients, stifiness and mass distributions, control surface balance requirements, fuel management schedules, engine/store locations, and control system characteristics. The sensitivity of Most critical parameters may be determined analytically by varying the parameters from nominal ‘These investigations are an effective way to account for the operating conditions and possible failure modes which may have an effect on aeroclastic stability margins, and to account for uncertainties in the values of parameters and expected variations due to in-service wear of failure conditions, $.1.1. Analytical Modelling. Tae following paragraphs discuss acceptable, but not the only, methods and forms of modelling aircrak configurations and/or components for purposes of aerociastic stability analysis. The types of investigations generally encountered in the course of aircraft aeroelastic stability substantiation are also discussed. The basic elements to be modelled in aeroclastic stability analyses are the elastic, inertial, and aerodynamic characteristics of the system. ‘The degree of complexity required in the modelling, and the degree 10 which other characteristics need to be included in the modelling, depend upon the system complexity. 5.11.1. Srucrural Modelling. Most forms of structural modelling can be classified into two main categories: (1) modelling using a lumped mass beam, and (2) finite element modelling. Regardless of the approach taken for structural modelling, a minimum acceptable level of sophistication, consistent with configuration complexity, is necessary to satisfactorily represent the critical modes of deformation of the primary structure and control surfaces. The model should reflect the support structure for the anachment of convol surface actuators, fluter dampers, and any other elements for ‘which stiffness is important in prevention of aerociastic instability. Wing-pylon mounted engines are often significant to aeroelastic stability and warrant particular attention in the modelling of the pylon, and pylon-engine and pylon-wing interfaces. The model should include the effects of cu-ours, doors, and other structural features which may tend to affect the resulting structural effectiveness. Reduced stiffness should be considered in the modelling of aircraft structural components which may exhibit some change in stiffness under limit design flight conditions, Structural models include mass distributions as well as representations of stifiness and possibly damping characteristics, Results from the models should be compared to test data, such as that obtained from ground vibration tests, in order to determine the accuracy of the model and its applicability to the acroelastic stability investigation, " D4182/10-20 105.1.1.2. Aerodynamic Modelling. (®) Aerodynamic modelling for acrociastic stability requires the use of unsteady, two- dimensional strip or three-dimensional panel theory methods for incompressible or compressible flow. The choice of the appropriate technique depends on the complexity of the dynamic structural motion of the surfaces under investigation and the flight speed envelope of the aircraft ‘Aerodynamic modelling should be supported by tests or previous experiezce with applications to similar configurations. (©) Main and control surface aerodynamic data are commonly adjusted by weighting factors in the aroclastic stability solutions. The weighting factors for steady flow (k=0) are usually obtained by comparing wind tunnel test results with theoretical data. Special attention should be given to control surface aerodynamics because viscous and other effects may require more extensive adjustments to theoretical coefficients. Main surface aerodynamic loading due to conzol surface defiection should be considered. 5.1.2. Types of Anaivses. 5.12.1. Oscillatory (flutter) and non-oscillatory (divergence and contol reversal) acroelastic instabilities should be analysed to show compliance with JAR 25.629 5.1.2.2. The flutter analysis methods most extensively used involve modal analysis with unsteady aerodynamic forces derived from various two- and three-dimensional theories. These methods are generally for linear systems. Analyses involving contol system characteristics should include equations describing system control laws in addition to the equations describing the structural modes. 5.1.23. Aeroplane lifting surface divergence analyses should include all appropriate rigid body mode degrees-of-freedom since divergence may occur for a structural mode or the short period mode. 5.1.2.4. Loss of control effectiveness (control reversal) due to the effects of elastic deformations should be investigated. Analyses should include the inertial, elastic, and aerodynamic forces resulting from a control surface deflection. 5.13. Damping Requirements, 5.1.3.1. There is no intent in this ACJ to define a flight test level of acceptable minimum damping, 5.1.3.2. Fluner analyses results are usually presented graphically in the form of frequency versus velocity (V-f, Figure 2) and damping versus velocity (V-g, Figures 3 and 4) curves for each root of ‘the flutter solution. 5.1.33. Figure 3 details one common method for showing compliance with the requirement for a proper margin of damping. It is based on the assumption that the structural damping available is 0.03 (1.5% critical viscous damping) and is the same for all modes as depicted by the V-g curves shown in Figure 3. No significant mode, such as curves (2) or (4), should cross the g=0 line below Vp or the 1§70.03 line below 1.15 Vp. An exception may be a mode exhibiting damping characteristics similar to curve (1) in Figure 3, which is not critical for fluter. A divergence mode, as illustrated by curve 3) where the frequency approaches zero, should have a divergence velocity not less than 1.15 Vp. 5.1.3.4. Figure 4 shows another common method of presenting the flutter analysis results and defining the structural damping requirements. An appropriate amount of structural damping for each D41B2/11-20 uwCAA CONSULTATIVE DRAFT mode is entered into the analysis prior to the fluter solution. The amouit of squctural damping used should be supported by measurements taken during full scale tests. This results in modes offset from the gr line at zero airspeed and, in some cases, fluter solutions different from those obtained with no suctural damping. Tue similanty in the curves of Figures 3 and 4 are only for simplifying this examplc. The minimum acceptable damping line applied to the analytical results as shown in Figure 4 corresponds to 0.03 or the modal damping available at zero airspeed for the particular mode of interest, whichever is less, but in no case less than 0.02. No significant mode should cross this line below Vp or the g=0 line below 1.15 Vp. 5.1.3.5. For analysis of failures, malfunctions or adverse conditions being investigated, the minimum acceptable damping level obtained analytically would be determined by use of either method above, but with a substitution of Vc for Vip and the fail-safe envelope speed at the analysis alttude as determined by paragraph 23 above. FIGURE 2. FREQUENCY VERSUS VELOCITY 9 FREQUENCY fo a pe o o NN Vp Ls¥p vmocny FIGURE3. DAMPING VERSUS VELOCITY - Method 1 o Davex12-20FIGURE 4. DAMPING VERSUS VELOCITY - Method 2 5.13. Analysis Considerations Airframe aeroelastic stability analyses. may be used to verify the design with respect to the structural stifftess, mass, fuel (including in-flight fuel management), amomatic flight control system characteristics, and altitude and Mach number variations within the design flight envelope. The complete aeroplane should be considered as composed of lifting surfaces and bodies, including all primary control surfaces which can interact with the lifting surfaces 10 affect fluner stability. Control surface flumter can occur in any speed regime and has historically been the most commen form of fluter. Lifting surface flutter is more likely to occur at high dynamic pressure and at high subsonic and transonic Mach numbers. Analyses are necessary to establish the mass balance and/or stiffness and redundancy requirements for the control surfaces and supporting suucture and to determine the basic surface fluter tends. The analyses may be used to determine the sensitivity of the nominal aircraft design to aerodynamic, mass, and stiffness variations. Sources of stiffness variation may include the effects of skin buckling at limit load factor, air entrapment in hydraulic actuators, expected levels of in-service free play, and control system components which may include elements with non-linear stiffness. Mass variations inciude the effects of fuel density and distribution, control surface repairs and painting, and water and ice accumulation. $13.1. Control Siafaces Control surface aeroelastic stability analyses should include control surface rotation, tab rotation (if applicable), significant modes of the aeroplane, control surface torsional degrees-of-freedom, and control surface bending (if applicable). Analyses of aeroplanes with tabs should inciude tab rotation that is both independent and related to the pareat control surface. Control surface rotation frequencies should be varied about nominal values as appropriate for the condition. The control surfaces should be analysed as completely free in rotation unless it can be shown that this condition is extremely improbable. All conditions-berween stick-free and stick- fixed should be investigated. Freeplay effects should be incorporated to account for any influence of in-service wear on fluter margins. The acrodynamic coefficients of the control surface and tab used in the aeroeiastic stability analysis should be adjusted to match experimental values at zero frequency. Once the analysis has been conducted with the nominal, experimentally adjusted values of hinge moment coefficients, the analysis should be conducted with parametric variations of these coefficients and other parameters subject to variability. If aeroelastic stability margins are found to be sensitive to these parameters, then additional verification in the form of model or flight tests may a1ez13-20 13CAA CONSULTATIVE DRAFT (a) The magnitude and spanwise location of contol surface balance weights may be evaluated by analysis and/or wind tunnel flutter model tests. If the control surface torsional degrees of freedom are not included in the analysis, then adequate separation must be maintained between the frequency of the control surface first torsion mode and the fuer mode. (©) Control surface unbalance tolerances should be specified to provide for repair and painting. ‘The accumulation of water, ice, and/or dirt in or near the trailing edge of a control surface should be avoided. Free play between the balance weight, the support arm, and the control surface must not be allowed. Control surface mass properties (Weight and static unbalance) should be confirmed by measurement before ground vibration testing. (© The balance weights and their supporting squcture should be substantiated for the exmreme load factors expected throughout the design flight envelope. If the absence of a rational invesigation, the following limit accelerations, applied through the balance weight ceatre of gravity should be used, 100g normal to the plane of the surface 30g parallel to the hinge line 30g in the plane of the surface and perpendicular to the hinge fine 5.133. Passive Flutter Dampers Control surface passive flutter dampers may be used to prevent fluner in the event of failure of some element of the conzol surface actuation system or to prevent contol surface buzz. Fluter analyses and/or fluter model wind nunnel tests may be used to verify adequate damping. Damper support structure flexibility should be included in the determination of adequacy of damping at the fluter frequencies. Any single damper failure should be considered. Combinations of multiple damper failures should be examined when not shown to be exremely improbable. The combined free play of the damper and supporting elements berween the control surface and fixed surfaces should be considered. Provisions for in-service checks of damper integrity should be considered. Refer to paragraph 4.3 above for conditions to consider where a control surface actuator is switched to the role of an active or passive damping element of the flight control system. S134, Intersecting Lifting Sfaces Intersecting lifting surface aeroelastic stability characteristics are more difficult to predict accurately than the characteristics of planar surfaces such as wings. This is due to difficulties both in correctly predicting vibration modal characteristics and in assessing those aerodynamic effects which may be of second order importance on planar surfaces, but are significant for intersecting surfaces. Proper representation of modal deflections and unsteady aerodynamic coupling terms between surfaces is essential in assessing the aeroelastic stability characteristics. The in-plane forces and motions of one or the other of the intersecting surfaces may have a strong effect on astociastic stability; therefore, the analysis should include the effects of steady flight forces and elastic deformations on the in-plane effects. $13.5. Jee Accumulation Aeroelastic stability analysis should use the mass distributions derived from any likely ice accumulations. The ice accumulation determination can take account the ability to detect the ice and the time required to leave the icing condition. The analyses need not consider the aerodynamic effects of ice shapes. Sul 6. Whirl Flutter (2) The evaluation of the aeroelastic stability should include investigations of any significant clastic, inertial, and aerodynamic forces, including those associated with rotations and displacements Darani-20 4in the plane of any turbofan or propeller, including propeller or fan blade aerodynamics, powerplant flexibilities, powerplant mounting characteristics, and gyroscopic coupling. (®) Failure conditions are usually significant for whirl instabilities, Engine mount, engine gear ‘box support, or shaft failures which result in a node line shift for propeller hub pitching or yawing motion are especially significant. (©) A wind tunnel test with a component flutter model, representing the engine/propeller system and its support system along with correlative vibration and flutter anaivses of the fluter model, may be used to demonstrate adequate stability of the nominal design and failed conditions. 3.1.3.7. Automatic Control Systems Aeroelastic stability analyses of the basic configuration should include simulation of any control system for which interaction may exist between the sensing elements and the structural modes. Where structural/control system feedback is a potential problem the effects of servo-actuator characteristics and the effects of local deformation of the servo mount on the feedback sensor output should be included in the analysis. The effect of control system failures on the aeroplane aeroelastic stability characteristics should be investigated. Failures which significantly affect the system gain and/or phase and are not shown to be extremely improbable should be analysed. 52. Testing The aeroelastic stability certification test programme may consist of ground tests, fluter model tests, and flight flunter tests. Ground tests may be used for assessment of component stiffzess and for determining the vibration modal characteristics of aircraft components and the complete airframe. - Flurter model testing may be used to establish fluner trends and validat: aeroclastic stability boundaries in areas where unsteady aerodynamic calculations require confirmation. Full scale flight flutter testing provides final verification of aeroelastic stability. The results of any of these tests may be used to provide substantiation data, to verify and improve analytical modelling procedures and data, and to identify potential or previously undefined problem areas. S21, Structural Component Tests. Stiffness tests or ground vibration tests of stuctural components are desirable to confirm anaiytically predicted characteristics and are necessary where stiffness calculations cannot accurately predict these characteristics. Components should be mounted so that the mounting characteristics are well defined or readily measurable. 5.22. Control System Component Tests When reliance i+ placed on stiffness or damping to prevent aeroelastic instability, the following control system tests should be conducted. If the tests are performed off the aeroplane the test fixtures should reflect local attachment flexibility. () Actuators for primary flight control surfaces and flutter dampers should be tested with their supporting structure. These tests are to determine the actuator/support stucture stiffness for nominal design and failure conditions considered in the fail-safe analysis. (i) Flumer damper tests should be conducted to verify the impedance of damper and support structure. Satisfactory installed damper effectiveness at the potential fluner frequencies should, however, be assured. The results of these tests can be used to determine a suitable, in-service maintenance schedule and replacement life of the damper. The effects of allowable in-service free play should be measured. Dsi/82/15-20 15CAA CONSULTATIVE DRAFT 5.23. Ground vibrarion Tests $23.1. Ground vibration tests (GVT) or modal response tests art normally conducted on the complete conforming aeroplane. A GVT may be used to check the mathemaucal sructural mode! Akemanively, the use of measured modal data alone in acroelastic stability analyses, instead of analytical modal data modified to match text data, may be acceptable provided the accuracy and completeness of the measured modal data is esablished. Whenever structural modifications or inertia changes are made to a previously certified design or a GVT validated mode! of the basic aeroplane. a GVT may not be necessary if these changes are shown not to affect the aeroelasic stability characteristics 5.2.5.2. The asroplane is best supported such that the suspended aeroplane rigid body modes are effectively uncoupled from the elastic modes of the aeroplane. Alternatively, a suspension method may be used that couples with the elastic aeroplane provided that the suspension can be analytically de-coupled from the aeroplane structure in the Vitration analysis. The former suspension criterion is preferred for all ground vibration tests and is necessary in the absence of vibration anaiysis. 23.3. The excitation method needs to have sufficient force ouput and frequency range to ‘excite all significant resonant modes. The effective mass and stiffness of the exciter and azachment hardware should not distort modal response. More than one exciter or exciter location may be necessary to insure that all significant modes are identified. Multiple exciter input may be necessary on structures with significant intemal damping to avoid low response levels and phas shifts at points on the structure distant from the point of excitation. Excitation may be sinusoidal, random, pseudo-random, transient. or other short duration, non stationary means, For small surfaces the effect of test sensor mass on response frequency should be taken into consideration when analysing the test results. $23.4, The minimum modal response measurement should consist of acceleration (or velocity) measurements and relative phasing at a sufficient mumber of points on the aeroplane structure to accurately describe the response or mode shapes of all significant structural modes. In addition, the structural damping of each mode should be determined. 5.2.4. Flutter Model Tests. $24.1. Dynamically similar fluner models may be tested in the wind tunnel to augment the flutter analysis, Flutter model testing can substantiate the fluner margins directly or indirectly by validating analysis data or methods. Some aspects of fluteer analysis may require more extensive validation than others, for example contol surface aerodynamics, T-tails and other configurations with aerodynamic interaction and compressibility effects. Fluter testing may additionally be useful to test configurations that are impractical to verify in flight test, such as fail-safe conditions or extensive store configurations. In any such testing, the mounting of the model and the associated analysis should be appropriate and consistent with the study being performed. 5.2.4.2, Direct substantiation of the fluter margin (clearance testing) implies a high degree of dynamic similirude, Such a test may be used to augment an analysis and show a configuration flutter free throughout the expanded design envelope. All the physical parameters which have been Getermined to be significant for fluner response should be appropriately scaled. These will include slastic and inertia properties, geometric properties and dynamic pressure. If transonic effects are imporant, the Mach number should be maintained. 5.2.4.3. Validation of analysis methods is another appropriate use of wind tunnel fluter testing. When methods validity is uncertain, correlation of wind tunnel fluner testing results with a Darra216-20 16corresponding analysis may increase confidence in the use of the analytical tool for certification analysis. A methods validation test should simulate conditions, scaling and geometry sppropriate for the intended use of the analytical method. 524.4, Tread suidies are an important use of wind tunnel fluter testing. Parametric studies can be used to establish tends for contol system balance and stiffuess, fuel and payload variations, swuctural complianees and configuration variations. The set of physical parameters requiring similitude may not be as extensive to study parametric trends as is required for clearance testing. For example, an exact match of the Mach number may not be required to track the effects of payload variations on a ransonic aeroplane. S28. Flight Flutter Tests 52.5.1 Full scale flight flucer testing of an aeroplane configuration to VpF/MpF is a necessary part of the flutter substantiation. An exception may be made when aerodynamic, mass, or stiffness changes to a certified aeroplane are mincr, and analysis or ground tests show a negligible effect on fluter or vibration characteristics. If a failure, malfunction, or adverse condition is simulated during a flight tes, the maximum speed investigated need not exceed VpC/MFC if it is shown, by correlation of the flight test data with other test data or analyses, that the requirements of JAR 25.629(bX2) are met. 5.252. Aeroplane configurations and control system configurations should be selected for flight test based on analyses and, when available, model test results. Sufficient test conditions should be performed to demonstrate aeroelastic stability throughout the entire flight envelope for the selected configurations. 5.2.5.3. Flight flutter testing requires excitation sufficient to excite the modes shown by analysis to be the most likely to couple for flutter. Excitation methods may include control surface motions or intemal moving mass or extemal aerodynamic exciters or flight turbulence. The method of excitation must be appropriate for the modal response frequency being investigated. The effect of the excitation system itself on the aeroplane flutter characteristics should be determined prior to flight testing. 52.5.4, Measurement of the response at selected locations on the structure should be made in order to determine the response amplinice, damping and frequency in the critical modes at each test airspeed. It is desirable to monitor the response ampl:nude, frequency and damping change as VpF/MpF is approached. In demonstating that there ir no large and rapid damping reduction as VpF/Mpp is approached, an endeavour should be made t identify a clear trend of damping versus speed. If this is not possible, then sufficient test points should be undertaken to achieve a satisfactory level of confidence that there is no evidence of an adverse trend. 5.5. An evaluation of phenomena not presently amenable to analyses, such as shock eff buffet response leveis, vibration levels, and control surface buzz, should also be made during fli testing, DISCUSSION AND JUSTIFICATION The scope of this proposal is to revise JAR 25.629 "Flutter, deformation and fail-safe criteria” which includes several substantive changes, and to reorganise some requirements of JAR 25.251 "Vibration and buffeting", without substantive changes. Davazi7-20 7CAA CONSULTATIVE DRAFT ‘The proposed changes to JAR 25.251 involve the creation of a new JAR 25.305(e) to incorporate the (esign requirements for buffet and vibration of JAR 25.251 (a) into JAR 25.305, creating a new JAR 25.305(¢). This requirement is a structural design requirement and should be set forth in subpart C. JAR 25.251{a) would be revised to require only a flight demonswation for freedom from vibration and buffet in any likely operating condition, including probable inadvertent excursions beyond the buffet boundaries, Furthermore, the third sentence of JAR 25.251(b) would be deleted. This would provide relief from the requirement that freedom from excessive vibration be demonsvraied in fight for the failure and damage conditions of JAR 25.629(d). The speed referenced in JAR 25.25] would be changed to the flight speed Vip while the corresponding structural requirements that are moved to JAR 25.305(e) would continue to reference the structural design dive speed Vp. It is also proposed to relocate the requirement for the evaluation of loads resulting from forced svuctural vibration after failures in the automatic light control system. This requirement is currently located in JAR 25.629(4)(4X vi), although itis a structural loading condition for oscillatory failures rather than for aeroelastic instability. It is proposed that it be set fort in subpar: C, specifically in JAR 25.305, creating a new paragraph JAR 25.305(f). Furthermore, itis proposed to clarify that the loads resulting from these forced structural vibrations are limit loading conditions. JAR 25.628 would be retitled "Aeroelastic stability requirements” to more accurately describe the objective. Originally the Federal Aviation Regulation on which JAR 25.629 is based contained vibration, buffet requirements and oscillatory failure load requirements, as well as flute, divergence, coarol reversal and deformation instability requirements. However, as a result of this proposal, the rule would only contain fluter (including whirl fluner), divergence, control reversal, and deformation insability requirements, all of which can be considered aeroelastic instabilities. ‘The references to propellers and turbopropellers in JAR 25.629 would be replaced by “propeller ot rotting device that contributes significant dynamic forces” to encompass all types of rotating machinery which could influence the basic aeroelastic modes or create new "whirl modes." The general growth of compressors to large bypass fans and now to unducted fans has obscured the differences between propellers and other rotating machinery. The proposed rule would impose the requirements for the consideration of gyroscopic inertial forces and whirl flumer analysis on a more objective basis. Itis proposed to reduce the design envelope in which freedom from aeroelastic instability is to be shown for the normal (undamaged) aeroplane. The requirement for a 20 percent increase in ‘cquivalent airspeed at both constant altitude and constant Mach number would be reduced to a 15 percent increase. Historically, the principal purpose of the 20 percent margin has been for substantiation reliability. When the 20 percent margin was first established, flumer and divergence substantiation was in its infancy, and a large margin was needed because of the unreliability of the techniques. In addition, there were no failure or damage conditions at that time and the 20 percent margin by virus of the added stiftness, provided some degree of protection against damage and failure conditions as well as production and service variations. The ransport aeroplane aroelastic sability requirements, as provided in this proposal, and advances in aeroelastic substantiation techniques are now sufficient to justify a reduction in the substantiation margin. These provisions ‘now require a complete programme of analyses validated with test data and full-scale flight fluter testing. Furthermore, previous amendments, as well as the provisions of this proposal, have significantly amplified the specific fail-safe and damage conditions which must be considered with a separate failssafe aeroelastic stability envelope. A further proposal affecting the normal envelope would be the inclusion of a general statement concerning acroclastic stability criteria within the design envelope. The statement would require that for the normal aeroplane without failures, malfunctions, or adverse conditions, there miast be a Davezis-20 18proper margin of damping up to Vp/Mp and no large and rapid reduction in stability as Vp/Mp is approached. These words are currently in the rule but are stated as a condition required in order to allow the limiting of the aeroelastic stability substantiation envelope to Mach 1.0 when Mp is less than 1.0. This Mach 1.0 limitation would still be allowed, but the damping criteria would be a requirement in any case. The proposed AC] 25.629 contains acceptable criteria for establishing a proper margin of damping. Itis also proposed that the fail-safe stability envelope be modified to provide a minimum speed margin. The margins berweea VC/Mc and Vp/Mp have provided a sufficient margin in the past. However, with the advent of new types of propulsion systems, speed protection systems and unusual configurations, there is concem that this margin may be reduced to the point that it might not always serve as a sufficient margin for aercelastic stability substantiation in the failed or damaged condition. Failures and damage conditions are typically substantiated by analyses or wind tunnel tests with very lite flight test verification, The proposal would still require fail-safe aeroelastic stability substantiation within the structural design envelope, Vp/Mp; however, a minimum margin would be provided to ensure protection against substantiation unreliability if the Vp/Mp envelope did not provide sufficient margin over Vc. The minimum margin would be a 15 percent increase in equivalent airspeed over design cruise speed, Vp at all altitudes from sea level up to the altinide of the intersection of the extension of the constant cnuise Mach number line, Mc with 1.15 Vc. Then the minimum margin would be a linear variation in equivalent airspeed from that intsrsection to the point of intersection of the constant Mc + .0S line with the altitude of the lowest Vc/Mc intersection and a Mach increment of .0S over Mc at higher altinides. Figure | shows the minimum Aurter substantiation envelope for fail-safe conditions. ‘Also proposed are additions to the specified failure, malfunction, damage and adverse conditions specified in JAR 25,629(d). The list of conditions would be revised to add mismanagement of fuel not shown to be extremely improbable, the bird strike requirements of JAR 25.631, and the discrete source damage conditions of JAR 25.571(e) and JAR 25.903(d). Also included is a provision to consider inadvertent encounter with icing conditions, even though the aeropiane may not be approved for operation in icing conditions. Many of these are conditions that have generally required asroelastic stability substantiation in order to show "safe flight and landing.” This placement of the requirements in JAR 25.629(4) would make the margins and substantiation criteria of JAR 25.629 directly applicable to these aeroelastic stability substantiations. ‘The mismanagement of fuel condition is not specifically mentioned in JAR-25, although its, consideration has been a practice for many year- and has been required under general rules such as JAR 25.629(¢)(1 ii). There is an increasing cotzplexity in fuel loading configurations including empennage fuel and automatic fuel distribution systems and these can have a significant effect on aeroelastic stability. Therefore, itis proposed to specifically require consideration of fuel mismanagenient conditions, fot shown to be extremely improbable, in order to provide a probability basis consistent with other fail-safe flutter conditions and to assure that this condition is not overlooked. The combinations of feathered propellers in JAR 25.629(4) would also be revised to include any combination of feathered propellers (or rotating devices capable of significant dynamic forces) including all propellers feathered. The requirement in JAR 25.671 for the aeroplane to be controllable with all engines inoperative has made the current requirement inconsistent since the power failure requirement necessitates the feathering of all propellers. The current JAR 25.629(d) requires single failures to be considered in engine mounts, other amachments of extemal bodies and engine structure supporting propeller shafts. Relief from this requirement for smucrural elements of these attachments is provided if "conservative static strength Darez19-20 19CAA CONSULTATIVE DRAFT margins” or “sufficient fatigue svength” are shown. This provision was intended to require design integrity of mounts and engine sructures sufficiently above the normal design load and fatigue requirements so that the probability of their failure could be considered "negligible." This has resulted in confusion and inconsistencies in the application of the regulation. It is proposed thar the damage-tolerance requirements of JAR 25.571(b) be used as a basis of evaluating these structures to determine if they should be reated under the single failure criteria of JAR 25.629(d). However, in order to assure conservative margins above the normal requirements of JAR 25.571, the damage- tolerance requirements would be appiied with the specific loading conditions of JAR 25.571(b) replaced by “all ground and flight load conditions specified in this par.” The quoted phrase is taken om the current rule (JAR 25.629(4X3X%)), and when combined with the damage-tolerance requirements of JAR 25.571(b), should provide the conservatism necessary to warrant relief from the single failure requirement for the scuctural elements of these attachments. The proposal also provides a further altemative damage-toleramt method in case the inspection provisions of JAR 25.571 are impracticable. . It is also proposed to revise the full-scale flight flutter test requirement to the extent that full-scale flutter tests would always be required for new designs. Currently, flight flutter tests are specifically required if Mp is greater than .8. Indirectly, flight tests have always been necessary and required on large aeropianes, either as proof of ireedom from flutter or as a means of validating the analysis, The specific requirement for flight flumer testing on all new designs is considered necessary and consistent with the reduction of the normal fluter margins from 1.2 Vp to 1.15 Vp. It is also proposed to add a requirement thatthe flight test show a proper damping margin and that there be no large and rapid reduction in damping as Vpr/MpF is approached. TOFAR2S The proposals of this NPA have been fully harmonised with the requirements of FAR 25 under the auspices of the Loads and Dynamics Harmonisation Working Group of the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committes (ARAC). A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) is being produced by the FAA that will match the requirement changes described herein. An Advisory Circular (AC 25.629- 1A) is also being produced that will align with the proposed ACJ 25.629. SAFETY AND ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS ‘These proposals are intended to achieve common requirements and language between the vibration and aeroelastic stability requirements of the Joint Aviation Requirements (JAR-25) and Part 25 of the FAR without reducing the level of safety provided by the regulations. Since most manufacturers will already design to both JAR-25 and FAR 25 it is not expected that these changes will result in a significant change, either positive or negative, to large aeroplane design practice. Neither is it expected that there will be a significant increase in work required to show compliance with these requirements. They will provide a limited, but undetermined, amount of cost savings to ‘manufacturers by reducing the desig margin for airspeed. Another benefit of these rule changes is that they will update, reorganise and clarify the intent of various paragraphs within JAR-25 conceming vibration, flutter and divergence. These changes will help ensure a uniform interpretation berween JAR and FAR and heip reduce certification costs by eliminating the need for additional compliance investigations. Since there are no cost increases associated with these changes and since there are positive benefits associated with cost reduction to transport aeroplane manufacturers and improved organisation, consistency and clarity within JAR-25, this change is cost effective. Darez20-20 ‘ 20