Characteristics - First level below an Application - Product list under an Application fulfil the needs of this Application alternatives. Status Obsolescence management - No longer made Material manufacturer production line stopped - Inactive Spec Specification no more active even if material still refer to it - No longer used by Airbus No more used by Airbus for new programs Effectivity: Specify for which Airbus aircraft programs the Application is applicable Several groups available in case of different list of materials for programs. Polysulfide Sealant - General Purpose Brushable
|Published (Last):||5 February 2018|
|PDF File Size:||13.14 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||16.14 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
The Public Inspection page on FederalRegister. The Public Inspection page may also include documents scheduled for later issues, at the request of the issuing agency. The President of the United States manages the operations of the Executive branch of Government through Executive orders.
The President of the United States communicates information on holidays, commemorations, special observances, trade, and policy through Proclamations. The President of the United States issues other types of documents, including but not limited to; memoranda, notices, determinations, letters, messages, and orders. Each document posted on the site includes a link to the corresponding official PDF file on govinfo. This prototype edition of the daily Federal Register on FederalRegister.
For complete information about, and access to, our official publications and services, go to About the Federal Register on NARA's archives. While every effort has been made to ensure that the material on FederalRegister. Relevant information about this document from Regulations.
This information is not part of the official Federal Register document. This tables of contents is a navigational tool, processed from the headings within the legal text of Federal Register documents.
This repetition of headings to form internal navigation links has no substantive legal effect. These tools are designed to help you understand the official document better and aid in comparing the online edition to the print edition.
These markup elements allow the user to see how the document follows the Document Drafting Handbook that agencies use to create their documents. These can be useful for better understanding how a document is structured but are not part of the published document itself. More information and documentation can be found in our developer tools pages.
If you are using public inspection listings for legal research, you should verify the contents of the documents against a final, official edition of the Federal Register. Only official editions of the Federal Register provide legal notice to the public and judicial notice to the courts under 44 U. Learn more here. This document has been published in the Federal Register.
Use the PDF linked in the document sidebar for the official electronic format. AD required repetitive inspections for damage and cracking of the aft fixed fairing AFF of the pylons, and repair if necessary. This AD retains the requirements of AD and requires additional repetitive inspections at the upper spar at a certain rib area and corrective actions if necessary, as specified in an European Aviation Safety Agency EASA AD, which is incorporated by reference.
This AD was prompted by reports of cracking of the AFF of the pylons due to fatigue damage of the structure and reports of cracks on a certain rib of a modified AFF of the pylons. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of September 26, For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call FAA; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a. The AD docket contains this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information.
The address for Docket Operations is U. The NPRM also proposed to require additional repetitive inspections at the upper spar at a certain rib area and corrective actions if necessary. The FAA is issuing this AD to address damage and cracking of the AFF of the pylons, which could result in detachment of a pylon and consequent reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
The MCAI states:. After material analysis, it appeared that the pylon AFF structure, especially on this configuration, was subject to fatigue-induced damage which could lead to pylon AFF cracks. This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to detachment of a pylon AFF from the aeroplane, possibly resulting in injury to persons on the ground.
After that [EASA] AD was issued, Airbus developed mod to increase the fatigue life of the pylon AFF structure by using a different material and introducing thermal treatment of the aluminium sheets parts. Prompted by new findings of cracks on rib 15, it was determined that this area also needs to be inspected to ensure the structural integrity of the new pylon AFF.
Airbus revised SB A, including instructions for repetitive inspection of that area. Repetitive inspections are also required on post-mod aeroplanes. Airbus also developed mod and , redesigning the corner fittings at the junction upper spar and rib 15, which constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections.
For retrofit purposes, Airbus issued SB A and SB A, later revised, providing instructions to modify and re-identify the pylon AFF, which constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections.
For the reasons described above, EASA issued AD [which was referred to as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the actions specified in the FAA NPRM], retaining the requirements of EASA AD , which was superseded, and requiring repetitive inspections of the upper spar at rib 15 area and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective action s.
The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The FAA agrees with the commenters' requests. DAL requested that paragraph h 4 of the proposed AD be removed, which did not allow for the provisions of paragraph 5 of EASA AD credit for actions done using certain service information. DAL further noted that disallowing paragraph 5 of EASA AD R1, which allows credit for initial inspections Start Printed Page using additional revisions of certain service information, would mean the initial inspections would have to be accomplished faster and may require special scheduled inspections, which often results in utilizing less experienced mechanics.
The FAA agrees with the request for the reasons provided. Paragraph h 4 of the proposed AD is removed and paragraphs h 5 and h 6 of the proposed AD are redesignated as paragraphs h 4 and h 5 of this AD to reflect this request. DAL requested that the AD allow for the re-installation of an affected AFF if it was removed for reasons other than meeting the requirement of the AD, such as routine maintenance.
The FAA agrees to clarify. The intent of paragraph An operator has the full compliance time to accomplish the modification, and, up until the modification is accomplished, an affected AFF may be re-installed for reasons such as routine maintenance. For Group 2 airplanes, the intent of paragraph The AD has not been changed in this regard. DAL pointed out that the reference publications section of EASA ADs and R1 allows the use of later-approved revisions to the specified service information for compliance.
DAL requested clarification to determine if this statement is applicable to this AD. As a result, DAL requested language added to the proposed AD that allows for operators to control the reapplication of CICs as an alternative to the service information specifications. DAL noted that sometimes their airplanes are on jacks and that having the airplane in a weight on wheels configuration may limit the ability of their maintenance technicians to perform the required actions.
DAL requested an exception to the proposed AD that allows for the required actions to be performed with either weight on wheels or while the aircraft is in a jacked configuration.
Airbus's CML document contains a list of the latest consumables and alternatives that can be used. Operators may apply for an alternative method of compliance AMOC using the procedures in paragraph j 1 of this AD for using alternate consumables allowed in the CML with appropriate substantiations. The FAA agrees to clarify regarding the request for airplanes in a jacked configuration. Start Printed Page DAL noted that, based on its understanding, the first repetitive inspection interval threshold is not to exceed 10, flight cycles or 15, flight hours, whichever occurs first.
DAL remarked that it appears this threshold is based on the assumption that the initial inspections were done close to the initial threshold of 5, flight cycles or 7, flight hours, whichever occurred first.
DAL requested clarification for a scenario in which an operator performed the specified inspection at 1, flight cycles or 1, flight hours, and asked if the first repetitive inspection interval would still be required before exceeding 10, flight cycles or 15, flight hours, whichever occurs first.
DAL inquired if, in that same scenario, a grace period from the previous inspection would be more appropriate. For the DAL scenario, the repetitive inspection will be due before exceeding 5, flight cycles or 7, flight hours, whichever occurs first since the last inspection.
Paragraph 3 of EASA AD R1 has been revised to include multiple compliance times, including a grace period for airplanes on which an inspection has already been accomplished using earlier revisions of the service information or accomplishment of a certain maintenance planning document MPD task or a certain AOT. DAL inquired if the intent of the reference is to use only the original issue of the service information, or if any revision level is acceptable for compliance.
Operators may use any approved revision of the service information to perform the optional terminating modification, so long as the modification meets the provisions of paragraph 9 of EASA ADs and R1. The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes.
The FAA determined that these minor changes:. The FAA also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final rule. Corrective actions include modifications and repair. These documents are distinct since EASA AD R1 omits certain language, provides credit for additional service information, and clarifies certain compliance times.
This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section. The FAA has received no definitive data that would enable the agency to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.
According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. The FAA does not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, the FAA has included all known costs in our cost estimate. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:. Authority: 49 U. This AD was prompted by reports of cracking of the aft fixed fairing AFF of the pylons due to fatigue damage of the structure and reports of cracks on a certain rib of a modified AFF of the pylons. Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Although the service information referenced in EASA ADs and R1 specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement. In accordance with 14 CFR If sending information directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph k of this AD.
Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform documents in the last year. Government Contracts 53 documents in the last year. Fishery Management documents in the last year.
Taking of Marine Mammals documents in the last year. Cultural Objects Imported for Exhibition 73 documents in the last year. International Trade Anti-Dumping documents in the last year.
OEM – Original Equipment Manufacturers
CML AIRBUS LITE
AIR-4206/B lss.3 and Airbus CML 04-002 Aircraft Products
CML Group wins Airbus contract