[Federal Register: November 12, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 218)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 68536-68539]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr12no02-17]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
[[Page 68536]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 2000-CE-64-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Robert E. Rust Models DeHavilland DH.C1
Chipmunk 21, 22, and 22A Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD) that would apply to certain Robert E. Rust (R.E. Rust) Models
DeHavilland DH.C1 Chipmunk 21, 22, and 22A airplanes. This proposed AD
would require you to repetitively inspect the tailplane attachment
brackets and replace each bracket. This proposed AD would also require
you to repetitively inspect each joint of the port and starboard engine
mount frame and the rear upper mount frame tubes for cracks and/or
damage and repair any cracks and/or damage found. This proposed AD is
the result of reports of stress corrosion cracking found on the
tailplane attachment brackets and fatigue cracking and chaffing of the
engine mount frame. The actions specified by this proposed AD are
intended to prevent failure of the tailplane attachment brackets and
failure of the engine mount, which could result in loss of the tail
section and separation of the engine from the airplane respectively.
Such failures could lead to loss of control of the airplane.
DATES: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) must receive any
comments on this proposed rule on or before January 17, 2003.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments to FAA, Central Region, Office of the
Regional Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000-CE-64-AD, 901
Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. You may view any
comments at this location between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also send comments
electronically to the following address: 9-ACE-7-Docket@faa.gov.
Comments sent electronically must contain ``Docket No. 2000-CE-64-AD''
in the subject line. If you send comments electronically as attached
electronic files, the files must be formatted in Microsoft Word 97 for
Windows or ASCII text.
You may get service information that applies to this proposed AD
from DeHavilland Support Limited, Duxford Airfield, Bldg. 213,
Cambridgeshire, CB2 4QR, United Kingdom, telephone: +44 1223 830090,
facsimile: +44 1223 830085, e-mail: info@dhsupport.com. You may also
view this information at the Rules Docket at the address above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cindy Lorenzen, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, 1895 Phoenix Boulevard,
Suite 450, Atlanta, Georgia; telephone: (770) 703-6078; facsimile:
(770) 703-6097.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
How Do I Comment on This Proposed AD?
The FAA invites comments on this proposed rule. You may submit
whatever written data, views, or arguments you choose. You need to
include the rule's docket number and submit your comments to the
address specified under the caption ADDRESSES. We will consider all
comments received on or before the closing date. We may amend this
proposed rule in light of comments received. Factual information that
supports your ideas and suggestions is extremely helpful in evaluating
the effectiveness of this proposed AD action and determining whether we
need to take additional rulemaking action.
Are There Any Specific Portions of This Proposed AD I Should Pay
Attention To?
The FAA specifically invites comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed rule that
might suggest a need to modify the rule. You may view all comments we
receive before and after the closing date of the rule in the Rules
Docket. We will file a report in the Rules Docket that summarizes each
contact we have with the public that concerns the substantive parts of
this proposed AD.
How Can I Be Sure FAA Receives My Comment?
If you want FAA to acknowledge the receipt of your mailed comments,
you must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard. On the postcard,
write ``Comments to Docket No. 2000-CE-64-AD.'' We will date stamp and
mail the postcard back to you.
Discussion
What Events Have Caused This Proposed AD?
The FAA has received reports that an unsafe condition may exist on
certain R.E. Rust Models DeHavilland DH.C1 Chipmunk 21, 22, and 22A
airplanes. After a review of several of these airplanes, stress
corrosion cracking was found on the tailplane attachment brackets and
fatigue cracks and chaffing were found on the engine mount frame.
We have determined that tailplane attachment brackets, pre-
modification H357, are made from material susceptible to stress
corrosion cracking. Modification No. H357 introduces a new tailplane
attachment fitting, part number (P/N) C1.TP.313, that is made from a
different type of material than that of the original tailplane
attachment fitting, P/N C1.TP.167.
Cracks in the engine mount frame were found in the area of the
junction of the front and rear top tube and engine mounting foot
support brackets and in the front of the frame. We have determined that
fatigue is the cause of the cracks. The upper aft mount frame tubes
were also found to have damage caused by chaffing by the cowling
support rod.
What Are the Consequences if the Condition Is Not Corrected?
These conditions, if not corrected, could result in failure of the
tailplane attachment brackets and failure of the engine mount. Such
failures could lead to loss of control of the airplane.
Is There Service Information That Applies to This Subject?
British Aerospace (now DeHavilland Support Limited) has issued BAe
Aircraft Mandatory Technical News
[[Page 68537]]
Sheet CT (C1) No. 176, Issue 2, dated November 1, 1997; and BAe
Aircraft Mandatory Technical News Sheet CT (C1) No. 190, Issue 2, dated
April 1, 1995.
What Are the Provisions of This Service Information?
BAe Aircraft Mandatory Technical News Sheet CT (C1) No. 176, Issue
2, dated November 1, 1997, includes procedures for:
--Repetitively inspecting the tailplane attachment brackets for cracks;
and
--Replacing any cracked bracket found upon inspection or as a
terminating action for the repetitive inspections.
BAe Aircraft Mandatory Technical News Sheet CT (C1) No. 190, Issue
2, dated April 1, 1995, includes procedures for:
--Repetitively inspecting each joint of the engine mount frame and the
rear upper mount frame tubes for cracks and/or damage; and
--Repairing any cracks and/or damage found.
The FAA's Determination and an Explanation of the Provisions of this
Proposed AD
What Has FAA Decided?
After examining the circumstances and reviewing all available
information related to the incidents described above, we have
determined that:
--The unsafe condition referenced in this document exists or could
develop on other R.E. Rust Models DeHavilland DH.C1 Chipmunk 21, 22,
and 22A airplanes of the same type design;
--The actions specified in the previously-referenced service
information should be accomplished on the affected airplanes; and
--AD action should be taken in order to correct this unsafe condition.
What Would This Proposed AD Require?
This proposed AD would require you to incorporate the actions in
the previously-referenced service information.
Cost Impact
How Many Airplanes Would This Proposed AD Impact?
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 54 airplanes in the U.S.
registry.
What Would Be the Cost Impact of This Proposed AD on Owners/Operators
of the Affected Airplanes?
We estimate the following costs to accomplish the proposed
inspections of the tailplane attachment brackets:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total cost on U.S.
Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
32 workhours x $60 per hour = No parts required........ $1,920.................. $1,920 x 54 = $103,680.
$1,920.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We estimate the following costs to accomplish any necessary
replacements that would be required based on the results of the
proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of
airplanes that may need such replacement:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total cost per
Labor cost Parts cost bracket
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 workhours x $60 per hour = $600 per bracket (2 $180 + $600 = $780.
$180 per bracket. brackets per
airplane).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We estimate the following costs to accomplish the proposed
inspections of the engine mount frame:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total cost on U.S.
Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16 workhours x $60 per hour = No parts required........ $960.................... $960 x 54 = $51,840.
$960.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA has no method of determining the number of repairs or
replacements each owner/operator would incur over the life of each of
the affected airplanes based on the results of the proposed
inspections. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that
may need such repair. The extent of damage may vary on each airplane.
Compliance Time of This Proposed AD
What Would Be the Compliance Time of This Proposed AD?
The compliance time of this proposed AD is ``within the next 90
calendar days after the effective date of this AD.''
Why Is the Proposed Compliance Time Presented in Calendar Time Instead
of Hours Time-In-Service (TIS)?
An unsafe condition specified by this proposed AD is caused by
corrosion. Corrosion can occur regardless of whether the aircraft is in
operation or is in storage. Therefore, to assure that the unsafe
condition specified in the proposed AD does not go undetected for a
long period of time, the compliance is presented in calendar time
instead of hours time-in-service (TIS).
Regulatory Impact
Would This Proposed AD Impact Various Entities?
The regulations proposed herein would 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. Therefore, it
is determined that this proposed rule would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132.
Would This Proposed AD Involve a Significant Rule or Regulatory Action?
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed
action (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if
promulgated, 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. A copy of the draft regulatory
evaluation prepared for this action has been placed in the Rules
Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules Docket at
the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration
[[Page 68538]]
proposes to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR
part 39) as follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. FAA amends Sec. 39.13 by adding a new airworthiness directive
(AD) to read as follows:
Robert E. Rust: Docket No. 2000-CE-64-AD
(a) What airplanes are affected by this AD? This AD affects the
following R.E. Rust Models DeHavilland DH.C1 Chipmunk 21, 22, and
22A airplanes, serial numbers C1-001 through C1-1014, that are type
certificated in any category.
Note 1: We recommend all owners/operators of DeHavilland DH.C1
Chipmunk 21, 22, and 22A airplanes, serial numbers C1-001 through
C1-1014, with experimental airworthiness certificates comply with
the actions required in this AD.
(b) Who must comply with this AD? Anyone who wishes to operate
any of the airplanes identified in paragraph (a) of this AD must
comply with this AD.
(c) What problem does this AD address? The actions specified by
this AD are intended to prevent failure of the tailplane attachment
brackets caused by stress corrosion cracking and failure of the
engine mount, which could result in loss of the tail section and
separation of the engine from the airplane respectively. Such
failures could lead to loss of control of the airplane.
(d) What actions must I accomplish to address this problem? To
address this problem, you must accomplish the following:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance Actions Procedures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Tailplane Attachment Brackets
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Initially inspect within Inspect, using dye In accordance with
the next 90 days after the penetrant, the British Aerospace
effective date of this AD: tailplane Military Aircraft
(A) Inspect thereafter at attachment and Aerostructures
intervals not to exceed 6 brackets, part- (BAe Aircraft)
months until the number (P/N) Mandatory Technical
modification required by C1.TP.167 (or FAA- News Sheet CT (C1)
paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of the approved equivalent No. 176, Issued 2,
AD is incorporated. part) for cracks. dated November 1,
(B) When the modification 1997; and Civil
required by paragraph Modification
(d)(1)(ii) is incorporated, Mandatory
you may terminate the Modification No.
repetitive inspections of Chipmunk H357,
the tailplane attachment dated March 12,
bracket. 1984.
(ii) At whichever of the Replace the In accordance with
following that occurs tailplane British Aerospace
first: attachment bracket Military Aircraft
(A) Prior to further flight by incorporating and Aerostructures
after the inspection where Modification H357 (BAe Aircraft)
any crack is found; or. (P/N C1.TP.313) or Mandatory Technical
(B) Upon accumulating 9,984 FAA-approved News Sheet CT (C1)
hours time-in-service (the equivalent part No. 176, Issue 2,
safe life limit for P/N number. Installing dated November 1,
C1.TP.167) on the tailplane P/N C1.TP.313 (or 1997; and Civil
attachments brackets or FAA-approved Modification
within the next 90 calendar equivalent part Mandatory
days after the effective number)terminates Modification No.
date of this AD, whichever the repetitive Chipmunk H357,
occurs later. inspection dated March 12,
requirement of the 1984.
tailplane
attachment brackets.
(iii) As of the effective Only install a Not applicable.
date of this AD. tailplane
attachment bracket
that is P/N
C1.TP.313, or FAA-
approved equivalent
part number.
-----------------------------
(2) Engine Mount Frames
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Inspect each joint of Initially inspect In accordance with
the port and starboard within the next 90 British Aerospace
engine mount frame and the days after the Aerostructures
rear upper mount frame effective date of Limited (BAe
tubes for cracks and/or this AD. Aircraft) Mandatory
damage. Repetitively Technical News
inspect thereafter Sheet CT (C1) No.
at intervals not to 190, Issue 2, dated
exceed 600 hours April 1, 1995.
TIS.
(ii) If cracks and/or damage Prior to further Repair in accordance
is found during any flight after the with AC 43.13-1B,
inspection required in inspection in which Change 1, dated
paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this any crack and/or September 27, 2001,
AD: damage is found. Chapter 4,
(A) Obtain a repair scheme Repetitively Paragraph 4-99 or
from the manufacturer inspect as required in accordance with
through the FAA at the in paragraph the repair scheme
address specified in (d)(2)(i) of this obtained from
paragraph (f) of this AD AD. DeHavilland Support
and incorporate this repair Limited, Duxford
scheme, or repair in Airfield, Bldg.
accordance with FAA 213,
Advisory Circular (AC) Cambridgeshire, CB2
43.13-1B, Change 1, dated 4QR, United
September 27, 2001, Chapter Kingdom. Obtain
4, Paragraph 4-99; or. this repair scheme
(B) Replace with a new or through the FAA at
serviceable part.. the address
specified in
paragraph (f) of
this AD. Replace in
accordance with
British Aerospace
Aerostructures
Limited (BAe
Aircraft) Mandatory
Technical News
Sheet CT (C1) No.
190, Issue 2, dated
April 1, 1995, or
AC 43.13-1B, Change
1, dated September
27, 2001, Chapter
4, Paragraph 4-99.
(3) Bind the rear upper Prior to further In accordance with
mount frame tubes with a flight after the British Aerospace
high density polythene tape initial inspection Aerostructures
at the location where the required in Limited (BAe
cowling support rod clip is paragraph (d)(1) of Aircraft) Mandatory
secured. this AD. Technical News
Sheet CT (C1) No.
190, Issue 2, dated
April 1, 1995.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e) Can I comply with this AD in any other way? You may use an
alternative method of compliance or adjust the compliance time if:
(1) Your alternative method of compliance provides an equivalent
level of safety; and
(2) The Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
approves your alternative. Submit your request through an
[[Page 68539]]
FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then
send it to the Manager, Atlanta ACO.
Note 2: This AD applies to each airplane identified in paragraph
(a) of this AD, regardless of whether it has been modified, altered,
or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For
airplanes that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the
performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/
operator must request approval for an alternative method of
compliance in accordance with paragraph (e) of this AD. The request
should include an assessment of the effect of the modification,
alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD;
and, if you have not eliminated the unsafe condition, specific
actions you propose to address it.
(f) Where can I get information about any already-approved
alternative methods of compliance? Contact Cindy Lorenzen, Aerospace
Engineer, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, 1895 Phoenix
Boulevard, Suite 450, Atlanta, Georgia; telephone: (770) 703-6078;
facsimile: (770) 703-6097.
(g) What if I need to fly the airplane to another location to
comply with this AD? The FAA can issue a special flight permit under
Sec. Sec. 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate your airplane to a location where
you can accomplish the requirements of this AD.
(h) How do I get copies of the documents referenced in this AD?
You may get copies of the documents referenced in this AD from
DeHavilland Support Limited, Duxford Airfield, Bldg. 213,
Cambridgeshire, CB2 4QR, United Kingdom, telephone: +44 1223 830090,
facsimile: +44 1223 830085, e-mail: info@dhsupport.com. You may view
these documents at FAA, Central Region, Office of the Regional
Counsel, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri 64106.
Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on November 4, 2002.
Michael Gallagher,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 02-28617 Filed 11-8-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P