[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 150 (Thursday, August 5, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47203-47207]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-19156]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA-2008-0403; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-166-AD;
Amendment 39-16379; AD 2010-16-03]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Corporation Model MD-
11 and MD-11F Airplanes Equipped With General Electric CF6-80C2 Series
Engines
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Model MD-11 and MD-11F airplanes. This AD requires revising the
airplane flight manual to advise the flightcrew to use certain
procedures during descent in certain icing conditions. This AD results
from reports of several in-flight engine flameouts, including multiple
dual engine flameout events, in ice-crystal icing conditions. We are
issuing this AD to ensure that the flightcrew has the proper procedures
to follow in certain icing conditions. These certain icing conditions
could cause a multiple engine flameout during flight with the potential
inability to restart the engines, and consequent forced landing of the
airplane.
DATES: This AD is effective September 9, 2010.
Examining the AD Docket
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and
[[Page 47204]]
other information. The address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-
647-5527) is the Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Samuel Lee, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137;
telephone (562) 627-5262; fax (562) 627-5210.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Discussion
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that would apply to
certain Model MD-11 and MD-11F airplanes. That NPRM was published in
the Federal Register on April 7, 2008 (73 FR 18719). That NPRM proposed
to require revising the airplane flight manual (AFM) to advise the
flightcrew to use certain procedures during descent in certain icing
conditions.
Other Relevant Proposed Rulemaking
NPRM, Docket No. FAA-2008-0402, Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-165-
AD (73 FR 18721, April 7, 2008), proposes to require similar actions
for Model 747 airplanes and Model 767 airplanes, certified in any
category, equipped with General Electric Model CF6-80C2 or CF6-80A
series engines. These airplanes have been determined to be subject to
the identified unsafe condition addressed in this AD.
Comments
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We considered the comments received.
Support for the NPRM
The Air Line Pilots Association, International supports the intent
and language of the NPRM. The National Transportation Safety Board
(NTSB), based on the success of similar AFM requirements to address
this unsafe condition on Hawker Beechcraft Corporation Model 400, 400A,
and 400T series airplanes and Model MU-300 airplanes, supports the
adoption of the proposed requirements.
Request for FAA To Actively Pursue Research To Develop a Permanent
Solution
The NTSB notes that the NPRM is intended as interim action, and
points out that it has issued Safety Recommendation A-06-59, dated
August 25, 2006. In this safety recommendation the NTSB asked the FAA
to ``* * * work with engine and airplane manufacturers and other
industry personnel as well as the appropriate international
airworthiness authorities to actively pursue research to develop an ice
detector that would alert pilots to internal engine icing and require
that it be installed on new production turbojet engines, as well as
retrofitted to existing turbojet engines.'' Therefore, the NTSB hopes
the FAA pursues research in concert with the multinational Aircraft
Icing Research Alliance that might develop an ice detector to alert
flightcrews to the accretion of ice crystals on internal engine
surfaces, so that flightcrews can take the appropriate actions.
We partially agree with the commenter's request. We agree that the
General Electric (GE) CF6-80C2 series engine needs to be modified to
mitigate the risk of flameouts caused by ice crystal accretion.
However, at this time, we do not agree to pursue research to develop an
ice detector that would alert flightcrews to the internal engine icing,
or with requiring manufacturers to install ice detectors internal to
the engines. In addition, no such designs have been proposed to the
FAA. Instead, for future designs, we are developing rulemaking to show
acceptable engine operation in an ice crystal environment. For engines
that currently demonstrate a susceptibility to ice crystals, we are
working with manufacturers to develop engine design changes to make
engines more robust during ice crystal accumulation and shedding
encounters. We will continue to provide feedback to the NTSB through
the established process for addressing safety recommendations. For this
AD, if different methods to address the unsafe condition are developed,
under the provisions of paragraph (h) of this AD, we will consider
requests for approval of an AMOC if sufficient data are submitted to
substantiate that the method would provide an acceptable level of
safety. No change to the AD is necessary in this regard.
Request To Require Demonstration of Non-Susceptibility in Future
Designs
The NTSB states that it hopes the FAA will require future engine
designs to demonstrate that they will not be susceptible to the
accretion of ice crystals on internal surfaces. The NTSB points out
that this request is in keeping with information provided to the NTSB
by an FAA icing expert during a briefing with the Safety Board.
From these statements, we infer that the NTSB is requesting that we
revise the NPRM to include a statement of our intent to require
manufacturers to demonstrate that future engine designs are not
susceptible to the accretion of ice crystals. We partially agree. We
agree that current FAA regulations addressing engine and airplane icing
do not apply to the ice crystal environment; therefore, we are working
with the aviation industry to develop appropriate regulations that
address operation in an ice crystal environment. As we determine the
necessary requirements to address this issue, we will consider
additional rulemaking. We do not agree to revise this AD to include a
statement regarding future regulations that have not yet been
determined. No change to the AD is necessary in this regard.
Request To Withdraw the NPRM
GE acknowledges that a small number of inclement weather or
significant weather system encounters have resulted in short-duration
multiple engine power loss. GE points out that these few events
occurred out of 14 million flights over 20 years of total service
experience on the Model CF6-80C2 series engine. GE states that a forced
landing resulting from one of these in-flight ice-crystal icing events
is extremely improbable (including demonstrated relight performance).
Therefore, GE asserts that the proposed condition does not meet the
definition of ``unsafe condition,'' as defined by FAA Advisory Circular
39-8, ``Continued Airworthiness Assessments of Powerplant and Auxiliary
Power Unit Installations of Transport Category Airplanes,'' dated
September 8, 2003.
From these statements, we infer that GE requests that we withdraw
the NPRM. We do not agree. We have evaluated the unsafe condition and
find that sufficient data exist to demonstrate that the environment
that causes the engine flameout would likely cause engine damage that
potentially would prevent an engine from relighting. The condition
could exist on all of an airplane's engines, resulting in a forced
landing. The advisory circular referenced by the commenter merely
provides guidance. We have determined that an unsafe condition exists,
and the appropriate vehicle for correcting an unsafe condition is an
AD. We have not changed the AD regarding this issue.
Request To Revise Wording of the Unsafe Condition
Boeing proposes that we revise the wording of the unsafe condition
from, ``These certain icing conditions could cause a multiple engine
flameout during
[[Page 47205]]
flight without the ability of the engines to be relit * * *'' to
``These certain icing conditions may cause a multiple engine flameout
during flight, with the potential inability to restart the engines * *
*.'' Boeing asserts that the wording in the NPRM overly conveys the
likelihood of not being able to restart the engine(s) after flameout.
While the possibility exists, Boeing confirms that all engines involved
in all of the flameout events to date have been restarted in flight
with subsequent normal landings.
We agree. We acknowledge that none of the flameout events on this
engine model to date have resulted in a forced landing due to the
inability to restart the engines. We agree that the inability to
restart the engines following flameout is possible, not probable.
Therefore, we have revised the unsafe condition statement in the
Summary section and paragraph (e) of this AD (specified as paragraph
(d) of the NPRM) as proposed by Boeing.
Requests To Revise Wording in the Discussion Section of the NPRM
Boeing proposes that we revise the Discussion section of the NPRM
to state that there have been seven engine flameout events, not six.
Boeing states that it has received seven reports of flameout events on
Model MD-11 airplanes due to ice-crystal icing conditions.
We acknowledge that Boeing has received seven reports, instead of
the six specified in the NPRM. However, the Discussion section of the
NPRM is not restated in the final rule; therefore, no change to the AD
is necessary in this regard.
GE suggests that we revise the wording of the Discussion section of
the NPRM to remove the word ``core,'' or, if that is not acceptable, to
change ``core flow path'' to ``booster and core flow path.'' GE points
out that the term ``core'' can be interpreted to mean just the high-
pressure spool portion of a turbofan.
We partially agree. We do not agree with GE's suggestion to remove
the word ``core'' from the Discussion section. We do agree that the
phrase ``booster and core flow path'' is more accurate; however,
because the Discussion section of the NPRM is not restated in this AD,
there is no need to revise the AD in this regard.
GE suggests that we revise the Discussion section of the NPRM to
change the word ``usually'' to ``often'' in the following sentence:
``Therefore, it [ice-crystal icing] is usually undetected by the
flightcrew.'' GE states that this change would make the NPRM consistent
with a similar NPRM (Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-165-AD, Docket FAA-
2008-0402 (73 FR 18721, April 7, 2008)), which addresses the same
unsafe condition on certain Model 747 and 767 airplanes.
From this statement, we infer that GE is requesting that we revise
the Discussion section of the NPRM to clarify that ice-crystal icing is
often undetected by the flightcrew, not usually undetected. We
partially agree. We agree that the wording change suggested by GE would
make this AD consistent with a similar NPRM that addresses the same
unsafe condition on certain Model 747 and 767 airplanes. However, as
previously noted, the Discussion section in the NPRM is not restated in
this AD, therefore, there is no need to revise the AD in this regard.
Requests To Revise the Costs of Compliance Section of the NPRM
GE suggests that there should be an operational cost of compliance
included in the proposed Costs of Compliance provided in the NPRM. GE
states that, while increasing engine off-take or bleed does provide
additional margin against flameout, doing so requires somewhat
increased fuel burn. GE believes the proposed procedure would be
required on a significant percentage of flights.
Federal Express (FedEx) believes that the total cost of the NPRM
has either not been fully considered, or has not been properly
communicated. FedEx asserts that the cost of using wing and tail anti-
ice increases fuel burn and exposes the airplane to additional
reliability risks associated with increased use of the anti-ice system,
while only providing a small incremental amount of effectiveness. FedEx
also states that it estimates the increased fuel consumption to be 40
pounds for a descent from flight level (FL) 400 to landing.
From these statements, we infer that GE and FedEx are requesting
that we revise the Costs of Compliance section of the NPRM to provide
an operational cost for increased fuel burn necessitated by use of the
proposed AFM procedure. We do not agree. The cost information in AD
actions describes only the direct costs of the specific action required
by the AD: an AFM revision in this case. The estimated cost of this
action represents the time necessary to perform only the actions
actually required by this AD. We recognize that, in doing the actions
required by an AD, operators might incur operational costs in addition
to the direct costs. The cost analysis in AD rulemaking actions,
however, typically does not include incidental or operational costs
such as the time required for planning or other administrative actions,
and, in this case, possible additional fuel costs. Those costs, which
might vary significantly among operators, are almost impossible to
calculate. Additionally, we have determined that the additional fuel
burn necessitated by the AFM procedure would be insignificant. However,
as we explain under ``Request to Revise the Proposed AFM Text,'' we
have revised the procedure to allow the ANTI-ICE switches to be placed
in the OFF position when icing conditions are no longer present or
anticipated. This allowance will further reduce any additional fuel
burn caused by the use of the anti-ice system. We have not changed the
Costs of Compliance section of this AD in this regard.
Request To Include Alternative AFM Requirements
FedEx recommends that we revise the NPRM to allow alternative AFM
requirements based on the full authority digital engine control (FADEC)
electronic control unit (ECU) installed software version. FedEx states
that GE has documented six flameout events suspected to be a result of
ice-crystal accretion. FedEx points out that GE Service Bulletin 73-21-
07, Engine fuel and control--Electronic Control Unit Introduction of
Software Version 8.3.K (8322), was introduced to improve the flameout
margin in ice-crystal conditions. FedEx explains that this software
change will create new engine control configurations with enhanced
variable bypass valve (VBV) scheduling logic for inclement weather, and
will change the scheduling of the VBVs at high altitude to increase ice
extraction from the booster-core flowpath transition to the fan exit
stream. FedEx believes there have been no suspected flameout events on
airplanes using the combination of engine anti-ice and ECU software
version 8.3.K on Model MD-11s, and indicates that it is upgrading its
fleet to ECU software version 8.3.K in accordance with AD 2007-22-07,
Amendment 39-15243 (72 FR 60227, October 24, 2007), applicable to GE
CF6-80C2D1F turbofan engines. Therefore, FedEx proposes that airplanes
with ECU software version 8.3.J or previous should follow the AFM
requirement proposed in the NPRM, and airplanes with software version
8.3.K or subsequent should be allowed to follow alternative AFM
requirements. FedEx provides suggested wording for an alternative AFM
requirement.
We do not agree to revise this AD to allow alternative AFM
requirements based on the installed software version. Based on a recent
multiple engine flameout incident on a Model 747-400
[[Page 47206]]
airplane equipped with CF6-80C2B1F engines and ECU software equivalent
to the version 8.3.K, we have determined that ECU software version
8.3.K alone will not necessarily provide an adequate margin of safety
against engine flameout in all environments. We note that the nacelle
anti-ice had been switched on prior to engine flameout. Increasing the
bleed flow and engine idle speed by placing the ENG, WING, and TAIL
ANTI-ICE switches in the ON position will provide additional margin for
engine flameout. We have not revised the AD in this regard.
Request To Remove Part of the AFM Requirement
FedEx requests that additional justification be made available to
support the proposed AFM requirement to use wing and tail anti-ice
systems. FedEx states that both its flight operations and engineering
staffs agree that increasing the flameout margin to buffer against
possible core shedding of ice-crystal accretion is an important
requirement, and fully support activation of the ENG IGN OVRD switch
and engine anti-ice as effective means of reducing flameouts. However,
FedEx feels strongly that part of the proposed AFM requirement is of
limited value and might not be justifiable. FedEx asserts that
selection of wing anti-ice would result in a small or incremental
increase in core temperature, while increasing fuel flow and
unnecessarily exposing the airplane to additional reliability risks.
FedEx further notes that the NTSB, in its comments to the NPRM, made no
mention of wing and tail anti-ice systems being part of the successful
recommendations on Model 400A airplanes.
We do not agree to remove the requirement to use wing and tail
anti-ice. As discussed previously, despite having the nacelle anti-ice
switched on, a Model 747-400 airplane experienced a multiple engine
flameout. Therefore, the use of nacelle anti-ice alone is not
sufficient to prevent a multiple engine flameout. Increasing the bleed
flow and engine idle speed by placing the ENG, WING, and TAIL ANTI-ICE
switches in the ON position will provide additional margin against
engine flameout. We have not revised the AD in this regard.
Request To Revise the Proposed AFM Text
Boeing proposes that we revise the proposed AFM text provided in
the NPRM as follows:
Prior to reducing thrust for descent, when icing conditions
(defined by visible moisture in the air and TAT is 6 Deg C or below)
are present, the ENG IGN OVRD switch and the ENG, WING, and TAIL
ANTI-ICE switches must be placed in the ON position. When icing
conditions are no longer present or anticipated, place the ENG IGN
OVRD switch and the ENG, WING, and TAIL ANTI-ICE switches in the OFF
position.
Boeing states that this AFM text provides additional procedural
information, as noted in the current Interim Operating Procedures for
icing conditions that exist or are anticipated prior to descent.
We agree that the AFM text changes suggested by Boeing do provide
helpful procedural information. We have also determined that there is
no additional benefit to having the engine, wing, and tail anti-ice
switched on once icing conditions are no longer present or anticipated.
Therefore, we have revised the AFM text provided in paragraph (g) of
this AD (specified in paragraph (f) of the NPRM) to include the
supplemental procedural information provided by Boeing, and to allow
engine, wing, and tail anti-ice to be switched off once icing
conditions are no longer present or anticipated.
Explanation of Additional Paragraph in This AD
We have added a new paragraph (d) to this AD to provide the Air
Transport Association (ATA) of America subject code 30: Ice and rain
protection. This code is added to make this AD parallel with other new
AD actions. We have reidentified subsequent paragraphs accordingly.
Explanation of Additional Change Made to the AD
We have revised this AD to identify the legal name of the
manufacturer as published in the most recent type certificate data
sheet for the affected airplane models.
Conclusion
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
the AD with the changes described previously. We also determined that
these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or
increase the scope of the AD.
Interim Action
We consider this AD interim action. If final action is later
identified, we might consider further rulemaking then.
Explanation of Change to Costs of Compliance
Since issuance of the original NPRM, we have increased the labor
rate used in the Costs of Compliance from $80 per work-hour to $85 per
work-hour. The Costs of Compliance information, below, reflects this
increase in the specified hourly labor rate.
Costs of Compliance
There are about 118 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for
U.S. operators to comply with this AD.
Estimated Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of U.S.-
Action Work hours Average labor Parts Cost per registered Fleet cost
rate per hour airplane airplanes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFM revision...................................... 1 $85 $0 $85 70 $5,950
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authority for This Rulemaking
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on
[[Page 47207]]
products identified in this rulemaking action.
Regulatory Findings
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. 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.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(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) 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.
You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of
compliance in the AD Docket.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
0
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]
0
2. The FAA amends Sec. 39.13 by adding the following new AD:
2010-16-03 McDonnell Douglas Corporation: Amendment 39-16379. Docket
No. FAA-2008-0403; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-166-AD.
Effective Date
(a) This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective September 9,
2010.
Affected ADs
(b) None.
Applicability
(c) This AD applies to McDonnell Douglas Corporation Model MD-11
and MD-11F airplanes, certified in any category, equipped with
General Electric CF6-80C2 series engines.
Subject
(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 30: Ice and
rain protection.
Unsafe Condition
(e) This AD results from reports of several in-flight engine
flameouts, including multiple dual engine flameout events, in ice-
crystal icing conditions. We are issuing this AD to ensure that the
flightcrew has the proper procedures to follow in certain icing
conditions. These certain icing conditions could cause a multiple
engine flameout during flight with the potential inability to
restart the engines, and consequent forced landing of the airplane.
Compliance
(f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.
Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) Revision
(g) Within 14 days after the effective date of this AD, revise
the Limitations Section of the McDonnell Douglas MD-11/MD-11F AFM to
include the following statement. This may be done by inserting a
copy of this AD into the AFM.
``Prior to reducing thrust for descent when icing conditions
(defined by visible moisture in the air and TAT is 6 [deg]C or
below) are present, the ENG IGN OVRD switch and the ENG, WING, and
TAIL ANTI-ICE switches must be placed in the ON position. When icing
conditions are no longer present or anticipated, place the ENG IGN
OVRD switch and the ENG, WING, and TAIL ANTI-ICE switches in the OFF
position.''
Note 1: When a statement identical to that in paragraph (g) of
this AD has been included in the general revisions of the AFM, the
general revisions may be inserted into the AFM, and the copy of this
AD may be removed from the AFM.
Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)
(h)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if
requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Samuel Lee, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion
Branch, ANM-140L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office,
3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone
(562) 627-5262; fax (562) 627-5210.
(2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or
principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a
principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office.
The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
Material Incorporated by Reference
(i) None.
Issued in Renton, Washington on July 16, 2010.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-19156 Filed 8-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P