[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 241 (Wednesday, December 16, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 69179-69185]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-33105]
[[Page 69179]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-NM-275-AD; Amendment 39-10942; AD 98-26-01]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A310 Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD),
applicable to all Airbus Model A310 series airplanes, that requires
various inspections to detect fatigue cracks at certain locations on
the fuselage, horizontal stabilizer, and wings and tail, and repair or
modification, if necessary; and installation of doublers. This
amendment also adds new inspections and reduces certain inspection
intervals. This amendment is prompted by results of full-scale fatigue
testing of a Model A310 series airplane, which revealed fatigue cracks
at those locations. The actions specified by this AD are intended to
prevent reduced structural integrity of the fuselage, horizontal
stabilizer, and wings.
DATES: Effective January 20, 1999.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of January 20, 1999.
ADDRESSES: The service information referenced in this AD may be
obtained from Airbus Industrie, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707
Blagnac Cedex, France. This information may be examined at the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules
Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the Office of
the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700,
Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Norman B. Martenson, Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425)
227-2110; fax (425) 227-1149.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness
directive (AD) that is applicable to all Airbus Model A310 series
airplanes was published as a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) in the Federal Register on July 21, 1998 (63 FR 39045). That
supplemental NPRM proposed to require various inspections to detect
fatigue cracks at certain locations on the fuselage, horizontal
stabilizer, and wings and tail, and repair or modification, if
necessary; and installation of doublers. That supplemental NPRM also
proposed to add new inspections and reduce certain inspection
intervals.
Comments
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate
in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to
the comments received.
Support for the Proposal
One commenter supports the proposed rule.
Request to Withdraw AD
The ATA, on behalf of one of its members, questions the need for an
AD, and requests a meeting with the FAA to develop an alternative that
would provide a program more beneficial to cost and safety. The
commenter indicates that, while manufacturers routinely solicit
comments from affected operators for aging aircraft issues, nothing in
the proposal suggests that its requirements have been well coordinated
with operators before being advised of pending rulemaking.
Additionally, the commenter questions whether each of the 16
referenced service bulletins individually satisfies the requirement of
part 39 (``Airworthiness Directives'') of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (14 CFR part 39) that an unsafe condition exists. As an
example, the commenter points out that, in describing the reason for
Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-2014, Airbus states that the existence
of a ``crack does not affect aircraft safety. . . .''
The FAA infers that the commenter requests the AD be withdrawn. The
FAA does not concur with that request. Each of the 16 service bulletins
cited in the original Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), as well as
the 2 additional service bulletins included in this Supplemental NPRM,
address fatigue cracking in the wing, fuselage, and empennage structure
of the airplane. As specified in the Airbus Structural Repair Manual
(SRM), the wing, fuselage, and empennage structure is primary structure
that contributes significantly to carrying flight, ground, and
pressurization loads. As is the case with the structure of many
commercial airplanes, failure of a single part is not likely to be
catastrophic, and safe flight could continue for some time with any
single part being cracked or broken. However, if the parts specified in
the service bulletins cited in this AD are cracked or failed, the
residual strength of the surrounding aircraft structure would be
reduced; this could cause failure of structural members, or could
initiate or accelerate cracking of other structural members. Such
failure clearly poses an unsafe condition. Issuance of an AD (without
further delay) is the appropriate vehicle by which unsafe conditions
are corrected.
Request for Alternative to Issuance of AD
One ATA member suggests that, as an alternative to issuance of an
AD, operators' maintenance programs could be revised or adjusted to
accomplish the inspection requirements of the proposed AD in line with
scheduled maintenance visits. The commenter states that the A310
Maintenance Planning Document (MPD), one of the primary documents used
by operators, addresses all areas covered by the proposed AD. The
commenter adds that coordinating revisions to the inspection intervals
specified in the MPD and corresponding service bulletins is more
appropriate than issuing an AD. The commenter believes that this
alternative would be less costly, would provide better control of early
detection of damage, and would provide a better level of safety. The
commenter states that no operator has yet found damage in the proposed
inspection areas; however, the commenter submits no data to support its
contention.
The FAA does not concur that revising the MPD is more appropriate
than issuing an AD. Accomplishment of the requirements detailed in the
service bulletins is considered necessary, since those documents
provide detailed inspection information necessary to address the unsafe
condition that may not be contained in the MPD. Additionally, the FAA
has determined that solely relying on a revision of the maintenance
document will not provide the same level of safety, since this document
is not mandatory and, in any event, could be subsequently revised or
adjusted without FAA approval. No change to the final rule is necessary
in this regard.
Clarification of Development of Compliance Thresholds
One commenter indicates that it will request a review of the
applicable service bulletins by the manufacturer to assure that the
stated compliance thresholds have a sound technical basis.
[[Page 69180]]
The commenter requests that the FAA coordinate this review with Airbus
so that the AD is consistent with any changes being considered by
Airbus. The commenter adds that, if necessary, the comment period
should be extended so that coordination among Airbus, affected
operators, and the FAA can be accomplished.
Another commenter expresses concern that the initial inspection
thresholds specified in the proposal do not coincide with test
findings, and questions how the criteria were developed. For example,
the commenter objects to one threshold specified in the proposal as
12,000 flight cycles (FC) (with repetitive intervals of 5,000 FC) when
cracking was not detected until 90,000 FC. The commenter indicates
that, given the inspection thresholds specified in the proposal,
operators will be forced to ground aircraft for special inspection
visits, which impacts revenue and other operational parameters. The
commenter believes that adjustments in operators' FAA-approved
maintenance programs to achieve the required inspections and to
maintain a level of safety will enhance the effectiveness of such
programs.
The FAA finds that clarification is necessary concerning
development of the compliance times specified in this AD. The
inspection thresholds are based on test data, and adjustment to the
thresholds to correspond with operators' various maintenance programs
is not always possible. The relationship between the specified
inspection threshold and the test data is based on a number of
variables. In the example identified by the commenter, the crack was
detected after 90,000 FC, and an inspection threshold of 12,000 FC was
established. This reduction in flight cycles from the time that the
crack was detected during testing to the inspection threshold
established, is necessary to account for variations in operational
usage, crack initiation and growth, inspection techniques, and human
operational error. Additionally, the nature of fatigue testing requires
that a ``scatter'' factor be applied to the data. This scatter factor
accounts for the number of specimens tested, material property
variations, geometry/configuration variations, environmental effects,
and loading variations.
Based on these factors, the FAA has determined that the inspection
thresholds established by Airbus, and approved by the DGAC, are
acceptable to maintain the operational safety of these airplanes. No
change to this final rule is necessary.
Directions of Cracking
One commenter, Airbus, requests that the FAA clarify the
definitions of directions of cracking. Airbus references a sentence
that appears in the preamble to the original NPRM, which reads as
follows: ``Operators should note that although the French AD specifies
that the airplane may be operated for 500 landings prior to repair of
any crack that extends rearward, paragraph (h)(2)(iii) of this proposed
AD would require that such cracking be repaired prior to further
flight.'' Airbus states that the ``forward'' crack propagates in the
direction of the skin edge, and upon reaching the skin edge, the crack
will not grow further; therefore, Airbus concludes that repair can be
deferred for 500 flights. Airbus states that a ``rearward'' crack would
propagate in the direction of the front spar where the skin thickness
increases and crack propagation slows down; therefore, repair of such
rearward cracking also can be deferred for 500 flights.
The FAA does not concur. It is the FAA's policy to require repair
of known cracks prior to further flight, except in certain cases of
unusual need. This policy is based on the fact that such damaged
airplanes do not conform to the FAA-certificated type design and,
therefore, are not airworthy until a properly approved repair is
incorporated. Therefore, since the FAA is unaware of any unusual need
for repair deferral in this case, it has determined that, due to the
safety implications and consequences associated with such cracking, any
subject wing skin that is found to be cracked must be repaired prior to
further flight. No change to the final rule is necessary.
Request To Revise Cost Impact Information
The ATA, on behalf of one of its members, requests that the FAA
revise the cost impact information presented in the proposed AD. The
ATA believes that the actual cost for accomplishment of the proposed
requirements is considerably greater than that specified in the
proposed AD. One ATA member justifies this request by presenting its
own cost estimate.
The ATA adds that the ``boilerplate'' paragraph contained in the
proposed AD that indicates why a full cost-benefit analysis has not
been accomplished (or is needed) is ``particularly offensive'' to those
affected. One ATA member believes that the paragraph is contrary to all
established procedures of a rulemaking process, and the decision to
issue an AD is being based on inaccurate and/or limited data. The ATA
concludes that for the FAA to state that the level of safety has been
determined previously to be cost beneficial discourages the submittal
of any meaningful comments concerning the cost impact of the proposed
AD. The ATA states that when operators submit comments to a docket on
the cost of AD compliance, those operators are doing so to support the
contention that equally safe alternative measures should be considered.
The FAA does not concur that the cost impact information should be
revised based on the commenter's justification. (However, it should be
noted that the cost impact information presented in this AD was revised
in the supplemental NPRM to reflect updated information presented in
the latest service bulletin revisions.)
The cost impact information represents the FAA's best estimate as
to the number of work hours that will be necessary to accomplish the
requirements of the AD. The FAA arrived at this estimate using cost
information obtained from the airframe manufacturer. The FAA recognizes
that actual costs may vary depending upon the operation of each
individual airline and the degree to which the airplane has been opened
up for access for other maintenance or inspection actions.
The ``boilerplate'' paragraph referenced by the ATA and one of its
members is included in especially expensive AD's, not to discourage
comments regarding cost, but simply to explain why the FAA does not
prepare full cost-benefit analyses. Cost effectiveness of AD's is
always a primary issue for the FAA in the development of AD's. The FAA
routinely adopts compliance times and methods that are designed to
minimize the cost impact on operators. Thus, the FAA's approach is
entirely consistent with Executive Order 12866 in that it complies
fully with the philosophy and principles set forth in Section 1 of the
executive order. It should be noted that AD's were explicitly exempted
from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) coordination process
described in Section 6 of Executive Order 12866. The explanation of why
full cost-benefit analyses are not required for AD's is consistent with
this exemption.
As for the ATA's conclusion that the FAA is discouraging meaningful
comments concerning cost by previously determining the level of safety
to be cost beneficial, the FAA has not stated that a cost-benefit
analysis has already been accomplished for AD's. Rather, the paragraph
states that the purpose of the AD is to restore the level
[[Page 69181]]
of safety to that which has already been determined to be cost-
effective. Under these circumstances, as stated in the paragraph, a
full cost-benefit analysis would be redundant and unnecessary. The
purpose of AD's is distinctly different from the purpose of most other
FAA regulations, which is to improve the level of safety established by
the existing regulations. Under these circumstances, it is appropriate
to conduct a cost-benefit analysis to determine whether the improvement
in safety is cost-effective.
The FAA does not discourage comments concerning costs; to the
contrary, every AD includes a provision specifically requesting
comments on the economic aspects of the AD. Given the volume of such
comments from operators, there does not appear to be any
misunderstanding on the part of most operators about the
appropriateness of submitting such comments.
Finally, concerning the ATA's statement that operators submit
comments concerning cost to support their contention that equally safe
alternative measures should be considered, if a commenter proposes a
less costly alternative that achieves an acceptable level of safety,
the FAA may concur with the comment and revise the AD accordingly. On
the other hand, if a commenter simply requests a change without
justifying it or providing data to substantiate it, the FAA may not
concur. However, every AD contains a provision allowing operators to
comply with the AD using an alternative method of compliance (or
extension of compliance time) approved by the FAA.
Explanation of Change Made to This Final Rule
Paragraph (h) of the final rule has been revised to cite Revision 2
of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2002, dated January 4, 1996, as an
additional source of service information for accomplishment of the
actions specified in that paragraph. Revision 2 contains no substantive
differences from Revision 1 of the service bulletin, which was cited as
the appropriate source of service information in the supplemental NPRM.
Conclusion
After careful review of the available data, including the change
noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public
interest require the adoption of the rule with the change previously
described. The FAA has determined that this change will neither
increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of
the AD.
Cost Impact
The FAA estimates that 36 airplanes of U.S. registry will be
affected by this AD. Approximate work hours to accomplish the required
actions and costs for required parts are listed in the following table.
The average labor rate is $60 per work hour.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts cost/ No. of U.S. Number
A310 service bulletin No. Work hours airplane Cost/airplane airplanes modified
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
53-2014......................... 78 $12,121 $16,801 7 5
53-2016......................... 317 14,282 33,302 12 5
53-2054......................... 11 N/A 660 8 0
53-2057......................... 12 N/A 720 13 0
53-2059......................... 13 N/A 780 17 0
53-2074......................... 232 N/A 13,920 17 0
55-2002......................... 715 34,100 77,000 7 6
55-2004......................... 16 N/A 960 11 0
57-2002......................... 8 N/A 480 6 0
57-2006......................... 52 N/A 3,120 2 0
57-2032......................... 5 N/A 300 6 0
57-2037......................... 2 N/A 120 6 0
57-2039......................... 3 N/A 180 15 0
57-2046......................... 172 N/A 10,320 33 0
57-2047......................... 82 N/A 4,920 24 0
57-2050......................... 24 N/A 1,440 20 0
57-2064......................... 8 N/A 480 26 0
57-2038......................... 6 N/A 360 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is
estimated to be $1,845,591. However, the FAA has been advised that a
certain number of U.S.-registered airplanes already have been modified
in accordance with the requirements of this AD. (The numbers of U.S.-
registered airplanes that have already been modified are listed under
the heading, ``Number Modified,'' in the table above.) Therefore, the
future economic cost impact of this rule on U.S. operators is now
$1,133,076.
The FAA recognizes that the obligation to maintain aircraft in an
airworthy condition is vital, but sometimes expensive. Because AD's
require specific actions to address specific unsafe conditions, they
appear to impose costs that would not otherwise be borne by operators.
However, because of the general obligation of operators to maintain
aircraft in an airworthy condition, this appearance is deceptive.
Attributing those costs solely to the issuance of this AD is
unrealistic because, in the interest of maintaining safe aircraft,
prudent operators would accomplish the required actions even if they
were not required to do so by the AD.
A full cost-benefit analysis has not been accomplished for this AD.
As a matter of law, in order to be airworthy, an aircraft must conform
to its type design and be in a condition for safe operation. The type
design is approved only after the FAA makes a determination that it
complies with all applicable airworthiness requirements. In adopting
and maintaining those requirements, the FAA has already made the
determination that they establish a level of safety that is cost-
beneficial. When the FAA, as in this AD, makes a finding of an unsafe
condition, this means that the original cost-beneficial level of safety
is no longer being achieved and that the required actions are necessary
to restore that level of safety. Because this level of safety has
already been determined to be cost-beneficial, a full cost-benefit
analysis for this AD would be redundant and unnecessary.
[[Page 69182]]
Regulatory Impact
The regulations adopted herein will not have substantial direct
effects 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, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this final
rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this 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) 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 final evaluation has been prepared for this action
and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained
from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 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. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
98-26-01 Airbus Industrie: Amendment 39-10942. Docket 95-NM-275-AD.
Applicability: All Model A310 series airplanes, certificated in
any category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, 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 (u) 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 the unsafe condition has not been
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to
address it.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent reduced structural integrity of the fuselage,
horizontal stabilizer, and wings, accomplish the following:
(a) For airplanes listed in Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-
2014, Revision 5, dated June 9, 1992, as revised by Service Bulletin
Change Notices 5.A., dated September 29, 1992, and 5.B., dated
February 5, 1996: Prior to the accumulation of 12,000 total flight
cycles, or within 500 flight cycles after the effective date of this
AD, whichever occurs later, perform an eddy current inspection to
detect cracks on the fuselage center section doublers at frame 40,
and install new doublers, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin
A310-53-2014, Revision 5, dated June 9, 1992, as revised by Service
Bulletin Change Notices 5.A., dated September 29, 1992, and 5.B.,
dated February 5, 1996. Except as provided by paragraph (t) of this
AD, if any discrepancy is found, prior to further flight, perform
follow-on corrective actions, as applicable, in accordance with the
service bulletin.
(b) For airplanes listed in Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-
2016, Revision 5, dated December 7, 1992: Prior to the accumulation
of 12,000 total flight cycles, or within 1,000 flight cycles after
the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, perform a
defectoscope or rototest inspection to detect cracks in the area of
frame 47 and frame 54, and install new doublers, in accordance with
Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-2016, Revision 5, dated December 7,
1992. Except as provided by paragraph (t) of this AD, if any
discrepancy is found, prior to further flight, perform follow-on
corrective actions, as applicable, in accordance with the service
bulletin.
(c) For airplanes listed in Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-
2054, Revision 2, dated May 22, 1990: Prior to the accumulation of
12,000 total flight cycles, or within 1,000 flight cycles after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, and thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 3,000 flight cycles, perform a visual
inspection to detect cracks on frame 46 between the left- and right-
hand sides of stringers 21 and 22 on the forward and aft faces in
accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-2054, Revision 2,
dated May 22, 1990. If any crack is found, prior to further flight,
repair in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-2054,
Revision 2, dated May 22, 1990.
(1) Accomplishment of the repair required by paragraph (c) of
this AD, or modification of the reinforcement angle runout in
accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-2019, Revision 2,
dated May 22, 1990, terminates the repetitive inspection
requirements of paragraph (c) of this AD.
(2) Accomplishment of paragraph (c) of this AD terminates the
requirements of AD 91-13-01, amendment 39-7032.
(d) For airplanes listed in Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-
2057, Revision 1, dated April 30, 1992: Perform a visual inspection
to detect cracks at the T-section connecting frame 50A to the beam
between the left- and right-hand sides of frames 50 and 51, in
accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-2057, Revision 1,
dated April 30, 1992. Perform the inspection at the time specified
in paragraph (d)(1) or (d)(2) of this AD, as applicable. If any
crack is found, prior to further flight, accomplish Airbus
Modifications No. 4853 and No. 5273 in accordance with Airbus
Service Bulletin A310-53-2057, Revision 1, dated April 30, 1992.
Accomplishment of these modifications terminates the requirements of
this paragraph.
(1) For the airplane having manufacturer's serial number (MSN)
191: Prior to the accumulation of 24,000 total flight cycles, or
within 1,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs later; and thereafter at intervals not to exceed
6,000 flight cycles.
(2) For airplanes other than the airplane identified in
paragraph (d)(1) of this AD: Prior to the accumulation of 12,000
total flight cycles, or within 1,000 flight cycles after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later; and thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight cycles.
(e) For airplanes listed in Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-
2059, Revision 1, dated January 4, 1996: Perform a visual inspection
to detect cracks in the lower milled side panel at the lap joint
with the upper side panel at frame 47 and stringer 22, left- and
right-hand sides, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A310-
53-2059, Revision 1, dated January 4, 1996. Perform the inspection
at the time specified in paragraph (e)(1) or (e)(2) of this AD, as
applicable. Except as provided by paragraph (t) of this AD, if any
crack is found, prior to further flight, repair in accordance with
the service bulletin. Thereafter, repeat the inspections at
intervals not to exceed 9,000 flight cycles, or accomplish Airbus
Modification 5997 (Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-2058).
Accomplishment of either the repair or Airbus Modification 5997
constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections
required by this paragraph.
(1) For Model A310-200 series airplanes, accomplish the
inspection at the time specified in paragraph (e)(1)(i) or
(e)(1)(ii) of this AD, as applicable.
(i) For airplanes that have accumulated less than 20,000 total
flight cycles as of the effective date of this AD: Prior to the
accumulation of 18,000 total flight cycles, or within 2,000 flight
cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(ii) For airplanes that have accumulated 20,000 or more total
flight cycles as of the effective date of this AD: Within 1,000
flight cycles after the effective date of this AD.
(2) For Model A310-300 series airplanes, accomplish the
inspection at the time specified in paragraph (e)(2)(i) or
(e)(2)(ii) of this AD, as applicable.
(i) For airplanes that have accumulated less than 19,700 total
flight cycles as of the effective date of this AD: Prior to the
accumulation of 18,000 total flight cycles, or within 1,700 flight
cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
[[Page 69183]]
(ii) For airplanes that have accumulated 19,700 or more total
flight cycles as of the effective date of this AD: Within 850 flight
cycles after the effective date of this AD.
(f) For airplanes listed in Airbus Service Bulletin A310-55-
2002, Revision 4, dated April 28, 1989: Prior to the accumulation of
12,000 total flight cycles, or within 1,000 flight cycles after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, perform an eddy
current inspection to detect cracks on the upper integral part
adjacent to the rear attach fittings on the horizontal stabilizer,
and modify the horizontal stabilizer, in accordance with Airbus
Service Bulletin A310-55-2002, Revision 4, dated April 28, 1989.
Except as provided by paragraph (t) of this AD, if any discrepancy
is found, prior to further flight, perform follow-on corrective
actions, as applicable, in accordance with the service bulletin.
(g) For airplanes listed in Airbus Service Bulletin A310-55-
2004, Revision 2, dated February 7, 1991: Perform a high frequency
eddy current rototest inspection to detect cracks at specified
fastener holes in the top skin chordwise splice along the contour of
the steel doubler between ribs 3 and 4 on the left- and right-hand
center and side boxes on the horizontal stabilizer in accordance
with Airbus Service Bulletin A310-55-2004, Revision 2, dated
February 7, 1991, at the time specified in paragraph (g)(1) or
(g)(2) of this AD, as applicable. Except as provided by paragraph
(t) of this AD, if any discrepancy is found, prior to further
flight, perform follow-on corrective actions, as applicable, in
accordance with the service bulletin.
(1) For airplanes on which Airbus Modification A310-4933 (Airbus
Service Bulletin A310-55-2002) was accomplished prior to the
accumulation of 6,000 total flight cycles on the airplane; or for
airplanes having MSN 311 through 414 inclusive, on which Airbus
Modification A310-4933 was accomplished during production: Prior to
the accumulation of 18,000 total flight cycles, or within 1,000
flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs
later; and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 12,000 flight
cycles.
(2) For airplanes on which Airbus Modification A310-4933 (Airbus
Service Bulletin A310-55-2002) was accomplished upon or after the
accumulation of 6,000 total flight cycles: Prior to the accumulation
of 12,000 flight cycles since the modification, or within 1,000
flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs
later; and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 12,000 flight
cycles.
(h) For airplanes listed in Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-
2002, Revision 2, dated January 4, 1996: Prior to the accumulation
of 12,000 total flight cycles, or within 1,000 flight cycles after
the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later; and
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 3,000 flight cycles; perform a
detailed visual inspection to detect cracks in the external surface
of the wing lower skin around the landing access panel holes of the
leading edge, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-
2002, Revision 1, dated July 2, 1992; or Revision 2, dated January
4, 1996. If any discrepancy is found, prior to further flight,
repair in accordance with a method approved by either the Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
or the Direction Generale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC) (or its
delegated agent). Accomplishment of Airbus Modification 5101 (Airbus
Service Bulletin A310-57-2003) terminates the repetitive inspection
requirements of paragraph (h) of this AD.
(i) For airplanes listed in Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-
2006, Revision 3, dated May 2, 1996: Prior to the accumulation of
6,000 total flight cycles, or within 1,000 flight cycles after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later; and thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 3,000 flight cycles; perform an eddy current
inspection to detect cracks in the holes around the overwing
refueling aperture at ribs 13-14, in accordance with Airbus Service
Bulletin A310-57-2006, Revision 3, dated May 2, 1996. Except as
provided by paragraph (t) of this AD, if any discrepancy is found,
prior to further flight, perform follow-on corrective actions, as
applicable, in accordance with the service bulletin. Accomplishment
of Airbus Modification 5891H5128 (Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-
2020) terminates the repetitive inspection requirements of paragraph
(i) of this AD.
(j) For airplanes listed in Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-
2032, Revision 3, dated January 4, 1996: Prior to the accumulation
of 12,000 total flight cycles, or within 1,000 flight cycles after
the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later; and
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 4,500 flight cycles; perform a
detailed visual inspection to detect cracks around the bolts in the
wing top skin upper surface of the front spar between rib 7 and rib
28, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2032,
Revision 3, dated January 4, 1996. If any discrepancy is found,
prior to further flight, repair in accordance with a method approved
by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, or the DGAC (or its
delegated agent). Accomplishment of Airbus Modification 5026H0878
(Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2005) terminates the repetitive
inspection requirements of paragraph (j) of this AD.
(k) For airplanes listed in Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-
2037, Revision 3, dated January 4, 1996: Prior to the accumulation
of 12,000 total flight cycles, or within 1,000 flight cycles after
the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later; and
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 3,000 flight cycles; perform a
high frequency eddy current inspection to detect cracks around the
attachment bolt heads for the shroud panel landing on the bottom
skin aft of the rear spar, forward of access door 575CB/675CB, in
accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2037, Revision 3,
dated January 4, 1996. If any discrepancy is found, prior to further
flight, repair in accordance with a method approved by the Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, or the DGAC (or its delegated agent).
Accomplishment of Airbus Modification 5106H0894 (Airbus Service
Bulletin A310-57-2004) terminates the repetitive inspection
requirements of paragraph (k) of this AD.
(l) For airplanes listed in Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-
2039, dated
September 24, 1990: Perform either an eddy current or visual
inspection to detect cracks on the left and right vertical posts,
numbers 1 through 5 inclusive, in the wing center box at frame 40/
41, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2039, dated
September 24, 1990. Perform the inspection at the time specified in
paragraph (l)(1) or (l)(2) of this AD, as applicable. Except as
provided by paragraph (t) of this AD, if any crack is found, prior
to further flight, accomplish the modification specified in Airbus
Service Bulletin A310-57-2041, dated September 24, 1990, in
accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2039, dated
September 24, 1990.
(1) For airplanes on which Airbus Modification 7541/S7973
(reference Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2041) has not been
accomplished: Inspect prior to the accumulation of 21,000 total
flight cycles, or within 1,000 flight cycles after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs later; and thereafter at intervals
not to exceed 4,200 flight cycles (for a visual inspection), or
7,500 flight cycles (for an eddy current inspection).
(2) For airplanes on which Airbus Modification 7541/S7973
(reference Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2041) has been
accomplished: Inspect at the time specified in the graph contained
in NOTE 1 of paragraph 1.A.(2) of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-
2039, dated September 24, 1990, or within 1,000 flight cycles after
the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later; and
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 5,000 flight cycles (for a
visual inspection), or 8,600 flight cycles (for an eddy current
inspection).
(m) For Model A310-200 series airplanes on which Airbus
Modification 7925H1113 has not been accomplished: Prior to the
accumulation of 12,000 total flight cycles, or within 1,000 flight
cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later,
perform an ultrasonic inspection to detect cracks in certain bolt
holes where the main landing gear forward pick-up fitting is
attached to the rear spar, in accordance with Airbus Service
Bulletin A310-57-2046, Revision 4, dated October 16, 1996 (including
Appendix 1, Revision 3, dated October 17, 1995), as revised by
Service Bulletin Change Notice 4A, dated October 16, 1996.
Accomplishment of paragraph (m) of this AD terminates the
requirements of AD 91-06-18, amendment 39-6940.
(1) If no crack is found, accomplish either paragraph (m)(1)(i)
or (m)(1)(ii) of this AD in accordance with the service bulletin at
the time specified in that paragraph.
(i) Repeat the inspection of the bolt/stud holes thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 3,500 flight cycles. Or
(ii) Prior to further flight, accomplish Airbus Modification
7925H1113; and, prior to the accumulation of 18,000 flight cycles
after accomplishment of Airbus Modification 7925H1113, perform the
inspection required by paragraph (m) of this AD. Repeat the
inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 11,600 flight
cycles.
Note 2: Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2046, Revision 4, dated
October 16, 1996 (including Appendix 1, Revision 3, dated October
17, 1995), as revised by Service Bulletin Change Notice 4A, dated
October 16,
[[Page 69184]]
1996, references Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2049 and Repair
Instruction R571-49305 as additional sources of service information
for accomplishment of Airbus Modification 7925H1113.
(2) If any crack is found, prior to further flight, repair in
accordance with a method approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116, or the DGAC (or its delegated agent).
(n) For Model A310-300 series airplanes on which Airbus
Modification 7925H1113 has not been accomplished: Prior to the
accumulation of 9,000 flight cycles, or within 1,000 flight cycles
after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, perform
an ultrasonic inspection to detect cracks in certain bolt holes
where the main landing gear forward pick-up fitting is attached to
the rear spar, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-
2046, Revision 4, dated October 16, 1996 (including Appendix 1,
Revision 3, dated October 17, 1995), as revised by Service Bulletin
Change Notice 4A, dated October 16, 1996. Accomplishment of
paragraph (n) of this AD terminates the requirements of AD 91-06-18,
amendment 39-6940.
(1) If no crack is found, accomplish either paragraph (n)(1)(i)
or (n)(1)(ii) of this AD in accordance with the service bulletin at
the time specified in that paragraph.
(i) Repeat the inspection of the bolt/stud holes thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 3,100 flight cycles. Or
(ii) Prior to further flight, accomplish Airbus Modification
7925H1113; and, prior to the accumulation of 18,000 flight cycles
after accomplishment of Airbus Modification 7925H1113, perform the
inspection required by paragraph (n) of this AD. Repeat the
inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 11,600 flight
cycles.
Note 3: Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2046, Revision 4, dated
October 16, 1996 (including Appendix 1, Revision 3, dated October
17, 1995), as revised by Service Bulletin Change Notice 4A, dated
October 16, 1996, references Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2049
and Repair Instruction R571-49305 as additional sources of service
information for accomplishment of Airbus Modification 7925H1113.
(2) If any crack is found, prior to further flight, repair in
accordance with a method approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116, or the DGAC (or its delegated agent).
(o) For airplanes listed in Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-
2047, Revision 2, dated January 22, 1997: Perform a rotating probe
inspection to detect cracks in the fastener holes on the left- and
right-hand sides of the rear spar internal angle and tee fitting, in
accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2047, Revision 2,
dated January 22, 1997, at the applicable time specified in NOTE 2
of paragraph 1.A.(2) of the service bulletin, or within 1,000 flight
cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later;
and thereafter at the intervals specified in NOTE 2 of paragraph
1.A.(2) of the service bulletin. Except as provided by paragraph (t)
of this AD, if any discrepancy is found, prior to further flight,
perform follow-on corrective actions in accordance with the service
bulletin.
(p) For airplanes listed in Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-
2050, dated April 23, 1990, as revised by Service Bulletin Change
Notices 0.A., dated September 29, 1992, and 0.B., dated January 6,
1995: Perform a visual or rotating probe inspection to detect cracks
in the drain holes on the lower skin panel in the center wing box
between frames 42 and 46, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin
A310-57-2050, dated April 23, 1990, as revised by Service Bulletin
Change Notices 0.A., dated September 29, 1992, and 0.B., dated
January 6, 1995, at the applicable time specified in NOTE 1 of
paragraph 1.A.(2) of the service bulletin, or within 1,000 flight
cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later;
and thereafter at intervals not to exceed those specified in NOTE 1
of paragraph 1.A.(2) of the service bulletin. Except as provided by
paragraph (t) of this AD, if any discrepancy is found, prior to
further flight, perform follow-on corrective actions in accordance
with the service bulletin. Accomplishment of Airbus Modification
number 6130S6815 (Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2048), constitutes
terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by
paragraph (p) of this AD.
(q) For airplanes listed in Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-
2074, Revision 1, dated February 20, 1995: Perform visual and eddy
current inspections to detect damaged sealant, corrosion, and cracks
in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-2074, Revision 1,
dated February 20, 1995. Accomplish these requirements at the
applicable time specified in Table 2 of paragraph 1.C.(4) of the
service bulletin, or within 1,000 flight cycles after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs later; and thereafter at intervals
not to exceed those specified in Table 2 of paragraph 1.C.(4) of the
service bulletin, as applicable. Except as provided by paragraph (t)
of this AD, if any discrepancy is found, prior to further flight,
perform follow-on corrective actions in accordance with the service
bulletin.
(r) For airplanes listed in Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-
2064, dated August 24, 1995: Perform an eddy current inspection to
detect cracks of the upper corner angle fitting and the vertical tee
fitting at left and right frame 40, in accordance with Airbus
Service Bulletin A310-57-2064, dated August 24, 1995. Perform the
inspection at the time specified in paragraph (r)(1) or (r)(2) of
this AD, as applicable. Except as provided by paragraph (t) of this
AD, if any crack is found, prior to further flight, perform
corrective actions in accordance with the service bulletin.
(1) For Model A310-200 series airplanes: Prior to the
accumulation of 18,000 total flight cycles, or within 2,000 flight
cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later;
and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 11,000 flight cycles.
(2) For Model A310-300 series airplanes: Prior to the
accumulation of 18,000 total flight cycles, or within 1,700 flight
cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later;
and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 7,700 flight cycles.
(s) For airplanes listed in Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-
2038, Revision 2, dated January 4, 1996: Prior to the accumulation
of 12,000 total flight cycles, or within 1,500 flight cycles after
the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, perform a
high frequency eddy current (HFEC) or X-ray inspection to detect
cracking of the stringer runouts inboard and outboard of rib 14 at
stringers 6, 7, 8, and 9, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin
A310-57-2038, Revision 2, dated January 4, 1996. Thereafter, repeat
the inspection at intervals not to exceed those specified in
paragraph 1.B.(5) of the service bulletin, as applicable. If any
crack is detected, prior to further flight, repair in accordance
with a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-
116, or the DGAC (or its delegated agent).
(t) If any crack is found during any inspection required by this
AD, and the applicable service bulletin specifies to contact Airbus
for an appropriate action: Prior to further flight, repair in
accordance with a method approved by either the Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, or the DGAC (or its delegated agent).
(u) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116.
Operators shall submit their requests through an appropriate FAA
Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send
it to the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116.
Note 4: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the International Branch, ANM-116.
(v) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(w) Except for the repairs required in paragraphs (h), (j), (k),
(m)(2), (n)(2), (s), and (t) of this AD, the actions shall be done
in accordance with the following Airbus service bulletins and change
notices, as applicable, which contain the specified list of
effective pages:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Service bulletin and change Revision level shown on
notices referenced and date Page No. shown on page page Date shown on page
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A310-53-2014, Revision 5, June 1-3, 21, 25........... 5.......................... June 9, 1992.
9, 1992.
4-6, 14-16, 19, 20, 2.......................... February 17, 1987.
23, 26.
[[Page 69185]]
7-10, 12, 13, 17, 18, 3.......................... May 18, 1987.
22, 24.
11, 27, 28............ 4.......................... March 1, 1988.
A310-53-2014, Change Notice 1..................... Original................... September 29, 1992.
5.A., September, 29, 1992.
A310-53-2014, Change Notice 1..................... Original................... February 5, 1996.
5.B., February 5, 1996.
A310-53-2016, Revision 5, 1, 2, 8, 12, 13, 43... 5.......................... December 7, 1992.
December 7, 1992.
3, 4, 6, 7, 9-11, 16- 3.......................... April 22, 1987.
18, 21-34, 39-42, 45.
5..................... 1.......................... November 12, 1985.
14, 15, 19, 20, 35-38, 4.......................... November 17, 1987.
44.
A310-53-2054, Revision 2, May 1..................... 2.......................... May 22, 1990.
22, 1990.
2..................... 1.......................... February 19, 1990.
3-13.................. Original................... January 16, 1990.
A310-53-2057, Revision 1, 1, 2.................. 1.......................... April 30, 1992.
April 30, 1992.
3-9................... Original................... February 26, 1991.
A310-53-2059, Revision 1, 1-6................... 1.......................... January 4, 1996.
January 4, 1996.
7-26.................. Original................... October 4, 1991.
A310-55-2002, Revision 4, 1, 31, 32............. 4.......................... April 28, 1989.
April 28, 1989.
2-30, 33-47........... 3.......................... August 10, 1988.
A310-55-2004, Revision 2, 1-4, 6-8.............. 2.......................... February 7, 1991.
February 7, 1991.
5, 9-17............... Original................... September 6, 1988.
A310-57-2002, Revision 1, July 1-4................... 1.......................... July 2, 1992.
2, 1992.
5-11.................. Original................... December 31, 1988.
A310-57-2002, Revision 2, 1-14.................. 2.......................... January 4, 1996.
January 4, 1996.
A310-57-2006, Revision 3, May 1, 10................. 3.......................... May 2, 1996.
2, 1996.
2..................... 2.......................... March 28, 1995.
3, 4, 5-7............. 1.......................... April 8, 1993.
8, 9.................. Original................... August 13, 1986.
A310-57-2032, Revision 3, 1-12.................. 3.......................... January 4, 1996.
January 4, 1996.
A310-57-2037, Revision 3, 1-10.................. 3.......................... January 4, 1996.
January 4, 1996.
A310-57-2039, September 24, 1-13.................. Original................... September 24, 1990.
1990.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A310-57-2046, Revision 4, 1-14.................. 4.......................... October 16, 1996.
October 16, 1996.
Appendix 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-6................... 3.......................... October 17, 1995.
A310-57-2046, Change Notice 1..................... Original................... October 16, 1996.
4A, October 16, 1996.
A310-57-2047, Revision 2, 57- 1, 4, 7-8, 13, 17-18, 2.......................... January 22, 1997.
58 January 22, 1997. 57-58.
2, 3, 5-6, 16, 37-39.. 1.......................... January 4, 1996.
9-12, 14-15, 19-36, 40- Original................... February 26, 1991.
56, 59-89.
A310-57-2050, April 23, 1990.. 1-31.................. Original................... April 23, 1990.
A310-57-2050, Change Notice 1..................... Original................... September 29, 1992.
O.A., September 29, 1992.
A310-57-2050, Change Notice 1-2................... Original................... January 6, 1995.
O.B., January 6, 1995.
A310-53-2074, Revision 1, 1-71.................. 1.......................... February 20, 1995.
February 20, 1995.
A310-57-2064, August 24, 1995. 1-25.................. Original................... August 24, 1995.
A310-57-2038, Revision 2, 1-6................... 2.......................... January 4, 1996.
January 4, 1996.
7..................... Original................... November 6, 1989.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the
Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
Copies may be obtained from Airbus Industrie, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France. Copies may be inspected at the
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol
Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
Note 5: The subject of this AD is addressed in French
airworthiness directive 92-106-132(B)R4, dated June 5, 1996.
(x) This amendment becomes effective on January 20, 1999.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 8, 1998.
John J. Hickey,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 98-33105 Filed 12-15-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
