Dear Sir:
Please find below Embraer comments to NPRM Docket No. FAA-2008-
0194 dated May
07th, 2008.
The NPRM would require airplanes with cycle totals above the thresholds to
perform the required inspections within 90 days of the effective date of the
AD.
While 90 days is a reasonable deadline for the incorporation of changes to
a
maintenance program, to require the actual inspections to be completed
within
that time means that the affected airplanes will have to be removed from
service
for special inspections. Unlike as stated in the supplemental NPRM, the
issue
is not only the availability of replacement parts, but the necessity of
requiring unscheduled, especially intrusive, inspections like these that
require
the fuel tanks to be safed (drained and ventilated) prior to inspection.
The risk identified in the analysis done to develop this inspection program
does
not indicate such a rapid inspection is necessary, and in truth, requiring
unscheduled tank penetrations will increase the probability of maintenance
error
which will result in an increase in the risk of ignition sources, which is
exactly the problem this AD is trying to address. As stated in the preamble
to
the final rule:
The fuel tank safety review may result in maintenance actions that are
overdue
prior to the effective date of the operational rules. The plan provided by the
operator should include recommended timing of initial inspections or
maintenance
actions that are incorporated in the long term maintenance or inspection
program. An analysis of and supporting evidence for the proposed timing of
the
initial action should be provided to the FAA. For example, it may be
determined
that an inspection of a certain component should be conducted after 50,000
flight hours. Some airplanes within the fleet may have accumulated over
50,000
flight hours. The timing of the initial inspection must be approved by the FAA
and would be dependent upon an evaluation of the safety impact of the
inspection. It is desirable to incorporate these inspections in the current
heavy maintenance program, such as a "C" or "D" check, without taking
airplanes
out of service. However, it may be determined that more expeditious action
is
required, which may be mandated by AD.
As stated previously, Embraer believes that there is no special risk identified
that justifies such a rapid implementation of the inspection for airplanes that
have exceeded the threshold. In lieu of the reference to the next “C” check,
Embraer suggests within the next 5000 flight hours after the effective date of
this AD.
If FAA retains the 90 day inspection requirement for the over-the-threshold
airplanes, the Cost of Compliance section should be revised to reflect the
true
cost of the unscheduled inspections. Embraer notes that, in the
promulgation of
SFAR88, FAA estimated the cost for the initial inspection as between 60
and 330
additional labor hours, with the subject airplane out of service for between 36
and 96 hours. Note that these values were determined for an inspection
done
concurrently with a C check, and that the cost of unscheduled inspections
would
be significantly higher.
Attachments:
Embraer
Title: Embraer
View Attachment:
Embraer (2)
Title: Embraer (2)
View Attachment:
Related Comments
Total: 1
Embraer Public SubmissionPosted: 06/03/2008
ID: FAA-2008-0194-0006
Embraer
This is comment on Rule
Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER) Model EMB-135BJ Airplanes
View Comment
Attachments:
Embraer
Title:
Embraer
Embraer (2)
Title:
Embraer (2)
Related Comments
Public Submission Posted: 06/03/2008 ID: FAA-2008-0194-0006
May 27,2008 11:59 PM ET