Kent Ewing

Document ID: FAA-2011-0199-0003
Document Type: Public Submission
Agency: Federal Aviation Administration
Received Date: March 11 2011, at 12:00 AM Eastern Standard Time
Date Posted: March 14 2011, at 12:00 AM Eastern Standard Time
Comment Start Date: March 10 2011, at 12:00 AM Eastern Standard Time
Comment Due Date: April 25 2011, at 11:59 PM Eastern Standard Time
Tracking Number: 80c057a4
View Document:

This is comment on Rule

Airworthiness Directives: Eclipse Aerospace, Inc. Model EA500 Airplanes Equipped With a Pratt and Whitney Canada, Corp. PW610F-A Engine

View Comment

This is an arbitrary, unneccessary reduction in the envelope of the airplane. The engine mfg has known about the problem since Nov 2008. There is a known fix to the internals...burner cans...and the FAA and the CAA have not issued a "recall" slash mandatory engine service bulletin against P&W. WHY NOT? When is the DOT/ FAA/CAA going to issue a mandatory requirement (aka RECALL) on the engine? Honda and Toyota are required> What is the FAA/CAA P&W finding on the "other" versions of the engine installed in the Cessna Mustang and Phenom 100? The operators need to know. Your monetary impact reveals that the FAA has not considered the very expensive increase in fuel flow at FL300 (600 lbs/hr) versus the "sweet spot" at FL 350 to FL 370 where fuel flow is (400 lbs/hr). This is a huge impact to the operators of the aircraft and therefore should be addressed. More information needs to come from P&W ASAP!!