John Mark Leverette

I am for this Airworthiness Directive and I can see the immediate safety implications of this deficiency. I believe that emergency exit lighting can be the difference in safely exiting an airplane during an emergency and not surviving the event. The FAA has a long standing reputation for ensuring passenger safety and this is a fine example of that. Using information from a foreign agency to get safety initiatives to the field is a fast and efficient way to ensure the existing problem is fixed. As an individual that works in an airworthiness field, and also works with foreign airworthiness authorities, I totally agree with trusting information from the European authority. I believe their standards are as stringent, if not more so than the US's. Although there are instances where safety outweighs cost, I believe the economic impact of this proposal is miniscule compared to the possible impact it could have on passenger safety. The aircraft owners would surely not see this cost as prohibitive and would most likely consider it a great investment in the safety of their aircraft. Although the passengers would only see the benefits if they were ever needed, they would definitely appreciate them then. The FAA has not only the authority, but also the responsibility to ensure safety issues like these are identified and fixed. Working with foreign agencies that have similar standard is not only an efficient use of tax payer dollars, but it also ensures the safety of the same tax payers. This is just another example of a great government agency doing a great job! Again, I am for this Airworthiness Directive and believe it is the responsibility of the Federal Aviation Administration to make such determination. Keep up the good work. Respectfully, J. Mark Leverette