Zack

Your proposal to adopt a new airworthiness directive for certain Boeing Company aircrafts is a noteworthy matter. According to your proposal these new directives were prompted by a report of water leakage into the main deck cargo wire integration unit (WIU). The water flowed from the drip shield through disbonded floor seams into the aft main equipment center (MEC) drip shield gutter, then onto the WIU. Your proposed directive would require removing the cargo liner support; cleaning the aft MEC drip shield gutter; and doing a one-time general visual inspection for disbonded seams, and repair if necessary. This directive also requires installing a fiberglass reinforcement overcoat to the top surface of the aft MEC drip shield gutters and installing the cargo liner support. All in all, you purport that by making these additions you will prevent water penetration into the MEC and that in turn will prevent the loss of critical flight systems while in the air. The Boeing Company must comply with strict FAA guidelines as outlined by the Federal Aviation Act of 1958. Crucial to this particular airworthiness directive is that the FAA encourages the development of “next wave” civil aeronautics, new aviation technology and continued safety enhancements of all domestically flown commercial aircraft. The participation in the notice and comment period is in line with the FAA’s mission. However, what I find troubling is that you are asking the public (presumably experts) to comment on what appears to be a troubling issue with the Boeing’s design, yet I failed to read anywhere in your docket folder that these planes have been grounded until the notice and comment period comes to an end (5/28/2013). Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. 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 Adminis