Results
2020-22-06: The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 99-01-19 and AD 2004-25-02, which applied to certain Airbus SAS Model A320 series airplanes. AD 99-01-19 and AD 2004-25-02 required repetitive inspections to detect fatigue cracking in certain areas of the fuselage, and corrective action if necessary. AD 2004-25-02 also provided an optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections. This AD continues to require, for certain airplanes, repetitive inspections of the fastener holes for any cracking, and repair if necessary, and provides an optional terminating action for the fastener hole inspections. This AD also revises the applicability to include additional airplanes and requires, for all airplanes, inspections of the emergency exit door structure for any cracking and repair if necessary; as specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is incorporated by reference. This AD was prompted by a report that during full scale tests to support the Model A320 structure extended service goal (ESG) exercise, \n\n((Page 71241)) \n\nseveral cracks were found on both sides of the overwing emergency exit door cut-outs at fuselage section 15. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
2003-22-09: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Pratt & Whitney PW4074, PW4074D, PW4077, PW4077D, PW4084, PW4084D, PW4090, PW4090D, PW4090-3, and PW4098 turbofan engines. This AD requires borescope inspection of the No. 3 bearing weep tube, on engines with high oil consumption that troubleshooting procedures fail to determine the source of oil loss. This AD also requires for all engines, initial and repetitive visual inspections of the turbine exhaust case (TEC) in the vicinity of the No 3 bearing oil vent tube for evidence of oil wetting or staining. If the vent tube borescope inspection is unsuccessful due to tube blockage, this AD also requires borescope inspections of the high pressure turbine (HPT) assembly for oil wetting or staining. This AD also requires removal of the HPT assembly and replacement of any heat distressed HPT assembly hardware if oil wetting or staining is found. This AD is prompted by reports of engine HPT assembly hardware being damaged as aresult of thermal distress from oil igniting after leaking from the No. 3 bearing compartment. We are issuing this AD to prevent thermal distressed HPT assembly hardware from remaining in service, which could result in a cracked HPT stage 1 disk or HPT stage 1-2 air seal and an uncontained engine failure.
95-02-11: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-87 (MD-87) series airplanes. This action requires an inspection to detect chafing or arcing damage to the wiring of the aft right coatroom, the intercostal, and the recirculation duct assembly near longeron 5; and modification of the wiring installation for the aft right coatroom. This amendment is prompted by a report of an electrical fire that started due to a short in the coatroom wiring, which was caused by arcing and chafing damage to the wiring. The actions specified in this AD are intended to prevent severe damage to the airframe in the event of a fire caused by arcing and chafing damage to the coatroom wiring.
67-31-04: 67-31-04 CESSNA: Amdt. 39-516, Part 39, Federal Register November 29, 1967. Applies to Models 150G and 150H Airplanes, Serial Numbers 15064533 through 15067891. To prevent loss of longitudinal control, unless already accomplished, prior to further flight, remove the glove compartment from the aircraft. If after it is removed the glove compartment is modified, the modification must be approved by the Chief, Engineering and Manufacturing Branch, Federal Aviation Administration, Central Region, before it is reinstalled in the aircraft and the aircraft returned to service. This amendment effective November 29, 1967, for all persons except those to whom it was made effective by air mail letter dated November 17, 1967.
2021-11-04: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited Model DHC-8-400, -401, and -402 airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report of main landing gear (MLG) retractions after striking an obstacle or severe wheel imbalance after a tire failure. This AD requires inspections for correct height of the lock link over-center stop pin and for correct gaps of the left-hand and right-hand MLG downlock proximity sensors, replacement of the shim if necessary, corrective actions, and installation of a new, improved proximity sensor electronic unit (PSEU) with software changes. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
2020-23-01: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all GE Aviation Czech s.r.o. (GEAC) M601D-11, M601E-11, M601E-11A, M601E- 11AS, M601E-11S, M601F, H75-200, H80-100, H80-200, and H85-200 model turboprop engines. This AD was prompted by reports of engine power fluctuations occurring during ground tests. This AD requires the removal and replacement of the fuel control unit (FCU). The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
2003-22-11: This amendment supersedes an existing airworthiness directive (AD) for the specified Eurocopter France (Eurocopter) Model AS350B, B1, B2, B3, BA, D, and AS355E helicopters, that currently requires removing certain serial-numbered main servocontrols before further flight. This amendment contains the same requirements but also requires removing certain other main and tail servocontrols on or before 550 hours time- in-service (TIS) or 24 months, whichever occurs first. Also, this amendment adds the Eurocopter Model AS350C, D1, and AS355F, F1, F2, and N helicopters to the applicability. This amendment is prompted by the discovery of a manufacturing defect in another set of servocontrols. The actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent failure of a main or tail servocontrol in the flight control system and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
2021-09-19: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus SAS Model A319-171N airplanes, Model A320-271N, -272N, and -273N airplanes, and Model A321-271N, -272N, -271NX, and -272NX airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report indicating that during a full scale fatigue test of the forward engine mounts, premature wear was identified on the forward engine mount shackle assemblies; in addition, during bearing replacement, the bearing lock washer was found broken. This AD requires replacing any forward engine mount shackle assemblies having a certain part number with a serviceable part, and re- identifying the engine mount, or replacing any forward engine mount assemblies having a certain part number, as specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is incorporated by reference. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
2007-21-03: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: * * * * * * * * the FAA set-up in January 1999 an Ageing Transport Systems Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ATSRAC) to investigate the potential safety issues in aging aircraft as a result of wear and degradation in their operating systems. Under this plan, all Holders of type Certificates aircraft are required to conduct a design review, to preclude the occurrence of potential unsafe conditions as the aircraft aged. * * * * * The unsafe condition is degradation of the fuel system, which could result in loss of the airplane. We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe condition on these products.
95-02-08: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to certain Boeing Model 737 series airplanes, that requires modification of certain fuselage support structure for the number 2 galley. This amendment is prompted by results of engineering tests and analyses which revealed that certain fuselage support structure for the number 2 galley is unable to support certain loads that may occur during emergency landing conditions. If the fuselage support structure breaks, the galley may shift and cause blockage of the forward service door (galley door). The actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent inability of passengers and crew to exit the airplane through this door after an emergency landing.