Overview
Title
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The FAA wants to change a rule to make planes safer from drink spills by putting in a new stronger control panel, so pilots won't have to cover it with a special shield anymore. People can say what they think about this change until April 8, 2021.
Summary AI
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has proposed a new rule to replace an existing Airworthiness Directive (AD) for certain Airbus SAS Model A350 airplanes. This comes after the development of a new water-resistant integrated control panel (ICP) to prevent issues from liquid spills on the flight deck, which previously could cause engine shutdowns mid-flight. The proposed rule would make it mandatory to install this new panel, eliminating the need for previous protective measures. Public comments on this proposal can be submitted until April 8, 2021.
Abstract
The FAA proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2020-09-14, which applies to certain Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and - 1041 airplanes. AD 2020-09-14 requires revising the existing airplane flight manual (AFM) to define a liquid-prohibited zone on the flight deck and provide procedures following liquid spillage on the center pedestal. AD 2020-09-14 also requires installing a removable integrated control panel (ICP) cover on the flight deck and further revising the AFM to include instructions for ICP cover use. Since the FAA issued AD 2020-09-14, a new, water-resistant ICP has been developed. This proposed AD would require installing a new, water-resistant ICP, which would allow removing the ICP protective cover and the AFM revisions, as specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which will be incorporated by reference. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document under discussion is a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), a branch of the U.S. Department of Transportation. The primary purpose of this proposed rule is to supersede an earlier Airworthiness Directive (AD) related to Airbus SAS Model A350 airplanes by introducing a new water-resistant integrated control panel. This innovation aims to mitigate risks associated with liquid spills on the flight deck, which previously could lead to in-flight engine shutdowns, posing significant safety threats.
General Summary
The FAA's proposal is an update to an existing directive, emphasizing the adoption of new technology—a water-resistant integrated control panel designed to enhance aircraft safety and reliability. The document invites public feedback on this proposal and provides detailed instructions on how to submit comments. The initiative aligns with international safety standards, specifically those overseen by the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA).
Significant Issues and Concerns
Technical Language: The document contains specialized aviation and legal jargon, such as references to "EASA AD 2020-0203" and "MCAI," which may not be easily understandable to a general audience. Laypersons might find it challenging to interpret these terms without prior knowledge of aviation regulations.
Feedback Submission: While the document has outlined procedures for comment submission, using platforms such as regulations.gov and references like "14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45," these instructions may be daunting for individuals unfamiliar with governmental processes and platforms.
Reference to Legal Acts: The extensive legal references, such as "AD 2020-09-14, Amendment 39-19910," might be overwhelming for readers who do not have a background in regulatory compliance.
Public Impact
On a broad scale, the proposed regulation aims to heighten flight safety by reducing the risk of engine failures due to liquid spills. This is a critical issue for ensuring passenger safety and preventing flight disruptions. Ensuring that all airplanes comply with the directive could result in increased public confidence in air travel safety.
Stakeholder Impact
Aviation Industry: Airlines operating Airbus A350 models must adapt to these new regulations, potentially leading to operational changes and costs associated with the installation of the new control panels. However, these costs might be mitigated by warranties, though the document does not provide a detailed exploration of these economic implications.
Manufacturers: Airbus, as the manufacturer, might experience increased production demands for the new control panels. This could positively impact their business operations while balancing costs within warranty coverage agreements.
Regulatory Bodies: Entities like the FAA and EASA will bear the responsibility of overseeing the implementation and compliance of these new measures, ensuring the aviation industry's alignment with updated safety standards.
In summary, while the proposed rule signifies a positive step towards enhancing flight safety, particularly concerning accidental liquid spillage on airplanes' flight decks, the document's technical nature and procedural intricacies could present challenges for non-expert stakeholders. Enhanced clarity and support for understanding compliance requirements could facilitate smoother implementation and feedback processes.
Issues
• The document contains highly technical language and references, such as 'EASA AD 2020-0203' and 'MCAI,' that might be difficult for a general audience to understand.
• The instructions for submitting feedback or comments are detailed but may not be clear to all readers, particularly those unfamiliar with certain processes or platforms like '14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45' or 'regulations.gov'.
• The reference to complex legal acts and previous amendments, such as 'AD 2020-09-14, Amendment 39-19910 (85 FR 30601, May 20, 2020)' might be confusing for someone not familiar with the context.
• The document assumes a level of familiarity with aviation regulatory frameworks, which could be difficult for outsiders or non-experts to follow.
• The potential economic impact of compliance with the proposed AD is not clearly articulated, such as the costs covered under warranty, which might not provide a full picture to stakeholders.
• The terminology regarding compliance and regulatory measures, such as 'RC procedures' and 'AMOC,' could benefit from clearer explanations within the document to aid understanding.