Overview
Title
Airworthiness Directives; Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation Model S-76A, S-76B, and S-76C Helicopters Modified by Supplemental Type Certificate SR09211RC
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The FAA decided not to make new rules about fixing a handle on some helicopters because all the broken handles have already been fixed. They checked and found out the problem is already solved.
Summary AI
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has withdrawn a proposed rule that would have required changes to certain Sikorsky model helicopters. This decision was made because the issue that prompted the rule, a faulty life raft deployment handle, has been addressed by replacing all the affected handles. The original rule was intended to prevent a handle malfunction that could stop the life raft from deploying in emergencies. The FAA confirmed no public comments were received about the rule or its cost, and they concluded that the rule is no longer necessary.
Abstract
The FAA is withdrawing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that proposed to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) that would have applied to all Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (Sikorsky) S-76 model helicopters with a certain life raft deployment system (LRDS) installed per Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) SR09211RC. The NPRM was prompted by an incident that occurred where the handle bent prior to the life raft deploying, and this prohibited the crew from successfully deploying and using the life raft. It was determined that the handle in this incident was not manufactured to the approved Type Design. The NPRM would have required removing and replacing the pilot or co-pilot life raft deployment handle (handle) located on the left side of the "broom closet" of the helicopter. Since issuance of the NPRM, the FAA determined that, based on a review of the design approval holder's records, all of the handles have been replaced. Accordingly, the NPRM is withdrawn.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The Federal Register document announces the withdrawal of a proposed rule by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which initially aimed to implement a safety directive for Sikorsky S-76 model helicopters. Specifically, the rule would have mandated the replacement of the life raft deployment handles after an incident revealed that some handles were not manufactured according to the correct specifications, leading to a failure in deploying the life raft.
General Summary
The FAA's proposed airworthiness directive sought to address a significant safety issue by replacing the faulty life raft deployment handles on Sikorsky helicopters. The withdrawal indicates that, after a review, all the non-compliant handles have already been replaced, rendering the new rule unnecessary. Despite this, the FAA keeps open the possibility of future rulemaking should circumstances change.
Significant Issues or Concerns
One notable concern with the document is that it lacks detailed financial analysis or discussion about the costs associated with the initial proposed rule or its withdrawal. This absence makes it difficult to evaluate any economic impact the proposed changes might have had, both for private parties or government entities.
Additionally, the document provides limited information about the initial safety concern. While it outlines that the faulty handles have been replaced, it does not explain how the FAA confirmed the replacements or whether further checks will occur to ensure ongoing compliance. For those unfamiliar with aviation jargon, the term "broom closet" might be confusing without additional context or visualization of helicopter interiors.
Impact on the Public
For the general public, the key takeaway is assurance of safety pertaining to the deployment of life rafts on these helicopter models. The decision reflects proactive steps taken before the issuance of a directive, potentially enhancing trust in aviation safety practices. However, the lack of detailed public communication or engagement through comments suggests a missed opportunity to better educate and involve the public in understanding the process and implications of aviation safety regulations.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For helicopter operators and manufacturers, the withdrawal means they are not required to undertake possibly costly and operationally disruptive handle replacements at this time. This outcome could be seen positively by reducing compliance burdens associated with the rule.
Safety personnel and aviation safety advocacy groups might have mixed reactions. While the resolution of the problem without formal rulemaking underscores efficiency, they may have concerns about process transparency and guarantees that similar issues are preemptively addressed in the future.
Overall, the document illustrates the procedural nature of regulatory oversight, where rules can be proposed and withdrawn based on the evolving understanding of safety and compliance data. This internal process highlights the dynamic approach the FAA takes in ensuring safety, while also illustrating the complexities and sometimes opaque nature of regulatory frameworks to the public.
Issues
• The document does not specify any costs or spending associated with the proposed rulemaking, making it difficult to assess potential wasteful spending.
• The action being withdrawn (NPRM) relates to safety; however, the document does not provide sufficient detail on how the safety issue was resolved other than stating that handles have been replaced.
• The document could benefit from more detailed information on the incident that prompted the NPRM to provide context and understanding of the safety concerns involved.
• The use of terms like 'broom closet' may be unclear without context or explanation, particularly for readers unfamiliar with helicopter interiors.
• There is no information on how the FAA verified the replacement of all non-compliant handles or if any oversight or follow-up actions will take place post-withdrawal.
• The introduction and withdrawal actions are stated clearly but may benefit from a more detailed explanation for the lay reader, who might not be familiar with the regulatory processes.