Overview
Title
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The FAA wants to fix a problem with parts in some Airbus airplanes to keep them safe, because the parts can wear out too fast and might break. They want people to say what they think about these changes by April 12, 2021.
Summary AI
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has proposed a new rule for certain Airbus SAS airplanes, including models A319-171N, A320-271N, -272N, -273N, and A321-271N, -272N, -271NX, and -272NX. This proposal arises from early wear and a broken part found during tests on engine mounts, which could lead to engine mount failure or detachment. The rule would require replacing specific parts on these airplanes to address these issues. Comments on this proposed rule need to be submitted by April 12, 2021.
Abstract
The FAA proposes to adopt 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 proposed 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 proposed AD would require 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 proposed for incorporation by reference. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document is a proposed rule issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to address a safety issue with certain Airbus SAS airplane models, namely the A319-171N, A320-271N, -272N, -273N, and A321-271N, -272N, -271NX, and -272NX. This proposed rule aims to correct a problem identified during a structural evaluation where premature wear and a broken component in the engine mounts were found. The urgency for this adjustment is underscored by the potential for engine mount failure or even engine detachment during flight, posing a risk to aircraft controllability and safety.
Significant Issues and Concerns
A prominent concern with this document is the lack of a detailed cost estimate for compliance. While it mentions that warranty may cover some costs, clearer financial implications would be beneficial for airline operators to understand the potential economic impact better. A precise breakdown of possible expenses would provide clarity and facilitate budget planning for stakeholders.
Another issue involves the reliance on several technical terms and acronyms, such as "AD" (Airworthiness Directive) and "EASA" (European Union Aviation Safety Agency), without definitions. For a general audience or stakeholders unfamiliar with aviation lingo, this might create a barrier to understanding the document's full implications.
Furthermore, the document relies heavily on references to external European documents such as the EASA AD 2020-0250 for compliance actions, which could complicate matters for operators not used to navigating such documents. Additionally, it does not elaborate sufficiently on exceptions or differences that might arise during compliance, which could impact how airlines implement the required changes.
Impact on the Public and Stakeholders
Public Impact
In a broad sense, the document intends to enhance public safety by preventing potential in-flight failures that could result in severe accidents. By proactively addressing the identification of weaknesses in aircraft parts, the FAA aims to avoid dangerous incidents that can affect the general public and airline passengers.
Stakeholder Impact
For airlines operating the affected Airbus models, this proposed rule could have mixed effects. On the positive side, implementing this directive could reduce safety risks and boost public confidence in air travel. On the negative side, airlines might face operational disruptions and incur costs, particularly if warranty coverage is not as extensive as needed and direct financial burdens arise from replacing parts.
In terms of process, while the window for submitting comments is explicitly noted, the next steps post-comment submission remain vague. Clearer guidelines on what follows after stakeholders submit their feedback would help manage expectations and ensure transparency throughout the rulemaking process.
In conclusion, while the proposed safety measures are crucial, the FAA could enhance clarity and understanding by providing more comprehensive details on financial impacts, elaborating on technical terms, and simplifying the compliance process for stakeholders.
Issues
• The document does not provide a detailed cost estimate for compliance, only stating that some costs may be covered by warranty. It would be beneficial to provide more clarity on the potential financial impact to operators.
• The document mentions compliance through incorporation by reference to the EASA AD but doesn’t elaborate on specific exceptions or differences that might impact compliance.
• The AD uses several acronyms (e.g., AD, EASA, MCAI) and technical terms (e.g., shackle assemblies, bearing lock washer) without providing definitions or additional context for readers who may not be familiar with these terms.
• The document relies heavily on references to external documents such as the EASA AD 2020-0250 for specific compliance actions, which could complicate understanding and compliance for those not familiar with these documents.
• The timeframe for submitting comments (by April 12, 2021) is mentioned, but there is no detailed explanation of the process steps after submission, potentially leaving stakeholders uncertain about the next phases or potential adjustments based on their inputs.