Overview
Title
Airworthiness Directives; MHI RJ Aviation ULC (Type Certificate Previously Held by Bombardier, Inc.) Airplanes
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The FAA wants to change a safety rule for some airplanes to make sure pilots have better instructions to keep the planes safe during flights. They also want to include more types of airplanes in this updated rule and are asking for feedback to make sure everything is covered.
Summary AI
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has proposed a new rule to replace a previous Airworthiness Directive (AD 2019-22-07) for certain MHI RJ Aviation ULC airplane models, including various Regional Jet series. The initial directive required updates to the airplane flight manual to address a safety issue with the Automatic Flight Control System (AFCS) that could result in reduced control of the airplane during certain flight modes. However, additional unsafe conditions have been identified, prompting the FAA to propose further revisions to the flight manuals and expand the applicability of the AD to include additional airplane models. The FAA invites comments on this proposal by April 12, 2021, to address these safety concerns effectively.
Abstract
The FAA proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2019-22-07, which applies to all MHI RJ Aviation ULC Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes, Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701 & 702) airplanes, Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes, Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes, and Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. AD 2019-22-07 requires revising the existing airplane flight manual (AFM) to include a limitation and an abnormal operating procedure for the Automatic Flight Control System (AFCS). Since the FAA issued AD 2019-22-07, it was found that the limitation and abnormal operating procedure did not include reference to a certain mode. This proposed AD would require revising the existing AFM and adding airplanes to the applicability. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
Summary of the Document
The document is a proposed rule from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) aimed at updating regulations for certain airplane models manufactured by MHI RJ Aviation ULC, previously known as Bombardier, Inc. The proposal seeks to replace an earlier directive that required revisions to airplane flight manuals. The updates aim to address potential safety issues associated with the Automatic Flight Control System (AFCS), which affect control of airplanes during specific flight modes. The FAA suggests further updates to these manuals and expands the types of aircraft to which these regulations apply.
Significant Issues and Concerns
One of the primary concerns with the document is its complexity, as it is heavily laden with technical jargon and references to various aircraft models and systems. This could create barriers for readers who are not specialists in aviation or engineering. Additionally, while the document proposes to replace earlier directives, it lacks a clear, concise explanation of specific improvements or risk mitigations resulting from the new changes. Individuals unfamiliar with past directives may find it challenging to understand the benefits of the proposal.
Moreover, the document does not clearly outline the potential cost implications for aircraft operators when adapting to the revised manual requirements beyond mentioning the number of airplanes affected. Such omittance can lead to uncertainty and concerns among stakeholders regarding financial burdens.
Public Impact
For the general public, the proposed changes are not likely to have direct, immediate impacts. Instead, the proposal can be seen as part of routine safety enhancements that help ensure air travel remains secure and reliable. However, since it pertains to preventing potentially unsafe conditions, it indirectly reinforces public confidence in air travel safety standards.
Specific Stakeholder Impact
Aviation industry stakeholders, notably aircraft operators and maintenance personnel, could be significantly affected by this rule. The proposal necessitates updates to flight manuals, which means that operators may need to administer training and recalibrate their procedures in accordance with the new requirements. The administrative burden can result in additional costs and time for compliance.
Additionally, previously approved Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) may require re-evaluation under new scrutiny, potentially leading to bureaucratic delays and increased regulatory compliance efforts. Understanding and accessing these requirements could prove challenging due to references to multiple external documents without sufficient summarization within the rule itself.
Conclusion
This proposed rule underscores the FAA’s ongoing commitment to aviation safety. While the initiative is focused on ensuring the secure operation of specific aircraft models, the execution and communication of these changes present challenges. Efforts to simplify technical content and clarify the benefits and costs of compliance could aid stakeholders in grasping the full scope of the proposed rule’s implications.
Issues
• The document could benefit from a more concise summary of changes being made from AD 2019-22-07 to the new proposed AD, as the detailed explanation may be difficult to understand for those not in the aviation industry.
• There is a significant amount of technical jargon that may not be easily understood by individuals without a background in aviation or engineering.
• The document does not provide an estimate of the cost implications for operators in adapting to the revised Airplane Flight Manual requirements, aside from the number of airplanes affected.
• The necessity for previously approved Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) to go through a detailed approval process again could result in bureaucratic delays.
• References to numerous external documents and service information without giving a basic summary of their contents might hinder the understanding of the required actions for compliance.
• The document mentions the replacement of AD 2019-22-07 but lacks a clear explanation of specific benefits or risk mitigations achieved through the new changes.
• Language in the document assumes familiarity with previous directives and regulations (e.g., 14 CFR 39.19), which might not be accessible or clear to all stakeholders.