Overview
Title
Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The FAA wants to make a new rule for some Bombardier airplanes to check and fix a part of the plane's wing that might not open right, to keep everyone safe. People can say what they think about this rule until April 12, 2021.
Summary AI
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has proposed a new airworthiness directive for certain Bombardier Model BD-100-1A10 airplanes. This comes after reports of a malfunction where the inboard multi-function spoiler (MFS) surfaces failed to deploy due to missing notches on the piston seal of the MFS power control units (PCUs). The proposal requires inspection and possible replacement of the affected MFS PCUs to ensure safety and prevent potential structural damage or injury. This proposed directive is open for public comments until April 12, 2021.
Abstract
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-100-1A10 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report that the inboard multi-function spoiler (MFS) surfaces failed to deploy, which was caused by missing notches on the piston seal of the MFS power control units (PCUs). This proposed AD would require an inspection to determine if affected MFS PCUs are installed, and replacement of affected MFS PCUs. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
Summary of the Document
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has released a proposed rule for certain Bombardier Model BD-100-1A10 airplanes, urging action following a technical malfunction with the aircraft’s multi-function spoiler (MFS) surfaces. This malfunction, caused by missing notches on the piston seal of the MFS power control units (PCUs), poses safety risks, potentially impacting the plane's ability to safely execute an emergency descent. To address this, the FAA suggests inspecting these units and replacing any faulty ones. Public comments on this proposal were open until April 12, 2021, inviting stakeholders to contribute their views on this matter.
Significant Issues or Concerns
A key concern with the document is its use of specialized terminology and abbreviations like AD, MFS, and PCU, which might be challenging for a general audience to understand. Such jargon can complicate the comprehension of the directive for those not versed in aviation lingo. Furthermore, although the document provides detailed methods for submitting comments, the absence of an accessible, user-friendly online submission form might discourage broader public engagement.
The directive potentially relies heavily on specific solutions derived from Bombardier’s issued service bulletins. This could raise concerns about perceived favoritism towards this corporation, as it asserts an implied preference for using Bombardier's products or services during compliance.
Impact on the Public
For the general public, the proposed rule emphasizes the FAA's commitment to aviation safety. Ensuring that aircraft are equipped with properly functioning components is paramount to the safety of passengers and crew alike. However, the nuanced and technical nature of the document might limit engagement from the general public unless more simplified explanations are provided.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Aviation professionals, particularly those involved in the maintenance and operation of Bombardier airplanes, face direct impacts from this directive. They may be required to conduct inspections and replacements, which could involve both time and monetary investments. While manufacturers or stakeholders tied to the production and installation of MFS units may see an increase in business as airlines comply with the directive, smaller operators might face financial burdens if the costs are not covered under existing warranties.
Moreover, regulatory professionals and consultants might see an opportunity to assist affected entities in navigating the compliance process, highlighting a ripple effect on ancillary industries linked to aviation maintenance and regulatory adherence.
In conclusion, while the FAA’s proposal aims to enhance safety, its clarity and flexibility in terms of compliance options could benefit from refinement. Balancing industry-specific technical solutions with broader public understanding remains a challenge central to regulatory communications.
Issues
• The document's language might be overly complex for individuals unfamiliar with regulatory or aviation terminology, potentially making it difficult for a general audience to understand.
• The document specifies a particular inspection and replacement procedure by referencing service bulletins from Bombardier, which could be seen as favoring this organization.
• The use of abbreviations such as AD, MFS, PCU, and others might be unclear to individuals not familiar with aviation regulations.
• The document provides methods for submitting comments but does not offer an online form directly in the text, which could make it less accessible for some individuals.
• The criteria for determining whether an MFS PCU is affected are listed in a way that could be seen as complex or cumbersome to comprehend, especially for those outside the aviation industry.
• No explicit information on the cost of compliance for small entities is provided, beyond a general statement regarding warranty coverage, which might be a concern for stakeholders needing this data.