Airworthiness directives
Airworthiness directives
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Airworthiness directives
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
From: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Re: Airworthiness directives
UK Mandatory Requirements for Airworthiness are in CAP747 which will point you in the right direction.
Airworthiness Notices are in CAP 455
For a Permit aircraft you need Mandatory Permit Directives from the UK CAA.
Mike
Airworthiness Notices are in CAP 455
For a Permit aircraft you need Mandatory Permit Directives from the UK CAA.
Mike
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,082
Likes: 0
From: SX in SX in UK
Re: Airworthiness directives
Thanks for your replies, they will keep me quiet all afternoon.
Another question - are ADs internationally binding? i.e if your aircraft is manufactured in (say) the US, there are FAA ADs applicable to it but its on the G-register, are the ADs still mandatory?
Another question - are ADs internationally binding? i.e if your aircraft is manufactured in (say) the US, there are FAA ADs applicable to it but its on the G-register, are the ADs still mandatory?
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 630
Likes: 2
From: UK
Re: Airworthiness directives
I think you'll find ADs issued in the country of origin are mandatory. American built aeroplane with American engine = mandatory FAA ADs even if UK registered. In addition the country of registration may well have there own ADs above and beyond those from the country of origin.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Airworthiness directives
I think you're referring to the State of Design. My understanding is that the State of Registry is responsible managing and implementing ADs. However, for a/c over 5700kg there are various processes required of the State of Design for receiving, processing and issuing information.
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,082
Likes: 0
From: SX in SX in UK
Re: Airworthiness directives
So what happens if the aircraft is still in production and it has ADs against it? Does the manufacture have to fix the problem and re-test the aircraft or leave it and rely on the ADs to solve it?
I think that 3 questions in one thread is enough!
I think that 3 questions in one thread is enough!
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
Re: Airworthiness directives
I think the answer to that, Kolibear, is that it depends on the likelihood of the manufacturer getting sued big-time.
Example: In the Lycoming defective crankshaft saga, L paid for everything, including engine removal/refitting. I believe that they also paid, rather more quietly, for AOG costs incurred by commercial operators. This was done even on planes way out of warranty.
However, many other safety related issues are left to the owners to pay for. The manufacturer issues an SB, which typically does not become an AD. I can think of defective aileron joints in a particular type of aircraft; the SB was never made mandatory, which means it was optional, which enabled the manufacturer to wash their hands of paying for the work - even on planes within the warranty!
So there is a lot of politics involved here. The nearer the manufacturer gets to making something "not optional" the more likely he is to have to pay for the work, so the pressure is on to pretend it isn't important... Lycoming can't do that as easily anymore; the FAA is right on their back now.
In the software business, it is also possible to sneak in a fix for something quite serious, in the guise of a routine firmware update (for example in an autopilot) for an ostensible problem which is very benign. I've seen this happen.
Example: In the Lycoming defective crankshaft saga, L paid for everything, including engine removal/refitting. I believe that they also paid, rather more quietly, for AOG costs incurred by commercial operators. This was done even on planes way out of warranty.
However, many other safety related issues are left to the owners to pay for. The manufacturer issues an SB, which typically does not become an AD. I can think of defective aileron joints in a particular type of aircraft; the SB was never made mandatory, which means it was optional, which enabled the manufacturer to wash their hands of paying for the work - even on planes within the warranty!
So there is a lot of politics involved here. The nearer the manufacturer gets to making something "not optional" the more likely he is to have to pay for the work, so the pressure is on to pretend it isn't important... Lycoming can't do that as easily anymore; the FAA is right on their back now.
In the software business, it is also possible to sneak in a fix for something quite serious, in the guise of a routine firmware update (for example in an autopilot) for an ostensible problem which is very benign. I've seen this happen.
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
From: West Wales UK.
Re: Airworthiness directives
Kolibear
If you fly a French aircraft the ADs are listed here.www.gsac.fr
Look initially under emergency ADs (CNs)
Then under manufacturer of the aircraft eg. Apex and then the manufacturers of engines and equipment eg. Limbach, MT propeller, Becker avionics, Jolliet ELTs, etc.
The website is easy to use and has an English language section if the French is difficult.
MG
If you fly a French aircraft the ADs are listed here.www.gsac.fr
Look initially under emergency ADs (CNs)
Then under manufacturer of the aircraft eg. Apex and then the manufacturers of engines and equipment eg. Limbach, MT propeller, Becker avionics, Jolliet ELTs, etc.
The website is easy to use and has an English language section if the French is difficult.
MG
