FAA PROPOSES LIMITS ON AIRLINER LIFE

[glhcarl]

Originally Posted by Telstar

I think this is a reaction to the Chalks Airways Mallard in flight breakup, and the number of fire fighting aircraft that have suffered similar fates. Some have questioned if 70+ year old aircraft in regular commercial use is a good idea and this may be a knee jerk reaction.

As I stated earlier this actually all started with the Aging Aircraft Program, which was started after the Aloha 737 incident. The Widespread Fatigue Damage proposal is just another portion of the Aging Aircraft Program. The Chalks aircraft are not covered by this proposal as they are under the 75,000 pound limit.

[ferrydude]

Please tell me where you got the 27,000 cycles?

Erm, that would be straight from FAR 91.410. Be sure you understnad the context in which stated

[glhcarl]

Originally Posted by ferrydude

Erm, that would be straight from FAR 91.410. Be sure you understnad the context in which stated

Different program that is Repair Assessment program. As it states prior 27,000 cycles or May 25, 2001 which ever is later, the L-1011 operators had to have a inspection procedure approved by the FAA with which they could verify all repairs to the pressure vessel meet type certificate guidelines. Cycles for these thresholds are lower than the new proposed Widespred Fatigue Damage. The Repair Assessment Program threshold for the L-1011 is 27,000 cycles while the Widespread Fatigue Program 36,000 cycles. For a DC-9 the numbers are 60,000 and 100,000 respectively.

[ferrydude]

Eerm, all the BS aside, is 27 thousand flights not a limiting factor if the conditions I listed are not complied with? Applicable for N registered aircaft only

[GotTheTshirt]

Ferry dude

Yes. FAA only

At the moment its relatively simple - just wait till EASA get on the soapbox

Of course you appreciate that the thread started talking about a calender life but the current programs are all cycle related.
Long haul aircraft are typically running 1-2,000 cycles per year so do the maths

[ferrydude]

Right, just as posted. Now then, are you suggesting that the proposed rule is establishing a calender life limit for aircraft? I think not.

[FearlessFreep]

Now to throw another log on the Airbus/Boeing/Douglas differences fire:

Using similar size and utilzation aircraft, A-320, B-737, DC-9

The A-320 is good for only 64% of the life of a B-737, and 48% of the DC-9

The B-737 is good for only 75% of the life of a DC-9

Considering the type of operation and utilization of these aircraft obviously you best bet would be the DC-9 family (no longer manufactured)

Do we really want throwaway technology? I am sure that the Airbus justification of this would be that technology advances would obsolete the other higher time aircraft. Boeing would retort that the older aircraft could be modified.

If you put this into a concept most of us could relate to do you want to buy a car that would only be able to be driven 100K miles, 150K or an indefinite amount.

So do you buy the Mercedes or the Nissan?

I know what I would do.

[glhcarl]

Originally Posted by ferrydude

Right, just as posted. Now then, are you suggesting that the proposed rule is establishing a calender life limit for aircraft? I think not.

The SUMMARY of the NPRM reads:
"This action is intended to prevent widespread fatigue damage by proposing to require that design approval holders establish operational limites on transport catagory airplanes. Design approval holders would also be required to determine if maintenance actions are needed to prevent widespread fatigue damage before an airplane reaches its operational limit. Operators of any affected airplane would be required to incorporate the operational limit and any necessary service information into their maintenance programs. Operation of an affected airplane beyond the operational limit would be prohibited, unless an operator has incorporated an extended operational limit and any necessary information into their maintenance program."

Seems to me that the FAA is trying to establishing a service life for transport aircraft.

I am retired now but when I was working on the original Aging Aircraft Program, the CAA was an partner in the program and stated that what ever the FAA approved would also applied by the CAA.

[ferrydude]

Ok, I'm pedantic.
You posted;

Of course you appreciate that the thread started talking about a calender life but the current programs are all cycle related.

The thread started with;

FAA PROPOSES LIMITS ON AIRLINER LIFE
A new rule proposed by the FAA would begin a process to set what are essentially life limits for transport-category aircraft. The new rule would require manufacturers to develop an operational limit and substantiate that widespread fatigue damage will not occur prior to airplanes' reaching that limit. Once the operational limit is set, airplanes cannot be flown beyond that point unless an extension is approved. The FAA says the program would have a total cost over 20 years of $360 million, of which about 10 percent will be faced by manufacturers and the rest by operators. The rule has no affect on GA aircraft, and AOPA would like to keep it that way. "A review by the AOPA Air Safety Foundation shows that the problem of mechanical or maintenance failure due to age is actually declining," said Andy Cebula, AOPA executive vice president of government affairs, last week. Avflash.

I don't see any reference to a proposed calendar life limit for aircraft in the original thread, or the NPRM. Do you??