[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 38 (Wednesday, February 26, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8650-8659]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4719]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 96-NM-209-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Raytheon (Beech) Model 400, 400A, 400T,
and MU-300-10 Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes the supersedure of an existing
airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to all Raytheon (Beech) Model
400, 400A, 400T, and MU-300-10 airplanes, and Mitsubishi Model MU-300
airplanes, that currently requires a revision to the Airplane Flight
Manual (AFM) to provide pilots with special operating procedures during
icing conditions. This proposal would require modification of the
horizontal stabilizer ice protection system. This proposal also would
remove Model MU-300 airplanes from the applicability of that AD. This
proposal is prompted by the
[[Page 8651]]
development of a modification that will positively address the unsafe
condition. The actions specified by the proposed AD are intended to
prevent uncommanded nose-down pitch at certain flap settings during
icing conditions.
DATES: Comments must be received by April 7, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 96-NM-209-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,
Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this
location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be
obtained from Raytheon Aircraft Company, Manager Service Engineering,
Hawker Customer Support Department, P.O. Box 85, Wichita, Kansas 67201-
0085. This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, 1801
Airport Road, Room 100, Mid-Continent Airport, Wichita, Kansas.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tina L. Miller, Aerospace Engineer,
Flight Test Branch, ACE-117W, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, Wichita
Aircraft Certification Office, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Mid-
Continent Airport, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone (316) 946-4168; fax
(316) 946-4407.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the
proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as
they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number
and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All
communications received on or before the closing date for comments,
specified above, will be considered before taking action on the
proposed rule. The proposals contained in this notice may be changed in
light of the comments received.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All
comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing
date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested
persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with
the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket Number 96-NM-209-AD.'' The postcard will be date stamped and
returned to the commenter.
Availability of NPRMs
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request
to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103, Attention: Rules
Docket No. 96-NM-209-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98055-4056.
Discussion
On December 5, 1994, the FAA issued AD 94-25-10, amendment 39-9094
(59 FR 64112, December 13, 1994), applicable to all Raytheon Model 400,
400A, 400T, and MU-300-10 airplanes, and all Mitsubishi Model MU-300
airplanes, to require a revision to the FAA-approved Airplane Flight
Manual (AFM) to provide pilots with special operating procedures during
icing conditions. That action was prompted by the results of icing
tests, which demonstrated that ice accumulations on the horizontal
stabilizer may cause the airplane to pitch down at certain flaps
settings. The requirements of that AD are intended to prevent
uncommanded nose-down pitch at certain flap settings during icing
conditions.
Actions Since Issuance of Previous Rule
Since the issuance of that AD, the FAA has reviewed and approved
Beechcraft Service Bulletin No. 2600, dated November 1995. The service
bulletin describes procedures for modification of the horizontal
stabilizer ice protection system on Model 400, 400A, and MU-300-10
airplanes. The modification involves replacing the existing ice
protection system with an improved system and changing the horizontal
stabilizer icing controls and annunciation. Accomplishment of this
modification will improve the ice protection capabilities of the
horizontal stabilizer.
That Beechcraft service bulletin does not address Model 400T
airplanes, since the modification described in it has not been tested
or approved for those airplanes. Nevertheless, the FAA has determined
that modification of the horizontal stabilizer ice protection system on
Model 400T airplanes must be accomplished in order to address the
unsafe condition and ensure the continued operational safety of those
airplanes.
Explanation of Requirements of Proposed Rule
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop on other products of this same type design, the
proposed AD would supersede AD 94-25-10 to continue to require revising
the Limitations and Normal Procedures Sections of the AFM to provide
pilots with special operating procedures during icing conditions. The
proposed AD also would require modification of the horizontal
stabilizer ice protection system. The modification would be required to
be accomplished in accordance with the service bulletin described
previously (if applicable), or in accordance with a method approved by
the FAA. Accomplishment of the modification constitutes terminating
action for the AFM revision required currently by AD 94-25-10.
Additionally, the proposed AD would remove Model MU-300 airplanes
from the applicability of the existing AD. The FAA is considering
issuing separate rulemaking action to require, among other things,
certain AFM revisions and installation of an ice detector on those
airplanes.
Cost Impact
There are approximately 237 Raytheon (Beech) Model 400, 400A, 400T,
and MU-300-10 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet.
The FAA estimates that 39 Model 400 and MU-300-10 airplanes, 67
Model 400A airplanes, and 80 Model 400T airplanes of U.S. registry
would be affected by this proposed AD.
The actions that are currently required by AD 94-25-10 (AFM
revision) take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish, at
an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the
cost impact on U.S. operators of the actions currently required is
estimated to be $11,160, or $60 per airplane.
The modification that is proposed in this AD would take
approximately 320 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average
labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts would cost between
$37,000 and $45,000 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost
impact on the proposed requirements of this AD U.S. operators of those
airplanes is estimated to be between $10,453,200 and $11,941,200, or
between $56,200 and 64,200 per airplane.
The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions
that no operator has yet accomplished any of the current or proposed
requirements of
[[Page 8652]]
this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in
the future if this AD were not adopted.
Regulatory Impact
The regulations proposed herein would not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this
proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed
regulation (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact,
positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under
the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft
regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the
Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules
Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend
part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as
follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by removing amendment 39-9094 (59 FR
64112, December 13, 1994), and by adding a new airworthiness directive
(AD), to read as follows:
Raytheon Aircraft Company (Formerly Beech): Docket 96-NM-209-AD.
Supersedes AD 94-25-10, Amendment 39-9094.
Applicability: All Model 400, 400T, and MU-300-10 airplanes; and
Model 400A airplanes having serial numbers RK-1 through RK-107
inclusive; certificated in any category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (c) of
this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of
the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to
address it.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent uncommanded nose-down pitch at certain flap settings
during icing conditions, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 20 days after December 28, 1994 (the effective date
of AD 94-25-10, amendment 39-9094), revise the Limitations Section
and Normal Procedures Section of the FAA-approved Airplane Flight
Manual (AFM) to include the following text. This may be accomplished
by inserting a copy of this AD in the AFM.
``Icing Conditions
If icing conditions are encountered during flight, no greater
than 10 degrees flaps may be utilized for landing unless the
following conditions are met:
1. The icing conditions were encountered for less than 10
minutes, and the Ram Air Temperature (RAT) during such encounter was
warmer than -8 degrees C.
Or
2. A RAT of +5 degrees C or warmer is observed during approach
and landing.
If either of the above two conditions are met, 30 degrees flaps
may be utilized for landing.
Otherwise:
Flaps (landing flaps setting)--10 degrees
Land Select (LAND SEL) Switch--Flaps 10 degrees
Use landing data for 10 degrees flaps from Appendix 1 of this
AD.
(b) Within 2 years after the effective date of this AD, modify
the horizontal stabilizer ice protection system in accordance with
paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this AD, as applicable. Accomplishment
of this modification constitutes terminating action for the AFM
revision required by paragraph (a) of this AD. Following such
accomplishment, that AFM revision may be removed from the AFM.
(1) For Model 400, 400A, and MU-300-10 airplanes: Accomplish the
modification in accordance with Beechcraft Service Bulletin No.
2600, dated November 1995.
(2) For Model 400T airplanes: Accomplish the modification in
accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Wichita Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), FAA, Small Airplane Directorate.
(c) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Wichita ACO. Operators shall submit
their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance
Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the Manager,
Wichita ACO.
Note 2: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Wichita ACO.
(d) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
[[Page 8653]]
Appendix 1
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26FE97.009
[[Page 8654]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26FE97.010
[[Page 8655]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26FE97.011
[[Page 8656]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26FE97.012
[[Page 8657]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26FE97.013
[[Page 8658]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26FE97.014
[[Page 8659]]
Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 20, 1997.
James V. Devany,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 97-4719 Filed 2-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-C