[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 218 (Tuesday, November 12, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 68536-68539]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-28617]


 ========================================================================
 Proposed Rules
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
 the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
 notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
 the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2002 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 68536]]



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2000-CE-64-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64


Airworthiness Directives; Robert E. Rust Models DeHavilland DH.C1 
Chipmunk 21, 22, and 22A Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive 
(AD) that would apply to certain Robert E. Rust (R.E. Rust) Models 
DeHavilland DH.C1 Chipmunk 21, 22, and 22A airplanes. This proposed AD 
would require you to repetitively inspect the tailplane attachment 
brackets and replace each bracket. This proposed AD would also require 
you to repetitively inspect each joint of the port and starboard engine 
mount frame and the rear upper mount frame tubes for cracks and/or 
damage and repair any cracks and/or damage found. This proposed AD is 
the result of reports of stress corrosion cracking found on the 
tailplane attachment brackets and fatigue cracking and chaffing of the 
engine mount frame. The actions specified by this proposed AD are 
intended to prevent failure of the tailplane attachment brackets and 
failure of the engine mount, which could result in loss of the tail 
section and separation of the engine from the airplane respectively. 
Such failures could lead to loss of control of the airplane.

DATES: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) must receive any 
comments on this proposed rule on or before January 17, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments to FAA, Central Region, Office of the 
Regional Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000-CE-64-AD, 901 
Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. You may view any 
comments at this location between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also send comments 
electronically to the following address: [email protected]. 
Comments sent electronically must contain ``Docket No. 2000-CE-64-AD'' 
in the subject line. If you send comments electronically as attached 
electronic files, the files must be formatted in Microsoft Word 97 for 
Windows or ASCII text.
    You may get service information that applies to this proposed AD 
from DeHavilland Support Limited, Duxford Airfield, Bldg. 213, 
Cambridgeshire, CB2 4QR, United Kingdom, telephone: +44 1223 830090, 
facsimile: +44 1223 830085, e-mail: [email protected]. You may also 
view this information at the Rules Docket at the address above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cindy Lorenzen, Aerospace Engineer, 
FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, 1895 Phoenix Boulevard, 
Suite 450, Atlanta, Georgia; telephone: (770) 703-6078; facsimile: 
(770) 703-6097.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

How Do I Comment on This Proposed AD?

    The FAA invites comments on this proposed rule. You may submit 
whatever written data, views, or arguments you choose. You need to 
include the rule's docket number and submit your comments to the 
address specified under the caption ADDRESSES. We will consider all 
comments received on or before the closing date. We may amend this 
proposed rule in light of comments received. Factual information that 
supports your ideas and suggestions is extremely helpful in evaluating 
the effectiveness of this proposed AD action and determining whether we 
need to take additional rulemaking action.

Are There Any Specific Portions of This Proposed AD I Should Pay 
Attention To?

    The FAA specifically invites comments on the overall regulatory, 
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed rule that 
might suggest a need to modify the rule. You may view all comments we 
receive before and after the closing date of the rule in the Rules 
Docket. We will file a report in the Rules Docket that summarizes each 
contact we have with the public that concerns the substantive parts of 
this proposed AD.

How Can I Be Sure FAA Receives My Comment?

    If you want FAA to acknowledge the receipt of your mailed comments, 
you must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard. On the postcard, 
write ``Comments to Docket No. 2000-CE-64-AD.'' We will date stamp and 
mail the postcard back to you.

Discussion

What Events Have Caused This Proposed AD?

    The FAA has received reports that an unsafe condition may exist on 
certain R.E. Rust Models DeHavilland DH.C1 Chipmunk 21, 22, and 22A 
airplanes. After a review of several of these airplanes, stress 
corrosion cracking was found on the tailplane attachment brackets and 
fatigue cracks and chaffing were found on the engine mount frame.
    We have determined that tailplane attachment brackets, pre-
modification H357, are made from material susceptible to stress 
corrosion cracking. Modification No. H357 introduces a new tailplane 
attachment fitting, part number (P/N) C1.TP.313, that is made from a 
different type of material than that of the original tailplane 
attachment fitting, P/N C1.TP.167.
    Cracks in the engine mount frame were found in the area of the 
junction of the front and rear top tube and engine mounting foot 
support brackets and in the front of the frame. We have determined that 
fatigue is the cause of the cracks. The upper aft mount frame tubes 
were also found to have damage caused by chaffing by the cowling 
support rod.

What Are the Consequences if the Condition Is Not Corrected?

    These conditions, if not corrected, could result in failure of the 
tailplane attachment brackets and failure of the engine mount. Such 
failures could lead to loss of control of the airplane.

Is There Service Information That Applies to This Subject?

    British Aerospace (now DeHavilland Support Limited) has issued BAe 
Aircraft Mandatory Technical News

[[Page 68537]]

Sheet CT (C1) No. 176, Issue 2, dated November 1, 1997; and BAe 
Aircraft Mandatory Technical News Sheet CT (C1) No. 190, Issue 2, dated 
April 1, 1995.

What Are the Provisions of This Service Information?

    BAe Aircraft Mandatory Technical News Sheet CT (C1) No. 176, Issue 
2, dated November 1, 1997, includes procedures for:

--Repetitively inspecting the tailplane attachment brackets for cracks; 
and
--Replacing any cracked bracket found upon inspection or as a 
terminating action for the repetitive inspections.

    BAe Aircraft Mandatory Technical News Sheet CT (C1) No. 190, Issue 
2, dated April 1, 1995, includes procedures for:

--Repetitively inspecting each joint of the engine mount frame and the 
rear upper mount frame tubes for cracks and/or damage; and
--Repairing any cracks and/or damage found.

The FAA's Determination and an Explanation of the Provisions of this 
Proposed AD

What Has FAA Decided?

    After examining the circumstances and reviewing all available 
information related to the incidents described above, we have 
determined that:

--The unsafe condition referenced in this document exists or could 
develop on other R.E. Rust Models DeHavilland DH.C1 Chipmunk 21, 22, 
and 22A airplanes of the same type design;
--The actions specified in the previously-referenced service 
information should be accomplished on the affected airplanes; and
--AD action should be taken in order to correct this unsafe condition.

What Would This Proposed AD Require?

    This proposed AD would require you to incorporate the actions in 
the previously-referenced service information.

Cost Impact

How Many Airplanes Would This Proposed AD Impact?

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 54 airplanes in the U.S. 
registry.

What Would Be the Cost Impact of This Proposed AD on Owners/Operators 
of the Affected Airplanes?

    We estimate the following costs to accomplish the proposed 
inspections of the tailplane attachment brackets:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Total cost on U.S.
            Labor cost                     Parts cost          Total cost per airplane          operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
32 workhours x $60 per hour =      No parts required........  $1,920..................  $1,920 x 54 = $103,680.
 $1,920.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to accomplish any necessary 
replacements that would be required based on the results of the 
proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of 
airplanes that may need such replacement:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Total cost per
         Labor cost                Parts cost              bracket
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 workhours x $60 per hour =  $600 per bracket (2   $180 + $600 = $780.
 $180 per bracket.             brackets per
                               airplane).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to accomplish the proposed 
inspections of the engine mount frame:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Total cost on U.S.
            Labor cost                     Parts cost          Total cost per airplane          operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16 workhours x $60 per hour =      No parts required........  $960....................  $960 x 54 = $51,840.
 $960.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has no method of determining the number of repairs or 
replacements each owner/operator would incur over the life of each of 
the affected airplanes based on the results of the proposed 
inspections. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that 
may need such repair. The extent of damage may vary on each airplane.

Compliance Time of This Proposed AD

What Would Be the Compliance Time of This Proposed AD?

    The compliance time of this proposed AD is ``within the next 90 
calendar days after the effective date of this AD.''

Why Is the Proposed Compliance Time Presented in Calendar Time Instead 
of Hours Time-In-Service (TIS)?

    An unsafe condition specified by this proposed AD is caused by 
corrosion. Corrosion can occur regardless of whether the aircraft is in 
operation or is in storage. Therefore, to assure that the unsafe 
condition specified in the proposed AD does not go undetected for a 
long period of time, the compliance is presented in calendar time 
instead of hours time-in-service (TIS).

Regulatory Impact

Would This Proposed AD Impact Various Entities?

    The regulations proposed herein would not have a substantial direct 
effect 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, it 
is determined that this proposed rule would not have federalism 
implications under Executive Order 13132.

Would This Proposed AD Involve a Significant Rule or Regulatory Action?

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed 
action (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive 
Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under 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 has been placed 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, under the authority delegated to me by the 
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration

[[Page 68538]]

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. FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding a new airworthiness directive 
(AD) to read as follows:

Robert E. Rust: Docket No. 2000-CE-64-AD

    (a) What airplanes are affected by this AD? This AD affects the 
following R.E. Rust Models DeHavilland DH.C1 Chipmunk 21, 22, and 
22A airplanes, serial numbers C1-001 through C1-1014, that are type 
certificated in any category.

    Note 1: We recommend all owners/operators of DeHavilland DH.C1 
Chipmunk 21, 22, and 22A airplanes, serial numbers C1-001 through 
C1-1014, with experimental airworthiness certificates comply with 
the actions required in this AD.

    (b) Who must comply with this AD? Anyone who wishes to operate 
any of the airplanes identified in paragraph (a) of this AD must 
comply with this AD.
    (c) What problem does this AD address? The actions specified by 
this AD are intended to prevent failure of the tailplane attachment 
brackets caused by stress corrosion cracking and failure of the 
engine mount, which could result in loss of the tail section and 
separation of the engine from the airplane respectively. Such 
failures could lead to loss of control of the airplane.
    (d) What actions must I accomplish to address this problem? To 
address this problem, you must accomplish the following:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Compliance                  Actions             Procedures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    (1) Tailplane Attachment Brackets
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Initially inspect within  Inspect, using dye    In accordance with
 the next 90 days after the    penetrant, the        British Aerospace
 effective date of this AD:    tailplane             Military Aircraft
(A) Inspect thereafter at      attachment            and Aerostructures
 intervals not to exceed 6     brackets, part-       (BAe Aircraft)
 months until the              number (P/N)          Mandatory Technical
 modification required by      C1.TP.167 (or FAA-    News Sheet CT (C1)
 paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of the   approved equivalent   No. 176, Issued 2,
 AD is incorporated.           part) for cracks.     dated November 1,
(B) When the modification                            1997; and Civil
 required by paragraph                               Modification
 (d)(1)(ii) is incorporated,                         Mandatory
 you may terminate the                               Modification No.
 repetitive inspections of                           Chipmunk H357,
 the tailplane attachment                            dated March 12,
 bracket.                                            1984.
(ii) At whichever of the      Replace the           In accordance with
 following that occurs         tailplane             British Aerospace
 first:                        attachment bracket    Military Aircraft
(A) Prior to further flight    by incorporating      and Aerostructures
 after the inspection where    Modification H357     (BAe Aircraft)
 any crack is found; or.       (P/N C1.TP.313) or    Mandatory Technical
(B) Upon accumulating 9,984    FAA-approved          News Sheet CT (C1)
 hours time-in-service (the    equivalent part       No. 176, Issue 2,
 safe life limit for P/N       number. Installing    dated November 1,
 C1.TP.167) on the tailplane   P/N C1.TP.313 (or     1997; and Civil
 attachments brackets or       FAA-approved          Modification
 within the next 90 calendar   equivalent part       Mandatory
 days after the effective      number)terminates     Modification No.
 date of this AD, whichever    the repetitive        Chipmunk H357,
 occurs later.                 inspection            dated March 12,
                               requirement of the    1984.
                               tailplane
                               attachment brackets.
(iii) As of the effective     Only install a        Not applicable.
 date of this AD.              tailplane
                               attachment bracket
                               that is P/N
                               C1.TP.313, or FAA-
                               approved equivalent
                               part number.
-----------------------------
                         (2) Engine Mount Frames
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Inspect each joint of     Initially inspect     In accordance with
 the port and starboard        within the next 90    British Aerospace
 engine mount frame and the    days after the        Aerostructures
 rear upper mount frame        effective date of     Limited (BAe
 tubes for cracks and/or       this AD.              Aircraft) Mandatory
 damage.                       Repetitively          Technical News
                               inspect thereafter    Sheet CT (C1) No.
                               at intervals not to   190, Issue 2, dated
                               exceed 600 hours      April 1, 1995.
                               TIS.
(ii) If cracks and/or damage  Prior to further      Repair in accordance
 is found during any           flight after the      with AC 43.13-1B,
 inspection required in        inspection in which   Change 1, dated
 paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this   any crack and/or      September 27, 2001,
 AD:                           damage is found.      Chapter 4,
(A) Obtain a repair scheme     Repetitively          Paragraph 4-99 or
 from the manufacturer         inspect as required   in accordance with
 through the FAA at the        in paragraph          the repair scheme
 address specified in          (d)(2)(i) of this     obtained from
 paragraph (f) of this AD      AD.                   DeHavilland Support
 and incorporate this repair                         Limited, Duxford
 scheme, or repair in                                Airfield, Bldg.
 accordance with FAA                                 213,
 Advisory Circular (AC)                              Cambridgeshire, CB2
 43.13-1B, Change 1, dated                           4QR, United
 September 27, 2001, Chapter                         Kingdom. Obtain
 4, Paragraph 4-99; or.                              this repair scheme
(B) Replace with a new or                            through the FAA at
 serviceable part..                                  the address
                                                     specified in
                                                     paragraph (f) of
                                                     this AD. Replace in
                                                     accordance with
                                                     British Aerospace
                                                     Aerostructures
                                                     Limited (BAe
                                                     Aircraft) Mandatory
                                                     Technical News
                                                     Sheet CT (C1) No.
                                                     190, Issue 2, dated
                                                     April 1, 1995, or
                                                     AC 43.13-1B, Change
                                                     1, dated September
                                                     27, 2001, Chapter
                                                     4, Paragraph 4-99.
(3) Bind the rear upper       Prior to further      In accordance with
 mount frame tubes with a      flight after the      British Aerospace
 high density polythene tape   initial inspection    Aerostructures
 at the location where the     required in           Limited (BAe
 cowling support rod clip is   paragraph (d)(1) of   Aircraft) Mandatory
 secured.                      this AD.              Technical News
                                                     Sheet CT (C1) No.
                                                     190, Issue 2, dated
                                                     April 1, 1995.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (e) Can I comply with this AD in any other way? You may use an 
alternative method of compliance or adjust the compliance time if:
    (1) Your alternative method of compliance provides an equivalent 
level of safety; and
    (2) The Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 
approves your alternative. Submit your request through an

[[Page 68539]]

FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then 
send it to the Manager, Atlanta ACO.

    Note 2: This AD applies to each airplane identified in paragraph 
(a) of this AD, regardless of whether it has been 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 (e) 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 you have not eliminated the unsafe condition, specific 
actions you propose to address it.

    (f) Where can I get information about any already-approved 
alternative methods of compliance? Contact Cindy Lorenzen, Aerospace 
Engineer, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, 1895 Phoenix 
Boulevard, Suite 450, Atlanta, Georgia; telephone: (770) 703-6078; 
facsimile: (770) 703-6097.
    (g) What if I need to fly the airplane to another location to 
comply with this AD? The FAA can issue a special flight permit under 
Sec. Sec.  21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate your airplane to a location where 
you can accomplish the requirements of this AD.
    (h) How do I get copies of the documents referenced in this AD? 
You may get copies of the documents referenced in this AD from 
DeHavilland Support Limited, Duxford Airfield, Bldg. 213, 
Cambridgeshire, CB2 4QR, United Kingdom, telephone: +44 1223 830090, 
facsimile: +44 1223 830085, e-mail: [email protected]. You may view 
these documents at FAA, Central Region, Office of the Regional 
Counsel, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri 64106.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on November 4, 2002.
Michael Gallagher,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 02-28617 Filed 11-8-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P