Getting Manufacturers' Data Is Crucial, But Rarely a Problem, ATA Says

Air Safety Week, May 15, 2006

FAA's policy for aircraft manufacturers (or "design approval holders") to provide data in a timely fashion so that airlines can comply with safety regulations makes sense to officials with the Air Transport Association (ATA), although delays in getting data are rarely an issue.

The July 12, 2005, policy states in part, "When we decide that general rulemaking is needed to address an airworthiness issue, and believe the safety objective can only be fully achieved if the DAHs provide operators with the necessary information in a timely manner, we will propose requirements for the affected DAHs to provide that information by a certain date."

This policy is now reflected in several FAA rulemaking efforts on aging aircraft, says Basil Barimo, ATA's vice president of operations and policy. Its latest application is in FAA's April 18 notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on widespread fatigue damage in aging transport category aircraft (Air Safety Week, May 1). The rationale, Barimo explains, is that carriers cannot adequately comply with certain safety or security initiatives until they get data from DAHs. Moreover, DAHs are the "only competent, credible source of the data" to help carriers comply with the safety rules.

In the new NPRM, FAA's broader focus is on preventing widespread fatigue damage by putting the primary responsibility on DAHs to set the aircraft operational life spans and to determine the maintenance schedules necessary to meet those life spans. The NPRM also provides examples in five areas (including reinforced cockpit doors and thrust reversers) of when timely information was not available to carriers to support certain safety and security initiatives.

Barimo emphasized that such problems seldom occur and usually reflect unique circumstances. With the reinforced cockpit doors, carriers only had 18 months to comply. Halfway through that time period, there were still no new products or no way of complying. By the time there was, carriers were pulling their craft out of service just to make the needed renovations. Had a product been available even months earlier, carriers could have scheduled repairs in a more cost-efficient manner in conjunction with other maintenance work.

So, although FAA's point about timely data transmission is well taken, carriers don't see it as an endemic problem, Barimo adds.

Moreover, there certainly isn't a "strained relationship" between airlines and manufacturers on this issue, says Joe White, ATA's director of engineering. There's only been some rare instances where airlines have been "backed into a corner."

White also points out to Air Safety Week that the larger commercial carriers, which comprise ATA's membership, are more likely than the regional airlines to have full complements of engineering and technical staff to keep up with safety regulations. Generally speaking, regionals may be more dependant on manufacturer-supplied information.

Then again, the new NPRM only applies to larger transport airplanes (with maximum takeoff gross widths over 75,000 lbs.).

Also, although the regionals may not have as many engineering staff, Dave Lotterer, Regional Airline Association (RAA) vice president of technical services, believes that regionals and majors probably are equally dependent on manufacturers for getting timely data.

Something FAA hasn't mentioned, which may be an issue for all carriers, is getting replacement parts delivered on time, ATA's White adds.

Boeing declined to comment for this article.

The full NPRM is in the April 18 Federal Register (FR Doc. 06-3621; Docket No. FAA-2006-24281) starting on p. 19928. It also can be downloaded at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fedreg/frcont06.html.> >>Contacts: ATA, (202) 626-4000; RAA, (202) 367-1170<<

[Copyright 2006 Access Intelligence, LLC. All rights reserved.]

COPYRIGHT 2006 Access Intelligence, LLC

COPYRIGHT 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning