AD 2002-10-10
Applicability
| Type | Manufacturer | Model | Details |
|---|---|---|---|
| aircraft | Boeing | 747 | Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747 Series Airplanes |
Unsafe Condition
Fatigue cracking of the upper chord of the upper deck floor beams, leading to potential severance and loss of fuselage structural integrity.
AI-generated summary from the source AD text. Verify against the official source before acting.
Required Actions
Inspect the upper chord of the upper deck floor beams for cracks. Repair any detected cracks as necessary. Continue with existing repetitive inspections for fuselage internal structure cracks.
AI-generated summary from the source AD text. Verify against the official source before acting.
Compliance Time
Before further flight
AI-generated summary from the source AD text. Verify against the official source before acting.
Affected Aircraft
Boeing Model 747 series airplanes, as specified in the referenced AD.
AI-generated summary from the source AD text. Verify against the official source before acting.
Federal Register Abstract
This amendment supersedes an existing airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to certain Boeing Model 747 series airplanes, that currently requires repetitive inspections to detect cracks in various areas of the fuselage internal structure, and repair, if necessary. This amendment adds new repetitive inspections for cracking of certain areas of the upper chord of the upper deck floor beams, and repair, if necessary. This amendment is prompted by the results of fatigue testing that revealed severed upper chords of the upper deck floor beams due to fatigue cracking. The actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent loss of the structural integrity of the fuselage, which could result in rapid depressurization of the airplane.
Document Text
Show stored source text (verify against official source)
[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 100 (Thursday, May 23, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36081-36085]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 02-12635]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 2000-NM-355-AD; Amendment 39-12756; AD 2002-10-10]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747 Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment supersedes an existing airworthiness directive
(AD), applicable to certain Boeing Model 747 series airplanes, that
currently requires repetitive inspections to detect cracks in various
areas of the fuselage internal structure, and repair, if necessary.
This amendment adds new repetitive inspections for cracking of certain
areas of the upper chord of the upper deck floor beams, and repair, if
necessary. This amendment is prompted by the results of fatigue testing
that revealed severed upper chords of the upper deck floor beams due to
fatigue cracking. The actions specified by this AD are intended to
prevent loss of the structural integrity of the fuselage, which could
result in rapid depressurization of the airplane.
DATES: Effective June 27, 2002.
The incorporation by reference of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-53A2349, Revision 1, dated October 12, 2000, as listed in the
regulations, is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of
June 27, 2002.
The incorporation by reference of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53-
2349, dated June 27, 1991, as listed in the regulations, was approved
previously by
[[Page 36082]]
the Director of the Federal Register as of June 11, 1993 (58 FR 27927,
May 12, 1993).
ADDRESSES: The service information referenced in this AD may be
obtained from Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle,
Washington 98124-2207. This information may be examined at the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules
Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the Office of
the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700,
Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Kawaguchi, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425)
227-1153; fax (425) 227-1181.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) by superseding AD 93-08-12,
amendment 39-8559 (58 FR 27927, May 12, 1993), which is applicable to
certain Boeing Model 747 series airplanes, was published in the Federal
Register on November 27, 2001 (66 FR 59180). The action proposed to
continue to require repetitive inspections to detect cracks in various
areas of the fuselage internal structure, and repair, if necessary. The
action also proposed to add new repetitive inspections for cracking of
certain areas of the upper chord of the upper deck floor beams, and
repair, if necessary.
Comments
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate
in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to
the comments received.
Clarify Note 3
Two commenters ask that Note 3 of the proposed rule be changed for
clarification. The commenters note that the section titled
``Differences Between Proposed AD and Revision 1 of the Alert Service
Bulletin'' states that the proposed AD would not require the high
frequency eddy current inspection of the left and right sides of the
upper deck floor beam at body station 380 between buttock lines 40 and
76 because it was mandated in AD 2000-04-17, amendment 39-11600 (65 FR
10695, February 29, 2000). The commenters state that Note 3 addresses
only inspections that were done before the effective date of this AD,
not any subsequent inspections done per AD 2000-04-17.
The FAA agrees that, for this area, the high frequency eddy current
inspections required by AD 2000-04-17, done before AND after the
effective date of this AD, meet the intent of this AD. Therefore, Note
3 of this final rule has been changed for clarification.
Change Paragraph (d)(2)
One commenter (the manufacturer) asks that paragraph (d)(2) of the
proposed rule be changed for clarification. The commenter notes that
the inspections for Group 3 airplanes are located in sections 41, 42,
AND 44 upper deck floor beams.
We agree with the commenter. The proposed rule specifies
inspections of Area 1, and, as information only, included the sections
in that area (sections 41 and 42 upper deck floor beams from body
stations 380 through 1100 inclusive). However, for Group 3 airplanes,
section 44 is also part of Area 1, so we have added that section to
paragraph (d)(2) of this final rule for clarification.
Change Paragraph (d)
One commenter asks that the inspection specified in paragraph (d)
of the proposed rule be changed to include a provision for airplanes
that have been modified to a stretched upper deck configuration. This
modification involves installation of new upper deck floor beams from
body stations 380 through 1100 inclusive. The commenter states that the
initial inspection for these airplanes should not have to be done until
22,000 flight cycles AFTER incorporation of the upper deck
modification.
We do not agree with the commenter. Due to the fact that these
airplanes have many different configurations, the commenter must
provide sufficient technical data justifying that the increased risk
associated with extending the compliance time is insignificant. If such
data are submitted, we will consider approving the commenter's request
as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC), as provided in paragraph
(h)(1) of this final rule. No change to the final rule is necessary in
this regard.
Change Paragraph (a)
One commenter asks that additional requirements be added following
paragraph (d) of the proposed rule to require that, at 22,000 total
flight cycles or 3,000 flight cycles after the last inspection required
by AD 93-08-12, the next inspection of the locations described in
paragraphs (a)(2) through (a)(7) of the proposed rule be done per
Revision 1 of the service bulletin. The commenter also asks that, at
25,000 total flight cycles or 3,000 flight cycles after the last
inspection required by AD 93-08-12, the next inspection of the location
described in paragraph (b) of the proposed rule be done per Revision 1
of the service bulletin. The commenter states that this would terminate
all inspections required by paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(7) and
paragraph (b) of the proposed rule. The commenter notes that Revision 1
of the service bulletin adds improvements such as new access procedures
to allow better inspections of Area 3, section 46, lower lobe frames,
and Area 6, main entry door cutouts.
We do not agree with the commenter. We have determined that the
access procedures specified in the original issue of the service
bulletin provide for adequate inspections. We also have determined that
the improvements in Revision 1 of the service bulletin do not need to
be mandated to meet the intent of the proposed rule. It should be noted
that Revision 1 has been approved as an AMOC to AD 93-08-12. No change
to the final rule is necessary in this regard.
Change Paragraph (h)(2)
One commenter asks that paragraph (h)(2) of the proposed rule be
changed to consider AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 93-
08-12 to be approved for compliance with paragraphs (a) and (b) of the
proposed rule ONLY.
We do not agree with the commenter. We have reviewed all existing
AMOCs and have determined that continued approval of these AMOCs will
not compromise the intent of the proposed rule. No change to the final
rule is necessary in this regard.
Change Paragraph (g)
One commenter asks that paragraph (g) of the proposed rule be
changed to add a requirement to repair any cracking found during the
inspections required by paragraphs (a) and (b) of the proposed rule, in
addition to the inspections required by paragraphs (d) and (e), and to
include any new paragraphs added.
We do not agree with the commenter. Paragraph (c) of the proposed
rule addresses the repairs for paragraphs (a) and (b) of the proposed
rule. In addition, no new paragraphs will be added after paragraph (d)
of the final rule, as specified in our response in the request to
change paragraph (a), above. No change to the final rule is necessary
in this regard.
Change Preamble
One commenter asks that certain wording in the preamble of the
[[Page 36083]]
proposed rule be changed. The commenter states that the wording in the
section titled ``Explanation of Relevant Service Information'' should
be changed from ``eliminate the need for the existing inspections,'' to
``replace the existing inspections.'' The commenter also asks that the
wording in the section titled ``Explanation of Requirements of the
Proposed Rule'' be changed from ``Since an unsafe condition has been
identified,'' to ``Since a potential unsafe condition has been
identified.''
We acknowledge and agree with the commenter's remarks on the
preamble of the proposed rule; however, the sections referred to are
not restated in this final rule. Therefore, no change to the final rule
is necessary in this regard.
Alternative Inspection
One commenter asks that a detailed visual inspection from below the
upper deck floor beams between body stations 1020 and 1100 be approved
as an alternative inspection method to meet the detailed visual
inspection requirements for Group 3 airplanes specified in the proposed
rule. The commenter states that this alternative inspection method is
specified in Note 1 of Step 1, Figure 2, of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Revision 1 of the referenced service bulletin.
We do not agree with the commenter. The note in Step 1, Figure 2,
of the service bulletin is limited to floor beams between body stations
260 and 330. We disagree that inspections from below will provide an
equivalent level of safety for the floor beams located between body
stations 1020 and 1100. However, if data are submitted that provide
procedures for an alternative inspection program that will offer an
acceptable level of safety, we would consider this under the provisions
for an AMOC, as provided in paragraph (h)(1) of this final rule. No
change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.
Explanation of Change to Final Rule
Since the issuance of the proposed rule, the FAA has found that the
identification of affected airplanes in the preamble of the proposed
rule needs further clarification. Therefore, we have changed the
preamble to specify ``certain Boeing Model 747 series airplanes,''
instead of listing out each model. This change is made for consistency
with the effectivity of the service bulletin, which is listed in the
applicability section within the final rule.
Conclusion
After careful review of the available data, including the comments
noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public
interest require the adoption of the rule with the changes previously
described. The FAA has determined that these changes will neither
increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of
the AD.
Interim Action
This is considered to be interim action until similar action for
Boeing Model 747-400 series airplanes and 747 freighter airplanes is
identified, at which time the FAA may consider further rulemaking.
Cost Impact
There are approximately 489 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet.
The FAA estimates that 181 airplanes of U.S. registry are subject
to the existing AD. The actions that are currently required by AD 93-
08-12 take approximately 1,746 work hours per airplane to accomplish,
at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures,
the cost impact of the currently required actions is estimated to be
$104,760 per airplane.
We estimate that 155 airplanes of U.S. registry are subject to the
new actions in this AD. The new inspections that are required by this
AD action will take approximately 255 work hours per airplane to
accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on
these figures, the cost impact of the requirements of this AD on U.S.
operators is estimated to be $2,371,500, or $15,300 per airplane.
The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions
that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this
AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the
future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed
in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform
the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures
typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to
gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other
administrative actions.
Regulatory Impact
The regulations adopted herein will 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 final rule does not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this 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) 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 final evaluation has been prepared for this action
and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained
from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 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.
<l-arrow> 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by removing amendment 39-8559 (58 FR
27927, May 12, 1993), and by adding a new airworthiness directive (AD),
amendment 39-12756, to read as follows:
2002-10-10 Boeing: Amendment 39-12756. Docket 2000-NM-355-AD.
Supersedes AD 93-08-12, Amendment 39-8559.
Applicability: Model 747 series airplanes, as listed in Boeing
Service Bulletin 747-53-2349, dated June 27, 1991, or Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-53A2349, Revision 1, dated October 12, 2000;
certificated in any category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, 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 (h)(1)
of this AD. The request should include an assessment of
[[Page 36084]]
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 loss of the structural integrity of the fuselage,
which could result in rapid depressurization of the airplane, do the
following:
Restatement of Requirements of AD 93-08-12
Repetitive Inspections
(a) Prior to the accumulation of 22,000 total flight cycles, or
within 1,000 flight cycles after June 11, 1993 (the effective date
of AD 93-08-12, amendment 39-8559), whichever occurs later, unless
accomplished previously within the last 2,000 flight cycles; and
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 3,000 flight cycles: Perform a
detailed internal inspection to detect cracks in the areas of the
fuselage internal structure specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through
(a)(7) of this AD; in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 747-
53-2349, dated June 27, 1991.
(1) Sections 41 and 42 upper deck floor beams.
(2) Section 42 upper lobe frames.
(3) Section 46 lower lobe frames.
(4) Section 42 lower lobe frames.
(5) Main entry door cutouts.
(6) Section 41 body station 260, 340, and 400 bulkheads.
(7) Main entry doors.
(b) Prior to the accumulation of 25,000 total flight cycles, or
within 1,000 flight cycles after June 11, 1993, whichever occurs
later, unless accomplished previously within the last 2,000 flight
cycles; and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 3,000 flight
cycles: Perform a detailed internal inspection to detect cracks in
the Section 46 upper lobe frames, in accordance with Boeing Service
Bulletin 747-53-2349, dated June 27, 1991.
Repair
(c) Prior to further flight, repair any cracks detected during
the inspections done per paragraph (a) or (b) of this AD, per a
method approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office (ACO), FAA; or per data meeting the type certification basis
of the airplane approved by a Boeing Company Designated Engineering
Representative (DER) who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle
ACO, to make such findings. For a repair method to be approved by
the Manager, Seattle ACO, as required by this paragraph, the
approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
New Requirements of This AD
Repetitive Inspections
(d) Before the accumulation of 22,000 total flight cycles, or
within 3,000 flight cycles after doing the most recent inspection
required by paragraph (a) of this AD, whichever occurs later: Do a
detailed inspection to find cracking in the areas specified in
paragraph (d)(1) or (d)(2) of this AD, as applicable, per Figure 2
of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-53A2349, Revision 1, dated October 12, 2000. Repeat the
inspection after that every 3,000 flight cycles. Doing this
inspection terminates the inspections required by paragraph (a) of
this AD in the area specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this AD only.
(1) For Groups 1, 2, 4, and 5 airplanes: Do the inspections of
Area 1 (sections 41 and 42 upper deck floor beams), including
existing repairs and modifications.
(2) For Group 3 airplanes: Do the inspections of Area 1
(sections 41, 42, and 44 upper deck floor beams from body stations
380 through 1100 inclusive), including existing repairs and
modifications.
Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is
defined as: ``An intensive visual examination of a specific
structural area, system, installation, or assembly to detect damage,
failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally
supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at intensity
deemed appropriate by the inspector. Inspection aids such as mirror,
magnifying lenses, etc., may be used. Surface cleaning and elaborate
access procedures may be required.''
(e) Before the accumulation of 28,000 total flight cycles, or
within 3,000 flight cycles after doing the most recent inspection
required by paragraph (a) of this AD, whichever occurs later: Do a
high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection to find cracking of
the open holes in the horizontal flanges of the upper chord of each
upper deck floor beam in the areas specified in paragraph (e)(1) or
(e)(2) of this AD, as applicable, per the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2349, Revision
1, dated October 12, 2000. Do the inspection per ``Inspection
Alternatives,'' as specified in Sheet 7 of Figure 2 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin. Repeat the
applicable inspection according to the ``Repeat Inspection
Intervals,'' specified in Sheet 7 of Figure 2 of the Accomplishment
Instructions of the service bulletin.
(1) For Group 1, 2, 4, and 5 airplanes: Do the inspections at
the applicable locations (BS 380 through BS 780 inclusive for Groups
1, 2, and 4, BS 380 through BS 860 inclusive for Group 5) as
specified in Sheet 7 of Figure 2.
(2) For Group 3 airplanes: Do the inspections as specified in
Sheet 7 of Figure 2, at the upper deck floor beams from BS 380
through BS 1100 inclusive.
Note 3: HFEC inspections of the left and right sides of the
upper deck floor beam at body station 380, between buttock lines 40
and 76, done per AD 2000-04-17, amendment 39-11600, are considered
acceptable for compliance with the applicable inspections specified
in paragraph (e) of this AD.
Adjustments to Compliance Time: Cabin Differential Pressure
(f) For the purposes of calculating the compliance threshold and
repetitive interval for the actions required by paragraphs (d) and
(e) of this AD: For Area 1 only, the number of flight cycles in
which cabin differential pressure is at 2.0 pounds per square inch
(psi) or less need not be counted when determining the number of
flight cycles that have occurred on the airplane, provided that
flight cycles with momentary spikes in cabin differential pressure
above 2.0 psi are included as full pressure cycles. For this
provision to apply, all cabin pressure records must be maintained
for each airplane: NO fleet-averaging of cabin pressure is allowed.
Repair
(g) Before further flight, repair any cracking found during the
inspections done per paragraphs (d) and (e) of this AD, according to
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2349, Revision 1, dated October
12, 2000. Where the service bulletin specifies to contact Boeing for
repair instructions, repair per a method approved by the Manager,
Seattle ACO; or per data meeting the type certification basis of the
airplane approved by a Boeing Company DER who has been authorized by
the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make such findings. For a repair method
to be approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO, as required by this
paragraph, the approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
Alternative Methods of Compliance
(h)(1) 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, Seattle ACO. Operators shall submit
their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance
Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the Manager,
Seattle ACO.
(2) Alternative methods of compliance and FAA-approved repairs,
approved previously in accordance with AD 93-08-12, amendment 39-
8559, are approved as alternative methods of compliance with this
AD.
Note 4: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Seattle ACO.
Special Flight Permits
(i) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
<l-arrow><l-arrow> 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.
Incorporation by Reference
(j) Except as provided by paragraphs (c), (f), and (g) of this
AD, the actions shall be done in accordance with Boeing Service
Bulletin 747-53-2349, dated June 27, 1991; and Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747-53A2349, Revision 1, dated October 12, 2000; as
applicable.
(1) The incorporation by reference of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747-53A2349, Revision 1, dated October 12, 2000, as listed
in the regulations, is approved by the Director of the Federal
Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) The incorporation by reference of Boeing Service Bulletin
747-53-2349, dated June 27, 1991, was approved previously by the
Director of the Federal Register as of June 11, 1993 (58 FR 27927,
May 12, 1993).
[[Page 36085]]
(3) Copies may be obtained from Boeing Commercial Airplane
Group, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207. Copies may be
inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the Office of the Federal
Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
Effective Date
(k) This amendment becomes effective on June 27, 2002.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 14, 2002.
Vi L. Lipski,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 02-12635 Filed 5-22-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Source: Official FAA Source ↗
Retrieved: Apr 6, 2026
Rights: U.S. Government Public Domain
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FAA. Always verify with official sources.