AD 2005-07-21
Applicability
| Type | Manufacturer | Model | Details |
|---|---|---|---|
| aircraft | The Boeing Company | 747-200C Series | Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747-200F and -200C Series Airplanes |
| aircraft | The Boeing Company | 747-200F Series | Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747-200F and -200C Series Airplanes |
Unsafe Condition
Fatigue cracks in the upper chord and web of upper deck floor beams could result in failure of such floor beams, leading to damage to critical flight control cables and wire bundles, and consequent loss of controllability. Failure of the floor beam could also result in the failure of adjacent fuselage frames and skin, and consequent rapid decompression of the airplane.
AI-generated summary from the source AD text. Verify against the official source before acting.
Required Actions
New one-time inspections for cracking of the web, upper chord, and strap of the upper deck floor beams are required. Modification or repair of the upper deck floor beams, as applicable, is also required. Post-modification/repair inspections may be necessary depending on the chosen compliance option.
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
All Boeing Model 747-200F and -200C series airplanes.
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 all Boeing Model 747-200F and -200C series airplanes, that currently requires repetitive detailed inspections or a one-time open-hole high frequency eddy current inspection to detect cracking of certain areas of the upper deck floor beams, and corrective actions if necessary. This amendment requires new one-time inspections for cracking of the web, upper chord, and strap of the upper deck floor beams. This action also requires modifying or repairing the upper deck floor beams, as applicable, which eventually necessitates accomplishment of new repetitive inspections for cracking of the upper deck floor beams. The actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent fatigue cracks in the upper chord and web of upper deck floor beams and the resultant failure of such floor beams. Failure of a floor beam could result in damage to critical flight control cables and wire bundles that pass through the floor beam, and consequent loss of controllability of the airplane. Failure of the floor beam also could result in the failure of the adjacent fuselage frames and skin, and consequent rapid decompression of the airplane. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
Document Text
Show stored source text (verify against official source)
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 68 (Monday, April 11, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18277-18282]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 05-7000]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 2001-NM-181-AD; Amendment 39-14046; AD 2005-07-21]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747-200F and -200C Series
Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation
(DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment supersedes an existing airworthiness directive
(AD), applicable to all Boeing Model 747-200F and -200C series
airplanes, that currently requires repetitive detailed inspections or a
one-time open-hole high frequency eddy current inspection to detect
cracking of certain areas of the upper deck floor beams, and corrective
actions if necessary. This amendment requires new one-time inspections
for cracking of the web, upper chord, and strap of the upper deck floor
beams. This action also requires modifying or repairing the upper deck
floor beams, as applicable, which eventually necessitates
accomplishment of new repetitive inspections for cracking of the upper
deck floor beams. The actions specified by this AD are intended to
prevent fatigue cracks in the upper chord and web of upper deck floor
beams and the resultant failure of such floor beams. Failure of a floor
beam could result in damage to critical flight control cables and wire
bundles that pass through the floor beam, and consequent loss of
controllability of the airplane. Failure of the floor beam also could
result in the failure of the adjacent fuselage frames and skin, and
consequent rapid decompression of the airplane. This action is intended
to address the identified unsafe condition.
DATES: Effective May 16, 2005.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of May 16, 2005.
The incorporation by reference of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-53A2420, dated March 26, 1998, as listed in the regulations, was
approved previously by the Director of the Federal Register as of May
11, 1998 (63 FR 20311, April 24, 1998).
ADDRESSES: The service information referenced in this AD may be
obtained from Boeing Commercial Airplanes, 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ivan Li, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe
Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 917-6437;
fax (425) 917-6590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) by superseding AD 98-09-17,
amendment 39-10498 (63 FR 20311, April 24, 1998); which is applicable
to all Boeing Model 747-200F and -200C series airplanes; was published
in the Federal Register on June 18, 2003 (68 FR 36510). The action
proposed to continue to require repetitive detailed inspections or a
one-time open-hole high frequency eddy current inspection to detect
cracking of certain areas of the upper deck floor beams, and corrective
actions if necessary. The action also proposed to require new one-time
inspections for cracking of the web, upper chord, and strap of the
upper deck floor beams. The action also proposed to require
modification or repair of the upper deck floor beams, as applicable,
which would eventually necessitate accomplishment of new repetitive
inspections for cracking of the upper deck floor beams.
Comments
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate
in the making of this amendment. The FAA has duly considered the
comments received.
Request To Allow Modification/Repair Per Service Bulletin
One commenter, the airplane manufacturer, requests that we revise
paragraphs (g) and (h)(2) of the proposed AD to allow modification and
permanent repairs to be accomplished in accordance with Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-53A2429, dated March 22, 2001. The same commenter
also requests that Notes 4 and 5 be removed from the proposed AD.
(Those notes state that the procedures for the modification and
permanent repair specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2429
do not provide an adequate level of safety.) The commenter states that
the procedures in the service bulletin for the modification and
permanent repair are adequate. The commenter acknowledges, however,
that analysis has shown that additional inspection locations should be
added to the post-modification/repair program. The commenter notes that
the service bulletin will be revised in the future to include
additional inspection procedures.
We partially concur with the commenter's request. As we explain in
the ``Differences Between Proposed AD and Service Bulletins'' section
of the proposed AD, the procedures for the modification and permanent
repair stated in the original issue of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-53A2429 do not provide an adequate level of safety. This
determination is based on reports that cracking has been found on
airplanes that have a modification similar to that described in Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2429. However, we do agree that the
procedures for the modification and permanent repair specified in
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2429 would be acceptable if
additional post-modification/repair inspections are
[[Page 18278]]
performed in accordance with a method that we approve. Accordingly, we
have made the following changes to this final rule:
<bullet> We revised paragraphs (g) and (h) to allow two options for
compliance.
--Option 1 in each paragraph allows the modification and permanent
repairs to be accomplished in accordance with a method approved by the
Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), or by an
Authorized Representative for the Boeing Delegation Option
Authorization (DOA) organization who has been authorized by the
Manager, Seattle ACO to make those findings. This option provides an
opportunity to have approved a modification or repair that is durable
enough to not need post-modification/repair inspections.
--Option 2 in each paragraph allows the modification and permanent
repairs to be accomplished in accordance with the service bulletin. If
this option is chosen, post-modification/repair inspections are
required.
<bullet> We revised paragraph (i) to specify that certain airplanes
on which a repair in accordance with paragraph (c) of this AD was
accomplished before the effective date of this AD are subject to
additional inspection, modification, and/or repair requirements, as
applicable. (Paragraph (i) of the proposed AD specified that airplanes
on which the modification or permanent repair specified in Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-53A2429 was accomplished before the effective date
of this AD would also be subject to these additional inspection,
modification, and/or repair requirements. These airplanes are now
subject to paragraph (k) of this AD instead.)
<bullet> We revised paragraph (j) to clarify that the post-
modification/repair inspections in that paragraph apply to airplanes
modified/repaired in accordance with a method approved or by an
Authorized Representative for the Boeing DOA organization.
<bullet> We added paragraph (k) to require post-modification/repair
inspections in accordance with a method that we approve for airplanes
on which the modification or permanent repair is accomplished in
accordance with the service bulletin.
<bullet> We removed Notes 4 and 5 of the proposed AD from this
final rule.
We have coordinated this issue with Boeing and it concurs in this
approach. We have further confirmed that Boeing intends to add
acceptable instructions for the post-modification/repair inspections in
a future revision of the service bulletin. Once Boeing has issued, and
we have reviewed and approved, a revision to the service bulletin, we
may consider approving that service bulletin as an alternative method
of compliance (AMOC) with the corresponding requirements of this AD.
Request To Allow Repairs Per Paragraph (h)
The same commenter requests that we revise paragraph (c) of the
proposed AD to allow repairs of any cracking found during inspections
in accordance with paragraph (a) or (b) of the proposed AD to be
accomplished in accordance with paragraph (h) of the proposed AD. The
commenter states that this should be acceptable because paragraph (h)
of the proposed AD defines FAA-approved time-limited and permanent
repairs.
We concur. Time-limited repairs in accordance with paragraph (h)(1)
of this AD, or permanent repairs in accordance with paragraph (h)(2) or
(h)(3) of this AD, are acceptable for repairing cracks found during the
inspections required by paragraph (a) or (b) of this AD. We have
revised paragraph (c) to refer to paragraph (h) of this AD. Also, we
have revised paragraph (h) of this AD to state that accomplishment of
paragraph (h)(1), (h)(2), or (h)(3) of this AD is acceptable for any
crack found during any inspection required by paragraph (a), (b), or
(e) of this AD.
Request To Omit Inspections for Certain Airplanes Modified/Repaired
Previously
The same commenter requests that we revise paragraph (i) of the
proposed AD to state that certain airplanes that have been modified or
repaired previously do not require action within 5,000 flight cycles
after accomplishment of the modification or repair. The commenter
states that some upper deck floor beam repairs designed by Boeing prior
to the release of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2429 were consistent
with the specifications of the modification/permanent repair in that
service bulletin. The commenter states that these repairs may not need
action within 5,000 flight cycles except for post-modification/repair
inspections. A second commenter similarly requests that we reconsider
the requirement to inspect (and accomplish any necessary corrective
action) within 5,000 flight cycles after accomplishment of the
modification or permanent repair. The second commenter justifies its
request by noting that the modification is intended to improve the
fatigue resistance of the modified floor beam.
We partially concur with the commenters' request. As explained
previously, we have revised paragraph (i) in this final rule to remove
airplanes on which a modification/permanent repair in accordance with
Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2429 was accomplished before the
effective date of this AD. These airplanes are now subject to
repetitive inspections in accordance with paragraph (k) of this AD.
However, paragraph (i) of this AD still applies to airplanes repaired
previously in accordance with paragraph (c), if that repair does not
comply with paragraph (h) of this AD. The additional post-repair
inspections in paragraph (i) are necessary to ensure that the repair
provides an adequate level of safety. Operators may request approval of
an AMOC or adjustment of the compliance times for this AD as specified
in paragraph (m)(1) of this AD. Also, as explained previously, when the
future revision to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2429 is
available, and we have reviewed and approved it, we may consider
requests for approval of the actions in that revision as an AMOC for
this AD. We have made no further changes to the final rule in this
regard.
A third commenter notes that it has accomplished certain repairs of
cracking found during inspections in accordance with paragraphs (a) and
(b) of AD 98-09-17, as restated in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the
proposed AD. All of these repairs were approved by a Boeing Company DER
and some included ``terminating action'' similar to that found in
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2429. The commenter states that
these repairs should be included under paragraph (i) of the proposed AD
as repairs and modifications that allow inspections in accordance with
paragraph (e) of the proposed AD to be deferred for 5,000 flight cycles
after installation.
We agree that certain repairs and modifications accomplished
previously may warrant a 5,000-flight-cycle compliance time before it
is necessary to accomplish the new inspections. However, these repairs
and modifications must have been approved under paragraph (c) of the
existing AD to ensure that they are adequate to address the unsafe
condition. If these repairs have been approved, then they are covered
by the provision in paragraph (i) of this AD that provides for a 5,000-
flight-cycle compliance time for airplanes on which a repair in
accordance with paragraph (c) of this AD was previously accomplished.
No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.
[[Page 18279]]
Request To Provide Acceptable Inspection Methods
One commenter notes that paragraph (i) of the proposed AD would
require accomplishing inspections of airplanes modified or permanently
repaired before the effective date of the AD, in accordance with
paragraph (e) of the proposed AD. The commenter states that paragraph
(e) does not specify an inspection procedure for floor beams that have
been modified or permanently repaired.
We infer that the commenter is requesting that we revise paragraph
(i) of this AD to specify a method for inspecting floor beams that have
been previously modified or permanently repaired. We do not concur. The
inspection methods specified in Figures 1 and 2 of the referenced
service bulletin are still adequate for modified or repaired floor
beams, provided that paragraph (g) or (h) of this AD, as applicable, is
also accomplished, as required by paragraph (i) of this AD. No change
to the final rule is necessary in this regard.
Request To Revise Post-Modification/Repair Requirements
One commenter, the airplane manufacturer, requests that we revise
paragraph (j) of the proposed AD to refer to post-modification/repair
inspections in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
53A2429, as supplemented by procedures in an attachment submitted by
the commenter. The commenter states that this would eliminate the need
for paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of the proposed AD. The commenter also
requests that we revise paragraph (k) of the proposed AD to require
repair of any cracking found during post-modification/repair
inspections to be accomplished in accordance with the procedures
specified in the attachment submitted by the commenter.
We partially agree. The original issue of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747-53A2429 does not provide detailed instructions for post-
modification/repair inspections, nor does it provide acceptable
procedures for repairing any cracking found during such inspections. We
are reviewing, with the commenter, the supplemental procedures to which
the commenter refers. We and the manufacturer agree that the details of
its proposal are too complex to include in this AD and operators would
be better served by issuing separate service information containing the
proposed supplemental procedures. It is likely that the supplemental
procedures may be included in a future revision of the service
bulletin. Once a revision to this service bulletin has been issued by
the manufacturer, and we have reviewed and approved it, we may consider
approving the use of post-modification/repair inspections specified in
that revision as an acceptable AMOC for paragraph (j) of this AD. No
change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.
Request To Revise Applicability
One commenter requests that we revise the applicability of the
proposed AD to make the AD applicable only to airplanes with a nose
cargo door. The commenter states that it converts Boeing Model 747-200
series airplanes to a Special Freighter configuration that has only a
main deck side cargo door, in accordance with a supplemental type
certificate. The commenter questions whether the proposed AD would
apply to its converted airplanes.
We acknowledge the commenter's concern but find that no change to
the proposed AD is necessary to meet the intent of the commenter's
request. The applicability statement of this AD specifies only Model
747-200F and -200C series airplanes. This applicability does not
include Boeing Model 747-200 series airplanes that were delivered as
passenger airplanes and later converted to the Special Freighter
configuration. Airplanes that are converted to a freighter
configuration will still be listed as passenger airplanes on the
original Type Certificate Data Sheet. Thus, these airplanes are not
subject to this AD. No change to the final rule is necessary in this
regard.
Explanation of Additional Changes
For clarification, we have revised paragraph (j)(1) of this final
rule to add the words ``for cracking.'' We find that this change does
not expand the scope of the proposed AD but makes the wording of
paragraph (j)(1) consistent with that of paragraph (j)(2) of this final
rule.
Since the issuance of the proposed AD, Boeing has received a DOA.
We have revised this final rule to delegate the authority to approve an
alternative method of compliance for any repair required by this AD to
the Authorized Representative for the Boeing DOA Organization rather
than the Designated Engineering Representative (DER).
Conclusion
After careful review of the available data, including the comments
noted above, we have determined that air safety and the public interest
require the adoption of the rule with the changes previously described.
We have determined that these changes will neither increase the
economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.
Changes to 14 CFR Part 39/Effect on the AD
On July 10, 2002, the FAA issued a new version of 14 CFR part 39
(67 FR 47997, July 22, 2002), which governs the FAA's airworthiness
directives system. The regulation now includes material that relates to
altered products, special flight permits, and AMOCs. Because we have
now included this material in part 39, only the office authorized to
approve AMOCs is identified in each individual AD. Therefore, Note 1
and paragraph (m) of the proposed AD are not included in this final
rule (other paragraphs and notes have been re-identified accordingly),
and paragraph (l) of the proposed AD has been revised (and re-
identified as paragraph (m)) in this final rule.
Explanation of Change to Cost Impact
We have reviewed the figures we have used over the past several
years to calculate AD costs to operators. To account for various
inflationary costs in the airline industry, we find it necessary to
increase the labor rate used in these calculations from $60 per work
hour to $65 per work hour. The cost impact information, below, has been
revised to reflect this increase in the specified hourly labor rate.
Cost Impact
There are approximately 81 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. We estimate that 23 airplanes of U.S. registry will be
affected by this AD.
For airplanes on which the repetitive detailed inspection that is
currently required by AD 98-09-17 is accomplished, that inspection
takes approximately 1 work hour per airplane, at an average labor rate
of $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the
currently required detailed inspection is estimated to be $65 per
airplane, per inspection cycle.
The high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection that is currently
required by AD 98-09-17 takes approximately 6 work hours per airplane
to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based on
these figures, the cost impact of this currently required inspection on
U.S. operators is estimated to be $8,970, or $390 per airplane.
The new one-time detailed and HFEC inspections that are required by
this AD will take approximately 7 work hours per airplane to
accomplish, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour.
[[Page 18280]]
Based on these figures, the cost impact of these new inspections on
U.S. operators is estimated to be $10,465, or $455 per airplane.
For airplanes subject to the modification that is required by this
AD, it will take approximately 172 work hours per airplane to
accomplish, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Required
parts will cost approximately $4,959 per airplane. Based on these
figures, the cost impact of this modification is estimated to be
$16,139 per airplane.
For airplanes subject to the repair that is required by this AD, it
will take approximately 172 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at
an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Required parts will cost
approximately $21,646 to $21,857 per airplane. Based on these figures,
the cost impact of this repair is estimated to be $32,826 to $33,037
per airplane.
The follow-on repetitive inspections that are required by this AD
will take approximately 6 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an
average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the
cost impact of these new inspections on U.S. operators is estimated to
be $8,970, or $390 per airplane, per inspection cycle.
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.
Authority for This Rulemaking
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
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
0
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
0
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]
0
2. Section 39.13 is amended by removing amendment 39-10498 (63 FR
20311, April 24, 1998), and by adding a new airworthiness directive
(AD), amendment 39-14046, to read as follows:
2005-07-21 Boeing: Amendment 39-14046. Docket 2001-NM-181-AD.
Supersedes AD 98-09-17, Amendment 39-10498.
Applicability: All Model 747-200F and -200C series airplanes,
certificated in any category.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent fatigue cracks in the upper chord and web of upper
deck floor beams and the resultant failure of such floor beams;
which could result in damage to critical flight control cables and
wire bundles that pass through the floor beam, and consequent loss
of controllability of the airplane; or which could result in failure
of the adjacent fuselage frames and skin, and consequent rapid
decompression of the airplane; accomplish the following:
Requirements of AD 98-09-17
Note 1: For the purposes of calculating the compliance threshold
and repetitive interval for the actions required by paragraphs (a)
and (b) of this AD, ``flight cycles'' are considered to be flight
cycles with a cabin pressure differential greater than 2.0 pounds
per square inch (psi).
Repetitive Inspections of Certain Upper Deck Floor Beams
(a) For airplanes that have accumulated less than 18,000 total
flight cycles as of May 11, 1998 (the effective date of AD 98-09-17,
amendment 39-10498): Prior to the accumulation of 15,000 total
flight cycles, or within 250 flight cycles after May 11, 1998,
whichever occurs later, inspect the upper chord, web, and strap of
the upper deck floor beams at body station (BS) 340 through BS 440
inclusive, and the upper deck floor beams at BS 500 and BS 520, on
the right and left sides of the airplane, in accordance with
paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this AD. The inspections shall be
accomplished in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
53A2420, dated March 26, 1998; or Boeing Service Bulletin 747-
53A2420, Revision 1, dated January 7, 1999.
(1) Perform a detailed inspection to detect cracks in accordance
with Figure 2 of the service bulletin.
(i) Repeat the detailed inspection thereafter at intervals not
to exceed 25 flight cycles, until the requirements of paragraph
(a)(1)(ii) or (e) of this AD are accomplished.
(ii) Within 500 flight cycles after accomplishment of the
initial detailed inspection, accomplish paragraph (a)(2) of this AD.
(2) Perform a one-time open hole high frequency eddy current
(HFEC) inspection to detect cracks in accordance with Figure 3 of
the service bulletin. Accomplishment of this action constitutes
terminating action for the repetitive inspection requirements of
paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this AD.
(b) For airplanes that have accumulated 18,000 or more total
flight cycles as of May 11, 1998: Within 25 flight cycles after May
11, 1998, inspect the upper chord, web, and strap of the upper deck
floor beams at BS 340 through BS 440 inclusive, and the upper deck
floor beams at BS 500 and BS 520, on the right and left sides of the
airplane, in accordance with paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this AD.
The inspections shall be accomplished in accordance with Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2420, dated March 26, 1998; or Boeing
Service Bulletin 747-53A2420, Revision 1, dated January 7, 1999.
(1) Perform a detailed inspection to detect cracks in accordance
with Figure 2 of the service bulletin.
[[Page 18281]]
(i) Repeat the detailed inspection thereafter at intervals not
to exceed 25 flight cycles, until the requirements of paragraph
(b)(1)(ii) or (e) of this AD are accomplished.
(ii) Within 250 flight cycles after accomplishment of the
initial detailed inspection, accomplish paragraph (b)(2) of this AD.
(2) Perform a one-time open hole HFEC inspection to detect
cracks in accordance with Figure 3 of the service bulletin.
Accomplishment of this action constitutes terminating action for the
repetitive inspection requirements of paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this
AD.
Repair
(c) If any cracking is found during any inspection required by
paragraphs (a) or (b) of this AD, prior to further flight, repair in
accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), FAA; or do paragraph (h) of this AD.
New Requirements of This AD
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.''
Adjustments to Compliance Time: Cabin Differential Pressure
(d) For the purposes of calculating the compliance threshold and
repetitive interval for the actions required by paragraphs (e), (h),
(i), (j) and (k) of this AD: The number of flight cycles in which
cabin differential pressure is at 2.0 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.
Detailed and Eddy Current Inspections of Certain Upper Deck Floor
Beams
(e) Within 5,000 flight cycles after accomplishing the most
recent inspection required by paragraph (a) or (b) of this AD, or
within 1,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD,
whichever is later: Do paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) of this AD, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-53A2429, dated March 22, 2001. Accomplishment
of both paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) of this AD constitutes
terminating action for the repetitive inspection requirement of
paragraph (a)(1)(i) or (b)(1)(i) of this AD, as applicable.
(1) Do a one-time detailed inspection for cracking of the web,
upper chord, and strap of the upper deck floor beams at BS 340
through BS 440 inclusive, BS 500, and BS 520, on the right and left
sides of the airplane, as specified in Figure 1 of the service
bulletin.
(2) Do an open-hole HFEC inspection for cracking of the fastener
holes of the web and upper chord of the upper deck floor beams at BS
340 through BS 440 inclusive, BS 500, and BS 520, on the right and
left sides of the airplane, as specified in Figure 2 of the service
bulletin.
Compliance With Paragraphs (a) or (b) and (e)
(f) Airplanes on which the inspections required by paragraph (e)
of this AD are accomplished within the compliance time specified in
paragraph (a) or (b) of this AD, as applicable, are not required to
be inspected in accordance with paragraph (a) or (b) of this AD, as
applicable.
Modification of Upper Deck Floor Beams
(g) If no cracking is found during the inspections required by
paragraph (e) of this AD, before further flight after the
inspection, except as provided by paragraph (i) of this AD, modify
the upper chord of the upper deck floor beams at the locations in
Figure 3 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2429, dated March
22, 2001, in accordance with paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD.
(1) Option 1: Accomplish the modification in accordance with a
method approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO, or by an Authorized
Representative for the Boeing Delegation Option Authorization (DOA)
organization, who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO,
to make those findings. For a modification method to be approved,
the modification must meet the certification basis of the airplane,
and the approval must specifically refer to this AD. After the
modification, perform post-modification inspections in accordance
with paragraph (j) of this AD.
(2) Option 2: Accomplish the modification in accordance with the
Figure 3 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2429, dated March
22, 2001, except, where the service bulletin specifies to contact
Boeing for appropriate action, modify in accordance with a method
approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO, or by an Authorized
Representative for the Boeing DOA organization, who has been
authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For
a modification method to be approved, the modification must meet the
certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD. Then, perform post-modification
inspections in accordance with paragraph (k) of this AD.
Repair of Upper Deck Floor Beams
(h) If any crack is found during any inspection required by
paragraph (a), (b), or (e) of this AD: Before further flight, except
as provided by paragraph (i) of this AD, do paragraph (h)(1),
(h)(2), or (h)(3) of this AD.
(1) Option 1: Accomplish all actions associated with the time-
limited repair, including removing the existing strap; performing
HFEC inspections of the chord, web, and angle, as applicable; stop-
drilling cracks; trimming the angle and machining the vertical leg
of the chord, as applicable; and installing a new strap. Do these
actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Service Bulletin 747-53A2420, Revision 1, dated January 7, 1999;
except, where the service bulletin specifies to contact Boeing for
appropriate action, before further flight, repair in accordance with
a method approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO, or by an Authorized
Representative for the Boeing DOA organization, who has been
authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For
a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the
certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD. Within 1,500 flight cycles or 18
months after the installation of the time-limited repair, whichever
is first, do paragraph (h)(2) or (h)(3) of this AD.
(2) Option 2: Accomplish the permanent repair of the upper deck
floor beams at the locations shown in Figures 4 and 5, as
applicable, of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2429, dated
March 22, 2001, in accordance with a method approved by the Manager,
Seattle ACO, or by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing DOA
organization, who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO,
to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the
repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the
approval must specifically refer to this AD. Then, perform post-
repair inspections in accordance with paragraph (j) of this AD.
(3) Option 3: Accomplish the permanent repair of the upper deck
floor beams at locations shown in Figure 4 and 5, as applicable, of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2429, dated March 22, 2001, in
accordance with the service bulletin. Then, perform post-repair
inspections in accordance with paragraph (k) of this AD.
Airplanes Modified or Repaired Previously
(i) For airplanes on which a repair in accordance with paragraph
(c) of this AD was accomplished before the effective date of this
AD, except a repair that is acceptable for compliance with paragraph
(h) of this AD: Within 5,000 flight cycles after installation of
such modification or repair, as applicable, inspect in accordance
with paragraph (e) of this AD, then do paragraph (g) or (h) of this
AD, as applicable.
Repetitive Inspections After Modification or Permanent Repair
(j) For airplanes on which the modification or permanent repair
was installed in accordance with paragraph (g)(1) or (h)(2) of this
AD, as applicable: Within 15,000 flight cycles after installation of
the modification or permanent repair, do paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2)
of this AD, in accordance with a method approved by the Manager,
Seattle ACO. For an inspection method to be approved, the approval
letter must specifically reference this AD.
(1) Option 1: Do surface HFEC inspections for cracking along the
lower edge of the upper chord of the upper deck floor beams at BS
340 through BS 440 inclusive, BS 500, and BS 520, on the right and
left sides of the airplane. Repeat the surface HFEC inspections at
intervals not to exceed 1,000 flight cycles.
[[Page 18282]]
(2) Option 2: Do open-hole HFEC inspections for cracking at
fasteners common to the upper chord, reinforcement straps, and body
frame of the upper deck floor beams at BS 340 through BS 440
inclusive, BS 500, and BS 520, on the right and left sides of the
airplane. Repeat the open-hole HFEC inspections at intervals not to
exceed 3,000 flight cycles.
(k) For airplanes on which the modification or permanent repair
was installed in accordance with paragraph (g)(2) or (h)(3) of this
AD, as applicable: Within 5,000 flight cycles after installation of
the modification or permanent repair, do repetitive post-
modification/repair inspections of the upper deck floor beams at BS
340 through BS 440 inclusive, BS 500, and BS 520, on the right and
left sides of the airplane, in accordance with a method approved by
the Manager, Seattle ACO. For an inspection method to be approved,
the approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
Repair
(l) If any cracking is found during any inspection required by
paragraph (j) or (k) of this AD: Before further flight, repair in
accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO, or by
an Authorized Representative for the Boeing DOA organization, who
has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those
findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet
the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.
Alternative Methods of Compliance
(m)(1) In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, the Manager, Seattle
ACO, FAA, is authorized to approve alternative methods of compliance
(AMOCs) for this AD.
(2) AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 98-09-17,
amendment 39-10498, are approved as alternative methods of
compliance with paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this AD.
Incorporation by Reference
(n) Unless otherwise specified in this AD, the actions shall be
done in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2420,
dated March 26, 1998; Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2420, Revision
1, dated January 7, 1999; and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
53A2429, dated March 22, 2001; as applicable.
(1) The incorporation by reference of Boeing Service Bulletin
747-53A2420, Revision 1, dated January 7, 1999; and Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-53A2429, dated March 22, 2001; 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 Alert Service
Bulletin 747-53A2420, dated March 26, 1998, was approved previously
by the Director of the Federal Register as of May 11, 1998 (63 FR
20311, April 24, 1998).
(3) Copies may be obtained from Boeing Commercial Airplanes,
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 National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability
of this material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to: <a href="http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html">http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html</a>.
Effective Date
(o) This amendment becomes effective on May 16, 2005.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 4, 2005.
Kalene C. Yanamura,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 05-7000 Filed 4-8-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Source: Official FAA Source ↗
Retrieved: Apr 4, 2026
Rights: U.S. Government Public Domain
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FAA. Always verify with official sources.