AD 94-20-04 R2

AD Final Rules - 942004R2.pdf
Copy URL
Document Versions
 Feedback
DetailsAttachments/Public Comments
AD Number:
94-20-04 R2
Document Type:
AD Final Rules
Docket Number:
93-CE-37-AD
Subject Heading:
Airworthiness Directives; Raytheon Aircraft Company Beech Models C35, D35, E35, F35, G35, H35, J35, ...Show more
Subject:
Empennage aft fuselage
Status:
Current
Citation:
Federal Register: May 14, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 93)
Citation Publish Date:
05/14/2003
Effective Date:
06/27/2003
Make:
Textron Aviation Inc.
Model:
C35 | D35 | E35 | F35 | G35 | H35 | J35 | K35 | M35 | N35 | P35 | S35 | V35 | V35A | V35B
Product Type:
Aircraft
Product Subtype:
Small Airplane
Affected AD:
Superseded AD:
94-20-04 R1
Affected By:
Superseded By:
Service/Office:
Office of Primary Responsibility:
CFR Part Reference:
Part 39
Comments:
Automatic Zoom
Actual Size
Page Fit
Page Width
⁨50⁩%
⁨75⁩%
⁨100⁩%
⁨125⁩%
⁨150⁩%
⁨200⁩%
⁨300⁩%
⁨400⁩%
⁨125⁩%
of ⁨9⁩
[Federal Register: May 14, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 93)]


[Rules and Regulations]


[Page 25811-25814]


From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]


[DOCID:fr14my03-1]


–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION


Federal Aviation Administration


14 CFR Part 39


[Docket No. 93-CE-37-AD; Amendment 39-13147; AD 94-20-04 R2]


RIN 2120-AA64


Airworthiness Directives; Raytheon Aircraft Company Beech Models C35, D35, E35, F35, G35,


H35, J35, K35, M35, N35, P35, S35, V35, V35A, and V35B Airplanes


AGENCY:
 
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.


ACTION:
 
Final rule.


–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––


SUMMARY:
 
This amendment revises Airworthiness Directive (AD) 94-20-04 R1, which currently


requires ruddervator inspections and modifications on certain Raytheon Aircraft Company


(Raytheon) Beech Models C35, D35, E35, F35, G35, H35, J35, K35, M35, N35, P35, S35, V35,


V35A, and V35B airplanes. This AD maintains the actions of AD 94-20-04 R1, but makes the


repetitive visual inspection of the empennage, aft fuselage, and ruddervator control system with any


subsequent repair and the setting of the elevator controls, rudder and tab system controls, cable


tensions, and rigging a one time action; and adds repetitive inspections of the fuselage bulkheads that


were required by AD 94-20-04. This AD is the result of the need to add a repetitive inspection of the


fuselage bulkheads and change other inspections from a repetitive to a one-time action. The actions


specified by this AD are intended to prevent structural failure of the V-tail, which could result in loss


of control of the airplane.


DATES:
 
This AD becomes effective on June 27, 2003.


The Director of the Federal Register previously approved the incorporation by reference of


certain publications listed in the regulations as of November 28, 1994 (59 FR 49785, September 30,


1994).


ADDRESSES:
 
You may get the service information referenced in this AD from Raytheon Aircraft


Company, PO Box 85, Wichita, Kansas 67201-0085; telephone: (800) 625-7043 or (316) 676-4556.


You may view this information at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Central Region,


Office of the Regional Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No. 93-CE-37-AD, 901 Locust, Room 506,


Kansas City, Missouri 64106; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW.,


suite 700, Washington, DC.


1
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
 
Mr. T.N. Baktha, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,


Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, 1801 Airport Road, Mid-Continent Airport, Wichita, Kansas


67209; telephone: (316) 946-4155; facsimile: (316) 946-4107.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:


Discussion


Has FAA taken any related action on the Raytheon airplane ruddervator system to this point?


On October 15, 2002, FAA issued AD 94-20-04 R1, Amendment 39-12919 (67 FR 64794, October


22, 2002), to require ruddervator inspections and modifications on certain Raytheon Aircraft


Company (Raytheon) Beech Models C35, D35, E35, F35, G35, H35, J35, K35, M35, N35, P35, S35,


V35, V35A, and V35B airplanes.


The intent of this AD was to maintain the inspection and modification requirements of AD 94-


20-04, Amendment 39-9032 (59 FR 49785, September 30, 1994), but condense and clarify the


information presented in AD 94-20-04.


What has happened since AD 94-20-04 R1 to initiate this action?
 
Comments from the public


since issuance of AD 94-20-04 R1 indicate a need for a revision to that AD. Specifically, the visual


inspection of the empennage, aft fuselage, and ruddervator control system with any subsequent repair


and the setting of the elevator controls, rudder and tab system controls, cable tensions, and rigging


should all be a one time action. Currently, they are to be accomplished repetitively at 100-hour time-


in-service (TIS) intervals.


In addition, we inadvertently did not include the 100-hour TIS interval repetitive inspections of


the fuselage bulkheads that were required by AD 94-20-04.


Has FAA taken any action to this point?
 
We issued a proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal


Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD and incorporate the above-referenced


comments. This proposal was published in the Federal Register as a notice of proposed rulemaking


(NPRM) on January 27, 2003 (68 FR 3829). The NPRM proposed to:


–maintain the actions of AD 94-20-04 R1, but would make the repetitive visual inspection of the


empennage, aft fuselage, and ruddervator control system with any subsequent repair and the setting


of the elevator controls, rudder and tab system controls, cable tensions, and rigging a one time action;


and


–add repetitive inspections of the fuselage bulkheads that were required by AD 94-20-04.


What is the potential impact if FAA took no action?
 
This condition, if not corrected, could result


in structural failure of the V-tail. Such failure could result in loss of control of the airplane.


Was the public invited to comment?
 
The FAA encouraged interested persons to participate in the


making of this amendment. The following presents the comments received on the proposal and


FAA's response to each comment:


Comment Issue No. 1: Provide Credit for Previously Accomplished Actions


What is the commenter's concern?
 
A commenter points out that FAA left off the phrase ''unless


already accomplished'' for the initial actions of the proposed AD. The commenter believes that this


phrase should be added based on FAA's inclusion of the phrase in other ADs.


What is FAA's response to the concern?
 
We concur that this phrase should be added to the initial


actions of the proposed AD. We are changing the final rule AD action accordingly.


Comment Issue No. 2: The Inspection of the Empennage, Aft Fuselage, and Ruddervator


Control System Should Be Repetitive


What is the commenter's concern? Raytheon recommends that the repetitive inspections of the


empennage, aft fuselage, and ruddervator control system continue. This would include the setting of


2