What is Continuous Airworthiness Maintenance Program
Continued Airworthiness and Operation
Filippo De Florio , in Airworthiness (Second Edition), 2011
Publisher Summary
This chapter discusses the continued airworthiness and operations. Safety must be ensured for all flight operations, and aircraft must constantly be maintained in an airworthy state. This means that all maintenance operations listed in the relevant manuals and Airworthiness Directives (ADs) must be performed. Continued airworthiness also depends on the particular organizations of operators and maintenance. The continued airworthiness is made by: maintenance and certification of operators. The term "maintenance" refers to preventive maintenance, alterations and repairs, and introduction of ADs. Airworthiness should depend on the maintenance programs, which also establishes the replacement of time change items, the overhaul of engines, propellers, and various parts and appliances. The certification of operators, and in particular their organization, operational procedures, manuals, crew employment and training, equipments, aircraft adequacy and maintenance, transport of dangerous goods, and protection against acts of unlawful interference.
Read full chapter
URL:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780080968025100091
The F111C Wing Pivot Fitting Repair and its Implications for the Design/Assessment of Bonded Joints and Composite Repairs
Lorrie Molent , Rhys Jones , in Aircraft Sustainment and Repair, 2018
1 Introduction
F-111C aircraft while in service with the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) was found to experience cracking in the wing pivot fitting (WPF), see Chapter 8. In some instances this subsequently led to failure, during cold proof load testing (CPLT) in the USA [1–3]. Interestingly the concept of performing CPLT, at − 40°C, was first introduced to ensure continued structural integrity of the USAF F111 fleet, see [1]. The load cycle applied during CPLT, referred to as SIP III, involved loading to − 2.4g, 7.33g, − 3.0g and 7.33g. Stiffener Runout No. 2 (SRO #2), see Fig. 1, on the upper surface of the WPF, was the most critical location. Here the local bending field resulted in compressive yielding under high positive g loads including CPLT. The negative g loads in-service then produce very high tensile strains. It was these tensile strains that were responsible for failure in CPLT.
Fig. 1. Geometry of wing and fatigue critical locations SRO#2 and FFH 13.
From L. Molent, R.J. Callinan, R. Jones, Design of an all boron epoxy doubler for the F-111C wing pivot fitting: structural aspects, J. Compos. Struct. 11(1) (1989) 57–83; L. Molent, R. Jones, Stress Analysis of a Boron/Epoxy Reinforcement for the F-111C Wing Pivot Fitting, Aero. Res. Labs., ARL-STRUC-REP-426, DSTO, Melbourne, Australia, 1987.As outlined in Ref. [2] the wing consisted of a 2024-T856 aluminium alloy wing skin fastened to the D6AC steel WPF. The problem area, in which cracking occurred, was in the runout region on the top surface, see Fig. 1 which shows the general geometry of the critical region and Fig. 2 which shows a failed F-111 wing.
Fig. 2. A failed wing post CPLT.
To overcome this problem it was necessary to: (1) provide an alternate load path so as to partially by-pass the critical region; and (2) change the geometry of the local region to reduce the K t (i.e. rework). To achieve these, a boron epoxy doubler (reinforcement) and SRO grind-out geometries were developed [4–6]. This reinforcement/rework (collectively referred to here as the repair) represented a milestone in composite reinforcement technology in that it was the first bonded doubler to be applied to primary flight critical structure. Indeed, despite in-service delaminations that arose in a few doublers, see Chapter 8 for more details, the F-111 WPF reinforcement was successful in that by reducing the strains at the critical location by approximately 30% it achieved its primary objective namely to eliminate cracking and wing failure in the RAAF F-111 fleet.
A significant outcome of the F-111 WPF repair program was that it has resulted in a detailed understanding of the tools and the experimental methodology needed to meet the stringent damage tolerant requirements inherent in both JSSG2006 and FAA ac-120-107b [7,8]. These tools are discussed in Chapters 8 and 11, where this approach is used to design the repairs to Boeing DC10 and MD11 aircraft [9,10]. It is also shown that a major outcome of the in-service performance of the WPF reinforcement discussed in Chapter 8 [11] is that it reveals a major shortcoming in the approach outlined in the US Composite Materials Handbook CMH-17-3G [12], but not in the design methodology developed during the PABST program [13], and the way in which A4EI [14] design software is used to design/assess composite bonded repairs.
To meet the requirements for continued airworthiness, 1 it was necessary to determine the associated inspection intervals. To this end it was necessary to obtain the residual stress, after CPLT, and the stress "per g" both with and without doublers and with various grind-out configurations. Since during CPLT SRO #2 undergoes gross plastic yielding, to obtain this information requires a detailed elastic-plastic analysis. However, classical techniques for modelling this cyclic behaviour have inherent difficulties in representing the response to large cyclic inelastic strain excursions. Indeed, the use of classical analysis techniques resulted in an inspection interval, for the modified structure, of under 500 h. This contrasts with service experience which has shown that there was little further cracking after repair. Indeed, for modified aircraft there has been no further cracking since 1985. 2
To overcome this shortcoming, the use of a "unified constitutive" model, see [16,17], was investigated. The particular model was originally proposed by Ramaswarmy [18], and was based upon the generic back stress and drag stress model proposed by Bodner and Stouffer [19]. These constitutive equations have subsequently been extended, see [20–23], to represent the inelastic response of F/A-18 aluminium alloys, thin film adhesive (FM73 and FM300) and structural steels. When using this approach it was found that, in contrast to classical techniques, the stress per g and the residual stress thus calculated were consistent with fleet experience and resulted in an extension of the inspection interval from under 500 h to more than 1400 h.
A further important outcome of the F-111 WPF repair was that not only was it the first example of the ability of composite repair technology to eliminate cracking in a primary structure it was also the first example to highlight the benefit to be gained by combining composite reinforcement technology with shape optimisation. This chapter summarises the design approach. It is also shown that the in-service performance of the WPF reinforcement reveals shortcomings in the approach outlined in the US Composite Materials Handbook CMH-17-3G for the design of bonded joints. To be more specific it is shown that the design of bonded joints and composite repairs to withstand proof loads does not guarantee durability so that fatigue issues should be addressed in the initial design.
Read full chapter
URL:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780081005408000108
Continuing1 Airworthiness and Air Operator's Certification
Filippo De Florio , in Airworthiness (Third Edition), 2016
10.1.10.2 FAR 145 – Repair stations
In subparagraph 10.1.6 we have seen FAR 145.
It can be useful to recall the applicability:
145.1 Applicability
This part describes how to obtain a repair station certificate. This part also contains the rules a certificated repair station must follow related to its performance of maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations of an aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part to which FAR 43 applies. It also applies to any person who holds, or is required to hold, a repair station certificate issued under this part.
APPENDIX 10.1 is a summary of FAA Maintenance/Continued Airworthiness requirements:
| FAA Maintenance/Continued Airworthiness | ||
|---|---|---|
| FAR | Applicability | Requirements |
| 91 | General operating and flight rules
|
|
| 43 | Maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding and alterations.
| FAR 43 |
| 121 | Operating requirements: domestic, flag, and supplemental operations
|
|
| 125 | Airplanes of 20 or more passengers or more of 6000 pounds maximum payload See§ 125.1 for exceptions |
|
| 129 | Foreign air carriers and foreign operators of U.S.-registered aircraft engaged in common carriage. See§129.1 Applicability and definitions |
|
| 135 | Operating requirements: commuter and ondemand operations.
| Subpart J – Maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations. |
| 145 | Repair stations Certification of Repair stations See §145.1 | FAR 145 |
| 65 | Certification: Airmen other than flight crew members. See § 65.1 | FAR 65 |
| 147 | Aviation maintenance technician schools See § 147.1 | FAR 147 |
Read full chapter
URL:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780081008881000100
Introduction
He Ren , ... Yong Chen , in Reliability Based Aircraft Maintenance Optimization and Applications, 2017
1.7 Summary
Aircraft maintenance is one of the critical operational tasks to sustain continued airworthiness. It also contributes a significant proportion of the total life-cycle cost. Based on introducing the fundamental concepts and theories of reliability and maintainability, some maintenance control and management methods are presented in this book. For overcoming the MSG-3 shortage in practice, this book is going to determine flexible and cost-effective maintenance schedule for aircraft structures particular in composite airframes. By applying an intelligent rating system, the back-propagation network (BPN) method, and FTA technique, a new approach was created with a powerful learning ability and a flexible data fusion capability, to assist in determining inspection intervals for new aircraft structures, especially in composite structure. Also, this book discusses the influence of Structure Health Monitoring (SHM) on scheduled maintenance. An integrated logic diagram was established incorporating SHM into the current MSG-3 structural analysis, based on which four maintenance scenarios with gradual increasing maturity levels of SHM were analyzed. The inspection intervals and the repair thresholds are adjusted according to different combinations of SHM tasks and scheduled maintenance. This book provides a practical means for aircraft manufacturers and operators to consider the feasibility of SHM by examining labor work reduction, structural reliability variation as well as maintenance cost savings. Finally, A380 Reliability and Maintainability program, as an example, is explained in this book.
Read full chapter
URL:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128126684000010
Air Operations Regulations
Filippo De Florio , in Airworthiness (Third Edition), 2016
9.2.2.4 FAR 129. Operations: foreign air carriers and foreign operators of US-registered aircraft engaged in common carriage
Here the titles of the Subparts:
-
Subpart A – General
-
Subpart B – Continued Airworthiness and Safety Improvements
-
Subpart C – Special Federal Aviation Regulations
Subpart A: General
129.1. Applicability and Definitions
- (a)
-
Foreign air carrier operations in the United States. This part prescribes rules governing the operation within the United States of each foreign air carrier holding the following:
(1) A permit issued by the Civil Aeronautics Board or the US Department of Transportation under 49 USC 41301 to 41306 (formerly section 402 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended), or (2) other appropriate economic or exemption authority issued by the Civil Aeronautics Board or the US Department of Transportation.
- (b)
-
Operations of US-registered aircraft solely outside the United States. In addition to the operations specified under Paragraph (a) of this section, Paragraphs 129.14, 129.16, 129.20, 129.32, and 129.33 also apply to US-registered aircraft operated solely outside the United States in common carriage by a foreign person or foreign air carrier.
- (c)
-
Definitions. For the purpose of this part: (1) Foreign person means any person who is not a citizen of the United States and who operates a US-registered aircraft in common carriage solely outside the United States. (2) Years in service means the calendar time elapsed since an aircraft was issued its first US or foreign airworthiness certificate.
129.13 Airworthiness and Registration Certificates
- (a)
-
No foreign air carrier may operate any aircraft within the United States unless that aircraft carries a current registration certificate and displays the nationality and registration markings of the State of Registry, and an airworthiness certificate issued or validated by:
- (1)
-
The State of Registry; or
- (2)
-
The State of the Operator, provided that the State of the Operator and the State of Registry have entered into an agreement under Article 83bis of the Convention on International Civil Aviation that covers the aircraft.
- (b)
-
No foreign air carrier may operate a foreign aircraft within the United States except in accordance with the limitations on maximum certificated weights prescribed for that aircraft and that operation by the country of manufacture of the aircraft.
129.17 Aircraft Communication and Navigation Equipment for Operations Under IFR or Over the Top
- (a)
-
Aircraft navigation equipment requirements – General. No foreign air carrier may conduct operations under IFR or over the top unless: (…)
129.18
Effective January 1, 2005, any airplane you, as a foreign air carrier, operate under part 129 must be equipped and operated according to the following table: (…)
129.20. Digital Flight Data Recorders
No person may operate an aircraft under this part that is registered in the United States unless it is equipped with one or more approved flight recorders that use a digital method of recording and storing data (…)
129.22 Communication and Navigation Equipment for Rotorcraft Operations Under VFR Over Routes Navigated by Pilotage
- (a)
-
No foreign air carrier may operate a rotorcraft under VFR over routes that can be navigated by pilotage unless the rotorcraft is equipped with the radio communication equipment necessary under normal operating conditions to fulfill the following:
- (1)
-
Communicate with at least one appropriate station from any point on the route; (…)
129.24 Cockpit Voice Recorders
No person may operate an aircraft under this part that is registered in the United States unless it is equipped with an approved cockpit voice recorder that meets the standards of TSO-C123a, or later revision. The cockpit voice recorder must record the information that would be required to be recorded if the aircraft were operated under FAR 121, 125, or 135, and must be installed by the compliance times required by that part, as applicable to the aircraft.
129.28 Flightdeck Security
- (a)
-
After August 20, 2002, except for a newly manufactured airplane on a non-revenue delivery flight, no foreign air carrier covered by §129.1(a), may operate:
- (1)
-
A passenger carrying transport category airplane within the United States, except for overflights, unless the airplane is equipped with a door between the passenger and pilot compartment that incorporates features to restrict the unwanted entry of persons into the flightdeck that are operable from the flightdeck only; or (…)
Subpart B – Continued Airworthiness and Safety Improvements
129.101 Purpose and Definition
- (a)
-
This subpart requires a foreign person or foreign air carrier operating a U.S. registered airplane in common carriage to support the continued airworthiness of each airplane. These requirements may include, but are not limited to, revising the maintenance program, incorporating design changes, and incorporating revisions to Instructions for Continued Airworthiness. (…)
129.105 Aging Airplane Inspections and Records Reviews for U.S.-Registered Multiengine Aircraft
- (a)
-
Operation after inspection and records review. After the dates specified in this paragraph, a foreign air carrier or foreign person may not operate a U.S.-registered multiengine airplane under this part unless the Administrator has notified the foreign air carrier or foreign person that the Administrator has completed the aging airplane inspection and records review required by this section. (…)
- 129.107
-
Repairs assessment for pressurized fuselages.
- 129.109
-
Supplemental inspections for U.S.-registered aircraft.
- 129.111
-
Electrical wiring interconnection systems (EWIS) maintenance program.
- 129.113
-
Fuel tank system maintenance program.
- 129.117
-
Flammability reduction means.
Subpart C – Special Federal Aviation Regulations
Read full chapter
URL:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780081008881000094
Polymer Matrix Composites: Applications
Cindy Ashforth , Larry Ilcewicz , in Comprehensive Composite Materials II, 2018
3.1.1.5 Continued Airworthiness
After an aircraft is shown to be airworthy, and granted an airworthiness approval, there are regulations that govern continued airworthiness of the aircraft. Part 43 governs aircraft maintenance and parts 91-135 govern operation. During product certification, the DAH must generate instructions for continued airworthiness that the operators are required to follow in service. The airworthiness certificate is valid as long as the FAA finds that the aircraft conforms to the type design and is in a condition for safe operation.
Design and PAHs have requirements to report certain safety-related service incidents to the FAA under § 21.3. If there is a potential for a safety risk to aircraft in service, the FAA will investigate the issue and the level of risk to the existing fleet. Using statistical risk-based methodologies, the FAA will determine if (1) an "unsafe condition" exists in the product and (2) is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design. If that determination is made, the FAA will require mitigating actions in the form of an airworthiness directive (AD). ADs specify inspections the operator must carry out, conditions and limitations the operator must comply with, and any actions the operator must take to resolve an unsafe condition. ADs may be issued against an aircraft, engine, propeller, or appliance. The process is governed by part 39, with procedures in Order 8040.5 and guidance in AC 39-7.
Read full chapter
URL:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128035818099446
Continuing safety
Duane Kritzinger , in Aircraft System Safety, 2017
11.2.4 Manufacturing instructions
Each Design Organisation needs to collaborate (refer, inter alia EASA 21.A.4 and 21.A.133) with Production (i.e. Manufacturing) Organisations to properly support the continued airworthiness of the product, part or appliance. This collaboration entails:
- •
-
The responsibilities of a Design Organisation, which include:
- •
-
Providing correct and timely airworthiness data (e.g. drawings, material specifications, dimensional data, processes, surface treatments, shipping conditions, quality requirements, etc.);
- •
-
Providing design approval/rejection for change requests (i.e. deviations, waivers and nonconcessions);
- •
-
Instructions on how to handle, manufacture, install and test critical parts (i.e. those which can cause a Catastrophic or Hazardous failure condition).
- •
-
The responsibilities of the Production Organisation for:
- •
-
Developing, where applicable, its own manufacturing data (in compliance with the airworthiness data package);
- •
-
Not making any design change decisions without formal DO approval;
- •
-
Control procedures for critical parts. Human errors in production, which have the potential to lead to Catastrophic or Hazardous Failure Conditions, must be identified and mitigated;
- •
-
Conformance records (for future traceability of any issues of concern).
Read full chapter
URL:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780081008898000118
The ICAO and the Civil Aviation Authorities
Filippo De Florio , in Airworthiness (Third Edition), 2016
3.5.3 The Aircraft Certification Service
The organisation of the FAA is very complex; this is understandable considering the plurality of tasks, the size of the United States, and its relationship with the rest of the world. From an airworthiness point of view, we will describe which structure deals more directly with each relevant issue.
In the complex FAA organisational chart (Fig. 3.3), the Aviation Safety 18 headquarters located in Washington, hosts the Aircraft Certification Service, structured as shown in Fig. 3.4.
Figure 3.3. Federal Aviation Administration organisation chart.
Figure 3.4. Aircraft Certification Service (AIR) organisation chart.
The Aircraft Certification Service is responsible for the following:
- a)
-
administering safety standards governing the design, production, and airworthiness of civil aeronautical products;
- b)
-
overseeing design, production, and airworthiness certification programmes to ensure compliance with prescribed safety standards;
- c)
-
providing a safety performance management system to ensure continued operational safety of aircraft; and
- d)
-
working with aviation authorities, manufacturers, and other stakeholders to help them successfully improve the safety of the international air transportation system.
Aircraft Certification is organised into the Office of the Director and four divisions located in Washington, DC Headquarters, and four geographic directorates. The Aircraft Certification Service headquarters' offices and the directorates share responsibility for the design and production approval, airworthiness certification, and continued airworthiness programmes of all US civil aviation products.
The Aircraft Certification Service is responsible for the design and production approval, airworthiness certification, and continued airworthiness programmes of all US civil aviation products. FAA support that mission with a training programme and oversight of Designated Representatives of the Administrator.
3.5.3.1 The headquarters' offices
The Office of the Director manages the Aircraft Certification Service.
The Design, Manufacturing, and Airworthiness Division (AIR-100), effective since 9 February 2014, is the merging of the Aircraft Engineering Division (AIR-100) and Production and Airworthiness Division (AIR-200). The Division promotes aviation safety by issuing federal aviation regulations, national directives, policy, procedures, and advisory material pertaining to continued operational safety, type certification, design approvals, production approvals, airworthiness certification, and authorisation and oversight of certain Designated Representatives of the Administrator.
The International Policy Office (AIR-40) is the focal point for AIR international activities. This office provides liaison support to other FAA organisations, international agencies of the US Government, the ICAO, and other civil aviation authorities (CAAs).
The Planning and Program Management Division (AIR-500) manages national programmes and administrative activities in training, staffing, programme planning and evaluation, finance, and human resources. The division also distributes national policy and guidance on these subjects.
The Fuels Program Office (AIR-20) is the advocate and focal point for regulations, policies and certification programmes for fuel-related activities. This office is responsible for addressing the Unleaded Avgas Transition Aviation Rulemaking Committee (UAT ARC) recommendations to meet the Destination 2025 goal of having an unleaded replacement fuel that is usable by most general aviation aircraft.
3.5.3.2 The aircraft certification directorates
The directorates develop and implement national regulatory requirements, policy, and procedures for continued operational safety and type, production, and airworthiness certifications for their designated products. Each directorate also has responsibility for overseeing certification activities (field office operations, certification programmes, and projects) within its geographic area.
1) The Transport Airplane Directorate (ANM-100) consists of the Directorate headquarters located in Renton, three Aircraft Certification Offices (ACOs) in Denver, Los Angeles, and Seattle, four Manufacturing Inspection District Offices (MIDOs) 19 in Los Angeles, Phoenix, Seattle, and Van Nuys. The Manufacturing Inspection Offices (MIOs) operate in the Geographic Service Area of Arizona, Colorado, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
The Directorate has oversight responsibility for transport category aeroplane design approvals, and modifications worldwide, as well as oversight responsibility for over 900 production approval holders. The Transport Airplane Directorate works closely with other FAA offices throughout the country and with foreign regulatory authorities to accomplish this mission.
The Directorate:
-
monitors the Continued Operational Safety of the transport category aeroplane fleet to ensure that aeroplanes continue to meet regulations and are safe throughout their operational life cycle;
-
looks for conditions that affect the safety of aeroplanes through surveillance, inspection, review, investigation, and analysis of service difficulties, incidents, and accidents.
If an unsafe condition is identified, it will:
- a.
-
work with the manufacturers to mandate corrective action through ADs;
- b.
-
revise regulations/policy, or issue new regulations/policy.
The Transport Airplane Directorate Field Offices:
- a)
-
issue design, production, and airworthiness approvals of all aircraft and aircraft parts in the above-mentioned Geographic Service Area and the Pacific Rim countries;
- b)
-
determine if and ensure that each aircraft design meets the applicable regulations (Design Approvals);
- c)
-
issue a type certificate when an applicant shows that its aircraft design meets the standards;
- d)
-
ensure that each manufacturing facility is capable of producing aircraft to the approved design (Production Approvals);
- e)
-
ensure that each aircraft produced in the manufacturing facility is built to the approved design and is in a condition for safe operation (Airworthiness Certification).
2) The Small Airplane Directorate (ACE-100) (Central Region) consists of the Directorate headquarters located in Kansas City; four ACOs located in Anchorage, Atlanta, Chicago, and Wichita; and seven MIDOs located in Atlanta, Cleveland, Kansas City, Minneapolis, Orlando, Vandalia, and Wichita.
The MIOs operate in the Geographic Service Area of Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Wisconsin.
The Primary functions of the Directorate headquarters located in Kansas City are to:
- a)
-
provide administrative support and resource management for the Directorate field offices;
- b)
-
develop type certification policies and regulations for small aeroplanes, airships, and balloons and ensure standardised application of the policies and regulations;
- c)
-
administrate type certification of small aeroplanes, airships, and balloons in field offices outside the Directorate; and
- d)
-
monitor continued airworthiness information and process airworthiness actions for small aeroplanes, airships, and balloons.
NOTE: FAR 1 defines a 'small aircraft' an aircraft of 12,500 lbs or less maximum certificated take-off weight. Therefore, any aeroplane, including transport category aeroplanes, could be considered 'small' by the Part 1 definition if the aeroplane is less than 12,500 lbs. However, as commonly used, and in the most basic meaning, small aeroplanes have generally been considered fixed-wing aircraft that are not transport category aeroplanes (ie fixed-wing aeroplanes type certificated to standards other than FAR 25). Therefore, generally speaking, small aeroplanes are fixed-wing aeroplanes that are not transport category. Depending on the category, small aeroplanes can reach up to 19,000 lbs maximum take-off weight (FAR 23).
A small aeroplane is not the same as a General Aviation aircraft, because it is operated under FAR 91, which could be any category of aeroplane, including transport category and rotorcraft. Additionally aeroplanes operated under FAR 121 and 125, which may include small aeroplanes, are not considered General Aviation aircraft when operated under these rules.
3) The Rotorcraft Directorate (ASW-100) consists of the Directorate headquarters located in Fort Worth, one ACO in Forth Worth, three MIDOs in Forth Worth, Oklahoma City and San Antonio. The MIOs operate in the Geographic Service Area of Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas.
The Directorate is responsible for FAA approval of the design and production of any civil aviation product in the Southwest Region. This includes aeroplanes, rotorcraft, powered-lift aircraft, engines, balloons, parts, etc.
Additionally it is responsible for writing regulations and policies governing the design of rotorcraft and powered-lift aircraft, the standard application of these regulations and policies within the United States, and the validation/FAA approval of foreign rotorcraft and powered-lift aircraft.
4) The Engine and Propeller Directorate (E&PD) (ANE-100) consists of the Directorate headquarters located in Burlington, two ACOs in Boston and New York, five MIDOs in Burlington, Farmingdale, New Cumberland, Saddle Brook, and Windsor Locks. The Boston MIO in Burlington operates in the Geographic Service Area of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia.
The Directorate is responsible for original type certification or changes to approved designs of aircraft engines and propellers, Technical Standard Order approvals of auxiliary power units, and assuring that aviation parts are manufactured to approved standards.
The Engine Certification Office in Burlington determines whether engine designs meet performance and certification standards by issuing design approvals, oversees the continual operational safety of certified engines, and manages designated engineering representatives.
3.5.3.3 The field and regional offices
The field offices serve the various geographic areas for guidance on aircraft certification related activities. The aircraft local field offices listed below can provide direct personal assistance to address particular situation in a timely manner:
Aircraft Certification Offices are staffed with FAA Aviation Safety Engineers (ASE) 20 to assist with the following:
- a)
-
design approvals and certificate management;
- b)
-
US production approvals;
- c)
-
engineering and analyses questions; investigating and reporting aircraft accidents, incidents, and service difficulties;
- d)
-
Designated Engineering Representatives oversight.
Each directorate incorporates three or more ACOs within their geographical areas issuing the actual certification of aircraft and products. They work directly with the applicant and provide the main interface between the public and the FAA.
Manufacturing Inspection District Offices are staffed with FAA Aviation Safety Inspectors (ASI) 21 to assist with the following:
- a)
-
manufacturing and production certification;
- b)
-
airworthiness certification;
- c)
-
manufacturing facilities approval holder issues;
- d)
-
manufacturing Designated Airworthiness Representatives (DAR-F) oversight;
- e)
-
support to ACOs during design approvals.
The Manufacturing Inspection District Offices provides the following:
- a)
-
oversight of MIDOs;
- b)
-
management of geographically located production facilities and designees.
Read full chapter
URL:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780081008881000033
Airworthiness Regulations and Safety Requirements
Peng Wang , in Civil Aircraft Electrical Power System Safety Assessment, 2017
1.1.2 Airworthiness Standards
Airworthiness standards are special technical standards and minimum safety standards established to ensure the implementation of civil aircraft airworthiness. Unlike other standards, civil aircraft airworthiness standards are part of national regulations and require strict enforcement.
The establishment of an airworthiness standard has involved continuous revision by accumulating long-term experience, drawing lessons from flight accidents, conducting necessary demonstration or argumentation, and soliciting opinions from the public. Thus far, FAR of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Certification Specification (CS) of European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) dominate the worldwide airworthiness standards. Taking the international characteristics of civil aviation airworthiness standards into account, many countries have established their airworthiness standards by recognizing FAR and CS with consideration of their own national situations. For instance, certification authorities from China, Canada, and Russia all have established their own airworthiness standards based on FAR and CS.
FAA airworthiness standards are as follows:
- •
-
Part-23 Airworthiness Standards: Normal, Utility, Acrobatic, and Commuter Category Airplanes.
- •
-
Part-25 Airworthiness Standards: Transport Category Airplanes.
- •
-
Part-26 Continued Airworthiness and Safety Improvements for Transport Category Airplanes. (Note: EASA also contains CS-26, but its name is Additional airworthiness specifications for operations, its initial release was on December 5, 2015.)
- •
-
Part-27 Airworthiness Standards: Normal Category Rotorcraft.
- •
-
Part-29 Airworthiness Standards: Transport Category Rotorcraft.
- •
-
Part-31 Airworthiness Standards: Manned Free Balloons.
- •
-
Part-33 Airworthiness Standards: Aircraft Engines.
- •
-
Part-34 Fuel Venting and Exhaust Emission Requirements for Turbine Engine Powered Airplanes.
- •
-
Part-35 Airworthiness Standards: Propellers.
- •
-
Part-36 Noise Standards: Aircraft Type and Airworthiness Certification.
- •
-
Part-39 Airworthiness Directives.
The above airworthiness standards are all appropriate for civil products. For materials, parts, and appliances used on civil products, they are referred to as TSO authorization according to the Technical Standard Order (TSO) standard. A TSO is a minimum performance standard issued by the certification authority for specified materials, parts, processes, and appliances used on civil products.
As of May 2016, there are 162 current effective FAA TSOs and 144 current effective EASA European Technical Standard Order (ETSOs). In recent years, despite of some slight differences in marking and data requirements, the contents of TSOs issued by the FAA and ETSOs have been basically identical in technical aspects (except the ETSO 2C series). FAA and EASA introduce mature technical standards in industry as the key technical requirements for TSO.
Airworthiness Directives (ADs) are legally enforceable rules that are applied to the following products: aircrafts, aircraft engines, propellers, and appliances. In FAA, each AD is a part of Part-39, but they are not codified in the annual edition. The authority issues an AD addressing a product when it finds that: (1) an unsafe condition exists in the product; and (2) the condition is likely to exist or develop in other products with the same type of design. Anyone who operates a product that does not meet the requirements of an applicable AD is in violation of Part-39.
AC is a recommended and interpretative material of the compliance means with the applicable regulations. Though it is stated in almost all ACs that the means it introduces are not mandatory or are not the only means, and that the applicants can adopt other methods to demonstrate their compliance with the regulation. In general, if the type certificate applicants do not propose more appropriate means, priority should be given to using the means introduced in the AC to demonstrate their compliance with applicable regulations.
Read full chapter
URL:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780081007211000017
Polymer Matrix Composites: Applications
John Tomblin , ... Cindy Ashforth , in Comprehensive Composite Materials II, 2018
Abstract
Major technological advances using composite materials have been achieved in the last 50 years leading to the introduction of these materials for the first time in heavily loaded transport aircraft wing and fuselage structures. To ensure the safety and continued airworthiness of composite airframe components, challenges associated with maintenance and repair must be addressed and a robust infrastructure for supportability must be established. To address these challenges, repairability must be considered during the design of the structure, taking into account the lessons learned from the service history and the constraints of the in-service environment. Factory systems, requiring autoclave conditions for optimum performance, cannot be used in maintenance depots. Out of autoclave (OOA) repair systems and associated processes must be carefully developed and substantiated during the design phase. This chapter highlights key lessons learned from research and development (R&D) work on repair manufacturing processes and provides recommendations pertaining to best practices for bonded repair technology.
Read full chapter
URL:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128035818103686
Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/continued-airworthiness
0 Response to "What is Continuous Airworthiness Maintenance Program"
Post a Comment