Move Follows Fatal Accident In Southern Indiana
EASA issued an AD against one of its STCs
FAA reviewed EASA’s airworthiness findings and adopted them
FAA issued an AD, but added requirements
Those, who know the Chicago Convention of 1944 and the network of bilateral airworthiness safety agreements (BASA), must have recognized that the grounding of the B-737 Max 8 by the CAAs issued before March 13, 2019 violated the standards and procedures mandated by established by those international agreements.
AeroNewsNetwork reports an instance in which compliance with those rules was met by the FAA, done the right way:
Step 1: EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA AD No.: 2019-0086-E, dated April 19, 2019 . The underlying STC was issued to Cranfield Aerospace Solutions Ltd (CAeS), a UK based company for the successful completion of Tamarack Aerospace Group, FAA STC)for its Active Winglet system for application to the Cessna CJ business jet, model 525 (Cessna Citation CJ 525, 525A and 525B models ). Prior to this, CAeS supported Tamarack and obtained the validation of the European Aviation Safety Administration (EASA) STC in December 2015.
Step 2: The EASA action was taken in response to incidents/accidents within its jurisdiction and its AD explained the basis for its action.
The FAA specifically rejected the company’s proposed service information to disable the system—to use “speed tape” around each Tamarack active camber surface (TACS) to keep them faired in the neutral position during flight. The direct to final rule noted that any modifications mandated through AD action become changes to the type design and that the FAA would need to ensure that the use of speed tape complies with the applicable airworthiness regulations. The FAA determined that the speed tape does not have sufficient testing and analysis to support the type design change.
Strict adherence to the existing laws was followed here, in that the FAA acknowledged the competence of EASA and THEN added to the conditions needed to place the subject aircraft with this STC involved into an airworthiness state!!!
As AOPA noted, the FAA AD was inexplicably delayed—why it took five weeks to issue this important document?
Hopefully the gap between the European action and the FAA’s was used to refine the remedial action. In any event, the FAA respected the strictures of the Chicago Convention and the relevant BASAs.
 particularly as interpreted in British Caledonian Airways Limited, Petitioner, v. Langhorne Bond, 665 F.2d 1153 (D.C. Cir. 1981),
Share this article: