[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 206 (Thursday, October 24, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65290-65298]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-26661]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 2000-CE-44-AD; Amendment 39-12920; AD 2002-21-13]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Raytheon Aircraft Company Beech Models
35, 35R, A35, and B35 Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment supersedes Airworthiness Directive (AD) 98-13-
02, which currently requires operating limitations on Raytheon Aircraft
Company (Raytheon) Beech Models 35, 35R, A35, and B35 airplanes. This
AD is the result of Raytheon developing inspection and modification
procedures that, when accomplished on the affected airplanes, will
eliminate the need for the operating limitations. This AD retains the
operating limitations for the affected airplanes until the recently
developed inspection and modification procedures are accomplished. This
AD also requires repetitive inspections of the fuselage structure. 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 December 10, 2002.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in the regulations as of
December 10, 2002.
ADDRESSES: You may get the service information referenced in this AD
from the Raytheon Aircraft Company, P.O. Box 85, Wichita, Kansas 67201-
0085; telephone: (800) 625-7043 or (316) 676-4556. You may examine this
information at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Central
Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No.
2000-CE-44-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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. T.N. Baktha, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, 1801 Airport Road, Room
100, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone: (316) 946-4155; facsimile: (316)
946-4407.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Discussion
Has FAA Taken Any Action on the Raytheon Airplane Ruddervator System to
This Point?
AD 98-13-02, Amendment 39-10590 (63 FR 31916, June 11, 1998),
currently requires the following on Raytheon Beech Models 35, A35, B35,
and 35R airplanes:
--Fabricating a placard that restricts the never exceed speed (Vne) to
no more than 144 miles per hour (MPH) or 125 knots (KTS) indicated
airspeed (IAS) and installing this placard on the instrument panel
within the pilot's clear view;
--Marking a red line on the airspeed indicator glass at 144 MPH (125
KTS);
--Marking a white slippage mark on the outside surface of the airspeed
indicator between the glass and case; and
--Inserting a copy of this AD into the Limitations Section of the
pilot's operating handbook/airplane flight manual (POH/AFM).
In addition, AD 94-20-04, Amendment 39-9032 (59 FR 49785, September
30, 1994), requires the following on certain Beech Models C35, D35,
E35, F35, G35, H35, J35, K35, M35, N35, P35, S35, V35, V35A, and V35B
airplanes, as well as the Beech Models 35, A35, B35, and 35R airplanes:
--Checking the ruddervator static balance and rebalancing the
ruddervators when the balance is not in accordance with manufacturer's
specifications or anytime the ruddervators are repaired or repainted;
--Repetitively inspecting the fuselage bulkheads for damage and
replacing any damaged parts;
--Installing stabilizer reinforcements for some airplane models, as
applicable;
--Fabricating and installing airspeed limitation placards;
--Incorporating certain airspeed limitations into the POH/AFM;
--Inspecting the empennage, aft fuselage, and ruddervator control
system for damage and replacing or repairing any damaged parts; and
--Ensuring the accuracy of the airplane basic weight and balance
information and immediately correcting any discrepancies.
Accomplishment of these actions is required in accordance with the
instructions to either Beech Kit No. [chyph]35-4016-3, [chyph]35-4016-
5, [chyph]35-4016-7, or [chyph]35-4016-9, as applicable and as
specified in Beech Service Bulletin No. 2188, dated May, 1987, and the
applicable maintenance and shop manuals.
What Has Happened Since AD 94-20-04 and AD 98-13-02 To Initiate This
Action?
AD 94-20-04 contains minor errors and FAA receives periodic calls
from the public for clarification.
In addition, Raytheon has issued Recommended Service Bulletin No.
SB [chyph]27-3358, Issued: February, 2000, which includes procedures
for inspecting the aft fuselage, ruddervator, and related systems for
acceptable condition and rebalancing the ruddervators to new
specifications (upper limit reduced from 19.8 to 18 inch-pounds (tail
heavy)). Accomplishing these inspections will eliminate the need for
the operating limitations of AD 98-13-02. This service bulletin also
includes the procedures necessary for continuing the repetitive
inspections of the empennage, aft fuselage, and ruddervator control
system (the inspections that AD 94-20-04 currently requires).
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 that would apply to
Raytheon Beech Models 35, 35R, A35, and B35 airplanes. This proposal
was published in the Federal Register as a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) on March 26, 2001
[[Page 65291]]
(66 FR 16418). The NPRM proposed to supersede AD 98-13-02, Amendment
39-10590. The NPRM also proposed to require you to inspect the aft
fuselage, ruddervator, and related systems for acceptable condition on
Beech Models 35, 35R, A35, and B35 airplanes; adjust ruddervator
balance to the new limits; and repair or replace damaged parts, as
necessary. This proposed inspection requirement along with the new
proposed limits for the ruddervator balance (set forth in Raytheon SB
[chyph]27-3358, section 3.A) would terminate the need for the operating
limitations for those airplanes.
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: Allow Equipment Options for Propeller Balancing
and Give Credit if the Equipment Has Been Recently Balanced
What Is the Commenter's Concern?
Several commenters state that requiring the propeller to be
balanced in accordance with the service information is too restrictive.
Raytheon Service Bulletin SB 27-3358 specifies the propeller balance in
accordance with the Chadwick-Helmuth Dynamic Propeller balancer/
analyzer procedure. These commenters believe that this is too
restrictive because several different manufacturers' equipment is
available. They request that FAA include other options. These
commenters also request that we give credit to those owners/operators
who already recently had the propeller balancing accomplished.
What Is FAA's Response to the Concern?
The proposed AD does not specify balancing of the propellers. This
is only specified in paragraph (12) of Raytheon Service Bulletin SB 27-
3358, Issued: February, 2000. We do recommend balancing the propellers
to 0.02 inch per second (ips) or better using suitable equipment (if
you have not already done the balancing within the last 5 years).
We are not changing the final rule based on these comments.
Comment Issue No. 2: Allow Equipment Options for Skin Thickness and
Acknowledge Differences in Skin Thickness
What Is the Commenter's Concern?
Several commenters present the same concern with the equipment used
to measure skin thickness as that concern with the propeller balancing.
That concern is specifying only one piece of equipment. These same
commenters also state that there are differences in skin thickness,
e.g., 0.016 inch instead of 0.018 inch.
What Is FAA's Response to the Concern?
We concur that specifying only one piece of equipment for the skin
thickness measurement is too restrictive.
We are changing the final rule AD action to state that you must
accomplish this measurement in accordance with a digital ultrasonic
skin tester or equivalent skin tester or by direct methods that utilize
calipers and micrometers.
We also concur that there are differences in skin thickness. We are
adding to the final rule AD action reference to the different skin
thicknesses that are specific to each airplane serial number and the
location (fuselage stations) of each affected skin part number.
Comment Issue No. 3: Only Require a Designated Engineer Review (DER) of
Modifications When Major Structural Changes Have Been Made
What Is the Commenter's Concern?
Several commenters state that a DER review for major structural
modifications can be very expensive. These commenters recommend that an
airframe and powerplant (A&P) mechanic be allowed to accomplish this
review.
What Is FAA's Response to the Concern?
The proposed AD does not specify a DER review of major structural
modifications. This is only specified in Raytheon Service Bulletin SB
27-3358, Issued: February, 2000. If an A&P mechanic suspects that the
modifications might extensively affect the structural integrity of the
airplane, a DER review is highly recommended.
We will add the following note to the final rule AD:
``Only the inspections, repairs, replacements, and airplane
basic weight and balancing requirements are required by paragraphs
(d)(5), (d)(6), (d)(7), (d)(7)(i), and (d)(7)(ii) of this AD and the
Appendix to this AD. Other actions specified in Raytheon Service
Bulletin SB 27-3358 such as a DER review for major structural
modifications are not required by this AD. If you have major
modifications incorporated in the aft fuselage or empennage, we
recommend a Structures DER review to ensure that the structural
integrity is maintained after the modifications.''
Comment Issue No. 4: This AD Will Not Address the Problem Unless the
Counterweight Configuration is Updated
What Is the Commenter's Concern?
One commenter relates an experience of making physical changes to
counter weights as part of repainting. These changes used modified
Beech parts that resulted in getting good balance and minimum weight.
In fact, the commenter states that the balance required the same weight
as was used with the airplane's 1949 delivery, even though the
ruddervators had new skins with factory epoxy primer. The commenter
points out the proposed AD will not address the problem unless the
counterweight configuration is updated.
What Is FAA's Response to the Concern?
We do not concur. We do not have any information that indicates a
balance specified in the service information cannot be obtained on the
affected airplanes. If the balance cannot be obtained, we will consider
alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs) to this portion of the AD
provided substantiating information is submitted with the request.
We are not changing the final rule AD action based on this comment.
Comment Issue No. 5: The NPRM Is Confusing About When the Speed
Restrictions Are Required and When They May Be Removed
What Is The Commenter's Concern?
One commenter states that it is unclear when the speed restrictions
must be incorporated and when they may be removed. The commenter
requests clarification on this subject.
What Is FAA's Response to the Concern?
The NPRM retains the speed restrictions from AD 98-13-02, which was
effective on July 7, 1998. The Compliance column of the chart in
paragraph (d)(1) of the AD states this.
In addition, paragraph (d)(7)(iii) states ``Discontinue the placard
and operating limitations required by paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(4)
of this AD.'' This is in sequence with the actions required that lead
up to this limitations removal.
We are not changing the final rule AD action based on this comment.
Comment Issue No. 6: This AD Does Not Address the Root Cause of the
Problem
What Is the Commenter's Concern?
One commenter states that FAA has not found any specific fault with
the affected airplanes that could be corrected to prevent the tail
vibration.
[[Page 65292]]
The proposed AD would only provide actions to detect and correct the
damage after it happened and would allow this potential damage to
occur. The commenter requests that FAA identify the root cause of the
problem and then work to develop a modification that would prevent the
problem from reoccurring.
What Is FAA's Response to the Concern?
Raytheon has analyzed and tested for many years to find the root
cause for the problem. Raytheon has not been able to identify an
obvious single cause for the ruddervator problems on the affected
airplanes. However, Raytheon's analyses indicate that the new limits of
the ruddervator balance set by this AD will greatly enhance the
ruddervator stability.
Therefore, FAA has determined that it is imperative that those
operating the affected airplanes follow all operating limitations and
restrictions, ensure that all balance limits are correct, and follow
all criteria and maintenance manual procedures.
Because of the age of these airplanes (some of which are over 40
years old), we must closely monitor the continued airworthiness safety
even if all limits, operations, and maintenance procedures are
followed.
Additional maintenance or operating procedures may be necessary to
ensure their continued operational safety.
We are not changing the final rule AD action based on this comment.
Comment Issue No. 7: Increase the 2-year Compliance Time to 3 Years
What Is the Commenter's Concern?
One commenter states that there are not enough maintenance
facilities to accomplish the inspections in paragraph (d)(7) of the
proposed AD on all affected airplanes within 2 years. The commenter
recommends that FAA change this compliance time to 3 years.
What Is FAA's Response to the Concern?
We concur and will change the final rule AD action accordingly.
Comment Issue No. 8: This AD Is Being Used for Maintenance
What Is the Commenter's Concern?
One commenter states that FAA is using this AD to enforce the use
of correct maintenance procedures and to establish better or improved
maintenance procedures on the affected airplanes. The commenter states
that this is an incorrect use of an AD and punishes those who have
adequately maintained their airplanes. We infer that the commenter
either wants the NPRM withdrawn or wants an exemption from the AD.
What Is FAA's Response to the Concern?
Although we concur that part of this action is mandating better or
improved maintenance procedures, we do not agree that this is an
incorrect use of an AD. We are not issuing this AD to enforce the
current procedures in the maintenance manual. An incorrect use of an AD
would be to mandate the exact same actions that were part of the
operators maintenance program at the time of aircraft delivery.
The actions of this AD are not to be used instead of the current
maintenance practices. They are to work concurrently with the current
maintenance practices. Based on the service history we have received on
this subject over the years and our evaluation of the subject, we have
determined that this AD is justified and the proposed actions should be
complied with.
We are not changing the final rule AD action based on this comment.
Comment Issue No. 9: Remove the Repetitive Requirement for the Skin
Thickness Measurement
What Is the Commenter's Concern?
Several commenters request that FAA remove the repetitive
requirement for measuring the skin thickness. The commenters state that
the inspection is done to determine whether the thickness is reduced
beyond acceptable limits due to corrosion or due to surface polishing
or abrasion over time.
What Is FAA's Response to the Concern?
The FAA concurs. The intent was to only require the skin thickness
measurement once within the next 100 hours TIS.
We will change the repetitive skin thickness measurement in the
final rule AD to a one-time action.
Comment Issue No. 10: Do Not Require the Rebalancing of the Ruddervator
if the Logbooks Show it is Already Within the Correct Balance Limits
What Is the Commenter's Concern?
One commenter states that the ruddervator rebalancing limits should
not be required if the logbook shows that these limits are currently
met. The commenter recommends that we give accomplishment credit for
this portion of the AD when the logbook entry shows that the
ruddervator limits are met.
What Is FAA's Response to the Concern?
We concur that accomplishment credit should be given if the logbook
``positively'' shows that the ruddervators meet the limits specified in
the service bulletin. To ``positively'' show this, the entry must
indicate that the ruddervator is within the specified limits and list
the details of the balancing. This includes balancing methods used and
the amount of weights and washers used.
We will change the final rule AD action accordingly.
Comment Issue No. 11: Allow the Option of Accomplishing Either the
Inspections, Modifications, and Balancing Requirements or Operating
Within the Current Speed Restrictions
What Is the Commenter's Concern?
Several commenters state the actions in the proposed AD should only
be required for those airplane operators who choose to exceed the
current speed restrictions. The commenters suggest that the AD should
provide the choice of accomplishing the proposed inspections,
modifications, and balancing requirements or maintaining the speed
restrictions currently required by AD 98-13-02.
What Is FAA's Response to the Concern?
We do not concur that the inspections, modifications, and balancing
requirements should be optional. Some of the affected airplanes are
over 40 years old. A thorough inspection over that provided during
annual and 100-hour inspections is necessary to ensure the continued
airworthiness of these airplanes. The inspections in the proposed AD
provide this type of inspection.
Also, this AD will impose tighter margins on the ruddervator
balance and this will improve the dynamic characteristics of the
airplane and yield a more stable airplane.
We are not changing the final rule AD action based on this comment.
Comment Issue No. 12: Do Not Require 100-Hour TIS Inspections of the
Ruddervator Travel
What Is the Commenter's Concern?
Several commenters state that the ruddervator travel need not be
inspected every 100 hours TIS. These commenters state that this is too
repetitive. The commenters do not recommend a different compliance time
so we infer that the commenters want a one-time inspection of the
ruddervator travel.
What Is FAA's Response to the Concern?
We concur that the ruddervator travel should only be a one-time
action.
We are changing the AD final rule action accordingly.
[[Page 65293]]
Comment Issue No. 13: Make the Repetitive Inspection Intervals Annual
Instead of Every 100 Hours TIS
What Is the Commenter's Concern?
One commenter states that the 100-hour TIS interval for the
proposed inspection is too frequent. The commenter recommends FAA
change these to annually.
What Is FAA's Response to the Concern?
We do not concur. These aging airplanes are prone to fatigue
cracking in the frames and skins. Our analysis indicates that this is
due to airplane operation and that 100-hour TIS interval inspections
are necessary to address the continued operational safety of these
airplanes.
We are not changing the final rule AD action based on this comment.
Comment Issue No. 14: Allow Removal and Weighing of the Elevator
Assembly Using a Simple Balance Beam Method
What Is the Commenter's Concern?
The commenter states that the method outlined in the service
bulletin for balancing the ruddervator is unnecessary and could be
accomplished using a simple balance beam method. The commenter
recommends FAA change the proposed AD to allow this method.
What Is FAA's Response to the Concern?
We partially concur. We have determined that the AD should require
the ruddervator be balanced using procedures in Raytheon Service
Bulletin SB 27-3358. We would consider other methods on a case-by-case
basis if substantiating information is submitted with a request for an
alternative method of compliance.
We are not changing the final rule AD action based on this comment.
FAA's Determination
What Is FAA's Final Determination on This Issue?
After careful review of all available information related to the
subject presented above, we have determined that air safety and the
public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed except for
the changes and clarifications discussed above and minor editorial
corrections. We have determined that these changes, clarifications, and
minor corrections:
--Will not change the meaning of the AD; and
--Will not add any additional burden upon the public than was already
proposed.
Cost Impact
How Many Airplanes Does This AD Impact?
We estimate that this AD affects 2,211 airplanes in the U.S.
registry.
What Is the Cost Impact of This AD on Owners/Operators of the Affected
Airplanes?
We estimate the following costs to accomplish the initial
inspections:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total cost per
Labor cost Parts cost airplane Total cost on U.S. operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
55 workhours at $60 per hour = $3,300 $500 per airplane....... $3,800 $8,401,800
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above figures are based only on the initial inspections and do
not take into account the cost of repetitive inspections or
adjustments, repairs, or replacements that will be necessary based on
the results of the inspections. We have no way of determining the
number of repetitive inspections each owner/operator of the affected
airplanes will incur or what adjustments, repairs, or replacements will
be necessary based on the results of the inspections.
Regulatory Impact
Does This AD Impact Various Entities?
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.
Does This AD Involve a Significant Rule or Regulatory Action?
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 copy of the final evaluation prepared for this
action is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained
by contacting 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, under 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.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. FAA amends Sec. 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
98-13-02, Amendment 39-10590 (63 FR 31916, June 11, 1998), and by
adding a new AD to read as follows:
2002-21-13 Raytheon Aircraft Company (Beech Aircraft Corporation
formerly held Type Certificate (TC) No. A-777): Amendment 39-12920;
Docket No. 2000-CE-44-AD; Supersedes AD 98-13-02, Amendment 39-
10590.
(a) What airplanes are affected by this AD? This AD affects
Beech Models 35, 35R, A35, and B35 airplanes, all serial numbers,
that are certificated in any category.
(b) Who must comply with this AD? Anyone who wishes to operate
any of the airplanes referenced in paragraph (a) of this AD must
comply with this AD.
(c) What problem does this AD address? 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.
Note 1: Only the inspections, repairs, replacements, and
airplane basic weight and balancing requirements as specified in
this AD are required by paragraphs (d)(5), (d)(6), (d)(7),
(d)(7)(i), (d)(7)(ii) of this AD and the Appendix to this AD. Other
actions specified in Raytheon Service Bulletin SB 27-3358 such as a
DER review for major structural modifications are not required by
this AD. If you have major modifications incorporated
[[Page 65294]]
in the aft fuselage or empennage, we recommend a Structures DER
review to ensure structural integrity is maintained after the
modifications.
(d) What actions must I accomplish to address this problem? To
address this problem, you must accomplish the following:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actions Compliance Procedures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Fabricate a placard that Within the next 10 hours time-in- Not Applicable.
restricts the never exceed speed service (TIS) after July 7, 1998
(Vne) to no more than 144 miles per (the effective date of AD 98-13-
hour (MPH) or 125 knots (KTS) 02), unless already accomplished.
indicated airspeed (IAS), and
install this placard on the
instrument panel within the pilot's
clear view. The placard should
utilize letters of at least 0.10-
inch in height and contain the
following words: ``Never exceed
speed, Vne, 144 MPH (125 KTS)
IAS''.
-------------------------------------
(2) Mark a red line on the airspeed Within the next 10 hours time-in- Not Applicable.
indicator glass at 144 MPH (125 service (TIS) after July 7, 1998
KTS) and mark a white slippage mark (the effective date of AD 98-13-
on the outside surface of the 02), unless already accomplished.
airspeed indicator between the
glass and case.
-------------------------------------
(3) Insert a copy of this AD into Within the next 10 hours time-in- Not Applicable.
the Limitations Section of the service (TIS) after July 7, 1998
airplane flight manual (AFM). (the effective date of AD 98-13-
02), unless already accomplished.
-------------------------------------
(4) The owner/operator holding at Within the next 10 hours time-in- Make an entry into the aircraft
least a private pilot certificate service (TIS) after July 7, 1998 records showing compliance with
as authorized by section 43.7 of (the effective date of AD 98-13- this AD in accordance with 43.9 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations 02), unless already accomplished. the Federal Aviation Regulations
(14 CFR 43.7) may fabricate and (14 CFR 43.9).
install the placard as required by
paragraph (d)(1) of this AD and
insert this AD into the Limitations
Section of the AFM as required by
paragraph (d)(3) of this AD.
-------------------------------------
(5) Visually inspect the empennage, Inspect within the next 100 hours Accomplish the inspection and
aft fuselage, and ruddervator TIS after the last inspection repairs or replacements in
control system for damage: required by AD 94-20-04 or within accordance with the procedures in
(i) Part of this is an inspection of the next 25 hours TIS after paragraphs (5)(a) through (5)(f) of
the aft fuselage skin for wrinkles December 10, 2002 (the effective the ACCOMPLISHMENT INSTRUCTIONS
or cracks. Specific skin date of this AD), whichever occurs section of Raytheon Service
thicknesses are presented in later, and thereafter at intervals Bulletin No. SB 27-3358, Issued:
Figures 1 and 2 of this AD. The not to exceed 100 hours TIS, except February, 2000, and use a digital
skin thickness measurement is not for the skin thickness measurement ultrasonic skin tester or
repetitive. and the inspection and setting of equivalent skin tester or direct
(ii) The inspection and setting of the travels on the elevator and methods that utilize calipers and
the travels on the elevator and elevator trim tabs, which are one- micrometers. Specific skin
elevator trim tabs are not time actions. Accomplish any thicknesses are contained in
repetitive. repairs, replacements, and Figures 1 and 2 of this AD.
(iii) Repair or replace any damaged adjustments prior to further flight
parts and set the elevator after the applicable inspection.
controls, rudder and tab system
controls, cable tensions, and
rigging.
-------------------------------------
(6) Verify the accuracy of the Accomplish the airplane basic weight Use the procedures contained in the
airplane basic weight and balance and balance accuracy verification Appendix to this AD.
information and correct any within the next 100 hours TIS after
discrepancies. December 10, 2002 (the effective
date of this AD), unless already
accomplished as previously required
by AD 94-20-04. Correct any
discrepancies prior to further
flight after the verification.
-------------------------------------
(7) Inspect the aft fuselage, Accomplish the inspections within Accomplish the inspection and
ruddervator, and related systems the next 3 years after December 10, repairs or replacements in
for acceptable condition: 2002 (the effective date of this accordance with the procedures in
(i) Repair or replace any parts AD), unless already accomplished. the ACCOMPLISHMENT INSTRUCTIONS
found unacceptable as specified in Accomplish any repair or section of Raytheon Service
the service bulletin. replacement prior to further flight Bulletin No. SB 27-3358, Issued:
(ii) Rebalance the ruddervators to after the inspection. Accomplish February, 2000. Accomplish the
the new specifications that reduce any ruddervator rebalancing prior rebalancing in accordance with
the upper limit from 19.8 to 18 to further flight after the Section 3A(8) of the service
inch-pounds (tail heavy). This is inspection, unless previously bulletin and use the procedure in
not necessary initially if you can accomplished within the last 100 Section 3 of Beech Shop Manual 35-
positively verify in the logbook hours TIS, and thereafter when the 590096B19 (or subsequent revision).
that the ruddervators meet the ruddervators are repaired or
limits specified in the service repainted (even if stripes are
bulletin: added or paint is touched up).
(A) To positively show this, the
entry must indicate that the
ruddervator is within the specified
limits and list the details of the
balancing.
(B) This must include the balancing
methods used and the amount of
weights and washers used.
[[Page 65295]]
(iii) Discontinue the placard and
operating limitations required by
paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(4) of
this AD.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e) Where can I find Figures 1 and 2 of this AD? Figures 1 and 2
of this AD, as referenced in paragraph (d)(5)(i) of this AD, follow:
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
[[Page 65296]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR24OC02.000
[[Page 65297]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR24OC02.001
BILLING CODE 4910-13-C
[[Page 65298]]
(f) Can I comply with this AD in any other way? (1) You may use
an alternative method of compliance or adjust the compliance time
if:
(i) Your alternative method of compliance provides an equivalent
level of safety; and
(ii) The Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
approves your alternative. Submit your request through an FAA
Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send
it to the Manager, Wichita ACO.
(2) Alternative methods of compliance approved in accordance
with AD 98-13-02, which is superseded by this AD, are approved as
alternative methods of compliance for the corresponding portion of
this AD.
Note 2: This AD applies to each airplane identified in paragraph
(a) of this AD, 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 (f) of this AD. The request
should include an assessment of the effect of the modification,
alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD;
and, if you have not eliminated the unsafe condition, specific
actions you propose to address it.
(g) Where can I get information about any already-approved
alternative methods of compliance? Contact Mr. T.N. Baktha,
Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, 1801
Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone: (316) 946-
4155; facsimile: (316) 946-4407.
(h) What if I need to fly the airplane to another location to
comply with this AD? The FAA can issue a special flight permit under
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate your airplane to a location where
you can accomplish the requirements of this AD.
(i) Are any service bulletins incorporated into this AD by
reference? Actions required by this AD must be done in accordance
with Raytheon Service Bulletin SB 27-3358, Issued: February, 2000.
The Director of the Federal Register approved this incorporation by
reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You can get
copies from Raytheon Aircraft Company, PO Box 85, Wichita, Kansas
67201-0085. You can look at copies at the FAA, Central Region,
Office of the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City,
Missouri, or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North
Capitol Street, NW, suite 700, Washington, DC.
(j) Does this AD action affect any existing AD actions? This
amendment supersedes AD 98-13-02, Amendment 39-10590.
(k) When does this amendment become effective? This amendment
becomes effective on December 10, 2002.
Appendix to AD 2002-21-13
Weight and Balance Accuracy Method No. 1
1. Review existing weight and balance documentation to assure
completeness and accuracy of the documentation from the most recent
FAA-approved weighing or from factory delivery to date of compliance
with this AD.
2. Compare the actual configuration of the airplane to the
configuration described in the weight and balance documentation.
3. If equipment additions or deletions are not reflected in the
documentation or if modifications affecting the location of the
center of gravity (e.g., paint or structural repairs) are not
documented, determine the accuracy of the airplane weight and
balance data in accordance with Method No. 2.
Weight and Balance Information Accuracy Method No. 2
1. Determine the basic empty weight and center of gravity (CG)
of the empty airplane using the Weighing Instructions in the Weight
and Balance section of the airplane flight manual/pilot's operating
handbook (AFM/POH).
2. Record the results in the airplane records, and use these new
values as the basis for computing the weight and CG information as
specified in the Weight and Balances section of the AFM/POH.
Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on October 15, 2002.
Dorenda D. Baker,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 02-26661 Filed 10-23-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P