Possible Airworthiness Issue for 2001-05 DA40s

Any DA40 related topics

Moderators: Rick, Lance Murray

User avatar
Karl
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
Posts: 318
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 3:58 am
First Name: Karl
Aircraft Type: DA40
Airports:
Has thanked: 68 times
Been thanked: 102 times

Re: Possible Airworthiness Issue for 2001-05 DA40s

Post by Karl »

smoss wrote:Per this recently released FAA notification, changes to the airworthy limitations are NOT mandatory to do. Although it's a bit confusing, after reading it a few times, appears to say only the original airworthy requirements submitted with the original type design are mandatory, unless the new ones are also issued as an AD.
If that is the case then you have to comply with the 2000hr/12 yr requirement and not the less restrictive 6000hr/12 yr requirement?
User avatar
TimS
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 553
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 1:10 am
First Name: Timothy
Aircraft Type: OTHER
Aircraft Registration: N1446C
Airports: 6B6 Stowe MA
Has thanked: 94 times
Been thanked: 97 times

Re: Possible Airworthiness Issue for 2001-05 DA40s

Post by TimS »

Steve wrote:
smoss wrote:Per this recently released FAA notification, changes to the airworthy limitations are NOT mandatory to do. Although it's a bit confusing, after reading it a few times, appears to say only the original airworthy requirements submitted with the original type design are mandatory, unless the new ones are also issued as an AD.
I received this by email from the FAA a few days ago, and that was my read as well. It appears that as a Part 91 operator, I do not have to comply with more restrictive airworthiness limitations issued after the original TC (e.g. MSI), but am permitted to apply less restrictive requirements which are issued after the TC (e.g. rudder cable replacement).

Hard to believe...
This is based on the fact that only the FAA can legally mandate new requirements via the AD process. The FAA is unwilling to delegate such authority to the manufacturers (I think rightly so).
The manufacturers have been trying to back door into getting this legal power for a few decades. Hence the manufacturer "mandatory service bulletins", referencing another section which they are permitted to update....
Each time, the FAA has come out with a statement saying no. They do have the power to do so.

Tim
User avatar
Lance Murray
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 1163
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 11:25 pm
First Name: Lance
Aircraft Type: DA40
Airports:
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 118 times

Re: Possible Airworthiness Issue for 2001-05 DA40s

Post by Lance Murray »

Question:

Does an operator have to follow the original AMM airworthiness limitations in its entirety? The original AMM required the rudder cables to be replaced at 5 years. Can an operator pic and choose which items to follow out of the different revisions!

If an operator chooses to follow the original manual is it possible he/she may trigger a rudder cable
replacement?
User avatar
blsewardjr
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
Posts: 485
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 11:19 pm
First Name: Bernie
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: N377DS
Airports: KCHO
Has thanked: 118 times
Been thanked: 146 times

Re: Possible Airworthiness Issue for 2001-05 DA40s

Post by blsewardjr »

I read through the SAIB and the underlying FAA Chief Counsel's opinion, then discussed with AOPA legal (I have the legal services plan) to see what they recommend I should do. His advice to me, for what's it worth, was that the FAA was likely to accept my either complying with the original AMM in its entirety or with the AMM as it currently stands in its entirety. Whether I can pick and choose which versions of the AMM to comply with, i.e., not do the inspections but take advantage of the relaxation of the rudder cable requirement, however, is an open question that has not been addressed by the FAA. He suggested that I might have our owner's group approach FAA flight standards to get their opinion on this. What do you all think?
Bernie Seward, IR, AGI
2003 DA40 N377DS
KCHO Charlottesville, VA
User avatar
smoss
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 742
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 12:18 am
First Name: Steve
Aircraft Type: DA40
Airports: KVGT
Has thanked: 57 times
Been thanked: 134 times

Re: Possible Airworthiness Issue for 2001-05 DA40s

Post by smoss »

Why rock the boat? Use your own interpretation.
Steve
DA40 XL
User avatar
Karl
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
Posts: 318
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 3:58 am
First Name: Karl
Aircraft Type: DA40
Airports:
Has thanked: 68 times
Been thanked: 102 times

Re: Possible Airworthiness Issue for 2001-05 DA40s

Post by Karl »

blsewardjr wrote: i.e., not do the inspections but take advantage of the relaxation of the rudder cable requirement,
There is no relaxation as such for rudder cables.

Early aircraft had steel cables that need replacement at the interval specified. Later aircraft had stainless steel cables which are on condition. I doubt Diamond sell steel cable any longer so any OEM supplied replacement will almost certainly be stainless and be on condition.
Post Reply