|
February 1, 2006
Regulatory Report
Scope of Insulation Replacement Narrowed
Clarification regarding thermal acoustic blanket
change-out is contained in a final rule published by the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on December 30,
2005 (FR Doc 05-24654, Docket No. FAA-2005-23462).
The ruling does not appear to
affect insulation blankets but does effect
insulation wrapped around air piping, ducts, and such.
As the FAA says, "Ducts are intended to convey a
fluid medium from one point to others and, therefore,
provide a potential fire propagation path by their
nature. Because air ducts are the most significant and
common, we are limiting the replacement provision in
this amendment to insulation air ducts only. Therefore,
other types of piping, or fluid lines, are no longer
covered by the replacement provision."
Air ducts must be covered in insulation that meet the
new standard, which is to say the radiant heat and
direct flame test. Exempt from this requirement is
"insulation that is integral to the duct and cannot be
replaced without replacing the duct." These assemblies
"will no longer be covered by the regulations for
replacement." Also, other piping or ductwork, used less
extensively in the aircraft and which often features
specialized insulation, need not be replaced. As the FAA
explains, "Insulation blankets are defined as an
encapsulated assembly consisting of a core insulating
material and a moisture barrier film or cover
surrounding the core. They represent the largest usage
of thermal/acoustic insulation in the airplane and are,
therefore, the most significant from a fire safety
standpoint. Insulation blankets are most often used
against the airplane fuselage structure but are also
used around ducts and under floor panels."
The FAA says its original rulemaking inadvertently
included other types of less extensively used
insulation, which is sometimes replaced on a piecemeal
basis and which "has very little, if any safety
benefit."
Moreover, the FAA says "compliant replacements are
not readily available." Basically, the FAA confesses
that it was not aware of these issues when it issued the
original rule and is limiting the scope to that
insulation which is used extensively and which harbors
the greatest fire hazard.
The FAA did not provide a cost-benefit calculation,
but it did offer this assessment:
"The original requirement was sufficiently broad that
operators could have been out of compliance, even
without realizing it. Those operators would have been
subject to fines and they would have experienced
maintenance schedule disruptions. By narrowing the scope
of the requirement, operators can comply with reasonable
effort, and the safety intent of the original rule is
preserved.
"Although we cannot provide a quantitative estimate
of the losses resulting from the fines and maintenance
schedule disruptions, we believe these would have been
significant."
The rule applies to aircraft manufactured before
September 2, 2005, which is to say all transport
category aircraft involving a retrofit requirement.
Newly-manufactured airplanes should be using insulating
materials throughout that pass the new standard for
flammability resistance.
Comments on the 13-page rule are due February 28. The
rule itself goes into effect January 30. The rule
appears to be an appropriate response to industry's
concerns. The
preponderance of fire-propagating material will still be
gone, with only 2% to 5% by weight remaining.
Much of that will be shrouded or encased, such as within
the casing of microwave ovens, where it cannot do any
harm in the context of concern. The FAA stuck to its
requirement that the rule apply to Part 91, 135 and 121
aircraft, and not just to Part 121 aircraft.
Scope of Insulation Replacement Not Defined
Based on the comments received, the FAA reopened on
November 23 the comment period on a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) regarding Mylar film covering thermal
acoustic insulation blankets (FR Doc 05-23153, Docket
No. FAA-2005-20836). The film is known as polyethylene
teraphthalate (PET), and more generally as simply AN-26,
and the FAA wants it removed from approximately 800
Boeing B727s, B737s, B747s, B757s and B767s in U.S.
registry (there are about 1,600 affected airplanes in
the worldwide fleet). Readers may recall that earlier
the FAA ordered the replacement of flammable metalized
polyethylene teraphthalate (metalized Mylar, or MPET)
from about 800 Douglas built jets; this action was taken
in the aftermath of the Swissair Flight 111 disaster, in
which an MD-11 was lost due to a runaway fire in the
so-called "attic" space over the cockpit and cabin.
Now it's the turn of Boeing jets, which aren't
outfitted with the flammable metalized Mylar version,
but through December 1988 Boeing jets were manufactured
with insulation blankets covered in plain Mylar that is
still deemed flammable, according to the FAA. As the FAA
says, it is "in the process of upgrading the
flammability standards for thermal/acoustic insulation
for [all] transport category airplanes." However, the
FAA received numerous comments from industry on its
original proposal to replace AN-26 blankets with ones
meeting the latest standards, and the FAA now seeks
additional input in order to sort out what needs to be
done.
The responses received so far indicate a number of
potential problems:
Identifying AN-26 blankets. No
positive means exists to identify them. As British
Airways Engineering remarked, "BA would like to see
color pictures of insulation blankets manufactured with
AN-26 cover film" with a description of film color and
transparency."
Other blankets fail the latest flammability
standards but are not included. Dutch carrier
KLM noted that it uses AN-47N as a replacement material
for AN-26. "KLM is worried about the fact that in
addition to the AN-26 material, more materials do not
meet [the requirement] ... Please explain the FAA
statement that only AN-26 is affected," KLM asked.
Alternative methods of compliance (AMOC) are
not addressed. 3M Ceramic Textiles and
Composites noted, "STC [supplemental type certificate]
ST02330AT was issued to Delta Air Lines for their fleet
of 110 MD-88 aircraft. The STC approved the installation
of a flame resistant barrier, 3M's Flame Shield AL-1,
over metalized Mylar thermal-acoustic insulation
blankets on McDonnell Douglas MD-88 aircraft as an
alternate method of compliance. 3M believes that it's
Flame Shield AL-1 and other materials like it may offer
the airline industry a cost effective alternate method
of compliance to address this important safety issue."
As Lufthansa remarked, "In the NPRM there is no AMOC
defined or approved. Before final release there should
be AMOCs for ... spray on fire retardant or covering of
existing insulation material with fire retardant
materials approved."
Boeing agreed, saying in its request for an extension
to the comment period, "Within this additional time,
Boeing will have completed full scale testing of a
proposed in-situ full scale spray-on fire retardant
solution. This has a direct impact on the industry
recommendations for viable solution(s)."
The time allowed to replace the blankets (or
spray on the chemical, etc.). The FAA notice
indicated six years would be allowed from the ultimate
effective date to get the work done. If there was a
consistent theme among operators and maintainers, it was
a request for more time. Requests to extend the
compliance time to eight or ten years were registered,
with most commentators saying eight years was necessary
to organize the work on a deliberative basis. UPS'
comments were typical, saying it had 15 B757-200PF
aircraft affected by the ruling and that:
"The 72 month mandated compliance period for the
affected airplanes will result in increased ground time
and/or special maintenance visits for many of these
airplanes, which will be an economic hardship. UPS is
requesting that the compliance time be extended to 96
months and believes this will not compromise safety of
the fleet. The insulation blankets on the affected
airplanes can be replaced with a minimal impact of
additional out of service time at that interval."
US Airways noted that the rule will impose a
"significant adjustment of current maintenance plans"
and that the problem is not simply one of removal and
replacement:
"As currently proposed, this rulemaking would
significantly extend the scheduled maintenance time
required, due to fabrication of compliant insulation
material and subsequent replacement of suspected
insulation material, necessitated by the inability to
currently identify AN-26 material."
The Air Transport Association (ATA) concurred,
arguing for more time based on the fact that AN-26 poses
less of a fire hazard than metalized Mylar:
"A video recording of the tests of insulation
blankets encapsulated with MPET film culminated with a
blaze that engulfed the test fuselage crown. In
contrast, a video of corresponding tests of AN-26
insulation shows that the material will propagate small
flames that wax and wane as they move in lines or
fronts."
Blanket replacement during unscheduled
maintenance. The NPRM calls for AN-26 blankets
removed during the course of unscheduled troubleshooting
to be replaced with improved materials. Many
commentators balked at this partial replacement proviso.
Champion Air's comments were typical:
"The wording...would require that anytime a blanket
is removed to gain access during unscheduled line
maintenance, the mechanic has to make a determination if
the blanket is constructed of AN-26 and if so, replace
it immediately. This is an enormous undertaking...In
addition, the most likely event requiring unscheduled
removal of insulation blankets would be ground damage to
the aircraft. In this case, the mechanic would refer to
the structural repair manual (SRM) instead of the
maintenance manual. The SRM is a Boeing controlled
manual on an annual revision cycle, so there would be
little chance of getting this manual revised within the
6 month time frame specified...The requirement...could
generate significant out of service time if a blanket
has to be removed while the aircraft is away from base
since a replacement blanket would not be readily
available. The number of blankets removed for access
during such events is usually small (one or two).
Therefore, we believe that any perceived increase in
safety from replacement of this small number of blankets
is outweighed by the potential for significant
unscheduled out of service time and the difficulty of
trying to ensure compliance."
Scope of blanket replacement. A few comments
questioned the need to replace all the AN-26 blankets.
European Air Transport (EAT), a subsidiary of DHL
Worldwide Express, asked to be excluded from the massive
change out requirement "as the risk of casualties in
case of a fire is almost nil." Barring such a wholesale
exclusion for freighter aircraft, EAT requested that
many areas of the aircraft be excluded from the
requirement, to include the crown area, behind
sidewalls, lavatories, closets and galleys, arguing,
"This would limit the affected area to the flight deck
area or the area in front of the `smoke barrier.' This
will guarantee that insulation on the flight deck is
safe and that in case of a fire the crew can maintain
control over the aircraft."
Boeing concurs, citing the experience with blanket
replacement in the Douglas fleet:
"We are asking the FAA to include criteria in the AD
for areas of the airplane that may be exempt due to
accessibility or because replacement action increases
the risk to the airplane for other safety reasons,
primarily system disruption. This was not done up front
with [the Douglas-built aircraft] and was required
later, resulting in flight deck and EE [electronics and
equipment] bay exemption areas."
Cost. Many commentators questioned the
FAA's optimistic estimate of the costs involved. UPS
said, "The NPRM estimates the material costs for a
757-200PF will be approximately $44,443 per aircraft.
UPS estimates the cost to be between $120,000 and
$130,000 per 757-200PF aircraft."
The Air Transport Association (ATA), representing
most U.S. scheduled carriers, said the cost of replacing
the metalized Mylar blankets in Douglas aircraft is
instructive:
"If actual labor and parts costs for replacing AN-26
insulation surpass estimates of the proposal in amounts
comparable to the MPET effort, the U.S. fleet cost of
compliance will increase from the $334,113,225 estimated
... to $508,358,545."
Based on the extension, additional comments on the
AN-26 replacement are due February 21.
from
link
|