Aging Airplane Safety Rule

May 04

Background

The Interim Final Rule and ACs published in Dec 02 are the result of The Aging Airplane Safety Act of 1991 The current form of the rule resulted from comments received from two previous NPRM publications. The latest was Apr 99 The FAA, having significantly modified the 1999 version, has published an interim final rule and requested further comments This is NOT an Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee/ Airworthiness Assurance Working Group (ARAC/AAWG) activity
May 04 2

Who Is Affected?
This is an operational rule affecting operators that hold certificates under 121, 129, and 135 In general, the rule has applicability to all Boeing airplanes of US Registry operated under the applicable sections Foreign Regulatory Authorities may or may not choose to enforce the rule on their operators Leased airplanes, not currently registered in the US, may also be affected

May 04

Two Rule Requirements:

Records Review 121.368

Supplemental Inspections 121.370a

May 04

Records Review

On 8 Dec 03, for airplanes Exceeding 24 years in service: 1st records review must occur before 5 Dec 07 Exceeding 14 years in service, but less than 24 years: 1st records review must occur before 4 Dec 08 Less than 14 years in service: 1st records review must occur no later than 5 years after the start of 15th year in service For all airplanes, records review will be repeated every 7 yrs Physical inspection of the airplane will be by FAA Administrator or Designee
May 04 5

Significant Significant Operator Operator Concerns Concerns

! Seven-year repeat intervals are a concern ! Amount and kind of data requested may not exist ! Ability of the FAA to support review In order to identify any process problems (schedules, access requirements, paperwork, training, ), Air Transport Association (ATA) sponsored prototyping of some airplane models by some volunteer operators The amount of data required was significant Many requests to Boeing to substantiate repairs FAA participated

May 04

Records Review Current Status

Late last year the FAA provided training material to operators and PMIs on how the records review should be performed Training allowed many of the concessions requested in the ATA comments to the rule Training provided no guidance for supplemental inspections The rule is now effective and there are immediate record review compliance requirements for certain older airplanes in order to complete first inspection of older airplanes by Dec 07 FAA has yet to fully respond to the comments submitted to the interim final rule
May 04 7

Supplemental Inspections
Damage tolerance based inspections and procedures must be in place by 5 Dec 07 Includes baseline structure and any Repairs, Alterations and Modifications (RAMs) to primary structure Referenced as one of the data records to be reviewed following rule compliance date This requirement represents a potentially significant increase in the data required to hold an operating certificate
8

May 04

AAWG Proposal for Supplemental Inspections

Requested that the rule be delayed 3 years to provide sufficient time to develop guidance material for Damage Tolerance Based inspections and procedures for all primary structure, and: Task the AAWG to develop the required guidance material Assure SRMs are up to date Allow the Structure Task Groups (STG) to validate that significant structural service bulletins are properly documented for DTA Investigate the feasibility of developing model specific repair assessment guidelines for all primary structure Involve STGs in the implementation of the compliance plan
May 04 9

Supplemental Inspections Current Status

FAA is aware of issues with the rule and of potential overlap with the WFD rule FAA has circulated a draft of an ARAC tasking: Indicates that the FAA will allow the deadline for supplemental inspections to slip Provides the AAWG with a tasking to develop guidance material and investigate best means for industry to show compliance Tasking expected June 2004

May 04

10

Summary
Records Review Compliance date is December 5, 2007 Significant concessions have been granted in showing compliance through instructions to the PMIs Supplemental Inspections FAA is expected to task ARAC to determine best means of compliance FAA is further expected to delay the rule compliance date until that means of compliance has been developed Boeing will continue to advise operators of the status of these two parts as new data becomes available
May 04 11

Backup

May 04

12

Data to be Reviewed:
a. Total years in service b. Total flight hours c. Total flight cycles d. Date of the last inspection and records review required by this section e. Current status of life-limited parts of the airframe f. Time since the last overhaul of all structural components required to be overhauled on a specific time basis g. Current inspection status of the airplane, including the time since the last inspection required by the inspection program under which the airplane is maintained h. Current status of the following, including the method of compliance: I. Airworthiness directives II. Corrosion Prevention and Control Programs III. Inspections and procedures required by 121.370a (et al.) of this part i. A list of major structural alterations j. A report of major structural repairs and the current inspection status for those repairs
May 04

13

REPAIR ASSESSMENT

WORKSHOP

Example of Applying the Repair Assessment Guidelines

Determine Repairs to Assess Examine & Classify Repairs

Determine Inspection Requirements

8-1

Contents
Applying the Repair Assessment Guidelines to an Airplane ! Implement Program
" Implementation threshold " Stage 1 - Determine repairs to assess

! Assess Repairs
" Assessment threshold " Stage 2 - Examine repairs " Stage 2 - Classify repairs " Stage 3 - Determine inspection requirements " Inspection threshold

! Inspect Repairs
8-2

Implement Program
Example Air will implement the program on their 737-200 ! Plan for assessing repairs must be in place at later of:
" On or before airplane reaches 60,000 flights " May 25, 2001 if over 60,000 flights

! Plan should include:

" When repairs will be assessed " How required inspections will be added to the

maintenance plan

8-3

Determine Implementation Threshold

Plan must be in place at or before 60,000 flights

on May 25, 2000

73 720 0

8-4

Determine Repairs to Assess - Stage 1

Use document chart to define specific areas and repair types Fuselage Pressurized Skin
" Areas where supplemental inspection may be required by this program:
! Pressurized radiused skin between BS 178 and 1016:
!

Door cutout area All external repairs at or within 10 inches of a door cutout. (Upper deck cargo door cutout area: no SRM or SB repairs, contact Boeing for evaluation of repairs in this area.)

Typical fuselage skin (including upper and lower deck cargo door skins) All external repair doublers greater than 12 inches in the longitudinal or circumferential directions. All external repair doublers within 3 inches of any other external repair doubler. All external repair doublers greater than 6 inches in the longitudinal or circumferential directions, where the fuselage skin is hidden internally at the critical row of fasteners. 1

All internal (flush) repair doublers greater than 17 inches in length. ! Aft pressure dome (BS 1016):
!

All repair doublers greater than 12 inches in the circumferential or radial direction or extending into two or more bays.
8-5

Determine Assessment Threshold

For Example Airs 737 ! The assessment threshold is:
" The first major check (D-check) after 60,000 flights, " Not to exceed 79,000 flights

! On or before this threshold, gather data for the repairs on the airplane

8-6

Determine When to Examine Repairs

Example Air will gather data for repair assessment at this D-check on date of D-check
73 720 0

8-7

Examine Repairs on Airplane - Stage 2

At D-check, Example Air gathers data for repairs ! Start with Repair #1 ! Assume repair installation dates are not known

Repair #3

Repair #4

Repair #1
Repair #2

8-8

Examine Repair #1
Examine and record repair design features and condition BS 380 17 1.0 (typ.) S-20L 9 0.5
(typ.)

tskin = 0.036
2024-T3

tdblr = 0.050
2024-T3 S-21L

3/16 rivets, protruding head, non-magnetic

Section A-A
8-9

Repair is in ideal condition, no deterioration

Record Data for Repair #1

REPAIR QUESTIONNAIRE
Operator: Example Air Model type: 737-200 A/C I.D.: Operator repair ref. No. Repair #1
(optional)

N000XX 62,464
(optional)

Total No. of aircraft flight cycles :

Completed by: R. Elliott Sept. 12, 2000 Date:

(of questionnaire completion)

1. Attach sketch, photograph, rubbing or drawing of repair. Indicate orientation with respect to airplane structure: forward, up, outboard, etc. (optional) See attached sketch 2. Geometric location: (Body Buttock Line, Body Station and stringer number, indicating right or left. Also, indicate if repair is within 10 inches of a door cutout.)

Between BS 380 and BS 400, from stringer S-20L to S-21L.

3. Component(s) identification: Structural element(s): (fuselage skin, pressure web)

Fuselage skin
Description of surface upon which repair is installed:

External doubler on basic skin in waffle doubler area.

8-10

Record Data for Repair #1 (cont.)

17 inches

4. Repair dimensions (give orientation or include data on sketch) length: height (width): 9 inches diameter/other: 5. Repair condition:

a) Evidence of deterioration: cracking or corrosion, loose, deformed, or missing parts or fasteners, wrinkling, dents, open holes, or other damage. Circle which applies or specify.

Good condition.

No deterioration noted.

b) General quality of repair installation: gouges, nicks, improperly driven rivets, sheared fastener heads, or other damage. Circle which applies or specify and indicate depth of damage if possible.

None X c) Is repair structurally satisfactory considering 5a and 5b above? (See the questionnaire explanation, item 5c, for further information.)
Yes No

8-11

Record Data for Repair #1 (cont.)

REPAIR QUESTIONNAIRE -- continued
6. Proximity to adjacent repairs or STC modifications: a) Is the repair in an area where loads, environment, or configuration are affected by an X No STC modification? ____ Yes: Do not continue. See attached explanation. ____ b) Are there any repairs located on the same or adjacent components? (i.e., within one stringer X No: Go to item 7. bay, longeron bay, rib bay, or frame bay of this repair) ____ Yes ____ c) What is the distance, edge to edge, between each repair? Describe and give repair reference number. (show on sketch if more than one) d) If adjacent repairs are butted up or overlapping, are they repairing the continuation of original damage (crack or corrosion)? ____ Yes ____ No ____ Unknown e) What are the equivalent dimensions of the repairs? Le He

8-12

Record Data for Repair #1 (cont.)

7. Repair design: (show information on attached sketch, photograph, etc., if necessary) a) Fastener type(s): (rivet, bolt; countersunk, solid, blind, etc. Specify if types are mixed.)

Protruding head rivets X b) Fastener material (optional): _____ magnetic ______ non-magnetic
c) Fastener diameter(s): (+/- 1/16") 3/16 inch d) Average fastener spacing(s): (center to center +/- 1/8") 1.0 inch e) Repair material(s)*: (Aluminum, mag. or non-mag. steel, etc.) Aluminum f) Base skin thickness at the critical fastener row (optional at airplane) 0.036 inch g) Repair thickness*: (within +/- one standard gage at each layer if multiple layers exist and/or at fastener locations if tapers exist) 0.050 inch h) Which joint details (Figure A-5) best represent the the critical rows of the repair:
(Write detail number below, sketch out, or describe in comments section)

detail 1 lower row joint forward row joint detail 1

upper row joint aft row joint

detail 1 detail 1

8-13

Choose Joint Details

Joint details are shown in Figure A-5

t tskin
Ext. Int. Ext. Ext. Int. Int.

tskin

tskin t
Detail 3 (at lap splice)

Detail 1 (at typical skin)

Detail 2 (at typical skin)

8-14

Record Data for Repair #1 (cont.)

X i) Does there appear to be more than one row of fasteners beyond cutout? __Yes __No __Unk
If yes, estimate number of rows beyond damage (in both directions): 3 rows j) What is the minimum visible fastener edge margin or edge distance (and fastener sizes if more than one size was used): in original structure:** in repair: 0.5 inch k) Is the skin, doubler, or bearstrap visible from the inside at all the X Yes critical (perimeter) fastener rows? Unknown No If no, which rows are hidden and by what type of structure? 8. Additional comments:

none

8-15

Use The Inspection Threshold Chart

Threshold is shown in Fig. 2-7 chart Repair category
category CategoryRepair B Repair type Category B All

Inspection threshold
Inspection threshold Inspection 2 2 1 Inspection interval 60,000 interval (airframe flights) 60,000 Value from the figures in Value from the figures 3 Section 2.3.1 in Section 2.3.1 Replace / rework threshold 2 Not applicable

(airframe flights) Category C Time-limited in accordance with SRM, repair drawing, SB, etc. Containing blind fasteners that can be replaced with solid fasteners No blind fasteners

Inspect and replace in accordance with applicable SRM, repair drawing, SB, etc., instructions. Visual inspection of fasteners Replace blind fasteners with solid fastener repair every 3,000 flights for in accordance with SRM looseness within 10,000 flights from repair installation. Value from the figures in Section 2.3.1 24,000 flights after repair installation

3,000 (flights after repair installation) 8,000 (flights after repair installation)

Inspection and Replacement/Rework Requirements

8-16

Determine Inspection Threshold

Most repairs will be either Category A or B ! For most existing Category B repairs:
" Threshold is 60,000 flight cycles, or " If over 60,000, threshold is data gathering plus 4,000

! Thus for the example airplane, the threshold is 66,464 flight cycles
" Actual inspections should occur at a maintenance

interval on or before this threshold

" Some repairs may have later thresholds, but plan

should consider earliest threshold

8-17

Determine When to Classify Repairs

Determine repair categories and required inspections before airplane reaches C-check

on date of next C-check

73 720 0

8-18

Summary of Thresholds
For Example Airs 737: Classify repairs and determine inspections Incorporate assessment plan Gather data for repairs Inspect repairs

52,400 Airplane on date of rule

60,000*

62,464** Airplane at D-check

65,100 Airplane at C-check

66,464***

* Implementation threshold ** Assessment threshold *** Inspection threshold

8-19

Classify Repairs - Stage 2

Before C-check at 65,100 flights, determine: ! Category of the repair ! Inspection requirements
" Method " Interval

8-20

Classify Repair #1
Question 1 Repair Condition and Structural Strength Design 1. Are there signs of cracking? 2. Are there unapproved fasteners or loose, deformed, or missing parts or fasteners? (Circle which applies.) 3. Are there signs of wrinkling, dents, gouges, nicks, or unfilled holes outside of SRM allowable operating limits? (Circle which applies.) 4. If the repair is aluminum, is the thickness less than the base skin thickness at the damaged area? 5. Does the repair have less than two rows of fasteners beyond the damage area? 6. Is the average fastener spacing less than 2.5 fastener diameters? 7. For a two-row repair doubler, is it above stringer 14 and between BS 178 and 1016? (If repair doubler is less than or equal to 6 inches in length and width, skip this question.) 8. For a two-row repair doubler below stringer 14 and between BS 178 and 1016, is the average fastener spacing greater than 7 fastener diameters or is the edge margin less than 1.5 fastener diameters? Yes No Classification

X X X X X X X X
8-21

If any box is marked yes, the repair may not be structurally satisfactory. Further investigation is required by the operator. (You may contact Boeing for assistance.) If all boxes are marked no, continue classification.

Classify Repair #1 (cont.)

Answer blind fastener question
Fastener Type 1. Are blind fasteners, that can be replaced by solid fasteners, used in the repair? If the box is marked yes, the repair is Category C.

If the box is marked no, continue classification.

Size/Location The following 5 questions can't be used if maintenance intervals exceed the Baseline Zonal 3 Inspections by more than 10% (Figure 2-2). Note: If the repair edge is within 10 inches of any door cutout, skip this section and continue to the proximity section (except for repairs on cargo door skins, where this section should be completed).

8-22

Classify Repair #1 (cont.)

Answer repair size and location questions
1. Is the repair flush (internal) and is the length of the repair doubler less than or equal to 17 inches? 2. Is the length and width of the repair doubler less than or equal to 6 inches with no other repair within 3 inches? 3. Can the perimeter fastener rows be visually inspected from the inside and is the base skin thickness equal to or greater than 0.056 inches? 4. Is the length and width of the repair doubler less than or equal to 12 inches and can the perimeter fastener rows be visually inspected from the inside and is there no other repair doubler installed within 3 inches in either direction? 5. Is the length of the repair doubler, in the longitudinal direction, less than or equal to 12 inches and is the repair doubler located below stringer 10 and can the perimeter fastener rows be visually inspected from the inside and is there no other repair doubler installed within 3 inches in the longitudinal direction?

X X X

If any box is marked yes, the repair is Category A. Document the results; no need to continue classification.

If all boxes are marked no or the answer is unknown, continue classification.

8-23

Repair #1 is Category B
Answer repair durability questions and determine category
Proximity to Other Repair Doublers If adjacent repairs are butted up or overlapping, are they repairing the continuation of original damage (crack or corrosion)? Repair Durability Design 1. Are aluminum repair doublers greater than three times the thickness of the base skin at the critical row of fasteners (or are steel doublers greater than two times the thickness of the base skin)? 2. For a three-row repair doubler, is the average fastener spacing less than 3 or greater than 8 fastener diameters? 3. For a repair below stringer 14, are there less than three rows of fasteners in the longitudinal or circumferential directions from the cutout edge? (If cutout diameter is less than or equal to 1 inch, write NA.) 4. For a flush (internal) repair, are there countersunk fasteners installed in 0.036 or 0.040 inch skin? If any box is marked yes, the repair is Category C. If the answer is unknown, the repair is 2 Category C unless further investigation indicates it is Category B. If all boxes are marked no or NA, the repair is Category B. Continue to Stage 3 and summary worksheet.

NA

X X X

Category :

B
8-24

Determine Inspection Intervals

Figure 2-7 chart lists where to find the intervals Repair category
category CategoryRepair B Repair type Inspection Inspection threshold threshold 60,000 60,000 (airframe flights) flights) (airframe Category B All

Inspection interval
Replace / rework Value from the figures threshold 2 in Section Not2.3.1 applicable Value Value from from the the figures figures in Inspection 2 Inspection interval interval Section in Section 2.3.1 2.3.1

Category C Time-limited in accordance with SRM, repair drawing, SB, etc. Containing blind fasteners that can be replaced with solid fasteners No blind fasteners

Inspect and replace in accordance with applicable SRM, repair drawing, SB, etc., instructions. Visual inspection of fasteners Replace blind fasteners with solid fastener repair every 3,000 flights for in accordance with SRM looseness within 10,000 flights from repair installation. Value from the figures in Section 2.3.1 24,000 flights after repair installation

3,000 (flights after repair installation) 8,000 (flights after repair installation)

Inspection and Replacement/Rework Requirements

! Refer to the charts in the document for inspection options

8-25

Use Inspection Interval Chart

Figure 2-9 chart gives inspection interval options for this repair

element LFEC LFEC(external): (external): 14,500 Fuselage 14,500flights flights skin (except in for a 17 repair bilge area. for a 17 repair See Figure 2-10)

Structural

Repair 1

737 SRM:
External skin repair Between stringers: 53-30-3 (Fig. 1) 53-30-3 (Fig. 17) At stringers: 53-30-3 (Fig. 6) 53-30-3 (Fig. 25) Interval (flights) At butt joints: 53*30*3 (Fig. 28) At lap splice: 53-30-3 (Fig. 9) 53-30-3 (Fig. 13) 53-30-3 (Fig. 15) 53-30-3 (Fig. 16)

35,000

30,000

MFEC 1

25,000

25,000 (MFEC)

20,000

LFEC 2

15,000

Visual 3 (Detailed)

10,000

5,000

5,000 (LFEC) 4,500 (Det.)

SB:
See Section 2.3.4 for affected service bulletins

0 6

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 and on Repair doubler size (Le or He) 6 (longest dimension), inches

17

8-26

Apply a Zone Factor

Example Air chose a repeat interval of 14,500 flights ! Zone Factor = 1.0 in the area of the repair ! Thus, the required interval = 14,500 x 1.0 = 14,500 flights
STA 259.50 STA 360
4 Forward cargo door RH

STA 540

Effectivity 737-200

S-26R

BL-0 S-24R S-19R S-14R S-10R

Fwd galley door 1

Repair #1
Legend: ZF = 1.0
4 5

S-4R
1

BL-0 S-4L

Top

S-10L S-14L S-19L S-24L BL-0

5

Fwd entry door

Airstairs

S-26L
4

8-27

Determine Repeat Inspections

Using the external LFEC at 14,500 flight repeat intervals ! First inspection must occur at or before the inspection threshold
" Inspect at C-check at 65,100 flights

Second inspection will be due within the next 14,500 flights

Data gathered for repairs 62,464

First repair inspection 65,100

Second inspection due 79,600 14,500 (interval)

8-28

(flights)

Repairs classified

Record Assessment on Worksheet

737-200 MODEL NO. ____________
Repair is covered by existing mandated post-repair inspection program per AD? __ Yes: Covered by AD; no further action required. X No: Continue to Stage 1 __

Example Airplane serial No.: ___________ #1 Operator repair Ref. No.: ______ Sep 12 00 Date: _____________
(optional)

AD No.: ______________
Is repair to an STC modification __ Yes: Not covered by this program or to a component affected by X No: Continue to Stage 1 __ an STC modification?

R. Elliott Completed by: _______________ 62,464 Current flights: ___________ unknown Flights at time of repair: ________

STAGE 1
Is repair to structure that may require inspection per Section 2.1? (area/component classification table)

X Yes : Supplemental inspection may be required. ___ Go to Stage 2. ___ No : Existing inspection is adequate, no further action is required.

STAGE 2

Category from Stage 2 repair classification in Section 2.2: (check box)

Category A Existing inspection is adequate, no further action is required.

Category B Continue to Stage 3 for inspection requirements

Category C Continue to Stage 3 for inspection requirements

8-29

Record Assessment (cont.)

STAGE 3
(For Category B and C repairs only)
Inspection is specified in the SRM. Zone Factor = 1 Continue existing inspection requirements (Inspection program per AD or Category A). Zone Factor = 1

Inspection requirements for repair given in Section 2.3.1, Fig._______ 2-9

1.0 Zone Factor = _________

Inspection for repairs with thick doublers (Section 2.3.2): Option 1 : Replace repair with Category A or B repair that may be more easily inspected. Option 2 thru 4: Apply inspection guidelines for thick repairs from Section 2.3.2. Option 5: You may contact Boeing for inspection requirements.

Inspection requirements cannot be determined. Boeing may be contacted for assistance.

INSPECTION SUMMARY
Inspection threshold 3

(Continue existing inspection if it is more restrictive than inspections 2 from this document)

66,464 flights(inspect at 65,100-flight check) Inspection interval (x zone factor) 14,500 flights using LFEC not applicable Replacement/rework limit (Category C only) 3
Inspection details :
8-30

Assess Remaining Repairs

Repeat the assessment for all repairs Stage 2

A. Examine and record Stage 3

B. Determine category

A. Determine threshold

B. Determine interval
8-31

Add Inspections to Maintenance Plan

Document a plan for accomplishing required inspections

Add inspections to scheduled maintenance plan

Perform inspections

8-32

Add New Repairs to Plan

For new repairs installed after initial repair assessment New repair

Assessment needed? Yes Determine inspection requirements Add inspections to scheduled maintenance plan

No

Continue existing maintenance

8-33

Summary
Applying the Repair Assessment Guidelines to an Airplane ! Implement the Program
" Determine when to

! Assess Repairs
" Determine which

have plan in place

" Determine when to

repairs to assess (Stage 1)

" Examine repairs

examine repairs
" Determine when to

(Stage 2)
" Classify repairs

begin inspecting repairs

(Stage 2)
" Determine inspection

requirements (Stage 3)
8-34

Widespread Fatigue Damage

October, 2003

Agenda
Why this is important Background WFD Program Overview
Limit of Validity (LOV) Maintenance Program Adjustments
! ISP ! SMP

737 Classic Model Specific Data 727 Classic Model Specific Data Summary
October 2003 2

Why Is This Important?

Will eventually affect all commercial aircraft with a MGTOW > 75,000 pounds Will directly impact operators of aircraft beyond DSO Will probably impact residual value of aircraft Perception of change in Boeing traditional position on aging aircraft
October 2003 3

Background
April 1988 Aloha Accident June 1988 International Conference on Aging Airplanes:

Industry committed to enact effective

programs to maintain structural integrity as airplanes age

Focused attention on gaps in the

airworthiness system

Established AATF (now AAWG)

October 2003 4

AAWG Efforts
Developed five aging airplane initiatives:
Mandatory Modifications CPCP SSID Repair Assessment Program (RAP) Maintenance Programs

Committed to examine and produce an effective program for the prevention of WFD
October 2003 5

Status Today
Five of the Aging Airplane Programs have been institutionalized for all commercial air transports New operational and certification rules for the prevention of Widespread Fatigue Damage are in the lengthy process of being released

October 2003

The Aging Programs

Mandatory Modifications:
Select Service Bulletins are reviewed for termination of AD required special inspections in areas where a high likelihood of damage exists in combination with specific airworthiness concerns. This program looks at the overall effect of a service bulletin to the structural integrity of the airframe and then establishes a time for the incorporation of preventative modifications as appropriate.

October 2003

The Aging Programs

Corrosion Prevention and Control (CPCP):
Develop and implement an industry-wide mandated minimum corrosion prevention and control program (CPCP) by model. This program was established to develop baseline maintenance programs for the prevention and correction of any corrosion before it became significant.

October 2003

The Aging Programs

Structural Supplemental Inspection Program (SSID):
Assess the maintenance program for adequacy for timely detection of accidental damage, environmental deterioration, and fatigue damage. Adjustments are made to the maintenance program to include supplemental inspections based on damage tolerance requirements at the required locations.

October 2003

The Aging Programs

Maintenance Program Guidelines:
Develop an assessment procedure for airline maintenance programs to determine program adequacy against known standards of excellence. An ATA document was prepared along with model specific documents that help and guide an airline that is involved in maintaining older airplanes

October 2003

10

The Aging Programs

Repair Assessment Program (RAP):
Assess existing repairs to primary structure on older (pre-amendment 45) airplanes based on damage tolerance analysis. An intense AAWG review found that repairs to the fuselage pressure boundary posed the greatest threat to continued airworthiness. Therefore, this program was developed to enable operators to assess all repairs to the fuselage pressure boundary and develop an appropriate maintenance program to ensure the continued airworthiness of that repair.

October 2003

11

The Aging Programs

Widespread Fatigue Damage (WFD):
Develop a program for the prevention of WFD in the commercial fleet. This type of damage was an attributed cause of the 1988 Aloha accident. This program, still in development, will proactively identify areas susceptible to WFD and establish inspection and/or modification programs to mitigate the risk.

October 2003

12

What is WFD?
Widespread Fatigue Damage (WFD): is
characterized by the simultaneous presence at multiple structural details of numerous very small cracks that are of sufficient size and density whereby the structure will no longer meet its damage-tolerance requirement (i.e., maintain its required residual strength after partial structural failure).

October 2003

13

WFD Graphical Representation

" Reduction from average
behavior to provide equivalent protection to a two lifetime fatigue test

Probability Density Function Residual Strength

RESIDUAL STRENGTH

REQUIRED RESIDUAL STRENGTH

MSD/MED RESIDUAL STRENGTH MONITORING PERIOD NORMAL INSPECTION PROGRAMS

CRACK LENGTH

NOTE: No Scale Implied. For Definition Use only

MSD/MED CRACK GROWTH

SPECIAL INSPECTIONS OF MSD/MED SUSCEPTIBLE AREAS

IWFD

IWFD

IWFD LWFD

IWFD

"

acrit WFD adet

* Threshold and repeat interval

are determined so that there is a high confidence that WFD will not occur in the fleet. All fatigue damage found must be repaired.

ISP

SMP WFD (Average Behavior)

FLIGHT CYCLES

October 2003

14

Sources of WFD
WFD may result from two sources:

Multiple Site Damage (MSD): a source of widespread fatigue damage characterized by the simultaneous presence of fatigue cracks in the same structural element (i.e., fatigue cracks that may coalesce with or without other damage leading to a loss of required residual strength). Multiple Element Damage (MED): a source of widespread fatigue damage characterized by the simultaneous presence of fatigue cracks in similar adjacent structural elements.

October 2003

15

Why Are We Concerned About WFD?

WFD is an Airworthiness Concern. MSD or MED is hard to reliably detect. MSD/MED, when it is detected, generally means that a significant number of other airplanes in the fleet could be affected immediately An average of three new cases of MSD/MED have occurred every year from 1988 through 1999. Some conditions found were well below minimum certification requirements.
October 2003 16

Where Might WFD Occur?

Susceptible Structure: Structure which has the
potential to develop MSD/MED. Such structure typically is characterized by multiple similar details operating at similar stresses where structural capability could be affected by interaction of cracking at a number of similar details. The following list, developed by the AAWG, contains structural details known to develop MSD/MED The list is neither comprehensive or all inclusive

October 2003

17

Susceptible Structure
1) Longitudinal joints, frames and tear straps 2) Circumferential joints and stringers 3) Lap joints with milled, chem-milled or bonded radius 4) Fuselage frames 5) Stringer to frame attachment 6) Shear clip end fasteners on shear tied fuselage frames 7) Aft pressure dome outer ring and dome web splice 8) Skin splice at aft pressure bulkhead
October 2003 18

Susceptible Structure
9) Abrupt changes in web or skin thickness pressurized or unpressurized structure

10) Window surround structure 11) Over wing fuselage attachments 12) Latches and hinges of non-plug doors 13) Skin at runout of large doublers 14) Wing or empennage chordwise splices 15) Rib to skin attachments 16) Typical wing and empennage construction
October 2003 19

When Might WFD Occur?

MSD and MED might occur anytime depending on:
Design Stress levels Fatigue quality of the specific detail

Fatigue test provides the most reliable means of prediction Analytical methods based on empirical test evidence are also reliable
October 2003 20

A New Paradigm for Maintenance Programs

Limit of Validity (LOV)

LOV is an airplane level number (usually expressed in cycles or hours) based on data from fatigue test evidence that predicts structural behavior Within the LOV, all known or predicted MSD or MED events must be addressed by effective maintenance actions including inspection, modification or both An airplane may not be operated beyond LOV without the incorporation of a FAA approved amendment to the maintenance program which defines a new LOV
21

October 2003

Limit of Validity

October 2003

22

Sources of Fatigue Test Evidence

LOV is based on a review of data from:

Full Scale Fatigue Test with or without tear down Full Scale component tests with or without tear down Tear down and refurbishment of a high time airplane Less than full scale component tests Fleet Proven Life Techniques Evaluation of in-service problems experienced by other airplanes with similar design concepts Analysis methods which have been parametrically developed to reflect test and service experience
23

October 2003

Maintenance Program Adjustments

The establishment of an LOV also requires the modification of the maintenance program to ensure that any known or predicted occurrence of MSD/MED is found and corrected before the structural performance degrades below acceptable levels The AAWG established guidance for the development of maintenance programs for MSD/MED The guidance is directed towards individual structural details within the airplane and as such is not associated with the LOV
October 2003 24

Maintenance Program Adjustments

The AAWG strongly recommended to the FAA that for an effective program against WFD:

An active aging airplane maintenance program must exist which includes: Mandatory Modifications Corrosion Prevention and Control (CPCP) Repair Assessment (RAP) Supplemental Structural Inspections (SSID)

All currently known structural airworthiness issues have been recognized and service actions initiated under existing safety processes
25

October 2003

Maintenance Program Adjustments

The AAWG Guidance material requires the determination of the following information for each MSD or MED susceptible area:

Inspection Start Point (ISP): The point in time when special inspections of the fleet are initiated due to a specific probability of having a detectable MSD/MED condition. Structural Modification Point (SMP): A point reduced from the WFD average behavior (i.e., lower bound), so that operation up to that point provides equivalent protection to that of a two-lifetime fatigue test. No airplane may be operated beyond the SMP without modification or part replacement.
26

October 2003

ISP and SMP Graphical Representation

Reduction from average behavior to provide equivalent protection to a two lifetime fatigue test NORMAL INSPECTION PROGRAMS SPECIAL INSPECTIONS OF MSD/MED SUSCEPTIBLE AREAS MSD/MED CRACK GROWTH

October 2003

CRACK LENGTH

acrit WFD

ISP

SMP WFD (Average Behavior)

FLIGHT CYCLES NOTE: No Scale Implied. For Definition Use only

27

Maintenance Program Development

For each susceptible detail:

Determine ISP and SMP Compare results with Limit of Validity (LOV) If less than LOV, initiate inspection and/or modification program If greater than or equal to LOV, no additional action necessary Requires review if LOV is changed
28

October 2003

WFD Maintenance Program

Assessment of Fatigue Test Evidence

6
Areas Susceptible to WFD

ISP6

Limit of fatigue test evidence

5
ISP4

ISP5 SMP4

4 3 2 1
ISP1 ISP2 ISP3

SMP2

SMP1

Normal Maintenance DSO LOV

29

October 2003

737 Classic* Model Specific Data

*737-100/200/300/400/500
October 2003 30

737 Classic
DSO 75,000 Cycles Test/Teardowns
150,000 Flight Fatigue Test of Fuselage D Box Section 129,000 Flight Fatigue Test of Aft Fuselage, removed from Service (59,000 + 70,000 cycles) 1987 Teardown Wing plus Center Section, Forward Fuselage and Empennage (59,000 cycles) 1988 Teardown of Aft Fuselage (129,000 cycles) Panel tests conducted Cycled up to 400,000 cycles

Ancillary Information
Designed FAR 25.571 AMDT 0, Fail Safe Certain components fatigue tested SSID has been in place since 1983

Currently a threshold based program with 132 airplanes inspecting (44% are NRegistered) Threshold = 66,000 cycles

RAP begins at 60,000 cycles Fleet demonstrated life = 116,100 Flight Cycles

October 2003

31

737 Classic LOV

If a WFD rule were in place today, the recommended LOV for the 737 Classic fleet would be 100,000 cycles Actions necessary to raise LOV: Acquire an airplane with approximately 100,000 cycles, insure all mandated modifications are installed, conduct fatigue testing to at least twice the desired incremental change, and perform detailed teardown and analysis

October 2003

32

Active and Inactive 737 Above DSO

Inactive 737 L/N 1-291 Inactive 737 L/N 292 and on
25

Active 737 L/N 1-291 Active 737 L/N 292 and on

Number of Airplanes

20 15 10 5 0 74 76 76 78 78 80 80 82 82 84 84 86 86 88 88 90 90 92 92 94 94 96 96 98

Flight Cycles (1000)

October 2003

33

737 Classic ISP and SMP

1) Lap Splices Line # 1 291 Corrosion and fatigue concern ISP = depends on age of airplane (see SB 73753A1224) SMP = depends on age of airplane (see SB 73753A1224) Line # 292 2565 ISP none: detectable is to close to critical SMP = 50,000 cycles Lap modification in accordance with 737-53A1177

ISP = 45,000 after installation SMP greater than LOV

34

October 2003

737 Classic ISP and SMP

2) Circumferential joints

ISP and SMP beyond LOV

3) Chem-mill steps

At crown skin lap splice area ISP = 42,000 SMP = 51,000 SB 737-53A1210 satisfies inspection requirements SB 737-53A1177 modification removes this detail At crown stringer locations ISP beyond LOV

October 2003

35

737 Classic ISP and SMP

4) Fuselage Frames Section 43 and 46 critical configuration

ISP = 57,000 SMP beyond LOV Modification per SB 737-53A1027 mandated by AD 90-06-02 at 75,000 cycles removes this detail
5) Stringer to frame connection (crown area)

ISP greater than LOV

October 2003

36

737 Classic ISP and SMP

6) Shear clips end fasteners at shear tied fuselage frames

ISP greater than LOV

7) Aft pressure bulkhead outer ring and dome web splice

ISP = 80,000 cycles SMP greater than LOV Inspections per SB 737-53A1214 satisfy inspection requirements at ISP

October 2003

37

737 Classic ISP and SMP

8) Skin splice at aft pressure bulkhead

ISP greater than LOV Continue with SSID inspections

9) Abrupt changes in web or skin thickness

pressurized or unpressurized structure No susceptible areas on the 737 ISP greater than LOV Attachment not a WFD concern on the the 737 10) Window surround structure 11) Over wing fuselage attachments

October 2003

38

737 Classic ISP and SMP

12) Latches and hinges of non-plug doors

Lowest ISP greater than LOV

13) Skin at runout of large doublers No susceptible areas on the 737

14) Wing or empennage chordwise splices Lowest ISP greater than LOV

15) Rib to skin attachments Lowest ISP greater than LOV

16) Typical wing and empennage construction Lowest ISP greater than LOV
39

October 2003

727 Classic Model Specific Data

October 2003

40

727 LOV Assessment

DSO 60,000 Cycles LOV 100,000 Cycles
Test/Teardowns
60,000 Cycle Full Airframe Fatigue Test (L/N 1-849) 170,000 Cycle Complete Fuselage (L/N 1849) 1995 Teardown of Wing and Empennage (46,700 Flight Cycles) No significant fatigue findings 1999 - Teardown of Fuselage following fatigue test (170,000 Cycles - 46,700 flights plus 123,300 pressure cycles) Some significant MSD/MED Findings

Ancillary Information
Designed CAR 4b.270, Fail Safe Certain components fatigue tested SSID has been in place since 1983 Currently a threshold based program with 240 airplanes inspecting (66% are NRegistered) Threshold = 55,000 cycles

Fleet Demonstrated Life 106,700

727-200 Active Airplanes Above DSO

727-200 Line # 1 - 849 12 10 Number of Airplanes 8 6 4 2 0 58 - 60 60 - 62 62 - 64 64 - 66 66 - 68 68 - 70 70 - 72 72 - 74 74 - 76 76 - 78 78 - 80 80 - 82 727-200 Line # 850 and on

Data as of 11/2002

82 - 84

84 - 86

86 - 88

Flight Cycles (1000)

October 2003

41

727 LOV Assessment

727 WFD Audit Findings (ISPs or SMPs less than LOV)
Lap splice lower row airplanes L/N 850 and on
ISP 35,000 cycles SMP 55,000 cycles SB 727-53A222 is applicable. AD 99-04-22 addresses inspections, superceding AD 2002-07-09 mandates modification for airplanes > 48,000 cycles

Fuselage frames (Test Finding)

ISP 42,800 cycles SMP 112,400 cycles SB is in work to address immediate concern Schedule TBD - Boeing expects AD

Analytical results for Wing and Empennage show no ISPs below LOV

Stringer-to-crown skin (Test Finding)

ISP 61,000 cycles SMP 101,000 cycles SB to address inspections due out 2nd Qrt 2003 Boeing expects AD
October 2003 42

Documentation

LOV will be contained in a new Airworthiness Limitation Section of the MPD The ISP and SMP will be listed in a new D6 document

October 2003

43

LOV
(Estimated Values)

707 727 737 Classic 737 NG 747 Classic 747-400 757 767 777
October 2003

40,000 cycles 100,000 cycles 100,000 cycles 1.5 DSO (112,500 cycles) 30,000 cycles/115,000 hours 35,000 cycles/165,000 hours 1.5 DSO (75,000 cycles) 1.5 DSO (75,000 cycles) 1.5 DSO (60,000 cycles)

44

LOV
(Estimated Values)

MD-80 MD-90 DC-8 DC-10 MD-11

110,000 cycles 110,000 cycles 70,000 cycles 60,000 Cycles / 150,000 hours TBD

October 2003

45

Program Status

Boeing is working with the FAA to validate methodology and audit results Boeing expects conditionally approved documents in first quarter of 2004 FAA is in the process or releasing the Operational Rule NPRM (ECD first quarter 2004)

October 2003

46

Maintenance Activities
Scheduled maintenance checks CPCP inspections SSID inspections Fleet damage rate Repair assessments/inspections Mandatory SB modification and inspection programs Fleet actions for WFD Environmental deterioration and accidental damage

Fleet damage

Start of detectable fatigue damage

October 2003

DSO Years of service

47

Airplane Maturity Factor

6 5 Traditional maturing accounts for increases in non-routine / routine labor tasks. The Aging Effect includes the additional tasks that must be performed for continued safe operation

WFD Effect

Aging Effect

Traditional Maturing

Cumulative Cycles/Flight Hours

October 2003

48

Questions?

October 2003

49

Skin Cracking from Scribe Lines

April 2004

Fleet Concern

Undetected skin cracks from scribe lines (scratches) in the lower skins at lap joints, and other areas, could grow to be quite large and cause a sudden decompression

April 2004

Background
Since Feb 2003, Boeing has received reports of multiple scribe marks in multiple locations on thirty-two 737 Classics and four 747s One 737-200 airplane had 5 inch crack in a lap joint and a second airplane had two cracks (5 and 8 inches) in adjacent bays of a lap joint, all due to scribe marks One 747-400 had a 30-inch crack at the BS 2180 butt joint and one 747-200 had a 30-inch crack at the BS 400 butt joint, both due to improper sealant removal

April 2004

Typical Scribe Detail - 737 Lap Joint (LN 292-2565)

Upper Skin Up Inbd 10 Upper Bonded Doubler

A Sealant Lower Skin A Center Line Frame Typical Scribe A-A Typical Scribe

View From Outside

April 2004

Background
Scribe marks appear to be caused by the use of putty knives, razor blades, or other objects to remove sealant or trim decals (even plastic scrapers can damage the clad layer of fuselage skins) Scribe marks are generally 0.001 (0.025 mm) to 0.005 (0.127 mm) deep, and many times do not penetrate the clad layer (0.003) Scribe marks typically run parallel (within 0.250 or 6.25 mm) to the upper skin at lap joints and vertically in the splice strap between skins at butt joints

April 2004

Typical Scribe Marks

April 2004

April 2004

April 2004

Mapping of Visible Scribes on One 737-200

April 2004

Suspect 737 Classic Airplanes

Thirty-two 737 Classic airplanes are known to have scribes (out of forty-one inspected)

Twenty 737-200s Eight 737-300s

Four 737-400s

6 operators in Europe, 4 in USA, 1 in Canada, 1 in South

America, 1 in Australia, and 1 in Africa Scribing occurred at several facilities Cracks found on two airplanes at 22,000 and 27,000 cycles Based on airplanes repainted within a two-year window of known scribed airplanes, over one hundred 737 Classic airplanes are now suspect
April 2004 10

737 Classic Fleet Data

Active Airplanes:* 100 Group 1 Group 2 TOTAL: *ACTS Data 4 Dec 03
Group 1 = Airplane still with original owner Group 2 = Airplane has changed ownership at least once

200 176

300 562 540 1102

400 216 265 481

500 245 141 386

Total 1199 1679 2878

3 3

730 906

April 2004

11

Crack Assessment
Cracks initiated from scribe marks Approximately 22,000 to 24,000 cycles from scribe marking to cracks growing through the thickness of the skin Cracks initiate at multiple points along the length of each scribe mark (Multi Site Damage - MSD) Scribing across tear straps could potentially lead to very long cracks (zipper effect) Many variables affect crack initiation and growth (scatter factor)

April 2004

12

737 Classic Lap/Butt Joint Mechanics

Upper Skin Bonded Doubler

0 KSI
Outer Fiber

25 KSI
Inner Fiber

Chem-mill Cracks

Scribe Cracks Lower Skin

4 KSI
Inner Fiber

22 KSI
Outer Fiber

Unloaded Lap Joint

Loaded Lap Joint

April 2004 13

737 Classic Scribe Cracking Behavior

Cracks initiate at multiple sites (many per inch) along the base of the scribe

Multiple Crack Initiation Sites

Scribe

Multiple small cracks link up before they grow through thickness creating a continuous long crack partially through the thickness

Skin Thickness

Crack Fronts Link Up Partially Through Skin Thickness

April 2004 14

737 Classic Cracking Scenarios

Local Scribe Damage Scenario 1
Scribe in Lower Skin Scribe Induced Cracks

Lower Row Cracks Scribe in Lower Skin Scribe/Lower Row Interaction

April 2004 15

Scribe Induced Cracks

Boeing Actions to Date

SRP 737-53-0214 initiated Apr 03 Initially viewed as isolated events All 737 Classic operator messages (May 5th, Jun 6th, and Sep 12th) Awareness of issue Review sealant removal procedures Inspect crown laps at next convenient opportunity FTEI posting (EM-003-0027) FTD posting (737-FTD-53-03006) Numerous 737 Classic Regional meetings and Technical Reviews

April 2004

16

Boeing Actions to Date (continued)

Developed UT/NDT procedures to inspect for cracking at lap joints Worked with operators and MROs to identify other suspect airplanes Worked with operators and the FAA (and other regulatory authorities) to temporarily return seven 737 Classic airplanes to service Working to qualify better tools and procedures to remove sealant All 737 Classic Operator Message released 3 Feb 04

April 2004

17

Key Points of Message

This is a potential airworthiness concern The only way to know whether or not an airplane has scribe mark damage is to look Suggested operator immediate actions: Review sealant removal and decal application procedures and tools Review airplane records for suspect scribing opportunities If >15,000 cycles since suspect scribing, accomplish loose sealant inspections and repeat every 500 cycles (very similar to AD 2003-14-06) Guidance on sealant removal

April 2004

18

Scribe Prevention
All 737 Classic Operator Meeting Seattle 3 March Regional meetings London March 18-19 Bangkok March 22-23 Revise Boeing Manuals 2nd Qtr 04 Sealant removal process

April 2004

19

Three Main Steps to Resolve Safety Issue

Identify Scribed Airplanes The Search Limited Return To Service (LRTS) Plan Repairs

April 2004

20

Working Group
Air Transport Association (ATA) sponsored Integral part of the Lead Airline Process Members: Boeing, the FAA (ACO and FSDO), ATA, and airlines: US Airways Continental Delta Southwest - United - Lufthansa (LTK) - Qantas

April 2004

21

The Search for Scribe Marks

Why? When? Where? How? Vehicle Inspection Method

April 2004

22

Limited Return To Service

5.8 Accomplish repairs at Stringer 20 Accomplish Internal inspections 5.9

5.1

Strip Sealant

Perform Visual 5.2 inspection

Accomplish repairs at suspected crack locations 5.7

5.9A 5.9B

Accomplish Internal inspection 1085 Accomplish Internal inspection 1125 5.11 Provide results to Boeing for approval

5.3

Record the damage 5.6

Provide NDT findings to Boeing

Accomplish Internal 5.9C inspection 1179 5.9D Accomplish Internal inspection 1255 Accomplish Internal inspection 1027

5.9E Send Damage map to 5.4 Boeing NDT inspect for cracks at scribed locations

5.5

Accomplish Internal 5.9F inspection 1160 5.9G

April 2004

5.10

Limited Return To Service plan (LRTS)

Accomplish Internal inspection 1177

23

Limited Return to Service Plan (Preliminary Not FAA Approved)

Cycles from Suspect Scribing <15,000 Repeat NDT Inspections (Cycles) Visual inspections @ 500 cycles until 15K, then NDT inspection every 250 250 250 250 Time Limit Until Repair (Cycles) Prior to 19.5K from scribing

15,000 - 20,000 20,000-25,000 25,000-30,000

4,500 or 22.5K from scribing, whichever is first 2,500 or 26.2K from scribing, whichever is first 1,200 or 30K from scribing, whichever is first, and 6 psi limitation Repair before further flight

> 30,000

Not Applicable

April 2004

24

LRTS
Current LRTS required actions can take two to three weeks (or more) to complete Work ongoing to reduce LRTS impact: FAA Delegation to Boeing for approval in work Skin Trim to expose scribes promising Reduction in repeat NDT inspections possible Interim repairs being tested for durability

April 2004

25

Repairs

4.1.1

Strip Sealant

4.1.6 Provide NDT findings to Boeing

4.1.7 Accomplish Repairs

4.1.7A 4.1.5 NDT inspect for cracks at scribed Perform Visual locations inspection

Accomplish repairs at Lap joints Accomplish repairs at Butt joints Accomplish all other required repairs Provide results 4.1.8 to Boeing for approval

4.1.7B

4.1.2

4.1.7C Send Damage map to Boeing

4.1.3

Record the damage

4.1.4

4.1.7D Accomplish repairs at Wing to Body Fairings

April 2004

26

Interim Repairs
Lap Splice reinforcement concepts being tested Butt Splice inspection techniques being developed Analysis in work to justify Boeing position relative to structure that does not require repair or continued inspection is adequate

April 2004

27

737 Scribe Repair Lap Joints Internal Repairs

0.036 Fillers 10 0.032 Shim A Inbd B Up

Scribe Fail-safe Doublers 0.032, 2024-T3 Clad Sht A B

View From Outside

April 2004

A-A

B-B

28

Permanent Repairs
Lap Splice Mod is terminating action for stringers 4, 10 and 14 Lower lobe lap repairs not currently documented Butt splice repairs best achieved through removing and replacing splice straps Local repairs at wing-to-body fairing necessary Analysis in work relative to structure that does not require repair

April 2004

29

Results of Working Group Meetings: Next Steps

Identify High Risk Criteria Total airplane cycles in excess of ~40K Lap Splice Mod not incorporated Other? Develop and implement a Phased Implementation Plan to minimize impact to operators

April 2004

30

737 Classic Fleet Action Plan

Phase 1 High Risk Airplanes

Phase 2 Medium Risk Airplanes

Phase 3 Low Risk Airplanes

April 2004

31

QUESTIONS?

April 2004

32

April 2004

33