Comment to: NPRM Docket No.: FAA--2005--22876

[Comment to: NPRM Docket No.: FAA--2005--22876]{.underline}

[Joshua Cockrum]{.underline}

[AVIA 4090 Aviation Law, Spring Semester]{.underline}

[Instructor: Dr. Chien-tsung Lu]{.underline}

[Central Missouri State University]{.underline}

[March 22, 2006 ]{.underline}

**[NPRM Summary]{.underline}**

[`	`The FAA has proposed that an AD be issued regarding certain aircraft
seats manufactured by RECARO, a Germany based company. The seat models
effected are 3410 302, 303, 306, 307, 314, 316, 317, 791, 792, and 795
series. These seats were typically installed on Boeing models 737-200
series, 747-400 series, 777-200 and 777-300 series; and Airbus
Industries models A319-100 series, A320-200 series, and A321-200 series
airplanes. The problem regarding the seats is insufficient bolt length
at the seatbelt attachment points that do not allow for enough bolt
threads to properly secure the locknut. This can cause the bolt and nut
to come loose, which could lead to the seat belt detaching in the event
of an emergency resulting in injury to the seat occupant. The proposed
AD would make the replacement of the bolts with new longer bolts with
sufficient threads mandatory to help ensure secure attachment of the
seatbelts. ]{.underline}

**[Comments]{.underline}**

**[ ]{.underline}**[I feel that this proposal to create a new
Airworthiness Directive is a good idea. If the Luftfahrt-Bundesamt
(LBA), the airworthiness authority in Germany, felt that this was an
issue worthwhile of creating an AD, D--2004--151R1, then I feel the FAA
should do the same. One of the pros to this proposal is that the AD,
should it be enacted, would cause only a rather small expense to the
operators/owners of the effected aircraft. This small expense could have
the potential to save many people from serious injury or death. It would
be a shame for something as simple a bolt, being just slightly short, to
cause someone injury, especially when it is a known issue. After all
what good is a restraint ]{.underline}

[devise, such as a seat belt, if it fails because of something so simple
as a bolt being slightly short. ]{.underline}

[ As well as being one of the pros regarding this issue of discussion,
the expense is also one of the drawbacks for being just that, an expense
to the effected aircraft owners/operators. Even though the expense is
small compared to some of other issues Airworthiness Directives are
issued for, all expenses cut in to profit. I still feel this is a rather
minor expense with the effect it could have to the safety of passengers.
So I feel the drawback of the expense is easily overcome when compared
to the simple problem that can be corrected to ensure the safety of many
passengers.]{.underline}

[I would be surprised if very many of the seats have not already had the
corrective action performed voluntarily by the effected aircraft
owners/operators. The issue regarding the short bolt for the effected
seats has been known for some time. RECARO issued a service bulletin,
SB-No.: 3410-25MR477 on May 17, 2004. ]{.underline}

[Being a known safety issue, I think most airlines or operators would
correct the issue when it becomes known out of concern for lawsuits. Had
a passenger been injured while occupying one of the effected seats, the
possibility for lawsuits would be very high. Seeing as how the safety
issue has been known and published for some time, an injured passenger
would have a fairly good negligence case against the aircraft owner for
not correcting the issue. So I am willing to bet many of the
owners/operators of the effected aircraft have already corrected many of
the seats in a way to insure themselves from potential safety hazards
and lawsuits. Most of these seats are installed on aircraft used in
common carrier operations, and this means that the airlines operating
these aircraft are subject to ensuring that their passengers are treated
with the highest-degree-of-care standard when it comes to
safety.]{.underline}

**[Recommendations]{.underline}**

**[ ]{.underline}**[I would highly recommend that the FAA enacts an AD
to replace the bolts found in certain RECARO seats with new longer
bolts. Rather minor expenses will be incurred by correcting this issue,
and it has the potential to prevent injury to many people. I don't feel
that it is necessary to enact an immediate compliance. I think the best
way would be to basically adopt the AD issued by the Luftfahrt-Bundesamt
(LBA), airworthiness directive D-2004-151R1 issued June 6, 2004, which
made compliance with RECARO Service Bulletin SB-No.: 3410-25MR477
mandatory. Airworthiness Directive D-2004-151R1 allowed 60 calendar days
from the date of issue for compliance with the AD. I feel this would be
a sufficient amount of time as well for compliance with the AD should
the FAA enact it. This should allow plenty of time for both RECARO to
manufacture a sufficient number of the replacement part kits, part
number: MOD-KIT \# 3410MK454-02, and for the aircraft owners/operators
install them on the effected aircraft. By making it mandatory that the
effected seats be corrected using the RECARO part kit, it would further
ensure that the correct hardware be used, with regards not only to the
length of the bolt, but also the hardness grade, the thread pitch, and
quality of the parts as well.]{.underline}

**[RESOURCES]{.underline}**

[Department of Transportation -- Federal Aviation Administration. (2006,
February 8). ]{.underline}

*[Docket No.
FAA]{.underline}[--]{.underline}[2005]{.underline}[--]{.underline}[22876;
Directorate Identifier
2005]{.underline}[--]{.underline}[NE]{.underline}[--]{.underline}[39]{.underline}[--]{.underline}[AD]{.underline}*[.
Retrieved March 21, 2006, from ]{.underline}

[Luftfahrt-Bundesamt. (2004, April 1). ]{.underline}*[Airworthiness
Directive D-2004-151. ]{.underline}*[Retrieved ]{.underline}

[March 21, 2006, from ]{.underline}