AD DOCKET NUMBER: Docket No. FAA-2014-0335; Directorate Identifier2013-SW-021-AD FAA EMPLOYEE CONTACTED: (Comments to AD docket) DATE AND TIME OFCONTACT: Thursday, August 7, 2014; 1000 TYPE OFCONTACT: Phone call NAMES OF ALL PERSONS INVOLVED IN CONTACT, INCLUDING TITLES AND AFFILIATION: FAA participants: JeffLee, Aerospace Engineer, Boston ACO, ANE-150 Industry participants: Phil Perschbacher, Principal Technical Engineer, Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation TOPIC DISCUSSED: Background: The purpose ofthe telecon was to provide the FAA with a betterunderstanding ofcomments received regarding the compliance time and repair instruction revision level that was proposed in Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) FAA-2014-0335, Dir. ID 2013-SW--021-AD. This NPRM was published ir. ih(; I**'...:.~:~1**a:**I~cg:~ter** cJ:1 JutlS 2,**=-~ ~** **.;~** ar,L;**tlJ~** C 1 ,jil:tne;ti**p~..··1** ii..:l; c:usLC un /\ugu:): 1, 20 i**~.** FAA discussion: JeffLee, FAA, asked ifthere is additional information to supportthe commentrequest indicating the compliance time is overly conservative at 1500 and with daily inspections, safety ofaircraft can be maintained until next gearbox overhaul (at most4125 hrs)? It was previously indicatedthatthe gearbox is looked at the major inspection at 1500 hours and thathas aircraft downtime. Industry discussion: Phil Perschbacher, Sikorsky, confirmed thatthere is amajor inspection at 1500 hours. However, this does notrequire the removal ofthe gearbox. The gearbox is removed during the overhaul period at most4125 hours Performing the tasks ofORI 76350-065 can only be done with the gearbox removed from the aircraft. Ifdone at the proposed 1500 hourtime, it can be done but the gearbox would need to be removed and would be additional time and be burdensome. Performing the ORI orgearbox replacement during the gearbox overhaul reduced any operator impact as the gearbox is already removed for service. Also, there have been no additional reported incidents. The field experiences reported has been a gradual loss ofoil andnot an abrupt one. So the daily inspection is adequate to alert the operatorto impending loss ofrepair integrity. That daily inspection will ensure safety until the gearbox is removed at the next overhaul period. This is why it was stated as being overly conservative. Mr. Lee asked Mr. Perschbacherto clarifY how the 4125 hours was determined and what is the maximum overhaul period for the Sikorsky S76 helicopter. Mr. Perschbacher indicated that the 4125 is based on the maximum overhaul time plus 10%. The gearbox overhaul times are 3250 or 3750 hours depending on model. So the maximum overhaul time is 3750 hours. Mr. Lee asked the comment regarding the ORI 76350-065 Rev Fbeing overly conservative. Mr. Perschbacher indicated he would getback with more details and provide a revision summary and go through the changes at a later date.AD DOCKET NUMBER: DocketNo. FAA-2014-0335; Directorate Identifier 2013-SW-021-AD FAA EMPLOYEE CONTACTED: (Comments to AD docket) DATE AND TIME OFCONTACT: Thursday, October 16, 2014; 1300 TYPE OFCONTACT: Phone caJI NAMES OF ALL PERSONS INVOLVED IN CONTACT, INCLUDING TITLES AND AFFILIATION: FAA participants: JeffLee, Aerospace Engineer, Boston ACO, ANE-150 Industry participants: Phil Perschbacher, Principal Technical Engineer, Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation TOPIC DISCUSSED: Background: The purpose ofthe telecon was to provide the FAA with a better understanding ofcomments received regarding the compliance time and repair instruction revision level that was proposed in Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) FAA-2014-0335, Dir. lD 2013-SW-021-AD. This NPRM was published

FAA discussion: JeffLee, FAA, asked ifthere is additionalinformation to support the commentrequest indicating the use of ORI 76350-065 Rev F is overly conservative and that a revision change walkthrough would bemade to show why the commented Rev B is sufficient. Previously, Sikorsky indicated that Rev F resolves the oil leakage issue. Industry discussion: Phil Perschbacher, Sikorsky, discusses the summary ofeach revision change for ORI 76350-065. Itis indicatedthat Rev F would resolve the oil leakage issue, but so would Rev B. The revision F provides an additional pin retention change that would help prevent liner movement, butthis isjustaproduct improvement. A walkthrough ofchanges shows that the pin retention instructions are changed in ORI 76350-065 rev B. Laterrevisions do nothave any significant structural changes to any ofthe requirements in the pin retention instructions that affectthe AD. The Revision B providedthe diagram/figures andthe depth ofthe insertion made clearthat it was to engage the liner. This information was not in the prior revisions. The revision C or later changes do not show any significant change in the pin retention instructions first provided in Rev B. Mr. Lee asked ifthere have been any further reports and that aJI reports hadrepairs using ORI 76350-065 Rev A orearlier. Mr. Perschbacher confirmedthere were no further reports ofany additional incidents and that aJI previous reports hadrepairs using ORI 76350-065 Rev A.