Docket No: FAA-2014-0333 

Directorate 10: 20 13-SW-025-AD 

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Disposition Comments 

Next Step: FRAN 0 SNPRM 

0 These comments are in 

response to an SN PRM 

0 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received - If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required. 

No Has the referenced service infonnation been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NP RM will require a new notice. Contact/he Directorate focal point for guidance. 

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-I R-M-8040.1 C Chapter 9. 

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

Ifother, explain: 

Commenter(s): Chris Carter 

What change to the AD action is requested? Requested to incorporate tem1inating action. 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? AD did not indicate terminating action. 

Do we agree? Yes 

If YES, we agree because we were not very specific in appli cability section of the AD. Make 

the following changes to the AD: Added concerned hose Part numbers in applicability 

section to reduce the applicability to only certain part numbered hoses rather than all hoses 

regardless of part number. Limitation of the applicability serves as an optional terminating 

action for this AD. The intent of the MOO 0726955 is being incorporated in this AD. 

EASA AD did not prescribe terminating action except providing reference publications for 

infonnation. 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don't agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): Chris Carter 

What change to the AD action is requested? Damaged hoses in both the left and the ri ght-hand sides 

would require replacement within 300 hours, damage in just one side or the other would require 

replacement within 600 hours. 

Page I of3 
Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Requested change is not justified. 

Do we agree? No 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

lfPARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don' t agree because Our AD requirements are based on EASA AD No: 2013-0069 

da ted March 18,2013. A d.~~~ 

Uf]Q~rr.J..()r+-~~ rtA-vs+ be 

~ct~~ ifi deb--eo&:c! . ISSUE 3 : Select one of the followmg: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): Chris Carter 

What change to the AD action is requested? One time inspection at I I 0 hours and resume inspection at 

1200 hours in accordance with service bulletin. 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? The requested change is not justified. 

Do we agree? No 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with 

Make the followi ng changes to the AD: 

because We disagree with because 

If NO, we don't agree because Our AD is consistent with EASA AD. Airbus did not provide any 

information on the re liability of the hoses in question, to show they are good for 1200 hours after the first 

one time inspection. 

For additional issues, double-click here 

Page 2 of3 
Signnture Section 

Signature indicates concurrence with this action. 

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Pfiflte<Jame 

Page 3 of3