September 8,2010

Mr. Franklin Tiangsing, Manager

Airframe Cabin & Safety Branch

Federal Aviation Administration

1601 Lind Avenue SW

Renton, VVA 98057

./'/

Dear Mr. TiangS~ (-

Thank you for your letter on August 25, concerning the Aging Aircraft Safety Final Rule (AASFR) and FAR

26 compliance responsibilities for auxiliary fuel system STCs held by The Leading Edge Group, LLC(LEG)

on certain Boeing aircraft.

COMPLIANCE INITIATIVES

I am pleased to report that LEGand AirSpeed Engineering (ASE) has reached agreement to provide FAR

26.47 {and §26.49} Damage Tolerance Evaluation and Inspection (DTE & DTI) compliance for the first

active grouping of STCsthat LEGhas purchased from PATSAircraft, LLC.

ASE's current focus is finishing the Damage Tolerance Asse'ssment (DTA) on the DC9 series STCs(incl.

NASA's ST0060SNY) with concurrent focus on the USAir 8737 fleet to include removed LEG/pats systems

!

from SASOONEand SA553NE. ASE is in direct contact with USAir Engineering in Phoenix regarding

compliance planning and the 8737-300/400 inspection tasking required of the Fatigue Critical Baseline

St,ucture (FCBS)vJhere the PATSaux fuel system (AFS) was originally installed.

SCHEDULEMATRIX I

Attached please find in-part for § 26.49 a matrix for eleven (11) STCsproposed as first priority.

Previously disclosed to FAA, many of the remaining LEG/pats STCsare installed onboard aircraft that are

no longer airworthy nor, in active flight operations for oth~r reasons. Our prioritization from the

attached matrix is based on contact with Brokers, Owners or Operators in some medium, to include an

inquiry or some response in the form of e-mail, telephone Icall, magazine advertisement or facsimile

receipt. We consider any form of Operator contact as potentially-airworthy news, and in most cases,

requiring compliance to AASFR, as FAA suggests.

3~425C";rI1Io!J POlid Kirkl.'ind w,islll'ngton fB033 MJli) (425) 576-4030
Seuring to Tiangsing

Sept. 8, 2010

lEG /TAD

Page 2 of 4.

ASE continues to discuss with FAA the FAR 26 responsibilities of the remaining STCssince "no-contact"

can mean that the Operator is derelict, does not recognize kEG as the STCholder or, the Operator has

no interest in conforming to FARs, including AASFR. In anYlcase and with other safety initiatives at hand,

an undue burden may exist to request FAA (and taxpayers) to engage Government resources to evaluate

mod-house, derelict or foreign-registry aircraft that will no~ re-enter commercial transport service.

MEETING AASFROBJECTIVES

Previously, ASE discussed the value of "as needed" certification as a prudent FAA response to efficiently

use Government resources on a "case-by-case" basis. FAAlhas and currently uses "as needed and caseby- case" processing on individual LEG/pats systems by apl'lroving ASE Service Bulletins (SBs) as SFAR88

alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs). ASEService rulletins to to Airworthiness Directive (AD)

2008-22-01 are a current example of "as needed" by specific airframe serial number (SN).

Regarding the case-by-case or, as-needed basis on § 26.47J ASE has found Operators have maintenance

input plans that do change. For example, some aircraft m6diflcatlons installed or, in process of being

I

installed, include cabin reconfigurations that may impact Te final calculations of the FCBS.

Rather than developing "cookie-cutter" task cards for DTI fhat would require pencil changes / on-site

modifications and further evaluation by FAA, a more prudJnt method to determine how a specific

airframe has been altered or, perhaps how the FCBShas been reloaded, is to complete the DTI tasking

and FAA approval "real-time".

Completing FAR26 OTEand DTI compliance at or near theiend of a Maintenance Repair Organization

(MRO) input enables the DAH to incorporate any FCBSdamage, evaluate loads or assess other

modifications to the FCBSto offer FAA and the Operator a

l

efficient compliance pathway and more

qualified DTA for FAA to process on the established as-required basis. The as~needed and case-by-case

I

inspection tasking accomplishes the objectives of the AASr and is efficient for FAA and the taxpayer

SUBSTATIATION OF DATA

In your letter of August 25, you further state that the DAH Imust provide evidence that an Operator will

not provide the maintenance requirements specified in § ]21.1109. LEGasserts that many older

lEG/pats auxiliary fuel systems {AFS}we have addressed or DTAare onboard parked / derelict (or

3425 C,n!!oo Pomt !<o'kbnJ, W"hinglon ro,,, Main (425) 96-40.'0
Seuring to Tiangsing

Sept. 8, 2010

LEG / TAD

Page 3 of 4.

scrapped) airframes that will never return to commercial service. The costs to return, and then operate

these aircraft overtones any need for additional maintenance, including that required of the AASFR.

Other aircraft, though aging, have Owners that have little interest in disclosing a maintenance program

or repair status to any government agency or, an affiliatedlsafety partner, like LEGas DAH.

Therefore, many Operators are unwilling to sign statements as you suggest on non-FAR compliance, not

because these aircraft will never re-enter FAR 121 or 129 dommercial service nor, that maintenance

could possibly be substandard. FAA should understand soh,e Owners or Operators simply do not return

e-mails, query or telephone calls to LEG/ ASEso we can proffer the very questions. As required by

§ 21.3 and § 21.120, it is difficult for the DAH to maintain a vigilant watch on an aging long-range AFS

appliance when certain operators do not communicate. I

Given the nature of the § 121.1109 FAA disclosure requirement, it would appear the USGovernment is

requiring the DAH to provide a guarantee that an AFS Operator may have little compulsion to offer.

RAISINGTHE BAR

An example of prudent safety planning (ATA See. 28) for the AASFR is the ASE submittal to NYACO of the

Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCls) ~nd Airworthiness Limitations (ALS) required

of the STC(DAHl Holder. ASE worked from previous PATS~ubmittals and completed three (3) additional

responsibilities for FAA by Category / Class for B727, B737 land DC9 fleets, so required by FAR25.1529.

As recommended in the SFAR 88 Final Policy Statement (aod FAA Order 8110.54), the CDCCLsprovided

opportunity for ASEto disclose to FAA all SNs of Boeing classic and legacy airframes that have LEG/pats

AFS presently installed. These submittals were completed for NYACO on May 15 (6727), June 1 (6737)

and June 15, 2010 (DC9). Your letter states that no mechanism exists to notify FAA when the CDCCLs

and ALS were initiated by PATSwith the Aircraft Engineering Group (AEG) for B737 on Jan 7, 2000.

It would seem prudent that the FAA's Oversight Office shoLld recognize the CDCCLand Special

Compliance Items (SCI) of installed SNs so that safety initia1tives established in the ALS (including EWIS

required of §26.1l) are properly regulated.

Otherwise, it may appear from your letter of August 25, t~at the US Government is attempting to

penaliz.e an active STCholder for "raising the safety bar" on fuel tank safety by FAA requiring costly §

26.47 engineering compliance on derelict, mod-house, scrapped and foreign airframes. The undue

burden on the public and the FAA's partnership with LEGih air safety could be significantly challenged

with potentially-punitive tasking ofthe STC holder for "raiJing the bar."

5425 c,dllo" Poi"t kMi,,,,/, W"ln"gton LOB M"i; (H\) 576-4050
Seuring to Tiangsing

Sept. 8, 2010

COMPLIANCE PLANNING

LEG / TAD

Page 4 of 4.

Your letter also states, a conversion may be contrary to our justification. Insofar as ASE planning for a

given project may be discussed with the ACO, we agree Operator plans change. This is the case with

SA542NE and 5N 27924 that ASE discussed with NYACO regarding an Amended STCto return back to

EASAcommercial service. Even though, this B737-300 is presently uncommitted for de-modification

(and foreign registered), ASEwill complete § 26.47 as planned. This SN is considered active by ASE.

LEGpopulated the attached matrix and elected to abandon some of the Petitions for Exemption (PIE) to

prevent surrendering these STCsto FAA. Vacating the OTA responsibility and surrendering STCs, may

eliminate LEG's legal responsibility under § 26.47 and FAAs under §25.1529 and § 21.120. However, in

process, certification and testing data would also release to unknown government domains that may

later become accessible by third-party petitions under the US Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

If FAA has a limited mechanism to notify the Oversight Office on the CDCCL/ ALS, the OAH is concerned

that costly certification data confidentiality submitted for fAA approval can be breached using the FOIA.

FAA I NTSBfuel tank safety compliance masks expensive costs for the DAH that LEGproposes a

"prudent reverence." To protect the proprietary certifica~ion and testing data, the DAH elects not to

I

surrender STCsand release costly, and industry sensitive certification data.

Thank you for taking the time to clarify the government's position regarding LEG/pats STCexemption

planning. We welcome the spirited dialogue with FAA as we continue to partner in auxiliary fuel tank

safety.

Sincerely,

aging Director

Airspeed Engineering, LLC.

342S emf/oil Porllt KJi"kland III/J5hiogfon 98033

FAA 0N

Notary Y I@

A1Jin (425) 576-4030
Order of Completion

ST00218ATA MD-83

ST00523NY MD-87

,-

r

www.airspeed.us.com

ASE 100906

EASA Charter Operator 9-tanks

US Operator / Canada IO-tanks

Submitted TAD

24 Sept

$TQ0409NY MD-81, 82, 83 Eastern Block Operators 2-tanks 15 Oct

ST00605NY 0(9-33 NASA N934NA 6-tanks 30 Oct

* $A$OONE 8737-300 U$Air Single Tank 1 Oct

* SAS53NE B737-300/400 U$Air Single Tank 15 Oct

* SA542NE B737-300 Romania Single Tank 28 Oct

SA725NE B B737-200 to 500 Various Operators AFT 2/4 tank TBD

STOOO40NY 8737-500 Pacific Sky - Canada FWD / AFT 4-tank 15 Nov

5A496NE A B727-200 FWD / AFT 2-9 tanks 30 Nav

$A62NE 8727-100 FWD / AFT 6 tanks 30 Nav

SA83NE 8737-200 FWD / AFT 7-tank, 30 Nav

STOO466NY 8727-100 FWD / AFT 6 or 7 tanks 30 Nov

Above are active STCs. Others TBD with TAD.

A SFAR 88 Completed by ASE.

I

See SFAR 88 at www.airspeed.us.comforcopiesofSTCs.

B Config. #7; SFAR 88 Completed by PATS - DAS, Proprietary@rTof"

FAA VN

Notary Y / tV

3425 Gm/lor; Poir;f Kit/d:md Wq5hir;gton 98033 )v/q!n (425) 575-4030