[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 250 (Friday, December 29, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67321-67325]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-31351]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 94-CE-28-AD; Amendment 39-9472; AD 95-26-13]


Airworthiness Directives; The New Piper Aircraft, Inc. (Formerly 
Piper Aircraft Corporation) PA28 and PA32 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This amendment supersedes Airworthiness Directive (AD) 76-25-
06, which currently requires replacing oil cooler hoses on The New 
Piper Aircraft, Inc. (Piper) Model PA28-140 airplanes, and inspecting 
for a minimum clearance between the oil cooler hose assemblies and the 
front exhaust stacks and adjusting if proper clearance is not obtained. 
This action maintains the clearance inspection and oil cooler hose 
replacements, requires this inspection and these replacements to be 
repetitive, and extends the applicability to include PA32 series and 
other PA28 series airplanes. It also provides the option of installing 
approved TSO-C53a, Type D oil cooler hose assemblies as terminating 
action for the repetitive inspection requirement. Numerous incidents/
accidents caused by oil cooler hose rupture or failure on the affected 
airplanes prompted this action. The actions specified by this AD are 
intended to prevent these oil cooler hoses from failing or rupturing, 
which could result in engine stoppage and subsequent loss of control of 
the airplane.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 5, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Information that relates to this AD may be examined at the 
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Central Region, Office of the 
Assistant Chief Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket 94-CE-28-AD, Room 
1558, 601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Juanita Craft-Lloyd, Aerospace 
Engineer, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, Campus Building, 
1701 Columbia Avenue, suite 2-160, College Park, Georgia 30337-2748; 
telephone (404) 305-7373; facsimile (404) 305-7348.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal 
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that would apply 
to Piper Model PA28-140 airplanes was published in the Federal Register 
on March 8, 1995 (60 FR 12714). The action proposed to supersede AD 76-
25-06, Amendment 39-2788, with a new AD that would retain the clearance 
inspection and oil cooler hose replacement for the Piper Model PA28-140 
airplanes, and make the inspection and replacement repetitive for these 
airplanes as well as other PA28 series and the PA32 series airplanes. 
It would also provide the option of installing approved TSO-C53a, Type 
D oil cooler hose assemblies as terminating action for the repetitive 
inspection requirement.
    Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate 
in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to 
the comments received.
    One commenter states that the proposal should take into account 
that the affected airplanes could have oil cooler hose assemblies 
installed other than those manufactured from Piper. The FAA concurs and 
has changed the AD to reflect that the AD applies to airplanes with oil 
cooler hose assemblies that do not meet TSO-C53a, Type D requirements.
    This same commenter points out that paragraph (b)(2) of the 
proposed AD contains the words ``oil cooler assembly'' when it should 
contain the words ``oil cooler hose assembly''. The FAA concurs and has 
changed paragraph (b)(2) of the AD to reflect the above-referenced 
language.
    This commenter also believes that the cost of the oil cooler hoses 
is too low and that the FAA did not take into account that each 
airplane has two oil cooler hoses installed. The commenter states that 
the price of an oil cooler hose is between $122 and $279, and the FAA 
estimates $110. The FAA will change the economic paragraph of the final 
rule to incorporate the upper end of the price range for oil cooler 
hoses of $279 per hose with two oil cooler hoses per airplane ($558 per 
airplane for parts).
    A commenter proposes that the FAA clarify whether the date used to 
determine the eight-year replacement 

[[Page 67322]]
interval is the installation date, rubber cure date, or the pressure 
test date. The FAA will specify in the AD that the date used to 
determine the eight-year replacement interval is the installation date.
    One commenter believes that the FAA should withdraw the notice of 
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) because a pilot can inspect these oil cooler 
hoses and, therefore, the action does not warrant the expense and 
record keeping required by AD action. Another commenter does not 
request that the AD be withdrawn, but requests that the FAA include the 
provision of allowing the pilot to inspect the oil cooler hoses. The 
FAA does not concur with either of these comments. Sections 43.3(g) and 
43.7(f) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.3 and 14 CFR 
43.7) contain the provision to allow a pilot to perform preventive 
maintenance and return the airplane to service. Part 43, Appendix A of 
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR, part 43, Appendix A) outlines 
what is considered preventive maintenance. Inspections of oil cooler 
hose assemblies are not authorized as preventive maintenance actions as 
detailed in the above-referenced portion of the regulations. The AD is 
unchanged as a result of these comments.
    A commenter believes the NPRM should be withdrawn because the 20 
reported incidents over a 19-year period with no damage reported do not 
justify repetitive 100-hour time-in-service (TIS) inspections and 8-
year (or 1,000 hours TIS) repetitive oil cooler hose assembly 
replacements. The FAA does not concur. The FAA has received 26 
incident/accident occurrences relating to oil cooler hose failure since 
1985. In addition, 24 service difficulty reports (SDR) have been filed 
on this subject since 1987. The FAA has determined that oil cooler 
hoses that fail or rupture could result in engine stoppage and 
subsequent loss of control of the airplane. The AD is unchanged as a 
result of this comment.
    Another commenter requests that the FAA withdraw the NPRM because 
the actions are the same as what is listed in the Piper service 
manuals. The commenter quotes the following from the FAA Airworthiness 
Directive Manual, FAA-AIR-M-8040.1:

    An AD should not be issued to assure the use of normal 
maintenance practices on a product where individual cases of 
improper maintenance or lack of maintenance have contributed to an 
unsafe condition. Corrective action in those instances should be 
taken through normal Flight Standards maintenance communication 
channels, such as General Alerts, Maintenance Bulletins, and 
Notices.

The FAA does not consider inspecting oil cooler hoses on the affected 
Piper PA28 and PA32 series airplanes a general maintenance action. The 
close proximity of the oil cooler hose assemblies to the exhaust stack 
causes the oil cooler hoses to rupture instead of developing leaks over 
time. A general maintenance action on oil cooler hoses would be to 
check for leaks; however, the service history of the affected airplanes 
is indicating ruptured oil cooler hoses. For this reason, the FAA has 
determined that the close proximity of the oil cooler hose assemblies 
to the exhaust stack require special inspections for the oil cooler 
hoses through AD action to prevent these hoses from failing or 
rupturing. The AD is unchanged as a result of this comment.
    One other commenter (an owner of a Piper Model PA28R-201T airplane) 
recommends that the NPRM be withdrawn because no corrosion was found on 
this commenter's airplane oil cooler hoses when the tanks were removed 
and the hoses replaced. In addition, this owner operates the airplane 
away from seashores in a dry climate. For these reasons, this commenter 
believes the NPRM should be withdrawn. The FAA does not concur. AD's 
are issued based on a known ``unsafe condition that could exist or 
develop on airplanes of the same type design.'' In this instance, the 
owner operates a Piper Model PA28R-201T airplane, which is not affected 
by this AD because this particular model does not have external oil 
cooler hose assemblies. The AD is unchanged as a result of this 
comment.
    One commenter feels that the FAA is inferring that Piper airplane 
operators are less competent than other operators by only writing the 
AD against certain Piper PA28 and PA32 series airplanes. The commenter 
states that every reciprocating engine-powered aircraft has oil lines 
and hoses and that the AD should be written against all such aircraft. 
The FAA does not concur. As stated in the NPRM, ``other airplane models 
have shown a history of oil cooler hose problems; however, most of 
these have been attributed to leaking oil cooler hoses instead of 
ruptured hoses or broken hoses as are detailed in the incident/accident 
reports of the affected PA28 and PA32 series airplanes. The close 
proximity of the oil cooler hose assemblies to the exhaust stacks in 
some of the affected airplanes contributes to the hazardous nature of 
these oil cooler hose failures.'' The AD is unchanged as a result of 
this comment.
    A commenter states that Type D oil cooler hoses are less flexible 
than other hoses and, therefore, cannot always be interchanged. This 
commenter further explains that this less-flexible hose could kink 
during oil cooler hose installation or during flight because of in-
service vibration. This could prevent oil passage and result in engine 
stoppage. The FAA concurs that these Type D oil cooler hoses are less 
flexible and could kink. The FAA is changing the AD to require a 
minimum bend radius of 6.5 inches on oil cooler hose assemblies 
incorporating 0.75-inch outer diameter hoses.
    Another commenter requests that the FAA either delete the 
repetitive replacement requirement or have the replacement intervals 
coincide with every 10th annual inspection. The FAA does not concur. 
The close proximity of the oil cooler hose assemblies to the exhaust 
stacks causes the heat from the exhaust stacks to affect the life of 
the hoses. This also causes the hoses to rupture instead of leak. With 
this in mind, the FAA believes that repetitively inspecting the oil 
cooler hoses every 100 hours TIS and replacing all hoses every 8 years 
will accomplish the intent of eliminating the unsafe condition 
addressed in this action. The AD is unchanged as a result of this 
comment.
    After careful review of all available information related to the 
subject presented above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the 
public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed except for 
the wording change to limit the applicability to oil cooler hose 
assemblies that do not meet TSO-C53a, Type D requirements; the 
rewording of ``oil cooler assembly'' to ``oil cooler hose assembly'' in 
paragraph (b)(2) of the AD; the change in the economic paragraph to 
reflect more accurate oil cooler hose price information; the 
clarification that the replacement interval is based on the 
installation date; the addition of requiring a minimum bend radius of 
6.5 inches on oil cooler hose assemblies requiring a 0.75-inch outer 
diameter hose; and minor editorial corrections. The FAA has determined 
that the minor addition, changes, corrections, and clarification will 
not change the meaning of the AD and will not add any additional burden 
upon the public than was already proposed.
    The replacement compliance time for this AD is presented in both 
hours TIS and calendar time with the prevalent compliance time being 
that which occurs first. Deterioration or failure of the oil cooler 
hose assemblies could 

[[Page 67323]]
occur as a result of normal flight operation or as a result of time. 
Therefore, the FAA has determined that this dual replacement compliance 
time is needed to assure that the oil cooler hose assemblies are 
replaced before they deteriorate and rupture or fail.
    The FAA estimates that 25,000 airplanes in the U.S. registry will 
be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 2 workhours (1 
workhour per inspection and 1 workhour per replacement) per airplane to 
accomplish the required action, and that the average labor rate is 
approximately $60 an hour. Parts cost approximately $558 per airplane 
($279 per oil cooler hose with two hoses per airplane). Based on these 
figures, the total cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated 
to be $16,950,000 or $678 per airplane. This figure does not take into 
the account the cost of repetitive inspections or repetitive 
replacements. The FAA has no way of determining the number of 
repetitive inspections or replacements each owner/operator would incur 
over the life of the airplane.
    The regulations adopted herein will not have substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in 
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this final 
rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the 
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is 
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; 
(2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and 
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a 
significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial 
number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act. A copy of the final evaluation prepared for this 
action is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained 
by contacting the Rules Docket at the location provided under the 
caption ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the 
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of 
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 USC 106(g), 40101, 40113, 44701.


Sec. 39.13  [Amended]

    2. Section 39.13 is amended by removing Airworthiness Directive 
(AD) 76-25-06, Amendment 39-2788, and by adding a new AD to read as 
follows:

95-26-13 The New Piper Aircraft, Inc.: Amendment 39-9472; Docket No. 
94-CE-28-AD; Supersedes AD 76-25-06, Amendment 39-2788.

    Applicability: The following airplane models (all serial 
numbers), certificated in any category, that are equipped with oil 
cooler hose assemblies that do not meet TSO-C53a, Type D 
requirements:

PA28-140
PA28-180
PA28R-201
PA28-235
PA32S-300
PA32R-301(SP)
PA32-301T
PA28-150
PA28S-180
PA28-151
PA28-236
PA32-301
PA32R-301(HP)
PA28-160
PA28R-180
PA28-161
PA32-260
PA32R-300
PA32RT-300T
PA28S-160
PA28R-200
PA28-181
PA32-300
PA32RT-300
PA32R-301T

    Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the 
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been 
modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the 
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified, 
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of 
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an 
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (f) of 
this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of 
the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition 
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been 
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to 
address it.

    Compliance: Required as indicated in the body of this AD, unless 
already accomplished.
    To prevent oil cooler hoses from failing or rupturing, which 
could result in engine stoppage and subsequent loss of control of 
the airplane, accomplish the following:
    (a) Within the next 100 hours time-in-service (TIS) after the 
effective date of this AD, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 
100 hours TIS, inspect the oil cooler hoses to ensure that the hoses 
meet the criteria presented in the paragraphs below.
    (1) For airplanes that have any oil cooler hose assembly mounted 
at the front or back of the airplane, or both, the fire sleeve of 
the hose should not be soaked with oil or have a brownish or whitish 
color, and there should be no evidence of deterioration as a result 
of heat, brittleness, or oil seepage. Prior to further flight, 
replace any hose that is soaked with oil, has a brownish or whitish 
color, or has evidence of deterioration.
    (2) On airplanes that have any oil cooler hose assembly mounted 
in the front of the airplane, ensure that the following exists, and, 
prior to further flight, adjust accordingly:
    (i) The hose passes underneath and behind the electrical ground 
cable and in front of the lower of the two engine mount struts when 
the hose is routed to the rear of the engine; and
    (ii) The hose is tied to the engine mount strut and a clearance 
of at least 2 inches exists between the oil hose and exhaust stack.

    Note 2: Figure 1 of this AD relates to the conditions specified 
in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (a)(2)(ii) of this AD.

BILLING CODE 4910-13-U

[[Page 67324]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TR29DE95.010


BILLING CODE 4910-13-C

[[Page 67325]]

    (b) Upon the accumulation of 8 years or 1,000 hours TIS after 
installation of each oil cooler assembly, whichever occurs first, 
and thereafter every 8 years or 1,000 hours TIS (whichever occurs 
first), accomplish one of the following:
    (1) Replace each oil cooler hose assembly with a part number 
specified in the APPLICABILITY section of this AD, and reinspect in 
accordance with paragraph (a) of this AD at intervals not to exceed 
100 hours TIS; or
    (2) Replace each oil cooler hose assembly with an approved TSO-
C53a, Type D, hose assembly ensuring that there is a minimum of 2 
inches between the oil cooler hoses and exhaust stacks (as 
applicable) upon installation. Ensure that there is a minimum bend 
radius of 6.5 inches on oil cooler assemblies incorporating 0.75-
inch outer diameter hoses.
    (c) The replacement specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this AD may 
be accomplished at any time prior to the 8-year or 1,000-hour 
compliance time as terminating action for the 100-hour TIS 
repetitive inspection requirement of this AD.
    (d) After adjusting or installing oil cooler hoses, prior to 
further flight, run the engine for 5 minutes to ensure that there 
are no oil leaks and that the 2-inch clearance is maintained (as 
applicable) when the engine is warm. Prior to further flight, 
replace any leaking oil cooler hoses and adjust the clearance 
accordingly.

    Note 3: Although not required by this AD, the FAA recommends 
that an oil cooler hose flexibility test be accomplished at each 
100-hour TIS inspection interval. Oil cooler hose flexibility may be 
determined by gently lifting the hose in several places from the 
bottom of its downward arc to the oil cooler. If the oil cooler hose 
moves slightly either from side-to-side or upward with the hand at 
the center of an even arc, then some flexibility remains. If the oil 
cooler hose appears hardened or inflexible, replacement is 
recommended.

    (e) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with 
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where 
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
    (f) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the 
initial or repetitive compliance times that provides an equivalent 
level of safety may be approved by the Manager, Atlanta Aircraft 
Certification Office (ACO), Campus Building, 1701 Columbia Avenue, 
suite 2-160, College Park, Georgia 30337-2748. The request shall be 
forwarded through an appropriate FAA Maintenance Inspector, who may 
add comments and then send it to the Manager, Atlanta ACO.

    Note 4: Information concerning the existence of approved 
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be 
obtained from the Atlanta ACO.
    Note 5: Alternative methods of compliance approved in accordance 
with AD 76-25-06 (superseded by this action) are not considered 
approved as alternative methods of compliance with this AD.

    (g) Figure 1 of this AD may be obtained from the Atlanta ACO at 
the address specified in paragraph (f) of this AD. This document or 
any other information that relates to this AD may be inspected at 
the FAA, Central Region, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, Room 
1558, 601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri.
    (h) This amendment (39-9472) supersedes AD 76-25-06, Amendment 
39-2788.
    (i) This amendment (39-9472) becomes effective on February 5, 
1996.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on December 19, 1995.
Dwight A. Young,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 95-31351 Filed 12-28-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U