For You ERJ drivers...
 

Hey,
Not sure if this has been posted before. I checked and didn't see it. I pulled it from the Eagle Kool aid page. Guess who wants an extension on the AD:rolleyes:



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-28987; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-127-AD;
Amendment 39-15269; AD 2007-24-03]
RIN 2120-AA64


Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A.
(EMBRAER) Model EMB-135ER, -135KE, -135KL, and -135LR Airplanes and
Model EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of
another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an
aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

It has been found the development of cracks in the forward
fuselage right hand (RH) side skin during full-scale fatigue tests.
Those cracks may quickly reach their critical length, reducing the
aircraft structural integrity, with possible rapid decompression of
the aircraft.

We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective January 2, 2008.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of January 2,
2008.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on August 16, 2007 (72
FR 45963). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

It has been found the development of cracks in the forward
fuselage right hand (RH) side skin during full-scale fatigue tests.
Those cracks may quickly reach their critical length, reducing the
aircraft structural integrity, with possible rapid decompression of
the aircraft.

The corrective action includes rework of the aircraft structure on
the forward fuselage LH (left-hand) and RH sides. You may obtain
further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.



Request To Extend Grace Period

American Eagle Airlines requests that we extend the grace period
specified in

[[Page 67248]]

the NPRM. The commenter states that the compliance time of ``prior to
the accumulation of 22,000 total flight cycles or within 6 months after
the effective date of this AD, whichever is later'' would impose an
excessive strain on the operator due to labor requirements and time out
of service. The commenter notes that a number of its aircraft are near
the 22,000 total flight cycle threshold and suggests that we change the
grace period to within 2,000 flight cycles after the effective date of
this AD.
We do not agree with the commenter's request to extend the grace
period. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this action,
we considered the urgency associated with the subject unsafe condition,
the availability of required parts, and the practical aspect of
accomplishing the required modification within a period of time that
corresponds to the normal scheduled maintenance for most affected
operators. However, according to the provisions of paragraph (g) of the
final rule, we may approve requests to adjust the compliance time if
the request includes data that prove that the new compliance time would
provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed this final
rule in this regard.

Conclusion

We reviewed the available data, including the comment received, and
determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the
AD with the change described previously. We determined that this change
will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the
scope of the AD.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
We might also have required different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences
are highlighted in a Note within the AD.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD will affect 624 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 60 work-hours per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $80 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $1,210 per
product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that
are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no
charge for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for
affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated
here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the
U.S. operators to be $3,750,240, or $6,010 per product.

$80/hr??? What mechanics make that? Mechanics at my company make between $15-$30/hr. Even with benefits, taxes, etc. figured into the equation it's no where near $80/hr, more like a top end of $45.

$80 is retail...company mechanics are cheap to use. Contractors aren't. And when you bring your plane in to the shop, it's not the mechanic that gets the majority of that hourly rate, it's the shop's owner.

Where I trained for my Private, an Instructor cost about $100 an hour. They only saw $15 of that. Same idea.

Where the heck did you pay $100/hr for a flight instructor? You got ripped off big time (not as much as the CFI albeit). At small flight schools. the markup is generally around $10-20 per hour for CFIs. A CFI is cheap to hire and maintain b/c you come with all of your training completed.

Yep - if I had only known when I was 18 and dumb!

School: "We need another $16,000 for your Flight Training!"
Me: "Oh okay!" ::calls Sallie Mae::
SLM: "That'll be 12% interest...oh wait, no Co-signer? Then it's 15% interest! We hope you never want to get out of debt!"

the only place i know of that charged $100 an hour was daniel webster; is that where you went to school?

on a side note, recently at CHQ a 145 with the mechanical gust lock got to rotation and had no elevator control to lift off the runway. the crew aborted the take off safely (at jfk) and found that the locking mechanisim had sliced through the torque tubes. make sure you guys watch out for that also.

yeh, we at trans states got the memo about the CHQ stuff...we've since received about 3 changes to that memo. Just glad the torque tube didn't decide to break in flight. And it's always dis concerning to know that the airplane you're flying has a wing with a big ole' crack in it.

TSA has had that happen twice that I know of in the past 6 months

Any word if the FAA has taken that service buliten and made it an AD yet

i honestly dont know. I have met one of the lead engineers on the 145 and let me tell you its only a matter of time before things start to really crap out on that airplane.

It's a disposable jet, what do you expect?

And not to start the old, boring, stale, tired, worn out pi$$ing contest of ERJ vs. CRJ. But I wonder if the ERJ will have the same service life/cycles as they have been able to squeeze out of the CRJ.