The Direction Generale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the airworthiness authority for France, notified the FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on certain Dassault Model Falcon 2000EX and 900EX series airplanes. The DGAC advises that an analysis and tests of the Honeywell Primus Epic system installed on Model Falcon 2000EX and 900EX series airplanes revealed a potential for all information presented on the cockpit display units to become invalid during flight. The cause of the malfunctioning cockpit display units has been attributed to a failure of a network interface controller (NIC) for the avionics standard communication bus (ASCB), which causes a loss of ASCB synchronization. The ASCB failure could result in a loss of data from all four of the cockpit display units, and loss of all radio communications (with the exception of VHF emergency frequency and last frequency used), primary navigation instruments, autopilot, auto-throttle, central alerting system, aural alarms, and normal braking (on Model Falcon 2000EX series airplanes only). These losses could reduce the flightcrew's situational awareness, increase flightcrew workload, and consequently reduce the ability to maintain safe flight and landing of the airplane.
Other Relevant Rulemaking
We have determined that since the Honeywell Primus Epic system is also installed on Gulfstream Model GV-SP series airplanes and on Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER) Model ERJ 170 series airplanes, those airplanes are subject to an unsafe condition similar to that addressed in this AD. In light of that determination, we issued AD 2005-04-06, amendment 39-13978 (70 FR 7847, February 16, 2005) (for Model GV-SP series airplanes), and issued AD 2004-26-12, amendment 39- 13924 (69 FR 78300, December 30, 2004) (for Model ERJ 170 series airplanes), to address the unsafe condition on those airplane models. We may consider additional rulemaking on other airplane models havingthe Honeywell Primus Epic system that also exhibit a similar unsafe condition.
Relevant Service Information
Dassault has issued Service Bulletin F2000EX-58, dated January 10, 2005; and Service Bulletin F900EX-256, dated January 10, 2005. These service bulletins describe procedures for performing an inspection to check the integrity of the ASCB by inspecting for any faults. The inspection involves using a maintenance laptop computer to run a TELNET session.
Dassault has also issued Temporary Change 12, dated January 26, 2005, to the Dassault Falcon 2000EX Airplane Flight Manual, DGT88898 (for Model Falcon 2000EX series airplanes); and Temporary Change 14, dated January 12, 2005, to the Dassault Falcon 900EX Airplane Flight Manual, DGT84972 (for Model Falcon 900EX series airplanes). The temporary changes describe procedures for flightcrew to follow in the event that the information displayed on all four cockpit display units become invalid during flight. The procedures describe steps the flightcrew can perform to facilitate recovery of the cockpit display units, and informs the flightcrew what equipment will be unavailable during an ASCB failure/event.
In addition, Dassault has issued Service Bulletin F2000EX-59, dated February 2, 2005; and Service Bulletin F900EX-254, dated February 2, 2005. These service bulletins describe procedures for performing an avionics software upgrade to the Honeywell Primus Epic system. The software upgrade involves installing a new NIC and generic input/output (I/O) software.
Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. The DGAC mandated the service information described above and issued French emergency airworthiness directives UF-2005-024, dated January 27, 2005; and UF- 2005-025, dated January 27, 2005; to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in France.
FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD
These airplane models are manufactured in France and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of Sec. 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the DGAC has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined the DGAC's findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that we need to issue an AD for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States.
Therefore, we are issuing this AD to prohibit dispatch with certain equipment inoperative; and to require revising the airplane flight manual (AFM) to facilitate recovery of the cockpit display units in the event of an avionics systems communication bus (ASCB) failure and to inform the flightcrew what equipment is inoperative during an ASCB failure. This AD also requires doing an integrity check of the ASCB for any faultsand corrective action if necessary, and installing an avionics software update to the Honeywell Primus Epic system. This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under "Differences Between this AD and the Service Information" and "Differences Between this AD and the French Airworthiness Directives."
Differences Between the AD and the Service Information
Operators should note that, although the Accomplishment Instructions of the referenced service bulletins describe procedures for submitting a sheet recording compliance with the service bulletin, this AD will not require those actions. We do not need this information from operators.
The service bulletins F2000EX-58, dated January 10, 2005; and F900EX-256, dated January 10, 2005; specify that you may contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this AD requires you to repair those conditions using a method thatwe or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) (or its delegated agent) approve. In light of the type of repair that would be required to address the unsafe condition, and consistent with existing bilateral airworthiness agreements, we have determined that, for this AD, a repair we or the EASA approve would be acceptable for compliance with this AD.
Differences Between This AD and the French Airworthiness Directives
Although the French airworthiness directives specify a compliance time of 24 hours after the effective date of the French airworthiness directive for the AFM revisions, we specify a compliance time of 72 hours after the effective date of this AD. We find that this will prevent airplanes from being grounded unnecessarily without adversely affecting the safety of the airplanes.
Although the French airworthiness directives require operators to revise the Abnormal Procedures of the AFMs, this AD requires the Limitations section to be revised. The Limitations section of the AFM is the only AFM section mandated by the FAA.
Although the French airworthiness directives require revising the AFM by inserting operational limitations on landing with published go- around flight paths and on take-off in a certain runway visual range condition, we do not require that action. This decision is based on our determination that those operational limitation revisions are not necessary.
FAA's Determination of the Effective Date
An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD; therefore, providing notice and opportunity for public comment before the AD is issued is impracticable, and good cause exists to make this AD effective in less than 30 days.
Comments Invited
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements that affect flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment; however, we invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this AD. Sendyour comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES. Include "Docket No. FAA-2005-20425; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-014-AD" at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the AD in light of those comments.
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this AD. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You can review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you can visit http://dms.dot.gov.
Authority for This Rulemaking
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, "General requirements." Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
Regulatory Findings
We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect 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.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the regulation:
1. Is not a "significant regulatory action" under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a "significant rule" under the 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.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends Sec. 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):