AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE

The manuf dourer recommended further that the amendment to the airworthiness directive be legal as soon as possible. The executive director of the FAA accepted the manufacturer's recommendations, and issued Amendment 396831 on 3 December 1990 with an effective date of 26 December 1990.

Assessing Amendment 396831 within a public policy perspective requires the addressing of nine separate issues. These issues argon (1) authority to act, (2) applicability of the enigma area to Airworthiness Directive 14 CFR, Part 39, (3) determination of need, (4) applicability to multiple aircraft, (5) federalism assessment, (6) bypassing established procedures with celebrate to the effective date of the Amendment, (7) bypassing established procedures with respect to assessment of the Amendment, (8) meekness time, and compliance procedure.

Authority for the Administrator of the FAA to issue directives of compliance related to air merchant vessels safety is provided by Secs. 601 and 603, 72 Stat. 775, 776; 49 U.S.C. 1421, 1423. An FAA review of the reported problem frame that air transportation safety would be compromised in the absence of corrective bodily process related to the identified problem.

It is clear that the FAA possessed the authority to act in this situation. To have not acted would have constituted a breech of responsibility on the part of the Administrator of the FAA. In the context of authority, the FAA acted properly in this matt

Where possible and feasible, federal departments and agencies permit affected parties some ingenuity in the manner of compliance with directives.

In the case of the problems associated with the aural and overlord systems of the discount detection system on feign 747four hundred Series Airplanes, Amendment 396831 stated that operators of such aircraft could damp alternative means of compliance, and could request FAA approval of such alternative means.

The determination of the need for the FAA to act with respect to the identified problem area was made within the context of latent outcomes in the event that the problem was left uncorrected. The FAA found first that fire could occur undetected by the air crew in the airplane's auxiliary power unit, engines, wheel well, or cargo compartment. Second, the FAA found that the occurrence of such an undetected fire would pose a threat to flight safety. Based upon these two findings, the FAA determine that a need to act existed with respect to the identified problem area.

The potential for disastrous outcomes stemming from a failure to correct the problems associated with the aural and master systems of the fire detection system on Model 747400 Series Airplanes justified the action by the FAA in bypassing the notice procedures. For the FAA to have acted otherwise would have been imprudent.

Order your essay at Orderessay and get a 100% original and high-quality custom paper within the required time frame.