Some years ago I found this file from EASA pages – no idea, where there.. but it gives pretty good info about AD problems.
Hopefully loading works and you get it open.
5th_AD_Workshop_Q_A_pdf
State-of-design AD’s have been applicable on EASA aircraft since 2003. There have been few exceptions (a single one that I was involved with on lavatory requirements on pax aircraft ) and they must be explicitly rejected by EASA (not adopted in EASA parlance).
Antonio wrote:
There have been few exceptions (a single one that I was involved with on lavatory requirements on pax aircraft ) and they must be explicitly rejected by EASA (not adopted in EASA parlance).
What was that AD about? A search on the FAA database shows no ADs with effective date 2011-04-09.
Airborne_Again wrote:
What was that AD about?
Lavatory O2 generator deactivation. Safety concerns were quoted but in reality it was more of a security concern in the post-Sept 11th hysteria.
The point, however was just to illustrate what to expect when a “non-EASA-state-of-design” AD is “rejected” or “not adopted” by EASA.
Antonio wrote:
The point, however was just to illustrate what to expect when a “non-EASA-state-of-design” AD is “rejected” or “not adopted” by EASA.
I recall an AD made by Piper or Cessna in the 1990s which the Swedish CAA decided not to adopt. As they put it, the AD reflected legal issues in the US rather than flight safety issues.
I’ve had roughly five ADs and service bulletins in 14 years issued by the European TC holder of my plane that have had no impact on me on the FAA type certificate. For example one SB saying that my seat belts must be changed to another type because the original manufacturer had gone out of business and could no longer repair them. That was recognized as irrelevant on N-register because there are several FAA certified repair stations that can reweb seat belts and inspect the latches – mine were already done in the US once before. Also the seat belts have no regulated life limit under FAA regs and are repaired when necessary on condition. Plus manufacturer SBs are not mandatory in any case on N-register and the FAA TC, only FAA issued ADs issued by the one government agency with which the plane is actually certified and registered, and which therefore has proper legal authority.
On the flip side, I have bought a number of European sourced parts for the plane that have come from a commercial company with an EASA Form 1, but which were very clearly not made by the OEM and for which no PMA documentation or similar is supplied. I’ve been happy to get the parts, there’s been nothing wrong with them per my inspection and that of my A&P, but I think the Form 1s were a product of wishful thinking versus a rigorous government process (e.g. PMA approval with associated government oversight) to supply certified aircraft parts. Both the regulatory framework for the Form 1 and the requirement to have it for legal installation of the part appear to be a nonsense process.
I see this as the result of lazy government agencies in Europe that are pathologically focused on invasive nonsense like micromanaging your medical status, but which meanwhile delegate an important and intrinsically governmental function (managing ADs, parts manufacturing and airworthiness of nationally registered certified aircraft) to profit making commercial organizations or (worse) to foreign governments that can thereby impose foreign law on the owners.
