FAA/ EASA Briefing Koito Seat ADs 1 Federal Aviation European - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
faa easa briefing
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

FAA/ EASA Briefing Koito Seat ADs 1 Federal Aviation European - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Mar 05, 2024 137 likes •584 views

Federal Aviation European Aviation Administration Safety Agency FAA/ EASA Briefing Koito Seat ADs 1 Federal Aviation European Aviation Administration Safety Agency Agenda 09: 30 Introductions/ logistics 09: 45 Background and

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Federal Aviation Administration

European Aviation Safety Agency

1

FAA/ EASA Briefing

Koito Seat ADs

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Federal Aviation Administration

European Aviation Safety Agency

2

Agenda

  • 09: 30 Introductions/ logistics
  • 09: 45 Background and Summary
  • NPRM/ PAD
  • Cologne/ Singapore Meetings
  • 10: 00 FAA/ EASA activities since Oct. Industry meetings
  • 10: 30 Differences between the proposals and the final ADs
  • 11: 00 Break
  • 11: 15 Provision by provision explanation of

requirements/ ramifications

  • EASA/ FAA AD differences and ramifications
  • Compliance data
  • 12: 00 Discussion of seat grouping
  • 12: 30 Koito Presentation
  • Q & A.
slide-3
SLIDE 3

Federal Aviation Administration

European Aviation Safety Agency

3

Background/ Summary

  • Background
  • Towards the end of 2009, EASA/ FAA became

aware of allegations that the Koito seat company had been falsifying Certification test results, and had not controlled production conformity, for an appreciable period.

  • TC holders (Airbus, Boeing) and JCAB

progressively added confirmation to these allegations 1stQ. 2010.

  • Initiatives started by TC holders and EASA/ FAA

to determine scale of the issue.

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Federal Aviation Administration

European Aviation Safety Agency

4

Background/ Summary

  • It became clear that unsafe conditions

existed and thus mandatory action was needed.

  • EASA and FAA coordinated on an AD

framework.

  • Regulatory system differences however,

prevented 100% alignment.

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Federal Aviation Administration

European Aviation Safety Agency

5

Background/ Summary

  • FAA NPRM published on 24 Sept 2010
  • EASA PAD published on 22 Sept 2010
  • Industry briefing sessions held
  • October 14, Cologne
  • October 21, Singapore
slide-6
SLIDE 6

Federal Aviation Administration

European Aviation Safety Agency

6

Industry Meetings

  • Based on the unusual circumstances

surrounding the proposed ADs, EASA and FAA took the unusual step of holding industry meetings during the comment period

  • Meetings primarily listening sessions for

EASA/ FAA, but also chance to explain proposals further

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Federal Aviation Administration

European Aviation Safety Agency

7

Industry Meetings

  • Approximately 150 people attended the

two industry meetings

  • Numerous concerns and issues were

raised

  • EASA and FAA took all these comments

into account when finalizing the ADs

  • In particular the time between publication

and effective date addressed several of the stated concerns

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Federal Aviation Administration

European Aviation Safety Agency

8

FAA/ EASA activities since October 2010 Industry meetings

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Federal Aviation Administration

European Aviation Safety Agency

9

Actions Since the Industry Meetings

  • EASA/ FAA reviewed JCAB/ Koito confidence

testing of selected seat models.

  • EASA/ FAA reviewed JCAB/ Koito reports on

tear-down inspection conducted on in- service seats.

  • EASA, FAA, JCAB, Airbus, Boeing met at

Koito to review confidence testing conducted by Koito under JCAB oversight.

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Federal Aviation Administration

European Aviation Safety Agency

10

Actions Since the Industry Meetings

  • Airbus and Boeing refined criteria to

establish seat clusters and carry out assessments that are acceptable to EASA/ FAA.

  • FAA intends to publish information on

Boeing clusters, in a Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin.

  • EASA intends to publish information on

Airbus/ Boeing clusters in a Safety Information Bulletin.

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Federal Aviation Administration

European Aviation Safety Agency

11

Comments on the Proposals

  • Thirty + commenters
  • More than 150 comments
  • Comments covered wide range of issues
slide-12
SLIDE 12

Federal Aviation Administration

European Aviation Safety Agency

12

Comments on the Proposals

  • Common Themes
  • Withdraw AD
  • Extend comment period
  • Lengthen compliance times
  • Accept all Koito confidence tests
  • All comments reviewed; substantive

comments addressed in the final FAA AD.

  • EASA comment/ response document

addressed every comment.

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Federal Aviation Administration

European Aviation Safety Agency

13

Differences between the proposals and the final ADs

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Federal Aviation Administration

European Aviation Safety Agency

14

Differences Proposals & Final ADs

  • Sharp Edges
  • Deleted requirement to show that original

certification testing did not exhibit sharp edges.

  • Added Pass Fail structural testing criterion.

– “The generation of sharp edges or injurious surfaces during the structural testing performed to comply with this AD may also be considered failure criteria.” – That is, if sharp edges are generated during static testing seats must be removed within two years. If sharp edges are generated during dynamic testing, but static testing is then successfully performed, seats may remain in service for six years

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Federal Aviation Administration

European Aviation Safety Agency

15

Differences Proposals & Final ADs

  • Allowance of new test articles 25.561

compliance

  • Static testing can be conducted on new build

test articles, without the need to assess the conformity of the in-service fleet with the approved design. This position is based on the negligible effect on the static test results of potential non-conformities of Koito seats.

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Federal Aviation Administration

European Aviation Safety Agency

16

Differences Proposals & Final ADs

  • Conformity of in-service seats used for

testing

  • Confirm aspects of in-service seats, when in-

service seats are tested.

– matching part number to test plan – noting general condition – revisions/ modification – date of manufacture.

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Federal Aviation Administration

European Aviation Safety Agency

17

Differences Proposals & Final ADs

  • Allowance of new test articles 25.562

compliance

  • FAA AD: conformity of in-service seats to new

build seats to use for dynamic test.

  • EASA has the same position as the FAA,

although the EASA AD does not explicitly mention this option. The use of new-built test articles will be allowed, provided that conformity of the in-service seats to the approved design can be demonstrated.

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Federal Aviation Administration

European Aviation Safety Agency

18

Differences Proposals & Final ADs

  • Added Clarification and Guidance through

Notes:

  • Clarification of certification basis of TSO

determines level of AD test. (FAA AD)

  • Clarification of the relevant aircraft certification
  • basis. (EASA AD)
  • Koito interface load reports may be acceptable

for the determination of compliance required by the AD.

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Federal Aviation Administration

European Aviation Safety Agency

19

Differences Proposals & Final ADs

  • Added Clarification and Guidance through

Notes:

  • FAA NPRM rule did not address non-TSO, TSO-

C39, TSO-C39a and TSO-C127 seats. Intend to supersede this AD to capture all seats produced by Koito Industries, Ltd.

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Federal Aviation Administration

European Aviation Safety Agency

20

Differences Proposals & Final ADs

  • Allow certain cabin reconfigurations.
  • Re-arrangement of the existing installed seats

is acceptable following the same installation instructions and limitations as the original

  • certification. (e.g., if the original seat

installation limitations allowed 32” to 34” pitch, the new layout shall be pitched within that range).

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Federal Aviation Administration

European Aviation Safety Agency

21

Differences Proposals & Final ADs

  • 25.853(c) testing of seat cushions
  • Limited to seat bottom cushion and seat back

cushion, i.e., not headrests, footrests etc.

  • Allow the use of new build samples for oil

burner test, provided that it is shown that the in-service cushions consist of foams/ covers which were supplied to Koito and marked by a different production organisation approved by EASA and/ or FAA.

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Federal Aviation Administration

European Aviation Safety Agency

22

Differences Proposals & Final ADs

  • 25.853(c) testing of seat cushions
  • Test reports issued by any qualified design
  • rganization acceptable to the Agency,

including Koito under JCAB supervision, except,

  • Tests performed in the Koito seat cushion oil

burner test facility after 23rd May 2011 may also be acceptable.

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Federal Aviation Administration

European Aviation Safety Agency

23

Differences Proposals & Final ADs

  • Seat cushion replacement
  • FAA removed restrictive AC 25.562-1B

requirement for TSO-C39 seats.

  • Compliance to 25.562(c)(2) not required for

TSO-C127 cushions.

– TSO-C127 seat and cushion placarded to show that seat cushion/ seating system may not comply to 25.562(c)(2).

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Federal Aviation Administration

European Aviation Safety Agency

24

Differences Proposals & Final ADs

  • Seat cushion replacement
  • EASA removed requirement to install

replacement cushions having SRP location consistent with the original cushions for seats installed on aeroplanes required to meet CS/ JAR/ FAR 25.562.

– replacement cushions must have consistent seat bottom geometry, stiffness and density (measured according to accepted industry standards) as compared with the cushions they replace. – Compliance to 25.562(c)(2) is not required

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Federal Aviation Administration

European Aviation Safety Agency

25

Differences Proposals & Final ADs

  • Spare seats/ components
  • FAA - New seats with same part number may

be installed to replace in-service seats removed for testing.

  • EASA - “New seats/ components and

seats/ components removed from service may be installed as direct spares for the same part number seats or components.”

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Federal Aviation Administration

European Aviation Safety Agency

26

Differences Proposals & Final ADs

  • Compliance Times
  • FAA NPRM compliance time intent of 2, 3, 6

years was ambiguous due to wording on the lead-in paragraph. AD written to remove any ambiguity regarding the phased 2, 3, 6 year compliance from effective date of rule.

slide-27
SLIDE 27

Federal Aviation Administration

European Aviation Safety Agency

27

Provision by provision explanation of requirements/ ramifications

AD comparison

slide-28
SLIDE 28

Federal Aviation Administration

European Aviation Safety Agency

28

Showing of AD Compliance

  • EASA/ FAA intend to issue a SIB/ SAIB to

deliver information on seat clustering.

  • SIB/ SAIB has no legal status, i.e. does not

compel any action, but would support a means to show compliance with the requirements of the AD.

  • The SIB/ SAIB will be revised if test results

are made available, and if clusters are refined further.

slide-29
SLIDE 29

Federal Aviation Administration

European Aviation Safety Agency

29

Showing of AD Compliance

  • Each Koito seats will have to be covered

by an (A)MOC in order to be allowed to remain in service more than 2 years.

  • Any entity (TC holders, Koito Industries,

airlines, other) can apply for an AMOC.

  • The (A)MOC can cover static and/ or

dynamic strength requirements of the AD.

slide-30
SLIDE 30

Federal Aviation Administration

European Aviation Safety Agency

30

Showing of AD Compliance

  • The (A)MOC will be approved according

to the following procedure:

  • 1. An application is submitted to EASA/ FAA
  • 2. A test plan is submitted to EASA/ FAA
  • 3. The test plan is approved by EASA/ FAA
  • 4. Test results are submitted to EASA/ FAA
  • 5. The appropriate correction time is

determined.

  • 6. The (A)MOC is approved.
slide-31
SLIDE 31

Federal Aviation Administration

European Aviation Safety Agency

31

Showing of AD Compliance

  • The content of the SIB/ SAIB can be

referenced to skip steps 2, 3 and 4 if compliance is shown by similarity in accordance with agreed groupings.

  • All approved (A)MOCs will specify the

action to be performed in order to comply with the AD, i.e. list of seat part numbers to be removed within the correction time.

slide-32
SLIDE 32

Federal Aviation Administration

European Aviation Safety Agency

32

Showing of AD Compliance

  • The following actions will have to be

taken in order to allow seat cushions installed on Koito seats to remain in service more than 3 years:

  • 1. A test plan is submitted to EASA/ FAA
  • 2. The test plan is approved by EASA/ FAA
  • 3. Test results are submitted to EASA/ FAA
  • 4. A letter is issued by EASA/ FAA
slide-33
SLIDE 33

Federal Aviation Administration

European Aviation Safety Agency

33

Steps to Comply

  • Before 2 years: determine whether seat

meets 25.561

  • Directly through static test (in-service or new

production seat)

  • Indirectly through dynamic test
  • By similarity to critical seat in the cluster
slide-34
SLIDE 34

Federal Aviation Administration

European Aviation Safety Agency

34

Steps to Comply

  • Before 3 years: determine whether seat

back/ bottom cushion meet 25.853(c)

  • Directly through tests using actual in service

materials

  • Directly through tests using new build

samples, provided that it is shown that the in- service cushions consist of foams/ covers supplied by production organisation approved by EASA and/ or FAA.

  • By substituting a different complying

bottom/ back cushion pair

slide-35
SLIDE 35

Federal Aviation Administration

European Aviation Safety Agency

35

Steps to Comply

  • Before 6 years: determine whether seat

meets 25.562(b)(2)/ (c)(7)

  • Directly through dynamic test
  • By similarity to critical seat in the cluster
  • EASA ONLY, Before 10 years: full re-

certification of the seats

slide-36
SLIDE 36

Federal Aviation Administration

European Aviation Safety Agency

36

Detailed Test Issues

  • Acceptable 25.561 compliance method

– Successful dynamic testing conducted on new build test articles – Unsuccessful dynamic testing conducted on new build test articles or in-service seats,

– Failure cannot be in the seat – Failure must occur after the seat has demonstrated substantive load carrying capability

slide-37
SLIDE 37

Federal Aviation Administration

European Aviation Safety Agency

37

Detailed Test Issues

  • 25.562 compliance test failure

– Seat to be removed from service within 6 years – Compliance with 25.561 within 2 years still required – Data may be usable for 25.561 under limited conditions (see previous slide)

  • 25.853(c) compliance failure

– Redesign of seat cushion acceptable without total requalification of seat

slide-38
SLIDE 38

Federal Aviation Administration

European Aviation Safety Agency

38

Seat Clusters (Groupings)

slide-39
SLIDE 39

Federal Aviation Administration

European Aviation Safety Agency

39

Seat Clusters

  • Koito had defined 17 unique seat clusters

representing 150+ seat models

  • EASA/ FAA determined that these clusters

did not constitute seat Families as defined in AC 25.562-1B

  • Airbus and Boeing reviewed design data to

develop refined seat clusters that are acceptable to EASA/ FAA

slide-40
SLIDE 40

Federal Aviation Administration

European Aviation Safety Agency

40

Seat Clusters

  • Example
  • 1 cluster 7 plus “families” 
  • 15 seat models dozens of p/ n, both TSO-C39

and TSO-C127 (or equivalent)

  • 10 to 14 critical seats to test
  • Industry encouraged to work together to

pool resources and work together to find compliance to the AD.

  • FAA/ EASA intend to publish results of

cluster exercise, possibly in a SAIB/ SIB

slide-41
SLIDE 41

Federal Aviation Administration

European Aviation Safety Agency

41

Example Seat Cluster

Seat Model No. Seat TSO Aircraft Model identified seat part number for test ARS-674 - Std Row TSO-C127a 777-200/-300ER Similarity to ARS-710 - Std Row ARS-710 - Std Row TSO-C127a 747-400/777-300 83269B15257-403 ARS-815 TSO-C127a 777-200 Similarity to ARS-710 - Std Row Y21B73 TSO-C127a 777-300ER Similarity to ARS-710 - Std Row

slide-42
SLIDE 42

Federal Aviation Administration

European Aviation Safety Agency

42

Koito Presentation

slide-43
SLIDE 43

Federal Aviation Administration

European Aviation Safety Agency

43

Q&A