General Electric Company CF6-80C2D1F Turbo Fan Engine

Comment on Docket No. FAA-2005-22055; Directorate Identifier 2005-NE-31-AD RIN 2120-AA64 This proposed actions requires modification of certain thrust reverser components and replacement of others. In our review of the action we find two items that are potential problems. 1. The action appears to be based upon and requires reliance upon several service documents issued by General Electric and its subsidiaries. Service information documents are proprietary items that enjoy copyright protection meaning they may not be duplicated or distributed without the copyright holder's permission. When service documents are incorporated by reference into a public document, such as an airworthiness directive, they lose their protected status and become themselves public documents that can be freely copied, distributed and used without requiring anyone's permission. The copyright holder's constructive knowledge and silence with respect to such inclusion by reference constitutes permission for such usage. When a document is included by reference then a copy of it must be submitted to the Office of the Federal Register before the including document is eligible for publication. Any document that makes imperative reference to a service document without including it by reference effectively circumvents the Federal Register requirement and fosters a situation where the copyright owner may demand exorbitant fees for copies and use of such documents. This proposed action contains the statement: Use the Accomplishment Instructions of Middle River Aircraft Systems (MRAS) service bulletins (SBs) CF6-80C2 S/B 78-1068, Revision 2, or CF6-80C2 S/B 78-1077, Revision 1, both dated May 16, 2005 to modify the latch assembly. In other words, is it impossible to accomplish the mandated actions without having access to private, copyrighted information. Because we believe it untenable to construct public laws and actions having the force and effect of laws that require adherence to private and generally unavailable documents, we request that all service documents cited in the proposed action be either included by reference or appended to the action and published concurrently. 2. Paragraph (g) of the proposed action requires replacement of certain parts with other parts of "new and improved" design. The parts deemed to be not airworthy are identified by name only without reference to part number. We believe such designation to be insufficiently precise to accomplish the purpose of the action. The U.S. and foreign aircraft fleets contain hundreds of thousands of parts approved under 14 CFR § 21.303 (PMA). You will never find any of these parts addressed in any service document issued by a type certificate holder or manufacturer of original equipment parts because there is a compelling commercial reason not to do so. Strict adherence and reliance upon such documents can therefore create a legislative loophole where defective PMA parts essentially identical to those mandated to be removed from service can remain in service since the service document ignores them. We believe the FAA's responsibility of oversight to reach further than simple reliance upon type certificate holder's myopic and often self serving service documents. There also exists the possibility that components already incorporating the "new and improved" design elements may already exist as approved PMA parts that could safely be used to accomplish the purpose of the proposed airworthiness directive. Failure to consider such parts existence and use can squarely conflict with 21.303 rendering the efficacy and enforceability of the airworthiness directive requirements legally questionable. We also note that frequently AD writers consider the use of PMA parts as an Alternative Method of Compliance (AMOC). PMA parts are approved by the FAA for installation and use under 14 CFR 21.303. Requiring designation as an AMOC of a PMA part effectively invalidates the CFR. We believe such action t…