Jump to Content

Recommendation issued to: Direction General de L'Aviation Civil

Recommendation details
Output No: R20010193
Date issued: 18 September 2001
Safety action status:
Background: Why this Recommendation was developed

Output text

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau recommends that the Direction Generale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC) assess the adequacy of the Turbomeca Arriel engine MO3 bearing lubrication installation to determine if it meets the applicable design standard requirements.

Initial response
Date issued: 15 January 2002
Response from: Direction General de L'Aviation Civil
Action status: Closed - Not Accepted
Response text:

We acknowledge receipt of the to Air Safety Recommendations R20010193 and R20010197 from the Australian Transport Safety Bureau which relate to Arriel engine failure.

These recommendations were carefully analysed and I am pleased to provide our conclusions which are the following:

R20010193: in light of the incidents related in your referenced document, DGAC determined that the Arriel 1 engine complies with the latest airworthiness requirement, i.e. JAR-E-530 "Fire" under "Notice for Proposed Amendment " NPA-E-24 and interpretative material NPA-E-37 (note: these requirements result from the harmonisation with FAR 33, but are not significantly different from current JAR-E requirements).

Appendixes attached to this letter describe DGAC's approach in more details.

ATSB response:

The DGAC response was not adequate and did not address the hazard and discrepancy with the JAR as outlined.

Further correspondence
Date issued: 28 May 2002
Response from: Direction General de L'Aviation Civil
Response status: Closed - Not Accepted
Response text:

Page 9 of reference document: R20010193 issued September 2001. DGAC response stated that Arriel 1 engine complies with the latest requirement closed to be formally released, but we also wrote that this update is not significantly different from the current JAR code (it is mostly a concern for re-writing this code to be fully harmonised with FAR requirement). So, DGAC response is not a proposal to change the applicable regulation.

ATSB response:

The DGAC response was not adequate and did not address the hazard and discrepancy with the JAR as outlined.

 
Share this page Comment
Last update 15 January 2013