Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
Safety Recommendation Details

Safety Recommendation A-09-045
Synopsis: On June 28, 2008, about 2215 Pacific daylight time, an ABX Air Boeing 767-200, N799AX, operating as flight 1611 from San Francisco International Airport (SFO), San Francisco, California, experienced a ground fire before engine startup. The captain and the first officer evacuated the airplane through the cockpit windows and were not injured, and the airplane was substantially damaged. The cargo flight was operating under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 121. At the time of the fire, the airplane was parked near a loading facility, all of the cargo to be transported on the flight had been loaded, and the doors had been shut.
Recommendation: TO THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION: Formalize the airworthiness directive process so that, when an aircraft manufacturer or other source identifies an airworthiness issue with an appliance, coordination with the appliance manufacturer occurs to ensure that the possible safety risks to all products using the appliance are evaluated and addressed.
Original recommendation transmittal letter: PDF
Overall Status: Closed - Acceptable Action
Mode: Aviation
Location: San Francisco, CA, United States
Is Reiterated: No
Is Hazmat: No
Accident #: DCA08MA076
Accident Reports: Ground Fire Aboard Cargo Airplane, ABX Air Flight 1611, Boeing 767-200, N799AX
Report #: AAR-09-04
Accident Date: 6/28/2008
Issue Date: 7/8/2009
Date Closed: 7/9/2010
Addressee(s) and Addressee Status: FAA (Closed - Acceptable Action)

Safety Recommendation History
From: NTSB
Date: 7/9/2010
Response: The NTSB is pleased that the new process outlined in FAA Order 8110.107, "Monitor Safety/Analysis Data," calls for coordination between the assigned aviation safety engineer and the appliance manufacturer each time an appliance-related airworthiness issue is identified. The FAA also indicated that guidance contained in Airworthiness Directive (AD) Manual FAA-IR-M-8040.1C helps identify when it is appropriate to draft an AD against an appliance versus the aircraft/engine/propeller make and model. The FAA's revisions to formalize the AD process address the intent of this recommendation. Accordingly, Safety Recommendation A-09-45 is classified CLOSED – ACCEPTABLE ACTION.

From: FAA
Date: 5/25/2010
Response: Letter Mail Controlled 6/3/2010 9:24:44 AM MC# 2100185 - From J. Randolph Babbitt, Administrator: The Federal Aviation Administration agrees with this recommendation and developed a new process to filter, review, analyze, and trend aviation safety data for in-service aircraft fleets, and identify corrective actions to mitigate safety risks across the fleet. FAA Order 8 1 10.107, Monitor Safety/Analyze Data (enclosed), was issued on March 12,2010. Under this process, if a safety issue is associated with an appliance, technical standard order article or standard part, the assigned aviation safety engineer must contact the manufacturer for available information to determine product applicability since the safety issue could be associated with multiple product types. To further help address this issue, additional guidance was placed in the Airworthiness Directive (AD) Manual, FAA-IR-M-8040.1 C, regarding when to write the AD against an appliance versus the aircraft/engine/propeller make and model. A safety concern related to an appliance should only be written as an aircraft/engine/propeller AD when the unsafe condition results solely from the installation of the appliance in the aircraft/engine/propeller. Otherwise the AD must be written against the appliance design approval holder.

From: FAA
Date: 9/23/2009
Response: Letter Mail Controlled 10/5/2009 12:30:33 PM MC# 2090617 - From J. Randolph Babbitt, Administrator: To comprehensively address this safety recommendation, the FAA is conducting an internal review of how supplier parts to a design approval holder are managed when an airworthiness directive becomes necessary. Following this review we will develop a plan to address how other affected product types may be evaluated for the same safety risk.