C.F.R. » Title 14 » CHAPTER I—FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION › SUBCHAPTER C—AIRCRAFT › PART 21—CERTIFICATION PROCEDURES FOR PRODUCTS AND ARTICLES › Subpart A—General

14 C.F.R. § 21.3

Reporting of failures, malfunctions, and defects

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) The holder of a type certificate (including amended or supplemental type certificates), a PMA, or a TSO authorization, or the licensee of a type certificate must report any failure, malfunction, or defect in any product or article manufactured by it that it determines has resulted in any of the occurrences listed in paragraph (c) of this section.

(b) The holder of a type certificate (including amended or supplemental type certificates), a PMA, or a TSO authorization, or the licensee of a type certificate must report any defect in any product or article manufactured by it that has left its quality system and that it determines could result in any of the occurrences listed in paragraph (c) of this section.

(c) The following occurrences must be reported as provided in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section:

(1) Fires caused by a system or equipment failure, malfunction, or defect.

(2) An engine exhaust system failure, malfunction, or defect which causes damage to the engine, adjacent aircraft structure, equipment, or components.

(3) The accumulation or circulation of toxic or noxious gases in the crew compartment or passenger cabin.

(4) A malfunction, failure, or defect of a propeller control system.

(5) A propeller or rotorcraft hub or blade structural failure.

(6) Flammable fluid leakage in areas where an ignition source normally exists.

(7) A brake system failure caused by structural or material failure during operation.

(8) A significant aircraft primary structural defect or failure caused by any autogenous condition (fatigue, understrength, corrosion, etc.).

(9) Any abnormal vibration or buffeting caused by a structural or system malfunction, defect, or failure.

(10) An engine failure.

(11) Any structural or flight control system malfunction, defect, or failure which causes an interference with normal control of the aircraft for which derogates the flying qualities.

(12) A complete loss of more than one electrical power generating system or hydraulic power system during a given operation of the aircraft.

(13) A failure or malfunction of more than one attitude, airspeed, or altitude instrument during a given operation of the aircraft.

(d) The requirements of paragraph (a) of this section do not apply to—

(1) Failures, malfunctions, or defects that the holder of a type certificate (including amended or supplemental type certificates), PMA, TSO authorization, or the licensee of a type certificate determines—

(i) Were caused by improper maintenance or use;

(ii) Were reported to the FAA by another person under this chapter; or

(iii) Were reported under the accident reporting provisions of 49 CFR part 830 of the regulations of the National Transportation Safety Board.

(2) Failures, malfunctions, or defects in products or articles—

(i) Manufactured by a foreign manufacturer under a U.S. type certificate issued under § 21.29 or under an approval issued under § 21.621; or

(ii) Exported to the United States under § 21.502.

(e) Each report required by this section—

(1) Must be made to the FAA within 24 hours after it has determined that the failure, malfunction, or defect required to be reported has occurred. However, a report that is due on a Saturday or a Sunday may be delivered on the following Monday and one that is due on a holiday may be delivered on the next workday;

(2) Must be transmitted in a manner and form acceptable to the FAA and by the most expeditious method available; and

(3) Must include as much of the following information as is available and applicable:

(i) The applicable product and article identification information required by part 45 of this chapter;

(ii) Identification of the system involved; and

(iii) Nature of the failure, malfunction, or defect.

(f) If an accident investigation or service difficulty report shows that a product or article manufactured under this part is unsafe because of a manufacturing or design data defect, the holder of the production approval for that product or article must, upon request of the FAA, report to the FAA the results of its investigation and any action taken or proposed by the holder of that production approval to correct that defect. If action is required to correct the defect in an existing product or article, the holder of that production approval must send the data necessary for issuing an appropriate airworthiness directive to the FAA.

[Amdt. 21-36, 35 FR 18187, Nov. 28, 1970, as amended by Amdt. 21-37, 35 FR 18450, Dec. 4, 1970; Amdt. 21-50, 45 FR 38346, June 9, 1980; Amdt. 21-67, 54 FR 39291, Sept. 25, 1989; Amdt. 21-92, 74 FR 53385, Oct. 16, 2009; Doc. No. FAA-2018-0119, Amdt. 21-101, 83 FR 9169, Mar. 5, 2018]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 35 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1975–2024 · leading case: Burton v. Twin Commander Aircraft LLC, 254 P.3d 778 (Wash. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Burton v. Twin Commander Aircraft LLC, 254 P.3d 778 (Wash. 2011). · cites it 25× “14 C.F.R. § 21.3 ; see 14 C.F.R. § 21.7 .”
Burton v. Twin Commander Aircraft, LLC, 171 Wash. 2d 204 (Wash. 2011). · cites it 25× “14 C.F.R. § 21.3 ; see 14 C.F.R. § 21.7 .”
Jill Sikkelee v. Precision Airmotive Corp, 907 F.3d 701 (3rd Cir. 2018). · cites it 7× “The Court also revisited an earlier ruling and granted summary judgment in favor of Lycoming on Sikkelee's claim that Lycoming violated 14 C.F.R. § 21.3 because it failed to notify the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") of the alleged defect.”
Robinson v. Hartzell Propeller Inc., 326 F. Supp. 2d 631 (E.D. Pa. 2004). · cites it 8× “0 of the manual mandates that the reporting of failures, malfunctions, and defects be consistent with 14 C.F.R. § 21.3 . Id. at 16. According to plaintiffs, “[tjhrough its DOA, Hartzell certified the accident propeller/IO-360-AlA engine combination and intentionally…”
Laugelle v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., 88 A.3d 110 (Del. Super. Ct. 2014). · cites it 9× “In support Plaintiffs argue that 14 C.F.R. § 21.3 , which defines the responsibilities of a type-certificate holder, creates a duty to warn of potential product dangers.”
Sikkelee ex rel. Est. Sikkelee v. Precision Airmotive Corp., 45 F. Supp. 3d 431 (M.D. Penn. 2014). · cites it 9× “” 14 C.F.R. § 21.3 (a) (2004). If the item left the holder’s quality control system, the holder must report any defect “that it determines could result in any of [various] occurrences,” again including “engine failure.”
Sikkelee Ex Rel. Est. of Sikkelee v. Precision Airmotive Corp., 822 F.3d 680 (3rd Cir. 2016). · cites it 2× “The District Court denied summary judgment, however, on Sikkelee’s failure to warn claims, which were premised on Lycoming’s alleged violation of 14 C.F.R. § 21.3 for failure to “ ‘report any failure, malfunction, or defect in any product, part, process, or article’ ” that…”
Butler v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., 2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5158 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 4× “” ( 14 C.F.R. § 21.3 (a) (2003).) Paragraph (c) lists a “rotorcraft hub or blade structural failure” ( 14 C.”
Hetzer-Young v. Precision Airmotive Corp., 921 N.E.2d 683 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 5× “The Robinson court rejected the defendant’s reliance on Rickert and found that “[although this Court agrees that 14 C.F.R. § 21.3 does not require a manufacturer to report ‘all differences of opinion,’ this regulation requires a type certificate holder to report failures,…”
Burton v. Twin Commander Aircraft, LLC, 221 P.3d 290 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 5× “2d 762 (quoting 14 C.F.R. § 21.3 (a)). ¶ 45 In Robinson , the plaintiffs alleged that the manufacturer, Hartzell, concealed a design defect in a propeller and misrepresented the cause of the crash.”
Burton v. Twin Commander Aircraft, LLC, 148 Wash. App. 606 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 3× “4th at 1083 (quoting 14 C.F.R. § 21.3 (a)). ¶45 In Robinson , the plaintiffs alleged that the manufacturer, Hartzell, concealed a design defect in a propeller and misrepresented the cause of the crash.”
Stewart v. Precision Airmotive, LLC, 7 A.3d 266 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2010). · cites it 2× “In its fourth issue, Precision *276 questions the extent of its reporting obligations under 14 C.F.R. § 21.3 . In its fifth issue, Precision questions whether evidence produced by Appellees is “required information” under the GAEA fraud exception.”
Show all 35 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.