(a) When an Airworthiness Directive is issued under Part 39 the holder of the type certificate for the product concerned must—
(1) If the FAA finds that design changes are necessary to correct the unsafe condition of the product, and upon his request, submit appropriate design changes for approval; and
(2) Upon approval of the design changes, make available the descriptive data covering the changes to all operators of products previously certificated under the type certificate.
(b) In a case where there are no current unsafe conditions, but the FAA or the holder of the type certificate finds through service experience that changes in type design will contribute to the safety of the product, the holder of the type certificate may submit appropriate design changes for approval. Upon approval of the changes, the manufacturer must make information on the design changes available to all operators of the same type of product.
[Doc. No. 5085, 29 FR 14567, Oct. 24, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 21-3, 30 FR 8826, July 24, 1965]
Notes of Decisions
Sikkelee ex rel. Est. Sikkelee v. Precision Airmotive Corp., 45 F. Supp. 3d 431 (M.D. Penn. 2014).
· cites it 2× “” 14 C.F.R. §§ 21.99 & 39.5 (2004). Absent an unsafe condition, if the Administrator or the type certificate holder finds “through service experience that changes in type design will contribute to the safety of the [engine], the holder of the type certificate may submit…”
Burton v. Twin Commander Aircraft LLC, 254 P.3d 778 (Wash. 2011).
“Also, as a type certificate holder Twin Commander has the obligation to submit design changes if the FAA issues an airworthiness directive that makes such changes necessary, 14 C.F.R. § 21.99 , and prepare instructions for continued airworthiness that meet FAA approval, 14 C.”
Burton v. Twin Commander Aircraft, LLC, 171 Wash. 2d 204 (Wash. 2011).
“Also, as a type certificate holder Twin Commander has the obligation to submit design changes if the FAA issues an airworthiness directive that makes such changes necessary, 14 C.F.R. § 21.99 , and prepare instructions for continued airworthiness that meet FAA approval, 14 C.”
Ferguson v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 643 P.2d 1017 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982).
“See 14 C.F.R. § 21.99 (1973). There is no requirement, *51 however, that a previously approved type design be changed in order to comply with new airworthiness regulations before an airworthiness certificate can issue.”
Farrar v. Textron Aviation, Inc. (Kan. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 3× “Turning to the misrepresentation exception, the district court found that there was no factual dispute about whether Textron had complied with 14 C.F.R. § 21.99 (2016), 14 C.F.R. § 21.”
Jones v. Goodrich Corp. (D. Conn. 2019).
“97; and • complying with any Airworthiness Directive (“AD”) issued by the FAA, including submission of design changes necessary to address the issue(s) identified in the AD, 14 C.F.R. § 21.99 . Moreover, defendants point out that plaintiffs admitted that “any subsequent changes…”
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.