14 C.F.R. § 39.3
Definition of airworthiness directives
FAA's airworthiness directives are legally enforceable rules that apply to the following products: aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, and appliances.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1975–2021 · leading case: Sikkelee Ex Rel. Est. of Sikkelee v. Precision Airmotive Corp., 822 F.3d 680 (3rd Cir. 2016).
Sikkelee Ex Rel. Est. of Sikkelee v. Precision Airmotive Corp., 822 F.3d 680 (3rd Cir. 2016). “11 ; see also 14 C.F.R. §§ 39.3 , 39.5. Any further operation of an aircraft in contravention of an airworthiness directive is a violation of federal law.”
Gatx/airlog Co. Gatx Capital Corp. Airlog Mgmt. Corp. Frederick L. Hatton & Sanford P. Burnstein v. United States, 286 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2002). “§ 44713 (a) (1994); 14 C.F.R. § 39.3 (2000). *1172 B. The FAA’s issuance of the STCs and an Airworthiness Directive Airlog is in the business of converting passenger airplanes into cargo freighters.”
Virginia J. Barry Melville v. Am. Home Assurance Co., 584 F.2d 1306 (3rd Cir. 1978). “14 C.F.R. § 39.3 . Although it is generally the rule that “reports of other accidents” are ex-cludable on the issue of causation when similar circumstances are not proved, Prashker v.”
Robinson v. Hartzell Propeller Inc., 326 F. Supp. 2d 631 (E.D. Pa. 2004). “” 14 C.F.R. § 39.3 5 . Plaintiffs claim Hartzell has not responded to their request for documents concerning Hartzell's DOA, including the initial application for DOA submitted to the FAA.”
Zephyr Aviation, L.L.C., Zephyr Aviation, L.L.C. v. Robert Alan Dailey, Also Known as Bob Dailey Kenneth Wayne Clary, Also Known as Ken Clary, 247 F.3d 565 (5th Cir. 2001). “See 14 C.F.R. § 39.3 (2000) (“No person may operate a product to which an airworthiness directive applies except in accordance with the requirements of that airworthiness directive.”
John Rauch v. United Instruments, Inc. & Tokyo Aircraft Instrument Co., 548 F.2d 452 (3rd Cir. 1976). “14 C.F.R. § 39.1 . The regulations further provide that “No person may operate a product to which an airworthiness directive applies except in accordance with the requirements of that airworthiness directive.”
Crane Helicopter Servs., Inc. v. United States, 45 Fed. Cl. 410 (Fed. Cl. 1999). “(citing 14 C.F.R. § 39.3 ). . Although the defendant raised in its fraud counterclaim a theory of common law fraud, defendant did not further address, and, thus, abandoned the concept at trial.”
Gatx/airlog Co., Gatx Capital Corp., Airlog Mgmt. Corp., Frederick L. Hattonand Sanford P. Burnstein v. United States, 234 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir. 2000). “§ 44713 (a) (1994); 14 C.F.R. § 39.3 (2000). B. The FAA’s issuance of the STCs and an Airworthiness Directive Airlog is in the business of converting passenger airplanes into cargo freighters.”
Commander Props., Inc. v. Fed. Aviation Admin., Beech Aircraft Corp. & Raytheon Co., Intervenors, 11 F.3d 204 (D.C. Cir. 1994). “See 14 C.F.R. § 39.3 . These were the only questions before the FAA and these were the only questions the agency decided.”
Robinson v. Hartzell Propeller, Inc., 454 F.3d 163 (3rd Cir. 2006). “See 14 C.F.R. § 39.3 . The FAA issues an AD if two requirements are satisfied: (1) an unsafe condition exists in the product, and (2) the condition is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.”
Fisher v. Bell Helicopter Co., 403 F. Supp. 1165 (D.D.C. 1975). “See also 14 C.F.R. § 39.3 (1975). An adequate examination of Saguaro’s parts list would have shown that the engine was not in compliance as to the bearings.”
In re Crash of Aircraft N93PC on July 7, 2013, at Soldotna, Alaska (D. Alaska 2020). “” 14 C.F.R. §§ 39.3 ; 39.13. “Laws are not hearsay, because they are not assertions of anything.”
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.