# AD 99-05-13 R1 WD: Withdrawal of AD 99-05-13

- Type: Airworthiness directive
- Status: Current
- Products: Beech B17B, B17L, B17R (Army UC-43H), C17B (Army UC-43G), C17L (Army UC-43J), C17R (Army UC-43E), SB17L, SC17B, SC17L, SC17R, 19A, 23 and 98 more
- Effective: July 5, 2000
- Issued: July 5, 2000
- Supersedes: [AD 99-05-13](https://openairdocs.org/ad/99-05-13)
- Superseded by: Nothing supersedes this AD
- Product type: Aircraft, Small airplane
- Amendment: 39-11061
- Docket: 98-CE-61-AD
- Registered aircraft: 13,521 may be affected, by airframe or engine model (OpenAirDocs)
- FAA DRS: https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/23FADAE03268B0A186256A4F006FC6F1.0001
- DRS record last changed: May 30, 2024
- Page: https://openairdocs.org/ad/99-05-13-R1-WD

## Summary

This amendment withdraws Airworthiness Directive (AD) 99-05-13, which currently applies to Raytheon Aircraft Company (Raytheon) Beech 17, 18, 19, 23, 24, 33, 35, 36/A36, A36TC/B36TC, 45, 50, 55, 56, 58, 58P, 58TC, 60, 65, 70, 76, 77, 80, 88, and 95 series airplanes. AD 99-05-13 requires installing a placard on the fuel tank selector to warn of the no-flow condition that exists between the fuel tank detents. Since the issuance of AD 99-05-13, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has re-evaluated all information related to this subject, and determined that the subject matter in this AD is an operational issue and does not address an unsafe condition. Accordingly, this action withdraws AD 99-05-13.

## The airworthiness directive

99-05-13 RAYTHEON AIRCRAFT COMPANY (Formerly Beech): Amendment 39-11061 Docket No. 98-CE-61-AD.

Applicability: Models 17, 18, 19, 23, 24, 33, 35, 36/A36, A36TC/B36TC, 45, 50, 55, 56, 58, 58P, 58TC, 60, 65, 70, 76, 77, 80, 88, and 95 Series Airplanes.

## Rule preamble

### Supplementary information

Discussion

Has FAA taken any action to this point? Reports of engine stoppage on Raytheon Beech 17, 18, 19, 23, 24, 33, 35, 36/A36, A36TC/B36TC, 45, 50, 55, 56, 58, 58P, 58TC, 60, 65, 70, 76, 77, 80, 88, and 95 series airplanes caused FAA to issue AD 99-05-13, Amendment 39-11061 (64 FR 10560, March 5, 1999). AD 99-05-13 currently requires installing a placard on the fuel tank selector to warn of the no-flow condition that exists between the fuel tank detents.

After issuing AD 99-05-13, we re-evaluated all information related to the subject matter of this AD and determined that:

- the positioning of the fuel selector is an operational issue and not an unsafe condition under part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) and should be handled by other methods;

- normal operating and procedural information such as this should be handled through regular revisions to the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) or Pilot s Operating Handbook (POH); and

- issuing an AD to require a placard that conveys normal operating information reduces the pilots sensitivity to true emergency information that should be conveyed by placards.

Consequently, FAA issued a proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to withdraw AD 99-05-13. This proposal published in the Federal Register as a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on March 30, 2000 (65 FR 16845).

Was the public invited to comment? The FAA invited interested persons to participate in the making of this amendment. The following describes each comment and presents FAA's response.

Comment Issue No. 1: AD is Valid if an Unsafe Condition Exists What is the Commenter's Concern? One commenter states that FAA is withdrawing this AD because it is an operational issue and should be handled by other methods. The commenter believes that the AD is valid because FAA has the authority to issue an AD on any issue as long as an unsafe condition exists.

What is FAA s Response to the Concern? We concur that we have the authority and responsibility to act on an unsafe condition, regardless of the factors that create the unsafe condition. We were in error in including information in the NPRM specifying that an operational procedure cannot be the subject of an AD. However, we determined that the fuel selector valve, when functioning properly and used properly, does not create an unsafe condition. The FAA determined that the procedures to operate the fuel selector valve are readily available and that our authority is not to issue AD's against aircraft where the operators do not operate the equipment correctly. Utilizing positive detent to assure that the fuel valve is fully open to the tank selected is considered a standard design practice in the aircraft industry.

We are not changing the AD action as a result of this comment.

Comment Issue No. 2: AD is Needed for Airplanes Without an AFM/POH What is the Commenter's Concern? One commenter states that many airplanes currently affected by AD 99-05-13 are not required to have a POH, and Civil Aviation Regulations (CAR) part 3 allows a manufacturer to use placards instead of an AFM. The commenter believes that, for these reasons, the AD is valid.

What is FAA s Response to the Concern? We concur that many aircraft do not require a POH and were certificated under CAR part 3 where the use of placards is acceptable over an AFM. However, airplanes in this situation usually only have placards installed that contain safety information when an unusual design, operating, or handling characteristic is prevalent.

The FAA has the authority to issue an AD to require operational placards. However, as discussed above, utilizing a positive detent to assure that the fuel valve is fully open to the tank selected is considered a standard design practice in the aircraft industry.

We are not changing the AD action as a result of this comment.Comment Issue No. 3: Placards Are Necessary to Convey Safe Operation What is the Commenter's Concern? One commenter states that the AD is valid because placards are necessary to convey safe operation for airplanes certificated under the Civil Aviation Regulations and part 23 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 23). The commenter also states that placards should not be limited to only emergency information.

What is FAA s Response to the Concern? We concur that placards are not just limited to emergency information. All required placards should convey information for safe operation. However, both CAR 3.777/3.777-1 and 14 CFR 23.1541 state that placards should convey safe operation information if the aircraft has unusual design, operation, or handling characteristics. As discussed previously, utilizing a positive detent to assure that the fuel valve is fully open to the tank selected is considered a standard design practice in the aircraft industry.

We arenot changing the AD action as a result of this comment.

Comment Issue No. 4: FAA has Changed the Definition of Unsafe Condition What is the Commenter's Concern? One commenter states that, by withdrawing AD 99-05-13, FAA will have changed the historical definition of an unsafe condition. We infer that the commenter wants to maintain the effectiveness of AD 99-05-13.

What is FAA s Response to the Concern? We do not concur that we have altered the definition of an unsafe condition. Determination of an unsafe condition is based on each individual situation. Factors that are considered include the design, operation, or handling characteristics of the type design airplanes. As discussed above, utilizing a positive detent to assure that the fuel valve is fully open to the tank selected is considered a standard design practice in the aircraft industry.

We are not changing the AD action as a result of this comment.

Comment Issue No. 5: Numerous Occurrences Justify the Current AD What is the Commenter's Concern? One commenter states that placing a warning placard specifying the safe operation of the fuel selector as AD 99-05-13 requires supports the 49 occurrences from the records of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). We infer that the commenter wants to maintain the effectiveness of AD 99-05-13.

What is FAA s Response to the Concern? We do not concur with the commenter's assessment. We have reviewed 37 reports of the above-referenced 49 occurrences (commenter only provided 37). Approximately half of the occurrences listed the cause as fuel starvation in combination with the fuel selector not positioned in the detent. The most prevalent cause was failure to follow checklist procedures. In no instance was the pilot's lack of knowledge or understanding of the positioning of the fuel selector listed as the cause of the occurrence.

In addition, NTSB has not recommended that FAA issue an AD on this subject. Therefore, weconclude that the commenter believes NTSB supports the placard requirement, when in fact, NTSB has made no recommendation supporting it. Again, utilizing a positive detent to assure that the fuel valve is fully open to the tank selected is considered a standard design practice in the aircraft industry.

We are not changing the AD action as a result of this comment.

The FAA's Determination What is FAA's final determination on this issue? Based on the above information, FAA has determined that there is no need for AD 99-05-13 and that it should be withdrawn.

This action withdraws AD 99-05-13. Withdrawal of AD 99-05-13 will not preclude us from issuing another notice in the future, nor will it commit us to any course of action in the future.

Regulatory Impact Since this action only withdraws an AD, it is not an AD and, therefore, is not covered under Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, or DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979).

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Withdrawal Accordingly, FAA withdraws AD 99-05-13, Amendment 39-11061 (64 FR 10560, March 5, 1999).

## Affected data sheets (22) (OpenAirDocs)

The type certificate data sheets whose models the AD names.

- [TCDS 3A15](https://openairdocs.org/tcds/3A15): Textron Aviation Inc.; names 16 of 27 models: M35, E33C, V35B, N35, K35, B36TC, V35, A36…
- [TCDS A1CE](https://openairdocs.org/tcds/A1CE): Textron Aviation Inc.; names 14 of 14 models: A23-24, M19A, A24R, A24, A23, A23-19, B23, B19…
- [TCDS 3A16](https://openairdocs.org/tcds/3A16): Textron Aviation Inc.; names 12 of 21 models: 95-B55, D55, 95-A55, 95-C55, A56TC, E95, E55, 95-55…
- [TCDS 5A4](https://openairdocs.org/tcds/5A4): Textron Aviation Inc.; names 12 of 14 models: J50, D50B, D50, E50, B50, D50E, C50, G50…
- [TCDS 3A20](https://openairdocs.org/tcds/3A20): Textron Aviation Inc.; names 8 of 22 models: 65-B80, 65-A80, 65, A65-8200, 65-88, 70, 65-80, A65
- [TCDS A-777](https://openairdocs.org/tcds/A-777): Textron Aviation Inc.; names 8 of 9 models: G35, A35, D35, 35R, B35, C35, F35, E35
- [TCDS A-765](https://openairdocs.org/tcds/A-765): Textron Aviation Inc.; names 5 of 17 models: E18S-9700, G18S, E18S, H18, D18S
- [TCDS ATC 602](https://openairdocs.org/tcds/ATC%20602): Hawker Beechcraft Corporation; names 4 of 4 models: SC17L, C17L (Army UC-43J), C17B (Army UC-43G), SC17B
- [TCDS 5A3](https://openairdocs.org/tcds/5A3): Textron Aviation Inc.; names 3 of 3 models: 45 (Military YT-34), D45 (Military T-34B), A45 (Military T-34A; B-45)
- [TCDS ATC 560](https://openairdocs.org/tcds/ATC%20560): Hawker Beechcraft Corporation; names 3 of 3 models: SB17L, B17L, B17B
- [TCDS TC 641](https://openairdocs.org/tcds/TC%20641): Textron Aviation Inc.; names 3 of 3 models: SE17B, E17B (Army UC-43D), E17L
- [TCDS A-649](https://openairdocs.org/tcds/A-649): Textron Aviation Inc.; names 2 of 2 models: D17S, SD17S
- [TCDS A12CE](https://openairdocs.org/tcds/A12CE): Textron Aviation Inc.; names 2 of 3 models: A60, B60
- [TCDS A23CE](https://openairdocs.org/tcds/A23CE): Textron Aviation Inc.; names 2 of 4 models: 58TC, 58P
- [TCDS ATC 604](https://openairdocs.org/tcds/ATC%20604): Hawker Beechcraft Corporation; names 2 of 2 models: C17R (Army UC-43E), SC17R
- [TCDS TC 689](https://openairdocs.org/tcds/TC%20689): Textron Aviation Inc.; names 2 of 2 models: SF17D, F17D (UC-43C)
- [TCDS A29CE](https://openairdocs.org/tcds/A29CE): Textron Aviation Inc.; names 1 of 1 models: 76
- [TCDS A30CE](https://openairdocs.org/tcds/A30CE): Textron Aviation Inc.; names 1 of 1 models: 77
- [TCDS ATC 579](https://openairdocs.org/tcds/ATC%20579): Hawker Beechcraft Corporation; names 1 of 2 models: B17R (Army UC-43H)
- [TCDS TC 638](https://openairdocs.org/tcds/TC%20638): Textron Aviation Inc.; names 1 of 1 models: D17R (Army UC-43A)
- [TCDS TC 713](https://openairdocs.org/tcds/TC%20713): Textron Aviation Inc.; names 1 of 1 models: D17A (Army UC-43F)
- [TCDS TC 779](https://openairdocs.org/tcds/TC%20779): Textron Aviation Inc.; names 1 of 1 models: G17S

## Registered aircraft it may apply to (OpenAirDocs)

Matched by airframe and engine model; the AD's applicability may narrow it by serial number, part number or equipment.

- Aircraft: 13,521 (13,521 by airframe model, 0 by engine model)
- Makers: Beech 12,973, Raytheon 530, Beech-Parks 5, Beech-Nogle 4, Beech/Bond 2, Beech-Curtis 1, Beech-Sarver 1, Beech/Blackwell D D 1, Beech/Briggs 1, Beech/Goedkerj L 1

Models with the most aircraft:

- [Beech A36](https://openairdocs.org/model/beech-a36): 1,907 aircraft (airframe model)
- [Beech F33A](https://openairdocs.org/model/beech-f33a): 978 aircraft (airframe model)
- [Beech V35B](https://openairdocs.org/model/beech-v35b): 913 aircraft (airframe model)
- [Beech 95-B55 (T42A)](https://openairdocs.org/model/beech-95-b55-t42a): 774 aircraft (airframe model)
- [Beech S35](https://openairdocs.org/model/beech-s35): 459 aircraft (airframe model)
- [Beech C23](https://openairdocs.org/model/beech-c23): 456 aircraft (airframe model)
- [Raytheon A36](https://openairdocs.org/model/raytheon-a36): 445 aircraft (airframe model)
- [Beech V35](https://openairdocs.org/model/beech-v35): 425 aircraft (airframe model)
- [Beech V35A](https://openairdocs.org/model/beech-v35a): 320 aircraft (airframe model)
- [Beech P35](https://openairdocs.org/model/beech-p35): 319 aircraft (airframe model)
- [Beech 58P](https://openairdocs.org/model/beech-58p): 298 aircraft (airframe model)
- [Beech C35](https://openairdocs.org/model/beech-c35): 258 aircraft (airframe model)
- [Beech K35](https://openairdocs.org/model/beech-k35): 237 aircraft (airframe model)
- [Beech M35](https://openairdocs.org/model/beech-m35): 225 aircraft (airframe model)
- [Beech B36TC](https://openairdocs.org/model/beech-b36tc): 225 aircraft (airframe model)
- [Beech G35](https://openairdocs.org/model/beech-g35): 224 aircraft (airframe model)
- [Beech H35](https://openairdocs.org/model/beech-h35): 224 aircraft (airframe model)
- [Beech J35](https://openairdocs.org/model/beech-j35): 221 aircraft (airframe model)
- [Beech E-55](https://openairdocs.org/model/beech-e-55): 215 aircraft (airframe model)
- [Beech F35](https://openairdocs.org/model/beech-f35): 192 aircraft (airframe model)

All 121 models: https://openairdocs.org/ad/99-05-13-R1-WD/models.md
Every aircraft: https://openairdocs.org/ad/99-05-13-R1-WD/aircraft.md

## Related documents

- [AD 99-05-13](https://openairdocs.org/ad/99-05-13) (historical): Fuel Tank Selector · Beech B17B, B17L, B17R (Army UC-43H) and 107 more. Effective Apr 19, 1999. Replaced by this AD

Its text cites no advisory circulars or STCs.

---
OpenAirDocs.org is an independent research project of [Contrail Labs](https://contraillabs.com/). It is not affiliated with the FAA or the NTSB. Source documents are U.S. government works in the public domain.