CPCP e PDF

February 24, 1997
M-7360-97-0343
File: 0535
To: All Holders of Boeing Document D6-54929, Revision A, B, C, and D
Subject: 727 Aging Airplane Corrosion Prevention and Control Program

Document D6-54929 Revision E
Reference: FAA Airworthiness Directive Number 90-25-03
Enclosed is Revision E to the 727 Aging Airplane Corrosion Prevention and Control Program
(CPCP) Document D6-54929. Revision E includes all the changes approved by the 727-100/-200
Structures Task Group (STG) plus additional changes resulting from further reviews of the
document and inputs from operators and the FAA and some minor changes to correct errors or
layout. Any significant additions to the changes were also reviewed by the STG Chairman and the
FAA.
The FAA has approved the changes in Sections 1 through 7 of D6-54929 Revision E. FAA approval
for use of the Rev. E document is given in Section 1.0, with the following words "Note: Revision E
to Sections 1 through 7 of this document (D6-54929) have been reviewed and approved by
the FAA. In addition, Appendix C has been reviewed by the FAA and found to be consistent
with the requirements of the AD. If all of this revision is incorporated into the 727 scheduled
maintenance program it is considered to be an acceptable alternative means of complying
with AD 90-25-03." These words allow individual operators under FAA jurisdiction to use the total
program in Rev. E, without requesting an alternate means of compliance to reference AD. New
Task Cards are currently being developed to reflect the changes in the revised 727 CPCP and will
be sent to all holders of the original Task Cards. The corresponding Task Cards are being released
under separate cover.
Very truly yours,
N. E. Hennigs
Manager, Maintenance Programs Engineering
Maintenance and Ground Operations Systems
CUSTOMER SERVICES DIVISION
Orgn. M-7367, M/S 2J-56
Phone (206) 544-8667
Enclosure:
CAGE CODE 81205
THIS DOCUMENT IS:
CONTROLLED BY MAINTENANCE AND GROUND OPERATIONS SYSTEMS, (MGOS)
ALL REVISIONSTO THIS DOCUMENT
SHALLBE APPROVEDBY THEABOVEORGANIZATION
PRIORTO RELEASE.
PREPARED UNDER CONTRACT NO.
IR&D
OTHER
PREPARED ON APOLLOWORKSTATION FILED UNDER -
DOCUMENT NO. D6-54929 MODEL 727
TITLE AGING AIRPLANE
CORROSION PREVENTION AND CONTROL PROGRAM
MODEL 727
THEINFORMATION
CONTAINEDHEREINIS NOTPROPRIETARY.
THEINFORMATIONCONTAINEDHEREINIS PROPRIETARY
TO THEBOEINGCOMPANY
ANDSHALLNOTBE REPRODUCED OR DISCLOSEDIN WHOLEOR IN PARTORUSEDFOR
ANY DESIGNOR MANUFACTUREEXCEPTWHENSUCHUSERPOSSESSESDIRECT,WRITTEN
AUTHORIZATIONFROMTHEBOEINGCOMPANY.
ORIGINAL RELEASE DATE JULY, 1989

ISSUE NO. TO DATE
ADDITIONAL LIMITATIONS IMPOSED ON THIS DOCUMENT

WILL BE FOUND ON A SEPARATE LIMITATIONS PAGE.
PREPARED BY 727 AGING AIRPLANE WORKING GROUP
CHAIRED BY HOWARD GULLICKSON (AMERICAN AIRLINES)
JOHN HALL M-7367
GARTH J. HOULIHAN B-Z92B
APPROVED BY JOHN T. ROGERS B-Z90B
JULY 28, 1989

SIGNATURE ORGN DATE
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE A

This Page Intentionally Left Blank
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE B

ABSTRACT
This document defines minimum requirements for preventing or controlling corrosion

problems that may jeopardize continuing airworthiness of the 727 fleet. A Baseline
Program, that was developed by a 727 Structures Task Group, is included in the
document for use by operators who do not have a proven effective program. A
mandatory reporting system is also included. Reported data and other relevant
information will be reviewed annually by an Industry Working Group.
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C

REV. E D6-54929 PAGE D

REVISIONS
REV DESCRIPTION DATE APPROVAL
A THIS REVISION IDENTIFIES THE DOCUMENT WITH THE TITLE PAGE 7/26/90
SIGNED BY THE AIRLINE CHAIRMAN OF THE INDUSTRY STRUCTURES
WORKING GROUP. IT ALSO PROVIDES THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS
AND DELETIONS:
1) THE USE OF THE WORDS "PRIMARY STRUCTURE" ARE DELETED
AND REPLACED BY "PRINCIPAL" STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS.
2) APPENDIX C IS DELETED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW BY AN
INDUSTRY SUB-COMMITTEE.
3) OTHER MINOR CHANGES FOR CLARIFICATION.
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE E

REVISIONS
B This Revision represents the changes agreed upon by the 727 Structures
Working Group during the first annual review of the 727 CPCP. The changes
have been approved by the FAA as an acceptable alternative means of
complying with AD 90-25-03 (See Note in Section 1.1). The changes are
described in two parts "GENERAL D6 DOCUMENT CHANGES" and "727
MODEL SPECIFIC CHANGES".
GENERAL D6 DOCUMENT CHANGES
1) A description defining the maximum allowable level of Widespread

Corrosion has been incorporated in the Level 1 Corrosion definition.
The words "which exceeds allowable limits" have been changed to
"which then exceed allowable limits" in the Level 2 Corrosion definition.
The word "potential" has been removed from the Level 3 Corrosion
definition.
2) For airplanes with Body Fuel Tanks the following note will be added to
the appropriate task or tasks : "Body fuel tanks must be displaced or
removed for application of the Basic Task."
3) The following is added to Part 4) of the Basic Task : "Surface oxidation

of ferrous metal fasteners may be handled by normal or existing
maintenance practices."
4) The following note has been added to all Basic Landing Gear (Chapter
32) tasks : "Normal overhaul procedures are adequate to maintain
corrosion at safe levels on Landing Gear components. Therefore,
application of the Basic Task and reporting per Section 5 are not required
on these components."
All tasks tied to Landing Gear removal listed under Ch. 53 or 57 have
been converted to Ch. 32 tasks.
The Basic Landing Gear tasks are retained in the CPCP to mandate a
calendar limit (10 years) on overhaul periods.
A table showing the maximum CPCP phase-in period for Landing Gear
Overhaul relative to the time since last overhaul, is included.
5) Note references are shown against all tasks to which they apply.
Duplication of task descriptions in the same airplane area has been
removed where appropriate.
6) Baseline Program tasks have been rearranged in order of ATA Chapter,

then zone number.
7) To clarify the need or requirement for bushing removal in the CPCP the
following has been added to the Basic Task Part 1): "Bushing removal is
not required unless specified in the task description, or there is an
indication of corrosion, or that the bushing has migrated."
8) The APU, APU shroud and any structure in direct contact with the APU,
has been added to the list of areas/items where water displacing /
anti-corrosion compounds (Basic Task Item 6) should not be applied.
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE F

REVISIONS
SYM
9) In cases where the only CPCP task is a terminating mod., per a

referenced S.B. the following note will be added: " This task is no longer
required in the CPCP after completing the S.B. requirements. Ongoing
corrosion control of the area is provided by task CXX-XXX-01."
10) A list of Service bulletins included or referenced in the Baseline Program

is included in Section 4.3.
11) Appendix C has been updated to incorporate additional information used

in the CPCP Training Course and additional interpretations and
guidelines provided for operators.
12) Appendix D added to include a copy of the FAA Airworthiness Directive

and associated Policy Letters for the CPCP.
727 MODEL SPECIFIC CHANGES

1) C32-131-01 Task description and Note 1) revised and Note 2) added.
2) C32-135-01 Task description and existing Note 1) revised, S/B.
reference and Notes 2) and 3) added.
3) C32-135-02 Task deleted.
4) C32-135-03 Task deleted.
5) C53-100-01 Task description changed.
6) C53-100-02 L/N effectivity and note revised.
7) C53-100-03 L/Neffectivity and note revised.
8) C53-100-04 Note revised.
9) C53-100-05 Zone number changed.
10) C53-100-06 The word "door" changed to "hatch".
12) C53-111-01 Note 6) added.
13) C53-111-02 Note 2) revised.
14) C53-111-03 Zone number changed.
15) C53-111-04 Task description and Note 5) revised, Note 4) added.
16) C53-113-01 Note 4) added.
17) C53-113-01 Note 3) added.
-01.06
18) C53-113-02 Stringer number and L/N changed and Note 2) revised.
20) C53-132-03 Zone numbers changed.
21) C53-137-01 New "Pay particular attention" item -01.03 and Note1)
added, Zone numbers revised.
D6-54929 PAGE G
REV. E
REVISIONS
SYM
22) C53-221-01 Task description changed, new Note 3) and zone added.
24) C53-224-01 The word "door" changed to "hatch".
-01.09
25) C53-224-05 Note 3) revised.
26) C53-224-08 L/N in Note 4) revised, Note 2) added.
27) C54-451-01 The word "and" deleted from Power Plant and Struts.
Deleted the words "cone bolts and isolator fittings" from
task description. Deleted Note 1.
28) C55-300-01 Task description changed, Zone number revised.
29) C55-300-10 Task description changed, Zone number revised.
39) C57-562-02 Note 2) description clarified.
40) C57-581-01 Task description revised.
41) C57-581-02 Note 1) description clarified.
and -03
42) C57-581-05 The word "fitting" changed to "fittings", Note 2) revised,
New Note3) added.
43) Appendix B Task descriptions changed to correspond to changes
made in Section 4.3.
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE H

REVISIONS
SYM
C This Revision represents the changes agreed upon by the 727 Structures
Task Group (STG) (Note: Structures Working Group (SWG) changed to
Structures Task Group (STG) throughout the document, per direction from
AAWG ) during the Second review of the 727 CPCP. The changes in Sections
1 through 7 have been approved by the FAA as an acceptable alternative
means of complying with AD 90-25-03 (See Note in Section 1.1). In
addition, Appendix C has been reviewed by the FAA and found to be
consistent with the requirements of the AD. The changes are described in two
parts "GENERAL D6 DOCUMENT CHANGES" and "727 MODEL SPECIFIC
CHANGES".

1) Introduction - Additional Acronyms included.
2) Section 1.1 - Level 2 Corrosion definition has been changed for
clarification, as follows:
Rev. B First Paragraph
Corrosion occuring between successive inspections that requires
re-work/blend-out which then exceeds ...................
Second Paragraph
Corrosion occurring between successive inspections that is widespread
and requires blend-out approaching allowable re-work limits.
Rev. C First Paragraph
Corrosion occuring between successive inspections that requires a single
re-work/blend-out which exceeds ...................
Second Paragraph
Corrosion occurring between successive inspections that is widespread
and requires a single blend-out approaching allowable limits.
3) Section 1.2 - SWG members list updated to reflect current membership.
4) Section 3.1,
Para. 3. - see Section 4.2 corrected to see Section 4.1
5) Para. 7 - Transferred to Appendix C, Section C.2 as guidance information.
6) Para. 8 to 11 renumbered to 7 to 10, respectively, to reflect 5) above.
7) New Para. 11) Added to define intent of CPCP tasks in areas of
non-metallic structure.
8) Section 4.1
Part 6) A) Words added to allow OPTIONAL use of BMS 3-29 in place of
BMS 3-23.
Part 6) B) Words added to allow OPTIONAL use of BMS 3-29 in place of
OPTIONAL use of BMS 3-23 covered by BMS 3-29.
9) Section 4.2
First paragraph - Wording revised for clarification, last sentence
transferred and expanded in par.. 4.
Second paragraph - Wording revised and expanded for clarification.

Third paragraph - Following sentence added : "The one airplane per year
rate requirement applies to each operator's total fleet of airplanes,
regardless of the range of airplane ages or series combinations."
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE I

REVISIONS
SYM DESCRIPTION DATE APPROVAL
Words added defining basic CPCP requirements for components

completely replaced or overhauled or transferred to a different airplane.
Part 2) was reworded per FAA request as follows:
From 2) Were recently applied to the removed component.
To - 2) Were applied to the component prior to removal, within a calendar
period acceptable to the applicable regulatory authority.
Additional parentheses added for clarification when (I) and (R) are used.
Section 4.3
First Paragraph - Section 4.2 corrected to 4.1.
Second and Third paragraphs - Rewritten for clarification.
10) Section 5
Wording rewritten for clarification and to add emphasis to completing all
portions of report form with clear and concise information.
11) Appendix C
Section C.1 - Definition of Allowable Limits added to Glossary.
Section C.2 - Part 3) 2nd sentence rewritten for clarification.
Part 6) - Guidelines added for CIC application in areas with difficult access
or limited visibility and for introduction of new CIC per BMS 3-29.
Section C.3 - First Page, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence rewritten for
clarification. Block added with words requesting operators to report details
of initial corrosion findings that exceed allowable blend-out limits.
Figure 7 Added showing Examples of Corrosion Level Determination
Based on Blend-out.
Figure 8 Added subsections of Fig. 8 adjacent to text for clarification.
Corrected and/or clarified text in parts (4), (7), (22) and (24).
Added text and Figure summarizing typical corrosion levels based on
severity and extent of single finding versus other airplanes in operator's
fleet.
Added Examples 2, 3 and 4.
Section C.4 - Reworded Part I - Corrosion found during the first inspection
of the Baseline Program for Level 1 and 2 corrosion.
Added text and Figure summarizing required and/or recommended
actions for corrosion findings from second or subsequent CPCP
inspections.
Section C.5 - First page, Second paragraph - added the following words
",or corrosion found outside of the CPCP."
Section C.6 - First page, Added two additional bullets with words on use
of OPTIONAL procedures.
Changed heading and associated text for Airplane Storage to Airplane
Storage or Extended Time Out-of-Service.
Added text and figure on guidelines for Airplane Configuration and Usage.
Clarified text under Basic Implementation Requirements.
Added text and figures for guidelines on CPCP Requirements When
Incorporating Additional Airplanes into an Air Carrier's Operations
Specification.
12) Appendix D
FAA Policy Letter 92-120S-821, dated Sep. 22,1992, added.
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE J

REVISIONS
SYM

1) C32-131-01 Revised (I)&(R) to read "See Note", Added intent of Note
2) to Note 1), Changed Note 2) to (Not Applicable).
2) C32-135-01 Revised (I)&(R) to read "See Note 1)", Added intent of
Note 2) to Note 1), Changed Note 2) to (Not Applicable).
3) C53-100-01 Changed description to read as follows:
"Exterior Surface of Fuselage from .............
4) C53-100-02 Revised Note 3) to clarify mod. effect.
5) C53-100-03 Revised Note 4) to clarify mod. effect.
"Interior Structure of Fuselage Lower Lobe ................ and
door interiors (except cargo doors), with particular
attention to the following:"
7) C53-111-01 Revised description as follows:
-01.03 "Area under galleys (if installed) and lavs. (if installed),
including main deck floor structure."
8) C53-111-01 Changed BL 9 to BL 0 (typo)
-01.04
-01.06 "Structure around cargo door cutouts."
10) C53-111- Note 4) Changed "cost to coat".
02, 03 and
04
11) C53-111-02 Changed description to read as follows"

"Interior Structure of Cargo Doors."
12) C53-113-01 Changed description of structure as follows:

"Interior Structure of Bilge from BS 480 to 740 and BS to
1183 below S26 L&R, inclunding ....................."
-01.07 "Structure around cargo door cutouts."
14) C53-113-01 Revised description as follows:
-01.08 "Area under galleys (if installed) and lavs, (if installed)."
15) C53-113-02 Revised Note2) to clarify mod. effect
"Interior Structure of section 48 from ..................
17) C53-137-01 Correct alignment to match number with description.
-01.01,02 & Added Note 2) referencing SB 55-0088 for additional
03 information (Optional).
"Interior Structure of Flight Crew Compartment from ........
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE K

REVISIONS
SYM
19) C53-221-01 Correct alignment to match number with description
-01.01,02 &
03

"Interior Structure of Fuselage Upper Lobe from ............"
-01.06 "Structure around main deck Cargo (if installed) Entry,
Galley/service doors and window cutouts"
-01.07 "Structure around emergency exit Hatch cutouts."
-01.08 "Interior structure of main deck Cargo (if installed) Entry,
Galley/Service doors."
-01.09 "Interior structure of escape hatches."
25) C53-224-03 Changed description to read as follows"
"Areas under galleys (if installed) and lavs. (if installed)."
"Lower sill structure at cutouts for main deck entry,
galley/servicedoors and main deck cargo door (if
installed)."
"Lower sill structure at cutouts for emergency exits."
28) C53-224-08 Changed effectivity from ALL to ALL AIRPLANES WITH
AFT LAV.."

"Exterior surface of Vertical Stabilizer, including trailing
edge panels and rudder, with ................."
"Exterior surface of Horizontal Stabilizer, including trailing
edge panels and elevators, with ..............
"Interior Structure of Horizontal Stabilizer Leading edge
forward of Front Spar, including.."
Changed "Airplane Area" description to read as follows:
"Horizontal Stabilizer - Leading Edge - Interior."
"Interior of Horizontal Stabilizer Outboard Main Box from
Front Spar to Rear Spar and Side of Body rib(L/E Sta. 0)
to Tip Rib (Stab. Sta. 223.05),including.................
-10.01 &.02

"Interior Structure of Horizontal Stabilizer Trailing Edge
Cavity aft of Rear Spar, including.."
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE L

REVISIONS
SYM
35) C55-391-01 Re-arrange order in numerical sequence
thru
C55-395-30
"Interior Structure of Vertical Stabilizer Leading edge
forward of Front Spar, including .........."
Changed "Airplane Aera" description to read as follows:
"Vertical Stabilizer - Leading Edge - Interior."
"Interior Structure of Vertical Stabilizer Main Box from
Front Spar to Rear Spar, including ..........
38) C55-395-11 Added Note 1) referencing SB 55-0076 for additional
information (Optional).
"Interior Structure of Vertical Stabilizer Trailing Edge
Cavity aft of rear Spar, including ........."
"Interior Structure of Wing Center Section Box from Front
Spar to Rear Spar, including .........."
"Exterior Surface of Wingfrom Wing to Body Fairing to
Tip, including ..............
"Interior Structure of Wing Leading Edge Cavity forward of
Front Spar, including .............
"Interior Structure of Wing Outboard Main Box from Front
Spar to Rear Spar and Side of Body Rib (WBL 70.957) to
Tip Rib (WBL 630.53), including .................."
Changed zone 5-17 to 5-71.
"Interior Structure of Trailing Edge Cavity aft of Rear Spar,
including .................
-01.01, .02
& .03
46) C57-581-04 Revised (I)&(R) to read "See Note 2)
Revised Note 2) to read as follows:
"Normal overhaul procedures, applied at intervals not
exceeding 10 years, are adequate to control corrosion at
safe levels on flap tracks and carriages. Therefore,
application of the Basic Task and Reporting rep Section 5
are not required on these components."
PAGE M
D6-54929
REV. E
REVISIONS
REV
47) C57-581-05 Revised (I)&(R) to read "See Note 2)

"Normal overhaul procedures, applied at intervals not
exceeding 10 years, are adequate to control corrosion at
safe levels on flap tracks and carriages. Therefore,
application of the Basic Task and Reporting rep Section 5
are not required on these components."
Changed Note 3) to (Not Applicable).
48) C57-581-06 Added New Task - Flap Tracks and Attach Fittings, with
"See Note 2)" for (I)&(R).
49) C57-581-07 Added New Task - -Flap Tracks at Main Landing Gear
Beam Attach Point, with "See Note 2)" for (I)&(R).
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE N

REVISIONS
SYM
D This Revision represents the changes agreed upon by the 727 Structures 4/1/94
Task Group (STG) during the Third review of the 727 CPCP. The changes in
Sections 1 through 7 have been approved by the FAA as an acceptable
alternative means of complying with AD 90-25-03 (See Note in Section 1.0).
In addition, Appendix C has been reviewed by the FAA and found to be
consistent with the requirements of the AD. The changes are described in two
parts "GENERAL D6 DOCUMENT CHANGES" and "727 MODEL
SPECIFIC CHANGES".
1) Section 4.1 - Changes have been made to parts 2), 3) and 6) of the
Basic Task to allow operators to determine the necessity of reapplying
corrosion inhibiting compounds (CICs) after the initial application.
Reapplication is a function of the type of CIC used and its condition as
determined by CPCP inspection
2) Section 4.2 - The section has been rewritten for clarification.
3) Appendix C
Section C.3, Page C.3-24 - Example 5 added.
Section C.6, Page C.6-3 - Guidelines for Airplane Storage or Extended
Time Out-of-Service rewritten to include Component Storage and for
clarification.
Section C.6, Page C.6-26 - Guidelines added for the Effect of Removing
Airplanes from Established CPCPs.
4) Appendix D - Copy of FAA Order 8300.12, Corrosion Prevention and
Control Programs included.

1) All applicable Revised Basic Task page, items 2,3 and 6
task cards per
Section 4.1 of
the
D6-Document.
2) C55-300-10 Added the words "External Inspection" to Note 2).
3) C55-391-20 Added the words "Internal Inspection" to Note 2).
4) C55-395-11 Added Note 1) to read as follows:
SB 55-0076 Provides additional information on
cracking problems that have occurred in the area of
the Vertical Stabilizer Torque Box adjacent to BS
1342.4 Bulkhead (Optional).
5) C57-581-01 Revised task description to provide coverage for task
C57-581-05 Note 2) " Flap carriage and support
fittings".
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE O

REVISIONS
REV
6) C57-581-04 Revised (I)&(R) to read 10 years.

Normal overhaul procedures on flap tracks and attach
fittings, carriages and carriage support fittings, applied
when they are removed from the airplane at intervals
not exceeding 10 years, are adequate to control
corrosion at safe levels on these components. In
these circumstances, application of the basic task and
reporting per section 5 is not required on these
components. In addition, accomplish visual inspection
of these components on the airplane per task
C57-581-01, without disassembly per Note 4).
Added new Note 4) to read as follows:
If flap tracks and attach fittings, carriages and carriage
support fittings are not removed from the airplane per
note 2), application of the basic task with detailed
inspection is required, with these components
removed from the airplane and disassembled.
Reporting of findings per section 5 is required.

Reporting of findings per section 5
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE P

REVISIONS
SYM

REV. E D6-54929 PAGE Q

REVISIONS
REV
E This Revision represents the changes agreed upon by the 727 Structures Task 8/25/95
Group (STG) during the Fourth review of the 727 CPCP. The changes in
Sections 1 through 7 have been approved by the FAA as an acceptable
alternative means of complying with AD 90-25-03 (See Note in Section 1.0). In
addition, Appendix C has been reviewed by the FAA and found to be consistent
with the requirements of the AD. The changes are described in two parts
"GENERAL D6 DOCUMENT CHANGES" and "727 MODEL SPECIFIC
CHANGES".
1) Section 4.2 Part k). - Has been rewritten for clarification of components
removed from one airplane and installed on another airplane.
2) Section C.1 Glossary. - Inserted 2 new terms "Normal Amounts of
Sealant" and "Stress Corrosion". Inserted prior to Primary Structure and
Structural Significant Item (SSI) respectively.
3) Section C.2 Part 2. - Added words to clarify "Sealant/Leveling
compounds".
4) Section C.2 Part 3 and 4 - Added new paragraph to clarify "pay
particular attention to" inspection intensity. Added new paragraph to
clarify Bolt/Bushing determination and reporting requirements.
5) Section C.2 Part 4 and page C.3-5 paragraph Figure 10A part 1 (1)
Added the words regarding corrosion findings during non-CPCP
inspections".
6) Appendix C. - Changed all Tables to Figures and renumbered all
Figures.
1) All task cards. Revised header format.
2) All task cards. Moved PSE's listing from after close-up to prior to
close-up.
3) C32-131-01 Added description as shown in Revision "A" to
accommodate low utilization operators who do not
accomplish Normal Overhaul Procedures at intervals
less than 10 year intervals. Added Notes to clarify
descripition and accomplishment information.
4) C32-135-01 Added description as shown in Revision "A" to
accommodate low utilization operators who do not
description and accomplishment information.
5) C32-135-02 Reinstated task description as shown in Revision "A"
to accommodate low utilization operators who do not
descripition and accomplisment information.
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE R

REVISIONS
SYM
6) C32-135-03 Reinstated task description as shown in Revision "A"
to accommodate low utilization operators who do not
less than 10 year intervals. Added Notes to clarily
descripition and accomplishment information.
7) C53-100-01 Revised Note 2) to add the words (if installed) and
added new Note 8) to call out radar blanket
installation effectivity.
8) C53-100-03 Revised Note 4) to call out SB53-159 Part II Para. A.
Revised Note 4) to call out SB53-159 Part II Para. A.
9) C53-500-02 Revised Description to add the words (At I/B flap O/B
track and O/B flap I/B and O/B tracks).
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE S

REV. E D6-54929 PAGE T

CHAPTER/ CHAPTER/
SECTION PAGE DATE SECTION PAGE DATE
FOREWORD A AUG 1995 3.1 3.1-1 AUG 1995
B AUG 1995 3.1-2 AUG 1995
C AUG 1995 3.1-3 AUG 1995
D AUG 1995 3.1-4 AUG 1995
E AUG 1995
F AUG 1995
G AUG 1995 4.1 4.1-1 AUG 1995
H AUG 1995 4.1-2 AUG 1995
I AUG 1995 4.1-3 AUG 1995
J AUG 1995 4.1-4 AUG 1995
K AUG 1995 4.1-5 AUG 1995
L AUG 1995 4.1.6 AUG 1995
M AUG 1995
N AUG 1995
O AUG 1995 4.2 4.2-1 AUG 1995
P AUG 1995 4.2-2 AUG 1995
Q AUG 1995 4.2-3 AUG 1995
R AUG 1995 4.2-4 AUG 1995
S AUG 1995
T AUG 1995
U AUG 1995 4.3 4.3-1 AUG 1995
V AUG 1995 4.3-2 AUG 1995
W AUG 1995 4.3-3 AUG 1995
X AUG 1995 4.3-4 AUG 1995
Y AUG 1995 4.3-5 AUG 1995
ZAUG 1995 4.3-6 AUG 1995
AA AUG 1995 4.3-7 AUG 1995
BB AUG 1995 4.3-8 AUG 1995
CC AUG 1995 4.3-9 AUG 1995
DD AUG 1995 4.3-10 AUG 1995
EE AUG 1995 4.3-11 AUG 1995
FF AUG 1995 4.3-12 AUG 1995
4.3-13 AUG 1995
4.3-14 AUG 1995
4.3-15 AUG 1995
1.1 1.1-1 AUG 1995 4.3-16 AUG 1995
1.1-2 AUG 1995 4.3-17 AUG 1995
4.3-18 AUG 1995
4.3-19 AUG 1995
1.2 1.2-1 AUG 1995 4.3-20 AUG 1995
1.2-2 AUG 1995 4.3-21 AUG 1995
4.3-22 AUG 1995
2.0 2.0-1 AUG 1995

2.0-2 AUG 1995 5.0 5.0-1 AUG 1995
5.0-2 AUG 1995
5.0-3 AUG 1995
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE U

CHAPTER/ CHAPTER/
5.0-4 AUG 1995
C.2 C.2-1 AUG 1995

6.0 6.0-1 AUG 1995 C.2-2 AUG 1995
6.0-2 AUG 1995 C.2-3 AUG 1995
C.2-4 AUG 1995
7.0 7.0-1 AUG 1995

7.0-2 AUG 1995 C.3 C.3-1 AUG 1995
C.3-2 AUG 1995
C.3-3 AUG 1995
A A-1 AUG 1995 C.3-4 AUG 1995
A-2 AUG 1995 C.3-5 AUG 1995
C.3-6 AUG 1995
C.3-7 AUG 1995
B B-1 AUG 1995 C.3-8 AUG 1995
B-2 AUG 1995 C.3-9 AUG 1995
B-3 AUG 1995 C.3-10 AUG1995
B-4 AUG 1995 C.3-11 AUG 1995
B-5 AUG 1995 C.3-12 AUG 1995
B-6 AUG 1995 C.3-13 AUG 1995
B-7 AUG 1995 C.3-14 AUG 1995
B-8 AUG 1995 C.3-15 AUG 1995
B-9 AUG 1995 C.3-16 AUG 1995
B-10 AUG 1995 C.3-17 AUG 1995
B-11 AUG 1995 C.3-18 AUG 1995
B-12 AUG 1995 C.3-19 AUG 1995
B-13 AUG 1995 C.3-20 AUG 1995
B-14 AUG 1995 C.3-21 AUG 1995
B-15 AUG 1995 C.3-22 AUG 1995
B-16 AUG 1995 C.3-23 AUG 1995
C.3-24 AUG 1995
C.3-25 AUG 1995
C C-1 AUG 1995 C.3-26 AUG 1995
C-2 AUG 1995
C.4 C.4-1 AUG 1995

C.1 C.1-1 AUG 1995 C.4-2 AUG 1995
C.1-2 AUG 1995 C.4-3 AUG 1995
C.1-3 AUG 1995 C.4-4 AUG 1995
C.1-4 AUG 1995 C.4-5 AUG 1995
C.1-5 AUG 1995 C.4-6 AUG 1995
C.1-6 AUG 1995 C.4-7 AUG 1995
C.1-7 AUG 1995 C.4-8 AUG 1995
C.1-8 AUG 1995
C.1-9 AUG 1995
C.1-10 AUG 1995 C.5 C.5-1 AUG 1995
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE V

CHAPTER/ CHAPTER/
C.5-2 AUG 1995 C.6-41 AUG 1995
C.5-3 AUG 1995 C.6-42 AUG 1995
C.5-4 AUG 1995 C.6-43 AUG 1995
C.5-5 AUG 1995 C.6-44 AUG 1995
C.5-6 AUG 1995 C.6-45 AUG 1995
C.6-46 AUG 1995
C.6-47 AUG 1995
C.6 C.6-1 AUG 1995 C.6-48 AUG 1995
C.6-2 AUG 1995 C.6-49 AUG 1995
C.6-3 AUG 1995 C.6-50 AUG 1995
C.6-4 AUG 1995 C.6-51 AUG 1995
C.6-5 AUG 1995 C.6-52 AUG 1995
C.6-6 AUG 1995 C.6-53 AUG 1995
C.6-7 AUG 1995 C.6-54 AUG 1995
C.6-8 AUG 1995 C.6-55 AUG 1995
C.6-9 AUG 1995 C.6-56 AUG 1995
C.6-10 AUG 1995
C.6-11 AUG 1995
C.6-12 AUG 1995 D D-1 AUG 1995
C.6-13 AUG 1995 D-2 AUG 1995
C.6-14 AUG 1995 D-3 AUG 1995
C.6-15 AUG 1995 D-4 AUG 1995
C.6-16 AUG 1995 D-5 AUG 1995
C.6-17 AUG 1995 D-6 AUG 1995
C.6-18 AUG 1995 D-7 AUG 1995
C.6-19 AUG 1995 D-8 AUG 1995
C.6-20 AUG 1995 D-9 AUG 1995
C.6-21 AUG 1995 D-10 AUG 1995
C.6-22 AUG 1995 D-11 AUG 1995
C.6-23 AUG 1995 D-12 AUG 1995
C.6-24 AUG 1995 D-13 AUG 1995
C.6-25 AUG 1995 D-14 AUG 1995
C.6-26 AUG 1995 D-15 AUG 1995
C.6-27 AUG 1995 D-16 AUG 1995
C.6-28 AUG 1995 D-17 AUG 1995
C.6-29 AUG 1995 D-18 AUG 1995
C.6-30 AUG 1995 D-19 AUG 1995
C.6-31 AUG 1995 D-20 AUG 1995
C.6-32 AUG 1995 D-21 AUG 1995
C.6-33 AUG 1995 D-22 AUG 1995
C.6-34 AUG 1995 D-23 AUG 1995
C.6-35 AUG 1995 D-24 AUG 1995
C.6-36 AUG 1995 D-25 AUG 1995
C.6-37 AUG 1995 D-26 AUG 1995
C.6-38 AUG 1995 D-27 AUG 1995
C.6-39 AUG 1995 D-28 AUG 1995
C.6-40 AUG 1995 D-29 AUG 1995
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE W

CHAPTER/
SECTION PAGE DATE
D-30 AUG 1995
D-31 AUG 1995
D-32 AUG 1995
D-33 AUG 1995
D-34 AUG 1995
D-35 AUG 1995
D-36 AUG 1995
D-37 AUG 1995
D-38 AUG 1995
D-39 AUG 1995
D-40 AUG 1995
D-41 AUG 1995
D-42 AUG 1995
D-43 AUG 1995
D-44 AUG 1995
D-45 AUG 1995
D-46 AUG 1995
D-47 AUG 1995
D-48 AUG 1995
D-49 AUG 1995
D-50 AUG 1995
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE X

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUBJECT PAGE
TITLE PAGE A
ABSTRACT C
REVISIONS E
LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES. U
TABLE OF CONTENTS Y
LIST OF FIGURES AA
LIST OF ACRONYMS CC
REFERENCES FF
1.0 PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND 1.1-1

1.1 PURPOSE 1.1-1
1.2 BACKGROUND 1.2-1
2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.0-1
3.0 PROGRAM APPLICATION 3.1-1

3.1 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS 3.1-1
4.0 BASELINE PROGRAM 4.1-1
4.1 BASIC TASK 4.1-1
4.2 BASELINE PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION

REQUIREMENTS 4.2-1
5.0 REPORTING SYSTEM 5.0-1
6.0 ANNUAL REVIEW 6.0-1
7.0 CORROSION RELATED AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 7.0-1
APPENDIX A DEVELOPMENT OF THE BASELINE PROGRAM A-1
D6-54929 PAGE Y
REV. E
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
SUBJECT PAGE
APPENDIX B OPTIONAL SYSTEM FOR RECORDING INSPECTION

COMPLETIONS AND HIGHEST LEVEL OF CORROSION
FINDINGS B-1
APPENDIX C GUIDELINES C-1
C.1 GLOSSARY C.1-1
C.2 APPLICATION OF THE BASIC TASK C.2-1
C.3 DETERMINATION OF CORROSION LEVELS BASED

ON FINDINGS C.3-1
C.4 TYPICAL ACTIONS FOLLOWING DETERMINATION OF

CORROSION LEVELS C.4-1
C.5 REPORTING C.5-1
C.6 PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION C.6-1
APPENDIX D FAA AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE, FAA ORDER 8300.12 AND
POLICY LETTERS D-1
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE Z

LIST OF FIGURES
NUMBER TITLE PAGE
1 Effect of Corrosion Extent and Severity on Corrosion Level C.1-7
2 Local Corrosion C.1-8
3 Widespread Corrosion. C.1-8
8 Examples of Corrosion Level Determination Based on

Blend-out C.3-3
9 Logic Diagram for Corrosion Level Determination C.3-4
10A Part 1 - Corrosion Level Determination C.3-6
10B Part 2 - Corrosion Level Determination C.3-8
10C Part 3 - Corrosion Level Determination C.3-10
10D Part 4 - Corrosion Level Determination C.3-12
10E Part 5 - Corrosion Level Determination C.3-14
10F Part 6 - Corrosion Level Determination C.3-16
11 Summary of TYPICAL Corrosion Levels C.3-18
12 Example 4 - Typical Level 3 Corrosion Finding C.3-23
13 Summary of Required and/or Recommended Actions for

Corrosion Findings from Second or Subsequent CPCP
Inspection C.4-7
14 Existing Reporting Requirements and Requests for Boeing

Assistance C.5-2
15 Additional Reporting Requirements for AACPs C.5-3
16 Evaluation and Review of Corrosion Findings C.5-4
17 Reporting Requirements Included in CPCP ADs C.5-5
18 Guidelines for CPCP Task Applicability for Varying Airplane

Configuration and Usage C.6-5
19 Maximum Time Frame for Implementing a CPCP C.6-7
20 Maximum Time Frame for Implementing a Corrosion Program C.6-9
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE AA

LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
NUMBER TITLE PAGE
21 Logic Diagram for Determination of Latest Date for Completing

the First Application of the Basic Task on ALL Affected A/Ps
in an Operator's Fleet C.6-10
22 Fleet Implementation Example - 1 C.6-13
23 Fleet Implementation - Example 2 C.6-14
24 Fleet Implementation - Example 2 (Cont.) C.6-15
29 Typical Action Required When Adding Additional Airplane(s) to

an Operator's Fleet C.6-21
30 Table for Planning Corrosion Program Implementation (20yr) C.6-30
31 Table for Planning Corrosion Program Implementation (1 yr) C.6-31
32 Table for Planning Corrosion Program Implementation (5yr) C.6-32
33 Corrosion Program Implementation - Example 1 C.6-35
34 Corrosion Program Implementation - Example 1 (Cont.) C.6-36
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE BB

LIST OF ACRONYMS
AACD Aging Airplane Corrosion (Prevention & Control)Document.

AACP Aging Airplane Corrosion (Prevention & Control) Program
AATF Airworthiness Assurance Task Force (Formerly AAWG)
AAWG Airworthiness Assurance Working Group (Now AATF)
AC/A.C. Advisory Circular (FAA)
ACO Aircraft Certification Office (FAA Engineering)
AD/A.D. Airworthiness Directive (FAA)
ADR Accidental Damage Rating
AEG Aircraft Evaluation Group (FAA Flight Standards)
AFS Aging Fleet Survey
AIAA Aerospace Industry Association of America
AMC Alternate Method of Compliance
ARAC Aviation Rule-making Advisory Committee
ATA Air Transport Association of America
BBL Body Buttock Line
BL Buttock Line
BMS Boeing Material Specification
BMT Boeing Materials Technology
BP Baseline Program
BS Body (Fuselage) Station
CAA Civil Aviation Authority
CIC Corrosion Inhibiting Compound
CMR Certification Maintenance Requirement
CP Corrosion Program
CPCP Corrosion Prevention & Control Program
CPM Corrosion Prevention Manual
C/L Center Line
C/S Center Section
DER Designated Engineering Representative
DOT Department of Transportation
EDR Environmental Deterioration Rating
EMMC Engineering Maintenance and Material Committee (ATA)
ERI Extended Repeat Interval
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAR Federal Aviation Regulation
FD Fatigue Damage
F/S Front Spar
FSO Flight Standards Office (FAA Maintenance)
I or (I) Implementation Age
IATA International Air Transport Association
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE CC

LIST OF ACRONYMS [continued]
ISC Industry Sub-Committee or Steering Committee

JAA Joint Airworthiness Authorities
JAR Joint Airworthiness Regulation
L/E Leading Edge
LN (L/N) Line Number
MGOS Maintenance & Ground Operations Systems
MLGWW Main Landing Gear Wheel Well
MPD Maintenance Planning Data
MPS Maintenance Programs Subcommittee (ATA)
MRB Maintenance Review Board (FAA)
MRBPB Maintenance Review Board Policy Board (FAA)
M/S Mid-Spar
MSD Multiple Site Damage (Alternative to WFC)
MSG Maintenance Steering Group
NDI Non-Destructive Inspection (Alternative to NDT)
NDT Non-Destructive Test (Alternative to NDI)
NLGWW Nose Landing Gear Wheel Well
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rule Making
NTSB National Transport Safety Board
PMI(PI) Principal Maintenance Inspector (FAA)
PSE Principal Structural Element
R or (R) Repeat Interval
RATG Repairs Assessment Task Group
R/S Rear Spar
RSP Rotational Sampling Program
S Stringer (E.g. S-17)
SAETG Structural Audit Evaluation Task Group
SB, S/B or S.B. Service Bulletin
SFAR Special Federal Airworthiness Regulation
SI Structural Items
SIIA Structural Item Interim Advisory
SIRS Significant Item Reporting System
SL(S/L) Service Letter
SMPG Structural Maintenance Planning Guidelines
SOSP Structures Operator Support Program
SRM Structural Repair Manual
SSI Structurally Significant Item (Boeing SSID Programs)
SSID Supplemental Structural Inspection Document (SSID or SID)
STA Station
STG Structures Task Group (Formerly SWG)
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE DD

LIST OF ACRONYMS [continued]
SWG Structures Working Group (Now STG)

TAES Transport Airplane and Engine Subcommittee
T.E. (T/E) Trailing Edge
TOGAA Technical Oversight Group for Aging Airplanes
TSO Time Since Overhaul
WBL (W.B.L.) Wing Buttock Line
WFD Widespread Fatigue Damage
WFC Widespread Fatigue Cracking (alternate to MSD)
WS (W.S.) Wing Station
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE EE

REFERENCES
1) Boeing Corrosion Prevention Manual (CPM) D6-41910.

2) 727 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document D6-8766.
3) 727Supplemental Structural Inspection Document (SSID) D6-48040-1.
4) 727 Structural Repair Manual (SRM) D6-4062.
5) 727 Non-Destructive Test (NDT) Manual D6-48875.
6) 727 Aging Airplane Service Bulletin Structural Modification Program D6-54860.
7) 727 Overhaul Manual D6-4420
8) 707/720 Aging Airplane Corrosion Prevention and Control Program D6-54928.
9) 737-100/200 Aging Airplane Corrosion Prevention and Control Program D6-38528.
10) 747-100/200/300/SP/SR Aging Airplane Corrosion Prevention and Control
Program D6-36022.
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE FF

1.0 PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND
Note: Revision E to Sections 1 through 7 of this document have been reviewed

and approved by the FAA. In addition, Appendix C has been reviewed by the
FAA and found to be consistent with the requirements of the AD. If all of this
revision is incorporated into the scheduled maintenance program it is
considered to be an acceptable alternative means of complying with AD
90-25-03.
1.1 PURPOSE
This document defines minimum requirements for preventing or controlling corrosion
problems that may jeopardize continuing airworthiness of the 727 fleet. To meet
these requirements, operators must have effective corrosion prevention and control
procedures incorporated into the maintenance program for all airplanes reaching or
exceeding the Implementation Age defined for each airplane area.
The effectiveness of a corrosion control program is determined for a given airplane

area by the "level" of corrosion found on Principal Structural Elements (PSEs) (listed
in Section 51 of reference 4), or other structure listed in the Baseline Program
(Section 4.3), during repeat scheduled corrosion program inspections. The following
corrosion level definitions are applicable to this program:
LEVEL 1 CORROSION
Corrosion damage occurring between successive inspections, that is local and can be
re-worked/blended-out within allowable limits as defined by the manufacturer (e.g.
SRM; SB; etc.);
OR,
Corrosion damage occurring between successive inspections, that is widespread and
can be reworked/blended-out well below allowable limits as defined by the
manufacturer;
OR,
Corrosion damage that exceeds allowable limits and can be attributed to an event not
typical of the operator's usage of other airplanes in the same fleet (e.g. Mercury spill);
OR,
Operator experience over several years has demonstrated only light corrosion
REV. E D6-54929 Page 1.1-1

between successive inspections but latest inspection and cumulative blend-out now
exceed allowable limit.
LEVEL 2 CORROSION
Corrosion occurring between successive inspections that requires a single

re-work/blend-out which exceeds allowable limits, requiring a repair/reinforcement or
complete or partial replacement of a Principal Structural Element (PSE), as defined by
the original equipment manufacturer's structural repair manual, or other structure
listed in the Baseline Program;
OR,
Corrosion occurring between successive inspections that is widespread and requires
a single blend-out approaching allowable re-work limits.
LEVEL 3 CORROSION
Corrosion found during the first or subsequent inspections, which is determined

(normally by the operator) to be an urgent airworthiness concern requiring expeditious
action.
Note : When LEVEL 3 corrosion is found consideration should be given to action

required on other airplanes in the operator's fleet. Details of the corrosion findings
and planned action(s) should be expeditiously reported to the appropriate regulatory
authority.
AN EFFECTIVE PROGRAM IS ONE THAT CONTROLS CORROSION OF ALL

STRUCTURE LISTED IN THE BASELINE PROGRAM TO LEVEL 1 OR BETTER.
REV. E D6-54929 Page 1.1-2

1.2 BACKGROUND
In a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) sponsored Aging Fleet Conference in June

of 1988 the Air Transport Association of America (ATA) and the Aerospace Industries
Association of America (AIA) committed to identifying and implementing procedures to
ensure continuing structural airworthiness of aging transport category airplanes. To
this end, an Airworthiness Assurance Task Force (AATF) was established with
representatives from aircraft operators, manufacturers and regulatory agencies. A
near term objective of this task force was to sponsor working groups to identify aging
fleet maintenance requirements for all transport category airplane models. The 727
Structures Task Group (STG) was formed in August 1988 and included fifteen
operators representing a significant portion of the high time 727 fleet. STG members,
including Boeing representatives and Regulatory Authority observers are listed on the
following page. Principal tasks of the STG with respect to the aging 727 fleet are to:
1. Select service bulletins to be recommended for mandatory modification.

2. Develop a baseline corrosion prevention and control program.
3. Review 727 Supplemental Structural Inspection Program.
4. Assess Repair Quality.
5. Review Maintenance Program.
The results of the second task listed above, along with guidelines for implementing the
program, requirements for alternate means of compliance and reporting procedures
are the subject of this document. The other tasks will be addressed separately as
they are completed.
REV. E D6-54929 Page 1.2-1

Current 727 Structures Task Group (STG) members, including Boeing representatives
and regulatory authority observers are listed below.
Organization Representative
American Airlines Jim Dietrich
Continental Airlines Andy Mortenson
Delta Airlines Dan Williams
Federal Express Terry Gillette (Chairman)
Iberia Airlines Amparo Garcia-Plaza
Northwest Airlines Gregg Pattison and John Brutlag
Trans World Airlines Bill Heinze
Transport Canada Martin Eley
United Airlines Wayne Evans
United Parcel Service John Night-Doe
US Air Mitch Lineberry
The Boeing Company Aydin Akdeniz, Lance Hidano, Bob Manning
Federal Aviation Administration Todd Martin, Lynn W. Pierce, James G. Rehrl, Walter
Sippel
REV. E D6-54929 Page 1.2-2

2.0 INTRODUCTION
As airplanes age corrosion becomes more widespread and is more likely to occur
concurrently with other forms of damage such as fatigue cracking. Corrosion degrades
structural integrity and if uncontrolled will reduce the inherent ability to sustain fail-safe
loads in the presence of other forms of damage. To prevent this, a program has been
developed that defines baseline requirements for preventing or controlling safety
related corrosion problems in the 727 fleet. The Implementation Ages and Repeat
Intervals of the Baseline Program are based upon structural requirements. In addition,
it is recommended that all visible Systems Components are inspected in conjunction
with the structural program.
This program is primarily aimed at protection of aging 727 airplanes. However, early
implementation will be required to assure timely prevention of unacceptable
combinations of corrosion and other forms of damage in the aging fleet.
It is not the intent of this program to establish rigid requirements for eliminating all
corrosion problems in the fleet, but to control those problems at or below levels that do
not jeopardize continuing airworthiness. Operators having an existing corrosion
control program that can be shown to meet the baseline program objectives will be
allowed to continue with that program.
Experience has shown that airplanes that have had an effective corrosion prevention
program applied since initial delivery are much less prone to corrosion during
extended service than those that have not. The BOEING CORROSION
PREVENTION MANUAL D6-41910 (Reference 1) contains additional corrosion
prevention and control recommendations (e.g. addition of drain holes or lube fittings),
including non-safety related Service Bulletins, aimed at providing economic benefits to
the operators. Although not required by this program, incorporation of these additional
corrosion prevention and control measures is highly recommended. (OPTIONAL).
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE 2.0-1

The procedure used by the 727 Structures Task Group to develop the Program is
described in Appendix A.
Additional explanations of program philosophy and terminology and guidelines for

implementing the Baseline Program on various types of fleets are given in Appendix
C.
A copy of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Airworthiness Directive, FAA

Order 8300.12, "Corrosion Prevention and Control Programs" and Policy Letters
associated with the 727 Aging Airplane Corrosion Prevention and Control Program
(CPCP) is included in Appendix D.
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE 2.0-2

3.0 PROGRAM APPLICATION
The following instructions apply to the 727 Aging Fleet Corrosion Prevention and
Control Program. Approval and monitoring of the resulting program and program
changes is the responsibility of the regulatory agency for each operator.
3.1 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
1. Corrosion Prevention and Control requirements defined by this document are

applicable to all 727 airplanes that reach or exceed the Baseline Program
IMPLEMENTATION AGE (I) (Airplane age when implementation period begins) for
each specified airplane area (See Section 4). It is recommended that priority for
implementing the program be given to older airplanes and areas requiring a
significant upgrade of previous maintenance procedures to meet the program
requirements.
2. Maintenance programs for affected airplanes must include a corrosion prevention

and control procedures that limit corrosion findings, on all PSEs and other defined
structural areas, to LEVEL 1 or better. When an operator does not have a program
or an existing program is shown inadequate, the BASELINE PROGRAM (Section
4) must be applied. In some cases, the Baseline Program may prove inadequate
for several reasons such as continuous exposure to adverse operating conditions,
leakage of corrosive cargo or an earlier history of inadequate maintenance and/or
repair. If this happens suitable adjustments must be made to the baseline program,
based on individual operator experience, until corrosion is controlled to LEVEL 1 or
better. Similarly, suitable adjustments must be made to existing programs that are
already more stringent than the Basic Program, but continue to allow corrosion
greater than LEVEL 1.
3. A complete program consists of the BASIC TASK ( see Section 4.1 for description)
applied at appropriate repeat interval, PLUS, in some cases, a specific task or
tasks defined by a listed Service Bulletin, PLUS the tasks required by all current
and future corrosion related Airworthiness Directives (AD'S). A list of AD'S
containing corrosion related requirements is given in Section 7.
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE 3.1-1

For the program to be fully effective, it is essential that the Basic Task is applied to
all PSEs. All systems, equipment, interior furnishing, etc. that prevent adequate
inspection must be removed. Additional Non-Destructive-Inspection's (NDI) or
visual inspection's following partial disassembly are required if there are indications
of hidden corrosion such as bulging skins, or corrosion running into splices, or
under fittings, etc.
4. There may be significant variability in corrosion growth rates between different

operator's airplanes and, in many cases, between individual airplanes in a single
operator's fleet. This can be attributed to many causes such as differing operating
environments and/or payloads, variability in previous maintenance procedures (e.g.
multiple owner /operators), variation in rate of degradation of protective finishes,
etc. This variability makes sampling programs unreliable for assuring timely
detection of all significant corrosion damage on all airplanes. Therefore, sampling
programs that do not inspect all affected airplanes are not allowed in the Baseline
Program. Individual operator's (or groups of operator having airplanes with similar
operating environments and maintenance background can extend the
Implementation Period (See Section 4.2) or Repeat Interval for a given airplane
area after a sufficient number of airplane inspections show no indications of
corrosion in that area.
5. Operators purchasing or leasing a used airplane and planning to continue with an

existing corrosion control program should evaluate it's adequacy relative to any
planned operational changes and adjust the program as necessary. For example,
airplanes switching from operations in land based dry/temperate climate to salty/
humid/ industrial climate may require significant reductions in repeat intervals for
certain corrosion prevention tasks.
6. Repeat Intervals for the Baseline Program are given in calendar periods, including
both time in and out of service. Operators can convert these to equivalent periods
of Flight Hours or Cycles using their current average fleet utilization data, including
projected out-of-service periods. Appropriate adjustments to repeat intervals must
be made for airplanes whose calendar to flight hour or flight cycle relationship is
significantly different than the operator's fleet average (e.g. airplanes that have
extended out-of-service periods). Such conversions must be reviewed and revised
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE 3.1-2

as necessary when significant changes occur in fleet utilization and/or
out-of-service periods. To accommodate unanticipated scheduling requirements
Repeat Intervals may, occasionally, be increased by up to ten percent (10%), with
a maximum of 6 months.
7. In some cases, design and/or production changes have been proven effective in
delaying the onset and/or subsequent growth of corrosion. Allowances for this are
built into the program with appropriate changes at the effective line number. In the
majority of cases the actual effectiveness of design or production changes, in
terms of allowable changes in Implementation Ages and/or Repeat Inspection
Intervals, is as yet unknown. For these cases the program will remain unchanged
until there is sufficient evidence from reported service data to warrant a change.
Therefore, unless otherwise stated, the requirements defined by this document are
applicable to all airplanes in the fleet.
8. In addition to normal reporting requirements, operators are required to report

LEVEL 2 and LEVEL 3 corrosion findings to Boeing, using the procedure outlined
in Section 5. This and other information will be reviewed annually by an industry
team, representing 727 operators, Boeing and the Regulatory Authorities, to
determine the adequacy of the Baseline Program content, guidelines etc. and to
update it as required (See Section 6).
9. Any request to a regulatory authority for an alternate means of compliance for this
program, including extensions to implementation periods, must include justification
of the effectiveness of the alternate program. This will normally include sufficient
visual examination of the operator's 727 airplane(s) to show that corrosion is not
exceeding LEVEL 1 in the operator's fleet. Operators, having adequate experience
with the 727 airplane and data from previous inspections, may apply for a
temporary alternate means of compliance prior to the visual examinations required
by this program. For example, an operator who has several years experience
operating and maintaining 727 airplanes, including heavy maintenance such as "D"
checks, may have previous inspection results available for anticipating the level of
corrosion in a given airplane area. Such information, coupled with other related
maintenance data, may be used by an operator and regulatory agency to
substantiate a temporary alternate means of compliance for that area, until the
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE 3.1-3

physical examinations required by this program are accomplished.
10. In certain areas of the airplane the Baseline Program includes options which, if
properly applied, will enhance corrosion prevention and control programs. Since
these options are primarily aimed at providing economic benefits, their use is at the
discretion of the airplane owner/operator. In some cases, use of these options may
provide benefits which will allow extension of repeat intervals required to meet the
aging airplane program objective. To distinguish these options from the mandatory
requirements they are shown in ITALICS in the text and the word (OPTIONAL) is
added at the end of applicable notes in the tables.
11. For tasks on non-metallic structure listed in the Baseline Program, e.g. Spoilers,
Flap segments, the intent is to apply the Basic Task to the metallic attachment
fittings and pay particular attention to the interface between the metallic and
non-metallic structure.
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE 3.1-4

4.0 BASELINE PROGRAM
This section defines the 727 Baseline Corrosion Prevention and Control Program
(Baseline Program), including a Basic Task, Implementation Ages, and Repeat
Intervals. This program is intended for use by 727 operators who do not have a
proven effective Corrosion Prevention and Control program. Operator's having an
existing program that does not control corrosion to LEVEL 1 or better in all the areas
listed in the Baseline Program, are required to make appropriate adjustments in the
affected areas. Checks should be made on both the task content and repeat interval
being used and appropriate adjustments made.
4.1 BASIC TASK
The following describes the BASIC TASK to be accomplished in each defined airplane
area as part of the Baseline Program :
1) REMOVE ALL SYSTEMS, EQUIPMENT AND INTERIOR FURNISHINGS ETC. (e.g. TOILETS,
GALLEYS, LINING, INSULATION) AS REQUIRED TO ACCOMPLISH 3). BUSHING REMOVAL IS
NOT REQUIRED UNLESS SPECIFIED IN THE TASK DESCRIPTION, OR THERE IS AN
INDICATION OF CORROSION, OR THE BUSHING HAS MIGRATED.
2) PRIOR TO INSPECTION CLEAN THE AREA AS REQUIRED TO ACCOMPLISH 3). IT IS NOT

NECESSARY TO REMOVE NORMAL AMOUNTS OF SEALANT/LEVELING COMPOUND UNLESS
IT HAS DETERIORATED TO THE POINT WHERE MOISTURE CAN PENETRATE DOWN TO THE
METAL [SEE 3)]. A LIGHT UNIFORM FILM OF CORROSION INHIBITING COMPOUND (CIC),
THAT HAS NOT ACCUMULATED DIRT OR DEBRIS WILL NORMALLY ALLOW ADEQUATE
INSPECTION OF THE STRUCTURE WITHOUT REMOVAL. CIC MAY REQUIRE REMOVAL IF
THERE ARE MULTIPLE LAYERS AND/OR ACCUMULATIONS OF DIRT OR DEBRIS [SEE 3)].
3) VISUALLY INSPECT ALL PSEs AND OTHER STRUCTURE LISTED IN THE BASELINE
PROGRAM FROM A DISTANCE CONSIDERED NECESSARY TO DETECT EARLY STAGES OF
CORROSION OR INDICATIONS OF OTHER DISCREPANCIES SUCH AS CRACKING (e.g.

SURVEILLANCE INSPECTION). PAY PARTICULAR ATTENTION TO LISTED AREAS UNDER
THE SAME TASK NUMBER, WHERE EXPERIENCE HAS SHOWN CORROSION MAY OCCUR
AND KNOWN AREAS OF CORROSION, IDENTIFIED BY A SEPARATE TASK NUMBER. AREAS
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE 4.1-1

REQUIRING A DETAILED INSPECTION ARE NOTED IN THE APPROPRIATE TASK
DESCRIPTION. ADDITIONAL NON-DESTRUCTIVE INSPECTIONS OR VISUAL INSPECTIONS
FOLLOWING PARTIAL DISASSEMBLY ARE REQUIRED, IF THERE ARE INDICATIONS OF
HIDDEN CORROSION, SUCH AS BULGING SKINS OR CORROSION RUNNING INTO SPLICES,
OR UNDER FITTINGS, ETC. . IN THE TASK AREA, CHECK THE INTEGRITY OF ANY
SEALANT/LEVELING COMPOUND TO DETERMINE IF REMOVAL IS REQUIRED, AND ANY
CORROSION INHIBITING COMPOUND, PARTICULARLY AT FAYING SURFACES, TO
DETERMINE IF ADDITIONAL APPLICATION IS REQUIRED PER 6).
4) REMOVE ALL CORROSION, EVALUATE DAMAGE AND REPAIR OR REPLACE ALL

DISCREPANT STRUCTURE AS REQUIRED, INCLUDING APPLICATION OF PROTECTIVE
FINISHES PER REFERENCE 1) (Section 20-50-00), OR REFERENCE 4), OR RELATED SERVICE
BULLETIN, AS APPROPRIATE. SURFACE OXIDATION OF FERROUS METAL FASTENERS
MAY BE HANDLED BY NORMAL OR EXISTING MAINTENANCE PRACTICES.
5) CLEAR ANY BLOCKED HOLES OR GAPS THAT MAY HINDER DRAINAGE.
6) APPLY SUITABLE APPROVED WATER DISPLACING/ANTI-CORROSION COMPOUNDS AS

FOLLOWS [RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES FOR APPLYING THESE COMPOUNDS ARE
GIVEN IN REFERENCE 1 (OPTIONAL)]:
A) MINIMUM REQUIREMENT FOR ALL AREAS EXCEPT AS NOTED IN THE BASELINE

PROGRAM AND 6 C):
FIRST APPLICATION AND SUBSEQUENT APPLICATIONS WHEN WATER DISPLACING/

ANTI-CORROSION COMPOUND(S) HAVE BEEN REMOVED:
- APPLY A SINGLE COAT THAT PENETRATES FAYING SURFACES AND DISPLACES

MOISTURE (E.g. A SINGLE COAT PER BMS 3-23).
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE 4.1-2

SECOND AND SUBSEQUENT APPLICATION
- AT FAYING SURFACES AND IN AREAS WHERE THE INITIAL OR PREVIOUS COAT HAS
BEEN DISTURBED, APPLY A SINGLE COAT THAT PENETRATES FAYING SURFACES
AND DISPLACES MOISTURE (e.g. A SINGLE COAT PER BMS 3-23).
OR (OPTIONAL),

ANTI-CORROSION COMPOUNDS HAVE BEEN REMOVED:

MOISTURE AND AFTER DRYING FORMS A DURABLE BARRIER (e.g. A SINGLE COAT
PER BMS 3-29).
- IN AREAS WHERE THE INITIAL OR PREVIOUS COAT HAS BEEN DISTURBED, APPLY A
SINGLE COAT THAT PENETRATES FAYING SURFACES AND DISPLACES MOISTURE
AND AFTER DRYING FORMS A DURABLE BARRIER (e.g. A SINGLE COAT PER BMS
3-29).
B) RECOMMENDED APPLICATION FOR AREAS WITH HIGH POTENTIAL FOR SEVERE

CORROSION, IDENTIFIED IN THE BASELINE PROGRAM (OPTIONAL):

- APPLY A DUAL APPLICATION CONSISTING OF A SINGLE COAT THAT PENETRATES

FAYING SURFACES AND DISPLACES MOISTURE COVERED BY A SINGLE COAT THAT
FORMS A DURABLE BARRIER (e.g. A SINGLE COAT PER BMS 3-23 WITH A TOP-COAT
PER BMS 3-26 TYPE II).
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE 4.1-3

DUAL APPLICATION CONSISTING OF A SINGLE COAT THAT PENETRATES FAYING
SURFACES AND DISPLACES MOISTURE COVERED BY A SINGLE COAT THAT FORMS
A DURABLE BARRIER (e.g. A SINGLE COAT PER BMS 3-23 WITH A TOP-COAT PER
BMS 3-26 TYPE II).
OR (OPTIONAL),


MOISTURE AND AFTER DRYING FORMS A DURABLE BARRIER (e.g. A SINGLE COAT
PER BMS 3-29).
SINGLE COAT THAT PENETRATES FAYING SURFACES AND DISPLACES MOISTURE
AND AFTER DRYING FORMS A DURABLE BARRIER (e.g. A SINGLE COAT PER BMS
3-29).
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE 4.1-4

C) LIST OF AREAS/ITEMS WHERE WATER DISPLACING/ANTI-CORROSION COMPOUNDS
(BASIC TASK ITEM 6) SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED.
WATER DISPLACING/ANTI-CORROSION COMPOUNDS REQUIRED BY ITEM 6) OF THE

BASIC TASK SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED IN THE FOLLOWING AREAS (SEE BOEING
CORROSION PREVENTION MANUAL (REF. 1) FOR ADDITIONAL SUPPORTING
INFORMATION):
- CABLES, PULLEYS, WIRING, PLASTICS, ELASTOMERS, OXYGEN SYSTEMS.
- LUBRICATED OR TEFLON SURFACES (e.g. GREASED JOINTS, SEALED BEARINGS)
- OVER COSMOLINE 1058 (OR EQUIVALENT PER MIL-C-16173 GRADE 1 )
- ADJACENT TO TEARS OR HOLES IN INSULATION BLANKETS (WATER REPELLING

CHARACTERISTICS ARE DIMINISHED).
- AREAS WITH ELECTRICAL ARC POTENTIAL.
- INTERIOR MATERIALS, INCLUDING CARGO LINERS (CHANGE OF FLAMMABILITY

PROPERTIES)
- ENGINE STRUT CAVITIES, COWLING PANELS OR POD (INCOMPATIBILITY WITH BMS

5-63 SEALANT AND HIGH TEMPERATURES)
- FIBER-GLASS DUCTS WHERE, TEMPERATURE EXCEEDS 220 DEGREES F.
- APU, APU SHROUD OR ANY STRUCTURE IN DIRECT CONTACT WITH THE APU.
- SELECTED AREAS NOTED IN BASELINE PROGRAM.
7) DRY WET INSULATION BLANKETS PRIOR TO RE-INSTALLING, OR REPLACE WITH NEW.
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE 4.1-5

REV. E D6-54929 PAGE 4.1-6

4.2 BASELINE PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS
The 727 Baseline Program is subdivided into specific airplane task areas and
locations, each having an Implementation Age (I) and Repeat Interval (R) for
application of the Basic Task. CPCP tasks, which are applicable to a given
727 airplane (affected airplane), are those where the given airplane age (years since
initial delivery by Boeing) is equal to or greater than (I).
The basic requirements for implementing the CPCP tasks listed in the Baseline
Program are as follows:
(a) Regardless of when an operator's CPCP is approved the Implementation

requirements may be measured from December 31, 1991.
(b) For airplanes delivered on or prior to Dec. 31, 1970 the Repeat Interval is equal to
6 years or (R) for the respective task, whichever is less. The 6 year cap does not
apply to subsequent Repeat Intervals after the program is implemented. The 6
year cap does not apply to CPCP tasks associated with overhaul, (e.g. Landing
Gears or Flap Tracks), or engine removal.
(c) The maximum airplane age for implementing any CPCP task on any airplane must
not exceed [(I) + (R)] for each respective task.
(d) Each operator with an affected airplane or airplanes must apply all applicable
CPCP tasks on at least one affected airplane during each successive year of the
Implementation Period [ (I) to {(I) + (R)} ].
(e) CPCP tasks implemented ahead of the required time can be counted toward the
one airplane per year rate requirement.
(f) The one airplane per year rate requirement applies to each operator's total fleet of
a given model of airplane, regardless of the series combinations or range of
airplane ages.
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE 4.2-1

When at least one airplane has been implemented during each successive year
between (I) and [(I) + (R)], additional airplanes can be implemented at any time
before they exceed an age equal to [(I) + (R)].
(g) The one airplane per year rate requirement does not apply to CPCP tasks related
to component removal/overhaul (e.g. Landing Gears or Flap Tracks) or engine
removal.
(h) The second and subsequent applications of each task, on each affected airplane,
is applied at intervals not exceeding the Repeat Interval (R) for the respective
task, measured from the year and month of the first application of that task on the
respective airplane.
(i) If LEVEL 3 corrosion (See Section 1.1) is found in an area, the period for
implementing the program in that area on remaining airplanes in the operator's
fleet may require further adjustment.
(j) For structural items which have been completely replaced or overhauled as part of
the CPCP, such as a flap track, (I) may be calculated from the time of installation of
the new or overhauled part on an airplane.
(k) Components removed from a currently airworthy airplane, then installed on a

different airplane, can be transferred to that airplane's CPCP, provided they are
inspected and signed-off by quality control before they are installed on the new
airplane. Such components are to be visually inspected from a distance
considered necessary to detect early stages of corrosion or indications of other
discrepancies such as cracking (e.g., surveillance inspection). If there are
indications of hidden corrosion, such as bulging skins, corrosion running into
splices or under fittings, etc., additional inspections or partial disassembly is
required.
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE 4.2-2

It is recommended that priority for implementing the program be given to older
airplanes and areas requiring a significant upgrade of previous maintenance
procedures to meet the program requirements.
To provide additional explanation of the "one airplane per year" requirement, consider
the basic implementation requirements as a function of airplane delivery date:
Date of Initial Delivery from Basic CPCP Implementation Requirements

Boeing and Airplane Status
Airplanes Delivered On or Apply all CPCP tasks on at least one airplane in each
Prior to Dec. 31, 1970. successive year starting from Dec. 31, 1991 to Dec. 31,
(Airplanes over 20 years old) 1997 or [Dec. 31, 1991 + (R)], whichever period is shorter.
All CPCP tasks must be implemented on all the

operator's airplanes no later than Dec. 31, 1997 or [Dec.
31, 1991 + (R)], whichever is sooner.
Airplanes Delivered After Apply each applicable CPCP task on at least one
Dec. 31, 1970 that on Dec. airplane in each successive year starting from Dec. 31,
31, 1990 had reached or 1991 to [Dec. 31, 1991 +(R)].
exceeded (I) for some
or all of the BP tasks. All applicable CPCP tasks must be implemented on
all the operator's airplanes no later than
[Dec. 31, 1991 + (R)].
Airplanes Delivered After When the oldest airplane in the operator's fleet reaches
Dec. 31, 1970 that on Dec. (I), the applicable CPCP task(s) must be applied during
31, 1990 had not reached the following year on that airplane, or, altematively, on any
or exceeded (I) for some other airplane in the operator's fleet that is approaching (I).
or all of the BP tasks.
As additional airplanes exceed (I) the applicable task(s)
must be applied on at least one airplane during each
successive year from [(I) + one] to [(I) + (R)].
Any combination of the The one airplane per year requirement can be met by any
above. combination of airplanes of the same model in the
operator's fleet, with the maximum age as defined by the
respective group.
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE 4.2-3

REV. E D6-54929 PAGE 4.2-4

4.3 727 BASELINE PROGRAM
This section lists the inspection areas, implementation ages and repeat intervals for
the 727 Baseline Program. All parts of the BASIC TASK (Section 4.1) apply to each
area, unless otherwise noted.
During development of the Baseline Program several Service Bulletins (SB'S), which
included corrosion related requirements, were determined to be safety related. Some
of these are already mandated by an Airworthiness Directive (AD) (See Section 7).
The remainder have been incorporated into the Baseline Program as specific
corrosion tasks. In some cases SB's include additional supporting information such as
disassembly procedures, repair instructions, etc, or other action determined by the
727 Structures Task Group (STG), such as a modification. In such cases, the SB
number and other relevant information is shown as a note for the corresponding
corrosion task. If the listed action is not shown as (OPTIONAL), it is required as part
of the Baseline Program. Actions that are recommended by the 727 STG, but not
required, are shown with the word (OPTIONAL). Use of (OPTIONAL)
recommendations is at the discretion of the operator.
A listing of the required and optional Service Bulletins included or referenced in the
727 Baseline Program, is shown at the end of this Section. The list is shown both in
order of SB number and Corrosion Task number and indicates whether the related
action is required or optional and whether the total SB or part of the SB is applicable.
Specific SB actions and recommendations are shown as notes with the related
Corrosion Program Task.
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE 4.3-1

The following is an explanation of the form used to describe the 727 Baseline
Program. The form consists of the following sections:
AIRPLANE AREA: Description of the airplane area in which all the listed tasks,
having the same zone number within the CORROSION
TASK NUMBER, are located.
CORROSION TASK NUMBER: Identifies a specific area within the airplane area for
application of the BASIC or other defined corrosion task.
The numbering system consists of an ATA code index,
Zone and Item Number. Sub-Item numbers are used to
identify areas requiring particular attention during
inspections.
Example: C53-200-01.01
C- Identifies the task as corrosion related.
53 - The ATA Chapter Code that best describes the airplane area.
200 - The Zone Number associated with the airplane area. When multiple
zones are affected a Major or Sub-Major, or the lowest zone number is
used.
01 - A sequential Task Item Number associated with the airplane area.
.01 - A sequential Sub-Item Number identifying an area/item requiring
particular attention during inspections of a given airplane area, but not
warranting a separate task.
DESCRIPTION OF AREA TO Description of area for application of the Basic Task.
BE INSPECTED:
ZONES: List of airplane zones (Ref. 2) to which the given corrosion
task applies.
EFFECTIVITY: Airplane model-series and/or line number to which the given
corrosion task applies.
IMPLEMENTATION AGE (I): Airplane age, in years since initial delivery, beyond which
an approved Corrosion Prevention and Control Program
must be implemented per Section 4.1.
REPEAT INTERVAL (R): The interval, in years, between repeat applications of the
Basic Task in the given airplane area.
REFERENCE SERVICE Numbers of Service Bulletins that include additional
BULLETINS: supporting information for given Baseline Program tasks.
NOTES: Additional information relative to a given task. Shown as a
reference number in the right hand column and a
corresponding explanation in the NOTES section at the
bottom of the page. Notes shown with the word
(OPTIONAL) at the end refer to recommendations that are
not required to satisfy the mandatory program
requirements. Use of the options is at the discretion of the
airplane owner/operator.
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE 4.3-2

INDEX TO AIRPLANE AREAS IN 727 BASELINE PROGRAM
AIRPLANE AREA PAGE

NOSE LANDING GEAR 4.3-4
MAIN LANDING GEAR 4.3-5
FUSELAGE - EXTERIOR SURFACE, INCLUDING SECTION 48 AND LANDING 4.3-6
GEAR BAYS
FUSELAGE - LOWER LOBE - INTERIOR, EXCEPT BILGE 4.3-7
FUSELAGE - BILGE - INTERIOR 4.3-8
FUSELAGE - UNDER WING-TO-BODY FAIRINGS AND AIR CONDITIONING 4.3-9
ACCESS DOORS
FUSELAGE - SECTION 48 - INTERIOR 4.3-10
FUSELAGE - FLIGHT CREW COMPARTMENT - INTERIOR 4.3-10
FUSELAGE - UPPER LOBE - INTERIOR, INCLUDING FLOOR STRUCTURE 4.3-11
POWER PLANT STRUTS AND ENGINE MOUNTS 4.3-12
HORIZONTAL STABILIZER - EXTERIOR SURFACE 4.3-13
VERTICAL STABILIZER - EXTERIOR SURFACE 4.3-13
VERTICAL STABILIZER - LEADING EDGE - INTERIOR 4.3-15
VERTICAL STABILIZER - MAIN BOX - INTERIOR 4.3-15
VERTICAL STABILIZER - TRAILING EDGE CAVITY - INTERIOR 4.3-15
HORIZONTAL STABILIZER - LEADING EDGE - INTERIOR 4.3-13
HORIZONTAL STABILIZER - MAIN BOX - INTERIOR 4.3-14
HORIZONTAL STABILIZER - TRAILING EDGE CAVITY - INTERIOR 4.3-14
HORIZONTAL STABILIZER - CENT. SECT. & SUPPORT STRUCTURE 4.3-14
WING - CENTER SECTION - INTERIOR 4.3-16
WING - OUTBOARD - EXTERIOR SURFACE 4.3-17
WING - LEADING EDGE CAVITY - INTERIOR 4.3-17
WING - OUTBOARD MAIN BOX - INTERIOR 4.3-17
WING - TRAILING EDGE CAVITY - INTERIOR, INCLUDING FLAPS AND FLAP 4.3-18
TRACKS
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE 4.3-3

REV. E D6-54929 PAGE 4.3-4
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE 4.3-5
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE 4.3-6
D6-54929 PAGE 4.3-7
REV. E
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE 4.3-8
D6-54929 PAGE 4.3-9
REV. E
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE 4.3-10
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE 4.3-11
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE 4.3-12
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE 4.3-13
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE 4.3-14
D6-54929 PAGE 4.3-15
REV. E
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE 4.3-16
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE 4.3-17
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE 4.3-18
List of Service Bulletins in 727 Baseline Program
The following tables list the Service Bulletins (SBs), Effectivity and the related
Corrosion Task Number(s) in the 727 Baseline Program. The tables also indicate if
the SB action is REQUIRED (per the AD for the CPCP) or OPTIONAL and whether
the Total or Part of the SB is applicable to the CPCP. When part of a SB is
applicable, the corresponding note in the Baseline Program identifies which part.
Corrosion Tasks which are "terminated" by the SB are shown underlined. In these
cases the "terminating" action removes the task from the Baseline Program and
ongoing CPCP requirements are covered by the corresponding General Area Task
(-01). The first table lists the SBs included in the Baseline Program listed in numerical
order. The second table lists the Baseline Program Tasks having a related SB action,
in order of ATA code, Zone number and Task number. Additional corrosion related
SBs requiring mandatory action by separate ADs are listed in Section 7.
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE 4.3-19

List of REQUIRED or OPTIONAL Service Bulletins in 727 CPCP
Corrosion Task Number

Service Bulletin
Number OPTIONAL Action
REQUIRED Action
and
Effectivity
Total SB Part of SB Total SB Part of SB
52-122- 727-200
with deactivated C53-111-02
# 3 Cargo Door
53-144 C53-100-02
L/N 433 -1216
53-157 C53-111-03
UN 1 -1544
53-159 C53-100-03
UN 433-1216 C53-113-02
53-167 727-
100 Cargo A/Ps C53-100-04
only
53-184 C53-224-08
L/N 62-1832
55-0076 C55-395-11
All
55-0088 C53-137-01.02
All
Service Letter C55-300-10.02

55-7-A C55-391-20.01
57-140 C53-132-02
UN 1-1113
C57-562-02
57-145 C57-581-02
L/N 1 - 937
C57-581-03
57-146 C53-111-04
L/N 1 -1415
57-179 C32-135-01
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE 4.3-20

List of Tasks with REQUIRED or OPTIONAL Service Bulletins in 727 CPCP
Service Bulletin Number and Effectivity

Corrosion REQUIRED Action OPTIONAL Action
Task Number
Total SB Part of SB Total SB Part of SB
C32-135-01 57-179
53-144
C53-100-02 L/N 433 - 1216
53-159
C53-100-03 433 -1216
L/N
53-167 727-
C53-100-04 100
Cargo A/Ps only
52-122- 727-200
C53-111-02 with deactivated
# 3 Cargo Door
53-157
C53-111-03 L/N1 -1544
57-146
C53-111-04 L/N 1-1415
53-159
C53-113-02 L/N433- 1216
55-0088
C53-137-01.02 All
53-184
C53-224-08 L/N
62 -1832
57-140
C53-132-02 L/N
1-1113
Service Letter
C55-300-10.02 55-7-A
Service Letter
C55-391-20.01 55-7-A
55-0076
C55-395-11 All
57-145
C57-562-02 L/N1 - 937
57-145
C57-581-02 L/N1 - 937
57-145
C57-581-03 1 - 937
L/N
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE 4.3-21

REV. E D6-54929 PAGE 4.3-22

5.0 REPORTING SYSTEM
In addition to the routine reporting procedures already established for the 727, the
CPCP includes an additional reporting system. The primary purpose of this system is
to provide fleet data for monitoring the effectivity of the Baseline Program and
determining any necessary changes.
The report form included in this section is to be used for reporting all LEVEL 2 and
LEVEL 3 corrosion (See Section 1.1) findings to Boeing. It is important to complete
all pertinent parts of the form to the extent practical. Any additional comments
and/or photographs, that are available and help to identify the corrosion problem area
or type, should be attached.
All data and reports dealing with the 727 Aging Fleet Corrosion Program should be
submitted either through a Boeing Field Service Representative or directly to:
BOEING COMMERCIAL AIRPLANES

P.O. BOX 3707
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98124-2207, U.S.A.

Boeing Customer Services
Attention : Manager, Customer Service Engineering for Model 727
Reported data will be used to summarize program progress and to support the annual
review (see Section 6). Operator's may also use their data to support requests for
alternate means of compliance.
A number of early reports received by Boeing did not include all the pertinent information needed
for incorporation into the data-base system. Other reports contained confusing or conflicting
information, such as multiple task numbers for a single report. It is essential that all information
identifying the operator, airplane, specific corrosion task number, corrosion level, the name and
location of the corroded part and the likely cause of the corrosion (if known) is included on the
form for each Level 2 or 3 finding. When this information is not included, the report form will be
returned to the originator requesting the additional information. When practical, operators are
requested to use the form included in this section for reporting Level 2 and 3 findings to Boeing.
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE 5.0-1

Additional guidelines on the use and purpose of the CPCP Reporting System are
given in Appendix C, Section 5.
Procedure for Recording Inspection Completions (OPTIONAL)

An optional procedure for recording inspection completions and the highest level of
corrosion found for each area/item in the program is included in APPENDIX B. This
information may be used by operators to support requests for alternate means of
compliance, but is not required as part of this program. The completed forms should
not be returned to Boeing.
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE 5.0-2

AGING AIRPLANE
CORROSION PREVENTION AND CONTROL PROGRAM
INSPECTION REPORT
(THIS PAGE ONLY REQUIRED FOR LEVEL 2 OR 3 CORROSION)
OPERATOR: INSPECTION DATE:
MODEL: LINE No.:
MAINT./REPAIR FACILITY:
CORROSION TASK No.:
INTERVAL (YEARS) SINCE LAST CPCP INSPECTION:
LEVEL OF CORROSION: LEVEL 2 LOCAL

LEVEL 3 WIDESPREAD
DAMAGED PART NAME:
LONGERON/STRINGER SKIN
FRAME DOUBLER
BRACKET/SHEAR TIE RIB
CHORD BULKHEAD
WEB FITTING
OTHER:
LOCATION OF DAMAGE: ZONES

STA TO STA LH/RH
STR LH/RH TO STR
WL TO WL
BL LH/RH TO BL LH/RH
CAUSE OF DAMAGE:
ENVIRONMENT INTERNAL LEAKAGE
CHEMICAL SPILL LAV./GALLEY SPILL
BLOCKED DRAIN WET INSULATION BLANKET
UNKNOWN
OTHER
ADDITIONAL DESCRIPTION OF DAMAGED AREA:
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE 5.0-3

REV. E D6-54929 PAGE 5.0-4

6.0 ANNUAL REVIEW
Following implementation, the Boeing Aging Airplane Corrosion Programs will be

reviewed periodically by Structures Task Groups (STGs), representing Boeing
airplane operators, Boeing and the regulatory authorities. Activities will include a
review of reported fleet data, an assessment of the effectiveness of the Baseline
Program and a review of any further Service Bulletin recommendations.
Comments and suggestions regarding the content, format, data, etc. of this document,
for consideration during the annual review should be sent to the following address:
Boeing Commercial Airplanes
P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, U.S.A.
Attention : R. G. Kelsey
Manager, Maintenance and Ground Operations
Systems (MGOS),
Organization M-7360, Mail Stop 2J-52.
Telex: 32-9430 STA 637
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE 6.0-1

REV. E D6-54929 PAGE 6.0-2

7.0 CORROSION RELATED AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
This section contains a reference list of 727 Airworthiness Directives (AD'S) that
include requirements related to known corrosion problems. The corrosion related
actions required by these AD'S, including, in some cases, specified Implementation
Ages/Thresholds and Repeat Intervals, are in addition to, and take precedence over
those defined by this document.
AD Number SB Number Effectivity 727 SB Title

76-7-5 32-238 1 - 937
L/N Nose Landing Gear Release Mechanism Torsion
Shaft Inspection.
76-13-1 53-128 L/N
1 - 765 Forward Lower Body Skin Corrosion Inspection
and Repair at Str. 27, 28 and Body Buttock Line 0
Doubler.
85-24-2 51-17 727-200 to Air Conditioning Ram Air Duct Corrosion
L/N1042 Protection Finish Application.
88-1-2 32-251 1 - 957
L/N Main Landing Gear Manual Extension Support
Yolk Attach Bolt Insp. & Replacement.
89-20-04 53A-200 L/N1 -47 Stringer 14 Lap Corrosion, BS 441-719
90-26-09 53-84 1 - 549
L/N Body Skin Bonded Circumferential Doubler
Inspection and Mod.
90-20-08 53-85 All 727-100 Body Skin Bonded Doubler and Tripler Inspection
and Mod.
90-21-10 53-109 727-100 Body Crown Skin Circumferential Joint Bonded
L/N
1 - 547 Doubler Inspection, Repair and Preventive Mod.
-BS 1080
91-06-06 53-72 L/N
1 - 849 Body Skin Lap Joint Corrosion Inspection and
Mod.
91-09-09 53A-203 All 727-200 Lower Body Skin Corrosion, BS 700-720, S-28 L
&R
REV. E D6-54929 Page 7.0-1

REV. E D6-54929 Page 7.0-2

APPENDIX A. DEVELOPMENT OF THE BASELINE PROGRAM
The 727 Baseline Corrosion Prevention and Control Program was developed by a
Structures Task Group (STG) which included representatives from 727 operators,
Boeing and regulatory authorities. The basic procedure used to develop the program
was as follows:
A Boeing Task Force interrogated all Boeing sources of information related to known
corrosion problems, including SBs, SIIAs, Service Letters (SL), Aging Fleet Survey
Reports (AFS), Significant Item Reporting System (SIRS) and experienced Boeing
Engineers. All corrosion problems relating to PSEs were retained and segregated into
selected GENERAL AREAS (e.g. Main Wing Box, Fuselage Crown, Bilge, etc.).
These areas were selected on the basis of having similar corrosion exposure
characteristics and/or inspection access requirements.
Many of the known corrosion problems have existing maintenance/modification

recommendations published in Service Bulletins, some of which are required by an
Airworthiness Directive. Any existing corrosion related SB having an associated AD
will continue to be handled independently.
Other SBs, which included corrosion related tasks, were reviewed by Boeing and
those found to be significant in relation to continuing airworthiness were included in
the program as specific tasks. The SB'S are referenced in the program to provide
additional supporting information.
All remaining corrosion related SB'S, not adequately covered by the 727 Aging Fleet
Program will continue to be recommended for economic reasons. Details and
additional information relative to these economic based SB'S will be included in the
Boeing Corrosion Prevention Manual (Ref. 1).
The General Areas were grouped into Major Airplane Areas on the basis of similarities
between corrosion prevention and control and/or inspection access requirements.
For each Major Airplane Area, the available information on reported corrosion
problems was reviewed by the 727 STG and an IMPLEMENTATION AGE selected.
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE A-1

These represent a "typical" (not minimum) airplane age beyond which an effective
corrosion prevention and control program should be implemented.
A BASIC (Corrosion Prevention and/or Control) TASK was developed by the STG for
application to all PSEs. This includes a requirement to pay particular attention to listed
areas where experience has shown corrosion may occur.
In a large fleet of airplanes, operating in widely varying conditions throughout the

world, there is a high degree of variability in corrosion growth rates. To account for this
variability with a single fixed program it would be necessary for all operators to use a
program that is based on the most adverse operating conditions. A more practical
approach is to establish a baseline program that represents minimum requirements for
"typical" operators. Individual operator's, who still experience significant corrosion on
some or all of their airplanes after applying the baseline program, must then modify or
intensify their program until significant corrosion no longer occurs.
A proposal was developed for the Baseline Program, based upon existing
recommendations published in Boeing documents, modified by current experience
and knowledge gained from reviews of Aging Fleet Surveys and reported corrosion
related data. This proposal was used by the STG, in conjunction with operator inputs
reflecting current maintenance practices, to establish the final Baseline Program.
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE A-2

APPENDIX B. OPTIONAL SYSTEM FOR RECORDING INSPECTION
COMPLETIONS AND HIGHEST LEVEL OF CORROSION FINDINGS
The corrosion report forms included in this section are intended for use by operators
as an optional procedure for recording inspection completions and the highest levels
of corrosion found. Completion of these forms is not required by this program.
Operators are recommended to record and keep such information to help demonstrate
the adequacy of a program and/or to support requests for alternate means of
compliance. Collected data can also be used to support inputs to the annual review
(Section 6), recommending changes to the Baseline Program. The completed forms
should not be returned to Boeing.
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE B-1

D6-54929 PAGE B-2
REV. E
D6-54929 PAGE B-5
REV. E
D6-54929 PAGE B-11
REV. E
D6-54929 PAGE B-15
REV. E

APPENDIX C. GUIDELINES
The guidelines included in this Appendix are (OPTIONAL). They are intended to
provide additional clarification of some sections of this document. Use of these
guidelines is at the operator's discretion.
SECTION C.1: GLOSSARY.
SECTION C.2: APPLICATION OF THE BASIC TASK.
SECTION C.3: DETERMINATION OF CORROSION LEVELS BASED ON

FINDINGS.
SECTION C.4: TYPICAL ACTIONS FOLLOWING DETERMINATION OF

CORROSION LEVELS.
SECTION C.5: REPORTING.
SECTION C.6: PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION.
Appendix C will be updated periodically to provide additional guidelines and

supporting information, as required.
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C-1

REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C-2

C.1 GLOSSARY
This section contains a Glossary explaining some of the terms and expressions related to Corrosion
Prevention and Control Programs.
AFFECTED AIRPLANES: Airplanes of a given model that have reached or exceeded the
Implementation Ages (I) specified for each task in the Baseline Program for that model (Section 4.3 of
this document). Affected airplanes must incorporate an approved Corrosion Prevention and Control
Program in all task areas listed in the Baseline Program.
AGE EXPLORATION: A systematic evaluation of an airplane area or item based on analysis of
collected information from in-service experience. It assesses the resistance to a deterioration process
with respect to increasing age. An example of this is a Rotational Sampling Program applied during an
Extended Repeat Interval.
AIRWORTHINESS: A term used to describe the ability of an airplane to complete a flight safely, while
operating anywhere within the fail-safe design envelope. In other words, the airframe must be able to
sustain all fail-safe design loads (typically limit load), throughout its operational life, without
catastrophic failure. Damage tolerance evaluations are aimed at determining actions required to
detect and repair damage to Principal Structural Elements, before airframe (not component) strength
falls below design fail-safe load capability.
URGENT AIRWORTHINESS CONCERN: An airplane condition/damage that would jeopardize

continued safe operation of any airplane in an operator's fleet prior to the next scheduled
maintenance visit in which the damage could be detected. For the Aging Airplane Corrosion
Program, the expression refers to the likelihood of having a similar or worse corrosion problem on
any airplane of the same model in the operator's fleet than a potential airworthiness corrosion
problem already found.
ALLOWABLE LIMITS: For corrosion removal, allowable limits refer to the maximum amount of
material that can be blended out before the airplane structural strength falls below design ultimate
strength capability. The limits are normally specified in the airplane Structural Repair Manual (SRM) or
a related Service Bulletin.
BASELINE PROGRAM: A program for use on affected airplanes in areas and locations where there is
no proven effective Corrosion Prevention and Control Program. The program is subdivided into
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.1-1

airplane areas and locations within those areas. Minimum corrosion prevention and control tasks are
specified for each area and location. Suitable adjustments to the program are required in areas where
corrosion is found to exceed LEVEL 1 in the second or subsequent inspection. Details of the Baseline
Program are given in Section 4 of this document.
BASIC TASK: The maintenance task to be accomplished in each defined airplane area as part of the
Baseline Program. Task contents may vary depending on specific requirements in an airplane area or
location. Details of the Basic Task are given in Section 4.1 of this document.
CORROSION (METAL): The physical deterioration of metals caused by reaction to an adverse

environment.
CORROSION LEVEL: A means of determining the effectiveness of a corrosion prevention and

control program relative to a given corrosion finding, in terms of the type of repair required and the
potential consequences to continuing airworthiness in the operator's fleet. An effective program is
one that controls corrosion of all PSEs and other structure listed in the Baseline Program to LEVEL
1 or better. LEVEL 2 corrosion, found during the second or subsequent inspection requires action to
reduce future corrosion in the same area to LEVEL 1 or better. LEVEL 3 corrosion requires the
same action as LEVEL 2 plus a plan to assure timely detection or prevention of LEVEL 3 corrosion
in the same area on other airplanes in the operator's fleet. Corrosion Levels are defined in Section
1.1 of this document.
EXTENT OF CORROSION: The physical extent of a corrosion problem relative to the airplane
structure. The following descriptions of LOCAL and WIDESPREAD corrosion are for general use in
areas where no specific description is given in this document, or the SRM, or a related S.B..
LOCAL: Corrosion of a skin or web (Wing, Fuselage, Empennage or Strut) not exceeding one
frame, stringer or stiffener bay,
or,
Corrosion of a single frame, chord, stringer or stiffener,
or,
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.1-2

Corrosion of more than one frame, chord, stringer or stiffener but, no corrosion on two adjacent
members on each side of the corroded member.
WIDESPREAD: Corrosion of two or more adjacent skin or web bays defined by frame, stringer
or stiffener spacing,
or,
Corrosion of two or more adjacent frames, chords, stringers or stiffeners,
or,
Corrosion of a frame, chord, stringer or stiffener and an adjacent skin/web bay.
Illustrations, showing examples of typical LOCAL and WIDESPREAD corrosion for fuselage
monocoque structure, and a table summarizing the effect of corrosion extent and severity on
corrosion level, are shown at the end of the Glossary.
DAMAGE TOLERANCE: The ability of structure to sustain fail-safe design loads in the presence of
damage, such as cracks and corrosion, until such damage is detected through inspection or safe
malfunction and repaired.
DURABILITY: The ability of a fleet of airplanes to operate for a selected period of time (Design Service
Objective (DSO)), with a low probability of costly damage (non-accidental) occurring in primary
structure on the majority of airplanes in the fleet. The terms "Durability" and "Design Service Objective
(DSO)" are used in reference to economic operation of the airplane and are not associated with any
safety related objectives.
EFFECTIVE CORROSION PREVENTION AND CONTROL PROGRAM: A program that controls

corrosion of all PSEs and other structure listed in the Baseline Program to Level 1 or better, between
successive applications of the corrosion program task. Program effectiveness is determined on an
area by area or location by location basis.
EXTENDED REPEAT INTERVAL (ERI): A lengthy Repeat Interval (R) for use in a given area where
no corrosion has been reported in the airplane model fleet, or, when an operator or group of operators
have inspected a sufficient number of airplanes to show there is no indication of corrosion in the area,
in their fleet. ERIs are normally subdivided into convenient shorter intervals and a Rotational Sampling
Program used, to provide a continuing assessment of the effects of aging (Age Exploration).
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.1-3

FAIL-SAFE: The ability of damaged structure to withstand an infrequent high load (usually design
limit). Structure is classified as Fail-Safe if it has been evaluated to assure that catastrophic failure is
not probable after fatigue failure or obvious partial failure of a single principal structural element (Ref.
FAA AC 25.571-1A). Fail-safe design with adequate inspection is the basis for damage tolerant
structure.
IMPLEMENTATION AGE (I): The airplane age (years since initial manufacturer's delivery date)
beyond which the scheduled maintenance program for a defined airplane area must include an
effective corrosion prevention and control program. Implementation requirements and airplane ages
are specified in Sections 4.2 and 4.3 of this document.
IMPLEMENTATION PERIOD: The maximum calendar interval for completing the first application of
the Basic Task on all the operator's affected airplanes. The period corresponds to the Repeat Interval
(R) for each corrosion task in the Baseline Program (Section 4.3). For airplanes that have reached or
exceeded 20 years since initial delivery from Boeing the period is (R) or 6 years, whichever is less.
IMPLEMENTATION RATE: The required minimum effective rate for accomplishing the first
application of the Basic Task on affected airplanes in the operator's fleet. A minimum implementation
rate equivalent to one airplane per year is required for each airplane area or location within an area in
the Baseline Program. This rate can be achieved as follows :
- By accomplishing the First application of the Basic Task in all areas and locations on a single
airplane each year.
- By accomplishing the First application of the Basic Task in varying areas or locations on several
affected airplanes, such that all airplane areas and locations receive the First application of the Basic
Task at least once each year.
Note:The second and subsequent applications of the Basic Task are applied per the appropriate
repeat Interval (R) for each task.
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.1-4

INSPECTION - STRUCTURAL: A periodic examination of defined structure against a specific
standard.
INSPECTION - DETAILED: Close intensive visual inspection of a highly defined structural detail,
assembly or location searching for evidence of structural irregularity, using sufficient lighting and where
necessary inspection aids such as mirrors, hand lenses, ladders, stands, etc. Surface cleaning and
access procedures may be required to gain proximity.
INSPECTION - SURVEILLANCE: Visual examination of defined internal or external structural areas

from a distance considered necessary and with sufficient lighting to perform an adequate check.
Inspection aids such as mirrors, hand lenses, ladders, stands, etc. may be used where necessary.
Surface cleaning and access procedures may be required to gain proximity.
INSPECTION - PAY PARTICULAR ATTENTION TO: Used in general area/surveillance inspections

to focus added attention to corrosion prone areas, as determined by fleet experience. Known areas of
corrosion requiring a specific (I), (R) or task are identified by a separate task number.
MULTIPLE DAMAGE: The presence of secondary damage that is dependent or independent of the
primary damage (E.g. short cracks and/or corrosion adjacent to long cracks (same load path), or
severe corrosion).
NORMAL (STANDARD) OVERHAUL PROCEDURES/MAINTENANCE PRACTICES: Approved or

accepted overhaul procedures or maintenance practices in use prior to release of the CPCP. When
used in the CPCP, it implies that each operator has the option to use procedures or practices
determined by them to provide adequate corrosion control. Typically, the procedures or practices are
based on manufacturer's recommendations, and/or good engineering judgment, and/or are similar to
those used by other operators.
NORMAL AMOUNTS OF SEALANT: Sealant/leveling compound that is installed during airplane

manufacturing or installed by the operator after airplane is delivered per Structural Repair Manual or
Maintenance Manual (MM) Chapter 51 procedures.
PRIMARY STRUCTURE: Structure required to sustain design flight and ground loads.
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.1-5

PRINCIPAL STRUCTURAL ELEMENT (PSE): A structural detail, element, or assembly which is
judged significant because of the reduction in airplane residual strength or loss of structural function
which are consequences of its failure (A list of PSE's is given in Chapter 51 of the airplane Structural
Repair Manual (SRM)).
REPEAT INTERVAL (R) (Corrosion Programs): The number of years between successive
applications of a defined corrosion task. Repeat Intervals for the Baseline Program are given in Section
4.3 of this document.
RESIDUAL STRENGTH: The strength of a damaged structure.
ROTATIONAL SAMPLING PROGRAM: Programs used in airplane areas having Extended Repeat
Intervals, to provide a continuing assessment of the effects of aging (Age Exploration) in the area.
Each program is based on a proportionate number of affected airplanes being inspected at selected
equal subdivisions of the Extended Repeat interval. Different airplanes are inspected at each shorter
interval, such that all affected airplanes are inspected within the Extended Repeat Interval. If and when
corrosion is found, the Rotational Sampling Program is discontinued and the information is used to
establish a Repeat Interval for all affected airplanes in the operator's fleet. Examples, illustrating the
use of Rotational Sampling Programs are included in Section C.6.
Currently, the only area where a Rotational Sampling Program is approved for use in the
707/720, 727, 737 and 747 Baseline Programs, is the wet areas of the 747 Wing Fuel Tanks.
Note : Sampling programs that do not include application of approved corrosion prevention
and control tasks on all affected airplanes are not acceptable.
STRESS CORROSION: Stress corrosion is a deterioration by cracking due to combined effects of a

sustained tensile stress and a corrosive environment. Close examination and metallurgical evaluation
of the fracture may be necessary to identify stress corrosion as the fracture mechanism.
STRUCTURAL SIGNIFICANT ITEM (SSI) : Used as a name for a fatigue sensitive PSE in Boeing
Supplemental Structural Inspection Programs.
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.1-6

EXAMPLES OF LOCAL AND WIDESPREAD CORROSION
Basic definitions of LOCAL and WIDESPREAD corrosion, relative to the Aging Airplane Corrosion
Programs (AACPs), are included in the Glossary. The following six figures show various patterns of
corrosion on typical fuselage frames, skin and stringers/longerons, illustrating examples of LOCAL and
WIDESPREAD corrosion. The primary purpose of the AACPs is to prevent or control corrosion that
could jeopardize continuing structural airworthiness. Typically, WIDESPREAD corrosion is more likely
to have a direct affect on airworthiness of the airplane, than LOCAL corrosion. This is particularly true
on older airplanes, where corrosion is more likely to occur concurrently with fatigue damage, and
combined damage is more likely when the corrosion is widespread. To safeguard against this potential
airworthiness problem, widespread corrosion, which occurs between successive inspections and is
approaching allowable blend-out limits, is classified as LEVEL 2. A summary of Corrosion Levels as a
function of Corrosion Severity and extent and number of inspection intervals is shown in Figure 1.
Additional information is given in Section C.3.
Figure 1 Effect of Corrosion Extent and Severity on Corrosion Level
Corrosion Level for Given Extent and Number of Inspection Intervals to

Corrosion Reach Given Severity
Severity
Relative to LOCAL WIDESPREAD
Allowable
Blend-out Limit Multiple Multiple
Single IntervalIntervalss Single Interval Intervals
Well Below LEVEL 1 LEVEL 1 LEVEL 1 LEVEL 1
Approaching LEVEL 1 LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 1
At Limit LEVEL 1 LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 1
(1) LEVEL 2 LEVEL 1* LEVEL 2 LEVEL 1*

Above
(2) LEVEL 3 LEVEL 3** LEVEL 3 LEVEL 3**
(1) Corrosion is not an Urgent Airworthiness Concern.

(2) Corrosion is an Urgent Airworthiness Concern.
* Operator experience over several years has demonstrated only light corrosion between
successive inspections but latest inspection and cumulative blend-out now exceed
allowable limit.
** Highly unlikely event following multiple applications of Basic Task.
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.1-7

EXAMPLES OF LOCAL AND WIDESPREAD CORROSION IN FUSELAGE SKIN PANELS
Figure 2 Local Corrosion

(Corrosion occurring in non-adjacent skin panels)
Figure 3 Widespread Corrosion

(Corrosion occurring in adjacent skin panels)
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.1-8

EXAMPLES OF LOCAL AND WIDESPREAD CORROSION IN FUSELAGE FRAMES

(Corrosion occurring in non-adjacent frames)

(Corrosion occurring in adjacent frames)
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.1-9

EXAMPLES OF LOCAL CORROSION IN FUSELAGE STRINGERS/LONGERONS AND
WIDESPREAD CORROSION IN FUSELAGE FRAMES AND SKIN PANELS

(Corrosion occurring in non-adjacent stringers/longerons)

(Corrosion occurring in an adjacent frame and skin panel)
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.1-10

C.2 APPLICATION OF THE BASIC TASK
This section provides additional guidelines for applying the Basic Task (defined in Section 4.1). The
guidelines are primarily based on interpretations made in response to operator questions or
suggestions and will continue to be added to or changed periodically to reflect on-going experience.
The guidelines are shown in relation to the applicable section of the Basic Task.
1) Remove all systems, equipment and interior furnishings required to accomplish 3)
In general fittings, systems components and other permanently attached items should not be
removed for corrosion inspections, unless otherwise required by the corrosion task, or if there are
indications of corrosion under or behind them.
It is not necessary to remove permanently attached acoustic lining unless there are indications that
corrosion is occurring around or under the lining, or that the lining is damaged or disbonded to the
point where moisture can penetrate to the metal surface. If acoustic lining is removed, any
adhesive remaining on the metal surface should be removed per BAC 5801 (Process Specification).
Corrosion inhibiting compounds (CICs) should not be applied to the metal surface prior to
reinstallation of acoustic lining per BAC 5801. After installation, apply CIC in the area, including the
aluminum acoustic lining, per part 6) of the Basic Task. Service Letter 727-SL-51-34 provides
procedures to be used in the event that adhesively attached acoustical liners require replacement.
2) Prior to inspection, clean the area as required to accomplish 3).
- It is not intended that normal amounts of sealant/leveling compound* (sealant/leveling compound

installed during manufacturing or installed by the operator after airplane is delivered per the
Structural Repair Manual SRM or Maintenance Manual (MM) Chapter 51 procedures)* be removed
for the corrosion inspections, unless it has deteriorated to the point where moisture can penetrate
down to the metal. During visual inspections attention should be paid to sealant/leveling compound
integrity. If it appears cracked or no longer adheres to the structure it should be removed and the
structure behind inspected. Experience has shown that periodic application of a corrosion inhibiting
compound is more effective if fillet seals (not required as a fuel barrier) are not replaced.
- A light uniform film of corrosion inhibiting compound, that has not accumulated dirt or debris will
normally allow adequate inspection of the structure without removal. Multiple layers of corrosion
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.2-1

inhibiting compound and/or accumulations of dirt or debris will normally require removal to allow
adequate inspection of the structure.
3) Visually inspect all PSEs and other listed structure from
Visual inspection requirements apply to all PSEs and all other structure listed in the Baseline
Program. Included in this are any load carrying interconnecting components that contribute to the
PSEs or other listed structure acting as a structural assembly (Such as frame shear ties and
stringer clips attaching typical fuselage frames, intercostals between floor beams, etc.), stiffeners,
intercostals, etc.
All CPCP inspections including "pay particular attention to" items are visual surveillance type
inspections unless otherwise stated by a note in the appropriate task description.
Bolts and Bushings that are part of PSEs are not subject to corrosion level determination and
reporting. However, if level 2 or 3 corrosion is found on mating surfaces then reporting per Section
5, of this document is required.
4) Remove all corrosion, evaluate damage and repair or replace all discrepant structure, as
required.
It is the intent of the CPCP, that any corrosion found during inspections related to an operator's
CPCP be removed and, if necessary, the damaged part reinforced or replaced prior to returning the
airplane to service. Per discussion with the FAA, the automatic deferral of corrosion is not
considered to be an acceptable means of complying with the AD. Under certain circumstances (on
a case-by-case basis), it may be permissible to defer the removal and repair of corrosion. Normally,
this will require a determination that airplane ultimate strength and continuing airworthiness will not
be jeopardized prior to removal and repair of the corrosion. In addition, an approved schedule for
accomplishing the corrosion removal and repair must be established. The operator's experience
and background in making such determinations will be a consideration. Because the manufacturer
has access to the information necessary for a detailed evaluation, FAA approval can be provided by
a Boeing DER.
If corrosion is found during non-CPCP inspections, airlines are not required to classify corrosion
findings. However, if significant corrosion (i.e. beyond SRM allowable limits) is found during
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.2-2

non-CPCP inspections resulting in repair, then it must be classified (i.e. level 2 or 3) and reported
per Section 5 of this document.
- Under the existing Structural Inspection Programs, when a discrepancy such as scoring, pitting or
galling found on structural bolts, the bolts require a replacement with servicable parts unless
otherwise stated by a Service Bulletin or other approved documentation. Similarly when bushings
are found to be loose, migrated and corroded, they must be removed and replaced with new
bushings per standard practices. Therefore bushings and bolts that are part of Principle Structural
Assemblies should not be subject to corrosion level determination and quarterly reporting to the
manufacturer, Because there are adequate scheduled structural inspections including CPCP
inspections to find bushing and bolt discrepancies and replace them before they become critical.
5) Clear any blocked holes or gaps that may hinder drainage.
6) Apply suitable approved water displacing/anti-corrosion compounds
- With reference to the limitation in Section 4.1 regarding the use of Corrosion Inhibiting Compounds
(CICs) adjacent to tears or holes in insulation blankets. An operator asked if this limitations applies
to all CICs or only to CICs listed under BMS 3-23. In response the Boeing Materials Technology
(BMT) group provided the following statement:
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.2-3

"Based on tests done in the Materials Technology lab., on dried films of various CICs, it appears
that there are water soluble materials in all CICs which help cause water to wick-up fiberglass
strands, to varying degrees. These solution materials are those that are necessary for penetration
of the CIC between faying surfaces, and thus cannot be eliminated. Therefore, contact with any
brand of CIC should be avoided."
Boeing engineers are continuing to evaluate existing and new CICs, in conjunction with their
manufacturers and Boeing airplane operators. If and when new CICs are developed that are shown
not to be prone to the above problem, the relative information will be included in the AACP
documents.
Experience has shown that areas that are periodically washed with water and solvents are
subsequently prone to corrosion attacks. Therefore, in addition to applying Corrosion Inhibiting
Compounds per CPCP requirements, it is recommended that the same compounds are also applied
after an area has been washed/cleansed.
- Some airplane areas are difficult to access and/or have limited visibility (e.g. End sections of some
Vertical or Horizontal Stabilizers). In such areas, it may not be possible to physically check if
corrosion inhibiting compounds (CICs), applied per Part 6) of the Basic Task, have penetrated all
faying surfaces or covered all areas. In such cases, CICs should be applied to the extent practical,
using the same equipment and procedure used by the operator in other airplane areas. If there are
indications of corrosion in these areas, on the second or subsequent CPCP inspection, different
application procedures may be required (e.g. Use of a standard paint gun with increased pressure).
- A new type of CIC, per BMS 3-29, has been introduced as an alternative to a single coat per BMS
3-23 or a dual coat per BMS 3-23 covered by BMS 3-26 TYPE II (Ref. Section 4.1). Questions
have been asked about the potential effects of overlaying existing BMS 3-23 or 3-26 compounds
with BMS 3-29 compounds. No adverse effects are anticipated from such overlays.
7) Dry wet insulation blankets prior to re-installation, or replace with new.
- It is recommended that tears or damage to the blankets be repaired prior to re-installing.
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.2-4

C.3 DETERMINATION OF CORROSION LEVELS BASED ON FINDINGS
When corrosion is found on a PSE or other listed structure, it is necessary to determine a Corrosion
Level (See Section 1.1 for corrosion level definitions). For the second or subsequent inspections,
Corrosion Levels demonstrate compliance with the program, or the need for change and/or other
action. An effective Corrosion Prevention and Control Program is one that controls corrosion of all
PSEs and other listed structure to LEVEL 1 or better. LEVEL 2 corrosion, found during the second or
subsequent inspection requires action to reduce future corrosion in the same area to LEVEL 1 or better.
LEVEL 3 corrosion requires the same action as LEVEL 2 plus a plan to assure timely detection or
prevention of LEVEL 3 corrosion in the same area on other airplanes in the operator's fleet.
All corrosion that can be blended out within allowable limits (as defined by the manufacturers SRM, or
associated SB) is LEVEL 1 and demonstrates an acceptable program. When Corrosion of a PSE or
other listed structure occurring between successive CPCP inspections, requires a single blend-out that
exceeds allowable blend-out limits and requires reinforcement or replacement of part(s), it is LEVEL 2.
If such corrosion also gives rise to a potential airworthiness concern in the operator's fleet, it should be
further evaluated to determine if it is LEVEL 3. In the majority of cases, LEVEL 2 corrosion is unlikely to
be of such seriousness, relative to continuing airworthiness, that immediate and drastic action is
required in the operator's maintenance program. Circumstances will normally allow further inspection of
the same area in the operator's fleet, to determine the likely extent and magnitude of the problem. This
in turn will provide a clearer picture as to what action is required to reduce or eliminate the problem on
all airplanes in the operator's fleet.
Note: Level 1 and 2 corrosion is determined on the basis of the amount

of blend-out required to remove corrosion which has occurred between
successive CPCP inspections. Therefore, by definition, corrosion
findings do not become Level 1 or 2 until the second or subsequent
CPCP inspection. However, to assist the STG in their evaluation of the
adequacy of the Baseline Program, operators are requested to submit
details of corrosion found during initial CPCP inspections, or other
structural inspections, where blend-out exceeds allowable limits. Such
findings should be reported as Level 2, with zero as the number of years
since previous CPCP inspection. Since such findings are not related to
the second or subsequent CPCP inspection, no adjustment to the
maintenance program is required.
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.3-1

After a corrosion problem has been found on a given airplane, the likelihood that the same problem is
occurring and to what severity on other affected airplanes in the operator's fleet, is dependent on
several factors relative to those airplanes, such as the following:
Cause of the problem

Past maintenance history
Relative operating environment
Production build standard
Relative years in service
Visibility/inspectability of the corroded area.
After gaining access, the visibility of the corroded area of the structure can significantly influence the
likelihood that any similar problems, which may have occurred on other affected airplanes in the
operators fleet, will remain undetected during routine maintenance.
Figure 8 shows examples of various combinations of corrosion blend-outs and the corresponding
corrosion level.
Figure 9 and the related notes are intended to provide guidance for determining typical corrosion levels.
Although this diagram can be used directly for the majority of findings, circumstances may arise which
require additional or different methods of determining corrosion levels.
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.3-2

Figure 8 Examples of Corrosion Level Determination Based on Blend-out
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.3-3

Figure 9 Logic Diagram for Corrosion Level Determination
SEE FOLLOWING PAGES FOR NOTES AND ADDITIONAL EXPLANATIONS.

SEE SECTION C.4 FOR TYPICAL ACTIONS FOLLOWING DETERMINATION
OF CORROSION LEVELS.
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.3-4

Note: In the following pages the numbers shown within ( ) in the text correspond to the
circled numbers in the logic diagram.
Figure 10A- Part 1
(1) The first box indicates that this flow chart activity applies to inspections associated with the
corrosion prevention and control program. Existing acceptable maintenance practices are still
valid for corrosion findings during other inspection opportunities. If corrosion is found during
non-CPCP inspections, airlines are not required to classify corrosion findings. However, if
significant corrosion (i.e. beyond SRM allowable limits) is found during non-CPCP inspections
resulting in repair, then the corrosion finding must be classified (i.e. level 2 or 3) and reported per
Section 5 of this document.
(2) On an area by area or location by location basis, using the implementation requirements of
Section 4.2 of the D6 document.
(3) If no corrosion is found, no program adjustment is required (See Note A).
Note A - Continue with existing Corrosion Prevention and Control Program
OPTIONAL: Record corrosion task number and results of inspection for proof of program
compliance. If no corrosion is found, result can be used, in part, as justification for escalating the
corrosion task implementation age (I) and/or repeat interval (R).
(4) If corrosion is found, is the structure either a principal structural element (PSE) as listed in
Section 51 of the SRM, or structure listed in the corrosion prevention and control program
documents?
(5) If it is not, i.e. secondary structure, etc. then repair the structure and continue with the existing
program (See Note A).
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.3-5

Figure 10A Part 1 - Corrosion Level Determination
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.3-6

Figure 10B - Part 1
(6) If the corrosion is on a PSE or structure listed in the corrosion prevention and control program
document, is the corrosion damage a result of a unique event on this airplane (See Note B)?
Note B - Unique events responsible for isolated cases of corrosion include occurrences resulting
from contamination due to instrumentation breakages (e.g. acid from battery breakage or leak,
mercury spill, etc.), or leakage from corrosive cargo, if the carriage of such cargo is not typical in
the operator's fleet.
(7) Repair the structure. If the corrosion is a unique event no program adjustment is required, since
the program addresses corrosion control in the operator's fleet and not a single airplane event.
However, an evaluation and correction of the procedures that caused this isolated spill should be
conducted (See Note C)
Note C - LEVEL 1 CORROSION - ISOLATED CASE:
Repair per SRM or approved repair method.
Assess potential effect of damage on airworthiness.
If undetected damage would have caused an urgent airworthiness concern requiring expeditious
action (Level 3), if it could have occurred on other airplanes in operator's fleet, submit data to the
appropriate regulatory authority substantiating that the occurrence is isolated to the appropriate
regulatory authority.
Adjustments to the corrosion prevention and control program for that area are not required.
OPTIONAL : Document the findings for later use. Evaluate procedures for handling spills,
contaminants, clean-up, cargo storage, etc., which allowed the isolated case.
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.3-7

Figure 10B Part 2 - Corrosion Level Determination
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.3-8

Figure 10C - Part 3
(8) If the corrosion damage is not an isolated case, does it require reinforcement/replacement?
(9) If it does not, is the corrosion LOCAL or WIDESPREAD ?
(10) If it is within allowable blend-out limits and LOCAL it is Level 1.
(11) If the corrosion is WIDESPREAD, is the blend-out approaching the allowable limits?
(12) Corrosion blend-out that is not approaching allowable limits is Level 1.
(13) If the corrosion is approaching allowable limits, has it occurred over multiple inspection periods?
(14) If it has taken multiple inspection periods to approach the allowable limits, corrosion is Level 1.
(15) If corrosion is WIDESPREAD and approaching allowable limits between successive inspections,
it is Level 2 (see section C.4 of the D6 document for action).
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.3-9

Figure 10C Part 3 - Corrosion Level Determination
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.3-10

Fiqure 10D - Part 4
(16) If corrosion does require reinforcement/replacement, is it the result of cumulative blend-outs over
multiple inspection periods? If so, it is classified as Level 1 corrosion and no adjustment of the
program is required (10).
(17) If the corrosion damage has occurred since the last inspection, is it just beyond allowable limits
(typically within 10%)?
(18) If corrosion was just beyond allowable limits, was it found as a result of the first application of the
baseline corrosion program inspections?
(19) If it was the first application of the baseline program the corrosion is Level 2 (see Section C.4 of
the D6 document for action).
(20) If it was the 2nd or subsequent inspection of the baseline program the corrosion is Level 2 for the
affected airplane but does not require immediate action to reduce the corrosion to Level 1 or
better, see note E.
Note E) - LEVEL 2 CORROSION (FOUND DURING SECOND OR SUBSEQUENT CPCP
INSPECTION AND JUST BEYOND ALLOWABLE BLEND-OUT LIMITS):
Inspect same location on additional airplanes in operator's fleet, prior to adjusting maintenance
program. If damage is typically LEVEL 2, use fleet data to determine what changes are required
to control corrosion to LEVEL 1 or better. If damage is typically LEVEL 1, pay particular attention
to corroded area during subsequent inspections on all affected airplanes, and make appropriate
changes to maintenance program if typical corrosion damage becomes LEVEL 2.
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.3-11

Figure 10D Part 4 - Corrosion Level Determination
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.3-12

Figure 10E - Part 5
(21) Note D provides basic guidelines for determining if the damage should be considered as a
potential urgent airworthiness concern in the operator's fleet. If it is not, the corrosion is Level 2
(see Section C.4 of the D6 document for action).
Note D - Is corrosion damage a potential urgent airworthiness concern in operator's fleet ?
Damage is considered to be of potential urgent airworthiness concern if it is severe enough that

the safety of flight of any airplane, of the same model in the operator's fleet, can be jeopardized
prior to the next scheduled inspection of the affected area. Each operator is responsible for
determining if any corrosion problem found in their own fleet is a potential urgent airworthiness
concern. The manufacturer has design experience and technical data to assist in final resolution
of this question.
Further evaluation by the manufacturer is recommended for LEVEL 2 corrosion findings that are
well beyond allowable limits, and there is an airworthiness concern requiring expeditious action,
based on the potential for having similar but more severe corrosion on any other airplane in the
operator's fleet, prior to the next scheduled inspection of that area.
Factors that should be considered when determining the potential for an airworthiness concern in
the operator's fleet, following such LEVEL 2 findings, include the following:
Can the cause of the problem be identified ? (e.g. configuration, material (type, heat treat),
protective finish breakdown, chemical spill, etc.).
Is the area where corrosion was found likely to have been seen on other airplanes during their
last inspection for that task ?
Do the corrosion control measures used by the manufacturer on the corroded airplane differ
from other airplanes in the operator's fleet ?
How do years of service on the corroded airplane compare to the rest of the same model
airplanes in the operator's fleet ?
Is the past maintenance history of the corroded airplane different than that of other airplanes of
the same model in the operator's fleet ?
Does the operating environment of the corroded airplane differ from other airplanes of the
same model in the operator's fleet ?
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.3-13

Figure 10E Part 5 - Corrosion Level Determination
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.3-14

Figure 10F - Part 6
(22) If the operator determines that the corrosion damage is a potential urgent airworthiness concern,
but is not sure, further evaluation and/or confirmation by the manufacturer is recommended. If
no further evaluation or confirmation is required the damage is an urgent airworthiness concern
and is classed as Level 3 (see (24)).
(23) If the operator requests further evaluation by the manufacturer, and they agree that the corrosion
damage is not an urgent airworthiness concern in the operator's fleet, the corrosion is Level 2
(see Section C.4 for action).
(24) If the operator, or the operator and manufacturer, determine and operator agree that the
corrosion damage is an urgent airworthiness concern, the corrosion is Level 3 (see Section C.4
of the D6 document for action).
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.3-15

Figure 10F Part 6 - Corrosion Level Determination
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.3-16

SUMMARY OF TYPICAL CORROSION LEVELS
The primary objective of the CPCP is to prevent or control corrosion of all PSEs and other structure
listed in the Baseline Program to Level 1 or better. Although Corrosion Levels should be determined for
each individual finding, it will normally be typical fleet findings that dictate the need for changes to the
operator's CPCP. Starting with the second CPCP inspection, all Level 2 and 3 findings require a
determination as to the likelihood of the finding being representative of the likely condition of other
airplanes in the operator's fleet. If the finding is determined to be representative, action is required to
reduce future corrosion findings in the same area to Level 1 or better. In some cases, a review of future
fleet findings may be warranted, before corrective action is necessary. In other cases, there may be a
reason or reasons why the finding may not be typical in the operator's fleet (e.g. Inspected airplane is
much older, or operates in a more severe environment, or sometimes carries corrosive cargo. etc.).
Although the cause of corrosion may appear typical within an operator's fleet, each finding is unique
and care should be exercised when assessing the likely condition of the other airplanes. For example,
a corrosion problem caused by a blocked drainage path may be typical in an operator's fleet, but there
may be significant variations in the amount of blockage.
The table on the following page summarizes TYPICAL corrosion levels as a function of the extent and
severity of corrosion found during the second or a subsequent CPCP inspection and the condition of
the same area on other airplanes in the operator's fleet. The levels shown are intended to cover
general circumstances and actual levels may vary according to specific circumstances.
Typical required and/or recommended actions corresponding to the corrosion levels shown in the table
are shown in Section C.4.
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.3-17

REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.3-18
EXAMPLES OF CORROSION LEVEL DETERMINATION BASED ON FINDINGS
In most cases the definitions and guidelines included in this document will enable operators to directly
determine Corrosion Levels and/or required actions based on findings. However, it is recognized that in
some cases a certain degree of interpretation and engineering judgment will be required, sometimes
with Boeing assistance. The following examples are intended to illustrate some interpretations and
judgments made by Boeing and/or Operators when determining Corrosion Levels based on findings.
Additional examples will be included, as necessary, in future revisions to this document.
EXAMPLE 1
During inspection of a forward fuselage upper lobe an operator found corrosion in one area of the skin.
The required blend-out slightly exceeded the limits defined in the SRM. The operator requested Boeing
to review the degree of damage and re-work limits at the specific location. Boeing determined that for
this location (lower stress levels) and with the given degree of damage, blend-out of the corrosion
without reinforcement of the area was acceptable.
QUESTION : Should this finding be classified as LEVEL 1 or LEVEL 2 ?
ANSWER : Since this specific blend-out has been determined to be satisfactory without reinforcement
of the area, the corrosion is defined as LEVEL 1 for this finding on this airplane. However, since
corrosion has been found approaching blend-out limits, it is possible that corrosion may exceed LEVEL
1 in this inspection area on other airplanes in the operator's fleet. The operator should review the
potential for similar corrosion problems occurring on other affected airplanes under the same
maintenance program. This review should include all the factors listed under "FACTORS
INFLUENCING CORROSION OCCURRENCES". If there is a high potential for similar corrosion
existing on another airplane in the same inspection area, but in a more critical location (higher
stresses) and/or more severe corrosion in the same location, the corrosion program should be
reviewed and suitable changes made to reduce future corrosion damage. If the review is inconclusive
additional inspection(s) of the area may be required on other airplanes in the operator's fleet, before a
final decision can be made.
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.3-19

EXAMPLE 2
An operator has found corrosion on a PSE which, after blend-out, is within allowable limits, but elects
to replace the PSE on the basis of economic considerations.
QUESTION : Since the PSE has been replaced, should the finding be classified as Level 2 corrosion ?
ANSWER : Corrosion levels are determined on the basis of the amount of blend-out required to
remove corrosion which has occurred between successive CPCP inspections. Since the blend-out
was within allowable limits and replacement of the PSE was by choice, the corrosion finding is Level 1
and no additional action is required.
EXAMPLE 3
An operator finds a few areas of light corrosion in the forward fuselage upper lobe. After blend-out
most areas are within allowable limits, but a few areas exceed allowable limits. A review of the
operator's records shows that in the previous CPCP inspection only light corrosion was found and no
reinforcement or replacement of parts was required. Since the area is prone to light corrosion, it is
likely that there will be locations with repeated light corrosion, eventually resulting in some cumulative
blend-outs that exceed allowable limits.
QUESTION : Should the operator take action to reduce the amount of corrosion between successive
CPCP inspections ?
The primary purpose of a CPCP is to eliminate the need to continually reinforce or replace PSEs and
other listed structure as a result of corrosion. This in turn reduces the likelihood of unsafe
combinations of corrosion and other damage, such as fatigue. To achieve this, corrosion must be
controlled to Level 1 or better. Corrosion Levels are determined on the basis of the amount of material
removed to blend-out the corrosion, relative to the maximum allowable, and the potential effects of the
corrosion finding on continuing airworthiness of airplanes in the operator's fleet. If corrosion occurs
between successive applications of a CPCP task and the single blend-out exceeds allowable limits, but
is not an urgent airworthiness concern, the corrosion finding is Level 2 and, in addition to repair,
requires corrective action to limit future corrosion in the same area to Level 1 or better. If the single
blend-out does not exceed allowable limits the finding is Level 1, and no additional corrective action is
required. Further, if the single blend-out does not exceed allowable limits, but the accumulation of
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.3-20

blend-outs from previous corrosion in the same area now exceeds allowable limits, the finding is Level
1. To show that a single blend-out that exceeds allowable limits is in fact the result of cumulative
blend-outs, it is necessary to keep records of previous blend-outs. In general, this can be done on an
airplane area basis (e.g. fuselage monocoque or wing skin/stringer structure), but certain areas may
require specific details of blend-outs on an item by item basis (e.g. Structural components in major
joints, such as wing to body joints, or major attach points, such as horizontal stabilizer hinge fittings).
In the example, the operator has evidence from previous CPCP inspections that light corrosion
continually occurs in the area, but there is little or no reinforcement or replacement of structure
required. Therefore, the basic program appears satisfactory and determination of the need to change
the program should be based on a review of findings from several airplanes in the operator's fleet. If
this review indicates that a number of airplanes are experiencing corrosion requiring a single blend-out
that exceeds the allowable limit, the program should be changed. If the review indicates that there is
little or no corrosion requiring a single blend-out that exceeds the allowable limit, the program does not
need to be changed. The operator of course has the option of changing the program on the basis of
economic considerations.-3
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.3-21

EXAMPLE 4
The following is an example of a corrosion problem identified as an urgent airworthiness concern.
During an external inspection of the fuselage an operator discovered a 5 inch crack in the skin just
forward of the lower wing-to-body fairing at strg. 28 R.H. (See Figure 12). Upon closer examination
and subsequent removal of the fairing, the skin crack was found to be 48 inches long, with a failed
fuselage frame.
The crack initiated from a 20 inch length of severe corrosion under the fairing, caused by moisture
trapped under deteriorated leveling compound inside the fuselage.
The corroded area was very difficult to inspect from the inside because of the close proximity of strg.
28 and a 20 inch cargo floor intercostal. The gap between the stringer and intercostal was filled with
leveling compound, which had deteriorated and cracked.
Adequate external inspection was not possible without removal of the forward section of the fairing.
Visibility of the fuselage skin from the fairing access doors was restricted at this shallow portion of the
fairing, by the fairing support frames.
The problem on the inspected airplane had been found and, after repair, would not be an airworthiness
concern. The remaining concern was whether the same problem was occurring on other airplanes in
the operator's fleet. The operator reviewed the problem in relation to other airplanes in the same fleet,
and determined that similar damage could be occurring and that it was an urgent airworthiness
concern. Therefore, under the aging airplane corrosion program criteria, the finding would be
classified as Level 3 corrosion.
In this case the operator was very responsive and quickly contacted the FAA and the manufacturer.
Resulting action included short term inspection of the area, including fairing removal, on other
airplanes in the operator's fleet and corrective action to remove the cause of the problem.
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.3-22

Figure 12 Example 4 - Typical Level 3 Corrosion Finding
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.3-23

EXAMPLE 5
On a wing skin, in an area of 20 inches by 30 inches, several corrosion spots, 2-3 inches in diameter,
were found during the last inspection. These corrosion spots were cleaned and removed, but during
the second inspection, in the same general area but not coinciding with the original spots, other
corrosion spots were found.
Question: Does this constitute a single or multiple intervals ?
Answer:
In the question it is assumed that the inspections are per the CPCP. With reference to corrosion level
definitions, the use of single or multiple refers to the cumulative number of corrosion blend-outs in the
same location, not the number of inspections. Since, in the example given, each corrosion occurrence
occurs in a different location, each blend-out is a single blend-out. If the all the blend-outs from both
CPCP inspections are within allowable limits, corrosion in the area is Level 1 and the program is
acceptable. If several of the blend-outs slightly exceed allowable limits, the operator should check the
same location on other airplanes in their fleet. If several airplanes have a similar problem and some of
the blend-outs exceed allowable limits, corrosion in the area is classed as Level 2 and action must be
taken to reduce future corrosion to Level 1 or better. If the majority of airplanes have little or no
corrosion that requires blend-out below allowable limits, the CPCP is marginal and close attention
should be paid in the area during future CPCP inspections. Such decisions require some engineering
judgment, taking into consideration the location and potential effects of the corrosion to airplane safety.
If the problem persists or grows more severe, the area should be classed as Level 2 corrosion and
appropriate action taken. In cases where corrosion occurs in the same location more than once, both
single and cumulative blend-outs define the corrosion level. If any single blend-out exceeds allowable
limits, regardless of whether it is the first or a subsequent inspection, corrosion is level 2. If no single
blend-out has exceeded allowable limits, corrosion is Level 1, whether the cumulative blend-out
exceeds the allowable limit or not. This is shown diagrammatically in Fig. 8 on page C.3-3 in Rev. E to
D6-54929. Additional information on the effects of cumulative blend-outs and recommended actions
are given on pages C.3-18 and C.4-7 respectively. It should be noted that the word single has been
added to the Level 2 and 3 definitions .
For large areas, such as the wing skin, it may be difficult to determine if blend-outs are single or
cumulative, unless the operator has kept a record of the location and depth of previous blend-outs. If a
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.3-24

blend-out exceeds allowable limits it should be classed as Level 2, unless the operator determines it is
the result of two or more blend-outs. To help demonstrate this, operators are recommended to keep a
record of the approximate spacing of corrosion spot blend-outs in large airplane areas. The likelihood
of a subsequent blend-out being single or cumulative can then be determined on the basis of
engineering judgment.
Most of the CPCP tasks cover relatively large areas of the airplane. Therefore, findings in part of the
area may affect the task for the whole area. Alternatively, if the findings are shown to be occurring in
one location of the area on all airplanes in the operator's fleet, it may be possible to address the
problem area with a separate task, without affecting the task for the remaining area. This is the type of
action that will be taken by the Structures Task Group If such findings are typical for the fleet.
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.3-25

REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.3-26

C.4 TYPICAL ACTIONS FOLLOWING DETERMINATION OF CORROSION
LEVELS.
Specific actions, required by the Aging Airplane Corrosion Prevention and Control Program, are defined
in the main body of this document and/or the corresponding Airworthiness Directive.
The following are recommended actions based on the above requirements, after determining a
Corrosion Level for a aiven airplane area or location. The order in which the recommendations are
shown does not necessarily imply priority or importance.
I. CORROSION FOUND DURING THE FIRST INSPECTION OF THE BASELINE PROGRAM
LEVEL 1 and 2 corrosion is determined on the basis of the amount of blend-out required to
remove corrosion which has occurred between successive CPCP inspections. Therefore, by
definition corrosion findings do not become Level 1 or 2 until the Second or subsequent CPCP
inspection. However, to assist the STG in their evaluation of the adequacy of the Baseline
Program, operators are requested to submit details of corrosion found during initial CPCP
inspections, or other structural inspections, where blend-out exceeds allowable limits. Such
findings should be reported as Level 2, with zero as the number of years since the last CPCP
inspection. Since such findings are not related to the second or subsequent CPCP inspection,
no adjustment to the maintenance program is required. Further evaluation by the operator
and/or Boeing is recommended for corrosion findings that are well beyond allowable limits, and
there is an airworthiness concern requiring expeditious action, based on the potential for
having similar but more severe corrosion on any other airplane in the operator's fleet, prior to
the next scheduled inspection of that area.
LEVEL 3 CORROSION
1) Report details of the corrosion finding and the plan for inspecting the same area on other affected
airplanes in operator's fleet, to the appropriate regulatory authority. Note: Circumstances may
dictate the need for inspecting airplanes younger than the corresponding Baseline Program
Implementation Age (I).
2) Apply the Basic Task, including repair of the structure per the SRM or approved repair method.
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.4-1

3) Report all Level 3 finding to Boeing, per Section 5 of this document.
4) Implement the Baseline Program and/or other action approved by the regulatory authority.
II. CORROSION FOUND DURING THE SECOND OR A SUBSEQUENT INSPECTION OF THE
BASELINE PROGRAM, OR, DURING INSPECTIONS OF A PROGRAM APPROVED AS AN

ALTERNATE MEANS OF COMPLIANCE.
NO CORROSION:
1) Continue with the existing Corrosion Prevention and Control Program.
2) No adjustment of the existing program is required.
OPTIONAL: Document the results of the inspection for possible use in justifying an escalation of the
corrosion task implementation age (I) and/or repeat interval (R).
LEVEL 1 CORROSION:
1) Apply the Basic Task, including repair of structure per SRM or approved repair method.
2) Continue with existing Corrosion Prevention and Control Program.
3) No adjustment of the existing program is required.
OPTIONAL: Record the corrosion task number and results of the inspection for proof of program
compliance.
LEVEL 2 CORROSION:
1) Apply the Basic Task, including repair of structure per SRM or approved repair method.
2) Report findings per the requirements of the applicable regulatory authority and Section 5 of this
document.
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.4-2

3) If corrosion damage required removal of material iust beyond allowable limits (typically within 10%),
check additional airplanes in the operator's fleet prior to changing the maintenance program. If
damage is typically LEVEL 2, use fleet data to determine what changes are required to control
corrosion to LEVEL 1 or better. If damage is typically LEVEL 1, pay particular attention to the
corroded area during subsequent inspections on all affected airplanes, and make appropriate
changes to the maintenance program if typical corrosion damage becomes LEVEL 2.
4) Further evaluation by the manufacturer is recommended for LEVEL 2 corrosion findings that are well
beyond allowable limits, and, there is an airworthiness concern requiring expeditious action, based
on the potential for having similar but more severe corrosion on any other airplane in the operator's
fleet, prior to the next scheduled inspection of that area.
5) Determine the action(s) required to control the corrosion finding to LEVEL 1 or better, between
future successive inspections (See Factors Influencing Corrosion Occurrences). These may include
any or all of the following:
- Structural modification (e.g. additional drainage).
- Improvements to the corrosion prevention and control task (e.g. more care and attention to
corrosion removal, reapplication of protective finish, drainage path clearance, application of CICs).
- A reduction in the Implementation Age (I) (for additional airplanes entering the program).
- A reduction in the Repeat Interval (R).
6) Submit a plan of corrective action to the applicable regulatory authority for approval, as required.
7) Implement the approved plan of action.
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.4-3

LEVEL 3 CORROSION:
1) Report details of the corrosion finding and the plan for inspecting the same area on other affected
airplanes in operator's fleet, to the appropriate regulatory authority. Note : Circumstances may
dictate the need for inspecting airplanes younger than the corresponding Baseline Program
Implementation Age (I).
2) Apply the Basic Task, including repair of the structure per the SRM or approved repair method.
3) Determine the action(s) required to control the corrosion finding to LEVEL 1 or better, between
future successive inspections (See Factors Influencing Corrosion Occurrences). These may include
any or all of the following :
- Structural modification (e.g. additional drainage).
- Improvements to the corrosion prevention and control task (e.g. more care and attention to
corrosion removal, reapplication of protective finish, drainage path clearance, application of CICs).
- A reduction in the Implementation Age (I) (for additional airplanes entering the program).
- A reduction in the Repeat Interval (R).
4) Submit a plan of corrective action to the applicable regulatory authority for approval, as required.
5) Implement the approved plan of action.
6) In addition to the above, report all Level 3 findings to Boeing, per Section 5 of this document.
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.4-4

SUMMARY OF REQUIRED AND/OR RECOMMENDED ACTIONS FOR CORROSION FINDINGS
FROM SECOND OR SUBSEQUENT CPCP INSPECTIONS
Required and recommended actions following the detection of corrosion by a CPCP inspection, vary
according to the circumstances. The following is intended as a basic guide to typical actions,
depending on the severity and extent of the finding, the circumstances under which it was found and
the condition of the same area on other airplanes in the operator's fleet. The guidelines are
intended to cover general circumstances, but the required or recommended actions may vary for
specific circumstances. Typical Corrosion Levels for the same conditions are shown in Section C.3
The numbers and letters in the following lists correspond to those in Figure 13.
Required Actions
1. Apply the Basic Task, including, if required, repair of the structure per SRM or approved repair
method.
2. Continue with the existing CPCP.
3. Determine and implement the actions required to control future corrosion in the same area, to Level 1
or better.
4. Report findings per the requirements of the applicable regulatory authority and Section 5 of the CPCP
document.
5. Determine if the finding is a unique event in operator's fleet.
6. Assess potential effect of damage on airworthiness. If damage would have caused an urgent
airworthiness concern requiring expeditious action (Level 3), if it could occur on other airplanes in
operator's fleet, submit data substantiating that the finding is an isolated occurrence to the
appropriate regulatory authority.
7. Report details of the corrosion finding and the plan for inspecting the same area on other affected
airplanes in the operator's fleet to the appropriate regulatory authority.
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.4-5

Recommended Actions
a. Record the corrosiontask number and resultsof the inspectionforproofof programcompliance.
b. Document the results of the inspection for possible use in justifying an escalation of the corrosion
task implementation age (I) and/or Repeat Interval (R).
c. Evaluate procedures for handling spills, contaminants, clean-up, cargo storage, etc., which caused
the isolated corrosion.
d. Inspect same location on additional airplanes in operator's fleet, prior to adjusting maintenance
program. If damage is typically exceeding allowable blend-out limits between successive inspections,
use fleet data to determine what changes are required to control future corrosion to Level 1 or better.
If damage is typically at or below allowable blend-out limits between successive inspections, pay
particular attention to corroded area during subsequent inspections on all affected airplanes. Make
appropriate changes to maintenance program if typical corrosion begins to exceed allowable
blend-out limits between successive inspections.
e. Evaluate finding to determine if there is a potential urgent airworthiness concern.
f. Review finding evaluation and fleet status with Boeing.
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.4-6

REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.4-7
FACTORS INFLUENCING CORROSION OCCURRENCES
To effectively address corrosion prevention and control in an operator's fleet it is necessary to

understand the main factors that influence metal corrosion. A study of the factors listed below will help
the operator to determine the most suitable action(s) when LEVEL 2 or 3 corrosion findings indicate the
need for a change or changes to the operator's Corrosion Prevention and Control Program.
1. Presence or coverage of corrosion inhibitor (e.g. LPS-3, DINOL AV5, etc.).
2. Presence or condition of protective finish.
3. Implementation Age (I) of operator's corrosion prevention and control program.
4. Length of time since last inspection and/or application of corrosion inhibiting compound (Repeat
Interval (R)).
5. Inadequate clean-up/removal of corrosion prior to application of corrosion inhibiting compound,

during previous maintenance of area.
6. Blocked / Inadequate drainage.
7. Environment / Time of Exposure / Utilization:
a. Tropical, desert, salt water, industrial.
b. Presence of electrolytes (water/moisture, salt water, battery fluid).
c. Presence of biological organism (primarily in fuel tanks).
8. Variations in past maintenance history and/or utilization of airplanes in operator's fleet.
9. Variations in production build standard in operator's fleet.
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.4-8

C.5 REPORTING
Minimum requirements for preventing or controlling corrosion in the Aging Airplane Corrosion Programs
(AACPs) were established by Structures Task Groups (STGs) on the basis of the best information,
knowledge and experience available at that time. As this experience and knowledge are continually
being improved, the AACPs will be periodically reviewed and updated, as required. To help achieve this
it is necessary to continually monitor the effectiveness of the Baseline Program and other approved
alternatives. In support of this, all corrosion of PSEs and other structure listed in the Baseline Program,
found during the corrosion program inspections and determined to be LEVEL 2 or 3, must be reported
to Boeing at least quarterly. A reporting system for achieving this is included in Section 5 of this
document.
One type of review that will be accomplished by Boeing, is to determine if CPCP tasks that cover large
airplane areas, such as a fuselage upper lobe, are more suited to breakdown into smaller segments.
This will particularly apply when some subsections are shown to be more prone to corrosion than
others. To achieve this and other reviews, it is essential that all pertinent information is included
on the report forms when they are sent to Boeing. Any form that does not include all essential
information will be returned to the originator.
While the LEVEL 2 and 3 reporting system in Section 5 is important, and is required by the A.D., it must
be emphasized that this is a supplemental requirement and the primary reporting requirements will
remain as defined by FAR 121.703, or other regulatory authority equivalent.
Similarly, existing procedures for reporting problems to Boeing and/or requesting assistance and the
subsequent responses from Boeing, will remain the primary means of communication in the Aging
Airplane Corrosion Prevention and Control Programs.
A number of early reports received by Boeing did not include all the pertinent information needed
for incorporation into the data-base system. Other reports contained confusing or conflicting
information, such as multiple task numbers for a single report. It is essential that all information
identifying the operator, airplane, specific corrosion task number, corrosion level, the name and
location of the corroded part and the likely cause of the corrosion (if known) is included on the
form for each Level 2 or 3 finding. When this information is not included, the report form will be
returned to the originator requesting the additional information. When practical, operators are
requested to use the form included in Section 5, for reporting Level 2 and 3 findings to Boeing.
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.5-1

Figure 14 summarizes the existing requirements for reporting corrosion findings and the procedure for
requesting Boeing assistance with evaluations and/or repair.
Figure 15 shows the existing reporting requirements per Figure 14 combined with the new reporting
requirements per the AACPs.
Figure 16 shows the procedure Boeing will use to summarize the reported LEVEL 2 and 3 corrosion
data, transfer the summary to the appropriate structures organization for evaluation, and finally to the
STG for review and determination of any necessary changes to the Baseline Program.
Figure 17 summarizes the reporting requirements included in the CPCP airworthiness directives.
Figure 14 Existing Reporting Requirements and Requests for Boeing

Assistance
Extract from FAR 121.703 Mechanical reliability reports.
(a) Each certificate holder shall report the occurrence or detection of each
failure, malfunction, or defect concerning -
(14) Aircraft structure that requires major repair;
(15) Cracks, permanent deformation, or corrosion of aircraft structures, if more

than the maximum acceptable to the manufacturer or the FAA;
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.5-2

Figure 15 Additional Reporting Requirements for AACPs
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.5-3

Figure 16 Evaluation and Review of Corrosion Findings
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.5-4

Figure 17 Reporting Requirements Included in CPCP ADs
Corrosion Inspection AD
AD Reporting Requirement
Level Phase Para.
Level 1 Any None
Initial a) Include in quarterly report to manufacturer. (D)
a) Include in quarterly report to manufacturer. (D)

Level 2
Repeat b) Report to ACO within 60 days on proposed (G)
corrective action to reduce corrosion to
Level 1 or better.
Initial b) Report to ACO within 7 days with plan for (B)

fleet campaign.

Level 3
b) Report to ACO within 7 days with plan for (B)
Repeat fleet campaign.
c) Report to ACO within 60 days on proposed (G)
corrective action to reduce corrosion to
Level 1 or better.
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.5-5

D6-54929 PAGE C.5-6

REV. E
C.6 PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
When implementing a CPCP it is important to note the following:
Implementation requirements apply on a task-by-task basis.
Tasks required by the AD are those where the airplane age (years since initial delivery from
the manufacturer) equals or exceeds the Baseline Program Implementation Age (I).
Tasks implemented any time prior to the maximum time allowed by the AD will count toward
the required minimum of implementing each task on at least one airplane per year during the
implementation period (see later).
Once implemented, the subsequent applications of the Basic Task are defined by the Repeat
Interval (R) for each task.
Implementation can be accomplished on the basis of Baseline Program requirements for

individual tasks or groups of tasks.
Early implementation of all the CPCP tasks is highly recommended as being the most cost
effective way of preventing or controlling corrosion.
Operators electing to use any "Optional" procedures and wishing to maintain their
non-mandatory status should clearly identify them as "Optional" in their maintenance
program.
"Optional" procedures will become mandatory if the resulting benefits are used as a basis for
program changes, such as extension of repeat intervals.
Some operators may already be utilizing procedures that meet the minimum corrosion prevention and
control standards required by the aging airplane program in some or all airplane areas (corrosion of
PSEs and other structure listed in the Baseline Program, is controlled to LEVEL 1 or better between
successive inspections). In such cases the existing program should be continued, and the only action
likely to be required is to establish a reporting procedure that meets the requirements of Section 5. In
other cases, operators may have an existing MPD/MRB type maintenance program that may meet
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.6-1

some of the minimum corrosion program requirements. In such cases, operators may be able to take
credit for this as described on the following pages.
CREDIT FOR EXISTING MPD/MRB TYPE INSPECTIONS AS PART OF A CPCP
In many areas existing "MPD/MRB" type inspections will provide adequate inspection per the
requirement of part 3) of the Basic Task (See Section 4.1 of this document). However, there may be
some areas where the inspection is inadequate, for example:
- Where sampling inspections are used that do not eventually inspect all affected airplanes in the
operator's fleet.
- Where insufficient interior furnishing, lining, insulation, etc. is removed to allow visual inspection
of all PSEs (See Section 51 of the Boeing Structural Repair Manual) and other structure listed in
the Baseline Program.
- Where more in-depth inspection, including partial disassembly and/or NDI methods, are not used
when there are indications of hidden corrosion, such as bulging skins or corrosion running into
splices or behind fittings, etc.
In addition, the Basic Task requires complete blend-out or repair as required, restoration of protective
finishes and the application of a suitable approved corrosion inhibiting compound. If the operator can
show that all of the above requirements were met in a given airplane area during the last applicable
maintenance visit, then that visit can probably be credited as the implementation of the reference
program, in that area. If the operator can also show that such inspections have been applied more than
once and that corrosion in the area did not exceed LEVEL 1 between successive maintenance visits,
the existing program can probably be used as an alternative means of complying with the requirements
for that area.
Operator's who can show that the last maintenance visit on a given airplane satisfied the inspection,
corrosion blend-out/repair parts of the Baseline Program for a given airplane area, may be able to use
this information to support an application for extending the allowable implementation period for that
area on that airplane, relative to the last maintenance visit.
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.6-2

When none of the above can be shown the operator must implement the Baseline Program per Section
4.2 of this document. The Baseline Program does not "replace" any existing maintenance program
requirements, including "MPD/MRB" type programs. However, when the inspection procedures are
similar, the Baseline Program inspections may also be used to represent the "MPD/MRB" structural
inspection requirements.
It is recommended that corrosion program tasks are clearly identified (preferably by the corresponding
Baseline Program Task Number), to provide direct proof of compliance with the A.D. requirements
(including reporting) and/or reference to data to support requests for changes to the program.
In some cases existing corrosion tasks given in the MPD, which are based on recommended
economic practice, are more stringent than the corresponding minimum task requirements of
the Baseline Program. In such cases, use of the MPD task is highly recommended, but is not
required.
AIRPLANE/COMPONENT STORAGE OR EXTENDED TIME OUT-OF-SERVICE
Following discussion with the FAA, the following guidelines outline the basic CPCP requirements when
airplane components are stored or when airplanes are stored and/or have extended time out-of-service
(e.g. a prolonged maintenance visit).
Task implementation requirements for the CPCP begin when the airplane age is the same as the
Implementation Age (I), defined for each task in the Baseline Program. For airplanes that have already
exceeded (I), the implementation requirements begin December 31, 1991. Airplane age is measured
from the date of initial delivery from the manufacturer to an operator. CPCP task requirements are
normally determined on the basis of elapsed calendar time, including time out-of-service. Unless
otherwise allowed by the appropriate regulatory authority, all CPCP tasks not completed prior to
airplane/component storage or extended out-of-service time, that were due prior to, or become due
during airplane/component storage or extended out-of-service time, must be accomplished prior to the
airplane/component re-entering service. In certain cases, it may be possible (subject to regulatory
authority approval) to discount airplane/component storage time or extended out-of-service time in
relation to the Implementation Ages (I) or Repeat Intervals (R) of the CPCP tasks, as follows:
1) For newly delivered airplanes (no revenue service) or new components, stored or held in an
environment that is unlikely to promote corrosion.
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.6-3

2) For in-service airplanes/components that have had all applicable CPCP tasks
[Airplane/Component age => (I)] accomplished after completion of service and then stored or
held in an environment that is unlikely to promote corrosion (e.g. per Boeing document
D6-52024, or equivalent).
3) Additional circumstances determined to be acceptable by the appropriate regulatory authority.
AIRPLANE CONFIGURATION AND USAGE
In some cases CPCP tasks are dependent on airplane configuration and usage, for example passenger
versus cargo. Some airplanes, particularly Combi-airplanes with an upper deck side cargo door, may
be used in a mixed mode and the applicability of some of the CPCP tasks is uncertain. Determination
of the applicability of all the CPCP tasks for a given airplane or airplanes is the responsibility of the
owner/operator. As in all cases, the CPCP task requirements for each operator will be determined by
the corrosion findings on their airplanes. In some cases, if Level 2 Corrosion findings on some
airplanes are the result of carrying cargo, it may be possible to add a specific task to the maintenance
program for those airplanes to offset the problem, as an alternative to changing the maintenance
program for all the operator's airplanes.
The following are intended as basic guidelines for determining CPCP task applicability:
1) The CPCP tasks are intended to apply to the airplane configuration currently in use and/or the
planned future usage.
2) Guidelines for the applicability of specific CPCP tasks for typical airplane configurations
(applicability is model dependent) and prime usages are shown in the following table:
A summary of typical CPCP task applicability, as a function of airplane configuration and usage is
shown in Figure 18.
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.6-4

REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.6-5
BASIC IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS
The basic requirements for submitting the program for approval and completing the first
application of the corrosion program tasks can be subdivided into two parts, as follows:
PART 1 : For operators with an airplane or airplanes that, on Dec. 31, 1990, have one year or less
before they reach, or have already reached or exceeded, the Implementation Age (I) for a given
corrosion program task (or tasks).
The time-frame for implementing the program is shown in Figure 19, with further explanation as
follows:
Note: If tasks are grouped the Repeat Interval (R) corresponds to the lowest value in the group.
a) A plan for implementing the given corrosion program task (or tasks) on all affected airplanes
must be submitted for approval to the appropriate regulatory authority by December 31, 1991.
b) The maximum time-frame for completing the first application of the given task (or tasks) on all
affected airplanes equals Dec. 31, 1991 plus the corresponding Baseline Program Repeat
Interval (R). For airplanes that are 20 years or older on December 31, 1990, the maximum time
frame equals (R) or six (6) years, whichever is less.
C) The task (or tasks) must be completed on at least ONE affected airplane by Dec. 31, 1992.
d) The task (or tasks) must be completed on at least TWO affected airplanes by Dec. 31, 1993.
e) The above minimum rate must be continued until the given task (or tasks) are implemented on all
affected airplanes in the operator's fleet, or, on the number of affected airplanes equal to the
number of years in the corresponding Baseline Program Repeat Interval (R), whichever occurs
first. Tasks implemented on airplanes prior to their allotted time count toward the required rate of
one airplane per year.
f) The task (or tasks) can be implemented on any remaining affected airplanes any time before they
exceed Dec. 31 1991 plus the corresponding Baseline Program Repeat Interval (R) (Limited to
6 years maximum for airplanes delivered on or before Dec. 31, 1970).
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.6-6

REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.6-7
PART 2 : For operators with an airplane or airplanes that, on Dec. 31, 1990, have more than one
year before they reach the Implementation Age (I) for any given corrosion program task or tasks.
A summary of the actual time-frame for implementing a given corrosion program task (or group of
tasks) is shown in Figure 20 with further explanation as follows:
Note: If tasks are grouped the Implementation Age (I) and Repeat Interval (R) correspond to the
lowest value in the group.
a) A plan for implementing the task (or tasks) on a given airplane, or group of airplanes, must
be submitted for approval and incorporated into the operator's maintenance program before that
airplane or the oldest airplane in a group exceeds the Implementation Age (I) for that task.
b) The task (or tasks) must be completed on at least ONE airplane within ONE year of the airplane,
or the oldest airplane in a group, reaching the Implementation Age (I) for that task.
C) The task (or tasks) must be completed on at least TWO airplanes within TWO years of the oldest
remaining airplane reaching the Implementation Age (I) for that task.
d) The task (or tasks) must be completed on at least THREE airplanes within THREE years of the
oldest remaining airplane reaching the Implementation Age (I) for that task.
e) The above sequence is continued until the task (or tasks) are implemented on all airplanes in the
operator's fleet, or, on a number of airplanes equal to the number of years in the corresponding
Baseline Program Repeat Interval (R), whichever occurs first. Tasks implemented on airplanes
prior to their allotted time count toward the required rate of one airplane per year.
f) The task (or tasks) can be implemented on any remaining airplanes anytime before they exceed
an age equal to the corresponding Baseline Program (I) plus (R) values.
A logic diagram for determination of the latest date by which the first application of the Basic Task must
be accomplished is shown in Figure 21.
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.6-8

REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.6-9
Figure 21 Logic Diagram for Determination of Latest Date for Completing the
First Application of the Basic Task on ALL Affected A/Ps in an Operator's Fleet
What was the Age of the = > 20 years Which number is smaller 6 Latest Date
Airplane on 12/31/90 ? (R) or 6 ? 12/31/97
< 20 years
(R)
As of 12/31/90, has airplane YES Latest Date

reached (I) years of age ? 12/31/91 + (R) years
NO
1 year or less
As of 12/31/90, how many more than one year Latest Date

more years until airplane (I) minus airplane age (as of 12/31/90)
age reaches (I) years + (R) years following 12/31/91
Note: In conjunction with the above, the first application of the Basic Task on affected
airplanes (those that have reached or exceeded (I) years of age) must be applied,
for each applicable task, with a minimum rate equivalent to one airplane per year
during the Implementation Period.
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.6-10

Example illustrating the use of Figure 20 and the required implementation rate
An operator has an airplane that was delivered from the manufacturer in late 1983.
When should an aging airplane corrosion program task having an Implementation Age (I) = 10 years
and a Repeat Interval (R) = 5 years be incorporated into the operator's scheduled maintenance
program and when must the first application of the Basic Task be completed ?
The airplane age relative to the implementation age = 7 - 10 = -3 years.
From Figure 20, the operator must have the task incorporated into the scheduled maintenance program
no later than Dec. 31, 1990 plus three (3) years. i.e. no later than Dec. 31, 1993.
The maximum time for accomplishing the first application of the Basic Task in the task area is a
function of the number of affected airplanes already in the operator's fleet, as follows:
a) With no other affected airplanes in the operator's fleet, the Basic Task must be applied within
one year. i.e. by Dec. 31, 1994.
b) If the task has already been incorporated into the operators maintenance program for other
affected airplanes, the maximum time for accomplishing the first application of the Basic Task in
this task area on the newly affected airplane, is as follows:
i. If the operator has five (5) or more affected airplanes (i.e. number of affected airplanes => (R)),
the task can be accomplished at any convenient time during (I) + (R), i.e. anytime prior to
Dec. 31, 1998.
ii. If the operator has less than five (5) affected airplanes (i.e. number of affected airplanes <
(R)), the task can be accomplished at anytime up to a number of years beyond the date the
airplane reaches the implementation age, which corresponds to the total number of affected
airplanes (including the new one). For example, if the operator has two other affected
airplanes, the maximum time for accomplishing the first application of the Basic Task on the
newly affected airplane corresponds to 1993 (the date the airplane reaches (I)) + 3. i.e.
anytime prior to Dec. 31, 1996.
Effectively, this means that an operator with a single airplane must implement all corrosion tasks, in all
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.6-11

affected areas, by December 31, 1992. Affected areas are those where the airplane age is equal
to or greater than the Baseline Program Implementation Age (I). Possible exceptions to this are
described in paragraph 10) of Section 3.1 of the D6 document. Another alternative would be for the
single airplane operator to combine with another operator(s) with the same model airplane(s), and with
similar maintenance program(s) and operating environment(s). Operators with two airplanes must
implement the program in all affected areas on both airplanes, by Dec. 31, 1993. For operators with
a single airplane that reaches (I) at a later date, the program must be implemented within one year of
that date.
From the above:
- Operators with the same or fewer affected airplanes than the corresponding number of years in
the Repeat Intervals (R) of the Baseline Program will primarily be affected by the one airplane a
year rate requirement.
- Operators with more affected airplanes than the corresponding number of years in the Repeat
Intervals (R) of the Baseline Program will primarily be affected by the requirement to implement
the program on all affected airplanes within a period corresponding to (R) (six (6) years max. for
airplanes 20 years and older).
In all cases, an operator's implementation plan, for a given corrosion prevention and control task,
may be affected by early corrosion findings in that area. For example:
1. Little or no corrosion findings during initial airplane inspections of a given airplane area may
allow the implementation period for that area to be increased for the remaining airplanes in the
operator's fleet.
2. A LEVEL 3 corrosion finding, in a given airplane area, may require a reduction in the
implementation age (I) and/or period, for the remaining airplanes in the operator's fleet.
Fleet Implementation Examples

Figures 22 through 28 contain examples illustrating basic requirements for implementing a
corrosion prevention and control program task with various fleet ages and sizes.
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.6-12

REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.6-13
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.6-14
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.6-15
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.6-16
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.6-17
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.6-18
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.6-19
CPCP REQUIREMENTS WHEN INCORPORATING ADDITIONAL AIRPLANES INTO AN AIR
CARRIER'S OPERATIONS SPECIFICATION
NOTE: The following Information is intended for basic guidance only and is not
intended to define precise criteria for adding additional airplanes to an operator's fleet.
In all cases the requirements for incorporating additional airplanes into an existing fleet
are subject to negotiation, review and approval by the appropriate regulatory authority.
CPCP requirements when incorporating additional airplanes into an air carriers operations specification
are described in paragraph F. the AD (See Appendix D) and are repeated here for convenience.
F. Before any airplane that is subject to this AD can be added to an air carrier's operations
specification, a program for the accomplishment of tasks required by this AD must be accomplished in
accordance with the following:
1. For airplanes that have previously been operated under an FAA-approved maintenance
program, the initial task on each area to be accomplished in accordance with the previous
operator's schedule or with the new operators schedule, whichever would result in the earlier
accomplishment date for that task. After each task has been performed once, each subsequent
task must be performed in accordance with the new operator's schedule.
2. For airplanes that have not previously been operated under an FAA-approved maintenance
program, each initial task required by this AD must be accomplished either prior to the airplane's
being added to the air carrier's operations specifications, or in accordance with a schedule
approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO.
The above defines the basic rules for adding airplanes to an air carrier's fleet. As in all ADs, specific
requirements may vary according to circumstances. Since the AD is referring to CPCP requirements,
an "FAA approved maintenance program" would normally include an approved CPCP. Figure 29
summarizes "typical" operator procedures and actions under varying circumstances, when adding an
airplane or airplanes to a fleet that is subject to FAA regulations. Following the Figure some additional
information is provided on the effects of the one airplane per year implementation requirement.
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.6-20

Figure 29 Typical Action Required When Adding Additional Airplane(s) to an
Operator's Fleet
STATUS OF PREVIOUS OPERATOR'S CPCP

TYPICAL ACTION REQUIRED BY NEW OPERATOR
NUMBER OF CPCP TASKS (See later for additional information on
EXAMPLE one airplane per year implementation requirement)
REQUIRED COMPLETED
ALL Repeat tasks in accordance with previous operator's schedule or

1) ALL
own schedule, whichever would result in earlier accomplishment.
a) For tasks already accomplished by previous operator: As I1).

2) ALL SOME b) For remaining tasks : Accomplish initial tasks per the previous
operator's schedule or earlier.
Accomplish all initial task in accordance with previous operator's

3) ALL NONE schedule or own schedule, whichever would result in earlier
accomplishment.
a) For tasks already accomplished by previous operator: As I 1).

ALL
b) For tasks which are not yet required : Schedule tasks to begin
4) SOME CURRENTLY
within one year of the airplane reaching the Implementation Age
REQUIRED
(I) for each task.
CPCP
APPROVED
BY FAA a) For tasks already accomplished by previous operator: As I 1).
b) For tasks which are required but were not accomplished by
NOT ALL
previous operator: Schedule tasks to begin no later than
5) SOME CURRENTLY
scheduled by previous operator. If the tasks were not scheduled
REQUIRED
by the previous operator they must be scheduled per II 5)
c) For tasks which are not yet required : As I 4) b).
a) For tasks which are required but were not accomplished by

previous operator: Schedule tasks to begin no later than
scheduled by previous operator. If the tasks were not scheduled
6) SOME NONE by the previous operator they must be scheduled per II 6)
b) For tasks which are not yet required : Schedule tasks to begin
within one year of the airplane reaching the Implementation Age
(I) for each task.
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.6-21

Figure 29 Typical Action Required When Adding Additional Airplane(s) to an
Operator's Fleet [continued]
STATUS OF PREVIOUS OPERATOR'S CPCP

TYPICAL ACTION REQUIRED BY NEW OPERATOR
NUMBER OF CPCP TASKS (See later for additional information on
EXAMPLE one airplane per year implementation requirement)
REQUIRED COMPLETED
Accomplish each initial task either prior to adding the airplane or

1) ALL ALL airplanes to the operations specifications, or in accordance with a
schedule approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO.
NOTE: In some cases the previous operator's CPCP may be
2) ALL SOME accepted as an equivalent to an FAA approved program. In such
cases refer to the corresponding case in Example I.
Accomplish each initial task either prior to adding the airplane or

3) ALL NONE airplanes to the operations specifications, or in accordance with a
II schedule approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO.
CPCP NOT ALL Accomplish each required initial task either prior to adding the
APPROVED 4) SOME CURRENTLY airplane or airplanes to the operations specifications, or in
BY FAA REQUIRED accordance with a schedule approved by the Manager, Seattle
ACO.
NOT ALL NOTE: In some cases the previous operator's CPCP may be
5) SOME CURRENTLY accepted as an equivalent to an FAA approved program. In such
REQUIRED cases refer to the corresponding case in Example I.
Accomplish each required initial task either prior to adding the

6) SOME NONE airplane or airplanes to the operations specifications, or in
accordance with a schedule approved by the Manager, Seattle
ACO.
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.6-22

CPCP- REQUIREMENTS WHEN INCORPORATING ADDITIONAL AIRPLANES INTO AN AIR
CARRIER'S OPERATIONS SPECIFICATION (Continued)

To assure timely implementation of the CPCPs in the Aging Airplane fleets, there is a requirement to
implement each required task on a minimum of one airplane per year during the Implementation Period
(See Glossary in Section C.1). When adding airplanes to an existing fleet, interpretation of the one
airplane per year requirement can vary significantly according to the circumstances. The primary
purpose of the one airplane per year requirement is to initiate action in each operator's fleet as soon as
the CPCP requirements become effective. Once an operator has taken the necessary action to have
an approved CPCP incorporated into the scheduled maintenance program, including a plan to meet the
one airplane a year requirement on existing airplanes, the need to continue to meet this requirement on
any airplanes subsequently added to the operator's fleet is less significant. However, the need to
implement each task before the airplane exceeds ((I) + (R)) is significant and must be maintained.
The following summarizes "typical" operator procedures and actions for meeting the one airplane per
year requirement when incorporating additional airplanes under varying circumstances. The terms
"Large Fleet" and "Small Fleet" are in relation to the Number of Years in the Implementation Period for
each CPCP Task as follows:
Large Fleet - Operator has the same or more airplanes than the number of years in the Implementation
Period
Small Fleet - Operator has fewer airplanes than the number of years in the Implementation Period.
I. Previous Operator had an FAA Approved CPCP, but First Tasks Had Not Been Accomplished
1) Affected Airplane(s) were Included in Previous Operator's CPCP Schedule
A) New Operator has Existing Airplanes of Same Model with FAA Approved CPCP
a) New Operator has Large Fleet

Since the new operator has already established a plan for meeting the one airplane per year
requirement any additional airplanes can be incorporated into the scheduled maintenance plan
at any convenient time before the airplanes exceed ((I) + (R)). For airplanes that have already
exceeded ((I) + (R)) for one or more CPCP tasks, those tasks must be accomplished within
one year of adding the airplane to the Operations Specification, or per the previous operator's
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.6-23

schedule, whichever is later.
b) New Operator has Small Fleet

Additional airplanes must be incorporated into the scheduled maintenance plan no later than
the time required to maintain the one airplane per year requirement, or per the previous
operator's schedule, whichever is later.
B) New Operator does not have Existing Airplanes of the Same Model
A plan must be established that implements the CPCP tasks with a minimum rate of one airplane
per year, beginning as follows:
a) For tasks where the airplane age is already equal to or greater than (I)
Within one year of adding the airplane to the Operations Specification, or per the previous
operator's schedule, whichever is later.
b) For tasks where the airplane age is less than (I)

Within one year of the airplane age reaching (I), or per the previous operator's schedule,
whichever is later.
2) Affected Airplane(s) were not Included in Previous Operator's CPCP Schedule

(E.g. Airplane Stored)
Since the airplane(s) were not included in the previous operator's approved schedule, they in effect
do not have a CPCP approved by the FAA and must be assessed per II.
II. Previous Operator did not have an FAA Approved CPCP

As shown earlier, the basic requirement is that all CPCP tasks, where the airplane age is equal to or
greater than (I), must be accomplished either prior to adding the airplane to the new operator's
Operations Specification, or in accordance with a schedule approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO.
The likelihood of a schedule being approved by the FAA is highly dependent on the circumstances
and can only be assessed on a case-by-case basis. The following is intended to outline some of the
parameters that should be considered when developing a schedule proposal:
The primary consideration is the likelihood of the newly acquired airplane(s) having significant (Level
2 or 3) corrosion, which could give rise to an airworthiness concern if the appropriate CPCP tasks are
not incorporated in the near term. Some of the parameters that are likely to influence the condition of
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.6-24

the airplane structure are as follows:
Airplane Age.
Previous operating environment and/or type of payload.
Maintenance History.
Ownership History.
If, for example an old airplane has previously been operating in an adverse environment (e.g. Humid
Marine Atmosphere) and has a widely varying or unknown history of maintenance and/or ownership,
the condition of the structure is suspect. In these circumstances the FAA is likely to require
accomplishment of the appropriate CPCP tasks before the airplane re-enters service. Conversely, if
the condition of the airplane is known (e.g. Recent major overhaul visit) or, based on a review of the
above parameters, significant undetected/unrepaired corrosion problems are unlikely, an alternative
schedule may be allowed by the FAA.
If the airplane condition is thought acceptable, the characteristics of the New Operator's fleet may
also affect the type of schedule that will be accepted, as follows:
A) New Operator has Existing Airplanes of Same Model with FAA Approved CPCP
a) New Operator has Large Fleet

Since the new operator has already established a plan for meeting the one airplane per year
requirement, it may be acceptable to incorporate any additional airplanes into the scheduled
maintenance plan at any convenient time before the airplanes exceed ((I) + (R)). Airplanes that
have already exceeded ((I) + (R)) for one or more CPCP tasks, are likely to require
accomplishment of those tasks within one year of adding the airplane to the Operations
Specification.
b) New Operator has Small Fleet
An acceptable plan is likely to require continuation of the one airplane per year requirement or, if
this time has already been exceeded, within one year of adding the airplane to the Operations
Specification.
B) New Operator does not have Existing Airplanes of the Same Model
An acceptable plan is likely to require implementation the CPCP tasks with a minimum rate of one
airplane per year, beginning as follows:
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.6-25

a) For tasks where the airplane age is already equal to or greater than (I)
Within one year of adding the airplane to the Operations Specification.
b) For tasks where the airplane age is less than (I)

Within one year of the airplane age reaching (I).
EFFECT OF REMOVING AIRPLANES FROM ESTABLISHED CPCP'S
From discussions with the FAA, the primary intent of the one airplane per year requirement is to assure
an early start and continuation of the Aging Airplane CPCP. This is particularly important on older
airplanes where there is a higher potential for significant corrosion combining with fatigue damage.
Therefore, the FAA considers it essential to maintain the required rate during the implementation period
for each task. Typically, operators can take credit for tasks completed on more than one airplane
during a given year for the rate requirement for later years. For example, if a CPCP task is completed
on two airplanes in 1993, the one airplane per year rate requirement has been met for 1993 and 1994.
Conversely, tasks cannot be delayed until later years, without approval of the regulatory authority. In
the previous example, the FAA would normally not allow the operator to delay the 1993 task until 1994
without some justification and proof of the likely condition of the airplane in the task area.
Operators who establish a CPCP plan for their fleet and later remove one or more airplanes, must
revise their plan as necessary to maintain the required one airplane per year rate. As with all CPCP
requirements, some deviation of this may be allowed by the FAA on a case-by-case basis, particularly if
the requirement causes an unreasonable economic burden. To allow this, the FAA will typically
consider airplane age, past operating and maintenance history, operating environment, type of payload
and, if known, the condition of the airplane in the last maintenance visit for each airplane area. Other
possible considerations include the operator's experience and background with the airplane and, if
known, the condition of other airplanes of the same type and background in the operator's fleet.
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.6-26

SUGGESTED IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE
The actual procedure used to implement a corrosion prevention and control program into an operator's
maintenance program can be significantly affected by many variables, including the following:
- The number, age and configuration of affected airplanes in the operator's fleet.
- Current and past airplane operational characteristics (Environment, Payload, etc.).
- Past maintenance history.
- The operator's existing maintenance program.
- Capability and capacity of the operator's maintenance base.
Because of the above and other variables, it is not possible to establish a single implementation
procedure that will satisfy all operators. The following is a suggested procedure with examples showing
typical implementation of a corrosion program on various types of fleets. The hypothetical examples are
intended to illustrate some of the parameters and variables that may influence program implementation.
Future changes to these examples and/or additional examples will be based on operator feed-back of
actual implementation procedures.
The following procedure is based on the assumption that operators will try to use their existing
maintenance schedule to the greatest extent possible.
Corrosion program requirements are a function of airplane area and in some cases, model-series types
and line-number effectivity. The actual number and location of areas in which the corrosion program
will be implemented during a given maintenance visit will depend largely on the type of program used
by the operator (e.g. Phased vs. Block) and access requirements for other maintenance activities. Such
decisions are entirely up to the operator and no attempt is made to indicate a preferred procedure.
Examples, which combine various airplane areas, are to illustrate procedure only and should not be
considered as recommendations.
For each airplane area, or subdivision of an area, operators will normally have a schedule for heavy
maintenance visits. In many cases, the schedule will be based on flight hours or flight cycles. In such
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.6-27

cases it is recommended that the schedule be converted to equivalent calendar intervals using the
current or projected average utilization rate. Alternatively, the average utilization rate can be used to
convert the corrosion program requirements to equivalent flight hours or cycles.
The tables shown on the following pages, or any suitable alternatives, can be used to layout scheduled
heavy maintenance/inspection visits for each corrosion program task, or group of tasks. When selecting
suitable maintenance visits, it should be remembered that internal inspection of an airplane area will
normally include removal of any systems, equipment, lining, insulation, etc. required to allow adequate
visual inspection of all PSEs and other structure listed in the Baseline Program for that area.
The first table will be used to describe the procedure. The top part of the table is used to identify the
airplane area or group of areas being addressed. Each area is identified by the corrosion task number,
or the operator's identifying code, a description of the area and the corresponding Baseline Program
Implementation Age (I) and Repeat Interval (R) (See Section 4.3 of the D6 document).
The four columns on the left side of the lower part of the table are used as follows:
COLUMN 1 - An identifying number (e.g. Reg., L/N, etc.) for the operator's airplanes to be
included in the corrosion prevention and control program, listed in descending order of airplane.
age.
COLUMN 2 - The age of each airplane (years since initial delivery from Boeing).
COLUMN 3 - The corrosion task number or numbers being scheduled.
COLUMN 4 - The maximum implementation period for each task on each airplane. This is a
function of airplane age (at the time the A.D. for the corrosion program becomes effective) and
the Baseline Program Implementation Age (I) and Repeat Interval (R) for the given airplane area
(See Section 4.3 in the D6 document), as follows:
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.6-28

1) For airplanes that are 20 years or older
The maximum implementation period = (R) years or six (6) years, whichever is
less.
2) For airplanes that are less than 20 years old, but have reached or exceeded (I)
The maximum implementation period = (R) years.
3) For airplanes that have not reached (I)
The maximum implementation period = (I) - Airplane Age + (R) years.
In addition, when airplanes reach or have already exceeded (I), the corresponding corrosion
task or tasks must be implemented with an effective rate of at least one airplane per year, as
described in Section 4.2.
The operator's scheduled maintenance visits, during which the given airplane area(s) will be accessed,
can be shown on the table for each listed airplane. The maximum time period for implementing the
corrosion program can be shown for each airplane by adding the interval from the fourth column to the
effectivity date for the A.D.
The operator can select appropriate visits for each airplane such that they fall within the allowable time
frame and meet the required one airplane per year implementation rate. The cumulative number of
airplanes entering the corrosion program can be shown at the bottom of the table. A minimum of one
airplane must enter the program during each year between [( I ) and ( ( I ) + ( R ) )]. Alternative
combinations of visits, which satisfy the program requirements and provide a more uniform workload
distribution, may also be possible. The allowable time frame for the second and subsequent corrosion
program visits can be determined by adding successive repeat intervals (R) to the selected visits.
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.6-29

REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.6-30
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.6-31
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.6-32
EXAMPLES
The following pages contain hypothetical examples to further explain the implementation procedure and
other aspects of the corrosion program. The examples do not relate to any actual airplane model or
area, or define actual requirements of the corrosion program A.D.
NOTE:
IN ALL CASES, AN OPERATOR'S IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR A GIVEN AIRPLANE AREA

MAY BE AFFECTED BY CORROSION FINDINGS IN THAT AREA.
FOR EXAMPLE:
- LITTLE OR NO CORROSION FINDINGS, DURING INITIAL AIRPLANE INSPECTIONS OF A

GIVEN AIRPLANE AREA, MAY ALLOW THE IMPLEMENTATION PERIOD TO BE
INCREASED FOR THAT AREA, ON THE REMAINING AFFECTED AIRPLANES IN THE
OPERATOR'S FLEET.
- A LEVEL 3 CORROSION FINDING, IN A GIVEN AIRPLANE AREA, MAY REQUIRE A

REDUCTION IN THE IMPLEMENTATION PERIOD FOR THAT AREA, ON THE REMAINING
AFFECTED AIRPLANES IN THE OPERATOR'S FLEET.
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.6-33

EXAMPLE NUMBER 1
OPERATOR HAS 10 AIRPLANES AND, IS PLANNING TO IMPLEMENT THE BASELINE PROGRAM

IN AIRPLANE AREA "A" (THE VERTICAL STABILIZER MAIN BOX INTERIOR) DURING EXISTING
MAINTENANCE VISITS, WHICH ARE CURRENTLY REPEATED EVERY SIX (6) YEARS.
THE BASELINE CORROSION PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS AREA ARE AS FOLLOWS:
IMPLEMENTATION AGE (I) = 10 YEARS

REPEAT INTERVAL (R) = 8 YEARS
THE AIRPLANE AGES (RANKED IN ORDER OF YEARS SINCE INITIAL DELIVERY BY

MANUFACTURER), MAXIMUM IMPLEMENTATION PERIODS AND THE EXISTING SCHEDULED
VISITS FOR EACH AIRPLANE ARE SHOWN IN FIGURE 33.
FOR THIS EXAMPLE, ALL 10 AIRPLANES HAVE EXCEEDED THE IMPLEMENTATION AGE (I) AND
AIRPLANES 1 - 6 HAVE REACHED OR EXCEEDED 20 YEARS. THEREFORE, THE MAXIMUM
PERIOD FOR IMPLEMENTING TASK "A" IS SIX (6) YEARS FOR AIRPLANES 1 - 6 AND EIGHT (8)
YEARS (= R) FOR AIRPLANES 7 -10. WITH AN EFFECTIVITY DATE OF DEC. 31, 1990 FOR THE
CORROSION PROGRAM A.D., THE MAXIMUM TIME FRAME FOR IMPLEMENTING THE TASK ON
EACH AIRPLANE IS SHOWN IN FIGURE 34.
A TYPICAL PLAN FOR IMPLEMENTING THIS TASK ON ALL 10 AIRPLANES IS SHOWN IN FIGURE
35. THIS WAS DETERMINED AS FOLLOWS:
- AIRPLANES 1,2,3,4,6,8 &9 HAVE ONLY ONE SCHEDULED VISIT AVAILABLE IN THE
ALLOWABLE TIME-FRAME.
- AIRPLANES 5,7 &10 HAVE TWO VISITS AVAILABLE IN THE ALLOWABLE TIME-FRAME,
AND THE OPERATOR SELECTS THOSE THAT PROVIDE THE MOST UNIFORM
WORK-LOAD.
AS SHOWN AT THE BOTTOM OF THE TABLE IN FIGURE 35 , THE REQUIREMENT FOR

IMPLEMENTING THIS TASK WITH A RATE EQUIVALENT TO AT LEAST ONE AIRPLANE A YEAR,
IS SATISFIED (8 AIRPLANES IN THE EIGHT YEARS BETWEEN I AND (I+R)).
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.6-34

REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.6-35
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.6-36
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.6-37
EXAMPLE NUMBER 2
SIMILAR TO EXAMPLE 1 EXCEPT OPERATOR HAS YOUNGER AIRPLANES (SEE FIGURE 36).
AIRPLANES 1 - 7 HAVE REACHED OR EXCEEDED THE IMPLEMENTATION AGE (1=10 YEARS),

BUT HAVE NOT EXCEEDED 20 YEARS. THEREFORE, THE MAXIMUM TIME-FRAME FOR
IMPLEMENTING THE CORROSION PROGRAM IN THIS AREA, ON THOSE AIRPLANES IS EIGHT
(8) YEARS (= R).
FOR THE REMAINING AIRPLANES, THE MAXIMUM IMPLEMENTATION PERIOD CORRESPONDS

TO THE NUMBER OF YEARS FOR EACH AIRPLANE TO REACH (I) PLUS THE CORRESPONDING
REPEAT INTERVAL (R). THE MAXIMUM TIME FRAME FOR IMPLEMENTING THE CORROSION
PROGRAM ON AIRPLANES 8, 9 AND 10 IS 12, 12 AND 15 YEARS, RESPECTIVELY (SEE FIG. 37).
A TYPICAL PLAN FOR IMPLEMENTING THE PROGRAM IN THIS AREA IS SHOWN IN FIGURE 38.
THIS WAS DETERMINED AS FOLLOWS:
- AIRPLANE 1 : TWO OPPORTUNITIES ARE AVAILABLE , 1993 AND 1999. SINCE THE
PROGRAM GUIDELINES RECOMMEND IMPLEMENTING THE PROGRAM ON THE OLDEST
AIRPLANES FIRST, THE OPERATOR SELECTS 1993.
- AIRPLANES 2, 3, 4 AND 5 : ONLY ONE OPPORTUNITY IS AVAILABLE ON EACH AIRPLANE
DURING THE ALLOWABLE TIME-FRAME. NOTE THAT THE PROGRAM FOR AIRPLANE 5
CAN BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE YEAR 1991, IF THE OPERATOR SO DESIRES. EARLIER
IMPLEMENTATIONS MAY ALSO BE BENEFICIAL IN SOME CASES, TO HELP FULFILL THE
REQUIRED IMPLEMENTATION RATE OF AT LEAST ONE AIRPLANE PER YEAR.
- AIRPLANES 6 AND 7 : PREFERABLY, THE PROGRAM SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED ON

BOTH AIRPLANES IN 1992, BUT TO HELP DISTRIBUTE THE WORKLOAD, WHILE STILL
MAINTAINING THE ONE AIRPLANE PER YEAR RATE REQUIREMENT, THE OPERATOR
SELECTS 1992 FOR AIRPLANE 6 AND 1998 FOR AIRPLANE 7.
- AIRPLANE 8: THE OPERATOR CAN SELECT AIRPLANE 8 OR 9 IN 1996 TO FULFILL THE

ONE AIRPLANE PER YEAR REQUIREMENT. AIRPLANE 8 IS SELECTED.
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.6-38

9 AND 10: THE REQUIREMENT TO IMPLEMENT A MINIMUM OF ONE AIRPLANE PER YEAR
DURING THE PERIOD FROM (I) = 10 YEARS TO ( (I) + (R) ) = 18 YEARS HAS BEEN
SATISFIED BY AIRPLANES ONE THRU EIGHT. AIRPLANES 9 AND 10 CAN THEREFORE

BE IMPLEMENTED AT ANY CONVENIENT TIME BETWEEN (I) AND ( (I) + (R) ). THE
OPERATOR SELECTS 2002 FOR AIRPLANE 9 AND 2003 FOR AIRPLANE 10.
Note : If the operator is finding LEVEL 2 corrosion on airplanes 1 thru 4,

airplanes 9 and 10 would probably be implemented in 1996 and 1997
respectively, to minimize repair requirements. Conversely, if the operator is
finding little or no corrosion during early inspections, it may be possible to
increase the Implementation Age (I) for the remaining airplanes.
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.6-39

REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.6-40
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.6-41
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.6-42
EXAMPLE NUMBER 3
SIMILAR TO EXAMPLE 2, EXCEPT OPERATOR HAS YOUNGER AIRPLANES, WITH MAXIMUM

IMPLEMENTATION PERIODS, RELATIVE TO 1991, RANGING FROM 10 TO 15 YEARS (SEE
FIGURE 39).
AIRPLANES 1 AND 2 REACH THE IMPLEMENTATION AGE (I) IN 1993, AND THE OPERATOR
MUST BEGIN IMPLEMENTING THE CORROSION PROGRAM AT THAT TIME.
A TYPICAL PLAN FOR IMPLEMENTING THE CORROSION PROGRAM IN THIS AIRPLANE AREA IS
SHOWN IN FIGURE 39. THIS WAS DETERMINED AS FOLLOWS:
- AIRPLANES 5, 6, 7, 9 AND 10 HAVE ONLY ONE SCHEDULED VISIT IN THE ALLOWABLE

TIME-FRAME. AIRPLANES 5, 6 and 7 HAVE A SCHEDULED VISIT PRIOR TO THE
AIRPLANES REACHING (I), WHICH CAN BE USED IF CONVENIENT
- AIRPLANES 1 - 4 AND 8 HAVE TWO OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE

PROGRAM. IN EACH CASE, THE EARLIER OPPORTUNITY IS SELECTED TO MEET THE
REQUIRED RATE OF ONE AIRPLANE PER YEAR DURING THE PERIOD FROM (I) TO ((I) +
(R) ). NOTE THAT THE IMPLEMENTATION YEARS FOR AIRPLANES 8 AND 9 CAN BE
REVERSED.
- AIRPLANES 9 AND 10 ARE IMPLEMENTED IN THE YEARS 2001 AND 2002,
RESPECTIVELY.
Note : If the operator is finding LEVEL 2 corrosion on airplanes 1 thru 4,

airplanes 9 and 10 would probably be implemented in 1996 and 1997
respectively, to minimize repair requirements. Conversely, if the operator is
finding little or no corrosion during early inspections, it may be possible to
increase the Implementation Age (I) for the remaining airplanes.
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.6-43

REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.6-44
EXAMPLE NUMBER 4
OPERATOR HAS 10 AIRPLANES AND IS PLANNING TO IMPLEMENT THE BASELINE PROGRAM

IN AIRPLANE AREA "B" (VERTICAL STABILIZER - TRAILING EDGE - INTERIOR) DURING
EXISTING MAINTENANCE VISITS, WHICH ARE CURRENTLY REPEATED EVERY SIX (6) YEARS.
THE ALLOWABLE TIME FRAME FOR IMPLEMENTING TASK B, AND A TYPICAL PLAN FOR
ACHIEVING THIS, ARE SHOWN IN FIGURE 40.
THIS WAS DETERMINED AS FOLLOWS:
- AIRPLANES 1 - 4 AND 6 - 9 HAVE ONLY ONE SCHEDULED VISIT IN THE ALLOWABLE

TIME-FRAME.
- AIRPLANES 5 AND 10 DO NOT HAVE A SCHEDULED VISIT IN THE ALLOWABLE

TIME-FRAME. THE OPERATOR ELECTS TO BEGIN THE PROGRAM ON AIRPLANE 5 IN
1991. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAM ON AIRPLANE 10 WILL PROBABLY BE BASED
ON FINDINGS IN THIS AREA ON OTHER AIRPLANES. IF LEVEL 2 CORROSION IS TYPICAL
FOR THE AREA, THE PROGRAM WILL PROBABLY HAVE TO BE IMPLEMENTED IN 1997. IF
CORROSION IS FOUND TO BE TYPICALLY LEVEL 1 OR BETTER, IMPLEMENTATION MAY
BE ACCEPTABLE IN 2003.
THE BASELINE PROGRAM REPEAT INTERVAL FOR THIS TASK IS FIVE YEARS AND THE
OPERATOR'S EXISTING REPEAT INTERVAL IS SIX YEARS. THEREFORE, THE FLEET VISITS
WILL HAVE TO BE RESCHEDULED FOR THE SECOND AND SUBSEQUENT INSPECTIONS. IF
LITTLE OR NO CORROSION IS FOUND IN THE AREA DURING THE FIRST INSPECTIONS, THE
OPERATOR MAY BE ABLE TO APPLY FOR AN ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF COMPLIANCE AND
RETAIN THE SIX YEAR INTERVAL, AT LEAST FOR THE SECOND INSPECTIONS.
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.6-45

REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.6-46
EXAMPLE NUMBER 5
OPERATOR HAS 10 AIRPLANES WITH AGES THE SAME AS EXAMPLE 2 AND IS PLANNING TO
IMPLEMENT CORROSION TASK A (WING - INTERIOR OF LEADING AND TRAILING EDGE
CAVITIES) CONCURRENTLY WITH TASK B (WING - MAIN BOX).
TASK A AND B AREAS ARE CURRENTLY ACCESSED FOR MAINTENANCE EVERY FOUR (4)
AND EIGHT (8) YEARS, RESPECTIVELY.
THE CORROSION PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS FOR THESE AREAS ARE AS FOLLOWS:
TASK A: IMPLEMENTATION AGE (I) = 10 YEARS.

REPEAT INTERVAL (R)= 5 YEARS.
TASK B: IMPLEMENTATION AGE (I) =10 YEARS.

REPEAT INTERVAL (R)= 10 YEARS.
THE AIRPLANE AGES (RANKED IN ORDER OF YEARS SINCE INITIAL DELIVERY FROM
MANUFACTURER), MAXIMUM IMPLEMENTATION PERIODS AND THE EXISTING SCHEDULE FOR
MAINTENANCE VISITS, ARE SHOWN IN FIGURE 41.
THE AVAILABLE TIME-FRAME FOR IMPLEMENTING TASKS A AND B ON EACH AIRPLANE IS
SHOWN IN FIGURE 42.
A TYPICAL PLAN FOR IMPLEMENTING TASKS A AND B IS SHOWN IN FIGURE 43. THIS WAS
DETERMINED AS FOLLOWS:
- AIRPLANES 1, 3, 5, 7,8 AND 9 HAVE ONLY ONE SCHEDULED VISIT AVAILABLE FOR TASK
B. THE OPERATOR DECIDES TO IMPLEMENT BOTH TASKS CONCURRENTLY IN 1996, 94,
95, 94, 98 AND 99, RESPECTIVELY.
- AIRPLANE 6 HAS ONLY ONE SCHEDULED VISIT AVAILABLE FOR TASK A. THE
OPERATOR DECIDES TO IMPLEMENT BOTH TASKS CONCURRENTLY IN 1993.
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.6-47

EXAMPLE NUMBER 5 (Cont.)
- AIRPLANES 2, 4 AND 10 ARE IMPLEMENTED IN YEARS WHICH HELP PROVIDE A

UNIFORM WORK-LOAD DISTRIBUTION AND MAINTAIN THE ONE AIRPLANE PER YEAR
REQUIREMENT FOR BOTH TASKS
FOR THIS EXAMPLE, THE REQUIRED MINIMUM IMPLEMENTATION RATE OF ONE AIRPLANE
PER YEAR DURING THE PERIOD FROM (I) TO ( (I) + (R) ) IS SATISFIED FOR BOTH TASKS
(THREE AIRPLANE AREAS).
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.6-48

REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.6-49
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.6-50
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.6-51
Rotational Sampling Programs
Currently, the only areas where a Rotational Sampling Program is approved for use in the
707/720, 727, 737 and 747 Baseline Programs are the wet areas of the 747 Wing Fuel Tanks.
Rotational Sampling Programs (RSPs) are used to provide continuing assessments of the effects of
aging (Age Exploration) in airplane areas where approved Extended Repeat Intervals are used. Each
program is based on a proportionate number of affected airplanes being inspected at selected equal
subdivisions of the Extended Repeat Interval. Different airplanes are inspected at each shorter interval
such that all affected airplanes are inspected within the Extended Repeat Interval.
If and when corrosion is found in a given area on one or more airplanes in an operator's fleet,
Rotational Sampling Programs should be discontinued in that area and the information used to
establish an appropriate Repeat Interval.
The following pages contain examples of the use of Rotational Sampling Programs as part of Aging
Airplane Corrosion Prevention and Control Programs.
Rotational Sampling Programs - EXAMPLE 1
During development of a Baseline Corrosion Prevention and Control Program, the STG determined that
so far, no corrosion has been found and reported in one area of the airplane (area A). This includes
inspection of airplanes that are 20 years or older. Therefore, it is decided that Age Exploration of the
area is the best means of determining an appropriate Repeat Interval (R) for application of the Basic
Task.
To achieve this, a Rotational Sampling Program (RSP) is established with an Implementation Age (I) of
20 years and a 20 percent sample at a Repeat Interval (R) of 10 years.
An operator with eight (8) airplanes older than 20 years is planning to implement the Baseline Program
on those airplanes in the above area.
With an effective date of Dec. 31, 1990 for the corrosion program Airworthiness Directive, the
implementation requirements for the eight airplanes is shown on the following page.
Rotational Sampling Programs - EXAMPLE 1 (Cont.)
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.6-52

The proposed plan for implementing the program on all eight airplanes must be submitted to the
appropriate Regulatory Authority for approval, no later than Dec. 31, 1991. As a minimum, the Basic
Task must be applied on all eight airplanes as follows:
1) On any one of the eight airplanes, no later than Dec. 31, 1992.
2) On any one of the seven remaining airplanes not included in 1), no later than Dec. 31, 1993.
3) On any two of the six remaining airplanes not included in 1) and 2), no later than Dec. 31,
2002.
4) On any two of the four remaining airplanes not included in 1), 2) and 3), no later than Dec.
31,2012.
5) On the two remaining airplanes, no later than Dec. 31, 2022.
6) On the same airplane as 1), no later than Dec. 31,2032.
This type of RSP must be discontinued and a Repeat Interval (R) established for the area on the given
airplanes, under the following circumstances :
i. On all of an operator's affected airplanes after corrosion is found in the area on one or more of
the operator's airplanes.
ii. On all affected airplanes after corrosion is found in the area on several operators airplanes and
the STG determines that a RSP is no longer appropriate for the area, and changes the Baseline
Program requirements to a Repeat Interval (R), with no sampling.
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.6-53

Rotational Sampling Programs -EXAMPLE 2
The Baseline Program requirements for a given airplane area are as follows:
Implementation Age (I) = 10 years and Repeat Interval (R) = 8 years.
An operator has a fleet of 18 affected airplanes and has utilized a corrosion prevention and control
program in the above area for a number of years, using a Repeat Interval of 12 years. Records from
previous maintenance visits plus a visual check on some of the affected airplanes, show that, so far, no
indications of corrosion have been found in the area.
The operator applies for an alternative means of complying with the Baseline Program requirements for
this area and approval is given for use of an Extended Repeat Interval of 12 years in conjunction with a
Rotational Sampling Program. The approved RSP calls for inspection of this area on one third of the
fleet (six (6) airplanes) every 4 years, relative to the last inspection in the operator's program, as
follows:
1) At 4 years apply the corrosion program task any 6 of the 18 airplanes.
2) At 8 years apply the corrosion program task on any 6 of the 12 airplanes remaining from
above.
3) At 12 years apply the corrosion program task on the 6 airplanes remaining from above.
4) At 16 years apply the corrosion program task on the same 6 airplanes as in 1).
The above sequence is continued. If and when corrosion is found in the area, the findings are
used as a basis for establishing a Repeat Interval (R) for the area on all affected airplanes (See
Example 3).
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.6-54

During inspection of one of the airplanes in 3) in Example 2 above, corrosion is found which is within
allowable blend-out limits and is therefore classified as Level 1. An assessment of the findings from all
of the airplanes inspected in 3) above shows that corrosion is just beginning to occur in the area on a
few airplanes in the operator's fleet. After further assessment to determine the potential effects of such
corrosion on economic operation, the operator elects to continue with the same program, because the
existing Repeat Interval (R) of 12 years controls corrosion to an acceptable level in the area.
The sequence shown in the previous Example 2 is therefore continued, at 4).
Ongoing results from the inspections will be used to determine if future changes are required.

During inspection of one of the airplanes in 2) in Example 2 above, corrosion is found which requires
blend-out beyond allowable limits prior to repair. An evaluation of the finding shows that there is no
potential for an urgent airworthiness concern in the operator's fleet and the finding is classified as
LEVEL 2. After assessing other inspection results from 2), the operator proposes to adopt a Repeat
Inspection (R) of six (6) years for all affected airplanes in the operator's fleet, and submits the
following plan to the appropriate regulatory authority for implementing the revised program:
1) Complete implementation of the program on all remaining airplanes not covered by 1) and
2) in the original plan (Example 2), during a period to be negotiated. Such negotiations will
normally depend on the extent and severity of the corrosion problem and the potential effect on
continuing airworthiness.
2) At 2 years or less, re-apply the Basic Task on the airplanes included in Example 2, part 1).
3) At 6 years or less, re-apply the basic Task on all airplanes included in 1) above.
The above sequence is then continued. Further changes to the Repeat Interval (Up or Down) will
depend upon on-going results of the above program.
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.6-55

REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C.6-56

APPENDIX D. FAA AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE, FAA ORDER 8300.12 AND
POLICY LETTERS
This appendix contains a copy of the FAA Airworthiness Directive, FAA Order 8300-12
"Corrosion Prevention and Control Programs" and Policy Letters associated with the
727 Aging Airplane Corrosion Prevention and Control Program for reference
purposes.
Questions from operators and comments during Boeing training courses have
prompted additional interpretation of specific corrosion program requirements, as
defined by the Airworthiness Directive. Such interpretations were discussed with the
FAA and, when agreed upon, included in the training course document. Where
appropriate, corresponding clarifications will also be incorporated into this document.
The FAA has issued a series of policy letters which provide official approval of the
most significant interpretations. The first series of these policy letters was sent to all
Boeing airplane operators under a cover letter (M-7360-91-2729) August 20, 1991,
and is also included in this appendix. Where appropriate, corresponding clarifications
are also incorporated into this document. Any additional FAA policy letters will be
handled in a similar manner.
REV. E D6-54929 PAGE D-1

BOEING AIRPLANE CO.
AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE
LARGE AIRCRAFT
90-25-03 BOEING: Amendment 39-6787. Docket

No. 89-NM-268-AD.
Applicability: All Model 727 series airplanes,
certificated in any category.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless previously
accomplished.
NOTE: This AD references Boeing Document Number
D6-54929, "Aging Airplane Corrosion Prevention and Control
Program, Model 727," Revision A, dated July 28, 1989, for
inspection procedures, compliance times, and reporting
requirements. In addition, this AD specifies inspection and
reporting requirements beyond those included in the Document.
Where there are differences between the AD and the Document,
the AD prevails.
To control corrosion, accomplish the following:
A. Within one year after the effective date of this AD,
revise the FAA-approved maintenance program to include the
corrosion control program specified in Boeing Document Number
D6-54929, "Aging Airplane Corrosion Prevention and Control
Program, Model 727," Revision A, dated July 28, 1989
(hereinafter referred to as "the Document").
NOTE: All structure found corroded or cracked as a
result of an inspection conducted in accordance with this
paragraph must be addressed in accordance with FAR Part 43.
NOTE: Where non-destructive inspection (NDI) methods
are employed, in accordance with Section 4.1 of the Document,
the standards and procedures used must be acceptable to the
Administrator in accordance with FAR 43.13.
NOTE: Procedures identified in the Document as
"optional" are not required to be accomplished by this AD.
B. 1. If, as a result of any inspection conducted in
accordance with the program required by paragraph A., above,
Level 3 corrosion is determined to exist in any area,
accomplish one of the following within 7 days after such
determination:
a. Submit a report of any findings of Level 3
corrosion to the Manager of the Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office (ACO) and inspect the affected area on all Model 727
aircraft in the operator's fleet; or
b. Submit for approval to the Manager of the
Seattle ACO one of the following:
(1) Proposed adjustments to the schedule
for performing the tasks in that area on remaining airplanes
in the operator's fleet, which are adequate to ensure that any
other Level 3 corrosion is detected in a timely manner, along
with substantiating data for those adjustments; or

2 90-25-03
(2) Data substantiating that the Level 3
corrosion found is an isolated occurrence and that no such
adjustments are necessary.
NOTE: Notwithstanding the provision of Section 1.1. of
the Document that would permit corrosion that otherwise meets
the definition of Level 3 corrosion (i.e., which is determined
to be a potentially urgent airworthiness concern requiring
expeditious action) to be treated as Level 1 if the operator
finds that it "can be attributed to an event not typical of
the operator's usage of other airplanes in the same fleet,"
this paragraph requires that data substantiating any such
finding be submitted to the FAA for approval.
NOTE: As used throughout this AD, where documents are
to be submitted to the Manager of the Seattle ACO, the
document should be submitted directly to the Manager, Seattle
ACO, and a copy sent to the cognizant FAA Principal Inspector
(PI). The PI will then forward comments or concurrence to the
Seattle ACO. The Seattle ACO will not respond to the operator
without the PI's comments or concurrence.
2. The FAA may impose adjustments other than those
proposed, upon a finding that such adjustments are necessary
to ensure that any other Level 3 corrosion is detected in a
timely manner.
3. Prior to the compliance time specified for the
first task required in the adjusted schedule approved under
paragraph B.1. or B.2. of this AD, revise the FAA-approved
maintenance program to include those adjustments.
NOTE: The reporting requirements of this paragraph and
of paragraph D., below, do not relieve operators from
reporting corrosion as required by FAR Section 121.703.
C. To accommodate unanticipated scheduling
requirements, it is acceptable for a repeat inspection
interval to be increased by up to 10% but not to exceed
6 months. The cognizant FAA Principal Inspector (PI) must be
informed, in writing, of any extension.
NOTE: Except as provided in this paragraph,
notwithstanding Section 3.1., paragraph 4, of the Document,
all extensions to any compliance time must be approved by the
Manager of the Seattle ACO.
D. Report forms for Level 2 corrosion and a follow-up
report for Level 3 corrosion must be submitted at least
quarterly in accordance with Section 5.0 of the Document.
E. If the repeat inspection or task intervals of an
operator's existing corrosion inspection program are shorter
than the corresponding intervals in Section 4.3 of the
Document, they may not be increased without specific approval
of the Manager of the Seattle ACO.
F. Before any airplane that is subject to this AD can
be added to an air carrier's operations specifications, a
program for the accomplishment of tasks required by this AD
must be established in accordance with the following:

90-25-03 3
1. For airplanes that have previously been operated
under an FAA-approved maintenance program, the initial task on
each area to be accomplished by the new operator must be
accomplished in accordance with the previous operator's
schedule or with the new operator's schedule, whichever would
result in the earlier accomplishment date for that task.
After each task has been performed once, each subsequent task
must be performed in accordance with the new operator's
schedule.
2. For airplanes that have not previously been
operated under an FAA-approved maintenance program, each
initial task required by this AD must be accomplished either
prior to the airplane's being added to the air carrier's
operations specifications, or in accordance with a schedule
approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO.
G. If corrosion is found to exceed Level 1 on any
inspection after the initial inspection, the corrosion control
program for the affected area must be reviewed and means
implemented to reduce corrosion to Level 1 or better.
1. Within 60 days after such a finding, if
corrective action is necessary to reduce future findings of
corrosion to Level 1 or better, such proposed corrective
action must be submitted for approval to the Manager, Seattle
ACO.
2. Within 30 days after the corrective action is
approved, revise the FAA-approved maintenance program to
include the approved corrective action.
H. An alternate means of compliance or adjustment of
the compliance time, which provides an acceptable level of
safety, may be used when approved by the Manager, Seattle
Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate.
NOTE: The request should be submitted directly to the
Manager, Seattle ACO, and a copy sent to the cognizant FAA
Principal Inspector (PI). The PI will then forward comments
or concurrence to the Seattle ACO.
I. Special flight permits may be issued in accordance
with FAR 21.197 and 21.199 to operate airplanes to a base in
order to comply with the requirements of this AD.
The requirements shall be done in accordance with Boeing
Document Number D6-54929, "Aging Airplane Corrosion Prevention
and Control Program, Model 727," Revision A, dated
July 28, 1989. This incorporation by reference was approved
by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with
5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR Part 51. Copies may be obtained
from Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, P.O. Box 3707,
Seattle, Washington 98124. Copies may be inspected at the
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, Northwest Mountain
Region, 1601 Lind Avenue S.W., 5th Floor, Renton, Washington;
or at the Office of the Federal Register, 1100 L Street N.W.,
Room 8301, Washington, D.C.

4 90-25-03
This amendment (39-6787, AD 90-25-03) becomes effective
on December 31, 1990.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Stanton R. Wood, Airframe Branch, Seattle Aircraft

Certification Office, ANM-120S, telephone (206) 227-2772.
Mailing address: 1601 Lind Avenue S.W., Renton, Washington
98055-4056.

December 17, 1993 - No. ME 93-66
MAINTENANCE ENGINEERING MEMORANDUM
ACTION: Send Inputs to ATA by January 18, 1994
TO: Maintenance Programs Subcommittee
COPY: Partnership Program
SUBJ: FAA Order 8300.12, Corrosion Prevention & Control Programs
An "advance" copy of FAA Order 8300.12, Corrosion Prevention & Control

Programs, is attached for your review and comment. FAA is issuing the version as attached
but is willing to consider revisions based on industry input
Depending on your response, this could be an agenda item for discussion at our next
joint meeting with the MRB Policy Board, in Ft Lauderdale April 19-21, 1994 (meeting
announcement follows under separate cover).
Please send your inputs to ATA by January 18, 1994. I'm the ATA focal point, at
(202) 626-4134, Fax (202) 626-4081, wire WASMMXD.
Steven R. Erickson
Director
Maintenance & Materiel
Attachment
cc: Dave Lotterer, ATA

Jim Casey, ATA
Bill Keil, RAA

ORDER 8300:12
CORROSION PREVENTION AND CONTROL PROGRAMS
November 29, 1993
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
Distribution: A-W(VR)-1: A-W(FS.IR)-2; A-X-1: A-X(FS/CD)-2: A-FFS/ Initiated By: AFS-330

FAC-0 (MAX)

RECORD OF CHANGES DIRECTIVE NO. 8300.12
CHANGE SUPPLEMENTS CHANGE SUPPLEMENTS

TO OPTIONAL TO OPTIONAL
BASIC BASIC
FAA Form 1320-5 (6-80) USE PREVIOUS EDITION

11/29/93 8300. 12
FOREWORD
This order establishes the criteria and requirements for approval and surveillance of Corrosion
Prevention and Control Programs (CPCP), as directed by Airworthiness Directives (AD). The
CPCP's are both complex and technically demanding for the responsible Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) officials. This order will establish the working and regulatory relationship
between Aircraft Certification Offices (ACO), Flight Standards District Offices (FSDO), and the
airworthiness inspector (AI) responsible for oversight of operator maintenance. Due to the unique
nature of the CPCP's, a clear understanding of the roles and responsibilities of the ACO engineers
and AI's is critical. The successful CPCP will incorporate comprehensive technical guidance from
the manufacturer, sound and diligent surveillance from the principal maintenance inspector (PMI)
(see Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Parts 121, 125, and 129 operators) and the assigned AI's
(see FAR Section 125.3, Deviation Authority, to operate under certain, or all, parts of FAR
Part 91), and engineering advice and decision from the ACO. For current available data regarding
identification and treatment of corrosive attack on aircraft structure and engine materials, see the
latest revision of Advisory Circular 43-4, Corrosion Control for Aircraft.
This order is written to address the current corrosion AD format. Existing corrosion AD's will be
revised to reflect this format.
This order currently applies to the three AD's listed below:
92-22-07 Douglas DC-8

92-22-08 DC-9
92-22-09 DC-10
The four existing AD's which will be revised are as follows:
90-25-07 Boeing 707/720

90-25-03 727
90-25-01 737
90-25-05 747
AD's are currently being drafted for the Lockheed L-1011, BAC 1-11, Fokker F-28, and
Airbus A-300. This order will be updated to include these AD's as they are published.
Any deficiencies found, clarifications needed, or improvements to be suggested regarding the

content of this order should be forwarded to the originating office, Attention: Directives
Management Officer, AFS-13, for consideration. Your assistance is welcome. FAA Form
1320-19, Directive Feedback Information, is included as the last page of this order

11 29/93
8300.12
for guidance, but you

If an interpretation is urgently needed, you may call the originating office
should also use the tearoutsheet as a followup to verbal conversation.
Associate Administator for

Regulation and Certification

11/29/93 8300.12
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1. GENERAL
Paragraph Page
1-1. Purpose 1-1
1-2. Distribution 1-1
1-3. Definitions 1-1
1-4. Background 1-3
1-5. Scope 1-3
1-6. General Discussion of the Baseline CPCP 1-3
1-7. General Discussion of the CPCP AD's 1-4
1-8. Responsible Offices 1-6
CHAPTER 2. OPERATOR CERTIFICATION
2-1. Task-by-Task Compliance 2-1

2-2. Incorporation into Maintenance/Inspection Program 2-1
2-3. Recordkeeping and Retention 2-5
2-4. Required Reports 2-5
CHAPTER 3. SURVEILLANCE
3-1. Surveillance of an Operator's CPCP 3-1

3-2. Determination of Corrosion Levels 3-2
3-3. Actions Required for Greater Than Level I Corrosion 3-2
3-4. Deferral of Corrosion Actions 3-4
3-5. Acceptable Methods of Repair 3-4
3-6. Ten Percent Interval Adjustments 3-4
3-7. Determining the Airplane Age At Which the First Task is Required to be
Accomplished 3-4
3-8. Previous Guidance 3-5
Figure 3-1. Implementation Age Decision Logic Diagram 3-6
CHAPTER 4. PROGRAM ADJUSTMENTS
4-1. Adjustments to Baseline Program 4-1

4-2. Adjustments to Operator's Approved CPCP 4-1
APPENDIX 1. POLICY LETTERS (7 pages)
APPENDIX 2. EXAMPLE OF OPERATIONS SPECIFICATIONS PARAGRAPH D72.

AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (3 pages)

11/29/93 8300.12
CHAPTER 1. GENERAL
1-1. PURPOSE. This order provides guidance and direction to FAA personnel regarding the
implementation and surveillance of CPCP AD's. It also sets forth and clarifies the responsibilities
and procedures for all affected FAA offices.
1-2. DISTRIBUTION. This order is distributed to the Associate Administrator for Regulation and
Certification; to the division level in the Flight Standards Service and the Aircraft Certification
Service; to the regional administrators; to the regional Flight Standards Divisions and the Aircraft
Certification Directorates; and to all Flight Standards and Aircraft Certification field offices.
1-3. DEFINITIONS. The following definitions are offered as general terms for reference in this
order. The manufacturer's document may offer more specific definitions of corrosion and Baseline
Programs.
a. Airworthiness Inspector (AI) refers to the representative of the FAA Flight Standards
Service who is the primary point of contact for an operator. This individual is responsible for
approving and surveilling the operator's maintenance/inspection program. For operations under
FAR Parts 121, 125, or 129, the AI refers to the PMI. For operations under a deviation from FAR
Section 125.3 (to operate under certain, or all, parts of FAR Part 91), the AI refers to the assigned
maintenance inspector.
b. A Baseline Program includes the Basic Task, numbered Corrosion Tasks, and a schedule
for implementation and repeat accomplishment of the numbered Corrosion Tasks. The Baseline
Program also contains reporting requirements and provisions for program adjustment. This Baseline
Program is contained in section four of the manufacturer's document.
c. Certification Office (CO) refers to the ACO responsible for the type certificate for an
airplane model manufactured in the U.S. The term CO for foreign-manufactured airplanes refers to
the Standardization Branch of the FAA Transport Airplane Directorate (ANM-113).
d. Corrosion Level is a means of determining the effectiveness of a CPCP relative to a

given corrosion finding in terms of the severity of corrosion and the potential consequences to
continuing airworthiness in the operator's fleet. For terms of reference in this order, the following
definitions are given; however, for the precise definition for a model type, refer to the
manufacturer's document.
(1) Level I Corrosion is damage occurring between successive inspections that is local
and can be reworked/blended-out within allowable limits as defined by the manufacturer in a
structural repair manual (SRM), service bulletin. etc

8300.12 11/29/93
(2) Level 2 Corrosion is damage occurring between successive inspections that

requires rework or blend-out that then exceeds the manufacturer's allowable limits, requiring a
repair or complete/partial replacement of a principal structural element (as defined by the original
equipment manufacturer's SRM).
(3) Level 3 Corrosion is damage found during the first or subsequent inspection(s)
which is determined by the operator to be a potential airworthiness concern requiring expeditious
action.
NOTE: The manufacturer will normally participate in the determination of

Level 3 Corrosion. It should be noted that while the AD, in general, requires
CPCP adjustments for corrosion exceeding Level 1, Level 3 Corrosion is
especially severe and requires other expeditious actions as specified in the AD.
e. The operator's CPCP refers to the specific operator's program for inspection, treatment,
and repair of corrosion on airplanes, as developed using the manufacturer's Baseline Program.
Although the operator's CPCP is referred to as a "program," the term applies equally to Corrosion
Tasks accomplished individually in accordance with paragraph (a) of the appropriate AD, and to
those Corrosion Tasks accomplished under an approved maintenance/inspection program in
accordance with paragraph (b) of the appropriate AD.
f. Numbered Corrosion Tasks are inspection and other maintenance actions that are
accomplished in each decided aircraft area as part of the operator's CPCP. These tasks may either
cover a wide range of aircraft areas and zones or be area specific. Area specific tasks are dictated
largely by aircraft design features.
g. The Basic Task (also referred to as the Inspection Task by some manufacturers) is
accomplished in all areas of the aircraft. Elements of the Basic Task are not accomplished in
certain areas of the aircraft. These areas are stated in the "Notes" section of the numbered
Corrosion Task. Accomplishing the Basic Task generally involves the following:
(1) Removal of all systems, equipment, and interior furnishings to allow access to the
area.
(2) Cleaning of the area, as required.
(3) Visual inspection of all zones and areas listed in the Baseline Program. Additional
nondestructive inspection (NDI) or visual inspection may be necessary for indications of hidden
corrosion. Examples of hidden corrosion would be bulging or blistered skin panels.
(4) Removal of all corrosion, damage evaluation, and repair of discrepant structure, as
necessary.
(5) Unblocking holes or gaps that may hinder drainage.

11/29/93 8300.12
(6) Application of corrosion protective compound(s).
(7) Reinstallation of dry insulation blankets.
h. Implementation Age is the airplane age (years since initial manufacturer's delivery) at
which the CPCP should begin to be implemented in the affected area. The Baseline Program
specifies an Implementation Age for each numbered Corrosion Task.
i. Repeat Interval is the calendar time period in years between successive numbered
Corrosion Task accomplishment s stated in the Baseline Program.
j. Unanticipated scheduling requirements are those necessitated by short term, unforeseen

circumstances, such as airplane availability (see paragraph 3-6 on page 34).
1-4. BACKGROUND. In April 1988, a commercial transport airplane experienced an in-flight

decompression attributed to fuselage structural failure. The National Transportation Safety Board
(NTSB) determined that the probable cause of this accident was the disbonding and subsequent
fatigue damage of a lap joint. During the investigation, the NTSB found that pilots and line
maintenance personnel came to accept the classic signs of on-going corrosion damage as a normal
operating condition. A programmatic approach to corrosion prevention and control of the entire
airplane was not evident. Corrective action of corrosion findings was often deferred with no record
of the basis for deferral. Subsequently, the NTSB determined that an operator's comprehensive
CPCP, fully supported by the manufacturer and enforced by the FAA, is a critical and necessary
step in continued airworthiness of older airplanes. The NTSB recommended that the FAA develop a
model for a comprehensive CPCP that would be included in each operator's approved maintenance
program (NTSB Safety Recommendation A-89-59). The aviation industry and civil aviation
authorities formed the Airworthiness Assurance Task Force (AATF) to address airworthiness issues
relating to aging aircraft. Among the issues addressed by the task force was the need for corrosion
programs. The AATF developed a Baseline Program applicable to each aging major transport
airplane model. The FAA is mandating those CPCP's on each aging major transport airplane model
by AD.
1-5. SCOPE. This order applies to FAA approval and surveillance of the CPCP's implemented by
operators of FAR Parts 121, 125, and FAR Section 125.3, Deviation Authority, to operate under
certain, or all, parts of FAR Parts 91 and 129 (U.S.-registered airplanes). The FAA has mandated,
through AD's, CPCP's which must contain the Basic Task, Corrosion Tasks, implementation
schedules, and Repeat Intervals. These mandated tasks appear in section four of the manufacturers'
documents referenced in the AD's. Notes appearing in the AD's are advisory in nature and are not
mandatory. Section five, the reporting section of the manufacturers' documents, is also mandated
by the AD's. The other sections do not contain mandatory task requirements.
1-6. GENERAL DISCUSSION OF THE BASELINE CPCP.
a. The problem of corrosion and its prevention and control is one of the most serious
challenges that theaviation industry faces. The Baseline Program are publishedin the
maintenance

8300.12 11/29/93
manufacturer's document for each airplane model. These Baseline Programs are a starting point
from which successful programs may safely evolve based on the operator's own service experience.
b. The Baseline Programs recognize three levels of corrosion that are used to assess CPCP
effectiveness. Level 1 Corrosion found during the accomplishment of the numbered Corrosion
Tasks indicates an effective program. Level 2 Corrosion indicates that program adjustments are
necessary. Level 3 Corrosion is an urgent airworthiness concern requiring expeditious action on the
part of the operator to protect its entire model fleet. The FAA must be notified immediately upon
determination of Level 3 Corrosion. Level 2 and Level 3 Corrosion findings must be reported to
the manufacturer for evaluation and possible Baseline Program adjustment. Corrective fleet actions
resulting from Level 3 Corrosion findings must be reported to the FAA.
c. Operators may either develop CPCP's tailored to their operations based on the
manufacturer's Baseline Program or adopt the manufacturer's program in total. Early
implementation, especially on older airplanes, of a CPCP is necessary to ensure that pre-existing
unsafe levels of corrosion are removed from an operator's fleet.
d. During the first inspection on a given airplane, corrosion detected may exceed Level 1.
This is because the structure may have never been the subject of a comprehensive corrosion
program. No CPCP adjustmentsare necessary as a result of this first inspection. However, any
determination of Level 3 Corrosion during this inspection requires that the operator take expeditious
measures to find and correct this serious condition in its fleet.
e. Once implemented, an effective CPCP should consistently find corrosion no greater than
Level 1 during Repeat Intervals. Occurrences of corrosion that exceed Level 1 indicate a need to
reevaluate the CPCP for possible adjustments. Regardless of the corrosion level determined in each
finding, the operator must accomplish the Basic Task, including removal of corrosion, to ensure that
the corrosion does not reach an unsafe level before the task is repeated.
f. An operator that has demonstrated an effective CPCP (one which consistently finds
corrosion no greater than Level 1 during Repeat Intervals) may be allowed to extend Repeat
Intervals as defined in this order.
g. Extensions of Repeat Intervals may not be appropriate in all cases where the current
program is effective. One might expect Level 2 Corrosion to develop if an interval is either
extended in an area where the CPCP has been only marginally effective in the past or if the
extension requested is excessively large. Such extensions should not be approved. Each proposed
Repeat Interval extension should be evaluated with the expectation that future corrosion findings
continue to be limited to Level 1.
1-7. GENERAL DISCUSSION OF THE CPCP AD'S.

11/29/93 8300.12
document, each of which contains the Baseline Program for certain airplane models (see the
Foreword on page i for a listing of those models). The purpose of this document is to ensure timely
detection of corrosion damage and to prevent unacceptable combinations of corrosion and fatigue in
aging airplanes.
(1) Although manufacturers' documents may vary somewhat in format, each contains a
Baseline Program, guidelines for implementing that program, a mandatory reporting system, and
general program information. The Baseline Program includes a Basic Task, numbered Corrosion
Tasks, Implementation Ages, and Repeat Intervals. Section five, the reporting section, contains
procedures for documenting and reporting the results of the inspections required by the AD.
Although this section does not address documentation of Level I Corrosion determinations, such
documentation is recommended in order to justify Repeat Interval adjustments.
(2) The FAA is publishing AD's which require that operators develop CPCP's using
either the Baseline Program in the manufacturer's document or an equivalent program. These AD's
provide for two acceptable methods of compliance, and operators must implementa CPCP by using
one of these methods. The two acceptable methods of compliance are as follows:
(a) Task-By-Task Compliance. A task-by-task approach, which accomplishes

all tasks in the Baseline Program in accordance with section four of the manufacturer's document
and paragraph (a) of the AD, is intended for those operators who do not have; (1) an FAA-approved
maintenance program; (2) an approved inspection program; or (3) a manufacturer's recommended
inspection program. These are generally FAR Part 125 operators issued a deviation authority under
FAR Section 125.3 to operate under certain parts of FAR Part 91. This method also provides a
program for implementation by foreign civil aviation authorities.
(b) Incorporation into Maintenance/Inspection Program. The second

method is to incorporate the numbered Corrosion Tasks of the Baseline Program into their
maintenance/inspectionprogram in accordance with paragraph (b) of the AD. This method affects
the vast majority of U.S.- registered airplanes operating under FAA-approved
maintenance/inspection programs. The FAA expects that most of the operators will elect to comply
with the AD by modifying their maintenance/inspection programs.
b. CPCP'S. Compliance with paragraph (a) or (b) establishes an operator's AD-mandated

CPCP. AD paragraphs (c) through (h) are separate and independent requirements that may be
invoked, regardless of the method selected (AD paragraph (a) or (b)) by the operator to implement
the CPCP. The operators' CPCP established in accordance with AD paragraph (b) should include
maintenance/ inspection program procedures which ensure that the requirements of paragraphs (c)
through (h) are satisfied when invoked, and that a status record of compliance with each requirement
is made. For example, AD paragraph (c) allows the operator to make a Repeat Interval adjustment
of up to 10 percent in order to accommodate unanticipated scheduling requirements. The operator's
CPCP should include procedures for making these adjustments within the limits authorized in the
AD and for making an individual record of compliance with paragraph (c) of the AD each time an
adjustment is made

8300.12 11/29/93
1-8. RESPONSIBLE OFFICES.
a. AI's. Two FAA organizations are involved in administering the CPCP AD's. The first
is the Flight Standards Service, represented by the FSDO, Certificate Management Office, or
International Field Office responsible for the oversight of an operator's maintenance. In this order,
the FAA Flight Standards representative responsible for oversight will be referred to as the AI. For
operations under FAR Parts 121, 125, and 129, the AI refers to the PMI. For operations under the
deviation authority of FAR Section 125.3 to operate under certain parts of FAR Part 91, the AI
refers to the assigned maintenance inspector. The AI should evaluate the CPCP based on the
operator's prior service experience. The AI has knowledge of an operator's capabilities and can
determine the CPCP's effect on the overall maintenance program and can also ensure that the FAA
has the ability to monitor and enforce the program.
b. CO's. The second organization involved is the Aircraft Certification Service. For a
U.S.-manufactured airplane, this organization is represented by the CO responsible for the
manufacturer. For a non U.S.-manufactured airplane, this organization is represented by the
Standardization Branch of the FAA Transport Airplane Directorate. In this order, the responsible
office of the Aircraft Certification Service is referred to simply as the CO. The CO provides a
resource to the AI in evaluating the operator's CPCP. CO's are aware of the service experience of
the entire model fleet and have access to the manufacturer's data. The CO has the ability to enforce
a uniform level of safety throughout the model fleet.
NOTE: The roles and responsibilities of these organizations, with respect to the CPCP
AD's, differ depending on whether an operator elects to comply with paragraph (a) or
paragraph (b) of the AD.
c. Task-by-Task Compliance. If an operator elects to comply with paragraph (a), "the

FAA,' as used in the CPCP AD's, is represented by the CO. Paragraph (a) of the AD gives an
operator the option of complying with the AD in a task-by-task manner. Each CPCP numbered
Corrosion Task specified in the manufacturer's document is treated as a separate AD requirement in
the same manner as other AD's. The CO is the FAA office responsible for approving program
adjustments. In this case, the responsibilities of the AI and CO are as follows:
(1) AI Responsibilities:
(a) To perform surveillance of an operator's task completion and to monitor

corrosion findings to ensure that this method of compliance is effective in controlling corrosion.
The AI's surveillance activities should include visual inspection of the numbered Corrosion Task
areas on individual airplanes. The AI should also observe the operator's performance of selected
corrosion activities and review records and reports.
(b) To notify the CO of any findings which indicate that the CPCP is
ineffective in controlling corrosion to Level 1. For example, the AI should report repeat findings of
Level 2 Corrosion, even though the operator appears diligent in accomplishing its CPCP

11/29/93 8300.12
(c) To forward operator-proposed program adjustments to the CO for approval.
(d) To provide information to the CO, as requested, about an operator and its
fleet(s) so that the CO may fulfill its responsibilities for administration of the AD.
(2) CO Responsibilities:
(a) To evaluate and execute approvals on behalf of the FAA, when justified, in
cases where the AD indicates that approval by "the FAA" is required.
(b) To evaluate and approve justified requests for alternative methods of

compliance or adjustments to compliance times for the AD, as provided for in paragraph (h) of
the AD.
(c) To coordinate such approvals with the AL
(d) To receive information on behalf of the FAA in cases where the AD

indicates that information is required to be submitted to "the FAA."
(e) To monitor the effectiveness of the manufacturer's Baseline Corrosion

Program for which the CO is responsible and to require changes in the program, as necessary. This
includes monitoring reports of corrosion submitted to the manufacturer, AI reports of problems with
control of corrosion, and participation in annual Structural Working Group review meetings. These
reviews are convened by the airplane manufacturer so that industry and civil airworthiness authority
representatives may assess the effectiveness of the baseline corrosion program and make
recommendations.
(f) To revise the CPCP AD's, as necessary, and to make changes in the
manufacturer's Baseline Program effective on all airplanes of the affected model.
(g) To provide guidance to the AI concerning the AD.
(h) To act as the focal point between the FAA and other civil airworthiness
authorities concerning the intent of the AD's.
d. Maintenance/Inspection Programs. If an operator elects to comply with paragraph (b)

of the AD, "the FAA," as used in the CPCP AD's, is represented by the AI. Paragraph (b) of the
AD gives an operator the option of complying with the AD in a programmatic way. Each CPCP
task is incorporated into an operator's existing FAA-approved maintenance/inspection program, and
the AI is the FAA's primary point of contact. The guidance contained in this order is directed
primarily at the relationship between the AI and the CO necessitated by this approach. In this case,
the responsibilities of the AI and CO are as follows:
(1) AI Responsibilities:

8300.12 11/29/93
(a) To make approvals on behalf of the FAA in cases where the AD states that
"the FAA's" approval is required. Such approvals may consist of approval of the revised
maintenance inspection program (to include the CPCP), extension of Repeat Intervals, schedule
adjustments for findings of Levels 2 or 3, schedules for placing a newly acquired airplane into
service, approval of alternative recordkeeping methods, and approval of schedules for inspection of
the remainder of the fleet in the event of a Level 3 finding.
(b) To coordinate such approvals with the CO in accordance with this order.
(c) To direct the operator to submit a request for an alternative method of

compliance or adjustment to the CO in cases where the AD does not specifically state that "the
FAA's" approval is required.
(d) To receive information on behalf of the FAA in cases where the AD

indicates that information is required to be submitted to "the FAA." All reports of Level 3
Corrosion should be immediately transmitted to the CO.
(e) To perform surveillance of an operator's CPCP and to monitor corrosion

findings to ensure that this method of compliance is effective in controlling corrosion. The AI's
surveillance activities should include visual inspection of the numbered Corrosion Task areas and the
performance of the Basic Task on individual airplanes. The AI should also observe the operator's
performance of selected corrosion activities and review records and reports.
(f) To provide information to the CO, as requested, about an operator and its
fleet(s) so that the CO may fulfill its responsibilities for administration of the AD.
(2) CO Responsibilities:
(a) To evaluate and execute approvals of justified requests for alternative

methods of compliance or adjustments to initial inspection compliance times for the AD, as provided
in paragraph (h) of the AD.
(b) To coordinate such approvals with the AI as discussed in the AD or this

order.
(c) To monitor the effectiveness of the manufacturer's Baseline Program for

which the CO is responsible and to require changes in the program, as necessary. This includes
monitoring reports of corrosion submitted to the manufacturer, and participation in periodic
Structural Working Group review meetings. These reviews are convened by the airplane
manufacturer so that industry and civil airworthiness authority representatives may assess the
effectiveness of the baseline corrosion program and make recommendations.
(d) To revise the CPCP AD's, as necessary, to make changes in the

manufacturer's Baseline Program effective on all airplanes of the affected airplane model.

11/29/93 8300.12
(e) To provide engineering assistance and advice to the AI's so that they may
evaluate and approve justified requests for operator program adjustments as provided for in the AD.
(f) To act as the focal point between the FAA and other civil airworthiness
authorities concerning the intent of the AD's.

11/29/93 8300.12
CHAPTER 2. OPERATOR CERTIFICATION
2-1. TASK-BY-TASK COMPLIANCE. Operators who elect to comply with paragraph (a) of the
AD are not required to seek program approval from either the AI or the CO. These operators will
accomplish the tasks identified in the manufacturer's published Baseline Program as individual AD
requirements. In this case, the Baseline Program is the operator's CPCP.
2-2. INCORPORATION INTO MAINTENANCE/INSPECTION PROGRAM
a. Operators who elect to comply with paragraph (b) of the AD will develop their own
CPCP using the manufacturer's document. This CPCP must be incorporated into their
maintenance/inspection program.
b. The AI should review the operator's proposed program against the Baseline Program
established by the manufacturer. The AI may approve, without further evaluation, an operator's
program that is identical to the Baseline Program specified in the manufacturer's document and
provides for the implementation schedule of paragraph (a)(1) of the AD. If the operator
incorporates either a variation of the Baseline Program or a different program altogether, then the
AI should evaluate that program. The following criteria must be included in the AI's evaluation:
(1) Any variation in a task Implementation Age or Repeat Interval that is more
restrictive than the Baseline Program (as given in the manufacturer's document revision specified in
the AD) may be accepted.
(2) Any changes to the Basic Task or the numbered Corrosion Task should be
coordinated with the CO. Examples of such changes include deviation from inspection methods and
application of corrosion inhibitors and other treatments.
(3) Procedures which ensure that the initial numbered Corrosion Tasks are
accomplished according to the compliance times specified in paragraph (a)(l) of the AD.
(4) The CPCP should not include provisions for deferral of the numbered Corrosion
Tasks or parts of the Basic Task, such as repairs and inhibitor applications.
(5) Where the operator's CPCP proposes Repeat Intervals that are less restrictive than
those published in the manufacturer's Baseline Program, the AI should request substantiating
information and coordinate evaluation of that change with the CO prior to approval of the CPCP.
An alternative means of compliance may be required in these instances.

8300.12 11/29/93
(6) The operator may propose alternative recordkeeping methods to those currently
required in FAR Sections 91.417 and 121.380. This alternative system would eliminate the dual
recordkeeping burden that would normally be required. When the CPCP is incorporated into the
maintenance program, the individual Corrosion Tasks will be identified and accomplished during
maintenance checks. By recording the current inspection status of each airplane, and by maintaining
a cross-reference system in the maintenance program between the Corrosion Tasks and the
operator's CPCP, it will be possible to determine the current inspection and AD status of each
airplane. Alternative methods should be evaluated to ensure that there is an audit trail to the
specific requirements of the AD, that records are retained, and that those records accompany an
airplane when transferred.
(a) Audit Trail. The proposed recordkeeping system must enable the AI to
trace each Corrosion Task back to an individual requirement of the AD. Each task identified in the
manufacturer's document is an AD requirement. The operator's CPCP should allow the AI to
determine the date of compliance and the method of compliance for any individualtask. For
example, the operator may propose to use its airworthiness release record job/task card or
equivalent) to satisfy the status record requirements. The job/task card should contain the AD
number and manufacturer's task number in order to provide the required audit trail. Another
method of providing an audit trail is for the job/task card to reference a number in a CPCP table to
identify the corrosion AD and manufacturer's task number. The AI may want to suggest to the
operator that it establish a matrix/document that will provide a cross-reference to the job/task card
for the CPCP task number, interval, and AD.
(b) Record Retention. To ensure that current status records are available, the
CPCP must contain provisions which require each job/task card to be retained until one of the
following situations occur:
1. The Corrosion task is repeated.
2. The Corrosion task is superseded.
3. The job/task card is transferred with the airplane.
(c) Record Transfer. In the event that an airplane is transferred, the losing
operator must provide the gaining operator with all records that show status of AD compliance.
(7) Sampling Programs. The AI will not approve any CPCP which contains
sampling. All areas of all airplanes must be inspected.
(8) Paragraphs (c thru i). Any CPCP should contain procedures to ensure that
paragraphs (c thru i) of the AD are complied with when invoked. Among these procedures are the
following:

11/29/93 8300.12
(b) Procedures to ensure that a determination of Level 3 Corrosion is acted

upon within days of such determination and that reports, schedules, or data are filed as described in
paragraph (d)(l) of the AD.
(c) Procedures to ensure that such reports required by paragraph (d)(l)(i) of the
AD are submitted.
(d) Procedures to ensure that the Corrosion Tasks in the affected areas are
accomplished in accordance with paragraph (d)(1)(i) of the AD. The AI should be notified when the
numbered Corrosion Task has been completed for the affected areas on all airplanes in the model
fleet.
(e) Procedures to ensure that the proposed schedule and its substantiating data
for performing the Corrosion Task in the affected areas on the remaining airplanes in the operator's
model fleet is accomplished IAW paragraph (d)(1)(ii)(A) of the AD.
(f) Procedures to notify the AI when the operator determines that Level 3
Corrosion is an isolated occurrence and for submission of data acceptable to the FAA. Procedures
to accomplish either paragraph (d)(l)(i) or (d)(1)(ii)(A) of the AD expeditiously upon notification
from the AI that the isolated occurrence is not approved.
(g) Procedures to ensure that changes to correct a CPCP are submitted to the
FAA for approval within 60 days after the determination of corrosion exceeding Level 1 is made
LAW paragraph (e) of the AD.
(h) Procedures to ensure a schedule for the accomplishment of the numbered

Corrosion Tasks required by paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD.
(i) Procedures to ensure that reports of Levels 2 and 3 Corrosion are submitted
at least quarterly to the manufacturer in accordance with paragraph (g) of the AD.
(9) The operator's procedures should contain all requirements of the Basic Task. and
implementation and Repeat Intervals as specified in the manufacturer's document.
(10) The operator may submit an existing CPCP for approval. The FAA must find
that this program is equivalent to the manufacturer's Baseline Program. The AI has the approval
authority for the program, however the AI should coordinate approval with the cognizant CO.
Before approving an equivalent program, the AI must determine that the operator's substantiating
documentation proves that the program controls corrosion to Level 1.
(11) CPCP Approval. Once the AI is satisfied that the operator's continuous
airworthiness maintenance program (CAMP) complies with the CPCP AD requirements.
then issue operations specifications containing new paragraph D72f,

8300.12 11/29/93
(a) The CPCP is now governed by Operations Specifications D72, Aircraft

Maintenance - General Requirements (see Appendix 2 for a sample). Permanent changes should be
in accordance with the following provisions:
(b) The following circumstances necessitate a CPCP revision to paragraph (f)

of Operations Specifications D72:
(1) A change to a Repeat Interval.
(2) A change to an Implementation Age.
(3) A change to the affected fleet (for example, the addition of airplanes
in accordance with paragraph (f) of the AD).
(4) A revision to the CPCP AD affecting the model fleet.
(5) A change in a Basic Task definition (for example, a changeover to

the use of a new corrosion inhibiting compound).
(c) The operator should make a FAR Section 121.380(a)(v) status record
showing that it has complied with the requirement of AD XX-XX-XX, paragraph (a), using the
alternative method of recordkeeping within an approved CPCP authorized in paragraph (b) of
the AD.
(12) An operator may determine that within its aggregate fleet of a given airplane
model (such as a B-727), there are two or more groups of airplanes which must be maintained from
a corrosion standpoint in a uniquely different manner. For example, the operator may have 18
727-100's which it operates in a salt-laden environment such as that between islands in the Pacific.
It also operates 13 727-100's which are only flown between dry, salt-free destinations where the
environment is essentially benign. In this case, the operator may designate two 727 fleets and
submit individual CPCP's for each one. The AI should review each CPCP individually in
accordance with the preceding criteria and should also ensure that the following occurs:
(a) The one airplane per year implementation rate requirement of the AD
(paragraph (a)(1)(iv)) represents one airplane or equivalent a year from each fleet.
(b) The operator has established the identity of each airplane in each fleet and
has procedures in place to track movement of airplanes from fleet to fleet and apply the appropriate
CPCP. Transfer of airplanes from one fleet to another should be handled as they would for transfer
from a previous operator to a new operator (paragraph f of the AD).
(13) The CPCP should contain procedures to evaluate the corrosion findings and
document the levels determined, or to make a record (photograph, drawing, detailed
etc.) of the conditions found which are adequate to make a later determination.
to have potentially serious corrosion repaired without evaluation of the

11/29/93 8300.12
information about the success of the CPCP is obtained from the evaluation of corrosion detected,
and reports of levels determined.
(14) If the CPCP contains NDI/nondestructive testing (NDT) methods the operator
intends to use for detecting corrosion, and these methods deviate from methods specified in the
manufacturer's corrosion document, the AI should evaluate them in coordination with the CO.
(15) The manufacturer's job/task cards for the Baseline Program are not approved by
the FAA and are not mandatory. The operator may elect to either use these job/task cards or
develop their own job/task card. In this case, the AI should review every job/task card to ensure
that the following information matches the document requirements in detail:
(a) Corrosion Task number, subtask number, and AD number.
(b) Detailed description of work to be done, including work required by

referenced service bulletins.
(c) Inclusion of the elements of the Basic Task.
(d) Task Areas.
(e) Airplane.
(f) Date of accomplishment, which may include a "Check" designator.
2-3. RECORDKEEPING AND RETENTION. The AI should check the operator's records and
recordkeeping system to ensure that the current compliance status of the airplane can be identified
from these records and that these data are available when an airplane is transferred. The AI should
determine whether the operator has an alternative recordkeeping system and is maintainingrecords
in accordance with it.
2-4. REQUIRED REPORTS. The AD requires that Levels 2 and 3 Corrosion findings be reported
to the manufacturer at least quarterly. Actions necessitated by reports of Level 3 determination are
also required to be reported to the FAA within 7 days of such determination. These AD reports do
not negate FAR Section 121.703 which requires that these findings be reported to the AI within 72
hours.

11/29/93 8300.12
CHAPTER 3. SURVEILLANCE
3-1. SURVEILLANCE OF AN OPERATOR'S CPCP. Once the operator has begun to implement
its CPCP, the AI may use the following items to monitor compliance.
a. Does the operatorhave the manufacturer's corrosion control and prevention document or
the operator's FAA approved CPCP? Is the revision cited in the latest AD? Do job/task cards
contain instructions from the document?
b. Is the operator meeting the implementation and repeat inspection schedule requirements
of the AD (paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2))? Any repeat inspection interval can be adjusted up to 10
percent of the Repeat Interval, or 6 months, whichever is less, to meet unanticipated scheduling
requirements, as cited in paragraph (c) of the AD.
c. Does the operator accomplish all parts of the Basic Task, including application of
corrosion inhibiting compounds when accomplishing each of the numbered Corrosion Tasks? Are
these compounds the same type recommended by the manufacturer? Are corrosion inhibiting
compounds adequately stocked?
d. Does the operator record Levels 2 and 3 Corrosion found?
e. Are those operator personnel who are accomplishing Corrosion Tasks adequately trained
to recognize corrosion and to determine corrosion levels? Where NDI/NDT procedures are
required, are operator personnel trained in the use of these procedures in detecting corrosion?
f. Do the job/task cards contain the same level of detail identified in the manufacturer's
document?
g. If the operator's CPCP is being performed by a contract facility, is it being accomplished

in accordance with the operator's program?
h. Is the operator evaluating and making adjustments to its CPCP based on Levels 2 and 3
Corrosion findings?
i. Is the operator reporting Levels 2 and 3 Corrosion to the manufacturer?
j. Is the operator accomplishing repairs at the time corrosion is found?
k. Are operator personnel conducting NDI/NDT inspections for corrosion using methods
which conform to the manufacturer's corrosion document or approved CPCP?

8300.12 11/29/93
l. Are the insulation blankets removed and dried prior to reinstallation? It is suggested that
any dry blankets found damaged be repaired prior to reuse. The insulation material itself has been
found to act as a wick which attracts and retains moisture.
3-2. DETERMINATION OF CORROSION LEVELS. If corrosion is detected during the

accomplishment of a numbered Corrosion Task, its level must be determined. Appendices are
supplied in the manufacturer's document to aid the operator in making this determination. The
following guidelines will apply to most CPCP's:
a. The determination of the corrosion level is the responsibility of the operator.
b. After the operator has found corrosion which is potentially an urgent airworthiness
concern, the manufacturer should be contacted for concurrence prior to classification as Level 3.
This is necessary because the determination of Level 3 Corrosion is dependant on the structural
design, and the manufacturer has the greatest knowledge of this design.
c. Once severe corrosion has been determined, it should be reported in an expeditious

manner since the determination of Level 3 Corrosion has serious implications. These implications
may apply not only to the airplane involved or the operator's fleet, but also to the entire model
fleet.
d. Reports of corrosion exceeding Level 1 are required to be submitted to the manufacturer

in accordance with paragraph (g) of the AD so that the manufacturer can evaluate the effectiveness
of the Baseline Program.
3-3. ACTIONS REQUIRED FOR GREATER THAN LEVEL 1 CORROSION
a. Initial Task Finding. If corrosion exceeding Level I is found during the accomplishment
of the initial corrosion inspection, it is required to be reported to the manufacturer in accordance
with paragraph (g) of the AD. Reports to the manufacturer are necessary so that it can evaluate the
adequacy of the Baseline Program. The operator is not required to change its CPCP under
paragraph (e). The adequacy of the CPCP cannot be assessed until at least one Repeat Interval has
transpired.
b. Repetitive Task Finding. If corrosion exceeding Level 1 is found during the

accomplishment of repetitive inspections, then there is generally some need for change in the
operator's CPCP. A single occurrence of corrosion exceeding Level 1 does not necessarily warrant
a change to the operator's CPCP. The operator should determine, through inspectionof additional
airplanes, whether there are multiple occurrences. If there are multiple occurrences, the operator is
required to implement an FAA-approved change to its CPCP. The AI is responsible for approving
the change within 60 days after the determination is made. Typical adjustment actions may include
one or more of the following:
(1) Multiple applications of corrosion inhibitor or coatings.

11/29/93 8300.12
(2) A reduction in the Implementation Age (for additional airplanes entering the
program).
(3) A reduction in the Repeat Interval.
(4) Additional drainage.
c. Level 3 Corrosion Finding. The determination that Level 3 Corrosion exists on an

airplane requires expeditious action. The purpose of the action is to locate and correct any Level 3
Corrosion that may exist in the remainder of an operator's fleet. Unless the operator shows that the
finding is an isolated occurrence, the AD requires the operator to inspect the affected areas on all
airplanes in the operator's model fleet within 7 days of the determination or, in cases where an
operator requires more time, the AD allows the operator to present a schedule for accomplishing
thisfleet campaign. The AI is responsible for reviewing and approving the operator's schedule.
The AI may require the assistance of the CO in evaluating the operator's rationale and schedule. In
addition, the CO and the manufacturer must be made aware of the determination as soon as possible
because it may have implications for other operators as well. Some things to consider in this
evaluation are as follows:
(1) If the condition was discovered on the initial inspection, it is possible that this area
was not adequately inspected in the past. Other airplanes in the operator's fleet may be in similar
condition.
(2) Does the fleet campaign include the entire model fleet? If not, has the operator
submitted substantiating information to justify their proposed fleet campaign? For example, Level 3
Corrosion found during the first CPCP inspection on an airplane which was acquired from another
operator may have been caused by operation in a particularly corrosive environment which were
unknown to the present operator. Other such airplanes in the present operator's fleet may have been
operated in this environment. Such airplanes may have Level 3 Corrosion even though they have
not reached the Implementation Age, and therefore should be included in the fleet campaign.
(3) Is there anything that will allow a limited fleet campaign of other airplanes in the
operator's fleet?
(a) What was the past maintenance history of the airplane?
(b) What was the operating environment of the airplane?
(c) What was the production build standard?
(d) Was the airplane acquired from another operator?
(e) Years in service of the airplane

8300.12 1129/93
(4) Paragraph (d)(2) of the AD allows the AI to impose schedules other than that
proposed by the operator if the FAA determines that this is necessary for timely detection of other
Level 3 Corrosion. This should be a joint decision between the AI and the CO. The CO should
communicate concurrence with the action, by letter or memo, to the AI as soon as possible, but not
later than 10 working days. The AI should endorse this letter and forward it to the operator as soon
as possible after this decision is made.
(5) Once the fleet campaign schedule has been approved, the AI should monitor the
results of the inspections and follow up on the corrosion level determinations. The AI should ensure
that the operator addresses additional findings of Levels 2 and 3 Corrosion and makes submittals in
accordance with paragraphs (d) and (g) of the AD.
(6) Additional Level 3 findings indicate that an even more aggressive fleet campaign is
necessary. For example, if the subsequent Level 3 finding is even more severe or more widespread
than the first, the safety problem may be greater than originally thought and even more expeditious
action may be necessary. The AI should consider this possibility before approving an operator's
revised or new fleet campaign resulting from additional Level 3 corrosion findings.
3-4. DEFERRAL OF CORROSION ACTIONS. In general, the deferral of any inspectionwithin

the numbered Corrosion Tasks or parts of the Basic Task, such as corrosion removal, repairs, and
inhibitor application, is not allowed. The intent of a CPCP is that a complete numbered Corrosion
Task should be performed on the structure at predetermined intervals. It is the completionof the
entire numbered Corrosion Task and the Basic Task that makes the Repeat Interval valid. If
corrosion is left on the structure, it will likely exceed an acceptable level before that particular task
is repeated. In some instances, an operator may request the deferral of corrosion removal and
repair. In these instances, an engineering evaluation of the deferral is essential. Deferrals should
be requested as an alternative method of compliance in accordance with procedures in paragraph (h)
of the applicable AD. The substantiating data should include the reason why the corrosion will not
be an airworthiness concern prior to repair at a specified time.
3-5. ACCEPTABLE METHODS OF REPAIR. Corroded items are to be reworked, blended, or

replaced in accordance with either approved methods in the manufacturer's SRM or other FAA-
approved methods. The CPCP AD's do not address acceptable methods of repair. Operators
should continue to make repairs in accordance with the FAR.
3-6. TEN PERCENT INTERVAL ADJUSTMENTS. The FAA recognizes the need for flexibility
in the scheduling of the Repeat Intervals. Paragraph (c) of the appropriate AD accommodates
unanticipated scheduling difficulties. However, it is not intended that this allowance be used to
extend all specified Repeat Intervals by 10 percent. The AI should ensure that the operator is
conforming with the written notification procedures of paragraph (c).
3-7. DETERMINING THE AIRPLANE AGE AT WHICH THE FIRST TASK IS REQUIRED
TO BE ACCOMPLISHED

11/29/93 8300.12
(1) Implementation Age for the task.
(2) Repeat Interval for the task.
(3) Airplane date of initial delivery from the manufacturer.
(4) Effective date of the AD.
b. AD paragraph (a)(1) establishes the requirements for the fist task accomplishment.
These requirements are presented in the decision logic diagram of figure 3-1 in this order.
c. The Basic Task(s) must be accomplished on at least one affected or equivalent airplane
per year.
3-8. PREVIOUS GUIDANCE. Policy letters have been issued by Northwest Mountain Region
(ANM-100) pertaining to the corrosion AD's. These letters are attached as appendix 1.

8300.12 11/29/93
FIGURE 3-1. IMPLEMENTATION AGE DECISION LOGIC DIAGRAM
NOTES:
A = Airplane age at 1 year after effective date of AD

R = Repeat Interval for the Corrosion Task
C = Airplane age when the task is first required to be accomplished
IA = Implementation Age for the Corrosion Task
< = Less than

11/29/93 8300.12
CHAPTER 4. PROGRAM ADJUSTMENTS
4-1. ADJUSTMENTS TO BASELINE PROGRAM. Only the CO may make Baseline Program
adjustments by issuing revisions to the AD. These revisions are based on the evaluation of
corrosion reports submitted by operators and the program implementation difficulties identified by
the AI's. These revisions will normally be the result of a consensus made by the model Working
Groups during the periodic review meetings.
a. The CO should review all reports of Level 3 Corrosion in conjunction with the
manufacturer to identify trends in the model fleet.
b. When the AI's identify difficulties in implementing the CPCP which are common
throughout the fleet, the CO's should consider initiating AD revision action rather than issuing
multiple alternative methods of compliance or policy letters.
c. The model working group annually reviews corrosion reports that have been submitted to
the manufacturer. The working group will recommend any Baseline Program changes necessary.
Such program changes are implemented by a change to the manufacturer's CPCP and a revision to
the affected AD.
d. If an AD revision is issued, each operator must comply. Where the AD revision affects
task requirements, the operator's CPCP should be reviewed to determine if and where changes are
necessary. For example, an operator whose CPCP contains task requirements which are more
restrictive than those mandated in the AD revision would be in compliance. An operator that can
show that its CPCP is consistently maintaining corrosion to Level I would also be in compliance
with the revised AD.
4-2. ADJUSTMENTS TO OPERATOR'S APPROVED CPCP. Operators using either method of

compliance may adjust their CPCP.
a. Task-by-Task Method. Any operator who has elected to comply with paragraph (a) of
the AD must make adjustments to their program through an alternative method of compliance in
accordance with paragraph (h) of the AD.
b. Maintenance/Inspection Program. Any operator who has elected to comply with

paragraph (b) of the AD may make changes to its program upon the approval of the Al.
Approval request must be accompanied by information substantiating the changes. The AI should
use the following guidelines in approving such requests:

8300.12 11/29/93
(2) The operator's substantiating data should indicate that the numbered Corrosion
Task at the present Repeat Interval has been completed on 75 percent of its affected airplanes.
(3) The operator may not use its "reliability program" as a basis for adjusting the
Repeat Interval; however, the operator may use the reliability program for recording numbered
Corrosion Task findings and level determinations to substantiate data for Repeat Interval changes.
(4) The requested change should be expected to result in a program that continues to
be effective. That is, future corrosion findings should be expected to continue to be limited to
Level 1.
(5) The AI should consult with the CO if any of the following occurs:
(a) The adjustment constitutes a 10 percent or greater change in a Repeat

Interval.
(b) The adjustment constitutes a change in the Implementation Age.
(c) The operator's experience in the affected area includes one or more findings
of Levels 2 or 3 Corrosion during earlier repeat inspections.
NOTE: Areas experiencing Levels 2 or 3 Corrosion are not normally eligible for a
program relaxation. There are certain limited circumstances, however, under which
Levels 2 or 3 Corrosion findings may not be indicative of an ineffective program (see
paragraph 3-3). Any request for a relaxation of such programs should be discussed
thoroughly with the CO before an approval is granted or denied.
(d) The operator has not repeated the task in the affected area on
at least 75 percent of its existing affected fleet.
(e) The operator's experience in the affected area indicates that its existing
program, although effective, is only marginally so, and a relaxation of the program is being
requested.
(f) The AI has any other doubt or question about the change.
(6) The AI should review all previously issued alternative method of compliance
approvals for the operator's CPCP. If the AI determines that the requested change affects any
previously granted alternative methods, then the AI should forward the request to the CO
recommending that an alternative method of compliance be considered. The AI may add comments
and concurrence, as appropriate.

11/29/93 8300.12
c. AI Approval of Operator's Requests. The AI should provide approval or status of

requested changes to a CPCP within 10 working days after receipt. The approval or status of a
change should be made in writing to avoid misunderstandings. If a change is not approved within
10 working days, then the AI should keep the operator informed of the status.

11/29/93 8300.12
Appendix 1
APPENDIX 1. SAMPLE POLICY LETTERS
FEB 5 1991
In Reply
Refer To: 91-120S-35
Boeing Commercial Airplane Group

Attention: Mr. G.R. Mack, Chief
Airworthiness
P.O. Box 3707
Seattle, Washington 98124-2207
Subject: Corrosion Control Airworthiness Directive's (AD's) 90-25-07 (707); 90-25-03 (727),
90-25-01 (737), and 90-25-05 (747)
Gentlemen:
This letter is to confirm our interpretation of the compliance times required by the above AD's.
Regardless of when the Baseline Program or alternative program is approved, the required intervals
to perform the tasks may be measured from December 31, 1991.
We would appreciate it if you would distribute this information to operators of affected Boeing
Models.
Sincerely,
(signed)
Donald L. Riggin
Manager, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office, ANM-100S

11/29/93
8300.12
Appendix 1
APPENDIX 1. SAMPLE POLICY LETTERS (Continued)
MAY 1 1991
In Reply
Refer To: 91-120S-361

Attention: Mr. K.B. Buchanan, Manager
Everett Division Airworthiness
P.O. Box 3707
Subject: Corrosion Control Airworthiness Directive's (AD's) for Boeing 707, 727, 737, and
747 Airplanes
Gentlemen:
by
This letter is in response to questions generated during the Boeing Corrosion Control Course
personnel from various airlines and their FAA principal maintenance inspectors.
the
Paragraph A of AD's 90-25-01, 90-25-03, 90-25-05, and 90-25-07 states that within 1 year after
the FAA-approved maintenance program to include the corrosion
effective date of these AD's revise
do not have any
control program specified in the appropriate Boeing document. Operators which
aircraft that have reached their Implementation Age by December 31, 1991, need not take action to
revise their FAA-approved maintenance program by that date. When the Implementation
be in place to
Age is reached, a fully approved Corrosion Control and Prevention Program must
accommodate that airplane.
Please supply copies of this letter to operators of Boeing 707, 727, 737, or 747 airplanes.
Sincerely,
(signed)
Donald L. Riggin
Certification Office, ANM-IOOS
D6-54929 PAGE D-36

REV. E
11/29/93 8300.12
Appendix I
APPENDIX1. SAMPLE POLICY LETTERS (Continued)
MAY 10 1991
In Reply
Refer To: 91-120S-441

Attention: Mr. Kenneth K. Usui, Manager
Renton Division Airworthiness
P.O. Box 3707
Subject: Response to Questions Raised During Boeing Corrosion Prevention and Control
Training Course
Gentlemen:
This letter is in response to questions generated during the Boeing Corrosion Prevention and Control
Training Course.
The Boeing documents for the aging airplane Corrosion Prevention and Control Program called out
in Airworthiness Directives (AD's) 90-25-01, 90-25-03, 90-25-05, and 90-25-07, for Boeing 707,
727, 737, and 747 airplanes required that the minimum implementation rate for airplanes that have
exceeded the Implementation Age be one airplane per year. This requires that all Corrosion Tasks
be completed on one equivalent airplane.
Certain corrosion control tasks have to be accomplished with the landing gear disassembled or the
engine removed. The structures working group concluded that these tasks could be best
accomplished during landing gear overhaul or engine removal.
The FAA has concluded that the requirement to complete one airplane per year conflicts with the
requirement to do the Corrosion Tasks at gear overhaul and engine change. Therefore, it is
unnecessary to accomplish, at the minimum implementation rate of one airplane per year, the
corrosion control tasks that are required to be accomplished at gear overhaul or engine change.

8300.12 11/29/93
Appendix I
APPENDIX1. SAMPLE POLICY LETTERS (Continued)
Please furnish copies of this letter to operators of Boeing Transports affected by AD's 90-25-01,
90-25-03, 90-25-05, and 90-25-07.
Sincerely,
(signed)
Donald L Riggin

11/29/93 8300.12
Appendix I
MAY 21 1991
In Reply
Refer To: 91-120S-503

Attention: Mr. Kenneth K. Usui, Manager
Renton Division Airworthiness
P.O. Box 3707
Gentlemen:
This letter is in response to questions generated during the Boeing Corrosion and Control Training
Course.
727, 737, and 747 airplanes, respectively, requires that the minimum implementation rate for
airplanes that have exceeded the Implementation Age be one airplane per year. If a foreign operator
has some U.S.-registered airplanes in its fleet, that operator is required to have those airplanes
comply with the AD. If the U.S.-registered airplane is representative of the fleet, it is acceptable to
use a foreign registered airplane in lieu of the U.S.-registered airplane to comply with the minimum
implementation rate requirement. This procedure may be used, provided the foreign operator's
corrosion program complies with the requirements of the AD's mentioned above.
In addition, if a foreign operator has U.S.-registered and foreign registered airplanes in its fleet and
Level 2 or Level 3 Corrosion is detected, it is not necessary to submit proposed adjustments to the
corrosion control program to the FAA, provided equivalent action is taken with their airworthiness
authority.
Sincerely,
(signed)
Donald L. Riggin

8300.12 11/29/93
Appendix I
MAY 23 1991
In Reply
Refer To: 91-120S-522

P.O. Box 3707
Subject: Response to Questions Raised During Boeing Corrosion Prevention and Control
Training Course
Gentlemen:
This letter is in response to questions generated during the Boeing Corrosion Prevention and Control
Training Course.
727, 737, and 747 airplanes specifies the implementation time period for the corrosion control tasks.
Certain corrosion control tasks have to be accomplished with the landing gear disassembled or the
engine removed. The structures working group concluded that these tasks could be best
accomplished during landing gear overhaul or engine removal
The FAA has reviewed the requirement for airplanes that have exceeded 20 years since delivery to
accomplish the corrosion control tasks within 6 years. For airplanes that have exceeded 20 years
since delivery, the FAA has concluded that the corrosion control tasks that are to be accomplished at
landing gear overhaul or scheduled engine change do not have to be accomplished within 6 years of
December 31, 1991. The tasks must be accomplished at landing gear overhaul or scheduled engine
change.
Sincerely,
(signed)
Donald L. Riggin
Certification Office, ANM-IOOS

11/29/93 8300.12
Appendix 1
MAY 31 1991
In Reply
Refer To: 91-120S-557

P.O. Box 3707
Subject: Corrosion Airworthiness Directives (AD's), Boeing Model 747
Gentlemen:
A question has arisen concerning Implementation Ages of items, such as flap tracks, which have
been replaced. As with all AD's, the corrosion AD Implementation Age
(or compliance time) may be calculated from the time of installation of a new part.
We would appreciate it if you would distribute this information to the operators.
Sincerely,
(signed)
Donald L. Riggin

11/29/93 8300.12
Appendix 2
APPENDIX2. EXAMPLE OF OPERATIONS SPECIFICATIONS PARAGRAPHD72,

AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

8300.12 11/29/93
Appendix 2
APPENDIX 2. EXAMPLE OF OPERATIONS SPECIFICATIONS PARAGRAPH D72,

AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (Continued)

11/29/93 8300.12
Appendix 2
APPENDIX 2. EXAMPLE OF OPERATIONS SPECIFICATIONS PARAGRAPH D72,

AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE- GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (Continued)

U.S.Department
of Transportation
Federal Aviation
Administration
Directive Feedback Information
Pleasesubmit any written comments or recommendations tor improving this directive, or

suggest new items orsubjects to be added to it. Also, ifyou find an error, please tell us about it.
Subject: Order Order 8300.12 - CORROSION PREVENTION AND CONTROL PROGRAMS
To: Directive Management Officer.
(Please check all appropriate line items)
An error (procedural or typographical) has been noted in paragraph on

page
Recommend paragraph on page be changed as follows:

(attachseparatesheet if necessary)
In a future change to this directive. please include coverage on the folowing subject
describe what you want added):
(breifly
Other comments
I would like to discuss the above Please contact me

JUL 25 1991
In Reply
Refer To: 91-120S-749
Attention: Mr. Kenneth. K. Usui, Manager
RentonDivision Airworthiness
P.O. Box 3707
Subject: Responseto Questions Raised During Boeing Corrosion Prevention and

Control Training Course
Gentlemen:
During a recent Boeing Corrosion Control Training Course there was concern
expressed about airplanes that were acquired between the time of AD
effectivity (December 31, 1990) and the mandatory incorporation of the
corrosion control program into the maintenance progrm (December 31, 1991) as
to compliance with paragraph F.2. of Airworthiness Directives (AD's) 90-25-01,
90-25-03, 90-25-05, or 90-25-07.
Paragraph F.2. requires that the corrosion control tasks be accomplished on a

recently acquired airplane, not previously operated under an FM-approved
program,prior to inclusion into the air carrier's operation
maintenance
specification. AD's 90-25-01, 90-25-03, 90-25-05, or 90-25-07 do not require
that the corrosion control programbe addedto the maintenanceprogramprior
to December31, 1991. Therefore, for compliance with AD's 90-25-01, 90-25-03,
90-25-05, or 90-25-07 the FAA cannot require that an airplane acquired prior
to December31, 1991. and not operated under an FAA-approved maintenance
program have all the tasks in the corrosion control program accomplished prior
to inclusion of the airplane into the air carrier's operation specification.
Please furnish copies of this letter to operators of Boeing transports
affected by AD's 90-25-01, 90-25-03, 90-25-05, or 90-25-07.
Sincerely,
Donald L. Riggin
Manager,Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office, AN -100S
cc: A -270S
ANM-120S:SWOOD:X2772:ml:7/25/91
FILE: 8040-7/90-25-01, 90-25-03, 90-25-05, 90-25-07
WP: F:\HOME\MRL\SRW\USUI.749

U.S. Department Tranport Airplane Directorate
Transportation Aircraft Certification Service
Renton, Washington 98055-4058
JUL 1993
In Reply
Refer To: 93-120S-690

Attention: Mr. K. B. Buchanan, Manager
P.O. Box 3707
Subject: Corrosion Control Airworthiness Directives (AD's) for Boeing

707, 727, 737, and 747 airplanes
Gentlemen:
This is in response to inquiries regarding the corrosion control

programs for the Boeing Models 707, 727, 737, and 747 airplanes mandated
by AD's 90-25-01, 90-25-03, 90-25-05, and 90-25-07.
A question has been asked about when would the time for accomplishment
of the corrosion control tasks be due for components, such as landing
gear that were overhauled, and all the corrosion control tasks
accomplished then placed in storage in an environment that is unlikely
to promote corrosion. The Federal Aviation Administration has
determined that if a component is overhauled, then placed in an
environment that is unlikely to promote corrosion, (as specified in the
corrosion control documents) that the time for accomplishment of the
next corrosion control tasks for the component does not start until the
component is removed from the protective environment.
Sincerely,
Donald L. Riggin

U.S. Department TransportAirplane Directorate
of Transportation AircraftCertificationService
Federal Aviation
Administration
SEP 22 1992
In Reply
Refer To: 92-120S-821

P.O. Box 3707
Subject: Corrosion Prevention and Control Program, Airworthiness
Directives (AD's)90-25-01,90-25-03, 90-25-05, and 90-25-07
Gentlemen:
This letter is in response to recent questions generated as a result of

Revision B to the Aging Airplane Corrosion Prevention and Control
Program (CPCP) Documents for the Boeing Models 707, 727, 737, and 747
airplanes.
To comply with the requirements of Airworthiness Directives (AD's)
90-25-01, 90-25-03, 90-25-05, and 90-25-07 for the Boeing Models 707,
727, 737, and 747 airplanes, an operator must inspect at least one
equivalent airplane per year. Certain persons have interpreted section
4.2 of the CPCP documentsto require at least one aircraft of each group
listed in the section be inspected per year. Usingthis interpretation
for the Boeing Model 727 airplane, it could be possible that an operator
would have to inspect up to a minimumof three airplanes per year. That
is not the intent of the subject AD's. An operator is required to
inspect a minimumof one airplane in the particular program per year.
That means an operator of Boeing Model 727 airplanes would have to
inspect one Boeing Model 727 airplane per year to comply with AD 90-25-
03.
Sincerely,
Donald L. Riggin
Manager,Seattle Aircraft

U.S. Department Northwest Mountain Region 1601 LindAvenue,S. W.
of Transportation Colorado.Idaho,Montana Renton.Washington98055-4056
Oregon,Utah.Washington
Federal Aviation Wyomingi
Ad m s
i
n tration
FEB 16 1994
In Reply
Refer To: 94-120S-289

P.O. Box 3707
Subject: Model 747-400 Corrosion Prevention and Control Program
Reference: Boeing Letter B-T02T-94-0018, dated January 5, 1994
Gentlemen:
We received your letter dated January 5, 1994, requesting approval of an alternate

corrosion inspection program to that required by Airworthiness Directive (AD)
90-25-05 for Boeing 747 airplanes.
You requested that Section 10 of the Boeing Document D621U400, "747-400

Maintenance Planning Document (MPD)" be used as an alternate to "D6-36022
Corrosion Protection and Control Program 747-100/-200/-300/SR/SP Airplanes" for
747-400 airplanes.
We have reviewed this request and approve the corrosion task numbers,
implementation ages, and repeat intervals found in section 10 of the Boeing 747-400
MPD Revision J, dated October 1993, as an acceptable alternative method of
compliance to AD 90-20-05, provided that all of the other AD requirements are met.
This alternative method of compliance is applicable only to the 747-400.
Sincerely,
Donald L. Riggin
Certification Office, ANM, S


CPCP e PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CPCP e PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

February 24, 1997

To: All Holders of Boeing Document D6-54929, Revision A, B, C, and D

Subject: 727 Aging Airplane Corrosion Prevention and Control Program

Reference: FAA Airworthiness Directive Number 90-25-03

Very truly yours,

ORIGINAL RELEASE DATE JULY, 1989

ADDITIONAL LIMITATIONS IMPOSED ON THIS DOCUMENT

JOHN HALL M-7367

GARTH J. HOULIHAN B-Z92B

APPROVED BY JOHN T. ROGERS B-Z90B

JULY 28, 1989

REV. E D6-54929 PAGE A

REV. E D6-54929 PAGE B

This document defines minimum requirements for preventing or controlling corrosion

REV. E D6-54929 PAGE C

REV. E D6-54929 PAGE D

REV. E D6-54929 PAGE E

GENERAL D6 DOCUMENT CHANGES

1) A description defining the maximum allowable level of Widespread

3) The following is added to Part 4) of the Basic Task : "Surface oxidation

6) Baseline Program tasks have been rearranged in order of ATA Chapter,

REV. E D6-54929 PAGE F

9) In cases where the only CPCP task is a terminating mod., per a

10) A list of Service bulletins included or referenced in the Baseline Program

11) Appendix C has been updated to incorporate additional information used

12) Appendix D added to include a copy of the FAA Airworthiness Directive

727 MODEL SPECIFIC CHANGES

26) C53-224-08 L/N in Note 4) revised, Note 2) added.

REV. E D6-54929 PAGE H

GENERAL D6 DOCUMENT CHANGES

Second paragraph - Wording revised and expanded for clarification.

REV. E D6-54929 PAGE I

Words added defining basic CPCP requirements for components

REV. E D6-54929 PAGE J

727 MODEL SPECIFIC CHANGES

11) C53-111-02 Changed description to read as follows"

12) C53-113-01 Changed description of structure as follows:

REV. E D6-54929 PAGE K

20) C53-224-01 Changed description to read as follows:

29) C55-300-01 Changed description to read as follows:

34) C55-391-20 Changed description to read as follows:

REV. E D6-54929 PAGE L

47) C57-581-05 Revised (I)&(R) to read "See Note 2)

REV. E D6-54929 PAGE N

GENERAL D6 DOCUMENT CHANGES

727 MODEL SPECIFIC CHANGES

REV. E D6-54929 PAGE O

6) C57-581-04 Revised (I)&(R) to read 10 years.

7) C57-581-05 Revised (I)&(R) to read 10 years.

REV. E D6-54929 PAGE P

9) C57-581-07 Revised (I)&(R) to read 10 years.

REV. E D6-54929 PAGE Q

REV. E D6-54929 PAGE R

REV. E D6-54929 PAGE S

REV. E D6-54929 PAGE T

2.0 2.0-1 AUG 1995

REV. E D6-54929 PAGE U

C.2 C.2-1 AUG 1995

7.0 7.0-1 AUG 1995

C.4 C.4-1 AUG 1995

REV. E D6-54929 PAGE V

REV. E D6-54929 PAGE W

REV. E D6-54929 PAGE X