PREVENTION OF THE RUDDER VIBRATION

Reference: 27.24.00001 Issue date: 11-MAY-2016 Last check date: 17-FEB-2022 Status: Open
A/C type/serie: A318, A319, A320, A321 ATA: 27-24
Engine manufacturer: Supplier: LIEBHERR-AEROSPACE LINDENBERG
Purpose / Reason for revision: update technical content
Engineering Support Status: Open
SUBJECT: RUDDER VIBRATIONS PREVENTION

APPLICABILITY: All A318, A319, A320, A321 Aircraft Pre-Mod 154553 (SB 27-1224)

REFERENCES:

A. TSM 27-20-00-810-802 Airframe vibrations due to the rudder

B. Video GDCOS 364/06 Rudder airframe vibrations: enhanced trouble-shooting
C. MPD 272400-02-1 Check the rudder servocontrol bearing and hinge bearing for too much play and condition
D. AMM task 27-24-00-200-001 Check of the Rudder Servo for excessive play and condition
E. AMM task 27-24-51-000-003/ AMM task 27-24-51-400-003: Rudder servocontrol eye-end removal / installation
F. AMM task 27-24-51-960-001 Rudder servocontrol bearing replacement (caution: this task no more applicable on aircraft)
G. AMM task 55-46-00-200-802 Detailed Inspection of Rudder Hinge Line Fittings for Wear
H. TFU 27.24.00.007 Rudder S/C bearing: portable swaging tool
I. TFU 55.36.00.004 Rudder hinge line play
J. TFU 27.24.51.004 Rudder vibrations due to servocontrol bearing
K. FAIR ATA27 Working Group E-site:

https://w3.airbus.com/crs/A233_Resources/symposium/A320_fair_working_group/html/ATA27-29_WG.html
Note: Airbus World login and password are necessary.
L. MPD 553600-01-1 Rudder attach fittings – Check of rudder attachment fittings for wear
M. MOD 154553 / SB 27-1224 Introduce Roller bearing on rod end rudder servocontrol.

CAUTION: Most of the conclusions and recommendations contained in this article are not applicable to
aircraft post MOD 154553 or SB 27-1224.
MOD 154553 and SB 27-1224 introduce rudder servo-control equipped with roller bearing and this type of
bearing is much more robust to wear than auto-lubricated one.
First aircraft delivered with MOD 154553 is MSN 5757 delivered in Aug 2013.
SB 27-1224 rev 0.0 was issued in July 2013.

***BEG REV***

This article is an outcome of the working group (FAIR* ATA27 WG) that took place in 2010. The
conclusions here-below were elaborated using the in-service data, the feedback collected from the
operators and the MPD / AMM procedures references applicable at the time of original issuance of this
article.

CAUTION: some MPD and AMM references have been modified since then.
In particular, the replacement of the bearing on wing as per Ref[F] is no longer applicable today.

However, Airbus has decided to keep the original content of the article, without deleting nor updating the
references that are no longer applicable in order to keep available for the operators the genuine results of
the 2010 working group.

***END REV***
1. PURPOSE

The purpose of this article is to provide operators with information that will help them to better prevent rudder
vibrations. The guidelines offered here after (preventive maintenance) are a compilation of Airbus and operator
individual experiences.

ARTICLE SUMMARY

Rudder vibrations are caused by play that might develop at the rudder joint during aircraft service life. This play is
mainly monitored by MPD 272400-02-1 which consists in checking the trailing edge play every 18000 FH. This
task has been reinforced by a direct check of the rudder hinge line every 6 years. Despite these measures, rudder
vibrations might continue to be experienced in the field causing operational disruptions and aircraft unavailability.

In 2010, a working group (FAIR* ATA27 WG) initiative gathering a large number of operators has permitted to
review the current situation and to consider improvement opportunities (preventive maintenance).

Data collected has shown that the contribution of the Airframe vibrations to the aircraft unavailability was relatively
moderate for the entire A320FAM fleet and not substantiating more aggressive preventive disposals applicable
fleet wide. WG participants agreed that the most suitable approach was to adapt on a case by case basis their
own scheduled maintenance program to adapt it to individual need.

To this end, various preventive methods have been envisaged and examined (Refer Appendix 1). Three of them
(the most popular / adequate) have been economically evaluated and their pertinence confirmed for operators
more affected than the fleet average (Paragraph 6.c and 6.d.).

*FAIR: Forum with Airline for Interactive Resolution

2. BACKGROUND

On the A320 family, vibrations can originate from different sources. Rudder vibrations are one of these possible
origins. Basically, rudder vibrations are caused by the play that might develop at different area of the rudder joint:

- Servocontrol bearing,
- Servocontrol connecting hardware,
- Hinge line bearing and connecting hardware.

Investigations have been conducted in 2004/2005 and have resulted in a drastic improvement of the TSM task
aiming at better addressing this cause of vibrations (Ref A & B). As of today, the efficiency of this TSM is confirmed.
However, continuous monitoring of the fleet maintenance practices and needs has indicated that measures existing
to prevent rudder vibrations might be further enhanced.

3. EXISTING PREVENTIVE ACTIONS

a. Existing preventive action

The main scheduled maintenance task permitting to prevent Rudder vibration appearance is the MPD 272400-
02-1 “Check the rudder servocontrol bearing and hinge fitting for excessive play and condition” (Ref C).

The MPD task 272400-02-1 consists in checking the trailing edge freeplay as per AMM task 27-24-00-200-001
(Ref D) with each hydraulic system individually pressurized every 18000FH or 10 years.
For pre-mod 154553 aircraft, if the freeplay is found greater than 16mm, parts replacement is requested until play
is reduced below 16mm.

b. MPD 272400-02-1 limitations

The AMM Ref D (called by the MPD Ref C) states that the maximum allowed play is 16mm (pre-mod 154553
aircraft). As far as the play remains below this value, it can be ensured that a sufficient thickness of Teflon liner
exists in the self-lubricated bearings (of the rudder joint), so there is no metal-to-metal contact within these bearings
(no seizing).
During the early development of the A320, it has been deemed that this 16mm play limit would be also a suitable
value for vibration prevention.
Accordingly, the today AMM task permits to avoid that excessive play develops at the rudder joint and therefore
contributes to vibration prevention.

Meanwhile, in-service experience has shown that vibrations might appear while rudder trailing edge play is below
this 16mm threshold. It has also been evidenced that no vibration threshold applicable to the whole fleet might be
established, situation being almost unique for each aircraft. These conclusions lead us to modify the TSM as
explained in paragraph 2.
Besides, the AMM task 27-24-00-200-001 (Ref D) instructs to replace the servocontrol as a first action. As a result,
excessive play identified during the life of the aircraft might result in successive servocontrol replacement. These
replacements might enable to cure the vibrations or the excess of play despite play growth at the level of the rudder
hinge line or at the level of the servocontrol attachments (Refer to Figure 1).

In service experience has demonstrated that it is required to address the residual play coming from the hinge line
or the servocontrol attachments on regular basis (refer to figure 1 and paragraph 3.a.). Indeed, this play might
become the higher contributor to the overall play at the rudder joint and thus cause by itself rudder vibration
appearance (Ref Figure 2: Play (B)> Play (A)).

The increase of this residual play also reduces the durability of relief provided by a servocontrol replacement and
might affect the servocontrol reliability (MTBUR). Indeed, vibrations might re-occur earlier because the vibration
threshold will be reached more rapidly as a result of the existing residual freeplay (T3<T2<T1 in Figure 2).
 4. AIRBUS ACTIONS

a. New scheduled maintenance inspection addressing structure items

A new MPD task permitting to directly check the rudder hinge line and the rudder servocontrol attachments has
been introduced into the MPD (Ref L) based on the in-service experience (TFU Ref I). This inspection is requested
every 6 years as per AMM task 55-46-00-200-802 (Ref G) and enables to regularly cancel the residual play
described in previous paragraph.

b. MPD task 272400-02-1 alterations

In 2009, feedback received from the field was reviewed. Analysis revealed that the MPD task 272400-02-1 was
quite often amended or supplemented with additional actions by operators in order to better prevent vibrations
originating from the rudder.
Affected operators had selected various solutions. These different options were recorded in a table which is offered
in Appendix 1 of this article.
The analysis of these measures did not permit to define a solution applicable to the whole A320 family without
generating a high servocontrol removal rate or increasing operators maintenance cost.

c. Working Group initiative

In 2010, a dedicated working group activity took place: the FAIR ATA27 Working Group. A large and representative
number of participants (More than 35 participants representing 25 airlines and more than 1000 aircraft) were
actively involved.
This initiative permitted to collect a valuable amount of data to better picture the fleet situation (Paragraphs 5.a to
5.c) and in turn to determine the most valuable and pertinent maintenance strategies aiming at efficiently preventing
rudder vibrations (Paragraph 6).
It was confirmed by operators that implementation of additional preventive actions enables to significantly
reduce or eradicate the occurrences of rudder vibrations.

Caution:
While using guidelines enclosed in this article, it shall be kept in mind that provided figures and estimations are the
average results obtained using fleet wide data. They shall be considered as a Rough Order of Magnitude and in
any case do not exempt operators to review and analyse specifically their individual situation.

5. WORKING GROUP OUTPUTS

a. Burden and Operational disruption induced by Rudder vibrations

The information provided by the operators were compiled and compared with the Airbus Operational Interruption
Database. Analyses revealed that the impact of the airframe vibrations on the aircraft availability at Worldwide level
is relatively low compared to other drivers:
 Overall Operational Interruption (OI) rate attributable to vibrations is quite low (Fig 3. 0,004 OI/100TO)
However, it was confirmed that Rudder vibrations are clearly the primary cause of vibrations on the A320 Family
aircraft as Percentage of the Rudder events on the total number of vibration occurrences is 57% (Fig 4.)

Note: Number of Out-Of-Service days for fault rectifications induced by Rudder vibrations was a parameter taken
into account in the cost assessment.
 b. Causes of rudder vibrations

Operators’ feedback showed that rudder vibrations are almost exclusively cured by servocontrol replacements.
Consequently, extra maintenance actions selected by operators to better prevent rudder vibrations are mainly
focused on this component.

Note: Hinge line contribution, notably on long term, shall however not be neglected as explained in paragraph 3.b.

c. Ageing effect
This parameter was evaluated using operator feedback by plotting the cumulative number of rudder vibration
events for different range of aircraft FH since delivery.
This analysis revealed that rudder vibration events increase abruptly from 6000FH onwards. Accordingly, this
suggests maintenance action shall be preventively performed before 6000FH are reached. The 6000FH value is
also selected as maintenance interval.
In-depth analysis of operator reporting has however shown that it would not be necessary in all cases to implement
a preventive action at the very beginning of the rise observed on the World Wide data (Fig 7.). Indeed, for some
operators, first rudder vibration events are not experienced before 11000FH/12000FH permitting to postpone
accomplishment of the first preventive action to second ‘C’ check.

6. PREVENTIVE ACTION IMPROVEMENTS

a. Analysis

Several simulations have been achieved in order to review whether it would be cost effective or not to put in place
additional maintenance actions to prevent rudder vibrations. Effectiveness of the solutions has been elaborated
based on operators inputs gained during Working Group data collection. They also originate from projection relying
on analyses depicted in paragraph 5.

3 maintenance strategies, corresponding to the most widely applied in the field, have been worked and combined
with 3 different operational disruption situations.

Maintenance strategies:
 272400-02-1 Strategy 1: Reduction of the trailing edge play limit to 12mm and reduction of the MPD interval
from 18000 FH to 6000FH (C-check)
 Strategy 2: Systematic replacement of the Rudder servocontrol eye-end every 6000FH
 Strategy 3: Systematic replacement of the Rudder servocontrol bearings every 6000FH
Note: Seven possible preventive action methods are recorded in appendix 1. Only the 3 first solutions have been
retained for throughout analysis since they are the most efficient and the most frequently applied in the field.

Operational situations used for the business cases:

 ‘Worldwide’: Worldwide average OI rate considered (57% of 0.004 OI/100TO = 0.002 OI/100 TO)
 ‘Severely affected’: OI corresponding to 5 times the Worldwide OI has been considered
 ‘Very severely affected’: OI corresponding to 10 times the Worldwide OI has been considered

Results are shown in Appendix 2.1 to 2.3.

 b. Global solution vs Case-by-case adaptation of the MPD

Working group participants clearly expressed their wishes not to work a global solution as this would inevitably
increase the maintenance cost of the operators not affected by the issue. On the contrary, it was considered that
implementing actions to specifically fit to each individual operator needs would be the most adequate solution.

c. Valid maintenance strategies

 Worldwide situation

The cost assessment exercise indicates that only the systematic replacement of the servocontrol bearing (Strategy
3) would be cost effective (cost decreased by 14%). All other preventive actions would lead to cost increase for
the operators (except if rudder vibration OI of the operators are significantly greater than the Worldwide figure).

 Severely or very severely affected operators

For operators more affected by rudder vibrations, it might be adequate to deploy Strategy 2 (Systematic eye end
replacement) and/or Strategy 3 (Systematic bearing replacement). Even Strategy 1 (Freeplay limit and interval
reduction) might become a viable solution for operators very affected by vibrations.

Valid maintenance strategies

Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Strategy 3
Operating cost assessment
+25% to 0% -13% to -36% -47% to -63%
(Increased or decreased)
Technical efficiency
-50% -70% -90%
(vibration event reduction)

It is recommended that operators experiencing rudder vibrations consider implementation of these additional
measures.

d. Valid maintenance strategies for 12000FH threshold variant

As explained in paragraph 5.c, some operators do not experience Rudder vibrations before accumulation of
11000/12000FH. This situation does not require implementation of preventive action at 6000FH. Accordingly,
maintenance strategies and analyses have been re-worked and re-processed with a 12000FH threshold and
interval.
Simulation results are annexed to this article in appendix 3.1 to 3.3 and summarized in the below table. Operator
‘Severely’ or ‘Very Severely’ have been considered.
 Valid maintenance strategies for operator ‘Severely’
& ‘Very Severely’ affected
Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Strategy 3
Cost assessment
+1% to -16% -15% to -37% -62% to -73%
(Increased or decreased)
Technical efficiency
-50% -70% -90%
(vibration event reduction)

It is recommended that operators experiencing rudder vibrations consider implementation of these additional
measures.

7. MODIFICATION INFORMATION

Not Applicable.

8. MATERIAL

Not Applicable.

9. PROCUREMENT

Not Applicable.

10. APPENDIX
Appendix 1: ADDITIONAL PREVENTATIVE MEASURES IMPLEMENTED IN-SERVICE BY OPERATORS

Affected documentation /
N° Preventive measures PRO CONS
reference

Trailing edge play limit reduction from 16mm to X mm & Interval reduction High servocontrol removal rate may
1. MPD 272400-02-1
of the MPD task 272400-02-1 from 18000 FH to x FH. Good efficiency be induced (Refer to Preventive
(*) AMM task 27-24-00-200-001
This is a combination of 4 and 5. measure N°6)

2. Systematic replacement of the rudder servocontrol eye-ends (6000 or AMM task 27-24-51-000-003
Good efficiency Body side bearing not addressed.
(*) 12000 FH frequently selected) AMM task 27-24-51-400-003

Systematic replacement of both bearings of the rudder servocontrols Servocontrol removal required.
3. AMM task 27-24-51-960-001
(6000 or 12000 FH frequently selected) – Bearing replacement using in-situ Very good efficiency Tooling for in-situ bearing
(*) TFU 27.24.00.007
/ portable tool. replacement needed.

Interval of the freeplay check is to be

Prevent high play to adapted in conjunction with the freeplay

Trailing edge play limit reduction from 16mm to X mm. develop and therefore reduction so as to capture out-of-
4. AMM task 27-24-00-200-001
Various freeplay chosen in-service in the range 11 to 16mm. decrease the risk of tolerance play as early as possible,

vibration appearance. thus avoiding this play leads to

vibration.

Not efficient if not combined with a

Interval reduction of the MPD task 272400-02-1 from 18000 FH to x FH
5. MPD 272400-02-1 trailing edge play limit reduction – refer
Various intervals chosen in-service in the range 6000FH to 18000FH.
paragraph 3.b.

Enable to reduce

significantly the MPD

interval (e.g. 6000FH)

Interval reduction of the MPD task 272400-02-1 from 18000 FH to x FH MPD 272400-02-1
6. while minimizing the No data on efficiency.
Replacement of the servocontrol exhibiting the highest play. AMM task 27-24-00-200-001
amount of servocontrol

removal (compared to

item 3.)
 Good efficiency
Trailing edge play limit reduction from 16mm to X mm combined with the
provided a significant
requirement to significantly reduce the freeplay if excess is identified.
play reduction is
7. AMM task 27-24-00-200-001
selected. Permit to
e.g. Limit equates 14mm, if play greater than 14mm is identified, then play is to
avoid early re-
be reduced below 12mm.
occurrence.
Appendix 2.0: Evaluation of different maintenance strategies

Hypothesis used for computation

Strategy 1:
 Freeplay measurement (MPD task 272400-02-1) de-escalated from 18000FH to 6000 FH with reduced limit to 12mm
 Moderate efficiency on vibration prevention = 50 % avoided
 12mm threshold not necessarily adequate to all aircraft
 Freeplay could be exceeded between 2 intervals
 Consequence on economic drivers: Reduction of rudder vibration events, but increase the servocontrol removal rate

Strategy 2:
 Replacement of the rod eye-end every 6000 FH on all servocontrols (G/Y/B)
 Good efficiency = 70-80% avoided
 Play borne mainly by the eye-end
 Consequence on economic drivers:
 Material & Man hour necessary to accomplish the task added to the business case
 Servocontrol removal saving

Strategy 3:
 Replacement of both servocontrol bearing every 6000 FH on all servocontrols (G/Y/B)
 Very good efficiency: all vibrations attributable to servocontrol avoided = 90%
 Consequence on economic drivers:
 Reduction of rudder vibrations events and high servocontrol removal saving
 Servocontrol removal saving
Diagram legend

Cost induced by Servocontrol bearing replacement (Man hours and material cost)
Cost induced by Servocontrol rod eye-end replacement (Man hours and material cost) Cost caused by the
Cost induced by accomplishment of the MPD task 272400-02-1 at a reduced interval (Man Hours) servocontrol removal rate
increase (MTBUR
Cost induced by standard MPD task 272400-02-1 (at 18000FH) reduction) is covered by
Cost induced by aircraft being Out of Service for rudder vibration T/S Unscheduled MX entry.
Cost induced by delays, IFTB, etc, operational disruptions caused by Rudder vibrations
Servocontrol repair cost (directly linked to the servocontrol MTBUR)
Appendix 2.1: Evaluation of different maintenance strategies using ‘Worldwide’ Operational Interruption data
Global costs ($/FH per A/C)
Appendix 2.2: Evaluation of different maintenance strategies using ‘Severely affected’ Operational Interruption data

1.20

1.10

1.00

0.90
Global costs ($/FH per A/C)
Global Costs ($/FH per A/C)

Bearings Replacement
0.80
Rod End Replacement
0.70 MPD Task @ 6000FH
0.60
MPD Task @ 18000FH
Out of Service
0.50
Operational Interruption
0.40 Unscheduled MX
0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00
Baseline Maintenance strategy 1 Maintenance Strategy 2 Maintenance Strategy 3
Freeplay check interval and limit Systematic rod end replacement Systematic bearing replacement
reduction
Rudder Vibration Maintenance Strategies evaluation
Appendix 2.3: Evaluation of different maintenance strategies using ‘Very Severely affected’ Operational Interruption data

1.40

1.30

1.20

1.10
Global Costs ($/FH per A/C)

1.00 Bearings Replacement

Global costs ($/FH per A/C)

0.90 Rod End Replacement

0.80 MPD Task @ 6000FH
0.70
MPD Task @ 18000FH
Out of Service
0.60
Operational Interruption
0.50
Unscheduled MX
0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00
Baseline Maintenance strategy 1 Maintenance Strategy 2 Maintenance Strategy 3
Freeplay check interval and limit Systematic rod end replacement Systematic bearing replacement
reduction
Rudder Vibration Maintenance Strategies evaluation
Appendix 3.1: Evaluation of different maintenance strategies using ‘Worldwide’ Operational Interruption data
& First Rudder vibration event @ 12000FH
Global costs ($/FH per A/C)
Appendix 3.2: Evaluation of different maintenance strategies using ‘Severely affected’ Operational Interruption data
& First Rudder vibration event @ 12000FH
Global costs ($/FH per A/C)
Appendix 3.3: Evaluation of different maintenance strategies using ‘Very Severely affected’ Operational Interruption data
& First Rudder vibration event @ 12000FH
Global costs ($/FH per A/C)

Survey for the Engineering Support section

 Annex

General Information
Potential impact: Maintenance, Operational Reliability
Key information:
Solution benefit:
First issue date: 09-NOV-2009 Issue date: 11-MAY-2016 Last check date: 17-FEB-2022

Technical parameters
ATA: 27-24
A/C type/serie: A318, A319, A320, A321
Engine:
Engine manufacturer:
Fault code/ECAM
warning:
FIN:
Part Number:
Supplier: LIEBHERR-AEROSPACE LINDENBERG

Attachments
General:
- ISI_27.24.00001_Summary.docx

Links
Other articles (ISI/TFU):
- 27.24.51.004
Airnav documents:
 - MOD 154553
- SB 27-1224

© Airbus SAS, 2022. All rights reserved. Confidential and proprietary document.The technical information provided in this article is for convenience and information purposes only. It
shall in no case replace the official Airbus technical or Flight Operations data which shall remain the sole basis for aircraft maintenance and operation. These recommendations and
information do not constitute a contractual commitment, warranty or guarantee whatsoever. They shall not supersede the Airbus technical nor operational documentation; should
any deviation appear between this article and the Airbus or airline's official manuals, the operator must ensure to cover it with the appropriate document such as TA, FCD, RDAS.
Access to WISE is supplied by Airbus under the express condition that Airbus hereby disclaims any and all liability for the use made by the user of the information contained in
WISE. It shall be used for the user's own purposes only and shall not be reproduced or disclosed to any third party without the prior consent of Airbus.