FAA's Second PW210 Directive in Six Weeks — What the August AD Revision Means for MRO Records

On August 14, 2026, the FAA published AD 2026-16-13 (91 FR 52487, Docket No. FAA-2026-7238), effective August 31, 2026, superseding AD 2026-13-09, which had only been in force since July 14. Both directives address the same defect on the same engines — but the revision changes how operators determine when a given engine needs its first inspection, and that change puts configuration records under a spotlight.

What the AD covers. The directive applies to all Pratt & Whitney Canada Model PW210A, PW210A1, and PW210S engines, which power the Sikorsky S-92 and S-76D and the Leonardo AW189 and AW169. The underlying issue is circumferential cracking at the turbine exhaust frame's external surface, driven by thermal stress from engine starts. If left unaddressed, a cracked frame can lose axial containment — leading to parts loss and airframe damage.

Why the August revision matters more than a typical supersession. The original AD set inspection thresholds without distinguishing frame material. The FAA's own investigation since then found that turbine exhaust frames built from the newer material introduced by Service Bulletin PW210-72-57123 crack sooner than frames made of Waspaloy. The August revision sets different initial inspection thresholds depending on which material a given frame was actually built from — meaning two engines of the same model can now carry two different compliance clocks, and the only way to know which one applies is to know which frame is installed.

The real exposure: this is a records problem, not just an inspection problem. If your shop maintains or operates PW210-powered aircraft, the inspection itself is straightforward — what's harder is proving, from your own configuration records, which material frame is currently installed on each engine before you can even determine the correct compliance threshold. A shop that can't trace frame material back to a specific service bulletin or overhaul record has no reliable way to know whether it's still inside its inspection window or already overdue.

Where this stands today. As written, AD 2026-16-13 requires repetitive visual inspections of the turbine exhaust frame for cracks, with replacement required depending on findings — this is currently a visual inspection requirement, not a volumetric NDT method. That could change if crack detection proves inconsistent at the visual level, which is worth watching for shops planning inspection intervals around this AD.

Lion NDT's Visual Testing services are built around exactly this kind of AD-driven inspection — verifying not just that an inspection happened, but that it was performed against the correct compliance threshold for the specific part configuration involved. If your shop is tracing frame material across your PW210 fleet to confirm which inspection clock applies, that's a documentation and inspection gap worth closing before your next compliance date.