Moisture Trap
3 failure reports named the moisture trap in the last ten years, 14 since 1995, most often on the Douglas DC-9; the condition most often found was "contaminated". 2 FAA approvals let 1 company make a replacement moisture trap, Volant holding the most (2).
Reports by year
Reports by year, as a table
| reports | |
|---|---|
| 1995 | 1 |
| 1996 | 1 |
| 1997 | 1 |
| 1998 | 2 |
| 1999 | 2 |
| 2003 | 2 |
| 2013 | 1 |
| 2015 | 1 |
| 2016 | 2 |
| 2021 | 1 |
Which system the reports file it under last ten years
Reports by system, as a table
| reports | |
|---|---|
| Engine | 2 |
| Instruments and avionics | 1 |
Models most often reporting it last ten years
Models most reported, as a table
| reports | |
|---|---|
| Douglas DC-9 | 2 |
| Bombardier BD-100 Challenger 300 and 350 | 1 |
How it failed the condition found, last ten years
Conditions found, as a table
| reports | |
|---|---|
| contaminated | 1 |
| cracked | 1 |
| unsecure | 1 |
Engines most often reporting it
Approved replacement parts 2 parts manufacturer approvals
A parts manufacturer approval (PMA) lets a company other than the aircraft's maker make a moisture trap and sell it as an approved part for the models named. These are the companies holding such approvals for a moisture trap:
For these models most: Boeing 737 (2).
Sources: the FAA's service difficulty reports since 1995 (a report is a part that failed and was fixed, as filed by an airline, repair station or owner; the count shows reporting as much as reliability) and the parts manufacturer approvals in the FAA's Dynamic Regulatory System. The part name is the reporters' and the approval holders' own words, reduced to the first plain words so that spellings meet.