COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998), PART 39 - 105 CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY
SCHEDULE OF AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE
For the reasons set out in the background section, the CASA delegate whose signature appears below revokes Airworthiness Directive (AD) AD/BAe 146/76 Amdt 1 and issues the following AD under subregulation 39.1 (1) of CASR 1998. The AD requires that the action set out in the requirement section (being action that the delegate considers necessary to correct the unsafe condition) be taken in relation to the aircraft or aeronautical product mentioned in the applicability section: (a) in the circumstances mentioned in the requirement section; and (b) in accordance with the instructions set out in the requirement section; and (c) at the time mentioned in the compliance section.
British Aerospace BAe 146 Series Aeroplanes
AD/BAe 146/76
Amdt 2
Jo-Bolts and Crown Fittings at Wing Rib 0 and Rib 2 LH & RH
10/2003
Applicability: All BAe 146 Series 100, 200, and 300 aircraft, except for aircraft with Modification HCM01307A or HCM01307B embodied or aircraft with RIL HC571H9033 embodied; and Avro 146-RJ70, -RJ85, and -RJ100 Series aircraft as specified in the Requirement document.
Requirement: Inspect in accordance with BAE Systems Mandatory Service Bulletin 57-056 Revision 2.
Compliance: As specified in the Requirement document.
This Airworthiness Directive becomes effective on 2 October 2003.
Background: The manufacturer received reports where in-service inspections inside the upper part of the centre and outer wing fuel tanks at rib 0 and 2, left and right hand, revealed loose jo-bolts and movement at stringer crown ‘dagger’ fittings. Due to loose ‘dagger’ fittings the upper wing skin will attract increased loads, which, if left uncorrected, will result in a reduction in fatigue life.
Amendment 1 introduced a change to the initial compliance threshold requirement in order to align more closely with the Requirement document compliance.
Amendment 2 is issued in response to the latest revision of the Requirement document, which incorporates additional information.
Amendment 1 of this Airworthiness Directive became effective on 1 December 1999.
The original issue of this Airworthiness Directive was to become effective on 2 December 1999.
David Villiers
Delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority 19 August 2003
The above AD is notified in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette on 10 September 2003.
Page 1 of 1
Overview
The Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998, amended by Airworthiness Directive AD/BAe 146/76 Amdt 2, address the specific safety concern of loose jo-bolts and movement at stringer crown ‘dagger’ fittings in the upper part of the centre and outer wing fuel tanks at rib 0 and 2 of British Aerospace BAe 146 Series 100, 200, and 300 aircraft, as well as Avro 146-RJ70, -RJ85, and -RJ100 Series aircraft. This amendment, issued by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and effective from 2 October 2003, responds to reports of potential increased loads on the upper wing skin that could reduce fatigue life. The policy objective is to mandate inspections according to BAE Systems Mandatory Service Bulletin 57-056 Revision 2 to ensure compliance and maintain aircraft safety standards. The directive is designed to correct an unsafe condition by specifying the necessary inspections and compliance timelines, thereby enhancing the airworthiness of the affected aircraft.
Scope and Application
The Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998, specifically Part 39 - 105, governs the scope and application of Airworthiness Directives (AD) in the context of civil aviation safety in Australia. This legislation applies to all BAe 146 Series 100, 200, and 300 aircraft, as well as the Avro 146-RJ70, -RJ85, and -RJ100 Series aircraft, with specific exceptions for those aircraft that have already embodied certain modifications or revisions as outlined in the requirement section. The AD is issued by a delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to ensure that the necessary actions are taken to address identified safety concerns, such as the inspection of jo-bolts and crown fittings at wing ribs to prevent movement and increased loads on the upper wing skin. The directive mandates that inspections be conducted in accordance with specific BAE Systems Mandatory Service Bulletins, ensuring compliance with safety standards across the Commonwealth. This AD is effective as of the date specified, and its requirements must be adhered to within the stipulated timeframe to maintain the airworthiness of the affected aircraft.
Key Provisions
The key operative sections of this Airworthiness Directive (AD) under the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR) are outlined in the applicability (paragraph 1), requirement (paragraph 2), and compliance (paragraph 3) sections. The AD applies to all British Aerospace (BAe) 146 Series 100, 200, and 300 aircraft, as well as Avro 146-RJ70, -RJ85, and -RJ100 Series aircraft, except for those with specific modifications or equipment embodied. The requirement section mandates that an inspection be conducted in accordance with BAE Systems Mandatory Service Bulletin 57-056 Revision 2. The compliance section stipulates that the inspection must be carried out as specified in the requirement document. This Airworthiness Directive becomes effective on 2 October 2003.
The AD imposes several obligations on the parties or entities it governs. Primarily, it mandates that the specified aircraft undergo an inspection to address issues with jo-bolts and crown fittings at specific wing ribs. This inspection must be conducted in accordance with the guidelines provided in BAE Systems Mandatory Service Bulletin 57-056 Revision 2. These obligations are designed to ensure that the identified safety concerns are addressed, thereby maintaining the airworthiness of the aircraft.
Breach of the requirements set out in this Airworthiness Directive can result in significant consequences. Under CASR 1998, failure to comply with an AD can lead to both civil and criminal penalties. Civil penalties can include fines, while criminal penalties may result in imprisonment. The exact penalties depend on the nature and severity of the breach, as well as other relevant factors. For instance, knowingly contravening an AD could result in fines up to $216,000 for individuals and $1,080,000 for corporations, as well as imprisonment for up to two years under the Civil Aviation Act 1988. These stringent measures underscore the importance of adhering to the AD to ensure the safety and compliance of the affected aircraft.