COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (Civil Aviation Regulations 1998), PART 39 - 105 CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY
SCHEDULE OF AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
Airparts (NZ) Ltd. FU 24 Series Aeroplanes
AD/FU24/14 Hopper and Spray Tank Installation - Modification 6/68
Applicability: All models manufactured prior to S/Nos. 120 not modified in accordance with James Aviation JA/FU24/M92 or Air Parts SB AP14.
Requirement: Modify the hopper installation in a manner approved by the Secretary to withstand a 12g forward loading in an emergency alighting case.
Compliance: Forthwith.
Overview
The Civil Aviation Regulations 1998, enacted by the Australian Government, serve to regulate and ensure the safety and efficiency of civil aviation within Australia. Specifically, Part 39 - 105 of these regulations establishes a schedule of airworthiness directives aimed at maintaining the highest standards of aviation safety. One such directive, AD/FU24/14, pertains to the FU 24 Series Aeroplanes manufactured by Airparts (NZ) Ltd. This directive was introduced to address the problem of ensuring that hopper and spray tank installations on these aircraft are capable of withstanding specific loading conditions, thereby enhancing safety during emergency landings. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority, as the enforcing body, mandates compliance with these directives to uphold the overarching policy objective of protecting public safety in civil aviation.
Scope and Application
The Civil Aviation Regulations 1998, specifically PART 39 - 105, addresses the Civil Aviation Safety Authority's schedule of airworthiness directives, focusing on airparts for particular aircraft models. In this instance, the regulation applies to FU 24 Series Aeroplanes manufactured by Airparts (NZ) Ltd., particularly those models produced prior to serial number 120 that have not been previously modified according to James Aviation's JA/FU24/M92 or Air Parts' SB AP14. The regulation mandates that these aircraft must have their hopper installation modified to withstand a 12g forward loading in emergency landing scenarios, with the Secretary's approval. Compliance with this directive is required immediately. The regulation applies across the Commonwealth of Australia and is enforced by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, with potential extensions or restrictions managed through subordinate instruments.
Key Provisions
The Civil Aviation Regulations 1998, specifically Part 39 - 105, addresses the Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s (CASA) Schedule of Airworthiness Directives. One such directive, AD/FU24/14, pertains to the hopper and spray tank installation for the FU 24 Series Aeroplanes manufactured by Airparts (NZ) Ltd. The directive applies to all models manufactured before serial numbers 120, unless they have already been modified in accordance with James Aviation JA/FU24/M92 or Air Parts Service Bulletin AP14. The key requirement (s6/68) is that the hopper installation must be modified to withstand a 12g forward loading in an emergency landing scenario, as approved by the Secretary.
This directive imposes obligations on the operators and owners of the affected aircraft. They must ensure that the hopper installation modifications are carried out in a manner that complies with the approved specifications. The compliance (s6/68) must be achieved forthwith, meaning without undue delay. This requirement ensures that the aircraft maintain the necessary safety standards and are airworthy at all times, particularly under emergency conditions.
Failure to comply with AD/FU24/14 may result in serious consequences. The Civil Aviation Regulations 1998 outline various offences and penalties for non-compliance with airworthiness directives. These may include both civil and criminal penalties. For instance, operators who fail to ensure their aircraft meet the specified airworthiness requirements may face fines and potential prosecution. The maximum penalties can vary, but they are designed to enforce strict compliance with safety regulations to protect public safety and ensure the integrity of the aviation industry. Non-compliance can also lead to the grounding of the aircraft until the required modifications are completed, which can have significant operational and financial implications for the operators.