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/HU 269/110 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.
Schweizer (Hughes) 269 Series Helicopters
AD/HU 269/110
Amdt 1
Tail Rotor Fork Bolt 7/2003
Applicability: All Schweizer (Hughes) 269 series helicopters.
Requirement: Remove the tail rotor fork bolt and replace with a new (zero time) bolt P/N 269A6092-3, P/N 369A1602-3 or P/N 6092-3 in accordance with Schweizer SB
B-269 Revision 1. Inspect the removed bolt for excessive wear, gouges, scoring or cracks. Do not re- use any removed bolts. If any cracks are found, report them to CASA by defect report and retain the bolt for later analysis.
If a tail rotor strike occurs during service, the tail rotor fork bolt must be removed and replaced with a new (zero time) bolt.
Compliance: Within 100 hours time in Service after 1 August 2002 and thereafter at 1200 hour intervals.
This Amendment becomes effective on 10 July 2003.
Background: A recent incident occurred where severe tail rotor vibration was encountered. The cause was found to be a broken tail rotor fork bolt. On investigation, the bolt was found to have suffered a corrosion related fatigue failure, which was not detectable during normal visual inspection of the tail rotor hub. Examination of a second bolt removed from another aircraft revealed severe fretting and corrosion. Tail rotor fork bolt failure may result in loss of the tail rotor during flight.
This amendment allows the use of any of three different part number bolts, when replacing the tail rotor fork bolt. It also updates the revision status of the requirement document. There is no change to the compliance.
The original issue of this Airworthiness Directive became effective on 17 July 2002.
David Villiers
Delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority 20 May 2003
The above AD is notified in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette on 18 June 2003.
Page 1 of 1
Overview
The Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR) were enacted to ensure the safety of civil aviation within Australia by establishing a regulatory framework that governs the maintenance and operation of aircraft. The legislation was introduced by the Australian Parliament to address the need for comprehensive safety regulations in the civil aviation sector, aiming to prevent accidents and incidents through the enforcement of stringent safety standards and directives. One such directive, Airworthiness Directive AD/HU 269/110, was issued by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to address the specific issue of tail rotor fork bolt failure in Schweizer (Hughes) 269 series helicopters. The policy objective behind this directive was to mitigate the risk of tail rotor failure during flight, which could potentially lead to catastrophic outcomes, by mandating the replacement of the tail rotor fork bolt and regular inspections for signs of wear and corrosion.
Scope and Application
The Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998, specifically PART 39 - 105, pertains to the issuance and management of Airworthiness Directives (ADs) by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). These regulations apply to all aircraft registered in Australia, including Schweizer (Hughes) 269 series helicopters as mentioned in the specific AD/HU 269/110 Amendment 1. The directive mandates the replacement of the tail rotor fork bolt with a new zero-time bolt under certain conditions, such as after a tail rotor strike or within specific service intervals. The requirement necessitates a detailed inspection of the removed bolt for any signs of damage or wear and mandates reporting of any cracks to CASA. Compliance with these directives is mandatory for all Schweizer (Hughes) 269 series helicopters and must be adhered to within specified timeframes post the effective date of the amendment. The geographic scope of these regulations extends nationally across Australia, ensuring uniform safety standards are maintained in civil aviation.
Key Provisions
The Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998, under Part 39 - 105, specifically address the safety of Schweizer (Hughes) 269 series helicopters through the Airworthiness Directive (AD) AD/HU 269/110 Amendment 1, which concerns the tail rotor fork bolt. The AD mandates that the tail rotor fork bolt be replaced with a new bolt from a specified list of part numbers (P/N 269A6092-3, P/N 369A1602-3, or P/N 6092-3) in accordance with the instructions provided in Schweizer SBB-269 Revision 1. This directive also includes an inspection of the removed bolt for signs of excessive wear, gouges, scoring, or cracks, with any discovered cracks to be reported to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) via a defect report and the bolt retained for further analysis. In the event of a tail rotor strike during service, the bolt must be removed and replaced as specified. The compliance requirement dictates that this action must be undertaken within 100 hours of time in service after 1 August 2002, and subsequently at every 1200-hour interval.
The obligations imposed by this AD on the operators of Schweizer (Hughes) 269 series helicopters include the timely replacement of the tail rotor fork bolt as per the specified part numbers and the thorough inspection of the removed bolt. Operators are also required to report any findings of cracks in the removed bolt to CASA and retain the bolt for potential analysis. This ensures that the safety concerns identified are adequately addressed and monitored to prevent future incidents.
Failure to comply with the provisions set forth in the AD may result in various civil or criminal consequences. While the specific penalties are not detailed within the AD itself, under the Civil Aviation Act 1988, non-compliance with ADs can lead to significant fines, imprisonment, or both, depending on the severity of the breach and the potential risk to aviation safety. The enforcement of these penalties is overseen by CASA, which has the authority to take action against non-compliant operators to ensure adherence to the mandated safety standards.