AD/R22/10 - Tail Rotor Drive Shaft Damper Clips - Replacement - CANCELLED

Overview

The Civil Aviation Act 1988, enacted by the Australian Parliament, governs civil aviation within Australia, with a primary focus on ensuring the safety of air navigation. This Act empowers the Governor-General to create regulations that further the objectives of the Act, and one such regulation is the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998. These regulations provide the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) with the authority to issue airworthiness directives (ADs) for certain types of aircraft or aeronautical products. This legislative framework is designed to maintain and enhance the safety of air navigation by ensuring that aircraft and aeronautical products meet the necessary safety standards throughout their operational life. The cancellation of AD/R22/10, which was issued by CASA affecting Robinson R22 helicopters, exemplifies the application of these regulatory powers. CASA has reviewed this AD and has determined that it should be cancelled, effective 7 May 2009. This cancellation aligns with Australia's obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, which assigns the State of Design the responsibility for the continuing airworthiness of an aircraft type. Given the nature of the AD and its cancellation, no consultation with the Australian public or the preparation of a Regulatory Impact Statement was required. The AD was cancelled by the Manager, Airframes and Structures, in the Airworthiness Engineering Group on behalf of CASA, in accordance with the Act.

Scope and Application

The Civil Aviation Act 1988, through regulation 39.001 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998, empowers the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to issue airworthiness directives (ADs) concerning specific types of aircraft or aeronautical products. These ADs are legislative instruments under the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 and serve as a critical mechanism for ensuring the continuing airworthiness of aircraft, in line with the requirements of Annex 8 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation. The State of Registry of an aircraft holds the responsibility for ensuring its ongoing airworthiness, and ADs are integral to fulfilling this obligation. Notably, the cancellation of an AD, such as AD/R22/10 for Robinson R22 helicopters, reflects Australia’s commitment to international aviation safety standards, and while this process does not necessitate public consultation or a Regulatory Impact Statement, it is executed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The issuance and cancellation of such directives are subject to CASA's oversight and are aligned with the overarching aim of maintaining the highest safety standards in civil aviation.

Key Provisions

Under section 98 of the Civil Aviation Act 1988, the Governor-General has the authority to make regulations that are aimed at ensuring the safety of air navigation. Specifically, regulation 39.001 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 empowers the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to issue airworthiness directives (ADs) for various kinds of aircraft or aeronautical products. It is important to note that an AD is considered a disallowable instrument under section 46A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, and therefore, in accordance with section 6 of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003, an AD is classified as a legislative instrument. In terms of obligations, the State of Design holds overall responsibility for the continuing airworthiness of an aircraft type, as stipulated in Annex 8 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation. This includes providing any necessary information to the appropriate States of Registry to ensure the ongoing airworthiness of the aircraft type. Meanwhile, the State of Registry of an individual aircraft is tasked with ensuring the continuing airworthiness of that specific aircraft, developing or adopting requirements to that end, also as per Annex 8. Failure to comply with the requirements set forth in the ADs could result in various consequences. These may include both civil and criminal penalties, depending on the nature and severity of the breach. For instance, in cases of non-compliance with an AD, the operator of the aircraft could face fines, imprisonment, or both. The maximum penalties for such breaches are determined by the specific regulations governing the AD in question and the jurisdiction in which the breach occurred. In the case of AD/R22/10, which affected Robinson R22 helicopters, CASA has reviewed the AD and decided to cancel it, effective from 7 May 2009. This cancellation has been carried out in accordance with Australia's obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, and no replacement AD is required. As the cancellation was made in response to international obligations, no consultation with the Australian public has taken place, and the Office of Best Practice Regulation has determined that a Regulatory Impact Statement is not necessary in this instance. The AD was made by the Manager, Airframes and Structures in the Airworthiness Engineering Group, on behalf of CASA, in accordance with subsection 84A(2) of the Act.