Explanatory Statement
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998
AD/R44/25 Amdt 1 — Main Rotor Blades
Under section 98 of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 (the Act), the Governor-General may make regulations for the Act and in the interests of the safety of air navigation. Under regulation 39.001 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR 1998), CASA may issue airworthiness directives (ADs) for kinds of aircraft or aeronautical products. Under subsections 98 (5B) and (5BA) of the Act, an AD is a legislative instrument unless it is expressed to apply in relation to a particular person, a particular aircraft or a particular aeronautical product. Therefore, this AD is a legislative instrument.
The NZ CAA received a report of a crack in the trailing edge of a R44 main rotor blade and published Continuing Airworthiness Notice (CAN) 62-003 on 26 January 2015. On 23 February 2015, Robinson Helicopter Company published a Safety Alert instructing operators to inspect the main rotor blades on a daily basis.
The NZ CAA initially issued AD DCA/R44/31 in response to an accident which appeared to involve a similar main rotor failure, immediately grounding the R44 fleet.
After further investigation revealed that the accident was not caused by the same problem, the NZ CAA subsequently issued AD DCA/R44/32, superseding DCA/R44/31 and mandating the requirements of Robinson Helicopter R44 Safety Alert dated 23 February 2015. The NZ CAA has now issued DCA/R44/32A superseding DCA/R44/32 and amending the inspection intervals.
CASA issued AD/R44/25 to mandate a visual inspection in accordance with Robinson Helicopter R44 Safety Alert dated 23 February 2015 before every flight. As a result of ongoing investigations, CASA is issuing AD/R44/25 Amdt 1 which changes the inspection interval requirements to:
(a) For charter operations, every second flight or at each engine shutdown, whichever occurs earlier.
(b) For any other type of operation, every 1.5 flight hours or at each engine shut down, which-ever occurs earlier.
This AD repeals and replaces the previous AD on this subject.
The State of Design for this type, the United States of America, has issued Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) SW-15-08, dated 23 February 2015, an advisory document based on NZ CAA CAN 62-003. As there are many examples of the R44 helicopter on the Australian register, CASA has developed an AD to address the problem on Australian rotorcraft.
Consultation
Consultation has not taken place as required under the LIA because the instrument was issued to deal with emergency circumstances.
Making and commencement
The AD has been made by a delegate of CASA relying on the power of delegation under subregulation 11.260 (1) of CASR 1998 and subsection 94 (1) of the Act.
Regulation Impact Statement
A Regulation Impact Statement (RIS) is not required because ADs are covered by a standing agreement between CASA and the Office of Best Practice Regulation under which a RIS is not required for ADs.
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights
A Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights is at Attachment 1.
The instrument commences on the day of registration.
[Instrument number AD/R44/25 Amdt 1]
Attachment 1
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights
Prepared in accordance with Part 3 of the
Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011
AD/R44/25 Amdt 1 – Main Rotor Blades
This legislative instrument is compatible with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared in the international instruments listed in section 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011.
Overview of the legislative instrument
The legislative instrument is an airworthiness directive (AD). AD/R44/25 Amdt 1 has been issued to ensure to correct an identified unsafe condition in Robinson R44 main rotor blades part number C016-7. AD/R44/25 Amdt 1 requires operators to conduct a detailed visual inspection of the trailing edge of the main rotor blade in accordance with Robinson Safety Alert issued 23 February 2015 and reduces the inspection interval previously required by AD/R44/25.
Human rights implications
This legislative instrument does not engage any of the applicable rights or freedoms.
Conclusion
This legislative instrument is compatible with human rights as it does not raise any human rights issues.
Civil Aviation Safety Authority