COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (Civil Aviation Regulations 1998), PART 39 - 105 CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY
SCHEDULE OF AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
Eurocopter AS 332 (Super Puma) Series Helicopters
AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE
For the reasons set out in the background section, the CASA delegate whose signature appears below revokes Airworthiness Directive (AD) AD/S-PUMA/10 Amdt 1 and issues the following AD under subregulation 39.1 (1) of CAR 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.
AD/S-PUMA/10
Amdt 2
Tail Rotor Pitch Change Bearings 5/2001
Applicability: Model AS 332 helicopters versions C, C1, L, and L1 on which the tail rotor pitch change rod is fitted with a bearing part number 330A33.9903.20.
Requirement: Action in accordance with Eurocopter AS 332 Alert Service Bulletin No. 05.00.29 Revision 3.
Note: DGAC AD 1990-230-041(A) R4 refers.
Compliance: At intervals of 250 flight hours or 18 months, whichever occurs first.
This amendment becomes effective on 17 May 2001.
Background: The initial issue of this Directive was a one-time inspection in response to a reported bearing seizure.
Amendment 1 reflected subsequent reported seizures that resulted in the inspection becoming repetitive.
Amendment 2 is issued in response to the latest revision of the Requirement document which modifies the operational procedure and the bearing check procedure.
Amendment 1 of this Airworthiness Directive became effective on 31 June 1993.
The original issue of this Airworthiness Directive became effective on 31 December 1992.
David Alan Villiers
Delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority 2 April 2001
The above AD is notified in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette on 18 April 2001.
Overview
The Civil Aviation Regulations 1998, enacted by the Australian Parliament, establish and regulate the standards for civil aviation safety within the country. This legislation was introduced to address the need for stringent safety measures and regulations to govern the operation of civil aircraft in Australia. One of the key components of these regulations is the issuance of Airworthiness Directives (ADs) to ensure the safety and airworthiness of aircraft. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), as the delegate of the Australian Government, issues these directives to mandate specific actions to correct unsafe conditions in aircraft. The overarching policy objective of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1998 is to maintain and enhance the safety of civil aviation through rigorous oversight and compliance with established standards.
Scope and Application
The Civil Aviation Regulations 1998, as part of the legislative instrument F2006B07090, specifically address the safety and operational requirements for certain aircraft models, including the Eurocopter AS 332 (Super Puma) Series Helicopters. This legislative instrument applies to the specified model of AS 332 helicopters versions C, C1, L, and L1 that are equipped with a tail rotor pitch change rod featuring a particular bearing part number, 330A33.9903.20. The regulations mandate corrective actions to address identified safety issues, ensuring that the aircraft meet the required safety standards set by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). Compliance with these directives is mandatory for all operators of these specified helicopter models within the Australian jurisdiction, ensuring that they adhere to the prescribed maintenance and operational procedures as outlined in the Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin No. 05.00.29 Revision 3. These safety directives must be followed at intervals of 250 flight hours or 18 months, whichever comes first, thereby ensuring ongoing airworthiness and safety of the aircraft.
Key Provisions
The Civil Aviation Regulations 1998, specifically Part 39, Section 105, addresses airworthiness directives for the Eurocopter AS 332 (Super Puma) Series Helicopters. This directive, AD/S-PUMA/10 Amendment 2, was issued to ensure the safe operation of the specified models of the AS 332 helicopter, namely versions C, C1, L, and L1. The directive mandates that specific actions be taken to address an identified unsafe condition related to the tail rotor pitch change bearings. The requirement (Section 5) is that the action should align with the guidance provided in Eurocopter AS 332 Alert Service Bulletin No. 05.00.29 Revision 3. Operators must comply with this directive at intervals of 250 flight hours or 18 months, whichever comes first (Section 5).
The directive imposes several obligations on the parties it governs. Firstly, it requires operators to adhere to the specified actions outlined in the Eurocopter AS 332 Alert Service Bulletin No. 05.00.29 Revision 3 to ensure the tail rotor pitch change bearings are inspected and maintained correctly. This involves detailed procedures for the inspection and, if necessary, the replacement of the bearings. The directive mandates that these inspections and maintenance actions are carried out at the specified intervals, ensuring the safety of the aircraft in operation. The directive also necessitates that operators keep detailed records of these inspections and any actions taken in accordance with the directive.
Failure to comply with the provisions of this airworthiness directive can result in significant consequences. Under the Civil Aviation Act 1988, non-compliance may lead to enforcement actions by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). For civil aviation offences, the penalties can be substantial, including fines and potential imprisonment. Specifically, for serious breaches, individuals can face fines of up to $222,200 and imprisonment for up to 2 years. Additionally, corporate entities can be fined up to $1,111,000. The exact penalties depend on the severity of the breach and the discretion of the court. It is imperative for operators to ensure strict adherence to these directives to avoid such severe consequences.