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/34 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 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/34
Amdt 1
Hoist Arm Lower Fitting Attachment 2/2000
Applicability: Models AS 332 C, C1, L and L1 not modified per modification AMS 0722955. Requirement: Inspect in accordance with Eurocopter AS 332 Service Bulletin No. 01.00.58.
Note: DGAC AD 98-487-072(A) R1 refers.
Compliance: Unless already accomplished in accordance with the initial issue of this Directive, before the next hoisting mission after the effective date of this Amendment.
This Amendment becomes effective on 24 February 2000.
Background: During a load test there was a failure of the bolts securing the hoist arm lower fitting. This directive requires checking that the bolts used are the correct length to prevent loss of hoist security during hoist operations.
Amendment 1 reflects the revision status of the DGAC AD, which in turn calls out the definitive Eurocopter Service Bulletin.
The original issue of this Airworthiness Directive became effective on 13 January 1999.
Eugene Paul Holzapfel
Delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority 11 January 2000
The above AD is notified in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette on 27 January 2000.
Overview
The Civil Aviation Regulations 1998 (CAR 1998) were enacted by the Australian Government to regulate civil aviation safety and establish the framework for airworthiness of aircraft. This legislation was introduced to address the need for stringent safety standards in civil aviation, ensuring that aircraft operations and maintenance comply with strict safety requirements to protect the public and prevent accidents. The CAR 1998 is administered by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), whose role includes the issuance of airworthiness directives to correct unsafe conditions. The policy objective of the CAR 1998 is to maintain and enhance the safety of civil aviation through comprehensive regulatory oversight and the enforcement of safety standards. The legislative instrument F2006B07111, specifically concerning the Eurocopter AS 332 (Super Puma) Series Helicopters, illustrates CASA’s commitment to addressing identified safety issues through targeted directives, ensuring that any potential risks are mitigated effectively and promptly.
Scope and Application
The Airworthiness Directive issued under the Civil Aviation Regulations 1998 applies specifically to Eurocopter AS 332 (Super Puma) series helicopters, more precisely to models AS 332 C, C1, L, and L1 that have not been modified according to modification AMS 0722955. The directive mandates that these aircraft undergo an inspection of their hoist arm lower fitting attachment in accordance with Eurocopter AS 332 Service Bulletin No. 01.00.58, which addresses a specific safety concern identified during a load test where bolts securing the hoist arm lower fitting failed. This directive is applicable to ensure that the bolts are of the correct length to maintain hoist security during operations. The directive applies to all such aircraft unless they have already complied with the initial directive issued on 13 January 1999, requiring the inspection to be completed before the next hoisting mission following the effective date of this Amendment, which is 24 February 2000. This AD, which is part of the Commonwealth of Australia's regulatory framework, is enforced by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and is published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette on 27 January 2000.
Key Provisions
The main operative sections of this Airworthiness Directive (AD) under the Civil Aviation Regulations 1998 (CAR 1998) pertain to the applicability, requirements, and compliance timelines for specific models of Eurocopter AS 332 (Super Puma) Series Helicopters. According to the applicability section (AD/S-PUMA/34 Amdt 1), the directive applies to AS 332 C, C1, L, and L1 models not modified per modification AMS 0722955. The requirement section mandates that an inspection be conducted in accordance with Eurocopter AS 332 Service Bulletin No. 01.00.58 to ensure the bolts securing the hoist arm lower fitting are of the correct length, thus preventing potential failures during hoist operations. This inspection must be carried out before the next hoisting mission following the effective date of this amendment.
The obligations imposed by this AD are clear and specific. Operators of the affected Eurocopter AS 332 models must ensure that the required inspection is performed by adhering to the guidelines detailed in the referenced Eurocopter Service Bulletin. This includes ensuring that the bolts securing the hoist arm lower fitting are checked and, if necessary, corrected to meet the specifications provided. Furthermore, this inspection must be completed before the next hoisting mission post the amendment's effective date of 24 February 2000, unless it has already been accomplished under the initial AD issue.
Failure to comply with the requirements set out in this AD may result in significant consequences. Although the specific penalties are not detailed within the text, breaches of ADs under CAR 1998 can generally lead to enforcement actions by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). These actions may include fines, penalties, or other regulatory measures. The potential civil or criminal consequences for non-compliance could involve serious safety risks, impacting both the operators and the passengers of the affected aircraft. The exact penalties would depend on the nature and severity of the breach, but they could include substantial financial penalties or even criminal charges in cases of gross negligence.