AD/STRIKEMASTER/2 - Control Column Cracking

Overview

The Civil Aviation Regulations 1998, specifically Part 39, which addresses the safety directives, was enacted by the Commonwealth of Australia to ensure the safety of civil aviation operations. One particular directive, AD/STRIKEMASTER/2, pertains to the BAe (BAC 167) Strikemaster Series Aeroplanes and addresses the issue of control column cracking. This directive was introduced to address the identified risk of structural failure in the control columns of Strikemaster aeroplanes, which could compromise flight safety. The Australian Parliament enacted this regulation to mandate the necessary inspections and maintenance procedures to mitigate this risk. The policy objective is to ensure that the integrity of the control columns is maintained, thereby preventing potential flight hazards and ensuring compliance with international safety standards, as referenced in the UK CAA Mandatory Permit Directive 1995-108.

Scope and Application

The Civil Aviation Regulations 1998, specifically Part 39 - 105 concerning the Civil Aviation Safety Authority Schedule of Airworthiness Directives, pertains to the BAe (BAC 167) Strikemaster Series Aeroplanes. This legislation applies to all marks of the BAe BAC 167 Strikemaster aircraft and mandates specific requirements to ensure the airworthiness of the control columns on these aircraft. The regulation is necessitated by incidents where control column cracking has occurred, particularly at the aft lug of the Post Mod 1759 control column, which is crucial for the pivoting mechanism. The directive requires inspection and non-destructive testing of the control column and its lugs to prevent further structural failures. Compliance with this directive must be achieved before further flight if the aircraft has not been inspected post-25 September 1996, and subsequent inspections must occur at intervals not exceeding 150 hours of time in service. This legislation, therefore, ensures the ongoing safety and airworthiness of the Strikemaster Series Aeroplanes by mandating regular and rigorous inspections of critical components.

Key Provisions

The Civil Aviation Regulations 1998, specifically Part 39 - 105, detail the Airworthiness Directives for the BAe (BAC 167) Strikemaster Series Aeroplanes. One such directive, AD/STRIKEMASTER/2, addresses the issue of control column cracking (1). The directive applies to all marks of the BAe BAC 167 Strikemaster aircraft (2). The primary requirement outlined in this directive is to inspect the control column in accordance with BAe CSTM/SM/156 (3). Additionally, the control column lugs must be inspected using Non-Destructive Inspection (NDI) for cracks, following BAe CSI/STRIKEMASTER/51 (4). This directive references the UK CAA Mandatory Permit Directive 1995-108 for further guidance (5). The obligations imposed by this directive include conducting an initial inspection of the control column before further flight after 25 September 1996 if it has not already been performed (6). Following the initial inspection, subsequent inspections must occur either within 150 hours of time in service or within 28 days after 25 September 1996, whichever is later (7). After the initial compliance, inspections must continue at intervals not exceeding 150 hours of time in service (8). These requirements ensure that the integrity of the control column structure is maintained, which is crucial for the safe operation of the aircraft. Failure to comply with the provisions of this Airworthiness Directive could lead to serious safety issues, including the potential for the control column to fail during flight, resulting in loss of control of the aircraft. While the specific Civil Aviation Regulations do not detail penalties for non-compliance with Airworthiness Directives, general regulations under the Civil Aviation Act 1988 could apply. These may include fines and potential criminal charges for endangering the safety of an aircraft, with penalties varying based on the severity of the breach and the intent behind it. The seriousness of such non-compliance can result in substantial financial penalties and imprisonment.