COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (Civil Aviation Regulations 1998), PART 39 - 105 CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY
SCHEDULE OF AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
Aerospatiale (Socata) TBM 700 Series Aeroplanes
AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE
For the reasons set out in the background section, the CASA delegate whose signature appears below revokes Airworthiness Directive (AD) AD/TBM 700/12 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/TBM 700/12
Amdt 1
Flap Rail Fittings 5/2000
Applicability: All TBM 700 aircraft without Modification No. 70-059-57 (replaces the original flap rail fittings) embodied.
Requirement: Visually inspect the inboard, centre and outboard flap rail fitting lugs on the left and right hand flaps, in accordance with SOCATA Service Bulletin SB 70-058-57.
Note: French DGAC AD 2000-127(A) refers.
Compliance: Inspect aircraft:
- with more than 300 hours time in service since compliance with the initial issue of this Directive; before further flight after 18 May 2000, or
b. with less than 300 hours total time in service, or less than 300 hours time in service since compliance with the initial issue of this Directive; at the next inspection for Maintenance Release issue after 18 May 2000, and
c. thereafter at intervals not exceeding 300 hours time in service. This Amendment becomes effective on 18 May 2000.
Background: The initial issue of this directive was to verify the integrity of the flap rail fittings.
Amendment 1 is raised to provide either terminating action through modification, or a requirement to continually inspect. DGAC AD 95-033(B) has been superseded by the referenced DGAC AD.
The original issue of this Airworthiness Directive became effective on 25 May 1995.
Bernard Malcolm Hole
Delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority 4 April 2000
The above AD is notified in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette on 19 April 2000.
Overview
The Civil Aviation Regulations 1998, specifically Part 39 - 105, establish the framework within which the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) issues airworthiness directives. The regulations were enacted to ensure the safety of civil aviation operations within Australia. This particular legislative instrument, issued by the delegate of CASA, addresses safety concerns related to the Aerospatiale (Socata) TBM 700 Series Aeroplanes. The directive aims to rectify unsafe conditions identified in the aircraft's flap rail fittings, ensuring compliance with safety standards and rectifying issues identified in previous directives. The policy objective is to maintain and enhance the safety of civil aviation through timely and effective airworthiness directives.
Scope and Application
The Civil Aviation Regulations 1998, as amended, govern aviation safety in Australia, with Part 39 focusing on specific airworthiness directives. This legislative instrument pertains to the Aerospatiale (Socata) TBM 700 Series aeroplanes, requiring compliance with specific maintenance and inspection standards to ensure airworthiness. The directive applies to all TBM 700 aircraft that have not incorporated Modification No. 70-059-57, which replaces the original flap rail fittings. The requirement necessitates a visual inspection of the inboard, centre, and outboard flap rail fitting lugs on both the left and right-hand flaps, as per SOCATA Service Bulletin SB 70-058-57. The inspection intervals vary based on the aircraft's total flight hours, with more frequent inspections for aircraft that have accumulated over 300 hours of flight time since the initial compliance with the directive. This Airworthiness Directive became effective from 18 May 2000, as announced in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette on 19 April 2000.
Key Provisions
The Civil Aviation Regulations 1998, specifically under PART 39 - 105, contain a series of airworthiness directives that are essential for maintaining the safety standards of aircraft. Section 39.1(1) allows for the revocation and issuance of these directives by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) delegate, who has the authority to determine the necessary actions to address unsafe conditions in specific aircraft models. In the case of the Aerospatiale (Socata) TBM 700 series aeroplanes, a particular directive (AD/TBM 700/12) has been revoked and replaced with a new directive aimed at addressing issues related to flap rail fittings. This directive mandates visual inspections of the inboard, centre, and outboard flap rail fitting lugs on the left and right hand flaps, following instructions outlined in SOCATA Service Bulletin SB 70-058-57. Compliance with this directive is crucial and must be adhered to within specific timeframes based on the aircraft’s service hours.
The obligations imposed by this Airworthiness Directive on the relevant parties, including aircraft operators and maintenance personnel, are clear and stringent. Operators must ensure that inspections are conducted as per the specified requirements, with detailed instructions on when and how often these inspections should be performed. For aircraft that have accumulated more than 300 hours of service time since the initial compliance with the directive, inspections must be completed before further flight. For aircraft with less than 300 hours of service time, inspections must occur during the next scheduled inspection for Maintenance Release issue. Subsequent inspections are required at intervals not exceeding 300 hours of service time. This systematic approach ensures ongoing airworthiness and safety compliance.
Failure to comply with the airworthiness directives can lead to serious consequences, both civil and criminal. Under the Civil Aviation Regulations 1998, non-compliance with these directives can result in penalties. Although specific penalties are not detailed in the text, it is generally understood that violations of these regulations can lead to significant fines, operational restrictions, and potential criminal charges for those responsible for the oversight. The severity of these consequences underscores the importance of adhering to the stipulated inspection intervals and procedures to maintain the safety standards required by CASA.