{"id":"F2006B04609","name":"AD/BELL 222/18 Amdt 3 - Tail Rotor Blades","slug":"ad-bell-222-18-amdt-3-tail-rotor-blades","collection":"legislative_instrument","jurisdiction":"commonwealth","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":null,"makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":44361,"registerId":"commonwealth-F2006B04609-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-04-02","status":"InForce","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"1","sectionType":"section","heading":"AD/BELL 222/18 Amdt 3 - Tail Rotor Blades","content":"COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (Civil Aviation Regulations 1998), PART 39 \\- 105 CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY\n\nSCHEDULE OF AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES\n\n![](image.001.png)  \nBell Helicopter Textron Canada (BHTC) 222 Series Helicopters\n\nAD/BELL 222/18\n\nAmdt 3\n\n  \nTail Rotor Blades 3/97\n\nApplicability: Models 222, 222B, 222U, and 230, with tail rotor blades P/N 222-016-001-101,-107,\n\n\\-111, \\-113, \\-115 and \\-119.\n\nRequirement: 1. Inspect in accordance with Bell Helicopter Alert SBs 222-95-76 Rev B, 222U-95- 47 Rev B, and 230-95-8 Rev B until completion of Requirement 2.\n\n2. Remove from service, those tail rotor blades listed in the Applicability statement, and install tail rotor blades P/N 222-016-001-123 or \\-127, or higher dash number. This terminates the repetitive inspection requirement.\n\nNote: DoT Canada AD CF-96-03R2 refers.\n\nCompliance: 1. Unless already accomplished, prior to further flight after 24 July 1996, thereafter inspect at intervals not exceeding three hours time in service until replacement.\n\nThis part of the Directive must be entered onto the Maintenance Release as maintenance required. Following the initial inspection, Accomplishment Instructions Section 1. of the Requirement document inspections may be performed by the pilot in command, in which case a certification is to be made by entering AD/BELL 222/18 Amdt 3 against the Daily Inspection certification on the Maintenance Release. A copy of this Directive and of the Requirement document must be carried in the aircraft.\n\n2. Before 31 March 1997.\n\nThis Amendment becomes effective on 27 February 1997.\n\nBackground: The manufacturer has reported incidents, one of which resulted in an in-flight failure of a tail rotor blade. Investigation has revealed fatigue cracking originating from sanding marks on the stainless steel skin.\n\nAmendment 1 was issued to provide terminating action for the Directive.\n\nAmendment 2 included in the Applicability for continuing inspection, the blades originally thought to provide terminating action in the previous issue. Blades suitable for terminating action will be advised in a subsequent amendment.\n\nAmendment 3 provides terminating action for the Directive.\n\nAmendment 2 of this Airworthiness Directive became effective on 24 July 1996. Amendment 1 of this Airworthiness Directive became effective on 28 February 1996.\n\nThe initial issue of this Airworthiness Directive became effective on 22 November 1995.\n\nCOMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (Civil Aviation Regulations 1998), PART 39 \\- 105 CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY\n\nSCHEDULE OF AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES","sortOrder":0}],"analysis":{"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":3,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"The Directive has evolved through amendments that clarified which blades provide terminating action and adjusted applicability, but it has not grown beyond its original safety purpose of preventing fatigue cracking and in-flight tail rotor blade failure. Amendments refined the set of part numbers and identified terminating replacement parts; they did not expand the affected aircraft models or add new unrelated obligations."},"complexity_factors":["Narrow, well-defined applicability limited to 4 helicopter models and 6 specific blade part numbers","Two-step structure: (1) repetitive inspections until (2) removal and replacement as terminating action","Short, frequent inspection interval (every ≤3 hours time-in-service) producing operational impact","Replacement qualification expressed by part-number dash increments (P/N -123 or -127 or higher) rather than a technical specification","Cross-references to external technical documents: three Bell Helicopter Alert Service Bulletins and DoT Canada AD CF-96-03R2","Administrative requirements: entries on Maintenance Release and Daily Inspection certification; requirement to carry copies of the Directive and Requirement document on the aircraft","Temporal deadlines (initial inspection due prior to next flight after 24 July 1996; replacement by 31 March 1997)"],"plain_english_summary":"**What this directive does (mechanics)\n\n- Applies to: Bell Helicopter Textron Canada (BHTC) 222 series helicopters — Models 222, 222B, 222U and 230 — fitted with tail rotor blades having part numbers (P/N) 222-016-001-101, -107, -111, -113, -115 and -119. (Applicability)\n\n- Immediate inspection requirement: Operators must inspect the listed tail rotor blades using the Bell Helicopter Alert Service Bulletins cited in the Directive. Inspections must start before the next flight after 24 July 1996 and then be repeated at intervals not exceeding three hours time-in-service until the blades are replaced. (Requirement 1; Compliance)\n\n- Terminating action: Operators must remove the listed blades from service and install replacement blades P/N 222-016-001-123 or -127, or any blade with a higher dash number. Once those replacement blades are installed, the repetitive inspections are no longer required. (Requirement 2)\n\n- Recordkeeping and on-board paperwork: The initial inspection must be recorded on the aircraft Maintenance Release. After that, the inspections described in the Requirement document may be performed by the pilot-in-command; if so, the pilot must enter the Directive reference against the Daily Inspection certification on the Maintenance Release. A copy of the Directive and the Requirement document must be carried in the aircraft. (Compliance)\n\n- Deadlines: The initial inspection required by the Directive is due prior to further flight after 24 July 1996; replacement of blades (terminating action) must be completed before 31 March 1997. (Compliance)\n\n\nWho is affected\n\n- Aircraft operators and owners of the specified BHTC 222-series helicopters with the listed blade part numbers.\n- Maintenance organisations and pilots who are authorised or required to carry out the inspections and to record them on maintenance documentation.\n\n\nWhy it matters (safety background and practical effect)\n\n- Reason for action: The manufacturer reported incidents including an in-flight failure. Investigation found fatigue cracking that began at sanding marks on the stainless-steel skin of the affected blades. The inspections and replacement requirement aim to detect cracking promptly and to eliminate the affected blade designs as the long-term solution. (Background)\n\n\nPractical implications, costs and incentives\n\n- Who pays: Aircraft owners/operators bear the direct costs — repeated inspections (time, labour) and the cost of replacement blades and their installation.\n- Operational impact: Short inspection intervals (every ≤3 hours time-in-service) impose frequent checks that can affect flight scheduling and utilisation until replacement blades are fitted. If pilots perform inspections, administrative burden shifts partly to flight crews (certification entries). (Requirement 1; Compliance)\n- Supply/implementation risk: Operators depend on availability of the specified replacement blade part numbers (P/N -123, -127, or higher). If replacements are scarce, operators face prolonged inspection burden or operational restrictions.\n- Behavioural effect: The Directive forces short-term behaviour (frequent inspections) and a one-time capital action (blade replacement) that ends the recurring inspection obligation. That creates a clear trade-off: continuing inspection costs versus the one-off cost of replacement.\n- Enforcement/decision-making: The Civil Aviation Safety Authority mandates compliance; inspections and records must be entered in the aircraft maintenance documentation. Where allowed, the pilot-in-command can perform the inspections but must certify them. (Compliance)\n\n\nImplementation notes and trade-offs to watch\n\n- Inspection reliability: Allowing pilots to perform inspections shifts reliance from maintenance technicians to flight crews; this reduces immediate maintenance load but relies on pilot training and consistent execution. (Compliance)\n- Concentrated vs diffuse costs: The safety benefit (reduced risk of blade failure) accrues to operators and passengers broadly, while replacement costs and administrative burden fall directly on operators of these specific helicopters.\n- Cross-reference: The Directive references Bell Helicopter Alert Service Bulletins and a DoT Canada AD (CF-96-03R2) as the inspection and corrective-action sources. Operators need to follow those documents for the detailed inspection and replacement procedures. (Requirement; Note)\n\n\nSource citations within the Directive: Applicability; Requirement 1 and 2; Compliance; Background."},"flash_summary_failed":{"failed":true,"reason":"A positive credit balance is required for all requests, including BYOK, so fallback providers remain available. Add credits at https://vercel.com/d?to=%2F%5Bteam%5D%2F%7E%2Fai%3Fmodal%3Dtop-up to continue.","source":"analysis-cron"},"kimi_summary":{"content_quality":"ok","complexity_score":3,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"This Airworthiness Directive maintains its original scope as a targeted safety intervention for specific Bell helicopter models with defective tail rotor blades. While Amendment 3 expands the applicability slightly from earlier versions (adding back some blades originally thought to be safe), this represents refinement of the safety response rather than scope creep. The document remains focused on its core purpose: preventing tail rotor blade failures through inspection and replacement."},"complexity_factors":["Multiple amendment history requiring cross-referencing (Amendments 1, 2, and 3) to understand evolution of requirements","Specific part numbers with dash suffixes requiring precise identification (-101, -107, -111, -113, -115, -119 for removal; -123, -127 for installation)","Dual compliance pathways with different deadlines and responsible parties (mechanics vs. pilot-in-command)","Conditional logic: Requirement 1 continues 'until completion of Requirement 2' creating dependency between sections","Reference to external documents (Bell Helicopter Alert Service Bulletins and Canadian DOT AD) that must be consulted for actual inspection procedures","Specific administrative requirements (Maintenance Release entries, carrying copies of documents in aircraft)"],"plain_english_summary":"This airworthiness safety order for Bell 222, 222B, 222U and 230 helicopters responds to cracked tail-rotor blades that have failed in flight. It requires an immediate inspection regimen and mandates replacement of the identified part-numbered blades with redesigned, safer blades by 31 March 1997, with Amendment 3 effective 27 February 1997.\n\nIt affects owners, operators, maintenance personnel and pilots (pilots may perform recurring checks) and prevents in‑flight failures caused by fatigue cracks."}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/ad-bell-222-18-amdt-3-tail-rotor-blades","history":"/api/acts/ad-bell-222-18-amdt-3-tail-rotor-blades/history","analysis":"/api/acts/ad-bell-222-18-amdt-3-tail-rotor-blades/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/ad-bell-222-18-amdt-3-tail-rotor-blades/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/ad-bell-222-18-amdt-3-tail-rotor-blades/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/ad-bell-222-18-amdt-3-tail-rotor-blades/documents"}}