{"id":"F2006B07091","name":"AD/S-PUMA/11 Amdt 2 - Main Rotor LE Protective Strip","slug":"ad-s-puma-11-amdt-2-main-rotor-le-protective-strip","collection":"legislative_instrument","jurisdiction":"commonwealth","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":null,"makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":48856,"registerId":"commonwealth-F2006B07091-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-04-02","status":"InForce","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"1","sectionType":"section","heading":"AD/S-PUMA/11 Amdt 2 - Main Rotor LE Protective Strip","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)  \n![](image.002.png)  \nEurocopter AS 332 (Super Puma) Series Helicopters\n\nAIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE\n\n![](image.002.png)\n\n![](image.002.png)  \nFor the reasons set out in the background section, the CASA delegate whose signature appears below revokes Airworthiness Directive (AD) AD/S-PUMA/11 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.\n\nAD/S-PUMA/11\n\nAmdt 2\n\n  \nMain Rotor LE Protective Strip 9/2000\n\nApplicability: Model AS 332; 332C, C1, L, L1, and L2; equipped with main rotor blades specified in the Requirement Document.\n\nRequirement: Action in accordance Eurocopter AS 332 SB 05.00.22R4.\n\nNote: DGAC ADs 88-099-035(A)R5 and 94-078-001(B) refer.\n\nCompliance: Unless already accomplished; as specified in the Requirement Document.\n\nThis amendment becomes effective on 7 September 2000.\n\nBackground: This Directive requires inspections in order to ensure the adhesion of the glass cloth cap between the blade skin and the leading edge stainless steel protective strip.\n\nAmendment 1 includes the L2 model aircraft, introduces a 500 hour periodicity for some blades and specifies particular caulking compounds for particular blades.\n\nAmendment 2 includes main rotor blades P/N 332A11.0025. ##.\n\nAmendment 1 of this Airworthiness Directive became effective on 26 May 1994.\n\n![Signature of David Alan Villiers Delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority](image.003.png)  \n\nDavid Alan Villiers\n\nDelegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority 25 July 2000\n\n![](image.002.png)  \n\nThe above AD is notified in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette on 9 August 2000.","sortOrder":0}],"analysis":{"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":4,"scope_assessment":{"changed":true,"description":"The AD has been expanded from its original form. Amendment 1 broadened applicability by adding the L2 model, introduced a recurring 500‑hour inspection interval for some blade types, and specified particular caulking compounds for particular blades — all of which increase ongoing compliance obligations beyond the original one-off inspection. Amendment 2 further extended the scope by adding a specific main rotor blade part number (P/N 332A11.0025) to the affected blade list. Collectively these amendments increase the population of affected aircraft and create recurring maintenance duties and material specifications that were not in the original AD."},"complexity_factors":["Short AD text but delegates technical detail to an external Service Bulletin (Eurocopter AS 332 SB 05.00.22R4) - increases practical complexity","Multiple helicopter models listed in Applicability (AS 332; 332C, C1, L, L1, L2) requiring model-by-model applicability checks","Amendments add conditional rules: Amendment 1 introduced a 500-hour recurring periodicity for some blades (nested temporal condition)","Amendments specify particular materials (caulking compounds) tied to particular blade types - mapping of materials to parts increases operational detail","Amendment 2 adds a specific blade part number (P/N 332A11.0025) to the applicability list - requires cross-checking parts records","Cross-references to external foreign ADs (DGAC ADs) that may contain relevant history or requirements","Compliance phrase \"Unless already accomplished\" introduces a state-dependent exemption requiring record checks","Reliance on the Service Bulletin means full compliance interpretation depends on another document (SB), which may itself contain many defined terms and procedures"],"plain_english_summary":"**What this instrument does (mechanically)**\n\n- It requires owners/operators of certain Eurocopter AS 332 (Super Puma) helicopters to carry out inspections and any corrective work set out in a specific manufacturer Service Bulletin (Eurocopter AS 332 SB 05.00.22R4). (Requirement)\n- The inspections are aimed at checking the adhesion of the glass-cloth cap between the blade skin and the stainless-steel leading-edge protective strip on the main rotor blades. (Background)\n- Compliance must be completed as specified in the Service Bulletin unless the actions have already been done. (Compliance)\n\n**Who is affected**\n\n- Owners, operators and maintenance organisations responsible for Eurocopter AS 332 helicopters of models 332, 332C, C1, L, L1 and L2 that are fitted with the main rotor blade part numbers listed in the Service Bulletin. (Applicability)\n\n**Why it matters**\n\n- The directive’s stated purpose is to detect and correct loss of adhesion between the glass-cloth cap and the leading edge protective strip on the main rotor blades. Poor adhesion could allow moisture, corrosion or mechanical damage to develop at the blade leading edge; the Service Bulletin prescribes inspection and corrective steps. (Background; Requirement)\n\n**How it changes behaviour and who pays**\n\n- Operators must add the specified inspections to their maintenance programme and carry out any repairs/caulking or part replacement required by the Service Bulletin. This imposes direct costs on the aircraft owner/operator (labour, parts, aircraft downtime). (Requirement; Compliance)\n- For some blade types the AD (via Amendment 1) introduced a 500-hour recurring inspection interval, which creates ongoing maintenance workload and recurring costs. (Amendment 1)\n- The authority (Civil Aviation Safety Authority delegate) enforces the requirement; the Service Bulletin (manufacturer document) sets the technical steps. Operators and their contracted maintenance organisations decide how to schedule and perform the work in order to comply. (Requirement; Compliance)\n\n**Trade-offs, compliance burden and implementation risk**\n\n- The AD delegates technical detail to the manufacturer Service Bulletin rather than specifying procedures in the AD itself; that reduces duplication but ties compliance to an external document (operator must obtain and follow SB 05.00.22R4). (Requirement)\n- Implementation costs include inspection labour, specified caulking compounds or other materials (Amendment 1), potential blade repairs or replacements, and aircraft downtime while inspections/repairs are performed. (Amendment 1; Requirement)\n- The AD cross-references earlier foreign airworthiness directives (DGAC ADs) and relies on manufacturer instructions; regulators and operators must track these external references to understand the full compliance picture. (Note)\n\n**Concrete effects on private choice and market activity**\n\n- Maintenance providers gain work from required inspections and corrective actions; operators face increased maintenance expenditure and scheduling constraints. (Requirement; Compliance)\n- The AD does not change ownership rights or commercial operation rules, but it constrains how operators may legally operate affected helicopters (they must comply with the inspections and fixes). (Applicability; Compliance)\n\n**What changed in the amendments (practical summary)**\n\n- Amendment 1: added the L2 model to applicability, introduced a 500‑hour periodic inspection requirement for some blades, and specified particular caulking compounds for particular blade types. (Amendment 1)\n- Amendment 2: added main rotor blade part number P/N 332A11.0025 to the affected blades list. (Amendment 2)\n\n(Section references in parentheses indicate the part of the AD where each point is stated.)"},"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 amendment maintains the original scope of ensuring rotor blade leading edge integrity. Amendment 2 simply expands the applicability to include an additional part number (P/N 332A11.0025. ##) without altering the fundamental purpose or creating new regulatory obligations beyond the original inspection requirement."},"complexity_factors":["Short, single-purpose document (1 page)","Only 4 defined structural sections (Applicability, Requirement, Compliance, Background)","Minimal conditional logic - essentially 'if you have this helicopter, do this inspection'","Cross-references to external documents: Eurocopter Service Bulletin 05.00.22R4 and two French DGAC ADs, but these are cited rather than incorporated in detail","Simple amendment structure tracking changes across three versions (original, Amdt 1, Amdt 2)","No nested exceptions or complex definitional provisions"],"plain_english_summary":"This CASA safety notice (Amendment 2) replaces an earlier version and requires operators of Eurocopter AS332 (C/C1/L/L1/L2) helicopters fitted with specified main rotor blades to inspect that a protective glass cloth cap is properly bonded between the blade skin and metal leading-edge strip. If it detaches the strip can fail, risking catastrophic rotor damage; operators must follow Eurocopter Service Bulletin 05.00.22R4 and related sealing-compound instructions."}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/ad-s-puma-11-amdt-2-main-rotor-le-protective-strip","history":"/api/acts/ad-s-puma-11-amdt-2-main-rotor-le-protective-strip/history","analysis":"/api/acts/ad-s-puma-11-amdt-2-main-rotor-le-protective-strip/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/ad-s-puma-11-amdt-2-main-rotor-le-protective-strip/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/ad-s-puma-11-amdt-2-main-rotor-le-protective-strip/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/ad-s-puma-11-amdt-2-main-rotor-le-protective-strip/documents"}}