AD/EC 225/6 Amdt 1 - Main Rotor Hub Coning Stop Supports

The Directive introduces several technical and regulatory concepts that are essential to understanding its operation. The primary subject is the “coning stop support,” a component on the main rotor hub that limits the vertical flapping (coning) of the rotor blades when the rotor is not turning or at low rotor speeds. The coning stop support is secured to the main rotor hub reinforcement ring by lugs (five of them), and the dome fairing support is also secured by its own set of five lugs to the same reinforcement ring. The dome fairing is the aerodynamic fairing that covers the main rotor hub. The Directive concerns cracks at the attachment points of these lugs. A “lug” in this context is a projecting tab or fitting used for bolted attachment. The concept of “terminating action” is central: it refers to a one-time modification that, once accomplished, ends the need for repetitive inspections. Here, replacement of both the coning stop support assembly and the dome fairing support in accordance with SB No. 62-007 constitutes terminating action for the repetitive checks required by Requirement 1. Before terminating action, operators must perform inspections every 15 flight hours or 7 days, which imposes a recurrent operational burden. The “ferry flight” concept allows a limited exemption: the helicopter may be flown without its dome fairing (a significant aerodynamic and vibration alteration) to reach a maintenance facility where the replacement can be performed. The Directive specifies that lateral vibrations increase between 70 and 120 KIAS but states this does not affect flight safety. This is a risk acceptance by the regulator, not a guarantee of comfortable flight. The concept of “EASA approved revision” is important: the Directive references Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin No. 05A003 Revision 2 and Service Bulletin No. 62-007 original issue, but allows later EASA approved revisions to be used. This creates a dynamic compliance obligation: an operator must monitor whether EASA approves a later revision and, if so, comply with that revision rather than the original. The Directive also introduces a prohibition on further use of a prior modification standard, SB No. 62-005 (MOD 332A08.0929.00). All components installed or modified under that SB must be removed from service. This is a removal of previously approved parts, which has cost consequences for operators who had invested in that modification. The Directive does not provide compensation for the scrapping of those parts. The Note referencing EASA AD 2009-0024 indicates that this CASA AD is harmonised with the European Aviation Safety Agency directive, though the compliance dates and applicability may differ slightly. For an Australian operator, the CASA AD is the legally binding instrument; EASA documents are incorporated by reference but the enforcement mechanism is under Australian law.

The Directive directly affects all operators of Eurocopter EC 225 LP helicopters of any serial number, except those modified during production with MOD 0743718 or in service with Eurocopter SB No. 62-007 original issue or later EASA approved revision. The exemption is limited: only helicopters that already have the terminating action (SB 62-007) installed are excluded from the Directive. All other EC 225 LP helicopters are subject to the full scope of inspection and potential replacement requirements. This category includes helicopters used in commercial air transport (passenger charter, offshore oil and gas crew transport), search and rescue operations, law enforcement, and private/corporate aviation. The compliance burden falls most heavily on operators with multiple EC 225 helicopters in their fleet, particularly those in remote or offshore operations where scheduling 15-hour inspection intervals and arranging ferry flights to maintenance bases adds logistical complexity and cost. The Directive also affects maintenance organisations (MROs) that hold the capability to perform main rotor hub work, as they must acquire the relevant service bulletins, tooling, and parts for the SB 62-007 modification. Parts suppliers are affected because demand shifts from SB 62-005 parts (now prohibited) to SB 62-007 parts, and existing stocks of SB 62-005 parts become unsaleable for EC 225 use. The Directive also indirectly affects passengers and charter customers: if an operator must ground a helicopter for replacement, flights may be cancelled or delayed, and the operator may pass on compliance costs through higher prices or surcharges. For offshore oil and gas platforms, any interruption to helicopter service can affect crew change schedules and production operations. The Directive also affects insurers: if an operator fails to comply and a crack leads to an in-flight failure, insurance coverage may be voided for non-compliance with an Airworthiness Directive. Lessors of EC 225 helicopters are affected because the value of their asset may decline if the SB 62-005 modification is now prohibited and must be removed, and the cost of SB 62-007 must be borne by someone (lessor or lessee depending on the lease terms). The regulator (CASA) is also affected because it must administer the Directive, handle any applications for alternative means of compliance, and enforce non-compliance. The background notes that cracks were reported not confined to SB 62-005 modified helicopters, so even operators who did not install that modification are still subject to the inspection regime. The Directive imposes costs on all operators, regardless of whether their particular helicopter has actually experienced cracking. This is a precautionary regulatory measure with a blanket applicability that does not differentiate based on individual helicopter history or usage patterns. The 15-hour/7-day inspection interval is particularly onerous for helicopters used in short-range, high-cycle operations (such as frequent short passenger flights) where 15 flight hours may accumulate quickly.

The Directive imposes several specific duties on the operator (technically the registered operator or the person responsible for continuing airworthiness under Civil Aviation Regulation 42ZA or equivalent). The primary duty is to perform repetitive inspections for cracks at the attachment points of the coning stop support lugs and dome fairing support lugs, using the procedure in ASB No. 05A003 Revision 2 (or later EASA approved revision), at intervals of no more than 15 flight hours or 7 days, whichever occurs first. This duty continues until the terminating action (replacement per SB 62-007) is accomplished. The second duty is that if a crack is found in any of the five lugs of either support after the effective date of 9 April 2009, the operator must remove and replace both the coning stop support assembly and the dome fairing support before further flight, using SB 62-007. This is a mandatory grounding event. The third duty is to cease any further modifications under SB No. 62-005 from the effective date and to remove from service all components already installed or modified under that SB before further flight. This duty does not depend on finding a crack; it applies to all helicopters that have such parts. The fourth duty is to ensure that any ferry flight conducted without the dome fairing complies with the conditions: the dome fairing and its attachment screws must be removed per the ASB Note, and the flight crew must be briefed about increased lateral vibrations between 70 and 120 KIAS, with a copy of the Directive inserted into the Normal Procedures section of the Rotorcraft Flight Manual for the duration of the ferry flight. The operator must not fly the helicopter beyond the single ferry flight to reach a replacement location. The Directive also confers certain rights. The operator has the right to use a later EASA approved revision of ASB No. 05A003 or SB No. 62-007, rather than the specific revision referenced in the Directive, provided that later revision is EASA approved. This allows for updated procedures without requiring an amendment to the CASA AD. The operator has the right to perform a single ferry flight without the dome fairing under the specified conditions, which is an exemption from the normal requirement that the helicopter be in a fully airworthy configuration. The operator also has the right to have the terminating action (SB 62-007 replacement) end the repetitive inspection cycle, reducing ongoing compliance costs. The operator may also apply to CASA for an alternative means of compliance if they can demonstrate an equivalent level of safety, though this is not stated in the Directive itself; it is a general right under CASR Part 11 or equivalent provisions. The Directive does not give the operator any right to delay compliance for economic reasons or parts availability; the compliance times are mandatory. The operator bears the duty to monitor whether EASA approves any later revision to the referenced SBs and to adjust compliance accordingly. The Directive also imposes a duty on the maintenance organisation performing the work to ensure that the work is done in accordance with the approved data and that the release to service correctly references the AD compliance. There is no explicit duty to notify CASA of crack findings, but general airworthiness reporting regulations (such as CASR Part 21 or CAR 2B) would likely require reporting of defects that could affect airworthiness.

This Directive does not itself specify penalties for non-compliance, but it is issued under the Civil Aviation Act 1988, and contravention of an Airworthiness Directive is a serious breach of Australian airworthiness law. Under Civil Aviation Regulation 42ZC, a person must not operate an aircraft that is not airworthy, and compliance with Airworthiness Directives is a fundamental component of maintaining an aircraft’s airworthiness. Operating an aircraft in contravention of an AD is likely to be prosecuted under section 20A of the Civil Aviation Act, which carries significant penalties. For an individual, the maximum penalty is 50 penalty units (currently $15,500) or imprisonment for 2 years, or both. For a body corporate, the penalty can be up to 10 times that amount, and courts may impose additional orders such as injunctions, grounding orders, or remedial orders. The practical enforcement consequence is that a non-compliant helicopter cannot be lawfully flown and any flight would be uninsured (or insurance would be voided for non-compliance). CASA can also suspend or cancel the aircraft’s certificate of airworthiness if the AD is not complied with. The Directive does not provide for any grace period; compliance times are mandatory from the effective date. If an operator fails to perform the 15-hour/7-day inspections and a crack develops into a failure, the operator could face criminal charges for reckless endangerment if the failure causes harm or death. The Directive also has a cascading effect: if a maintenance organisation fails to correctly identify that an SB 62-005 modified part must be removed, and releases the aircraft to service as airworthy, that organisation could face enforcement action for issuing a false or misleading maintenance release under CASR Part 4 or equivalent. The Directive does not contain any provision for civil penalties or infringement notices; enforcement is through the criminal law and administrative action. The cost of non-compliance includes not only direct penalties but also the cost of grounding, investigation, legal defence, reputational damage, and potential civil liability if a failure causes third-party damage. The Directive’s status as a CASA instrument means it is directly enforceable by CASA authorised officers and the Australian Federal Police. The reference to EASA AD 2009-0024 does not provide any enforcement mechanism; it is purely informational. The Directive also does not include any provision for exemption or waiver; the practical avenue for relief would be an application for an alternative means of compliance under CASR Part 11, but that would require CASA approval and would not be retroactive. The ferry flight provision is a limited exemption from the normal requirement to have the dome fairing installed, but it is not an exemption from compliance with the AD itself. Operators who attempt to defer compliance by using the ferry flight provision repeatedly or for non-ferry purposes would be in breach.

The Directive exists within a hierarchy of airworthiness regulations. It is issued under the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (CAR 1988), specifically the power to issue Airworthiness Directives under regulation 37A or equivalent provisions in the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR 1998), depending on the regulatory regime in force at the time. The Directive references the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) system: it is explicitly noted as referring to EASA AD 2009-0024, and the required actions incorporate Eurocopter service bulletins that are EASA approved. This means that Australian compliance is partially dependent on the EASA approval system. If EASA approves a later revision of ASB 05A003 or SB 62-007, that revision automatically becomes acceptable under this CASA AD, without the need for CASA to issue an amendment. However, if EASA withdraws approval of a revision, or if a later revision is not approved by EASA, it would not be acceptable under this AD. This creates a cross-jurisdictional dependency: Australian operators must monitor EASA decisions even though EASA has no direct enforcement power in Australia. The Directive also interacts with the Rotorcraft Flight Manual (RFM). The ferry flight provision requires inserting a copy of the Directive into the Normal Procedures section of the RFM for the duration of the ferry flight. This is a permitted temporary change to the RFM, which is normally an approved document. The RFM must be restored to its normal configuration after the ferry flight. The Directive also interacts with general airworthiness defect reporting requirements under CAR 37 or CASR Part 21. If a crack is found during inspection, that crack is a defect that may be reportable to CASA under applicable defect reporting regulations, even if it is not specifically mentioned in the Directive. The Directive does not override that reporting obligation. The prohibition on further use of SB 62-005 parts interacts with the original approval of that modification. When SB 62-005 was originally approved, it was considered an acceptable modification. The Directive retroactively withdraws that approval, requiring removal of components that were previously legally installed. This raises potential issues under contract law: if a lessor had an aircraft modified under SB 62-005 at the direction of a lessee, the lessor may have a claim against the lessee for the cost of removing those parts and replacing them with SB 62-007 parts, depending on the lease terms. There is no provision in the Directive for compensation for the loss of value of the SB 62-005 modification. The Directive also interacts with foreign civil aviation authority directives. An Australian operator flying an EC 225 LP into the jurisdiction of another CAA (such as the FAA, EASA, or CASA equivalents in other countries) must ensure compliance with that country’s ADs as well. While this CASA AD is harmonised with EASA AD 2009-0024, the FAA or other authorities may have their own ADs with different compliance dates or additional requirements. The operator must satisfy the most restrictive applicable AD for each flight. The Directive does not address interactions with workplace health and safety laws, but the requirement to remove parts and perform work at height on the main rotor hub would trigger standard OHS obligations for maintenance personnel.

The source document is Amendment 1 to AD/EC 225/6, as indicated by “Amdt 1” in the title and in the text. The Directive was originally issued as AD/EC 225/6, with the effective date on or around 9 April 2009 (the Amendment states “This Amendment becomes effective on 9 April 2009”). Amendment 1 was issued on 25 February 2009 (the date of signature by David Villiers, Delegate of CASA) and presumably came into effect on the same effective date as the original or slightly later; the text does not specify a separate effective date for the amendment versus the original. The background explains the reason for the amendment: “Amendment 1 is issued in response to a new EASA AD, which adds the requirement, in case of crack findings, to install the new main rotor hub coning stop support and dome fairing support.” The original version (prior to Amendment 1) apparently required only inspections and removal of SB 62-005 parts, but did not require the replacement with SB 62-007 parts upon finding a crack. Amendment 1 adds Requirement 2 (replacement upon crack finding) and the accompanying terminating action provision. The original AD presumably required only the repetitive inspections (Requirement 1) and the prohibition on SB 62-005 (Requirement 3 and 4), but without the replacement direction. The background also states that “some further cracks have been reported affecting the dome fairing support assemblies, in particular, but not confined to, those modified to SB No. 62-005,” suggesting that the original inspection-only approach was found insufficient because cracks continued to appear even after removal of SB 62-005 parts, or that the cracks were occurring in other support assemblies as well. The amendment therefore mandates a permanent fix (SB 62-007) rather than repetitive inspections alone. The amendment is explicitly triggered by a new EASA AD, indicating that CASA is harmonising with EASA’s updated position. The Directive does not provide any information about whether there have been further amendments after this one, but the reference to “later EASA approved revision” of the service bulletins suggests that the Directive is designed to accommodate future changes without requiring formal amendment of the AD itself. The text of the Directive is dated 25 February 2009, so it is a relatively early AD for the EC 225 LP, which entered service around 2004. No amendment history beyond this Amendment 1 is contained in the source. The Directive also incorporates by reference the EASA AD 2009-0024, which itself may have had its own amendment history, but that is not detailed here.

The source document does not mention any litigation, and there is no reference to any court proceedings or legal challenges to this Directive or to the underlying EASA AD. Airworthiness Directives in Australia are rarely the subject of direct litigation, for several reasons. First, they are typically based on technical findings of an unsafe condition, and challenging the technical basis requires expert evidence and is difficult to sustain without an alternative safety case. Second, the regulatory framework gives CASA broad discretion to issue ADs, and judicial review is limited to procedural fairness, jurisdictional error, or unreasonableness in the Wednesbury sense. The cost of mounting such a challenge against a precautionary safety measure is high and the likelihood of success low. Third, the Directive does not impose a financial penalty directly; it imposes a compliance cost, but that is not a justiciable injury in the same way as a fine. An operator who suffers economic loss from grounding could theoretically seek judicial review, but the threshold for overturning a safety-based AD is extremely high. In the broader EC 225 context, there has been litigation in other jurisdictions unrelated to this specific AD, particularly concerning the EC 225’s main rotor gearbox and the 2012 ditching of an EC 225 offshore Norway (related to gearbox issues, not coning stop supports). That litigation is not relevant to this AD and is not mentioned in the source. In Australia, there is no publicly reported litigation directly concerning AD/EC 225/6 Amdt 1. If there had been an incident or accident involving a failure of a coning stop support or dome fairing support, the coroner’s court or the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) investigation might have referenced this AD, but the source does not provide any such information. The absence of litigation history does not mean the AD is uncontroversial; it means that compliance costs have been absorbed by operators without legal challenge, or that any challenge was settled or did not reach a reported decision. The structural risk of litigation for non-compliance is more significant than the risk of litigation against the AD itself. An operator who fails to comply and experiences a failure leading to damage, injury, or death could face civil negligence claims, criminal prosecution, and regulatory enforcement. The Directive itself provides the standard of care: if an operator complies, they have a strong defence against claims that they were negligent; if they do not comply, they are likely to be found negligent per se or at least evidence of breach of duty.

Several aspects of this Directive could trap an unwary operator or maintenance organisation. The most significant is that the 15 flight hour or 7 day inspection interval applies until terminating action is accomplished, but the terminating action is replacement per SB 62-007, which itself may require parts that are not immediately available. An operator may face the situation where the helicopter must be grounded for an extended period while waiting for SB 62-007 parts, especially if the operator had previously installed SB 62-005 parts (which are now prohibited and must be removed before further flight immediately, not at the next inspection). The Directive does not provide any transition period for the removal of SB 62-005 parts. If an operator has an aircraft that was modified under SB 62-005, the aircraft cannot be flown at all after 9 April 2009 until those parts are removed and replaced per SB 62-007. This is a grounding event that may catch operators off guard if they assume they have until the next inspection interval to comply. The ferry flight provision is narrow: it only applies if the aim is to reach a location where the coning stop support assembly or dome fairing support can be replaced. It does not allow the aircraft to be operated without the dome fairing for any other purpose, and it is a one-time flight. An operator cannot use the ferry flight provision repeatedly to keep an aircraft in service while waiting for parts. The ferry flight also requires that the dome fairing and its attachment screws be removed in accordance with the Note in ASB 05A003 Revision 1, not Revision 2. This is a specific revision reference; using a different revision might not satisfy the condition. The Directive also requires that the flight crew be made aware of increased lateral vibrations between 70 and 120 KIAS, and that a copy of the Directive be placed in the Rotorcraft Flight Manual. If the operator fails to do this, the ferry flight is non-compliant. Another potential trap is that the Directive requires removal of both the coning stop support assembly and the dome fairing support when a crack is found, even if the crack is in only one of the two support assemblies. The language is clear: remove and replace both. An operator who replaces only the cracked support would be non-compliant. The Directive also states that “all components installed and/or modified in accordance EUROCOPTER EC 225 SB No. 62-005 (Modification 332A08.0929.00), are to be removed from service.” This applies even if the component has never cracked and appears serviceable. The operator cannot elect to keep the component and rely on increased inspection frequency; removal is mandatory. The Directive does not specify what documentation is required to show compliance. The operator should retain records of each inspection performed, the results (including any crack findings), and the removal and replacement of components. Without proper records, an operator may be unable to prove compliance to CASA or an auditor. The reference to “later EASA approved revision” creates a moving target: if EASA approves Revision 3 of SB 62-007, the operator must use Revision 3, even if they have already acquired stock of Revision 2 parts. The operator must also check that the revision is actually EASA approved, which may require access to EASA’s database. The Directive also does not address the cost of the replacement parts, which can be substantial for a main rotor hub assembly. The operator bears that cost without any subsidy or tax relief. Finally, the Directive does not include any provision for alternative means of compliance (AMOC) within its text, though such applications are possible under general regulations. An operator who delays or fails to comply could face enforcement action even if no failure occurs.

Compliance with this Directive involves a sequence of technical and administrative steps that should be integrated into the operator’s continuing airworthiness management system. The first step is to determine the applicability status of each EC 225 LP helicopter in the fleet. A helicopter is excepted only if it was modified during production with MOD 0743718 or if it has already had SB 62-007 incorporated (original or later EASA approved revision). Helicopters that meet this exception require no action. All other EC 225 LP helicopters are subject to the full Directive. For each subject helicopter, the operator must obtain a copy of Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin No. 05A003 Revision 2 (or any later EASA approved revision) and review the inspection procedure in paragraph 2.B.1. The operator must also obtain a copy of Eurocopter Service Bulletin No. 62-007 (original or later EASA approved revision) and the SB No. 62-005 documentation to identify which parts are affected. The operator must then perform an initial check for cracks at the attachment points of the coning stop support lugs and dome fairing support lugs, following the ASB procedure. This initial check must be performed within the earlier of 15 flight hours after the effective date (9 April 2009) or 7 days after that date. If no crack is found, the operator must then schedule repetitive inspections at intervals not exceeding 15 flight hours or 7 days, whichever occurs first. The operator must track flight hours and calendar days accurately to avoid exceeding the interval. If a crack is found in any of the five lugs of either support, the operator must ground the helicopter immediately and not fly it again until both the coning stop support assembly and the dome fairing support have been replaced in accordance with SB 62-007. This replacement constitutes terminating action, and no further repetitive inspections are required on that helicopter. Separately, the operator must identify any helicopter that has been modified under SB 62-005 (MOD 332A08.0929.00). Such helicopters cannot be flown at all after the effective date unless and until those SB 62-005 components are removed and replaced per SB 62-007. This applies even if the helicopter has no cracks. If the operator determines that a helicopter requires replacement but is located at a site where the replacement cannot be performed, the operator may conduct a single ferry flight to a suitable maintenance location. The ferry flight must be conducted without the dome fairing, with the fairing and its attachment screws removed per the Note in ASB 05A003 Revision 1. The flight crew must be briefed about the increased lateral vibrations at 70-120 KIAS, and a copy of the Directive must be inserted into the Normal Procedures section of the Rotorcraft Flight Manual for that flight only. After the ferry flight, the RFM must be restored. The operator must document each inspection, any crack findings, and the removal and replacement of all components. Records must be retained in the aircraft maintenance log or continuing airworthiness record system. The operator should also verify that any SB 62-005 parts removed are clearly identified as not for further use and are disposed of or quarantined to prevent reinstallation. If the operator wishes to use a later EASA approved revision of the SBs, they must confirm that the revision is actually EASA approved (by checking the EASA website or a recognised data provider) and update their procedures accordingly. For any portion of the work performed by a third-party maintenance organisation, the operator must ensure that the organisation holds the appropriate CASA approvals and that the work order clearly references AD/EC 225/6 Amdt 1. Finally, the operator should consider the economic impact: if the helicopter is grounded for parts waiting, the operator may need to source SB 62-007 parts quickly, possibly from overseas, and may need to adjust flight schedules or lease a replacement aircraft. The operator should also review insurance policies to ensure compliance is maintained to avoid coverage gaps.