AD/ECUREUIL/125 - Main and Tail Rotors - Servo Controls

The AD rests on a few tightly defined technical and regulatory concepts.

• Applicability by configuration and markings: The AD applies to Eurocopter AS 350B3 and EC 130B4 helicopters that are fitted with GOODRICH servo-controls that do not have the letter "R" marked in the inspection box of the servo-control identification plate, and whose P/N and S/N are listed in the referenced Eurocopter ASBs (Applicability). The absence of the "R" marking on the inspection box is an explicit identification criterion in the AD text.

• Part and serial number locus for action: Conformity and non-conformity are determined by whether a servo-control’s P/N and S/N appear in paragraph 1.A of the Eurocopter ASBs AS 350 No. 67.00.40 and EC 130 No. 67A010 (Requirement and Applicability). The AD therefore delegates the technical identification of affected units to the manufacturer’s ASBs and the specific list contained at paragraph 1.A of those ASBs.

• Actions required: Three discrete actions are mandated: (1) check identification of P/N and S/N on installed units and on the shelves listed in a separate Eurocopter ASB (AS 332 No. 67.00.37); (2) remove from service any servo-controls identified by the listed P/N and S/N; and (3) do not install servo-controls with those P/N and S/N unless they have been returned to conformity under the ASB procedure (Requirement).

• Timed compliance: The AD specifies three temporal requirements tied to the actions: the identification check must occur within two months of the AD’s effective date; removal from service must be completed within two years; and the prohibition on installation is immediate from the AD’s effective date (Compliance).

• Manufacturer remedies and "return to conformity": The AD does not prescribe a separate technical fix in its own text. Instead, it relies on the Eurocopter ASBs to define the steps for returning an identified servo-control to conformity (Requirement: "unless they have returned to conformity as detailed in Eurocopter ASB ... or later approved revisions").

• Cross-reference to foreign regulator and continuity: The AD includes a note referencing EASA AD 2007-0099 dated 11 April 2007, making the CASA AD part of an international safety-control chain rather than an isolated domestic action.

These concepts produce a regulatory mechanism in which CASA compels specific inspections, removals and a prohibition on installation, while technical delisting/requalification is performed via Eurocopter ASBs. The AD therefore combines direct regulatory commands (do not install; remove from service; inspect) with delegated technical detail (the precise lists and the "return to conformity" procedure) residing in manufacturer and EASA documents that are expressly adopted by reference.

The AD affects discrete groups and activities; the text defines them by aircraft model, fitted equipment, and stock location.

• Aircraft owners and operators of Eurocopter AS 350B3 and EC 130B4 helicopters: Operators running those helicopter types with GOODRICH main and tail rotor servo-controls that lack the letter "R" in the inspection box and whose P/N and S/N are listed in the referenced Eurocopter ASBs are expressly within the AD’s scope (Applicability and Requirement). The AD therefore targets all operators of those types who have the affected servo-controls installed.

• Maintenance organisations and engineers: The Requirement that inspections be performed "on helicopters and on the shelves listed in paragraph 1.A of Eurocopter ASB AS 332 No. 67.00.37" brings into scope maintenance providers, avionics workshops, and spare parts stores that hold affected servo-controls. The AD’s removal-from-service and do-not-install instructions impose tasks and decision points on whoever is responsible for parts management and installation.

• Parts suppliers, spares custodians and logistics personnel: The AD explicitly reaches beyond installed units to parts inventory ("shelves") referenced in a manufacturer ASB. That means suppliers and parts custodians who hold stocks of GOODRICH servo-controls that match the listed P/N and S/N have to carry out identification checks and either quarantine/remove affected units or follow the ASB return-to-conformity process before making them available for sale or installation.

• Manufacturers and technical services: Eurocopter and GOODRICH are implicated as the technical sources for remediation. The AD requires reliance on Eurocopter ASBs, which are the documents that set out the return-to-conformity procedures. The AD’s Note also tracks with EASA’s actions, drawing in European regulator processes.

• Regulatory/compliance staff in operator organisations: The compliance deadlines (two months for identification checks, two years for removal) create compliance management obligations. Responsibility for meeting those timelines will sit with the certificate holder,operator or maintenance organisation,under the AD.

• Airworthiness authorities and their delegates: CASA issued the AD and the document is signed by a CASA delegate (David Punshon). The AD thus affects regulator processes because CASA will expect compliance; the text does not set out enforcement sanctions but is issued as an AD, which functionally is a mandatory airworthiness instrument.

Who pays: The AD’s text places action duties on operators, maintainers and spares custodians. While it does not state financial responsibility explicitly, the actions required,inspection, removal from service, and remediation by return-to-conformity,impose direct costs (labour, downtime, replacement parts, logistics). Those costs will be borne by whoever owns or controls the affected helicopters and parts inventories at the time (operators, leases, spares holders). The AD itself does not include cost figures or compensation mechanisms.

Geographic and regulatory reach: The AD applies in Australia by its issuance by CASA; it also expressly refers to an EASA AD, showing alignment with international airworthiness controls. The AD’s reach for parts on shelves suggests that both in-service and spare-stock locations within CASA’s jurisdiction are subject to the checks.

The AD sets out a small number of affirmative duties and a negative duty.

Affirmative duties (what must be done)

• Identification check: Operators and parts holders must "Check for identification of the P/N and S/N of the servo-controls installed on helicopters and on the shelves listed in paragraph 1.A of Eurocopter ASB AS 332 No. 67.00.37 or later approved revisions" (Requirement 1). This is a duty to inspect both installed servo-controls and specified part inventories against the P/N/S/N list in the Eurocopter ASBs.

• Removal from service: There is an express duty to "Remove from service those servo-controls identified as having P/N and S/N listed in paragraph 1.A of Eurocopter ASB AS 350 No. 67.00.40 and ASB No. 67A010 as applicable, or later approved revisions" (Requirement 2). That duty is to take affected units out of service within the compliance timeframe.

• Follow ASB conformity processes: Units may only be reintroduced if they "have returned to conformity as detailed in Eurocopter ASB AS 350 No. 67.00.40 and ASB EC 130 No. 67A010 as applicable, or later approved revisions" (Requirement 3). This assigns the technical method for remediation to the manufacturer’s ASB procedures.

Negative duty (what must not be done)

• Do not install: From the effective date of the AD, the installation of servo-controls with the listed P/N and S/N is prohibited unless they have been returned to conformity per the ASB (Requirement 3; Compliance 3). This is an absolute prohibition enforced from the AD’s effective date.

Timing obligations and sequencing

• The AD sets a short-term identification deadline (within two months) and a longer removal deadline (within two years). The prohibition on installation is immediate from the AD’s effective date. Operators therefore must prioritise identification and immediate prevention of installation while allowing more time for systematic removal from service.

Delegation of technical detail

• The AD delegates the technical specifics of affected parts and the steps needed to "return to conformity" to Eurocopter ASBs and any later approved revisions. The AD requires compliance with those ASBs, making adherence to the manufacturer’s revision process part of the duty.

Rights and operational considerations

• Right to follow the ASB return-to-conformity: The AD permits re-use provided the ASB’s conformity procedure has been followed and the servo-control is returned to conformity. The AD thus allows a pathway to restore parts to service under the manufacturer-prescribed correction.

• No express rights of appeal or exemptions: The AD text does not include an express procedure for seeking exemptions, extensions, or appeals against the AD measures. It does, however, reference "or later approved revisions" of the ASBs, leaving room for revised technical guidance as approved by the relevant authority.

Recordkeeping and reporting obligations are not stated in the AD text. The AD does not specify explicit documentation or notification requirements (for example, reporting removal to CASA). Consequently, any recordkeeping or reporting burdens will arise either from standard operator regulation outside this AD or from the ASB instructions themselves; the AD text requires the actions but does not specify documentation format, audit trail or notification steps.

The AD is an instrument issued by CASA and signed by a CASA delegate (David Punshon). It becomes "effective on 7 June 2007." The text of the AD mandates actions and compliance timeframes, but it does not specify particular civil or criminal penalties, administrative sanctions, or the enforcement procedures that CASA will employ in the event of non-compliance.

What the AD does state about enforcement and remedy mechanisms

• The AD prescribes mandatory actions (inspect, remove, do not install) and ties the technical remedy to Eurocopter ASBs and the EASA AD. The legal force of an AD is to create airworthiness obligations; however, this specific AD text does not include a penalties clause or an enforcement process. There is no reference to fixed fines, suspension of certificates, or civil proceedings in the body of this AD document.

What is absent from the AD text

• No specific penalty schedule: The AD does not set out monetary fines, penalty points or a graduated enforcement model within its own text.

• No administrative procedure for exemptions or extensions: The AD does not provide an internal mechanism for seeking extensions or alternative compliance on the face of the AD; nor does it state which authority must approve "later approved revisions" of the ASBs (although impliedly that is the appropriate regulatory/airworthiness authority).

• No reporting/recordkeeping enforcement instructions: The AD does not require filing of compliance reports with CASA, nor does it specify required retention periods for inspection records. It does not state whether CASA will audit or inspect compliance actions.

Consequences and practical enforcement implications (text-grounded)

• Mandatory nature: By its format and phrasing (Requirement/Compliance), the AD places clear mandates on operators and parts holders. Even without an explicit penalty clause, the AD’s requirements will form part of the airworthiness obligations that CASA expects operators to meet.

• Reliance on CASA oversight and standard regulatory tools: Because the AD itself is silent on penalties, enforcement in practice would rely on CASA’s broader regulatory powers and administrative processes outside this AD document. The AD provides the substantive obligation; CASA’s standard oversight, certificate enforcement, and safety investigation powers would be the likely practical enforcement avenues, though they are not described in this AD’s text.

• Risk to operators of non-compliance: The safety risk described in the Background (possible untimely servo movements and loss of helicopter control) implies significant operational consequences for failure to comply. The AD sets the technical and temporal obligations but leaves the enforcement mechanics to CASA’s general administrative framework rather than to the AD itself.

In short, this AD imposes mandatory duties and deadlines but does not itself set out penalties or an enforcement protocol within its text. The document instead functions as a binding technical instruction anchored to Eurocopter ASBs and an EASA AD, with the presumption that CASA will enforce compliance through its ordinary regulatory powers where necessary.

The AD does not recite a list of statutes or regulations it amends; instead it operates as a mandatory airworthiness instrument that cross-references manufacturer service bulletins and a foreign regulator’s AD. The AD’s interaction with other legal instruments is therefore procedural and documentary rather than legislative.

Direct interactions the AD establishes

• Manufacturer service bulletins adopted as compliance instruments: The AD requires action "as detailed in Eurocopter ASB AS 350 No. 67.00.40 and ASB EC 130 No. 67A010 as applicable, or later approved revisions" (Requirement). Those ASBs set out the technical lists (paragraph 1.A) and the procedures for returning servo-controls to conformity. By commanding operators to comply with the ASBs, the AD folds manufacturer technical guidance into the regulatory obligation. The AD therefore interacts with and effectively enforces the content of those Eurocopter ASBs to the extent they are adopted by the AD.

• Cross-reference to a different Eurocopter ASB for shelf inventories: The AD requires checking shelves "listed in paragraph 1.A of Eurocopter ASB AS 332 No. 67.00.37 or later approved revisions" (Requirement). This creates a link between this AD and a different Eurocopter ASB, producing a chain of documents operators must consult to meet the AD. The AD thus interacts with multiple ASBs in the manufacturer documentation set.

• Reference to EASA AD: The Note at the end of the Requirement section states "EASA AD 2007-0099 dated 11 April 2007 refers." That reference creates an interaction with the European Aviation Safety Agency’s regulatory instruments. For operators that operate internationally or that are subject to EASA oversight in other jurisdictions, that cross-reference aligns CASA’s AD with EASA’s action and compels reciprocal consideration of the EASA AD’s content.

What the AD does not do (and therefore how it does not interact)

• The AD does not purport to amend or repeal any Australian statute or Civil Aviation Regulation in its text. It is an operational airworthiness directive, not primary legislation.

• It does not set out exemptions, alternative means of compliance, or procedures for seeking variations within the AD text itself. Any such processes would be governed by CASA’s general regulatory framework, not by this AD.

• The AD does not reference other Australian instrument provisions (for example, Civil Aviation Safety Regulations or Civil Aviation Orders) nor does it quote national offences, penalties, or administrative enforcement provisions. Therefore the AD’s legal interactions with those instruments are implicit rather than explicit in the AD text.

Practical interaction effects

• The AD requires that operators follow the manufacturer ASBs "or later approved revisions," so any subsequent amendments to those ASBs that CASA or another approving authority approves will change the technical compliance pathway. That provides a mechanism for dynamic interaction between the AD and later technical or regulatory approvals.

• For supply-chain participants and parts custodians, the AD integrates manufacturer lists and EASA direction into CASA’s airworthiness regime. The result is a practical multi-jurisdictional compliance landscape for affected parts and helicopters where operators must consult CASA AD, Eurocopter ASBs, and EASA AD material to ensure full compliance.

In sum, the AD operates by adopting and enforcing manufacturer and EASA technical documents rather than by altering primary legislation; it therefore interacts with those documents and with CASA’s general enforcement apparatus, but it does not itself set out the broader legal enforcement mechanisms or amend statutory provisions in its text.

The AD document contains specific dates and references which form its amendment record and provenance, but it does not include a history of amendments or prior AD versions within its text.

Key dated items and references in the AD

• Issue and signature date: The document contains a signature block dated 26 April 2007 and signed by David Punshon, Delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. That indicates the AD was prepared and authorised by CASA personnel on that date.

• Effective date: The AD contains the explicit statement, "This Airworthiness Directive becomes effective on 7 June 2007." That is the operative commencement date for the compliance times set out in the AD (Compliance).

• EASA AD cross-reference date: The AD’s Note refers to "EASA AD 2007-0099 dated 11 April 2007." The AD therefore references an EASA instrument issued approximately a month earlier than the CASA effective date. That cross-reference is the only external AD history item explicitly cited.

• AD numbering and header: The AD is numbered AD/ECUREUIL/125 and dated 6/2007 in the header blocks. The repeated headers "AD/ECUREUIL/125", "Main and Tail Rotors - Servo Controls", and "6/2007" establish its identifier within CASA’s AD catalogue.

Amendment mechanisms referenced

• "or later approved revisions": The AD repeatedly permits compliance with "later approved revisions" of the Eurocopter ASBs it cites. That language provides an explicit mechanism by which later amendments to the manufacturer ASBs (once approved by the relevant authority) will be incorporated into the AD’s compliance route without the need for immediate amendment of the AD text itself.

What the AD does not contain about amendment history

• The AD includes no in-text record of prior versions, supersessions, or amendments to this AD. There is no note of revocation or replacement of older ADs in the document.

• There is no log of subsequent amendments. After the effective date, any amendments, revocations or superseding ADs would need to be recorded in CASA’s external AD database or subsequent bulletins; such actions are not narrated in this document.

Implication for users

• Operators must treat the AD and the ASBs it references as potentially dynamic: the AD accepts later approved revisions of the specified Eurocopter ASBs as compliant pathways. Therefore monitoring for ASB revisions and related EASA or CASA updates is necessary to maintain current compliance.

• The AD’s stated effective date and its reference to the EASA AD provide a clear provenance for when the obligations crystallised and which external documents were in effect at that time. Any subsequent changes to technical guidance will be via the "later approved revisions" route, rather than by retroactive amendment in the AD text itself.

The AD document contains no information about litigation, challenges, judicial review, or adjudication arising from its issuance. There are no cases, disputes, or contested enforcement actions referenced in the text. The AD’s body and signature page are silent on any legal proceedings, appeals, or interpretations related to this particular instrument.

What is present and relevant to litigation considerations

• The AD is an enforceable airworthiness instrument issued by CASA and signed by its delegate. As an enforceable instrument, it could in theory be the subject of compliance inquiries, administrative enforcement, or judicial review under applicable administrative and aviation law frameworks, but the AD itself contains no record of such proceedings.

• The AD cross-references EASA AD 2007-0099 and Eurocopter ASBs. If litigation were to arise over compliance, technical conformity, or causation of incidents, the linked EASA AD and Eurocopter ASBs would likely be central technical references. The AD’s text, however, does not refer to any prior litigation that shaped its content.

Absence of litigation history in the AD text

• There are no recorded challenges to the AD in the document. There are no references to prior enforcement actions or to disputes concerning the supplier GOODRICH, the servo-control cap P/N 800137, or the Eurocopter/GOODRICH manufacturing non-conformity.

Practical note for researchers and practitioners

• Any litigation history that exists outside of this AD will not be found in the AD text. To establish whether litigation or regulatory enforcement occurred in relation to the events or parts described, researchers will need to consult external sources: CASA enforcement records, court files, tribunal records, operator incident reports, and industry publications. Those sources are not included within this AD text.

• From the AD alone practitioners should assume there is no adjudicated case law recorded here; the AD is a single regulatory instrument setting out obligations and technical cross-references rather than a document summarising litigation outcomes.

This AD appears concise, but its wording and cross-references contain several practical pitfalls that operators, maintainers, suppliers, and in-house counsel should note. Each of the following items is grounded in the AD text.

1. Applicability depends on inspection plate marking and a third-party list

• The AD applies only to servo-controls "without the letter ‘R’ marked in the inspection box of the servo-control identification plate, and whose Part Number (P/N) and Serial Number (S/N) are listed in paragraph 1.A of Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) AS 350 No. 67.00.40 and ASB EC130 No. 67A010 as applicable" (Applicability). Practically, this means that a unit that physically appears identical may or may not be affected depending on a small marking and whether its P/N/S/N is in the ASB list. Operators must therefore consult the ASB paragraph 1.A and inspect the plate carefully; failure to do so risks misclassifying parts.

2. Stocks/shelves are targeted by cross-reference to a different ASB

• The AD requires checks "on the shelves listed in paragraph 1.A of Eurocopter ASB AS 332 No. 67.00.37" (Requirement). That introduces a second ASB into the compliance matrix. Inspecting installed items alone is not sufficient; an operator must identify which shelves/stock lists are referenced in AS 332 No. 67.00.37. If an operator overlooks this cross-reference, spare parts in inventory may remain uninspected and could be wrongly installed in future.

3. Staggered compliance dates create sequencing risk

• The AD sets three timeframes: identification within 2 months, removal within 2 years, and an immediate prohibition on installation (Compliance). The immediate "do not install" requirement means that, even if removal can be deferred up to two years, any affected spare that remains in inventory cannot be fitted from the effective date. Organisations that do not isolate inventory or revise supply chains immediately risk accidental installations.

4. Return-to-conformity path is by reference only

• The AD permits reinstallation only if the servo-control "has returned to conformity as detailed in Eurocopter ASB ... or later approved revisions" (Requirement). The AD does not itself set technical criteria, so compliance hinges on following the ASB procedure and ensuring any required approvals are obtained. Operators who assume that physical inspection alone suffices will be non-compliant if the ASB specifies repair, modification or testing steps.

5. "Later approved revisions" requires active monitoring

• The AD explicitly allows compliance with "later approved revisions" of the quoted ASBs. That means operators must monitor for ASB revisions and for which authority has "approved" them. Failure to use the correct ASB revision that an authority has approved may produce confusion on permitted remedial actions.

6. The AD does not spell out documentation or reporting

• The AD mandates actions but does not require operators to notify CASA, submit compliance reports, or maintain a specified records trail. Operators should not assume that the absence of reporting obligations reduces risk: standard airworthiness practice commonly requires records of parts removal and repair; the AD’s silence does not negate those other obligations.

7. Narrow parts identification language

• The AD references a defective servo-control cap P/N 800137 in the Background. However, the operative text defines affected items by the complete P/N and S/N list in paragraph 1.A of the specified ASBs. Practically, do not rely on the Background alone to identify affected components; follow the ASB list as the source of truth per the AD.

8. Jurisdictional alignment with EASA AD

• The AD's Note references EASA AD 2007-0099 dated 11 April 2007. If an operator operates under multiple jurisdictions or leases parts internationally, they must reconcile EASA and CASA obligations and ensure that conforming actions meet the approval criteria of the relevant authority.

9. Potential typographical or reference confusion

• The AD text references "Eurocopter ASB AS 332 No. 67.00.37" for shelf listings. Operators should treat these references carefully and verify the correct ASB document and paragraph 1.A content with Eurocopter, rather than assuming phrasing is error-free.

10. Unspecified enforcement measures and records

• Because the AD does not specify penalties or monitoring, operators may be uncertain how CASA will verify compliance. Practically, this creates an operational risk: operators should assume CASA expects strict adherence and should document their compliance steps even though the AD does not mandate specific reporting.

In short, the small set of mandatory tasks (inspect, remove, do not install) sits within a web of cross-referenced ASBs and an EASA AD. The principal practical gotchas are (a) reliance on correct plate markings and ASB paragraph lists for identification, (b) the need to inspect both installed units and specified shelf inventories, (c) immediate prohibition on installation despite staggered removal deadlines, and (d) dependence on later-approved ASB revisions for remediation , all of which require active management and clear recordkeeping.

The AD sets out a clear, textually specified compliance pathway. The following steps implement the AD’s mandatory elements in the order and timing the AD itself prescribes. Each step is derived directly from the AD text and the cross-referenced ASBs that the AD adopts as the technical standard.

1. Determine applicability (immediate)

• Identify whether your organisation operates Eurocopter AS 350B3 or EC 130B4 helicopters fitted with GOODRICH main and tail rotor servo-controls. Then, inspect each servo-control’s identification plate to confirm whether the letter "R" is present in the inspection box. The AD applies to units "without the letter 'R' marked" and whose P/N and S/N are listed in paragraph 1.A of the Eurocopter ASBs cited (Applicability).

2. Obtain and consult the referenced Eurocopter ASBs and the EASA AD (immediate)

• Secure copies of Eurocopter ASB AS 350 No. 67.00.40 and ASB EC 130 No. 67A010, specifically paragraph 1.A where the P/N and S/N lists are located, and Eurocopter ASB AS 332 No. 67.00.37 (for shelf listings). Also obtain EASA AD 2007-0099 (referenced in the Note) to see the corresponding foreign-regulator instructions. The AD allows compliance with "later approved revisions" of those ASBs, so obtain the currently approved revisions.

3. Conduct identification checks within two months of the AD effective date

• Per the Compliance section, perform the identification checks prescribed in Requirement 1 "within 2 months from the effective date of this AD." That means comparing installed servo-control P/Ns and S/Ns, and the parts on the shelves listed in the AS 332 ASB paragraph 1.A, against the paragraph 1.A lists in the AS 350/EC 130 ASBs.

4. Quarantine and document affected units immediately

• Any servo-control identified as having a P/N and S/N listed in paragraph 1.A should be physically quarantined to prevent accidental installation. Keep records showing identification details (P/N, S/N, location), date inspected, and the action taken. The AD does not require a particular record format, but documentation will be needed to demonstrate compliance during audits or reviews.

5. Stop installation immediately from the effective date

• Do not install any servo-control with the listed P/N and S/N from the AD’s effective date (Requirement 3; Compliance 3). Even if removal from service can be delayed until the two-year deadline, installation is prohibited from 7 June 2007 onward unless the unit has been returned to conformity under the ASB procedure.

6. Plan and execute removal from service within two years

• Requirement 2 requires removal "within 2 years from the effective date of this AD." Create a removal schedule that minimises operational disruption and mitigates safety risk. Coordinate maintenance slots, replacement parts and logistics to ensure units are removed safely within the AD’s timeframe.

7. Follow the Eurocopter ASB return-to-conformity procedures before reinstallation

• If a servo-control is to be returned to service, it must have "returned to conformity as detailed in Eurocopter ASB AS 350 No. 67.00.40 and ASB EC 130 No. 67A010 as applicable, or later approved revisions" (Requirement 3). Ensure that any repairs, modifications, testing, or approvals required by the ASB are completed and that documentary evidence of conformity is retained.

8. Coordinate with parts custodians and suppliers

• Notify spare parts custodians, suppliers, and logistics teams of the prohibition on installation and the need to inspect shelf inventories referenced in AS 332 No. 67.00.37. Parts supply chains should be adjusted to prevent inadvertent sale or use of affected parts.

9. Integrate compliance into the organisation’s airworthiness management system

• Although the AD itself does not mandate specific recordkeeping, integrate the AD actions into your existing maintenance control processes and airworthiness records. Retain inspection and removal records, ASB conformity evidence, and any communications with Eurocopter or CASA. Treat the AD tasks as part of continuing airworthiness obligations.

10. Monitor for ASB revisions and regulatory updates

• The AD permits compliance with "later approved revisions" of the referenced ASBs. That requires ongoing monitoring for new ASB versions or EASA/CASA updates that alter technical remediation steps. Update internal procedures in response to any such approved revisions.

11. Seek clarifications if necessary

• If the cross-references or ASB paragraphs are unclear (for example, shelf lists in AS 332 No. 67.00.37), contact Eurocopter or CASA for clarification. The AD’s text relies on those documents for identification lists and corrective steps, so confirm authoritative references if there is any ambiguity.

12. Treat safety risk as immediate

• The AD’s Background identifies the safety hazard: a defective servo-control cap P/N 800137 may allow the distributor sleeve to continue rotating, causing untimely servo-control movements and possible loss of helicopter control. Prioritise measures that prevent installation and that mitigate in-service risk, such as operational restrictions where appropriate until affected items are identified and managed.

By following these steps operators will satisfy the explicit obligations in the AD: conducting the P/N/S/N checks within two months, removing affected units within two years, and observing the immediate prohibition on installation unless a unit has been restored to conformity per the Eurocopter ASBs. All remediation and return-to-service activity must conform to the technical procedures set out in the Eurocopter ASBs (or later approved revisions) referenced in the AD.