AD/ECUREUIL/71 Amdt 4 - Tail Rotor Blade Trailing Edge

The Directive organises its technical control around a small set of concepts: applicability by airframe model and part number, mandated inspection criteria, required repair methods, installation prohibition, and recording/maintenance-release obligations. Each is stated with reference to Eurocopter documentation and Repair Sheets.

Applicability is precise and part-number dependent. The AD applies to Model AS 350 helicopters (versions B, BA, BB, B1, B2, B3 and D) fitted with tail rotor blades having part numbers enumerated in the source: 355A12-0031-01, -02, -03, -04, -05, -06, -07, -08, -09, -11, -12, -13, -14; 355A12-0040-00, -01, -02, -03, -04, -05, -07, -08; and 355A12-0050-00, -01, -02, -03, -04, -05. The Directive does not extend to other part numbers.

Inspection protocol. Requirement 1 directs a visual inspection of tail rotor blades "in accordance with paragraph 2.B.1. of Eurocopter AS 350 Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. 05.00.40 Revision 2, or later EASA approved revision." The Directive then provides an operational cadence under Compliance: at each ALF check, and in any case not exceeding 10 flight hours between successive checks. The inspection target is the tail rotor blade trailing edge, the component implicated by reported crack growth.

Repair protocol. Requirement 2 specifies that Repair Sheet FR CN 376 or FR CN 453 must be accomplished on certain 355A12-0050-00-series blades with serial numbers listed in paragraph 2.B.2.a. of ASB No. 05.00.40 Revision 3, or later EASA approved revision, and on blades with serial numbers below 8419 for which a specific annotation ("repaired as per Work Card 64.10.00.872" or "repaired as per Work Card 64.10.20.712") is recorded on the log card.

Installation prohibition. Requirement 3 prohibits installation of any tail rotor blade bearing a part number listed in the applicability section "unless they have been inspected and repaired, as necessary, in accordance with paragraph 2.B.1 of ASB No. 05.00.40 Revision 3, or later EASA approved revision." This locks future installation of affected spares to an inspection-and-repair precondition.

Record and maintenance-release effect. The Directive must be entered on the Maintenance Release as "maintenance required." The Directive also permits task delegation: a Pilot in Command, if trained by an appropriately qualified person, may perform and certify the required visual inspection; in that event, the pilot must carry a copy of the Requirement document and the Directive in the aircraft.

Reference relations. The AD cross-references European material: it cites Eurocopter ASB No. 05.00.40 (Revisions 2 and 3) and refers to EASA AD 2007-0138R2. The Background summarises the safety incident and the technical justification for amendments made through Amendment 1 to 4, specifying which changes each Amendment introduced (e.g., Amendment 2 addressed maintenance for blades repaired per FR CN 376; Amendment 3 added FR CN 453).

Operators and owners of Eurocopter AS 350 helicopters in the specified versions who possess or install the listed tail rotor blade part numbers are directly affected. The AD names the class of aircraft (AS 350, versions B, BA, BB, B1, B2, B3 and D) and enumerates the precise part numbers subject to inspection, repair and installation controls. Those elemental facts determine the set of materially impacted parties.

Specifically affected groups include:

• Aircraft operators (commercial, corporate, private) that fly AS 350 models listed. They carry the direct operational burden: implementing inspections at ALF checks, ensuring repairs (Repair Sheet FR CN 376 or FR CN 453 where applicable) are completed, and avoiding installation of non-compliant blades.

• Maintenance organisations and maintenance personnel. The AD requires repairs as per named Repair Sheets and ASB procedures. Maintenance providers are required to accomplish those repairs in accordance with the specified repair documentation. The Directive also mandates that it be entered on the Maintenance Release, which is typically controlled by maintenance organisations subject to regulation and quality systems.

• Pilots serving as Pilot in Command who are trained to conduct the specified visual inspection. The Directive permits a trained PIC to perform the visual inspection and certify it, shifting some inspection activity from mechanics to trained pilots in certain circumstances. Where this occurs, the pilot must carry the Requirement document and the Directive in the aircraft.

• Parts suppliers and inventories. The prohibition against installing any listed part number unless inspected and, if necessary, repaired (Requirement 3) affects logistics and parts handling. Stock of spare blades bearing an applicable part number will need to be inspected and possibly repaired before fitting. The Directive does not name specific repair stations or limit who may perform the repair, but its repair references to FR CN repair sheets and the ASB will influence repair practices and acceptance criteria.

• Regulatory and oversight bodies. Although not spelled out in sanctions, the Directive is issued by CASA's delegate and hence alters the airworthiness obligations that CASA-enforced operators and maintenance organisations must follow, including maintenance-release entries and compliance reporting.

• Record-keeping systems. Because compliance must be entered on the Maintenance Release and the ASB requires serial-number-based checks, operators’ logbooks, maintenance records and traceability for parts will be implicated. The Directive specifically draws attention to log-card annotations for certain previous repairs ("repaired as per Work Card 64.10.00.872" or "repaired as per Work Card 64.10.20.712") when determining whether prior repairs meet the requirement.

Diffuse affected parties include passengers indirectly exposed to operational disruptions where aircraft are grounded for inspections or repairs and insurers who underwrite operators. The Directive itself does not quantify these secondary impacts, but it establishes compliance obligations that can generate aircraft downtime and maintenance workload.

The Directive sets out several mandatory duties for operators, maintainers and, in a limited, conditional way, pilots. It also confers a specific conditional right for a Pilot in Command to perform and certify an inspection.

Primary duties

• Visual inspection duty. Requirement 1 imposes an ongoing duty to visually inspect the tail rotor blades in accordance with paragraph 2.B.1 of ASB No. 05.00.40 Revision 2, or a later EASA-approved revision. The Compliance section clarifies inspection frequency: at each ALF check and in any event not exceeding 10 flight hours between checks. This is a repetitive and operational duty attaching to aircraft fitted with the listed parts.

• Repair duty. Requirement 2 compels accomplishment of Repair Sheet FR CN 376 or FR CN 453 on tail rotor blades part number 355A12-0050-00 through -05 having the serial numbers listed in paragraph 2.B.2.a. of ASB No. 05.00.40 Revision 3, and on blades with serial numbers below 8419 where the log card records specified work-card annotations. That is a repair obligation tied to part-number and serial-number criteria.

• Installation prohibition. Requirement 3 prohibits the installation of tail rotor blades bearing the listed part numbers on any Model AS 350 helicopter unless they have been inspected and repaired as necessary in accordance with paragraph 2.B.1 of ASB No. 05.00.40 Revision 3, or later EASA approved revision. This creates a pre-installation compliance duty affecting spares management.

• Record-entry duty. The Directive mandates that the AD be entered on the Maintenance Release as "maintenance required." That requires an administrative act to record the directive in the aircraft's maintenance documentation.

Conditional right and limitation

• PIC inspection and certification right. The Directive expressly allows the required visual inspection to be performed and certified by a Pilot in Command, but only if the pilot "has been trained to do the inspection by an appropriately qualified person." If the pilot undertakes and certifies the inspection, they must carry a copy of the Requirement document and the Directive in the aircraft. This provides a narrowly defined right to substitute a trained PIC for maintenance personnel in performing the recurring visual inspection, subject to a training precondition and a documentation carriage obligation.

Temporal duties

• Time for repairs. The Compliance section sets specific timing for the duties: the ALF inspection repetition requirement and the repair compliance deadlines. For Requirement 2 the temporal instruction reads "No later than 31 March 2009, unless already accomplished." Requirement 3's installation prohibition applies "as of the effective date of this Directive." The Directive itself became effective on 9 April 2009. The text also states that "The compliance times remain unchanged by this issue of the Directive."

Rights not created or specified

• The Directive does not expressly create any approval rights for specific repair organisations, nor does it grant exemptions or alternative compliance paths within the text provided. It accepts that "Previous accomplishment of FR CN 376 on tail rotor blades in accordance with ASB No. 05.00.40 Revision 2 is considered compliant with Requirements 2 and 3," which is an administrative equivalence rule for certain prior work.

Accountability and documentation

• Certification. Where a pilot performs the inspection, they are required to both perform and certify it and to carry the relevant documents in the aircraft. Maintenance organisations, by contrast, will be expected to enter the Directive on the Maintenance Release and to document repairs in accordance with the named Repair Sheets and ASB.

The net effect is a set of operative duties focused on inspection at high cadence, targeted repair of identified serial-numbered parts, and a preventive installation control, together creating administrative recording obligations and a narrowly circumscribed substitution right for trained PICs.

The Directive text itself does not set out specific civil or criminal penalties for non‑compliance. The document is an AD issued under CASA authority and is signed by the CASA delegate; it therefore operates as a mandatory airworthiness requirement for the applicable aircraft. Within the text provided, enforcement detail is limited to administrative obligations and effective dates rather than explicit sanction provisions.

Express enforcement-related content in the text

• Entry on Maintenance Release. The Directive requires the AD to be "entered on the Maintenance Release as maintenance required." That instruction creates an administrative record that signals to regulators and auditors that the AD applies to the aircraft and that compliance actions should be traceable in maintenance documentation. This record-entry requirement is an operational enforcement mechanism because maintenance release records form part of the regulated airworthiness oversight regime.

• Effective date and compliance schedules. The Directive establishes the timing for compliance (inspections at each ALF check and not exceeding 10 flight hours, repairs by specified deadlines, and installation prohibition from the effective date). These temporal obligations create discrete points against which an inspector or regulator may assess compliance.

Omissions and inference limits

• No specific sanctions. The Directive’s text does not set out fines, licence suspensions, or criminal penalties for non-compliance. The absence of explicit sanctions in the document does not equate to absence of enforcement powers elsewhere; CASA and other regulatory instruments typically have enforcement mechanisms under broader aviation legislation and regulations. The Directive itself, however, leaves those enforcement mechanisms outside its text.

• Presumption of CASA oversight. The AD is signed by "David Punshon, Delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority" and the Background references the DGAC and EASA ADs. The issuance by CASA’s delegate implies that CASA is the relevant enforcing authority, but the Directive does not itself describe how CASA will detect non-compliance, the administrative processes for enforcement, or appeal/remedy mechanisms connected to CASA decisions. Those mechanisms, if present, are not recorded in this Directive.

Operational enforcement risks and practical consequences

• Operational grounding. While the Directive does not say so, the maintenance-release entry and the installation prohibition create a practical constraint on operating an aircraft with non-compliant blades or installing such parts without prior inspection and repair. Regulators or certificated maintenance organisations reviewing records would see non-entry or lack of required repairs as a deficiency; the Directive embeds a documentation-based enforcement hook.

• Liability and insurance considerations. The Directive indicates that a structural failure (trailing edge section separation leading to unbalance and potential gearbox separation) is the hazard addressed. Failure to follow the Directive could influence civil liability in the event of an incident, though this consequence arises from general tort and statutory regimes rather than from a penalty stated in the Directive itself. The Directive does not address insurance or contractual consequences; those are external to the AD text.

In short, the Directive imposes mandatory technical and record-keeping obligations but does not elaborate penalties within its own text; enforcement and sanctions are to be understood against the background of CASA’s regulatory remit and associated aviation statutes and administrative processes that are not reproduced in this document.

The Directive explicitly cross-references European and manufacturer documentation and establishes an administrative interaction with maintenance release procedures; however, it does not attempt a comprehensive mapping to all other Australian statutes or regulations. From the text, two primary cross-references and interactions emerge.

Interaction with manufacturer and EASA material

• Eurocopter ASB. The AD incorporates Eurocopter AS 350 Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. 05.00.40 as the normative inspection and repair standard in several places: Requirement 1 references paragraph 2.B.1 of ASB No. 05.00.40 Revision 2 or later EASA-approved revision; Requirement 2 and 3 reference ASB No. 05.00.40 Revision 3 or later EASA-approved revision for repairs and pre-installation inspection compliance. This makes the ASB the operative technical standard for the inspections and repairs required by the Directive. The Directive relies upon, and binds operators to, the ASB content to define the substantive inspection and repair work.

• EASA AD reference. The Directive notes that "EASA AD 2007-0138R2 refers." The Background also states that Amendment 4 is issued in response to a revision of the related EASA AD, which introduces a correction to the Requirement 1 compliance, with no change to the technical requirements. That situates the Australian AD in a harmonisation relationship with EASA’s airworthiness directives: CASA is adopting or aligning with the European regulator’s corrective action and adjustments.

Interaction with national maintenance and airworthiness documentation regimes

• Maintenance Release. The Directive requires it "shall be entered on the Maintenance Release as maintenance required." Maintenance Releases are standard documents in regulated maintenance regimes, used to evidence airworthiness and required maintenance items. That instruction creates a direct interaction with the record-keeping and certification obligations that maintenance organisations and operators hold under Australian aviation regulations and airworthiness certification procedures. The Directive does not restate the statutory source of Maintenance Release obligations, but it interfaces with that regime by imposing an entry requirement.

• Pilot certification for inspection. The Directive permits a Pilot in Command, trained by an appropriately qualified person, to perform and certify the visual inspection, subject to carriage of the documents. This interacts with role definitions and permitted maintenance or inspection activities; it implicitly overlays a permitted operational practice onto the existing separation between flight crew and maintenance personnel. The Directive does not alter licensing regimes or qualifications, but it references an operational training precondition ("trained to do the inspection by an appropriately qualified person") rather than a specific certification or regulatory endorsement.

Reference to DGAC and CASA roles

• International regulatory reporting. The Background records that the DGAC received a report of the trailing edge separation and that the CASA delegate issued the Directive. This demonstrates inter-regulatory communication (DGAC, EASA, CASA) as the underlying mechanism for hazard identification and AD issuance. The Directive itself does not elaborate on obligations under bilateral agreements, but the cross-reference to EASA material indicates that CASA’s action is informed by international regulatory developments.

Limits to interaction statements in this text

• No explicit linkage to Australian civil aviation legislation. The Directive does not itself cite the national enabling statute, the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations or other particular regulatory provisions. The text does not specify appeal rights, enforcement procedures under domestic law, nor does it state how the AD integrates with other Australian regulatory instruments beyond Maintenance Release entry and CASA’s issuance.

In sum, the Directive operationally binds operators to Eurocopter ASB procedures and aligns with an EASA AD; it interfaces with maintenance release and inspection delegation practices, and it rests within the administrative domain of CASA. The Directive does not, in its text, provide a mapping to the broader Australian legislative framework or enforcement mechanisms beyond the maintenance-record and CASA issuance context.

The Directive itself and its Background provide an amendment chronology summarised as follows. The document is titled "AD/ECUREUIL/71 Amdt 4" and the Background records changes introduced in Amendments 1, 2, 3 and 4. Those changes are described in the Directive’s Background text; the exact wording is reproduced in the source and is the only basis for the amendment history summarised here.

• Amendment 1: According to the Background, Amendment 1 "introduced certain actions to rotors installed on version B3 helicopters that are fitted with a 30mm trailing edge tab." The directive does not reproduce the precise text of those actions in the Background, but it records that Amendment 1 refined requirements for a subset of B3 rotor installations (those with a 30mm trailing edge tab).

• Amendment 2: The Background states that Amendment 2 "introduced requirements to alleviate maintenance for tail rotor blades repaired as per Repair Sheet (FR) CN 376; as specified in the latest revision of the Requirement document." The phrasing indicates that Amendment 2 changed or added requirements addressing maintenance implications for blades previously repaired under a named repair sheet (FR CN 376), providing an explicit administrative or technical relief path for certain repaired blades.

• Amendment 3: The Background records that Amendment 3 "added a new Repair Sheet FR CN 453, and extended the repair accomplishment timescale accordingly; as specified in the latest revision of the Requirement document." That records an expansion of acceptable repair methodology (addition of FR CN 453) and a corresponding extension of the time allowed to complete the repair for certain items.

• Amendment 4: The Background explains that "Amendment 4 is issued in response to a revision of the related EASA AD, which introduces a correction to the Requirement 1 compliance; with no change to the technical requirements." The text indicates Amendment 4 corrected a compliance statement in relation to Requirement 1, aligning the Australian Directive with a revised EASA AD, while not altering the substantive technical measures.

Other amendment-related detail in the text

• Previous compliance acceptance. The Directive contains a transitional or equivalence clause: "Previous accomplishment of FR CN 376 on tail rotor blades in accordance with ASB No. 05.00.40 Revision 2 is considered compliant with Requirements 2 and 3 of this Directive." That means prior repairs performed under FR CN 376 and compliant with the earlier ASB revision are treated as meeting the current requirements for the relevant repair and installation prohibition.

• Effective date and timing. The document states that "This Amendment becomes effective on 9 April 2009." The Compliance section reiterates that "The compliance times remain unchanged by this issue of the Directive." The Compliance lines include a previous deadline statement for Requirement 2 ("No later than 31 March 2009"), which remains stated unchanged in this Amendment.

The Directive does not provide text for Amendments 1-3 within this publication; it summarises the content of those earlier amendments. The only fully reproduced amendment text in the document is Amendment 4’s operative corrections and the incorporation of the ASB Revision references that resulted from the related EASA AD revision. The AD therefore presents a compact amendment history: incremental adjustments to applicability, repair acceptance and compliance timing, and an alignment correction to EASA’s revised AD, as described in the Background.

The Directive’s text does not contain any record of litigation, judicial review, appeals or administrative proceedings relating to the AD. There are no case names, court decisions, or contentious enforcement proceedings set out in the source material. The document records an administrative issuance (signed by the CASA delegate) and a factual safety background, but it does not refer to any legal challenges or determinations.

Implications of the absence of recorded litigation in the AD text

• No litigated interpretation to rely on. Because the Directive does not cite or record any court decisions or administrative appeals, there is no litigation-based authority contained in the source that would clarify contested aspects such as the scope of the installation prohibition, the legal effect of maintenance-release entry, or the permissibility of pilot-certified inspections beyond the face of the AD itself.

• Reasons to expect administrative rather than judicial resolution. Airworthiness directives are typically regulatory instruments issued by aviation authorities. The Directive’s absence of litigation history in its text does not mean disputes have not arisen in practice; rather, it shows that this particular publication records the technical and administrative requirements without tracing any subsequent legal contestation.

• What to do when a dispute arises. The Directive provides specific compliance clauses and references (ASB revisions, repair sheets, maintenance-release entry). Where a party disputes whether particular maintenance meets the Directive, the primary instruments to consult are the ASB and the cited Repair Sheets, together with CASA’s interpretations and applicable statutory review processes outside the text. The AD itself contains a transitional acceptance clause for prior repairs done as per FR CN 376 and ASB Revision 2, which reduces the scope for dispute over that specific prior repair pathway.

• Record evidence in potential disputes. The AD’s requirement that the Directive be entered on the Maintenance Release and, for pilot-performed inspections, that the Requirement document and Directive be carried in the aircraft, shows that the document anticipates record-based verification of compliance. In a hypothetical enforcement or litigation scenario, those records would be the primary evidence of compliance or non-compliance; the AD itself does not describe appeals, remedies or adjudicative pathways.

In short, there is no litigation history recorded in the source document. The Directive sets out obligations and record-keeping that would be pertinent evidence in any enforcement or dispute, but the AD itself does not document any instances of judicial or administrative challenge.

The Directive contains specific technical and administrative details that can catch operators, maintainers and pilots if overlooked. The following points are drawn from the precise wording of the source and identify practical pitfalls the text itself creates.

Backward-looking compliance date. Requirement 2’s compliance line is stated as "No later than 31 March 2009, unless already accomplished," while the Amendment becomes effective on 9 April 2009. That means the repair deadline for certain blades predates the effective date of this Amendment. The Directive contains an explicit note that "The compliance times remain unchanged by this issue of the Directive." Operators must verify whether repairs required by the Directive were already done by the earlier deadline; otherwise the operator may already be out of compliance by the time this Amendment took effect.

Serial-number specificity. Requirement 2 applies to part number 355A12-0050-00 through -05 for blades with serial numbers listed in paragraph 2.B.2.a of ASB No. 05.00.40 Revision 3, and on blades with serial numbers below 8419 where specific log-card annotations appear. That introduces a dual-tracking: (a) follow the serial numbers listed within the ASB and (b) check log-card annotations for older serial-numbered blades. Operators who rely only on part numbers without checking serial numbers and log-card annotations risk misclassifying blades.

Log-card annotation dependence. For blades with serial numbers below 8419, the Directive treats as applicable those "for which the annotation 'repaired as per Work Card 64.10.00.872' or 'repaired as per Work Card 64.10.20.712' is recorded on the log card." If a log card lacks that specific wording or if earlier repair records are worded differently, an operator cannot assume compliance. Accurate historical maintenance records are therefore crucial.

Installation prohibition tied to ASB revision. Requirement 3 disallows installation "unless they have been inspected and repaired, as necessary, in accordance with paragraph 2.B.1 of ASB No. 05.00.40 Revision 3, or later EASA approved revision." The inspection criterion for installation compliance specifies ASB Revision 3 (or later), whereas the Requirement 1 inspection references ASB Revision 2 (or later). Operators must therefore ensure the particular ASB revision applicable to installation checks is Revision 3 or later; quoting the wrong ASB revision could lead to incorrect compliance assumptions.

Pilot inspection conditionality and documentation carriage. The Directive permits a Pilot in Command to perform and certify the required visual inspection only if the pilot "has been trained to do the inspection by an appropriately qualified person." Additionally, "a copy of the Requirement document and this Directive is to be carried in the aircraft." A pilot who inspects but lacks the required training or who fails to carry the documents may not be in compliance. The Directive does not define who qualifies as the "appropriately qualified person" for training, so there may be ambiguity in practice that operators should resolve and document.

Maintenance Release entry. The Directive requires the AD be "entered on the Maintenance Release as maintenance required." Failure to record the AD in the Maintenance Release is a discrete non-compliance: even if physical inspections and repairs have been performed, an absence of the required entry can create regulatory exposure.

Narrow prior-repair compliance clause. The Directive states that "Previous accomplishment of FR CN 376 on tail rotor blades in accordance with ASB No. 05.00.40 Revision 2 is considered compliant with Requirements 2 and 3." That concession applies narrowly to FR CN 376 performed per ASB Revision 2; prior work using different repair sheets, or FR CN 376 performed under a different ASB revision, may not qualify. Operators with historical repairs must check that the prior repair matches this exact description.

High-frequency inspection cadence. The ALF check cadence and the "not exceeding 10 flight hours between two successive checks" requirement can be operationally burdensome for helicopters with many short flights per day. Operators planning flight schedules or maintenance windows need to account for the inspection time and the possible need for repairs identified during an ALF check.

No explicit personnel restrictions for repairs. The Directive mandates repairs by reference to FR CN repair sheets and the ASB, but does not specify who is authorised to carry out those repairs. While that may afford flexibility, it also requires operational clarity: operators and maintenance organisations must establish internal controls to ensure repair work meets the referenced repair sheets and that records accurately reflect serial-number-specific repairs.

Taken together, these "gotchas" highlight that compliance is not satisfied by generic or cursory inspection: operators must check part numbers, serial numbers, log-card annotations, the precise ASB revision, carry and maintain the Directive and the Requirement document where pilot inspections are used, and ensure Maintenance Release entries are made.

Compliance requires following the Directive’s three Requirements, meeting the specified timing conditions, and observing the documentation and training preconditions the Directive prescribes. Below are concrete steps, grounded in the Directive text, that an operator or maintenance organisation should follow.

1. Identify affected aircraft and parts

• Confirm aircraft models. Check the operator’s fleet for Model AS 350 helicopters, versions B, BA, BB, B1, B2, B3, and D. The Directive applies only to those models.

• Inventory tail rotor blades. Identify all tail rotor blades installed and in stock with the part numbers listed in the Applicability section: 355A12-0031-01, -02, -03, -04, -05, -06, -07, -08, -09, -11, -12, -13, -14; 355A12-0040-00, -01, -02, -03, -04, -05, -07, -08; and 355A12-0050-00, -01, -02, -03, -04, -05. Track blade serial numbers against the ASB paragraph 2.B.2.a lists and identify blades with serial numbers below 8419.

2. Conduct the required inspection programme

• Follow ASB inspection steps. Carry out the visual inspection in accordance with paragraph 2.B.1 of Eurocopter AS 350 ASB No. 05.00.40 Revision 2 (or the later EASA approved revision referenced for that requirement). Ensure the inspection is the one described in the ASB paragraph specified; the Directive makes the ASB the normative procedure.

• Observe inspection frequency. Perform the inspection at each "after the last flight of the day" (ALF) check, and ensure inspections are performed at intervals not exceeding 10 flight hours between successive checks (Compliance point 1). Update scheduling and operational planning to accommodate inspections at this cadence.

• Pilot-conducted inspections. If choosing to have the Pilot in Command perform and certify the visual inspection, ensure each pilot has been trained "by an appropriately qualified person" to perform the inspection. Record the training and issue any operational privileges accordingly. When a PIC certifies the inspection, ensure a copy of the Requirement document and this Directive is carried in the aircraft, as the Directive mandates.

3. Effect necessary repairs

• Repair sheet compliance. For blades requiring repair, accomplish the instructions of Repair Sheet FR CN 376 or FR CN 453 as the Directive specifies for part number 355A12-0050-00 through -05 with the serial numbers listed in ASB No. 05.00.40 Revision 3, and for blades with serial numbers below 8419 with the specified log-card repair annotations.

• Timing of repairs. For blades subject to the March 2009 deadline (Requirement 2), verify whether repairs were completed by 31 March 2009. If repairs remain outstanding, consult the ASB and Repair Sheets to determine whether the blades are currently compliant; note that the Directive explicitly records that the compliance times "remain unchanged" by this Amendment. For current installation activity, ensure repairs meet ASB Revision 3 (or later) criteria as required by Requirement 3 for installation.

• Maintain repair documentation. Document repairs in the log card and maintenance records precisely, including any required wording such as "repaired as per Work Card 64.10.00.872" or "repaired as per Work Card 64.10.20.712" where applicable, to ensure the blade’s history evidences compliance with the Directive’s serial-number and annotation clauses.

4. Control installation of spare blades

• Pre-installation verification. Do not install any tail rotor blade with a part number listed in the Applicability section unless the blade has been inspected and repaired, as necessary, in accordance with paragraph 2.B.1 of ASB No. 05.00.40 Revision 3, or a later EASA approved revision (Requirement 3). Put procedural controls in place at parts stores and fitment points to ensure no installation occurs without documented inspection and repair evidence.

5. Record keeping and Maintenance Release entry

• Entry on Maintenance Release. Enter the Directive on the aircraft’s Maintenance Release as "maintenance required" as the Directive mandates. Ensure the entry is made in the Maintenance Release at the earliest administrative opportunity and that it reflects the status of inspections and repairs.

• Retain documentary evidence. Retain copies of the applicable ASB, the Repair Sheets (FR CN 376 and FR CN 453 where relevant), records of inspections (including PIC-certified inspections where used), and log-card entries showing repair annotations. Ensure traceability between part numbers, serial numbers, repair sheets used, and maintenance-release entries.

6. Internal controls and training

• Define who is an "appropriately qualified person" for pilot training. Although the Directive does not define this phrase, operators should set an internal standard and document a training process for pilots who will perform inspections. Record completion of that training and the authorising person.

• Quality assurance. Incorporate inspection and repair tasks under the operator’s or maintenance organisation’s quality management systems, so work performed to the ASB and Repair Sheets is audited and accepted prior to release to service.

7. Use the transitional acceptance clause where applicable

• Prior repairs under ASB Rev 2 and FR CN 376. If FR CN 376 repairs were accomplished in accordance with ASB No. 05.00.40 Revision 2, record that fact and treat such prior work as compliant with Requirements 2 and 3, per the Directive’s explicit statement. Ensure log cards and maintenance records unambiguously show the earlier repair method and ASB revision relied upon.

8. Liaise with regulator and manufacturer where unclear

• If doubt exists about serial-number applicability, log-card sufficiency, or whether a particular repair meets the FR CN or ASB criterion, consult CASA and/or Eurocopter for clarification. The Directive references EASA and Eurocopter standards; an operator should secure clarification when the ASB or Repair Sheet revision status affects compliance.

By following these steps, an operator will implement the Directive’s specified inspection cadence, ensure repair actions reference the named Repair Sheets and ASB paragraphs, and maintain the maintenance-release and log-card evidence the Directive requires.