Emergency AD after fatal R44 Accident
 

CAANZ have released an emergency AD following TAIC's initial scene investigation of the R44 that crashed near Queenstown. Could be a big event. I can't remember the last AD that prohibited further flight.

I can't paste the address but the CAA site has the AD and NZ news sites are covering it.

Cheers. Technology issues on my old android.

I note its only about half the fleet, those with -7 blades. I imagine CASA will be considering something? After the weekend of course...

Serious stuff.
What does the dollar have to do with this?

I'm sure the AU industry won't wait till Monday to check and take action.

CASA in due attention to its charter will not DISCRIMINATE.

Don't be surprised when this useless bunch of Flogs ground the whole fleet. :ugh:

Well done jas, thats exactly what they have done. There was something similar a while back regarding delamination of the MRB.

The whole fleet has not been grounded. Only those with -7 blades for replacement of those blades. One flight to maintenance facility allowed

My apologies I misread this part of the ABC report:

Don't be surprised when this useless bunch of Flogs ground the whole fleet

Seems to be de rigueur for this site, to make puerile comments about the regulator no matter what it does.

Lookleft, the Main Rotor blade issue is ongoing with the Robbie Crapacopter.


Double spaced for Creampuff

Replacement of -7 blades won't be easy since these are the only ones that RHC sales now.

It's not hard from the pic of this crack in the blade, to see why the grounding is in place;
Airworthiness Directive AD/R44/24 has been issued (PDF document)
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...44/R44-024.pdf

Emergency AD lifted in NZ
 

and this just cost the industry how much?

Damned if they do, damned if they don't jas

Grounding didn't cost any lives which I assume was the intention

Whilst I agree Aldee,
it clearly shows itself as a knee jerk reaction.

How many other countries issued an AD grounding the -7 fleet?

Maybe better handled as a Service Bulletin, bringing awareness to the potential problem, and getting people to pay more attention, with an AD maybe pending.

Not saying CAANZ and CASA were wrong in their decisions, but they certainly weren't 100% wrong either..... Just a poorly handled response to an active investigation's observation......its too early to even declare it a finding.

Don't follow this logic.
The initial inspections seemed to show the blade cracked in similar place as the previous incident, and you feel the regulator shouldn't have issued an emergency AD.
If you had knowledge of the long term issues of the crapacopter MR blades perhaps you may think otherwise

The logic is that its a knee jerk reaction, with little to no thought on industry impact, given that it was a blanket grounding of -7 blades.

Say for instance your wok wok was re-equipped with brand new blades last week..and suddenly its grounded?? Cracking is a fatigue issue is it not? Fatigue comes from use.

The AD as presented, from my memory of reading it, made no reference to time in service, it was blanket, regardless of time in service.

I'm just saying it could have been better handled with a Mandatory Service Bulletin with information of the area deemed critical....i.e INTENSE preflight inspection req'd in the area of X from the hub.....
Certain time in life could have been dealt with by the rule of get it to the LAME.

Lots of options available beyond a blanket grounding AD.


You are correct Aldee, a life saved....be a shame if one parted company on the ferry flight.

Cheers Guys

Trouble is if you make it an S/B then you address it as an S/B if it an


AD then its addressed as an AD and has to be compiled with, and if you just put -7 blades on then you get pro rata back from the manufacture.


And not cracking may or may not be via fatigue at all. There may or may not be a problem in the manufacture of the blades.


Simple ground the aircraft with the blades end of story simple and most cost affective way of dealing with the problem