Aircraft-logs.com

Results
2010-23-18: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: During inspection in production and on in-service aircraft, a number of OverHeat Detection System (OHDS) installation non- conformities have been identified along the bleed air ducting. Some installation issues which may lead to a degraded leak detection capability have been reported. In case of hot air leakage, the potential degradation of the OHDS would not allow preventing damages to structure or components, and therefore could lead to an unsafe condition. * * * * * Nonconforming installation or a failure of the OHDS could allow undetected leakage of bleed air from the hot engine/auxiliary power unit causing damage to the airplane structure and various airplane components and systems. This AD requires actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI.
76-03-03: 76-03-03 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS: Amendment 39-2509. Applies to Models DC-10-10, DC-10-10F, DC-10-30, DC-10-30F and DC-10-40 airplanes, certificated in all categories. \n\n\tCompliance required as indicated. \n\n\tTo prevent possible jamming of the spoiler handle subsequent to ground spoiler deployment, accomplish the following: \n\n\tPART I. On those airplanes which incorporate a spoiler control assembly P/N ABH 7220-505 or ABH 7220-507 that has not been modified in accordance with McDonnell Douglas DC-10 Service Bulletin No. 27-119, dated May 29, 1975, or later FAA-approved revisions: \n\n\t(a)\tWithin 300 hours' additional time in service after the effective date of this AD, unless already accomplished, either \n\n\t\t(1)\tDeactivate the autospoilers and placard them inoperative per McDonnell Douglas AOL 10-108, Revision "C", or later FAA-approved revisions; or \n\n\t\t(2)\tPerform the functional check described in paragraph (3), below, and the corrective action set forth at paragraph (4), below, as necessary. \n\n\t\t(3)\tThe functional check is to determine if a condition exists where the spoiler handle cannot be disarmed and retracted subsequent to automatic ground spoiler deployment. The check is to be performed while the aircraft is on the ground. All three hydraulic systems must be pressurized for this check, and the flaps must be positioned to 25 degrees or less. \n\n\t\t\t(i)\tPlace all 3 throttle levers at the idle position. Place the spoiler/speedbrake lever at the retract position, and lift up to arm the spoiler/speedbrake lever, \n\n\t\t\t(ii)\tLift number 1 and 3 engine reverse levers to the reverse thrust position. Observe that the spoiler/speedbrake lever is driven aft and latches in the ground spoiler detent. \n\n\t\t\t(iii)\tAdvance number 2 engine throttle lever to at least 2 1/2 inches forward of the idle stop. Observe that the spoiler/speedbrake lever drops downward to unlatch from the ground spoiler detent and retracts completely and disarms as a result of number 2engine throttle advancement. \n\n\t\t(4)\tIf the spoiler/speedbrake lever does not react as indicated in the functional check specified in paragraph (3), prior to further flight either deactivate and placard the auto-spoilers inoperative per McDonnell Douglas AOL 10-108, Revision "C", or later FAA-approved revision or modify the speedbrake module assembly, as applicable, in accordance with McDonnell Douglas DC-10 Service Bulletin No. 27-52, dated May 23, 1973, and McDonnell Douglas DC-10 Service Bulletin No. 27-51, Revision 1, dated September 23, 1975, or later FAA-approved revisions, or an equivalent modification approved by the Chief, Aircraft Engineering Division, FAA Western Region. \n\n\t(b)\tAfter the effective date of this AD, each time the unmodified speedbrake module assembly undergoes maintenance, prior to further flight conduct the functional check specified in paragraph (a). \n\n\t(c)\tAfter the effective date of this AD, prior to installation on an airplane, a spare speedbrake module assembly must be modified, as applicable, in accordance with McDonnell Douglas DC-10 Service Bulletin No. 27-52, dated May 23, 1973, and McDonnell Douglas DC-10 Service Bulletin No. 27-51, Revision 1, dated September 23, 1975, or later FAA-approved revisions, or an equivalent modification approved by the Chief, Aircraft Engineering Division, FAA Western Region. \n\n\tPART II. On all airplanes: \n\n\t(a)\tWithin the next 4000 hours' additional time in service after the effective date of this AD, unless already accomplished, identify and remove speedbrake module assembly P/N ABH 7178-505, ABH 7178-509 or ABH 7178-511, if installed, and replace with P/N ABH 7178-517, ABH 7178-519, ABH 7178-521, ABH 7178-523, or other part approved by the Chief, Aircraft Engineering Division, FAA Western Region. Following accomplishment of this action, the specified functional check requirements of paragraph (a)(3) in Part I of this AD may be discontinued. Thereafter normal maintenance procedures areto be followed. \n\n\tSpecial flight permits may be issued under FAR 21.197 and 21.199 for the purpose of operating the aircraft to a base to perform the requirements of this AD. \n\n\tThis amendment becomes effective February 17, 1976.
43-12-01: 43-12-01 DOUGLAS: (Was Service Note 4 of AD-669-3.) Applies to DC3A aircraft. \n\n\tAt each periodic inspection, check the elevator hinge brackets and if cracks are present the brackets should be replaced. Due to the possibility of vibration causing fatigue failures, continuous operation of the airplanes in the range of engine speeds between 1,300 and 1,600 r.p.m. should be avoided. A minimum engine speed of 1,700 r.p.m. during cruising flight is recommended. \n\n\t(Douglas Service Letter dated January 15, 1943, covers this same subject.)
2010-23-16: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: It has been found the occurrences of failure of the Flow Control Shutoff Valve (FCSOV) in the closed position. Failure of the two valves (left and right) can cause the loss of the pneumatic source, and lead to loss of the cabin pressurization. Since this condition affects flight safety, a corrective action is required. Thus, sufficient reason exists to request compliance with this AD. We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe condition on these products.
2010-23-04: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: \n\n\tSeveral reports have been received of cracked nacelle attachment fittings. The preliminary investigation determined the cause to be stress corrosion. Stress corrosion cracking could compromise the structural integrity of the nacelle attachment fitting and could adversely affect the safe landing of the aeroplane. \n\nFailure of the fitting could result in collapse of the landing gear. This AD requires actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI.
91-15-11: 91-15-11 BOEING: Amendment 39-7075. Docket No. 91-NM-128-AD. Supersedes AD 91-11-08. \n\n\tApplicability: Model 767-200 and 767-300 series airplanes, listed in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767- 28A0036, dated May 3, 1991, certificated in any category. \n\n\tCompliance: Required as indicated, unless previously accomplished. \n\n\tTo prevent, during dry pump operation, a potential ignition source in the center wing tanks due to a broken pumping unit diffuser ring, accomplish the following: \n\n\t(a)\tWithin the next 30 days after June 30, 1991 (the effective date of Amendment 39-7005), inspect the center wing tank pumping units, part number 5006286, in accordance with the procedures of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-28A0036, dated May 3, 1991. \n\n\t\t(1)\tIf diffuser assembly brazed joints are found to be acceptable, reidentify and reinstall the pumping unit in accordance with the service bulletin. \n\n\t\t(2)\tIf the brazed joints are determined to be discrepant as indicated by the inspection procedure, repair or replace the diffuser assembly in accordance with the service bulletin prior to reinstallation of the pumping unit. \n\n\t(b)\tExcept for center wing tank pumping units that are inspected and found to be acceptable in accordance with paragraph (a)(1) of this AD, within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, inspect the airplane or airplane records to determine if the center wing tank pumping units are suspect, in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-28A0036, Revision 1, dated June 11, 1991. \n\n\t\t(1)\tIf a pumping unit is suspect, prior to further flight, inspect the diffuser assembly brazed joints in accordance with the service bulletin. \n\n\t\t\t(i)\tIf the diffuser assembly brazed joints are found to be acceptable, reidentify and reinstall the pumping unit in accordance with the service bulletin. \n\n\t\t\t(ii)\tIf the brazed joints are determined to be discrepant as indicated by the inspection procedure, repair or replace the diffuser assemblyin accordance with the service bulletin prior to reinstallation of the pumping unit. \n\n\t\t(2)\tIf the pumping unit is not one listed as suspect, no further action is required. \n\n\t(c)\tIn lieu of performing the inspection, repair, and/or replacement described in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this AD, deactivate the center wing fuel tank in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-28A0036, dated May 3, 1991, or Revision 1, dated June 11, 1991. The tank may be reactivated only following completion of the inspections, repairs, and/or replacement required by paragraphs (a) and (b) of this AD. \n\n\t(d)\tWithin 45 days after the effective date of this AD, submit a report of findings of discrepancies detected by the inspection required by paragraphs (a) and (b) of this AD, to the Manager, Seattle Manufacturing Inspection District Office, ANM-108S, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; fax (206) 227-1181. Include the pump serial numberand affected airplane line or serial number in the report. Information collection requirements contained in this regulation have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (P.L. 96- 511) and have been assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. \n\n\t(e)\tAn alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the compliance time, which provides an acceptable level of safety, may be used when approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate. \n\n\tNOTE: The request should be forwarded through an FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may concur or comment and then send it to the Manager, Seattle ACO. \n\n\t(f)\tSpecial flight permits may be issued in accordance with FAR 21.197 and 21.199 to operate airplanes to a base in order to comply with the requirements of this AD. \n\n\t(g)\tThe inspection, repair, and replacement requirements shall be done in accordance withBoeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-28A0036, Revision 1, dated June 11, 1991. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR Part 51. Copies may be obtained from Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124. Copies may be inspected at the FAA, Northwest Mountain Region, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington, or at the Office of the Federal Register, 1100 L Street NW., Room 8401, Washington, D.C. \n\n\tAirworthiness Directive 91-15-11, supersedes AD 91-11-08, Amendment 39-7005. \n\tThis amendment (39-7075, AD 91-15-11) becomes effective on August 2, 1991.
95-26-04: This amendment supersedes an existing airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to Robinson Helicopter Company (RHC) Model R22 helicopters, that currently requires revisions to the Limitations section, the Normal Procedures section, and the Emergency Procedures section of the R22 Rotorcraft Flight Manual, revised February 4, 1993. These revisions limit operations in high winds and turbulence; provide information about main rotor (M/R) stall and mast bumping; and provide recommendations for avoiding these situations. Additionally, emergency procedures are provided for use should certain conditions be encountered. This action would require similar revisions to the Limitations, Normal Procedures and Emergency Procedures sections required by the existing AD, but the revision to the Limitations section would prohibit only pilots without a certain level of experience and training from operating in the flight conditions specified. This action is prompted by data that indicates pilots who possess a certain level of experience and training are more able to recognize and react to the adverse meteorological conditions specified in the AD. The actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent M/R stall or mast bumping, which could result in the M/R blades contacting the fuselage causing failure of the M/R system and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
92-22-07: 92-22-07 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS: Amendment 39-8393. Docket No. 90-NM-165-AD. \n\n\tApplicability: All Model DC-8 series airplanes, certificated in any category. \n\n\tCompliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished previously. \n\n\tNOTE 1: This AD references McDonnell Douglas Document Number MDC K4608, "DC-8 Corrosion Prevention and Control Document," Revision 1, dated December 1990 hereinafter referred to as "the Document"), for corrosion tasks, definitions of corrosion levels, compliance times, and reporting requirements. In addition, this AD specifies inspection and reporting requirements beyond those included in the Document. Where there are differences between the AD and the Document, the AD prevails. \n\n\tNOTE 2: As used throughout this AD, the term "the FAA" is defined differently for different operators, as follows: For those operators complying with paragraph (a) of this AD, "the FAA" is defined as "the Manager of the Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO)."For those operators operating under Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 121 or 129, and complying with paragraph (b) of this AD, "the FAA" is defined as "the cognizant Principal Maintenance Inspector (PMI)." For those operators operating under FAR Part 91 or 125, and complying with paragraph (b) of this AD, "the FAA" is defined as "the cognizant Maintenance Inspector at the appropriate FAA Flight Standards office." \n\n\tTo preclude structural failure due to corrosion, accomplish the following: \n\n\t(a)\tExcept as provided in paragraph (b) of this AD, complete each of the corrosion tasks specified in Section 4 of the Document in accordance with the procedures of the Document, and the schedule specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this AD. \n\n\tNOTE 3: A "corrosion task," as defined in Section 4 of the Document, includes inspections; procedures for a corrective action, including repairs, under identified circumstances; application of corrosion inhibitors; and other follow-onactions. \n\n\tNOTE 4: Corrosion tasks completed in accordance with the Document before the effective date of this AD may be credited for compliance with the initial corrosion task requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this AD. \n\n\tNOTE 5: Where non-destructive inspection (NDI) methods are employed, in accordance with Section 4 of the Document, the standards and procedures used must be acceptable to the Administrator in accordance with FAR Section 43.13. \n\n\t\t(1)\tComplete the initial corrosion task of each "corrosion inspection area" defined in Section 4 of the Document as follows: \n\n\t\t\t(i)\tInitial compliance must occur for all areas within one repeat (R) interval, or within six years, measured from a date one year after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first. \n\n\t\t\t(ii)\tAccomplishment of the initial tasks by each operator must occur at a minimum rate equivalent to one airplane per year, beginning one year after the effective date of this AD. \n\n\tNOTE 6: This minimum rate requirement may cause an undue hardship on some small operators. In those circumstances, requests for adjustments to the implementation rate will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis under the provisions of paragraph (h) of this AD. \n\n\t\t(2)\tRepeat each corrosion task at a time interval not to exceed the R interval specified in the Document for that task. \n\n\t(b)\tAs an alternative to the requirements of paragraph (a) of this AD: Prior to one year after the effective date of this AD, revise the FAA-approved maintenance/inspection program to include the corrosion prevention and control program specified in the Document; or to include an equivalent program that is approved by the FAA. In all cases, the initial corrosion task for each "corrosion inspection area" must be completed in accordance with the compliance schedule specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this AD. \n\n\t\t(1)\tAny operator complying with paragraph (b) of this AD may use an alternative recordkeeping method to thatotherwise required by FAR Section 91.417 or Section 121.380 for the actions required by this AD, provided it is approved by the FAA and is included in a revision to the FAA-approved maintenance/inspection program. \n\n\t\t(2)\tSubsequent to the accomplishment of the initial corrosion task, extensions of R intervals specified in the Document must be approved by the FAA. \n\n\t(c)\tTo accommodate unanticipated scheduling requirements, it is acceptable for an R interval to be increased by up to 10%, but not to exceed 6 months. The FAA must be informed, in writing, of any such extension within 30 days after such adjustment of the schedule. \n\tNOTE 7: Notwithstanding Section 2.1, paragraph 14, of the Document, any extensions to an implementation age (IA) must be approved in accordance with paragraph (h) of this AD. \n\n\t(d)\t(1)\tIf, as a result of any inspection conducted in accordance with paragraphs (a) or (b) of this AD, Level 3 corrosion is determined to exist in any area, accomplish either paragraph (d)(1)(i) or (d)(1)(ii) within 7 days after such determination: \n\n\t\t\t(i)\tSubmit a report of that determination to the FAA and complete the corrosion task in the affected areas on all Model DC-8 series airplanes in the operator's fleet; or \n\n\t\t\t(ii)\tSubmit to the FAA for approval one of the following: \n\t\t\t\t(A)\tA proposed schedule for performing the corrosion tasks in the affected areas on the remaining Model DC-8 series airplanes in the operator's fleet, which is adequate to ensure that any other Level 3 corrosion is detected in a timely manner, along with substantiating data for that schedule; or \n\n\t\t\t\t(B)\tData substantiating that the Level 3 corrosion found is an isolated occurrence. \n\n\tNOTE 8: Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 1 of the Document which would permit corrosion which otherwise meets the definition of Level 3 corrosion (i.e., which is determined to be a potentially urgent airworthiness concern requiring expeditious action) to be treated as Level 1 if the operator finds that it, "can be attributed to an event not typical of the operator's usage of other airplanes in the same fleet," this paragraph requires that data substantiating any such finding be submitted to the FAA for approval. \n\n\t\t(2)\tThe FAA may impose schedules other than those proposed, upon finding that such changes are necessary to ensure that any other Level 3 corrosion is detected in a timely manner. \n\n\t\t(3)\tWithin the time schedule approved under paragraph (d)(1) or (d)(2) of this AD, accomplish the corrosion tasks in the affected areas of the remaining Model DC-8 series airplanes in the operator's fleet. \n\n\t(e)\tIf, as a result of any inspection after the initial inspection conducted in accordance with paragraphs (a) or (b) of this AD, it is determined that corrosion findings exceed Level 1 in any area, within 60 days after such determination a means approved by the FAA must be implemented to reduce future findings of corrosion in that area to Level 1 or better. \n\n\t(f)\tBefore any operator places into service any airplane subject to the requirements of this AD, a schedule for the accomplishment of corrosion tasks required by this AD must be established in accordance with paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this AD, as applicable: \n\n\t\t(1)\tFor airplanes previously maintained in accordance with this AD, the first corrosion task in each area to be performed by the new operator must be accomplished in accordance with the previous operator's schedule or with the new operator's schedule, whichever would result in the earlier accomplishment date for that task. After each corrosion task has been performed once, each subsequent task must be performed in accordance with the new operator's schedule. \n\n\t\t(2)\tFor airplanes that have not been previously maintained in accordance with this AD, the first corrosion task for each area to be performed by the new operator must be accomplished prior to further flight or in accordance with a schedule approved by the FAA. \n\n\t(g)\tReports of Level 2 and Level 3 corrosion must be submitted at least quarterly to McDonnell Douglas Corporation in accordance with Section 5 of the Document. \n\n\tNOTE 9: Reporting of Level 2 and Level 3 corrosion found as a result of any opportunity inspections is highly desirable. \n\n\t(h)\tAn alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the compliance time, which provides an acceptable level of safety, may be used when approved by the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators shall submit their requests through the cognizant Maintenance Inspector at the appropriate FAA Flight Standards office, who may concur or comment and then send it to the Manager, Los Angeles ACO. \n\n\tNOTE 10: Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the Los Angeles ACO. \n\n\t(i)\tSpecial flight permits may be issued in accordance with FAR 21.197 and 21.199 to operate airplanes to a base in order to comply with the requirements of this AD. \n\n\t(j)\tReports of corrosion inspection results required by this AD have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and have been assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. \n\n\t(k)\tThe completion of the corrosion tasks shall be done in accordance with McDonnell Douglas Document Number MDC K4608, "DC-8 Corrosion Prevention and Control Document," Revision 1, dated December 1990, which incorporates the following list of effective pages: \n\n\t\t(NOTE: Revision levels are not noted on individual pages.) \n\n\nPage Number\t\nDate Indicated on Page \n\n\nTitle Page\nApril 1990 \nPreface\nUndated \nSum-1\t\nDecember 1990 \nA thru F\t\nUndated \nTable of Contents\t\nUndated \ni thru ii\t\t \nApril 1990 \n1-1-1\t\nApril 1990 \n1-1-2\t\nDecember 1990 \n2-1-1 thru 2-1-2\nDecember 1990\n2-1-3\t\nApril 19902-1-4\t\t\nDecember 1990 \n3-1-1 thru 3-1-2\t\nApril 1990 \n3-2-1\t\nDecember 1990 \n4-1-1 thru 4-2-1\t\t\nDecember 1990 \n4-2-2 thru 4-2-3\nApril 1990 \n4-3-1\t\nDecember 1990 \n4-3-2\t\t \nApril 1990 \n4-4-1\t\nApril 1990\n4-5-1\t\nApril 1990\n4-6-1 thru 4-6-4\t\t\nApril 1990 \n4-7-1 thru 4-7-28\t\nApril 1990 \n5-1-1 \t\t\t\nDecember 1990 \n5-1-2 \t\nApril 1990 \n5-1-3\t\t\t\t\nDecember 1990 \n6-1-1 thru 6-1-9\t\nApril 1990 \nAppendix A (Title Page)\t\nDecember 1990 \nA-1\nDecember 1990 \nA-2 thru A-7\t\nAugust 1990 \nA-8 \t\t\t\nDecember 1990 \nA-9 thru A-12\t\nAugust 1990 \nAppendix B (Title Page)\t\t\nAugust 1990 \n(i thru ii)\t\t\n(Removed) \niii\t\nUndated \n(iv)\t\t\t\n(Removed) \nv thru vi\t\nUndated \n1\t\nUndated \n(2)\t\t\n(Removed) \n3 thru 17\t\t\nUndated\n(18)\t\t\n(Removed) \n19 thru 81\t\nUndated \n(82)\t\t\t\t\n(Removed) \n83 thru 86\nUndated \nAppendix C (Title Page)\t\nDecember 1990 \nC-1-1 \t\t\t\t\nDecember 1990 \nC-2-1 thru C-2-14\nDecember 1990 \nC-3-1 thru C-3-4\t\nDecember 1990 \nC-4-1 thru C-4-2\t\nDecember 1990Appendix D (Title Page) \nAugust 1990 \nD-1\t\t\nAugust 1990 \nGlossary (Title Page)\t\nDecember 1990 \nG-1 thru G-4\nDecember 1990 \nG-5 thru G-6\t\nAugust 1990 \t\n\t\nThis incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR Part 51. Copies may be obtained from McDonnell Douglas Corporation, P.O. Box 1771, Long Beach, California 90846-0001, Attention: Business Unit Manager, Technical Publications, C1-HDR (54-60). Copies may be inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 3229 East Spring Street, Long Beach, California; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC. \n\n\t(l)\tThis amendment becomes effective on January 12, 1993.
2010-23-06: We are superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD) for the products listed above. That AD currently requires removing certain propeller hubs from service at new, reduced life limits and eddy current inspections (ECIs) of the propeller hub. This new AD requires removing certain propeller hubs from service before they exceed 6,000 hours time-since-new (TSN). This AD was prompted by a report of a crack in a propeller hub. We are issuing this AD to prevent cracked propeller hubs, which could cause failure of the propeller hub, blade separation, and loss of control of the airplane.
91-08-02: 91-08-02 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS HELICOPTER COMPANY (MDHC) (HUGHES): Amendment 39-6963. Docket No. 90-ASW-53. \n\n\tApplicability: All MDHC Model 369 series helicopters, certificated in any category. \n\n\tCompliance: Required as indicated, unless already accomplished. \n\n\tTo detect or prevent cracks in the tail rotor blade root fitting, which could result in tail rotor blade failure and subsequent loss of the tail rotor blade, accomplish the following: \n\n\t(a)\tWithin 8 hours time in service after the effective date of this AD, or upon installing replacement tail rotor blades, determine if any aluminum tail rotor blades are installed which-- \n\n\t\t(1)\tHave any of the following part numbers (P/N's) and serial number (S/N's): \n\t\t\t(i)\tP/N 369A1613 (all dash numbers) with S/N less than 7959, \n\t\t\t(ii)\tP/N 369D21613 (all dash numbers) with S/N less than 6482, \n\t\t\t(iii)\tP/N 369D21615 (all dash numbers) with S/N less than 1358, \n\t\t\t(iv)\tP/N 369D21606 (all dash numbers) with S/N less than0538, \n\t\t\t(v)\tP/N 421-088 (all dash numbers) with S/N less than 0218; and \n\n\t\t(2)\tDo not have a yellow dot applied to the aft (trailing) edge of the root fitting. \n\n\t(b)\tRecord the tail rotor blade P/N's and S/N's from the determinations of paragraph (a) in the aircraft log. \n\n\tNOTE: Only tail rotor blades which meet the criteria of paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) are affected by the remaining inspections of this AD. \n\n\t(c)\tWithin 8 hours time in service, after the effective date of this AD and, thereafter, prior to the first flight of each day, conduct a check of each tail rotor blade that fits the criteria outlined in paragraph (a). Visually check both sides of the tail rotor fitting for cracks in the area shown in Figure 1, Detail A. Replace any cracked blades with airworthy parts before further flight. \n\n91-08-02 \n\t\t Figure 1. Inspection of Tail Rotor Blade Root Fitting. \n\n\n\n\n\t(d)\tWithin 100 hours time in service, after the effective date of this AD unless previously accomplished, for the blades that fit the criteria outlined in paragraph (a), accomplish the following checks and inspections: \n\n\t\t(1)\tConduct a visual check for cracks in accordance with the instructions of paragraph (c). \n\n\t\t(2)\tConduct a dimensional inspection of the tail rotor blade fitting as follows: \n\n\t\t\t(i)\tMark the tail rotor blades, crush washers, and bushings so they can be reinstalled in the exact location and orientation from which they are removed. \n\n\t\t\t(ii)\tRemove the tail rotor blades in accordance with the applicable maintenance manual. \n\n\tNOTE: CAUTION: Do not remove the feathering bearings. \n\n\t\t\t(iii)\tWith HS610C6244R375X375 bushing (Qty. 1) (369A1624-BSC root fitting) or 369H5308 bushings (Qty. 2) and 369H5309 crush washers (369A1624-3 root fitting) installed, ensure there are no foreign objects inside the bore of the tail rotor blade root fitting. With root fitting vertical, inboard end up, insert the 369D21633-1- 40201 Part 1 inspection tool into the inner diameter (I.D.) of the root fitting. Align root fitting strap retention holes with tool hole. (See Figure 1, Detail B.) Attempt to install the retention bolt through the root fitting and tool holes. The tail rotor blade is airworthy if the tail rotor blade retention bolt cannot be inserted through the root fitting and inspection tool (Part 1) holes. \n\n\t\t\t(iv)\tWith HS610C6244R375X375 bushing (Qty.1) (369A1624-BSC root fitting) or 369H5308 bushings (Qty.2) and 369H5309 crush washers (369A1624-3 root fitting) installed, position the 369D21633-1-40201 Part 2 inspection tool (tab end outboard) over one side of the root fitting. Align the holes in the inspection tool with the blade attach holes in the root fitting. For the 369A1624-BSC root fitting, use washers on each side of the root fitting (equal amounts) to center the inspection tool on the root fitting (See Figure 1, Detail C). Attempt to install the retention bolt through the tool and the root fitting. Do not attempt to bend or force the inspection tool to install the retention bolt. The tail rotor blade is airworthy when the tail rotor blade attachment bolt cannot be inserted through the root fitting holes and both sides of the inspection tool (Part 2). \n\n\t\t\t(v)\tRepeat step (iv) with the inspection tool positioned on the opposite side of the blade. \n\n\t\t\t(vi)\tReplace unairworthy blades with airworthy blades. Replacement blades must comply with this AD. \n\n\t\t\t(vii)\tInstall tail rotor blades, crush washers and bushings in the exact location and orientation from which they were removed to ensure proper blade attachment. \n\n\t\t\t(viii)\tApply a yellow dot to airworthy tail rotor blades on the trailing edge of the root fitting approximately one-half inch outboard from the bushing. (See Figure 1, Detail A.) Record compliance by part number and serial number in the helicopter log book. \n\n\t\t\t(ix)\tInstall airworthy tail rotor blades in accordance with the applicable maintenance manual. \n\n\t\t\t(x)\tVerify that the tail rotor assembly is correctly balanced in accordance with the applicable maintenance manual. \n\n\tNOTE: MDHC SIN Nos. HN-230.1, DN-177.1, EN-68.1, and FN-55.1, dated March 1, 1991, pertain to these inspections. A copy of the service bulletins may be obtained from MDHC Technical Publications, Building 543/D214, McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Company, 5000 E. McDonnell Road, Mesa, Arizona 85205-9797, telephone (602) 891-6342. The MDHC local field service representative or the field service department has inspection tools available for loan and requests that unairworthy tail rotor blades be removed from service and returned to the MDHC Warranty and Repair Department. \n\n\t(e)\tIn accordance with FAR Sections 21.197 and 21.199, the helicopter may be flown to a base where compliance with the AD may be accomplished. \n\n\t(f)\tThe checks of this AD may be accomplished by a trained pilot. \n\n\t(g)\tAn alternate method of compliance or adjustment of the compliance times, which provides an equivalent level of safety, may be approved by the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 3229 E. Spring Street, Long Beach, California. \n\n\tThis Amendment (39-6963, 91-08-02) becomes effective on May 3, 1991.