For transport category military helicopters, what are the fatigue regulations as specified by the US and Australian regulatory bodies?

I've managed to find that FAA has 14 CFR 29.571 (Fatigue Tolerance Evaluation of Metallic Structure) but this could just be for civil helicopters.

  • $\begingroup$ No. It is a question because I'm finding it difficult to find the above stated information. $\endgroup$
    – Raptor
    Commented May 29, 2017 at 8:28
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ 'Relevant regulations' is very broad.. there's manufacturing, ongoing airworthiness, operations, licensing, noise.. the list goes on and they are often integrated or combined with fixed-wing regulations. What exactly are you looking for? $\endgroup$
    – Ben
    Commented May 29, 2017 at 9:59
  • $\begingroup$ Ben thanks for the clarifications. I'm particularly interested in the regulations related from a structural airworthiness viewpoint. $\endgroup$
    – Raptor
    Commented May 29, 2017 at 10:32
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Raptor, perhaps you should edit your question to only ask about Australian CASA regulations. That part of your question is specific and answerable. Your question under Q1) a) seems too broad, since a proper answer would list every applicable regulation from every possible regulatory body worldwide. $\endgroup$
    – J W
    Commented May 29, 2017 at 15:23
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Ok Everyone, I've made the question super specific and look forward to your thoughts. Thank you all for your feedback and helping me to sharpen my question. Best. $\endgroup$
    – Raptor
    Commented Jun 1, 2017 at 7:28

1 Answer 1


The US Federal Aviation Administration does not regulate aircraft owned and operated by the military services. I suspect that is the same situation with Australia's CASA.

Parameters for aircraft service life for military aircraft are defined by the manufacturer. The aircraft is designed to meet the requirements specified by the agency requiring the aircraft. This is usually expressed in flight hours, cycles or a combination of that and possibly other parameters.

  • $\begingroup$ "Parameters for aircraft service life for military aircraft are defined by the manufacturer". Incorrect. The regulatory authority is DASA, not CASA in this situation. That info is not made public $\endgroup$
    – Craig
    Commented Jun 18, 2020 at 8:51
  • $\begingroup$ @Craig No. My statement is correct. You only took one sentence and used it out of context. The second sentence addresses your point. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 19, 2020 at 14:57
  • $\begingroup$ The manufacturer makes suggestions but the operator and regulatory authority (DASR) define the limits and can actually extend life limits if you mod in strain gauges for instance, or carry out ongoing inspections like NDT. E.g. on Hawk 127 BAe says x hrs, but RAAF decided to implement extra systems (HUMS, NDT, etc.) and now extended life beyond original design life. $\endgroup$
    – Craig
    Commented Jun 20, 2020 at 11:37

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .