{"id":"F2006B02333","name":"AD/AMD 10/18 - Wing-to-Fuselage Junction - Inspection","slug":"ad-amd-10-18-wing-to-fuselage-junction-inspection","collection":"legislative_instrument","jurisdiction":"commonwealth","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":null,"makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":41563,"registerId":"commonwealth-F2006B02333-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-04-01","status":"InForce","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"1","sectionType":"section","heading":"AD/AMD 10/18 - Wing-to-Fuselage Junction - Inspection","content":"---\nmeta-content-style-type: text/css\nmeta-content-type: application/xhtml+xml; charset=utf-8\nmeta-generator: Aspose.Words for .NET 22.10.0\n---\n\n?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\" standalone=\"no\"?>\n\nCOMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (Civil Aviation Regulations 1998), PART 39 - 105 CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY\n\nSCHEDULE OF AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES\n\n \n\n![](image.001.png)  AMD Falcon 10 Series Aeroplanes\n\n \n\nAD/AMD 10/18 Wing-to-Fuselage Junction - Inspection 7/84\n\nApplicability: All model Falcon 10 with S/Nos 1 to 70, 73, 74 and 75. Requirement: AMD S.B. F10-0205.\n\nNote: Consigne De Navigabilite No. 84-41-19(B) refers.\n\n \n\nCompliance: Prior to 31 March 1985.\n\n \n\nBackground: Corrosion of wing recesses and wing to fuselage attachments has been reported due to deterioration of the original recess filling and sealing compound.\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n","sortOrder":0}],"analysis":{"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":2,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"The document specifies applicability (serial numbers), a single inspection requirement pointing to AMD S.B. F10-0205, a compliance deadline, and the stated background cause (deterioration of sealing compound leading to corrosion). Nothing in the supplied text indicates the scope has been altered from what is stated within this instrument."},"complexity_factors":["Narrow applicability limited to specific serial numbers (Applicability).","Single, time-limited compliance action with a fixed deadline (Compliance).","Technical steps are referenced in an external service bulletin rather than detailed in the directive (Requirement: AMD S.B. F10-0205).","Cross-reference to another authority's communication (Consigne De Navigabilite No. 84-41-19(B)) requiring coordinative reading.","Potential variability in repair scope depending on inspection findings (Background)."],"plain_english_summary":"What this directive does, in plain terms\n\n- Mechanically, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority directs operators of certain Falcon 10 aeroplanes to carry out an inspection of the wing-to-fuselage junction in accordance with AMD Service Bulletin F10-0205. (Requirement: \"AMD S.B. F10-0205\")\n\n- Who it applies to: all Falcon 10 aircraft with serial numbers 1–70, 73, 74 and 75. (Applicability)\n\n- When it must be done: the inspection must be completed before 31 March 1985. (Compliance)\n\nOfficial rationale (as stated in the instrument)\n\n- The document states the inspection requirement in response to reported corrosion of wing recesses and the wing-to-fuselage attachments, caused by deterioration of the original recess filling and sealing compound. (Background)\n\nHow the directive works, practically\n\n- The regulator sets a mandatory inspection requirement and points operators to a service bulletin for the technical steps. (Requirement: \"AMD S.B. F10-0205\")\n- Aircraft owners/operators must schedule and pay for the inspection and any follow-on work (repairs, replacement of sealing compound) discovered by that inspection. (Applicability; Requirement; Compliance)\n- The inspection deadline fixes the timing of the compliance activity and creates a short-term demand for maintenance resources before that date. (Compliance)\n- The directive cross-references an overseas airworthiness communication (Consigne De Navigabilite No. 84-41-19(B)), indicating the technical concern has also been addressed by another authority. (Note)\n\nWho pays, who decides, and what changes in behaviour\n\n- Who pays: the aircraft owner/operator pays for inspection labour, parts and any repairs. (Requirement; Compliance)\n- Who decides: the Civil Aviation Safety Authority mandates the inspection; the technical content and procedures are set out in the referenced service bulletin (AMD S.B. F10-0205). (Requirement)\n- Behaviour change: operators must prioritise and perform the inspection by the stated date; maintenance providers will need to carry out or compete to carry out that work per the service bulletin instructions. (Applicability; Requirement; Compliance)\n\nPractical costs, incentives and trade-offs (source-linked observations)\n\n- Direct cost and downtime: the requirement imposes a clear compliance cost in time and maintenance expense for each affected aircraft; those are borne by the aircraft owner/operator. (Applicability; Requirement; Compliance)\n- Incentives: because the regulator sets a deadline, operators are incentivised to schedule inspections promptly; the operator’s private incentive is aligned with avoiding structural corrosion. (Compliance; Background)\n- Opportunity cost and resource pressure: concentrating inspections before the compliance date may cause short-term demand for maintenance capacity. (Compliance)\n- Implementation risk: inspections may reveal corrosion requiring additional repair work beyond simple resealing, increasing cost and downtime. (Background; Requirement)\n- Bureaucratic discretion and technical detail: the directive delegates technical detail to the service bulletin (AMD S.B. F10-0205), so the practical procedures and any required repairs depend on that bulletin’s content. (Requirement)\n\nEffects on private enterprise and competition\n\n- Independent maintenance organisations can perform the mandated inspections and repairs if they follow the service bulletin; the directive itself does not specify exclusive providers or restrict who may perform the work. (Requirement)\n- The measure creates short-term demand for maintenance services for the identified fleet, which may affect prices and availability of those services while operators comply with the deadline. (Applicability; Compliance)\n\nConcentrated benefits, diffuse costs, and capture risk (source-grounded)\n\n- Concentrated benefit: any reduction in corrosion risk accrues to the operators of the specifically listed Falcon 10 aircraft. (Applicability; Background)\n- Diffuse cost: the compliance cost is concentrated on those owners/operators; the directive does not create costs for other parties. (Applicability; Compliance)\n- The document does not provide evidence within itself of rent-seeking or supplier capture; it references a manufacturer/service bulletin for technical instructions, which is a normal mechanism for specifying technical work. (Requirement)\n\nSummary statement\n\n- The directive requires a one-off inspection of the wing-to-fuselage junction for a defined set of Falcon 10 serial numbers by a set date, on the stated basis that corrosion has been reported where the original sealing compound has deteriorated. The regulator prescribes the inspection and delegates the technical procedure to the referenced service bulletin; owners/operators must fund and arrange the inspection and any corrective work. (Applicability; Requirement; Compliance; Background; Note)"},"kimi_summary":{"content_quality":"ok","complexity_score":2,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"This is a discrete, targeted airworthiness directive addressing a specific corrosion issue in a specific aircraft type. It has not expanded beyond its original purpose of ensuring structural integrity at the wing-to-fuselage junction."},"complexity_factors":["Very short document (approximately 150 words of substantive content)","Only 3 defined elements: applicability (specific serial numbers), requirement (single service bulletin reference), and compliance date","No cross-references to other legislation or regulations beyond the parent Civil Aviation Regulations 1998","Single condition: aircraft must be in the specified serial number range","No nested exceptions or conditional logic — straightforward command structure","Background provided in plain language explaining the safety rationale"],"plain_english_summary":"This is an **Airworthiness Directive (AD)** issued by Australia's Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). It mandates a specific safety inspection for certain Dassault Falcon 10 aircraft.\n\n**What it does:**\n- Requires owners/operators of specific Falcon 10 jets (serial numbers 1-70, 73, 74, and 75) to inspect the **wing-to-fuselage junction** — the critical area where the wing attaches to the aircraft body.\n- The inspection must follow the manufacturer's Service Bulletin (S.B. F10-0205).\n\n**Why it matters:**\n- **Corrosion** (rust-like deterioration of metal) was found in the wing recesses and attachment points.\n- This corrosion happened because the original sealing compound broke down over time.\n- If left unchecked, this could weaken the structural connection between the wing and fuselage — a potentially catastrophic safety risk.\n\n**Who must comply:**\n- Operators of affected Falcon 10 aircraft.\n- **Deadline:** Before 31 March 1985.\n\n**Key point:** This is a mandatory safety fix, not optional. Non-compliance means the aircraft cannot legally fly."}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/ad-amd-10-18-wing-to-fuselage-junction-inspection","history":"/api/acts/ad-amd-10-18-wing-to-fuselage-junction-inspection/history","analysis":"/api/acts/ad-amd-10-18-wing-to-fuselage-junction-inspection/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/ad-amd-10-18-wing-to-fuselage-junction-inspection/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/ad-amd-10-18-wing-to-fuselage-junction-inspection/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/ad-amd-10-18-wing-to-fuselage-junction-inspection/documents"}}