{"id":"F2006B02857","name":"AD/B737/154 Amdt 2 - Elevator Tab","slug":"ad-b737-154-amdt-2-elevator-tab","collection":"legislative_instrument","jurisdiction":"commonwealth","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":null,"makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":42199,"registerId":"commonwealth-F2006B02857-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-04-01","status":"InForce","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"1","sectionType":"section","heading":"AD/B737/154 Amdt 2 - Elevator Tab","content":"![](image.001.png)\n\nAIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE\n\n![](image.001.png)  \n\nFor the reasons set out in the background section, the CASA delegate whose signature appears below revokes Airworthiness Directive (AD) AD/B737/154 Amdt 1 and issues the following AD under subregulation 39.1 (1) of CASR 1998. The AD requires that the action set out in the requirement section (being action that the delegate considers necessary to correct the unsafe condition) be taken in relation to the aircraft or aeronautical product mentioned in the applicability section: (a) in the circumstances mentioned in the requirement section; and (b) in accordance with the instructions set out in the requirement section; and (c) at the time mentioned in the compliance section.\n\n![](image.001.png)  \n\nBoeing 737 Series Aeroplanes\n\nAD/B737/154\n\nAmdt 2\n\n  \nElevator Tab 13/2003\n\nApplicability: All Model 737-600, \\-700, \\-800, and \\-700C series aircraft, with line numbers up to and including line number 1174.\n\nNote 1: The FAA has approved an alternate method of compliance to the inspection and repair requirements of paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) of FAA AD 2001-08-09 for aircraft line numbers 1175 and subsequent (refer FAA Letter 120S-02-671).\n\nRequirement: Action in accordance with the technical requirements of FAA AD 2001-08-09 Amdt 39-12186.\n\nNote 2: Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1072 Revision 1 refers.\n\nCompliance: As specified in the Requirement document for the initial and repetitive inspection requirements, with a revised effective date of 9 May 2001. Compliance with AD/B737/210 (FAA AD 2003-03-22) constitutes terminating action for the requirements of this Directive.\n\nThe compliance time remains unchanged by this issue. This Amendment becomes effective on 25 December 2003.\n\nBackground: The FAA received numerous reports of excessive in-flight vibrations of the elevator tab on Model 737-600, -700, and -800 series aircraft. Elevator tab vibrations can result from wear to the elevator tab hinges and components of the elevator tab control system. Increased exposure to spoiler buffeting can cause premature wear to the elevator tab components and such wear can lead to loss of the elevator tab and reduced controllability of the aircraft.\n\nAmendment 1 was issued in response to the approval of the FAA of an alternate method of compliance for aircraft with the elevator and tab redesign, which was implemented on the production line at Line Number 1175.\n\nAmendment 2 is issued to introduce terminating action for the requirements of this Directive.\n\nBoeing 737 Series Aeroplanes\n\nAD/B737/154 Amdt 2 (continued)\n\n![Signature of David Villiers, Delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.](image.002.png)  \nAmendment 1 of this Airworthiness Directive became effective on 31 October 2002\\. The original issue of this Airworthiness Directive became effective on 9 May 2002.\n\nDavid Villiers\n\nDelegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority 13 November 2003\n\n![](image.001.png)  \n\nThe above AD is notified in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette on 3 December 2003.","sortOrder":0}],"analysis":{"flash_summary_failed":{"failed":true,"reason":"A positive credit balance is required for all requests, including BYOK, so fallback providers remain available. Add credits at https://vercel.com/d?to=%2F%5Bteam%5D%2F%7E%2Fai%3Fmodal%3Dtop-up to continue.","source":"analysis-cron"},"kimi_summary":{"content_quality":"ok","complexity_score":3,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"The legislation maintains its original narrow scope — addressing elevator tab wear on specific Boeing 737 models. Amendment 2 does not expand applicability or introduce new substantive requirements; it merely adds a terminating action provision allowing compliance with AD/B737/210 to satisfy this directive's requirements. This is a procedural refinement within the original safety purpose."},"complexity_factors":["Short, single-purpose document (approximately 400 words)","Only 4 defined/model references (737-600, -700, -800, -700C series; line number 1174)","Simple conditional structure: applicability → requirement → compliance → background","Single cross-reference to external FAA document (AD 2001-08-09) and one internal cross-reference (AD/B737/210)","Two amendment layers requiring historical context tracking (original → Amdt 1 → Amdt 2)","Contains one terminating action clause that creates an interdependency with another directive"],"plain_english_summary":"This AD revokes and replaces the earlier order, requiring operators of certain Boeing 737-600/-700/-800/-700C aircraft (production line numbers up to 1174) to follow FAA technical instructions to inspect and repair elevator tabs. It responds to excessive in‑flight vibrations from hinge and control wear that can lead to tab detachment and control problems. Amendment 2 also provides a terminating action: complying with AD/B737/210 ends the repetitive inspection requirement."},"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":3,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"Amendment 2 does not expand the population of affected aircraft or broaden the range of required safety actions. It introduces a terminating action (via AD/B737/210 / FAA AD 2003-03-22) that allows operators who perform the specified modification to end the recurring inspection/repair requirements. That narrows the ongoing burden for retrofitted aircraft but does not materially grow the AD’s original safety scope (which remains inspection and repair of elevator tab components on the same set of aircraft)."},"complexity_factors":["Single primary external norm referenced: FAA AD 2001-08-09 (Amdt 39-12186) — the AD delegates technical detail to that document","Cross-reference to terminating action: compliance can be ended by complying with AD/B737/210 (FAA AD 2003-03-22)","Line-number conditional: applicability limited to aircraft with line numbers ≤ 1174, with alternate compliance for 1175+ (Note 1)","Reference to a specific Boeing service bulletin (737-55A1072 Rev 1) without reproducing its content","Multiple amendments history (original AD, Amendment 1, this Amendment 2) — adds small archival complexity but not substantive conditional branches","Reliance on external documents and FAA approvals increases practical complexity for operators (must obtain and interpret several documents)"],"plain_english_summary":"**What this Airworthiness Directive (AD) does, in plain English**\n\n- **What it requires (mechanics):** This AD directs operators of certain Boeing 737s to carry out the inspection and repair actions specified in FAA AD 2001-08-09 (as amended). It does not reproduce the detailed inspection steps itself — it binds operators to follow that FAA AD and related Boeing service information (see “Requirement” and Note 2).\n\n- **Which aircraft are affected:** All Boeing 737-600, -700, -800 and -700C series aeroplanes with line numbers up to and including 1174 (see “Applicability”). Aircraft built on the production line at line number 1175 and later are subject to an FAA-approved alternate compliance method (Note 1).\n\n- **When to do it:** The compliance times are those specified in the FAA AD and the associated service bulletin. This Amendment keeps the same compliance times and becomes effective 25 December 2003 (see “Compliance”).\n\n- **How this AD can end the recurring requirements:** Carrying out the terminating action described in AD/B737/210 (which corresponds to FAA AD 2003-03-22) ends the inspection/repair requirements of this Directive (see “Compliance”).\n\n- **Why the rule exists (background and safety concern):** The FAA received many reports of excessive in-flight vibration of the elevator tab on these 737 models. That vibration can come from worn elevator-tab hinges and control components, sometimes worsened by spoiler buffeting. If unchecked, wear can cause the elevator tab to detach, which reduces the aircraft’s controllability (see “Background”).\n\n**Practical implications for operators and maintainers**\n\n- Operators must implement the inspections and repairs required by FAA AD 2001-08-09 for the affected fleet, unless the aircraft already meets the alternate compliance method (production change at line 1175) or the terminating modification in AD/B737/210 has been performed.\n\n- The AD ties Australian regulatory compliance to specific FAA AD and Boeing service bulletin documents; operators will need access to those documents and to approved repair facilities/mechanics to perform the inspections and any necessary repairs or modifications.\n\n**Costs, incentives and trade-offs (test of the stated purpose against implementation realities)**\n\n- Who pays: Aircraft operators (the airlines or aircraft owners) bear the direct costs — inspection labour, any necessary repair parts, downtime, and any installation of the terminating modification.\n\n- Incentives and behaviour: Repetitive inspections impose ongoing costs; the existence of a terminating modification creates an incentive to invest in a one-time retrofit to avoid recurring inspections and reduce operational risk.\n\n- Trade-offs and opportunity costs: Time in maintenance for inspections/repairs reduces aircraft availability and may increase short-term operational costs. The terminating action has an up-front cost but reduces future inspection and potential repair costs and operational disruption.\n\n- Compliance burden and implementation risk: The AD delegates the technical content to the FAA AD and Boeing service bulletin. That reduces legislative detail but creates dependency on those external documents for exact procedures. Operators must ensure they use the correct revision and coordinate with maintenance organisations to implement inspections/repairs properly; incorrect application risks residual safety exposure or regulatory non-compliance.\n\n- Effects on private choice and competition: The AD applies to a particular subset of aircraft by line number. Aircraft already built with the redesigned elevator/tab (line 1175 onward) are treated differently (an alternate compliance), so newer production aircraft avoid the recurring inspection cost. That produces a clear differential in maintenance obligations between older and newer airframes.\n\n**Source mechanics and cross-references (where to look in the AD text)**\n\n- Applicability: defines the affected models and line-number cut-off.\n- Requirement: mandates compliance with FAA AD 2001-08-09 Amdt 39-12186.\n- Notes: point to FAA alternate method approval for line numbers 1175+ (Note 1) and to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1072 Rev 1 (Note 2).\n- Compliance: repeats the FAA AD’s compliance schedule, sets the AD effective date, and identifies AD/B737/210 (FAA AD 2003-03-22) as the terminating action.\n\n"}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/ad-b737-154-amdt-2-elevator-tab","history":"/api/acts/ad-b737-154-amdt-2-elevator-tab/history","analysis":"/api/acts/ad-b737-154-amdt-2-elevator-tab/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/ad-b737-154-amdt-2-elevator-tab/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/ad-b737-154-amdt-2-elevator-tab/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/ad-b737-154-amdt-2-elevator-tab/documents"}}