{"id":"F2006B04079","name":"AD/BEECH 60/17 - Flap Bracket","slug":"ad-beech-60-17-flap-bracket","collection":"legislative_instrument","jurisdiction":"commonwealth","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":null,"makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":43744,"registerId":"commonwealth-F2006B04079-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-04-02","status":"InForce","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"1","sectionType":"section","heading":"AD/BEECH 60/17 - Flap Bracket","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)  Beechcraft 60 (Duke) Series Aeroplanes\n\n \n\nAD/BEECH 60/17 Flap Bracket 8/72\n\nApplicability: All models which have achieved 1000 or more hours’ time in service.\n\n \n\nRequirement: Inspect flap actuator bracket and adjacent structure on RH and LH flaps for cracks or signs of distress.\n\n \n\nCompliance: Within 100 hours’ time in service after 31 August 1972 and thereafter at intervals not exceeding 300 hours’ time in service.\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 provided text is a standalone airworthiness directive that sets an inspection requirement for Beechcraft 60 aeroplanes meeting the stated hours threshold. The document itself contains no indication that it alters or expands an earlier scope or that its scope has been changed from an original intent. Any change-of-scope determination would require comparison with prior or subsequent instruments or explanatory material not present in the supplied text."},"complexity_factors":["Narrow technical scope limited to inspection of a single component and adjacent structure (Requirement).","Clear applicability threshold tied to airframe hours (1000+ hours) (Applicability).","Simple, fixed compliance timeline with initial and recurring intervals specified (within 100 hours after 31 Aug 1972; every 300 hours thereafter) (Compliance).","Absence of procedural detail (inspection method, acceptance criteria, remediation, enforcement) increases implementation uncertainty despite overall simplicity (Requirement).","Regulatory provenance (airworthiness directive under Commonwealth/CASA schedule) is standard but may imply interaction with other regulatory material not included here (header)."],"plain_english_summary":"What this instrument does (mechanics)\n\n- This airworthiness directive applies to Beechcraft 60 (Duke) series aeroplanes that have logged 1,000 or more hours in service (Applicability).\n- It requires an inspection of the flap actuator bracket and the adjacent structure on both the right-hand and left-hand flaps for cracks or other signs of distress (Requirement).\n- The first inspection must be completed within 100 hours time in service after 31 August 1972, and after that inspections must be repeated at intervals not exceeding 300 hours time in service (Compliance).\n\nWho this affects and who decides\n\n- The directive targets owners/operators of Beechcraft 60 aeroplanes that meet the hours threshold (Applicability). The directive is issued under the Commonwealth/Civil Aviation Safety Authority schedule of airworthiness directives (header). The text itself sets the inspection requirement and timing; it does not name an enforcement or certification agency beyond that heading.\n\nWhat behaviour changes and who pays\n\n- Operators must schedule and carry out the specified inspections on each affected aeroplane (Requirement; Compliance). That creates direct costs in labour and aircraft downtime while inspections are performed. The source text does not specify who must perform the inspection (for example, an individual owner, a licensed maintenance organisation, or an authorised inspector), nor does it set fees or cost recovery rules.\n\nCosts, incentives and trade-offs (what the text creates, not claims about intent)\n\n- Ongoing compliance cost: Repeating inspections at a maximum 300-hour interval creates a recurring maintenance task and associated labour/time costs (Compliance).\n- Timing constraint: The directive imposes an initial short window for the first inspection (within 100 hours after 31 August 1972), which concentrates near-term scheduling and potential downtime for affected aircraft (Compliance).\n- Unspecified remediation: The directive requires detection (inspect for cracks or distress) but does not specify remedial actions, repair standards, or grounding rules in the text provided (Requirement). That leaves follow-on decisions (and their costs) to operators, maintenance providers or other regulatory guidance not contained in this document.\n\nCompliance burden, discretion and implementation risks\n\n- Compliance burden: The burden is operational (performing the inspections at the stated intervals) and administrative (scheduling, record-keeping). The directive does not specify who must keep records or provide evidence of compliance (Requirement; Compliance).\n- Bureaucratic discretion: The directive itself gives no discretionary exemptions, alternative compliance methods, or criteria for approving different inspection intervals or procedures in the text provided. Any discretion would therefore depend on other regulatory material or later guidance not present here.\n- Implementation risk: The directive requires inspection for cracks/distress but does not specify inspection method, acceptance criteria, or mandatory follow-up actions. That creates risk of inconsistent detection or uncertainty about when an aeroplane is unairworthy absent complementary guidance (Requirement).\n\nMarket effects and private enterprise considerations\n\n- The directive imposes a maintenance task on particular aeroplanes (Applicability). That increases demand for inspection labour and may shift workload to maintenance organisations or owners/operators without prescribing who must perform the work (Requirement; Compliance).\n- The directive does not, on its face, change ownership rights, pricing rules, competition rules, or contract freedoms; it adds a compliance cost and scheduling constraint that could affect operating economics for affected aeroplanes but does not itself dictate commercial outcomes.\n\nWhat the source does not state (gaps to note)\n\n- The document does not describe the safety rationale or expected benefits in this text, nor does it specify who performs inspections, what constitutes an adequate inspection method, what remedial steps must be taken if damage is found, or how compliance will be certified or enforced (Requirement; Compliance). These implementation details would need to be obtained from related guidance, maintenance manuals, or regulatory enforcement material."},"kimi_summary":{"content_quality":"ok","complexity_score":2,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"This is a discrete, single-issue safety directive from 1972 (as indicated by the \"8/72\" suffix). It addresses one specific airworthiness concern on one aircraft type. There is no evidence of scope creep; the document remains tightly focused on its original purpose of preventing flap bracket failures through periodic inspection."},"complexity_factors":["Extremely short document (under 200 words)","Only 4 operative provisions: applicability, requirement, compliance timing, and repeat interval","No defined terms section — all terms are standard aviation terminology","No cross-references to other legislation or regulations","Simple conditional logic: single threshold (1000+ hours) triggers obligation","Linear structure with no exceptions, exemptions, or alternative compliance paths"],"plain_english_summary":"**What this is:** This is an Airworthiness Directive (AD) — a mandatory safety order issued by Australia's Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) under the Civil Aviation Regulations 1998.\n\n**What it does:** It requires owners and operators of Beechcraft 60 \"Duke\" series aeroplanes to inspect a specific part — the flap actuator bracket and surrounding structure on both left and right wings — for cracks or damage.\n\n**Who it affects:** Anyone operating a Beechcraft 60 (Duke) model that has flown **1,000 hours or more**.\n\n**What must be done:**\n- **First inspection:** Within 100 flight hours after 31 August 1972\n- **Repeat inspections:** Every 300 flight hours thereafter\n\n**Why it matters:** Cracks in flap brackets can lead to flap failure, which seriously compromises aircraft control during landing. This AD prevents catastrophic structural failures by catching fatigue damage early.\n\n**Key terms explained:**\n- **Time in service:** Actual flight hours (not just calendar time)\n- **RH/LH:** Right-hand and left-hand (aviation shorthand for right and left sides)\n- **Flap actuator bracket:** The metal fitting that connects the flap (the moving surface on the wing that helps slow the plane for landing) to the mechanism that moves it"}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/ad-beech-60-17-flap-bracket","history":"/api/acts/ad-beech-60-17-flap-bracket/history","analysis":"/api/acts/ad-beech-60-17-flap-bracket/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/ad-beech-60-17-flap-bracket/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/ad-beech-60-17-flap-bracket/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/ad-beech-60-17-flap-bracket/documents"}}