{"id":"F2005L00853","name":"AD/CON/82 Amdt 1 - Crankshaft Replacement and Ultrasonic Inspection","slug":"ad-con-82-amdt-1-crankshaft-replacement-and-ultrasonic-inspection","collection":"legislative_instrument","jurisdiction":"commonwealth","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":null,"makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":34227,"registerId":"commonwealth-F2005L00853-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-04-01","status":"InForce","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"Teledyne Continental Motors Piston Engin","sectionType":"division","heading":"Teledyne Continental Motors Piston Engines","content":"### Teledyne Continental Motors Piston Engines\n\n| AD/CON/82 Amdt 1 | Crankshaft Replacement andUltrasonic Inspection | 5/2005 |\n| ---------------- | ----------------------------------------------- | ------ |\n\n| Applicability: | Teledyne Continental Motors (TCM) IO-360, LTSIO-360, TSIO-360, IO-520,LIO-520, LTSIO-520 and TSIO-520 series reciprocating engines; and Rolls-Royce, plc IO-360 and TSIO-360 series reciprocating engines.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                |\n| -------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| Requirement:   | 1. Determine if the crankshaft was manufactured using the ‘Airmelt’ or ‘Vacuum Arc Remelt (VAR)’ process in accordance with the identification procedure described in TCM Critical Service Bulletin CSB96-8, dated 25 June 1996 or later revision approved by FAA. If the crankshaft was manufactured using the ‘Airmelt’ process or if the manufacturing process is unknown, remove the crankshaft from service and replace with a serviceable crankshaft manufactured using the VAR process. Do not fit removed non-VAR crankshaft into any engine.2. Conduct an ultrasonic inspection of the VAR crankshaft in accordance with the procedures specified in TCM Mandatory SB No. MSB96-10, dated 15 August 1996 or later revision approved by FAA.This inspection is in addition to the requirements for Magnetic Particle Inspection (MPI) or any other inspections specified in TCM or Rolls-Royce, plc Overhaul Manuals, as applicable.3. Carry out MPI of the VAR crankshaft as specified in TCM or Rolls-Royce plc Overhaul Manuals as applicable.Note: FAA AD 97-26-17 amendment 39-10260 refers. |\n| Compliance:    | 1. Whenever the crankshaft is next removed from the engine, after the effective date of this directive.2. Repetitively, at the next and subsequent installation of the VAR crankshaft in the engine.3. Requirement 3 is an alternate method of compliance to requirement 2 up to 31 December 2006.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        |\n|                | This Amendment becomes effective on 12 May 2005.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          |\n\n| Background: | Amendment 1 clarifies the source of approved data to be used for MPI per requirement 3 of this ADMPI has been approved as an alternate method of compliance to the requirement of Ultrasonic Inspection till 31 December 2006, allowing adequate time for the build-up of the necessary infrastructure and skills required to meet the requirement 2 of this directive.The original issue of this Airworthiness Directive became effective on 25 November 2004. |\n| ----------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n\n![](image.001.png)  \nJames Coyne  \nDelegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority\n\n31 March 2005","sortOrder":0},{"sectionNumber":"AD/CON/82 Amdt 1","sectionType":"part","heading":"AD/CON/82 Amdt 1","content":"## AD/CON/82 Amdt 1","sortOrder":1},{"sectionNumber":"Crankshaft Replacement andUltrasonic Ins","sectionType":"part","heading":"Crankshaft Replacement andUltrasonic Inspection","content":"## Crankshaft Replacement and  \nUltrasonic Inspection","sortOrder":2},{"sectionNumber":"5/2005","sectionType":"part","heading":"5/2005","content":"## 5/2005","sortOrder":3}],"analysis":{"kimi_summary":{"content_quality":"ok","complexity_score":3,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"This is Amendment 1 to an existing Airworthiness Directive. The amendment is narrow and technical — it merely clarifies the source document for Magnetic Particle Inspection procedures and formalises the temporary alternative compliance method (MPI instead of ultrasonic) with a specific end date. The scope remains tightly focused on crankshaft safety for the specified engine models, consistent with the original directive's intent."},"complexity_factors":["Short, single-purpose directive with only 3 substantive requirements","Minimal defined terms (only process-specific terminology like 'Airmelt' and 'VAR' which are explained in context)","Clear cross-references to manufacturer service bulletins (CSB96-8, MSB96-10) and FAA documents, but these are external rather than internal legislative cross-references","Simple conditional logic: 'If Airmelt or unknown → remove; If VAR → inspect'","Single temporal exception (MPI alternative expires 31 December 2006)","No nested exceptions or recursive definitions"],"plain_english_summary":"This is an **Airworthiness Directive (AD)** — essentially a mandatory safety order issued by Australia's Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). It applies to specific aircraft piston engines made by Teledyne Continental Motors (TCM) and Rolls-Royce.\n\n**What it does:**\n- **Bans 'Airmelt' crankshafts**: If an engine has a crankshaft (the main rotating shaft in an engine) made using the older 'Airmelt' process — or if you can't prove how it was made — you must remove it and replace it with a newer 'VAR' (Vacuum Arc Remelt) crankshaft. The old crankshaft cannot be reused in any engine.\n- **Requires ultrasonic inspection**: All VAR crankshafts must undergo a special ultrasound check to detect internal cracks or flaws, following specific manufacturer instructions.\n- **Allows temporary alternative**: Until 31 December 2006, owners could use Magnetic Particle Inspection (MPI) — a different crack-detection method — instead of ultrasound. This grace period was to give repair shops time to get the right equipment and training.\n\n**Who it affects:**\n- Owners and operators of aircraft with TCM IO-360, LTSIO-360, TSIO-360, IO-520, LIO-520, LTSIO-520, TSIO-520 engines, or Rolls-Royce IO-360 and TSIO-360 engines.\n- Aircraft maintenance engineers and overhaul facilities.\n\n**Why it matters:**\nCrankshaft failures in flight can be catastrophic. This directive addresses a known safety risk with certain manufacturing processes that could lead to metal fatigue and engine failure. The ultrasonic inspection catches defects that visual checks or older methods might miss."},"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":6,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"Amendment 1 does not materially expand the directive’s safety objective. It clarifies the approved sources of data for Magnetic Particle Inspection (MPI) and temporarily permits MPI as an alternative to the ultrasonic inspection until 31 December 2006 to allow industry time to build capability. That is a clarification and a time‑limited compliance concession rather than a significant change of scope beyond the original safety purpose (see Background and Requirement 3)."},"complexity_factors":["Multiple engine series listed across two manufacturers (TCM and Rolls‑Royce) increasing applicability scope","Conditional logic on manufacturing process: different requirements depending on Airmelt, VAR, or unknown process (Requirement 1)","Cross‑references to external documents: TCM CSB96‑8, TCM MSB96‑10, TCM/Rolls‑Royce overhaul manuals, and FAA approval of later revisions (Requirements 1–2)","Alternative compliance path (MPI) with a fixed sunset date (31 Dec 2006) introduces temporal complexity (Requirement 3; Background)","Repetitive inspection requirement at each installation of a VAR crankshaft (ongoing compliance obligations)","Prohibition on refitting removed non‑VAR crankshafts creates an absolute operational rule (Requirement 1)","Interaction with previous AD (original AD effective 25 Nov 2004) and amendment history (Amendment 1) requires understanding of prior instrument","Multiple inspection methods mentioned (ultrasonic, MPI, plus any other overhaul manual inspections) and hierarchy of methods increases decision points for maintainers"],"plain_english_summary":"**What this instrument does (mechanically)**\n\n- Applies to a set of piston aircraft engines made by Teledyne Continental Motors (various IO‑360, LTSIO‑360, TSIO‑360, IO‑520, LIO‑520, LTSIO‑520 and TSIO‑520 series) and to Rolls‑Royce IO‑360 and TSIO‑360 series engines (Applicability).\n\n- Requires owners/operators and maintenance organisations to check whether a crankshaft was made by the ‘Airmelt’ process or by the ‘Vacuum Arc Remelt’ (VAR) process using the identification procedure in TCM Critical Service Bulletin CSB96‑8 (or a later FAA‑approved revision). If the crankshaft is an Airmelt crankshaft, or the manufacturing process cannot be determined, the crankshaft must be removed from service and replaced with a serviceable crankshaft manufactured by the VAR process (Requirement 1).\n\n- Requires an ultrasonic inspection of any VAR crankshaft in accordance with TCM Mandatory Service Bulletin MSB96‑10 (or a later FAA‑approved revision). This ultrasonic inspection is additional to any Magnetic Particle Inspection (MPI) or other inspections required by the applicable TCM or Rolls‑Royce overhaul manuals (Requirement 2).\n\n- Allows MPI (performed as specified in the applicable TCM or Rolls‑Royce overhaul manual) to be used as an alternative means of compliance to the ultrasonic inspection until 31 December 2006; after that date the ultrasonic inspection is the required method unless another FAA‑approved revision changes that (Requirement 3; Background).\n\n- Prohibits refitting removed non‑VAR crankshafts into any engine (Requirement 1).\n\n- Sets the timing for compliance: identification when the crankshaft is next removed from the engine after the directive’s effective date; ultrasonic inspection repetitively at the next and each subsequent installation of a VAR crankshaft; MPI as an alternative until the stated cut‑off date (Compliance).\n\n**Who is affected**\n\n- Aircraft owners/operators who have the listed TCM or Rolls‑Royce engine models installed.\n- Maintenance organisations and overhaul facilities that remove, install, inspect or supply crankshafts for those engines.\n- Parts suppliers and overhaul shops that manufacture, stock or sell VAR crankshafts or provide ultrasonic or MPI services.\n\n**Why it matters**\n\n- The rule changes which crankshafts may remain in service and establishes a mandatory inspection regime intended to detect defects that could lead to crankshaft failure. Mechanically: it forces owners to remove uncertain or Airmelt crankshafts and either fit VAR crankshafts and inspect them ultrasonically, or (temporarily) rely on MPI as an approved alternative.\n\n**Stated purpose and operational effects**\n\n- The underlying purpose, as stated in the directive and background, is to reduce the risk of crankshaft failure by restricting use to VAR‑manufactured crankshafts and by requiring ultrasonic inspection of VAR crankshafts. The amendment clarifies which documents are the approved sources for MPI data and temporarily permits MPI as an alternate method while inspection infrastructure and skills are built up (Background).\n\n- Who pays: aircraft owners/operators bear the direct costs — replacing non‑VAR crankshafts, downtime while removed, and paying for ultrasonic inspections or MPI. Maintenance providers and parts suppliers bear costs to obtain equipment, train staff and stock VAR crankshafts.\n\n- Behaviour changes forced by the directive: maintenance shops must follow the SB identification procedure before reuse; non‑VAR crankshafts must be retired from service; shops may need to invest in ultrasonic inspection capability or rely on MPI until the temporary allowance expires; parts markets for re‑used non‑VAR crankshafts are eliminated by the prohibition on refitting removed non‑VAR crankshafts.\n\n**Implementation, compliance and regulatory discretion**\n\n- The AD delegates modes of technical compliance to external service bulletins and overhaul manuals (CSB96‑8, MSB96‑10, and TCM/Rolls‑Royce overhaul manuals) and accepts later FAA‑approved revisions of those documents. That creates dependence on the content and revision of those external documents and on FAA approvals (Requirements 1–2).\n\n- There is a time‑limited, explicit alternate method (MPI) to permit phased compliance while ultrasonic capability is built up; that reduces immediate industry disruption but imposes a deadline (Requirement 3; Background).\n\n**Market effects and trade‑offs**\n\n- Concentrated benefits accrue to VAR crankshaft manufacturers, suppliers and inspection service providers (they receive new demand). Diffuse costs are borne across many aircraft owners/operators who must replace or inspect crankshafts and incur downtime.\n\n- The prohibition on refitting non‑VAR crankshafts removes a specific second‑hand supply channel for those parts, increasing demand for VAR parts and likely raising replacement cost and lead times for owners.\n\n- The directive increases maintenance complexity: inspectors must follow identification procedures, keep records, and perform repetitive inspections on installation. That raises operating costs for maintenance organisations and owners, and may affect aircraft availability.\n\n**Risks and unintended consequences to watch for**\n\n- Parts availability and lead times for VAR crankshafts could create operational delays or increased costs.\n- Small maintenance providers may need to invest in ultrasonic equipment or outsource inspections, which shifts costs and can concentrate service provision.\n- Reliance on external SBs and FAA approval means changes in those documents can alter the practical compliance route without further AD amendment.\n\n(See: Requirements 1–3; Compliance; Background.)"},"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"}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/ad-con-82-amdt-1-crankshaft-replacement-and-ultrasonic-inspection","history":"/api/acts/ad-con-82-amdt-1-crankshaft-replacement-and-ultrasonic-inspection/history","analysis":"/api/acts/ad-con-82-amdt-1-crankshaft-replacement-and-ultrasonic-inspection/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/ad-con-82-amdt-1-crankshaft-replacement-and-ultrasonic-inspection/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/ad-con-82-amdt-1-crankshaft-replacement-and-ultrasonic-inspection/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/ad-con-82-amdt-1-crankshaft-replacement-and-ultrasonic-inspection/documents"}}