{"id":"F2006B11321","name":"AD/MSR/22 - Rear Fuselage Structure - Inspection","slug":"ad-msr-22-rear-fuselage-structure-inspection","collection":"legislative_instrument","jurisdiction":"commonwealth","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":null,"makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":57178,"registerId":"commonwealth-F2006B11321-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-04-02","status":"InForce","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"1","sectionType":"section","heading":"AD/MSR/22 - Rear Fuselage Structure - 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)  Aerospatiale Rallye Series Aeroplanes\n\n \n\nAD/MSR/22 Rear Fuselage Structure - Inspection 6/76\n\nApplicability: All models.\n\n \n\nRequirement: 1. Remove the fuselage tail-cone and fin dorsal fairing and, with the aid of a torch, visually inspect the fuselage internal and external stringers for corrosion.\n\n \n\n2. If corrosion is detected remove the empennage components and perform a detailed visual inspection of the rear fuselage structure for corrosion damage.\n\n \n\nCompliance: Before 15 July 1976 and thereafter at intervals not exceeding 3 years.\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 provided text sets a clear, limited scope: it applies to all Aerospatiale Rallye series aeroplanes and mandates visual inspection procedures for rear fuselage stringers with a three-year maximum interval (Applicability; Requirement 1; Requirement 2; Compliance). The text contains no indication that the scope was altered from the instrument's original stated requirements."},"complexity_factors":["Few, clearly stated steps: remove covers, perform torch-aided visual inspection, and if corrosion found, remove empennage components for detailed inspection (Requirement 1; Requirement 2).","Single trigger for escalation: detection of corrosion moves the task from simple to more invasive inspection (Requirement 2).","Fixed, simple compliance interval with an explicit initial due date and a 3-year repeat interval (Compliance).","Ambiguity in procedural detail: neither objective acceptance criteria for corrosion nor inspector qualifications or record-keeping requirements are specified (Requirement 1; Requirement 2).","Operational burden concentrated at specific times (component removal and inspection) rather than continuous monitoring, creating predictable but potentially disruptive maintenance windows (Requirement 1; Compliance)."],"plain_english_summary":"### What this directive does (mechanics)\n\n- Applies to: All Aerospatiale Rallye series aeroplanes (Applicability).\n- Mandatory tasks (Requirement 1): Remove the fuselage tail-cone and the fin dorsal fairing and, using a torch, visually inspect the internal and external fuselage stringers for corrosion.\n- Follow-up step (Requirement 2): If any corrosion is found, remove the empennage components and carry out a detailed visual inspection of the rear fuselage structure for corrosion damage.\n- Timing (Compliance): The first inspection had to be done before 15 July 1976, and inspections must be repeated at intervals not exceeding three years thereafter.\n\n### Stated aim and practical effect\n\n- The directive requires regular, hands-on visual inspections of the rear fuselage area specifically to look for corrosion and, where corrosion is found, a deeper inspection after removing empennage components (Requirement 1; Requirement 2).\n\n### Who decides and who pays\n\n- The owner/operator of each applicable aeroplane is the party required by the directive to have these inspections carried out (Applicability; Requirement 1; Requirement 2). The text itself prescribes the actions and timing but does not specify who must perform the work; in practice, owners/operators will either do the work (if qualified) or engage maintenance providers to comply.\n- Direct costs are the labour and any parts or repairs arising from findings. Indirect costs include aircraft downtime while the tail-cone, fairing or empennage components are removed and while detailed inspections and any subsequent repairs are completed (Requirement 1; Requirement 2; Compliance).\n\n### Incentives, trade-offs and likely behavioural effects\n\n- Incentives: Regular mandatory inspections create predictable demand for inspection and maintenance work. Owners/operators are incentivised to schedule inspections before the three-year deadline to maintain compliance (Compliance).\n- Trade-offs: The requirement reduces the risk that corrosion will go undetected (by mandating removal of covers and targeted inspection) at the cost of recurring maintenance labour and potential downtime when components are removed for inspection (Requirement 1; Requirement 2; Compliance).\n- Opportunity costs: Time and money spent on these inspections and any follow-up repairs cannot be used for other maintenance or operations during that downtime.\n\n### Implementation risks, discretion and compliance burden\n\n- Inspection content is defined as a ‘‘visual inspection’’ and a ‘‘detailed visual inspection’’ but the directive does not set objective measurement thresholds, acceptance criteria, or specify inspector qualifications in the text provided (Requirement 1; Requirement 2). That absence leaves room for variation in judgments about what constitutes reportable or actionable corrosion.\n- The trigger for deeper work is the detection of corrosion; how inspectors classify and report corrosion will determine when more invasive removal and inspection happen, creating variability in costs and outcomes between operators (Requirement 2).\n- The directive prescribes actions and intervals but does not specify record-keeping, approval processes, or remedial standards in the text provided, which could create implementation frictions or differences in how maintenance organisations interpret and apply the requirement (Requirement 1; Requirement 2; Compliance).\n\n### Effects on private enterprise and maintenance providers\n\n- Maintenance providers capable of removing the tail-cone, dorsal fairing and empennage components and performing detailed inspections are likely to receive recurring business from owners/operators due to the three-year interval (Requirement 1; Requirement 2; Compliance).\n- The requirement reduces the freedom of owners/operators to defer these specific inspections beyond the three-year interval set out in the directive (Compliance).\n\n### Summary of costs vs. benefits (mechanical terms)\n\n- Benefit (mechanical): Regular, specified visual inspections increase the chance of identifying corrosion in fuselage stringers and rear fuselage structure early.\n- Costs: Recurring labour and downtime for removal and inspection, potential additional costs where corrosion is found and deeper inspection or repair is required. Variability in inspection standards and absence of procedural detail in the text supplied increase implementation uncertainty.\n\n(References: Applicability; Requirement 1; Requirement 2; Compliance.)"},"kimi_summary":{"content_quality":"ok","complexity_score":2,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"This is a discrete, single-issue airworthiness directive focused specifically on rear fuselage corrosion inspection for one aircraft series. It has not expanded beyond its original safety purpose."},"complexity_factors":["Very short document (approximately 150 words)","Only 2 defined terms implicitly used (empennage, stringers) but not formally defined in the text","No cross-references to other legislation or regulations","Simple conditional logic: 'If corrosion is detected, then...'","Clear, single compliance date and recurring interval","No nested exceptions or complex procedural requirements"],"plain_english_summary":"This is an **Airworthiness Directive** (a mandatory safety order) issued by Australia's Civil Aviation Safety Authority for **Aerospatiale Rallye series aeroplanes**.\n\n**What it does:**\n- Requires owners/operators to inspect the rear fuselage (tail section) of these aircraft for **corrosion** (rust or deterioration of metal)\n- **Step 1:** Remove the tail cone and fin fairing, then visually inspect internal and external stringers (structural supports) using a torch\n- **Step 2:** If corrosion is found, remove the empennage (tail assembly) and conduct a more detailed inspection of the rear fuselage structure\n\n**Who it affects:**\n- Owners and operators of all Aerospatiale Rallye model aircraft\n\n**Why it matters:**\n- Corrosion in the rear fuselage can weaken the aircraft structure, potentially leading to structural failure in flight\n- This is a **mandatory** safety requirement — aircraft cannot legally fly without compliance\n- Inspections must be done by **15 July 1976** for the first time, then repeated every **3 years** thereafter"}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/ad-msr-22-rear-fuselage-structure-inspection","history":"/api/acts/ad-msr-22-rear-fuselage-structure-inspection/history","analysis":"/api/acts/ad-msr-22-rear-fuselage-structure-inspection/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/ad-msr-22-rear-fuselage-structure-inspection/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/ad-msr-22-rear-fuselage-structure-inspection/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/ad-msr-22-rear-fuselage-structure-inspection/documents"}}