{"id":"F2006B07275","name":"AD/TB 200/8 Amdt 2 - Aileron and Elevator Control Gimbal Joint","slug":"ad-tb-200-8-amdt-2-aileron-and-elevator-control-gimbal-joint","collection":"legislative_instrument","jurisdiction":"commonwealth","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":null,"makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":49212,"registerId":"commonwealth-F2006B07275-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-04-02","status":"InForce","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"1","sectionType":"section","heading":"AD/TB 200/8 Amdt 2 - Aileron and Elevator Control Gimbal Joint","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/TB 200/8 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\nAerospatiale (Socata) TB 200 Series Aeroplanes\n\nAD/TB 200/8\n\nAmdt 2\n\n  \nAileron and Elevator Control Gimbal Joint 4/2004\n\nApplicability: All Model TB200 aircraft, without MOD 10-0209-27 or Service Bulletin No. BS 10- 140 incorporated.\n\nRequirement: Inspect the aileron and elevator control gimbal joints in accordance with Socata Service Bulletin TB No. 10-130 Revision 2, dated January 2004.\n\nNote: DGAC AD F-2003-368 R2 refers.\n\nCompliance: 1. Within 300 flight hours or 12 months, whichever occurs first; following delivery of the aircraft or replacement of an aileron and elevator gimbal joint;\n\nor,\n\nWithin 50 flight hours after 27 November 2003, whichever occurs later.\n\n2. Repeat thereafter at intervals not to exceed 110 flight hours or 14 months, whichever occurs first.\n\nThe compliance times remain unchanged by this issue. This Amendment becomes effective on 15 April 2004.\n\nBackground: Failure of an aileron control gimbal joint shear pin could result in disconnection of the joint and consequent loss of control. This Directive requires inspection of the shear and joint pins for security and the application of paint witness marks to the pins.\n\nAmendment 1 extended the inspection to the elevator control gimbal joints and changed compliance times.\n\nAmendment 2 is issued in response to a revision of the related DGAC AD, which changes aircraft applicability to exclude aircraft that have the terminating modification for the requirements of this Directive incorporated.\n\nAerospatiale (Socata) TB 200 Series Aeroplanes\n\nAD/TB 200/8 Amdt 2 (continued)\n\nThe original issue of this Airworthiness Directive became effective on 11 July 2002.\n\n![Signature of David Villiers Delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority](image.002.png)  \n\nDavid Villiers\n\nDelegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority 5 March 2004\n\n![](image.001.png)  \n\nThe above AD is notified in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette on 24 March 2004.","sortOrder":0}],"analysis":{"flash_summary_failed":{"failed":true,"reason":"Unauthenticated. Configure AI_GATEWAY_API_KEY or use a provider module. Learn more: https://ai-sdk.dev/unauthenticated-ai-gateway","source":"analysis-cron"},"kimi_summary":{"content_quality":"ok","complexity_score":3,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"This amendment maintains the original scope of the AD (inspection of gimbal joints for safety). Amendment 2 merely narrows applicability by excluding aircraft that have received the terminating modification — this is a standard refinement rather than scope creep. The core safety purpose (preventing control loss from pin failure) remains unchanged from the original July 2002 issue."},"complexity_factors":["Short, single-purpose document (approximately 400 words)","Only 3 defined applicability criteria (aircraft model, modification status, service bulletin status)","Two-tier compliance structure (initial + recurring) with clear 'whichever occurs first' logic","Single cross-reference to French aviation authority (DGAC) directive F-2003-368 R2","No nested exceptions or conditional sub-clauses beyond the applicability exclusion","Background section provides clear safety rationale in plain language"],"plain_english_summary":"This CASA Airworthiness Directive mandates inspections and paint \"witness marks\" on aileron and elevator gimbal joints of Socata TB200 aeroplanes (unless they’ve received the factory terminating modification MOD 10‑0209‑27 / SB 10‑140). It requires an initial check within the early service period and recurring inspections thereafter to detect loose or failed shear/joint pins. It matters because pin failure can disconnect control linkages and cause loss of aileron/elevator control."},"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":2,"scope_assessment":{"changed":true,"description":"This amendment narrows the population subject to the AD by excluding aircraft that have incorporated MOD 10-0209-27 or Service Bulletin No. BS 10-140. Earlier versions (original AD and Amendment 1) applied more broadly; Amendment 1 expanded inspections to include the elevator gimbal joints and adjusted compliance times, while Amendment 2 changes applicability to exempt aircraft with the terminating modification/service bulletin. Compliance timing remains unchanged by this Amendment. (Applicability; Background; Compliance)."},"complexity_factors":["Short, single-topic directive (aileron/elevator gimbal joints)","One aircraft type: Aerospatiale (Socata) TB 200 series","Single external service bulletin referenced (Socata TB No. 10-130 Rev 2)","Clear applicability exception (MOD 10-0209-27 or SB No. BS 10-140)","Two-tier timing conditions for initial compliance (either flight hours/months after delivery/replacement, or a separate 50-hour trigger tied to a historical date)","Simple repeat interval (110 flight hours or 14 months)","Cross-reference to related foreign AD (DGAC AD F-2003-368 R2)","No extensive definitions, nested exceptions, or multiple parts"],"plain_english_summary":"**What this directive does (mechanical effect)**\n\n- Requires owners/operators of certain Aerospatiale (Socata) TB 200 aeroplanes to inspect the aileron and elevator control gimbal joints for security of the shear and joint pins, and to apply paint witness marks to those pins. (Requirement; Background)\n- The inspections must follow the procedures in Socata Service Bulletin TB No. 10-130 Revision 2, dated January 2004. (Requirement)\n- The directive applies to all Model TB200 aircraft that do NOT already have MOD 10-0209-27 or Service Bulletin No. BS 10-140 incorporated; aircraft with that modification/service bulletin are excluded. (Applicability)\n- Timing: initial inspection is required either within 300 flight hours or 12 months after delivery or after replacement of a gimbal joint, whichever occurs first; or, for aircraft already in service as of 27 November 2003, within 50 flight hours after that date, whichever is later. Inspections must then be repeated at intervals not exceeding 110 flight hours or 14 months, whichever occurs first. (Compliance 1–2)\n\n**Who this affects**\n\n- Aircraft owners and operators of Aerospatiale (Socata) TB 200 series aeroplanes that have not incorporated MOD 10-0209-27 or SB BS 10-140. (Applicability)\n- Licensed maintenance organisations and engineers who perform the inspections and any required corrective work under the referenced Socata Service Bulletin. (Requirement)\n\n**Why it matters (official rationale and mechanical risk)**\n\n- The background states that failure of an aileron control gimbal joint shear pin could disconnect the joint and cause loss of control of the aircraft. The AD is intended to detect insecure or failing pins and mark them so future change can be detected. (Background)\n\n**Who decides and who pays**\n\n- The directive is issued by a delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority under CASR subregulation 39.1(1), and requires action in specified circumstances. (Preamble)\n- The financial cost of complying (inspections, labour, parts, and any modification) falls on aircraft owners/operators and their maintenance providers. (Requirement; Compliance)\n\n**Practical consequences and behavioural effects**\n\n- Operators must adopt the inspection schedule and procedures in the Service Bulletin and incorporate paint witness marks on the shear/joint pins. (Requirement; Compliance)\n- Operators who choose to incorporate MOD 10-0209-27 or SB BS 10-140 remove their aircraft from the Directive’s applicability, which changes the ongoing inspection obligation for those aircraft. This creates a direct choice: incur the one‑off cost of the terminating modification or continue recurring inspections. (Applicability)\n\n**Costs, incentives and trade-offs**\n\n- Direct costs: repeated inspections at the stated intervals, skilled labour, downtime, and replacement parts where defects are found. (Compliance; Requirement)\n- Incentive created: the exclusion for aircraft with the terminating modification or service bulletin encourages owners to weigh a one‑time modification cost against recurrent inspection and maintenance costs. (Applicability)\n- Implementation burden: operators must track flight hours and calendar time to meet the dual time/flight-hour triggers; maintenance shops must follow a specific service bulletin. (Compliance; Requirement)\n- Regulatory burden: CASA must maintain oversight and enforce compliance, and may need to assess incorporation of the terminating modification. (Preamble)\n\n**Implementation risks and limits**\n\n- The inspection regime relies on scheduled visual/physical checks; it does not guarantee detection of every impending failure between inspections. (Background; Requirement)\n- The AD references a manufacturer service bulletin; correct application depends on following that document precisely. (Requirement)\n\n**Source claims vs mechanical effect**\n\n- The directive’s stated purpose is to prevent shear-pin failure leading to loss of control. That purpose is implemented by mandating inspections, witness painting, and by excluding aircraft that have a terminating modification. (Background; Requirement; Applicability)\n\n(Sections cited in parentheses: Applicability; Requirement; Compliance 1–2; Background; Preamble.)"}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/ad-tb-200-8-amdt-2-aileron-and-elevator-control-gimbal-joint","history":"/api/acts/ad-tb-200-8-amdt-2-aileron-and-elevator-control-gimbal-joint/history","analysis":"/api/acts/ad-tb-200-8-amdt-2-aileron-and-elevator-control-gimbal-joint/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/ad-tb-200-8-amdt-2-aileron-and-elevator-control-gimbal-joint/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/ad-tb-200-8-amdt-2-aileron-and-elevator-control-gimbal-joint/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/ad-tb-200-8-amdt-2-aileron-and-elevator-control-gimbal-joint/documents"}}