{"id":"F2006B07824","name":"Airworthiness Directives 2004 - Revocation and Remaking - De Havilland DH 83 (Fox Moth) Series Aeroplanes","slug":"airworthiness-directives-2004-revocation-and-remaking-de-havilland-dh-83-fox-moth-series-aeroplanes","collection":"legislative_instrument","jurisdiction":"commonwealth","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":null,"makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":50721,"registerId":"commonwealth-F2006B07824-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-04-02","status":"InForce","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"1","sectionType":"section","heading":"Airworthiness Directives 2004 - Revocation and Remaking - De Havilland DH 83 (Fox Moth) Series Aeroplanes","content":"Airworthiness Directives 2004\n\nI, DAVID ALAN VILLIERS, delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety\n\nAuthority, acting under subregulation 39.001 (1) of the Civil\n\nAviation Safety Regulations 1998:\n\n(a) revoke the Airworthiness Directives mentioned in\n\nSchedule 1; and\n\n(b) make, as separate instruments, each Airworthiness\n\nDirective mentioned in Schedule 1 and attached.\n\n![](image.001.png)\n\nDavid Villiers\n\nDelegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority\n\n20 December 2004\n\nNote: Each attached Airworthiness Directive is being re-made in exactly the\n\nsame form as appears in the latest published edition of the Directive.\n\n  \nSchedule 1 Revocation and Remaking of\n\nAirworthiness Directives\n\nDe Havilland DH 83 (Fox Moth) Series Aeroplanes\n\nAD Name AD Number\n\nFlight Limitations and Structural Inspection AD/DH 83/1\n\nCockpit Safety Harness Installation - Integrity and Lifing AD/DH 83/2\n\nCockpit Lateral Tie Rods and Aircraft Structure AD/DH 83/3","sortOrder":0}],"analysis":{"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":2,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"The instrument does not change the substantive scope or technical requirements of the listed Airworthiness Directives. It revokes the existing instruments and re‑issues each AD in the same form as the latest published edition (see note under signature and Schedule 1), so regulatory obligations remain materially the same while the legal instruments are replaced."},"complexity_factors":["Administrative nature: action is revocation and re‑making rather than substantive amendment","Cross‑reference to enabling regulation (subreg 39.001(1) CASR 1998) required to validate the delegate's power","Multiple instruments involved (three ADs listed in Schedule 1) requiring concurrent record updates","Technical subject matter implied by AD titles (structural inspection, harness lifing, tie rods) may require specialist understanding, though the instrument itself does not set technical detail","Potential practical coordination costs across operators, maintainers and regulators to update references"],"plain_english_summary":"What this instrument does\n\n- A delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has cancelled (revoked) three existing Airworthiness Directives (ADs) that apply to De Havilland DH 83 (Fox Moth) series aeroplanes and has re‑issued each of those ADs as separate, attached instruments. The action is taken under subregulation 39.001(1) of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (see opening paragraph).\n\nWhich ADs are involved\n\n- The three ADs listed in Schedule 1 are: 1) Flight Limitations and Structural Inspection (AD/DH 83/1); 2) Cockpit Safety Harness Installation - Integrity and Lifing (AD/DH 83/2); and 3) Cockpit Lateral Tie Rods and Aircraft Structure (AD/DH 83/3) (see Schedule 1).\n\nWho this affects\n\n- Aircraft owners, operators and maintenance organisations responsible for De Havilland DH 83 (Fox Moth) series aeroplanes are affected because the ADs set out mandatory regulatory requirements for those aircraft (the titles in Schedule 1 indicate the subject matter of the ADs).\n\nWhy it matters mechanically\n\n- The instrument is an administrative action that replaces existing AD instruments with newly made instruments that, according to the delegate, are \"in exactly the same form as appears in the latest published edition of the Directive\" (note under signature). Mechanically, regulatory obligations created by the content of those ADs remain in place because the re‑made ADs are the same in substance; however, the legal instruments referenced by regulators, owners and maintainers have been re‑issued and should be used going forward.\n\nCosts, incentives and trade‑offs\n\n- Who pays: owners/operators and approved maintenance organisations bear the costs of complying with the requirements of the ADs (inspections, repairs, lifing, modifications indicated by the AD titles). The instrument itself does not alter those obligations (see note stating each AD is re‑made in the same form).\n\n- Administrative burden: because the ADs are being re‑issued as separate instruments, affected parties and regulators will need to update records, references and compliance certificates to reflect the re‑made instruments (mechanical paperwork and tracking costs follow from revocation plus re‑making, as indicated by the action in the main paragraph and Schedule 1).\n\n- Incentives and behaviour: since the substantive content is unchanged, incentive effects on safety behaviour and maintenance timing are carried over from the existing ADs; there is no new regulatory policy signalled by this instrument (the note under the signature states the form is unchanged).\n\n- Discretion and decision‑making: a CASA delegate exercised delegated power under subregulation 39.001(1) CASR 1998 to revoke and re‑make the ADs (opening paragraph). That shows the statutory delegation is the legal mechanism for the change; the instrument does not change how that choice is made, only records that it has been exercised.\n\nImplementation risks and practical effects\n\n- Record and reference risk: there is modest implementation risk that operators, maintainers or inspectors might continue to cite the revoked instruments unless records are updated, which could complicate compliance checks and enforcement until the re‑made instruments are fully adopted in documentation (implicit from the revocation + re‑making procedure in the main paragraph and Schedule 1).\n\n- No substantive regulatory change: because the ADs are re‑made in the same form as the latest published editions (note), there is no change to the actual technical requirements identified by those ADs; the change is the legal instrument in which those requirements are now contained.\n\nLegal basis and formality\n\n- The instrument is signed by the CASA delegate (David Alan Villiers) and dated 20 December 2004, and it relies on subregulation 39.001(1) of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 for authority (opening paragraph and signature block). The Schedule lists the specific ADs revoked and re‑made."},"kimi_summary":{"content_quality":"ok","complexity_score":2,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"The instrument explicitly states it is remaking the Directives 'in exactly the same form' as the latest published edition. There is no expansion of scope, no new safety requirements, and no change to affected aircraft or compliance obligations. This is a pure administrative restructure."},"complexity_factors":["Very short instrument (under 300 words)","Only 1 defined term implicitly used ('Airworthiness Directive' via the title)","No cross-references to other legislation beyond the enabling regulation (subregulation 39.001(1))","Simple binary structure: revoke (a) and remake (b)","No conditional logic, exceptions, or operative provisions beyond the basic delegation powers","Tabular schedule with only 3 rows of straightforward data"],"plain_english_summary":"**What this legislation does:**\n\nThis instrument is an administrative housekeeping measure by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). It **revokes three old Airworthiness Directives** for De Havilland DH 83 (Fox Moth) aeroplanes and **immediately remakes them as three separate, standalone legal instruments**.\n\n**Who it affects:**\n- Owners and operators of vintage De Havilland DH 83 Fox Moth aircraft (a 1930s-era biplane)\n- Aircraft maintenance engineers working on these planes\n- CASA itself (as the regulator)\n\n**Why it matters:**\nAirworthiness Directives are **legally binding safety orders** that tell aircraft owners what inspections, repairs, or modifications they must carry out. Without valid Directives, these historic aircraft could not legally fly. This instrument ensures the safety rules stay in force while updating their legal form.\n\n**The three Directives being refreshed:**\n- **AD/DH 83/1** — Flight limitations and structural inspections\n- **AD/DH 83/2** — Safety harness installation requirements\n- **AD/DH 83/3** — Inspections of cockpit tie rods and airframe structure\n\n**Key point:** The substance of the safety requirements hasn't changed. The note confirms each Directive is being remade \"in exactly the same form\" as before. This is purely a procedural restructure—likely to improve how the Directives are published, numbered, or managed in CASA's systems."}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/airworthiness-directives-2004-revocation-and-remaking-de-havilland-dh-83-fox-moth-series-aeroplanes","history":"/api/acts/airworthiness-directives-2004-revocation-and-remaking-de-havilland-dh-83-fox-moth-series-aeroplanes/history","analysis":"/api/acts/airworthiness-directives-2004-revocation-and-remaking-de-havilland-dh-83-fox-moth-series-aeroplanes/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/airworthiness-directives-2004-revocation-and-remaking-de-havilland-dh-83-fox-moth-series-aeroplanes/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/airworthiness-directives-2004-revocation-and-remaking-de-havilland-dh-83-fox-moth-series-aeroplanes/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/airworthiness-directives-2004-revocation-and-remaking-de-havilland-dh-83-fox-moth-series-aeroplanes/documents"}}