{"id":"F2006B07917","name":"Airworthiness Directives 2004 - Revocation and Remaking - Luscombe Model 8 Series Aeroplanes","slug":"airworthiness-directives-2004-revocation-and-remaking-luscombe-model-8-series-aeroplanes","collection":"legislative_instrument","jurisdiction":"commonwealth","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":null,"makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":50954,"registerId":"commonwealth-F2006B07917-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 - Luscombe Model 8 Series Aeroplanes","content":"---\nmeta-content-style-type: text/css\nmeta-content-type: application/xhtml+xml; charset=utf-8\nmeta-generator: Aspose.Words for .NET 20.2\n---\n\n?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\" standalone=\"no\"?>\n\n Airworthiness Directives 2004\n\n I, DAVID ALAN VILLIERS, delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety\n\n Authority, acting under subregulation 39.001 (1) of the Civil\n\n Aviation Safety Regulations 1998:\n\n (a) revoke the Airworthiness Directives mentioned in\n\n Schedule 1; and\n\n (b) make, as separate instruments, each Airworthiness\n\n Directive mentioned in Schedule 1 and attached.\n\n \n\n ![](image.001.png)\n\n David Villiers\n\n Delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority\n\n \n\n  20 December 2004\n\n Note:   Each attached Airworthiness Directive is being re-made in exactly the\n\n same form as appears in the latest published edition of the Directive.\n\n \n\n\n Schedule 1 Revocation and Remaking of\n\n Airworthiness Directives\n\n Luscombe Model 8 Series Aeroplanes\n\n AD Name AD Number\n\n Vertical Stabiliser Fitting AD/LUSCOMBE/1\n\n Wing Spar Corrosion AD/LUSCOMBE/2 Amdt 1\n\n Cleveland Wheels AD/LUSCOMBE/3\n\n \n","sortOrder":0}],"analysis":{"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":2,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"The instrument does not change the substantive scope of the listed Airworthiness Directives. It revokes the existing ADs in Schedule 1 and re-issues them as separate instruments but, according to the instrument's Note, each AD is re-made \"in exactly the same form\" as the latest published edition. Mechanically this changes the legal form and publication record of the directives (the instrument relies on subregulation 39.001(1) and Schedule 1), but it does not expand, narrow or alter the technical obligations that apply to operators of Luscombe Model 8 series aeroplanes."},"complexity_factors":["Simple statutory mechanism: revocation and re‑issuance of listed instruments under a single statutory power (subregulation 39.001(1)).","No substantive change to directive content asserted (Note states ADs are re‑made in exactly the same form).","Multiple separate instruments attached (three ADs listed in Schedule 1) — requires administrative coordination but not legal redesign.","Dependencies on external texts: the instrument refers to the \"latest published edition\" of each AD, so accuracy depends on correct attachment/publication.","Limited exercise of discretion: the delegate exercises authority to revoke/remake, but the Note constrains substantive discretion by stating identical content."],"plain_english_summary":"What this instrument does, mechanically\n\n- The delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) uses the power in subregulation 39.001(1) of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 to revoke the airworthiness directives listed in Schedule 1 and to re‑make each of them as separate instruments that are attached to this instrument (see instrument text: \"acting under subregulation 39.001 (1) ... revoke the Airworthiness Directives mentioned in Schedule 1; and make, as separate instruments, each Airworthiness Directive mentioned in Schedule 1 and attached\").\n\n- The instrument includes a note saying that each attached Airworthiness Directive is being re‑made in exactly the same form as appears in the latest published edition of the Directive (see Note: \"Each attached Airworthiness Directive is being re-made in exactly the same form as appears in the latest published edition of the Directive\").\n\nWho is affected\n\n- Owners, operators and maintenance organisations responsible for Luscombe Model 8 series aeroplanes: the Schedule lists three directives that apply to those aeroplanes (Schedule 1: \"Luscombe Model 8 Series Aeroplanes\" and the three AD names and numbers).\n- CASA (and the delegate acting under CASA’s statutory power) because the delegate exercises the revocation/remaking power.\n\nWhy this matters (mechanics and practical effects)\n\n- Legal form change without substantive change: the instrument revokes and re‑issues the listed airworthiness directives but, according to the instrument’s note, leaves their substantive content unchanged. That means the safety obligations and technical requirements in the listed ADs remain the same in substance; the legal instrument that records them is what changes (instrument text and Note).\n\n- Who pays and who decides: CASA (via its delegate) decides to revoke and re‑issue the directives under subregulation 39.001(1). CASA bears the administrative cost of preparing and publishing the new instruments. Aircraft owners and maintenance providers remain responsible for complying with the ADs; because the ADs are re‑made in identical form, their substantive compliance costs do not change by virtue of this action (see instrument text and Note).\n\n- Compliance burden and incentives: because the ADs’ content is unchanged, the compliance obligations, inspection/repair actions and associated costs for owners/operators remain as they were under the existing directives. The instrument does not create new technical requirements or alter the timetable specified in the listed ADs; it only alters how those directives are recorded and published.\n\n- Bureaucratic discretion and implementation risk: the delegate exercises statutory discretion to revoke and re‑issue instruments (authority cited). The Note’s statement that the ADs are unaltered narrows the substantive discretion exercised here; main implementation risks are administrative (for example, ensuring the attached instruments are the correct and current texts and that operators are notified), not changes in technical obligation.\n\n- Effects on private enterprise, competition and choice: because the directive texts are unchanged, the instrument does not alter market rules, competitive positions, prices or operating choices that derive from the ADs’ substantive requirements. It may, however, impose a small transaction cost on operators and maintenance organisations if they need to update their regulatory records or manuals to cite the newly issued instruments instead of the revoked versions.\n\nTrade‑offs, opportunity costs and unintended consequences (mechanistic)\n\n- Trade‑off: CASA incurs administrative time and resource use to revoke and re‑issue rather than leave existing instruments in place; the benefit claimed by the Note is legal clarity or currency of published text (the instrument states the ADs match the latest published edition).\n\n- Opportunity cost: administrative resources used for this remaking could have been used on other regulatory work; this is an administrative choice rather than a change in technical obligations.\n\n- Possible unintended consequence: temporary confusion if operators do not notice that the new instruments are identical in content but have different formal identifiers or publication references; that risk is a paperwork/communication issue rather than a change in safety or technical duties.\n\nReferences to the instrument text\n\n- Legal authority relied on: \"acting under subregulation 39.001 (1) of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998.\" \n- Action taken: \"revoke the Airworthiness Directives mentioned in Schedule 1; and make, as separate instruments, each Airworthiness Directive mentioned in Schedule 1 and attached.\" \n- Statement on content: \"Each attached Airworthiness Directive is being re-made in exactly the same form as appears in the latest published edition of the Directive.\" \n- Scope list: Schedule 1 lists the three ADs for Luscombe Model 8 Series Aeroplanes (AD/LUSCOMBE/1; AD/LUSCOMBE/2 Amdt 1; AD/LUSCOMBE/3)."},"kimi_summary":{"content_quality":"ok","complexity_score":2,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"The instrument performs exactly the administrative function described in its title — revoking and remaking specific Airworthiness Directives. There is no expansion of scope beyond this housekeeping exercise."},"complexity_factors":["Very short instrument (under 300 words)","Only 3 substantive items in Schedule 1","No defined terms section","No cross-references to other legislation beyond the enabling regulation (subregulation 39.001(1))","Simple binary structure: (a) revoke, (b) remake","No conditional logic or exceptions","Note clarifies that content is unchanged from previous versions"],"plain_english_summary":"This is a technical aviation safety instrument issued by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) in December 2004. It does two things: **cancels three old safety notices** for Luscombe Model 8 series aeroplanes, and **immediately reissues them as new, separate documents** in exactly the same form.\n\n**What are these notices?**\nAirworthiness Directives (ADs) are mandatory safety instructions that aircraft owners and operators must follow. They typically require inspections, repairs, or modifications to fix known safety problems.\n\n**Which aircraft are affected?**\nLuscombe Model 8 series aeroplanes — these are small, single-engine aircraft originally built in the 1930s-1950s.\n\n**What safety issues do the three directives cover?**\n- **AD/LUSCOMBE/1**: Problems with the vertical stabiliser fitting (the part that connects the tail fin to the fuselage)\n- **AD/LUSCOMBE/2 Amdt 1**: Corrosion in the wing spar (the main structural beam inside the wing)\n- **AD/LUSCOMBE/3**: Issues with Cleveland brand wheels\n\n**Why does this matter?**\nThis is an administrative \"housekeeping\" exercise. CASA is tidying up its regulatory instruments by formally revoking old versions and remaking them under current legal authority. The actual safety requirements haven't changed — the same rules still apply to owners of these vintage aircraft. However, compliance remains legally mandatory; failure to follow these directives can ground an aircraft or result in penalties."}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/airworthiness-directives-2004-revocation-and-remaking-luscombe-model-8-series-aeroplanes","history":"/api/acts/airworthiness-directives-2004-revocation-and-remaking-luscombe-model-8-series-aeroplanes/history","analysis":"/api/acts/airworthiness-directives-2004-revocation-and-remaking-luscombe-model-8-series-aeroplanes/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/airworthiness-directives-2004-revocation-and-remaking-luscombe-model-8-series-aeroplanes/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/airworthiness-directives-2004-revocation-and-remaking-luscombe-model-8-series-aeroplanes/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/airworthiness-directives-2004-revocation-and-remaking-luscombe-model-8-series-aeroplanes/documents"}}