AD/A330/38 Amdt 1 - Liquid Crystal Display Units

This AD rests on a small set of technical and operational concepts that determine the mandated behaviour and the compliance choices open to operators:

• EIS2 LCD Display Units. The subject equipment is the EIS2 Electronic Instrument System LCD Display Units fitted to Airbus A330 aeroplanes. The AD applies only to aeroplanes with specified production modifications or SBs that result in installation of EIS2 LCD DUs, and excludes aeroplanes with later modifications/SBs (Applicability).

• MMEL and AFM Temporary Revisions. The AD relies on the Master Minimum Equipment List (MMEL) and Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM) Temporary Revisions as behavioural governance instruments. It requires incorporation of MMEL changes or a copy of the AD into the Aircraft Operations Manual to meet Requirement 1, and incorporation of AFM TRs or a copy of the AD into the AOM to meet Requirement 2. That means the AD operates through changes to operational documentation rather than, for example, immediate mandatory hardware change (Requirement 1 & 2).

• Dispatch limitations vs. operational procedure. Requirement 1 changes dispatch conditions , it removes permissibility of dispatch with certain standby instrument failures and sets VMC/daylight-only allowances for others. Requirement 2 prescribes in-flight procedures for "Loss of all display units," including timed recovery attempts and sequenced switching, and special handling during approach if ECAM DU reconfiguration issues arise.

• Time-based recovery and sequential switching. The operational procedure is precise: wait at least 40 seconds for automatic recovery before taking action; if DUs do not recover, set non-recovered DUs to OFF, wait 40 seconds, then switch them back on sequentially; if re-loss occurs when switching a given DU back on, it must be left permanently OFF while the others are restored. The AD therefore formalises a wait-and-sequence protocol rather than immediate cycling or blanket resets (Requirement 2).

• FWC hardware-dependent effect. The AD differentiates between aeroplanes by FWC standard. Aircraft with FWC STD K7/486 (MOD 49193) have identical recovery procedures but additional implications for ECAM and approach handling, including potential loss of ECAM cautions, aural warnings, master caution, auto callouts and altitude alerts during approach, and a limitation to CAT I approaches when ECAM Dual DU reconfiguration is not possible or appropriate (Requirement 2).

• Monitoring function (CRC) and EIS2 'L5'. The AD recognises a mitigation pathway: operators who have incorporated a new EIS2 standard 'L5' together with activation of a CRC monitoring function (by modification during production or by SB) are relieved from the operational limitations and TRs , the AD explicitly allows cancellation of the operational limitations for these aeroplanes (Background).

• Source context and cross-jurisdiction references. The AD references an event report from a DGAC (France) notification and references DGAC AD F-2004-117 R1 and an EASA approval number. Airbus had issued related Operators Information Telex and Flight Operations Telex (OIT / FOT SE 999.0114/03/VHR Rev 1) which informed the MMEL changes and AFM TRs cited in the AD (Background).

Those concepts create a rule structure that is partly behavioural (crew actions, dispatch decisions), partly documentary (AOM/MMEL/AFM TR incorporation), and partly technical (hardware standard differences and an upgrade path to ‘L5’ with CRC). The AD therefore affects pilot behaviour, operator documentation, maintenance and modification programmes, and the availability of certain approaches in degraded configurations.

The Directive identifies a narrow set of affected parties, and it creates differentiated obligations and benefits depending on aircraft configuration and the operator’s technical posture:

• Operators of Airbus A330 series aeroplanes fitted with EIS2 LCD Display Units as installed by Airbus production modifications 47524, 50161, 50183, 50616 or 51153, or in-service under Airbus SB A330-31-3056 or A330-31-3057, or later DGAC-approved revisions (Applicability). Those operators are directly covered by the dispatch and operational limitations, and by the AFM/MMEL incorporation requirements.

• Operators of aeroplanes that have incorporated Airbus modification 51974 or SB A330-31-3069, and operators of aeroplanes with modification 53923 or SB A330-31A3080 (or later DGAC-approved revisions), are explicitly excluded from this Directive (Applicability). The document therefore subdivides the fleet by specific modification/SB fitment, making applicability a technical configuration question.

• Flightcrew. Pilots operating affected aeroplanes are prescribed specific in-flight procedures for loss of all DUs, and they face altered dispatch authorisations (for example no dispatch with standby IAS inoperative). Pilots must apply the wait-and-see 40-second recovery protocol, the sequenced off-then-on reinitialisation process, and follow requirements regarding ECAM/ND selection and approach restrictions where applicable (Requirement 1 & 2).

• Maintenance and continuing airworthiness organisations. The AD places obligations on operators’ maintenance and technical organisations to determine the aeroplane’s configuration, to implement MMEL and AFM TRs into the Aircraft Operations Manual, and to programme any modifications or SB incorporations necessary to obtain relief (Background; Requirement 1 & 2). Those organisations will be responsible for physical modification work if the operator elects to install the EIS2 L5/CRC upgrade.

• Dispatch and operations departments. Incorporation of MMEL changes and AFM TRs into the Aircraft Operations Manual requires approval processes and may trigger changes to Minimum Equipment Lists (MEL) and dispatch decision-making by operations managers. The AD identifies that incorporation of the MMEL or a copy of the Directive into the AOM is a satisfactory method of compliance, so operators’ OPS departments must act to document the changes and ensure crew awareness (Requirement 1 & 2).

• Airlines with mixed fleets or mixed configurations. Because the AD differentiates by modification and SB fitment, operators with mixed-configured aeroplanes must apply the Directive only to the applicable tail numbers. That creates administrative overhead in configuration tracking and in ensuring the right AOM/MEL entries apply to each aeroplane.

• Regulators and oversight authorities. The AD is presented as a CASA directive and references DGAC and EASA documents. Regulators have an interest because the AD implements a safety action responding to reported events and because it offers a relief path contingent on a technical upgrade recognised by the issuing authority (Background; Compliance).

Financially, the parties who primarily carry the cost are the operators and their maintenance providers: costs arise from updating manuals and training crews, potential operational impacts from tighter dispatch limits (diversions, cancellations in marginal weather), and (if they seek relief) carrying out modifications or incorporating SBs that enable EIS2 L5/CRC activation. Entities that benefit from relief (reduced operational limitations) are operators who have or are willing to fund the L5/CRC upgrade.

The Directive establishes mandatory duties for operators and crew, and offers a conditional right (relief) for operators who have implemented a specific technical upgrade. The duties and rights flow from the Requirements and Compliance sections of the AD:

Duties:

• Apply the dispatch limitations in Requirement 1 for all flights of applicable aeroplanes. Specifically, for aircraft with EIS2 LCD DUs and conventional standby instruments, dispatch is no longer authorised with the standby IAS inoperative (MMEL 34-21-01). For aircraft with EIS2 LCD DUs and ISIS, dispatch is no longer authorised with the ISIS airspeed function inoperative (MMEL 34-22-03-C). Dispatch with inoperative standby horizon or altimeter may be authorised only if the crew maintains VMC and daylight conditions for the entire flight (Requirement 1).
• Follow the reminder that for dispatch with one Display Unit inoperative under MMEL 31-63-01 the subject DU must be switched OFF per the associated MMEL operational procedure (Requirement 1).
• Incorporate the MMEL changes or a copy of the Directive into the Aircraft Operations Manual as a method of compliance with Requirement 1; that is a documented duty on the operator to change operational documentation (Requirement 1).
• For loss of all DUs, carry out the procedural steps in AFM Temporary Revision TR 4.02.00/23 or TR 4.02.00/24 as applicable (Requirement 2): monitor flight with standby instruments, wait at least 40 seconds for automatic recovery, set non-recovered DUs to OFF, after 40 seconds switch them back ON sequentially, and if re-loss occurs leave the problematic DU permanently OFF. This sequence is mandatory (Requirement 2).
• Where ECAM DUAL DU reconfiguration is necessary or not possible, follow the specified handling for ECAM/ND selector settings, and accept the attendant loss of ECAM cautions and warnings during approach and the restriction to CAT I approaches where applicable (Requirement 2).

Rights (conditional relief and accepted methods of compliance):

• Operators may comply by incorporating MMEL changes or a copy of the Directive into the Aircraft Operations Manual for Requirement 1, and by incorporating AFM TR 4.02.00/23, TR 4.02.00/24 or TR 4.02.00/39, or a copy of the Directive, into the AOM for Requirement 2. These are expressly stated as "satisfactory methods of compliance" (Requirement 1 & 2).
• Operators who have incorporated the EIS2 standard ‘L5’ with activation of the CRC monitoring function, either by production modification or by incorporation of SBs, are entitled to cancellation of the operational limitations and associated AFM/MMEL temporary revisions for those aeroplanes (Background). The right to relief is conditional on the presence of the L5/CRC configuration.

Who decides and who executes:

• Pilots execute the in-flight procedures; the AD prescribes the exact steps and timings (Requirement 2).
• Operators decide whether to pursue the L5/CRC upgrade to obtain relief, and their maintenance organisations perform the work required to change configuration. Operations management and regulatory compliance teams decide how to incorporate MMEL and AFM TRs into the AOM, and adjust MEL/dispatch practices accordingly (Requirement 1 & 2).
• The Directive itself was issued under the authority of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, represented by the delegate who signed the document, so regulatory oversight rests with CASA.

Observations on mechanism:

• The AD embeds prescriptive requirements into operational documentation (AOM/MMEL/AFM TR) rather than, for example, mandating immediate groundings or universal hardware retrofits. That structure creates an administrative burden (manual updates, crew training), mandates specific pilot actions on failure, and sets an explicit upgrade pathway to regain normal operational flexibility (Background; Requirement 1 & 2).

The AD text supplied does not enumerate statutory penalties, criminal sanctions or specific enforcement actions in monetary or licensing terms. The document is issued as a Civil Aviation Safety Authority Directive signed by the Delegate (James Coyne) with effective dates specified, but it contains no section labelled "penalties" nor does it cite fines or administrative sanctions in the supplied text (Signature; Compliance).

Given the structure of the AD, practical enforcement mechanisms are implicit rather than stated:

• The Directive prescribes required documentation updates (MMEL and AFM TR incorporation into the Aircraft Operations Manual) as the "satisfactory method of compliance" for the dispatch and operational limitations (Requirement 1 & 2). Regulators typically verify compliance during surveillance, audits and air operator approvals; the AD therefore sets documentary proof points that oversight inspectors will examine: presence of MMEL/TR entries in the AOM and crew compliance with prescribed procedures.
• The Directive sets effective dates ("Remains unchanged as 'After 4 August 2004'"; "This Amendment becomes effective on 4 August 2005") and continued requirements from the original issue. Operators are required to make the changes by those effective dates (Compliance). Non-compliance with an AD ordinarily exposes an operator to regulatory action under the issuing authority’s enforcement framework; however the AD text itself does not set out those enforcement measures.

Enforcement-related limits in the text:

• There is no explicit statement as to whether an operator that fails to incorporate the MMEL changes or AFM TRs into the AOM will be subject to specific penalties apart from any general regulatory consequences administered by CASA under its statutory powers. Therefore the AD creates mandatory requirements and documentation obligations but leaves enforcement tools and penalties to the broader regulatory framework not reproduced in the supplied instrument.

Operational consequences which function as de facto enforcement:

• Dispatch limitations and approach restrictions become operational constraints that, if ignored, would create an unacceptable safety mismatch during operations and would likely be noted in oversight processes. For example, dispatching with a prohibited standby IAS condition or failing to follow the loss-of-DU recovery sequence would depart from the AD-mandated procedures and the operator’s own AOM/MMEL entries, which are the stated method of compliance.

In summary, the AD imposes documentary and procedural obligations and sets effective dates; it does not itself specify monetary or licensing penalties in the text provided. Enforcement therefore rests on regulatory oversight and the expectation that operators will implement the AD into their AOMs and train crews accordingly, with the AD serving as the authoritative operational requirement.

The Directive sits at the intersection of airworthiness/operational regulation, manufacturer operational guidance, and foreign authority actions referenced in the text. From the source material, the following interactions are visible or implied:

• MMEL / AOM / AFM regime. The AD explicitly uses the MMEL and AFM Temporary Revisions as the instruments through which operational and dispatch requirements are to be implemented: incorporation of the MMEL changes or a copy of the Directive into the Aircraft Operations Manual is a "satisfactory method of compliance" for dispatch limitations, while incorporation of AFM Temporary Revisions (TR 4.02.00/23, TR 4.02.00/24 or TR 4.02.00/39) or a copy of the Directive into the AOM is a satisfactory method for operational procedures (Requirement 1 & 2). That indicates a direct procedural interaction with the regulatory rules that control minimum equipment lists, operational manuals and AFM limitations: the AD requires operators to change their operational documentation to align with the Directive.

• Relationship to manufacturer telexes and recommendations. The Background records that Airbus issued an Operators Information Telex and Flight Operations Telex (OIT/FOT SE 999.0114/03/VHR Rev 1) which gave MMEL changes and operational recommendations. The AD therefore formalises manufacturer operational recommendations into a regulatory directive, so operator compliance now requires incorporation of manufacturer guidance into statutory operational documentation (Background).

• Foreign authority references. The AD cites advice from the Direction Générale de l’Aviation Civile (DGAC) of France and notes DGAC AD F-2004-117 R1 with an EASA approval number (Background). That shows cross-jurisdictional regulatory coordination: a safety event noted by another State's authority and higher-level regional approvals were part of the evidence or context for the AD. The supplied text does not state how CASA treats foreign ADs more generally, but it does show reliance or thoughtful alignment with DGAC/EASA materials in this instance.

• Interaction with aircraft modification and service bulletin regimes. The Directive differentiates applicability by production modifications and service bulletins, and it offers relief to aeroplanes that have incorporated a later EIS2 standard ‘L5’ plus activation of a CRC monitoring function, either by production modification or incorporation of service bulletins (Background; Applicability). This creates a legal-technical interaction with the continuing airworthiness regime: an operator’s decision to incorporate a particular SB or modification changes the AD's applicability and operational obligations. The AD therefore uses modification/SB fitment as a determinant of regulatory duty.

• Operational rules and dispatch. The AD modifies dispatch authorisations as stated in the MMEL items referenced (MMEL 34-21-01, 34-22-03-C, 31-63-01). Because dispatch standards and MEL practices are regulated elsewhere, the AD’s instruction to change the MMEL entries interacts directly with the regulatory framework that governs dispatch, MELs and AOMs. Incorporation into the AOM aligns the operator-level documents with the AD and the dispatch environment.

• Safety oversight and audit. While the AD does not itself specify enforcement penalties, its instruction to put changes into the AOM and to follow precise AFM procedures implies interaction with regulator oversight functions such as audits, approvals and surveillance. Inspectors will compare an operator’s AOM/MEL to the AD to assess compliance. The text does not specify processes for exemptions or approvals beyond the relief for L5/CRC configurations, but it does reference DGAC/EASA documents as side information.

In short, the AD is not an isolated technical bulletin: it mandates specific changes in operational documentation, it formalises manufacturer operational guidance, it conditions obligations on aircraft configuration and SB/modification status, and it references foreign authority materials. Operators must therefore integrate the AD across their continuing airworthiness, maintenance, operations and regulatory compliance systems to ensure alignment among the AOM, MEL, AFM entries, maintenance modification records and pilot training.

The supplied document includes both the original issue and a single amendment, and it references foreign authority documents that informed the original action. The amendment history as provided is:

• Original Directive effective date: The original issue of the Directive "became effective on 4 August 2004" (Background; Compliance). The original AD responded to reported erratic behaviour and short-duration total losses of EIS2 LCD DUs, and it imposed MMEL and AFM TR changes and operational recommendations.

• Amendment (AD/A330/38 Amdt 1): The present Amendment is dated 24 June 2005 (signature block) and is stated to "become effective on 4 August 2005" (Compliance). The Amendment "continues the requirements of the original issue of the Directive" but adds a relief pathway for operators who have incorporated the new EIS2 standard 'L5' together with activation of a monitoring function (CRC) by modification during production or by incorporating SBs. That relief allows cancellation of the operational limitations and AFM/MMEL temporary revisions for those aeroplanes (Background).

• Relationship to DGAC/EASA documents: The AD expressly notes that DGAC AD F-2004-117 R1 is referred to, and cites an EASA approval number 2005-4752 in that context (Requirement 2 note). The Background recounts that the DGAC advised of an A320 event that led Airbus to issue OIT/FOT SE 999.0114/03/VHR Rev 1, which in turn informed the MMEL changes and AFM TRs.

• Technical amendments and exclusions: The Applicability section includes both inclusions and explicit exclusions by modification/SB fitment. It lists the production modifications and SBs that cause the AD to apply, and states that the Directive is not applicable to aeroplanes with modification 51974 or SB A330-31-3069 and modification 53923 or SB A330-31A3080, or later DGAC-approved revisions to either SB incorporated. The Amendment therefore refines applicability by identifying both the affected configurations and those excluded from the AD.

• Preservation of original requirements with conditional relief. The amendment keeps the original safety requirements in force for those aeroplanes that have the problematic EIS2 standard without the L5/CRC upgrade, while providing a conditional path to remove operational constraints for upgraded aeroplanes. Therefore the amendment is both preservative (maintains prior obligations) and permissive (authorises relief upon technical upgrade).

The supplied text does not list prior amendments beyond the original issue and this Amendment 1. It also does not include a track of any further later amendments or revocations. The timeline in the supplied text is limited to original effectiveness on 4 August 2004 and the current Amendment becoming effective on 4 August 2005, with the Amendment document dated 24 June 2005 and signed by the CASA delegate.

The supplied Directive contains no references to litigation, court proceedings, judicial review, or disputes. The document is an administrative safety directive incorporating manufacturer telexes and foreign authority advisories; it does not cite any case law, nor does it record judicial challenges to the AD or to the underlying requirement. The "Background" section recounts safety events (an A320 operator reporting erratic behaviour and similar events on the Single Aisle fleet) and references manufacturer communications (OIT/FOT), but these are technical/safety reports rather than legal proceedings.

Therefore, based solely on the provided text:

• There is no litigation history recorded in the AD.
• There are no named cases or disputes in the document.
• No remedial litigation pathways, appeals procedures or administrative appeal mechanisms are described in the AD.

If operators or other parties wished to contest the AD, the text supplies no internal directions on that process; the AD is presented as a regulatory directive from CASA with effective dates and methods of compliance, and legal challenges (if any) would be external to the document and are not described here.

The Directive contains a number of operational and administrative specifics that are easy to overlook but that have concrete operational consequences. The following are practical "gotchas" (each grounded in the AD text):

• Applicability is configuration-specific. The AD applies only to aeroplanes with EIS2 LCD DUs installed by specified production modifications or SBs, and explicitly excludes those with later mods/SBs (Applicability). Operators must not assume fleet-wide applicability; they must confirm each aeroplane’s modification/SB fit status to determine whether the AD applies. Misclassification may lead to incorrect application of dispatch limits or unnecessary work.

• Incorporation into AOM is the stated method of compliance. For both Requirements 1 and 2 the AD identifies incorporation of MMEL changes or AFM TRs (or a copy of the Directive) into the Aircraft Operations Manual as a "satisfactory method of compliance" (Requirement 1 & 2). Operators who implement the required steps elsewhere (for example pager memos to pilots but not AOM entries) may not meet the AD’s stated method of compliance.

• The 40-second wait is prescriptive. The procedure for loss of all DUs repeatedly mandates waiting "at least 40 seconds" for automatic recovery before taking the specified actions (Requirement 2). That timing is prescriptive and must be followed; immediate cycling or different timing could be inconsistent with the AD.

• "Permanent OFF" decision creates reduced redundancy. If a DU causes a re-loss when switched back ON, the procedure requires that it be left "permanently OFF" for the remainder of the flight (Requirement 2). Leaving a DU permanently OFF reduces display redundancy for the flight and can interact with MMEL/MEL criteria for dispatch and with approach restrictions. It may increase pilot workload and affect approach minima.

• For certain FWC hardware, approach capability is constrained. For aeroplanes equipped with FWC STD K7/486, the AD warns that if ECAM DUAL DU reconfiguration is not possible or appropriate for the type of approach, "Both FWC will be lost during approach so monitor systems on overhead panel" and notes the loss of ECAM cautions and warnings during approach, concluding that "Only CAT I approach is allowed." That creates operational exposure in IMC or when CAT II/III approaches would otherwise be planned (Requirement 2).

• Autopilot/autothrust and MCDU nav data remain available but some system warnings may be lost. The AD states "Autopilot, autothrust and MCDU navigation data are still available and may be used" even when all DUs are lost, but also notes that ECAM cautions/warnings and aural warnings may be lost in certain configurations (Requirement 2). Pilots must be aware that some automation and navigation remain available while some alerting and monitoring functions do not.

• Relief depends on EIS2 'L5' and CRC activation. The amendment provides cancellation of operational limitations for aeroplanes where the new EIS2 standard 'L5' and the CRC monitoring function have been incorporated or activated (Background). Operators must confirm the presence and activation of both L5 and CRC; mere physical installation without activation may not suffice.

• Difference between "incorporation during production" and "incorporation in service". The Availability of relief is permitted whether L5/CRC arrived during production or was later incorporated via SBs "whilst in service" (Applicability; Background). Operators must ensure that in-service SB incorporation has been accomplished and appropriately recorded.

• The AD references external documents without reproducing them. The AD refers to AFM Temporary Revisions TR 4.02.00/23, TR 4.02.00/24 and to Airbus OIT/FOT SE 999.0114/03/VHR Rev 1 and to DGAC AD F-2004-117 R1 (EASA Approval 2005-4752). Those referenced documents contain the detailed TR text and manufacturer guidance; reliance solely on the AD without reviewing the referenced TRs and Airbus telexes risks incomplete understanding of the exact cockpit procedures and checklists.

• No penalties are stated in the AD text. Because the AD does not include specific enforcement penalties, operators may misread the absence of a penalty clause as meaning lower regulatory risk. In practice the AD sets mandatory requirements and documentary compliance obligations that are typically subject to oversight; the AD itself simply does not set out fines or sanctions in the supplied text (Penalties and enforcement).

• Administrative burden for mixed fleets. Operators with mixed-configured A330s must maintain configuration tracking, update the AOM/MEL for affected tail numbers, and ensure crew training differentiates aircraft types. Failing to maintain accurate configuration data creates a risk of incorrectly dispatching aircraft in violation of the AD’s dispatch limitations.

These are not hypothetical risks; each flows directly from the AD’s specific wording about applicability, the prescribed 40-second timing, the permanent-off rule for problematic DUs, the different handling for FWC STD K7/486, and the relief mechanism tied to specific technical standards and SBs.

The AD provides explicit satisfactory methods of compliance and prescriptive operational steps. The following is a practical, source-grounded compliance checklist an operator should follow, based solely on the AD text:

1. Configuration inventory and applicability check

   • For every A330 in the fleet, confirm whether EIS2 LCD Display Units are installed per Airbus modification 47524, 50161, 50183, 50616 or 51153, or under SB A330-31-3056 or A330-31-3057 (or later DGAC-approved revisions). If so, the AD applies (Applicability).
   • Check for exclusions: if the aeroplane has modification 51974 or SB A330-31-3069, or modification 53923 or SB A330-31A3080 (or later DGAC-approved revisions), then the AD does not apply to that aeroplane (Applicability).

2. Documentation updates (satisfactory method of compliance)

   • For Requirement 1 (dispatch limitations): incorporate the MMEL changes or a copy of this Directive into the Aircraft Operations Manual (AOM) as a "satisfactory method of compliance." Ensure that the AOM includes the specific dispatch prohibitions: no dispatch with standby IAS inoperative (for conventional standby instruments) and no dispatch with ISIS airspeed function inoperative (for ISIS-equipped aircraft), and the conditional allowance to dispatch with inoperative horizon/altimeter only in VMC and daylight (Requirement 1).
   • For Requirement 2 (operational limitations and procedures): incorporate AFM Temporary Revision TR 4.02.00/23 or TR 4.02.00/24 (and/or TR 4.02.00/39 where applicable) or a copy of this Directive into the AOM as the "satisfactory method of compliance." Ensure the AOM includes the "Loss of all display units" procedural steps verbatim: monitor flight on standby instruments; wait at least 40 seconds for automatic DU recovery; set non-recovered DUs to OFF; after 40 seconds sequentially switch them back ON; if re-loss occurs on switching a DU back ON, leave that DU permanently OFF; also include the FWC STD K7/486-specific notes on ECAM reconfiguration and the CAT I approach limitation (Requirement 2).

3. MEL/MMEL alignment

   • Update operator MEL entries to reflect the MMEL changes captured in the AOM. For dispatch with one DU inoperative per MMEL 31-63-01, ensure procedure to switch off the subject DU is recorded and trained (Requirement 1).

4. Crew training and briefings

   • Train flightcrew on the 40-second wait requirement and the exact sequence for setting DUs OFF and ON as mandated by the AFM TRs. Ensure pilots understand that autopilot, autothrust and MCDU nav data remain available but that ECAM cautions and aural warnings may be lost in certain approach configurations (Requirement 2).
   • Train crews on dispatch limitations: the no-dispatch rule for standby IAS/ISIS airspeed functions and the VMC/daylight condition for allowable inoperative horizon/altimeter (Requirement 1).

5. Maintenance actions and modification planning

   • Audit maintenance records to determine whether the EIS2 L5 standard and the CRC monitoring function have been incorporated in any aeroplanes (Background).
   • If an operator seeks relief from the operational limitations, plan and schedule the necessary modifications or SB incorporations (production-modification acknowledgement vs in-service SB incorporation) that achieve EIS2 L5 with CRC activation. Confirm in paperwork that the activation is completed and recorded per regulatory recordkeeping requirements (Background).

6. Operational procedures for loss-of-DU events

   • Ensure the AFM TR procedures are readily available in the cockpit or the AOM and that pilots can execute them. The steps are: monitor the flight using standby instruments; wait at least 40 seconds for automatic DU recovery; if no recovery, set non-recovered DUs to OFF; after 40 seconds sequentially switch them back ON; if all DUs are lost again when switching a given DU back ON, set all DUs OFF, after 40 seconds switch back ON except the problematic DU which must be left permanently OFF. For FWC STD K7/486 aeroplanes, include the ECAM/ND selector guidance and the CAT I limitation during approach (Requirement 2).

7. Documentation of relief and configuration

   • For aircraft that have the L5/CRC configuration, document the configuration in the AOM and technical records, and cancel the operational limitations and AFM/MMEL TRs as indicated in the AD. Retain records that the aircraft qualifies for relief (Background).

8. Liaise with regulator and supplier

   • If in doubt, request formal clarification from CASA or consult the referenced DGAC/EASA documents and the Airbus OIT/FOT SE 999.0114/03/VHR Revision 1 for additional detail on the MMEL and operational recommendations referenced in the AD (Background).

9. Audit and oversight readiness

   • Maintain records demonstrating the AOM/MMEL/TR incorporation and crew training. Prepare to show inspectors that the operator has adopted the AD through its stated "satisfactory methods of compliance" (Requirement 1 & 2).

10. Operational contingency planning

• Prepare flight planning and dispatch rules that account for the more restrictive dispatch authorisations. Anticipate potential impacts on operations in marginal weather or in airports dependent on CAT II/III approaches for recovery; include diversion and schedule contingency plans where appropriate, particularly for aircraft that have not yet incorporated L5/CRC.

Each step above follows directly from the AD’s statements about applicability, the specific dispatch and in-flight procedural mandates, and the methods of compliance. Operators should ensure that all personnel who make readiness, dispatch and modification decisions are aware of the AD’s configuration-specific applicability and the explicit procedures it prescribes.