This Airworthiness Directive requires operators of Airbus A330 aeroplanes that have Airbus modification 40257 but not modification 53578 to add dispatch limits for certain inoperative systems, identify passenger gaseous oxygen container part and serial numbers, replace diaphragms on affected manifold assemblies, and perform leak and door‑release tests after replacement. It responds to supplier tests that found diaphragms can stick during slow decompression. Operators bear the inspection, replacement and testing costs and may face routing or dispatch constraints as a compliance consequence.
This instrument is an Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) airworthiness directive (AD/A330/41 Amdt 1) addressed to Airbus A330 aeroplanes that meet the stated applicability. Mechanically it imposes mandatory operational dispatch limitations (Requirement 1) and hardware identification and corrective actions for passenger gaseous oxygen container manifold diaphragm assemblies (Requirements 2-4). The AD requires operators to: (a) add prescribed Minimum Equipment List (MMEL) dispatch wording so that, when dispatching with one Cabin Pressure Controller (CPC) or one air conditioning pack inoperative, the aircraft can, from any point on the route, rapidly descend to FL100 with obstacle clearance; (b) add MMEL dispatch wording so that, when dispatching with one bleed air supply system inoperative, the aircraft can, from any point on the route, rapidly descend to FL220 (after which APU bleed is used for cabin pressurization); (c) identify part numbers (P/N) of passenger gaseous oxygen container assemblies and cross-check P/Ns against Airbus All Operator Telex (AOT) 35A3013 Revision 01; (d) where P/Ns appear in the AOT, identify manifold assembly P/Ns and serial numbers (S/Ns) per Dräger Aerospace Vendor Service Bulletin (VSB) XXG00-35-004 Revision 02 and replace diaphragms where both P/N and S/N match the VSB; and (e) for aircraft where diaphragms are replaced, perform a cabin emergency oxygen leak check and a system door release test per the Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) references given (AMM 35-23-00-790-801 and AMM 35-23-00-710-805). For spare manifold assemblies, the AD requires identification of P/N and S/N and diaphragm replacement for listed spares before installation (Requirement 4).
The AD narrows its applicability by reference to Airbus modifications: it applies to A330s on which Airbus modification 40257 (installation of Passenger Gaseous Oxygen System) was embodied, but not to aircraft on which Airbus modification 53578 was embodied (Applicability). Aircraft delivered after 11 September 2004 (the effective date of DGAC AD F-2004-152) are noted as not affected (Note 1). The amendment was issued to reduce applicability by reference to modification 53578 and became effective on 17 February 2005; the original AD became effective on 22 September 2004. The document also confirms that later versions of several listed documents approved by the Direction Générale de l’Aviation Civile (DGAC) are acceptable to accomplish the requirements.
The AD states its safety rationale explicitly in the Background: flow testing by the supplier (Dräger Aerospace) revealed a risk that a sticking manifold diaphragm can degrade or block oxygen flow during cabin decompression, particularly in slow depressurisation between FL150 and FL250; under those conditions, oxygen supply pressure may be insufficient to free the diaphragm and oxygen may not flow to passenger masks as deployed. The AD therefore combines operational mitigations (dispatch limits and MMEL wording) with hardware identification and replacement of suspect diaphragms, plus verification tests post-replacement.
Main concepts
The AD rests on a small set of interlocking technical and operational concepts, each expressed in the text and in referenced technical documents. First, applicability is determined by aircraft configuration: the AD applies to Airbus A330 aeroplanes with Airbus modification 40257 embodied during production (installation of Passenger Gaseous Oxygen System) but not to those with modification 53578 embodied (Applicability). Note 1 further removes aircraft delivered after 11 September 2004 from the AD’s requirements.
Second, the AD couples operational mitigation with technical corrective action. Operational mitigation (Requirement 1) mandates MMEL-based dispatch limitations in three failure scenarios: (a) one Cabin Pressure Controller (CPC) inoperative (MMEL 21-31-01); (b) one air conditioning pack inoperative (MMEL 21-52-01); and (c) one bleed air supply system inoperative (MMEL 36-11-01). For CPC or pack inoperative dispatch the required additional MMEL wording imposes that “from any point of the route, obstacle clearance is ensured to allow a rapid descent to FL100.” For one bleed air supply inoperative the required wording is “from any point of the route, obstacle clearance is ensured to allow a rapid descent to FL220,” and the AD notes that at FL220 the APU bleed air supply is used for cabin pressurization.
Third, identification and remediation are conditioned on parts traceability. Requirement 2 requires identification of passenger gaseous oxygen container assembly P/Ns installed or held as spares. If the container assembly P/N is not listed in Airbus AOT 35A3013 Revision 01, “no further action is required.” If a P/N is listed, Requirement 3 directs identification of manifold assembly P/N and S/N per Dräger VSB XXG00-35-004 Revision 02. Only where both the manifold P/N and S/N are listed in that VSB does the AD require diaphragm replacement per the VSB, followed,if the container is installed on an aircraft,by a leak check (AMM 35-23-00-790-801) and a system door release test (AMM 35-23-00-710-805). Requirement 4 repeats the P/N/S/N identification and replacement obligation for spare manifold assemblies, with the caveat that if either the P/N or the S/N of a manifold assembly is not listed in the VSB, no further action is required.
Fourth, compliance timing is specific and somewhat unusual: Requirement 1 “remains unchanged as ‘As of the effective date of the original issue of this Directive’.” Requirements 2 and 3 remain unchanged as “Before 31 October 2004.” Requirement 4 remains unchanged as “Before installation on an aircraft but no later than 31 October 2004.” This is notable because the amendment itself became effective 17 February 2005; the amendment text explicitly states it does not require additional work but reduces applicability by reference to Airbus modification 53578.
Who it affects
The AD identifies three principal classes of parties with obligations or direct consequences: aircraft operators, maintenance organisations (including in-house maintenance for operators), and providers/holders of spare manifold assemblies.
Operators: The AD’s Requirement 1 imposes operational obligations on the operator. When dispatching flights with specified inoperative items (one CPC, one air conditioning pack, or one bleed air supply system), operators must ensure that from any point of the route obstacle clearance is sufficient to permit a rapid descent to FL100 (for CPC/pack) or to FL220 (for bleed air supply). The AD expressly permits meeting this obligation by incorporating the stated MMEL TRs or a copy of the AD into the aircraft operations manual (Requirement 1). Operators must also identify the P/Ns of installed passenger gaseous oxygen container assemblies and,where the AOT lists them,identify associated manifold P/Ns and S/Ns to determine need for corrective action (Requirements 2 and 3). If diaphragms require replacement under Requirement 3, the operator must ensure the work is performed in accordance with the VSB and the subsequent system leak check and door release test per AMM.
Maintenance organisations / licensed engineers: The AD requires parts-level inspection and physical replacement work in accordance with Dräger VSB XXG00-35-004 Revision 02 and AMM tasks. Maintenance providers therefore must carry out P/N and S/N identification on installed and spare manifold assemblies, perform diaphragm replacement where both P/N and S/N match the VSB, and carry out AMM-specified leak checks and door-release tests where replacements are performed on installed containers. Maintenance planning must also ensure spare manifold assemblies are checked and, if listed in the VSB, diaphragms replaced before installation (Requirement 4).
Parts holders and inventory managers: The directive explicitly covers spare manifold assemblies, requiring identification of P/N and S/N per VSB and replacement of diaphragms for listed items before installation (Requirement 4). Parts suppliers, distributors and overhaul shops that maintain inventories of manifold assemblies will need to trace serial numbers and either replace diaphragms or mark parts as non-affected if not listed.
Regulators and compliance officers within operators: The AD was issued by CASA, signed by a Delegate (James Coyne), and notified in the Commonwealth Gazette on 26 January 2005. Compliance officers must track the interplay of effective dates and compliance deadlines, including the fact that the amendment became effective 17 February 2005 but certain compliance dates (notably the “before 31 October 2004” deadlines for Requirements 2-4) were carried forward from the original AD.
Key duties and rights
Key duties in the AD are expressed as mandatory requirements (Requirement 1 through 4). The directive sets out what operators and maintenance organisations must do; it also permits specific means of compliance.
Duties (explicit in the AD text)
Duty to apply dispatch limitations: Under Requirement 1 operators must ensure that dispatch with one CPC inoperative (MMEL 21-31-01) or one air conditioning pack inoperative (MMEL 21-52-01) includes the MMEL procedure wording that from any point of the route obstacle clearance is ensured to allow a rapid descent to FL100. Similarly, when dispatching with one bleed air supply system inoperative (MMEL 36-11-01), operators must ensure it is possible to rapidly descend to FL220 from any point of the route, and that at FL220 the APU bleed is used for cabin pressurisation. The AD prescribes the exact sentence to be added to MMEL procedures (Requirement 1).
Duty to identify installed and spare P/Ns: Requirement 2 requires identification of the P/Ns of passenger gaseous oxygen container assemblies installed or held as spares. If a container P/N is not listed in Airbus AOT 35A3013 Revision 01, the AD states “no further action is required.”
Duty to identify manifold P/N and S/N per VSB and replace diaphragms where both match: Requirement 3 requires, for listed container assembly P/Ns, identification of the manifold P/N and S/N per Dräger VSB XXG00-35-004 Revision 02. If both P/N and S/N are listed in the VSB, the AD requires replacement of the diaphragm per the VSB, and, where the container is installed on an aeroplane, performance of the AMM leak check and system door release test cited therein.
Duty for spares: Requirement 4 applies the same P/N/S/N identification and diaphragm replacement logic to spare manifold assemblies; replacement is required for spares whose P/N and S/N are listed in the VSB “before installation on an aircraft but no later than 31 October 2004.”
Rights and permitted compliance methods (explicit in the AD text)
Acceptance of documented incorporation for Requirement 1: The AD states that incorporation of MMEL TR N° 01-21/01Z ISSUE 01 and MMEL TR N° 01-36/01Z ISSUE 01 or a copy of the Directive in the aircraft operations manual “is a satisfactory method of complying” with Requirement 1. That is an express right to use those documents or a copy of the directive as the compliance vehicle.
Penalties and enforcement
The AD text provided is an instrument issued by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), signed by a CASA Delegate (James Coyne) and notified in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette on 26 January 2005. The directive sets mandatory actions (Requirements 1-4) and sets compliance timings. However, the AD as provided does not specify administrative penalties, criminal sanctions, or the precise enforcement process that CASA will use for non-compliance. The AD’s text therefore identifies obligations but does not in itself articulate fines, licence consequences, or statutory offence provisions.
What the AD does show about the enforcement posture
Issuer and formality: The AD is a formal CASA airworthiness directive, bearing the signature of a Delegate and a Gazette notice. The presence of those formalities establishes that the AD is a regulatory instrument intended to create mandatory compliance obligations for affected aircraft in Australian jurisdiction.
Mandatory language: The AD uses mandatory terms (e.g. “operators MUST ensure”, “apply the following corrective actions: … Replace the diaphragm …”) which indicates that CASA expects operators and maintenance organisations to implement the requirements rather than treating them as guidance.
What the AD does not set out
No penalties or sanctions text: The AD lacks any clause specifying monetary penalties, licence sanctions or enforcement steps (inspection, grounding, notices to produce records) in the event of non-compliance. The AD also does not prescribe an inspectorate process or appeal/variation mechanism within its text.
Implications and enforcement risk (derived observation; text-based)
Compliance expectation: Because the AD is a CASA instrument and was notified in the Commonwealth Gazette, operators should treat the AD as binding within the usual aviation safety regulatory framework. The absence of penalties in the AD text does not mean non-enforceability; CASA’s broader regulatory powers (not stated in this AD text) typically provide mechanisms to enforce airworthiness directives. The AD itself does not list those powers or the enforcement routes.
Operational consequences: Even without explicit penalties, failure to incorporate the MMEL wording for dispatch conditions or to perform required parts identification and diaphragm replacement where mandated would leave an operator without the specific mitigations CASA has prescribed for a known failure mode. That may carry operational risk (limits on legal dispatchability under the MMEL) and potential regulatory exposure during audits, inspections or accident investigations.
How it interacts with other laws
The AD explicitly references and interacts with several external technical documents and foreign authority approvals; it also sits within the wider aviation regulatory framework implied by CASA’s issuance and Gazette notification. The AD text itself does not contain statutory cross-references to particular Acts or penalty provisions, so the interaction with other laws must be read from the documents and authorities the AD cites.
Interactions specifically prescribed in the AD
DGAC and EASA references: The AD notes that DGAC AD F-2004-152 R2 (EASA Approval 2004-11119) refers. It also states that “Later versions of the following documents which are approved by the Direction Générale de l’Aviation Civile of France are acceptable for accomplishing the requirements of this Directive: Airbus AOT35A3013 Revision 01 dated 26 August 2004; MMEL TR N° 01-21/01Z ISSUE 01; MMEL TR N° 01-36/01Z ISSUE 01.” Thus the AD allows the Australian compliance pathway to incorporate DGAC-approved later versions of named documents, tying Australian compliance to acceptance by the French authority.
Manufacturer and supplier documents: The AD requires compliance actions per Dräger Aerospace Vendor Service Bulletin (VSB) XXG00-35-004 Revision 02 and Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) tasks 35-23-00-790-801 and 35-23-00-710-805. It also uses Airbus All Operator Telex (AOT) 35A3013 Revision 01 to determine when no further action is required. These references integrate the AD into the ecosystem of manufacturer/supplier service information and mean compliance will adopt actions already developed by those parties.
MMEL entries and MMEL TRs: The AD requires MMEL procedure wording additions for dispatch conditions, and states that incorporation of MMEL TR N° 01-21/01Z ISSUE 01 and MMEL TR N° 01-36/01Z ISSUE 01 or a copy of the Directive into the aircraft operations manual is a satisfactory method of complying with Requirement 1. This links the AD into the Minimum Equipment List regulatory process, which in turn intersects with operational authorisations for dispatch.
Implied interactions with broader Australian aviation law
CASA authority and Gazette notice: The AD is issued by CASA and was notified in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette. While the AD text does not itself quote statutory powers, the issuance and Gazette notification situate the AD within CASA’s regulatory remit. Practitioners will need to consider how the AD interacts with the Civil Aviation Act and other CASA-enabling legislation, for example on enforcement, approvals and variations. The AD text does not detail these statutory interactions; external legal advice or CASA guidance would be required to resolve questions about statutory enforcement pathways or appeals.
Amendment history
The AD document contains explicit amendment history and temporal markers that must be tracked carefully by operators and maintainers.
Chronology as stated in the AD
Background testing and original action: The Background explains the root cause,qualification and flow tests by Dräger Aerospace showed diaphragms can stick and block oxygen flow, particularly in slow depressurisation between FL150 and FL250. Based on that, an original issue of this Airworthiness Directive was published and “became effective on 22 September 2004.” The AD required MMEL dispatch limitations, diaphragm replacement on affected manifold assemblies, and post-replacement leak checks.
DGAC and EASA linkage: The AD notes that DGAC AD F-2004-152 R2 (EASA Approval 2004-11119) is referenced. Note 1 states that aircraft delivered after 11 September 2004 (the effective date of DGAC AD F-2004-152) are not affected by the requirements of this Directive.
Amendment Amdt 1: The printed AD header shows “AD/A330/41 Amdt 1 … 2/2005” and an explicit line in the Compliance section says “This Amendment becomes effective on 17 February 2005.” The amendment text explains that it “does not require additional work but is issued to reduce the applicability by reference to Airbus modification 53578.” That is the substantive change effected by the amendment: narrower applicability.
Gazette notification and signature: The AD is signed by James Coyne, Delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, dated 13 December 2004. The AD is stated to be notified in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette on 26 January 2005.
Retained compliance timings
Notably, the amendment leaves certain original compliance timings unchanged. The Compliance section states: “For Requirement 1 - Remains unchanged as ‘As of the effective date of the original issue of this Directive’.” For Requirements 2 and 3, the deadlines “remain unchanged as ‘Before 31 October 2004’.” For Requirement 4, the deadline “remains unchanged as ‘Before installation on an aircraft but no later than 31 October 2004’.” These dates were set in the original AD and persisted in the amendment text even though the amendment itself became effective on 17 February 2005. The amendment therefore narrows scope but does not reopen or extend the original compliance windows.
Document version references
The AD specifies certain referenced documents and their versions: Airbus AOT 35A3013 Revision 01 dated 26 August 2004; MMEL TR N° 01-21/01Z ISSUE 01; MMEL TR N° 01-36/01Z ISSUE 01; and Dräger VSB XXG00-35-004 Revision 02. The AD also allows later versions of the specified documents if they have DGAC approval. Those version references are part of the AD’s amendment record because they define the lists and procedures that trigger or execute compliance.
Litigation history
The AD document provided does not include or reference any litigation history. There are no cases named in the text, no references to judicial decisions, and no mention of appeals, tribunal decisions or legal disputes concerning the directive. The AD contains only administrative action (issuance, amendment, signature by a CASA Delegate) and cross-references to DGAC/EASA approval and manufacturer/supplier documents.
What the document shows and what it does not
No judicial challenges or judicial decisions: The AD does not identify any appeals, rulings, or court or tribunal proceedings challenging the AD, its validity, or its enforcement. It does not report on any administrative appeals or reconsiderations in the text provided.
No precedent or litigation citations: The AD does not name any cases or administrative law determinations. It is a technical safety instrument and the AD text is focused on technical corrective actions and operational mitigation, not adjudicative history.
Practical advice for practitioners seeking litigation information
Absent litigation references in the AD text, practitioners should not infer either the existence or non-existence of litigation from the AD alone. To determine if the AD has been subject to legal challenge or to discover relevant administrative-law decisions, one would need to search legal databases, civil aviation tribunal records, CASA enforcement records and, where relevant, higher court dockets. The AD does not provide such a trail.
For disputes related to implementation (for example, claims against a supplier for defective diaphragms, or disputes between operators and lessors about who bears remediation costs), the AD does not record adjudications. Any such disputes, if they exist, would be external to this AD and require separate legal research.
Summary statement
The AD’s text contains no litigation history or references to judicial or tribunal outcomes. It is a technical directive that records its own issuance and amendment dates, signatures and Gazette notification, but not any court proceedings. Practitioners requiring litigation context should conduct external legal and regulatory searches; this AD provides no internal litigation trail.
Gotchas
The AD contains several non-obvious triggers, timing quirks and conditional statements that can produce compliance pitfalls if practitioners do not track configuration, delivery dates, P/N/S/N matching logic and documentary acceptance paths. Below are concrete “gotchas” that arise directly from the text.
Applicability depends on two Airbus modifications and delivery date
The AD applies only to A330 aeroplanes “on which Airbus modification 40257 has been embodied during production (installation of Passenger Gaseous Oxygen System) but on which Airbus modification 53578 was not embodied” (Applicability). Practitioners must check the aircraft’s production modification record. A misread here can either incorrectly treat an aircraft as affected or non-affected.
Note 1 disapplies aircraft delivered after 11 September 2004. If delivery date records are imprecise, operators might incorrectly assume applicability. The AD narrows applicability both by mod embodiment and delivery date.
Conditional obligation requires both P/N and S/N matches
Requirements 3 and 4 require diaphragm replacement only where both the manifold assembly P/N and S/N are listed in Dräger VSB XXG00-35-004 Revision 02. If only one of those elements is listed, “this Directive requires no further action.” That means partial matches do not trigger replacement. Maintenance teams must verify both fields; sloppy identification could lead to unnecessary replacements or missed replacements.
Timing inconsistency between original deadlines and amendment effective date
The Compliance section reiterates original deadlines: Requirements 2 and 3 “Before 31 October 2004” and Requirement 4 “Before installation on an aircraft but no later than 31 October 2004,” while the Amendment became effective 17 February 2005. Operators who did not act before the original dates need to reconcile whether they are still required to carry out historical corrective actions or whether the narrowing of applicability changed obligations after the fact. The AD states the amendment “does not require additional work but is issued to reduce the applicability,” which suggests the amendment is not intended to reopen obligations; nevertheless, the timeline is a practical hazard for records and audit.
Dispatch limitation language requires concrete operational demonstration
Requirement 1 requires that when dispatching with one CPC or one pack inoperative, operators “MUST ensure that from any point of the route, obstacle clearance is ensured to allow a rapid descent to FL100.” The AD provides the exact wording to add to MMEL procedures, but it does not provide a prescriptive method for demonstrating compliance (for example, specific terrain clearance criteria). Operators must translate the requirement into flight planning and operating procedures; differing interpretations could create regulatory exposure.
How to comply
This section provides a practical, text-grounded compliance checklist and record-keeping notes aligned with the AD’s Requirements 1-4, the Compliance section and the document references. All steps reference the AD’s stated procedures and documents.
Step A , Determine applicability and document status
Check aircraft configuration: confirm whether Airbus modification 40257 was embodied during production and whether Airbus modification 53578 was embodied. The AD applies only where 40257 was embodied and 53578 was not (Applicability).
Check delivery date: aircraft delivered after 11 September 2004 are noted as not affected (Note 1). Confirm delivery records.
Record findings: archive the configuration and delivery-date evidence in the continuing airworthiness file.
Step B , Implement dispatch limitations (Requirement 1)
Add the required MMEL wording to affected MMEL items: for one CPC inoperative (MMEL 21-31-01) and one air conditioning pack inoperative (MMEL 21-52-01) add: “… provided from any point of the route, obstacle clearance is ensured to allow a rapid descent to FL100.”
For one bleed air supply system inoperative (MMEL 36-11-01) add: “… provided from any point of the route, obstacle clearance is ensured to allow a rapid descent to FL220.” Ensure operational plans reflect that at FL220 the APU bleed is used for cabin pressurisation.
Acceptable compliance method: incorporate MMEL TR N° 01-21/01Z ISSUE 01 and MMEL TR N° 01-36/01Z ISSUE 01, or a copy of this Directive, into the aircraft operations manual, as stated in the AD. Do not just file a copy; update the operations manual and distribute revisions to flight operations, dispatch and training departments.
Operationalise: update flight planning procedures, dispatch checklists and crew briefings so that obstacle clearance and rapid-descent capability are demonstrably considered when releasing flights under the specified inoperative conditions.
Step C , Identify container assembly P/Ns and compare to Airbus AOT (Requirement 2)
Inventory check: identify passenger gaseous oxygen container assembly P/N(s) installed on each aircraft and those held as spares.
Cross-reference: check each container assembly P/N against Airbus AOT 35A3013 Revision 01. If a container assembly P/N is not listed in the AOT, no further action is required for that container per the AD.
Record and evidence: keep a spreadsheet or database recording tail number, container assembly P/Ns, locations and spare inventory status; retain copies of AOT checks.
Current sections
Direct links to the current provisions in AD/A330/41 Amdt 1 - Passenger Gaseous Oxygen Containers Diaphragm.
4
Airbus Industrie A330 Series Aeroplanes
Airbus Industrie A330 Series Aeroplanes
Airbus Industrie A330 Series Aeroplanes
AD/A330/41 Amdt 1
Passenger Gaseous OxygenContainers Diaphragm
2/2005
Applicability:
Model A330 aeroplanes, all serial numbers, on which Airbus modification 40257 has been embodied during production (installation of Passenger Gaseous Oxygen System) but on which Airbus modification 53578 was not embodied.
Note 1: Aircraft delivered after 11 September 2004, the effective date of DGAC Airworthiness Directive (AD) F-2004-152, are not affected by the requirements of this Directive.
Requirement:
1. The following dispatch limitations are mandatory for all flights:
- When dispatch is made with either one Cabin Pressure Controller (CPC) inoperative (MMEL item 21-31-01) or one air conditioning pack inoperative (MMEL 21-52-01), operators MUST ensure that from any point of the route, obstacle clearance is ensured to allow a rapid descent to FL 100.In that respect, following MMEL procedure must be added in the dispatch conditions for one CPC or one air conditioning pack inoperative:“... provided from any point of the route,obstacle clearance is ensured to allowa rapid descent to FL 100.”- When dispatch is made with one bleed air supply system inoperative (MMEL item 36-11-01), operators MUST ensure that from any point of the route, obstacle clearance is ensured to allow a rapid descent to FL 220 in case of remaining bleed failure. At FL 220, APU bleed air supply system is used for cabin pressurization.In that respect, following MMEL procedure must be added in the dispatch conditions for one bleed air supply inoperative:“... provided from any point of the route,obstacle clearance is ensured to allowa rapid descent to FL 220.”
Incorporation of MMEL TR N° 01-21/01Z ISSUE 01 and MMEL TR N° 01-36/01Z ISSUE 01 or a copy of this Directive in the aircraft operations manual is a satisfactory method of complying with this Requirement.
2. Identify the part number(s) (P/N) of the passenger gaseous oxygen container assemblies either installed on the aircraft or held as spares. For container assembly P/N(s) not listed in Airbus All Operator Telex (AOT) 35A3013 Revision 01, no further action is required by this Directive.
3. For container assemblies with P/N(s) listed in AOT 35A3013 Revision 01, identify the manifold assembly P/N and serial number (S/N) in accordance with Dräger Aerospace Vendor Service Bulletin (VSB) XXG00-35-004 Revision 02. If both P/N and S/N of the manifold assembly are listed in VSB XXG00-35-004 Revision 02, apply the following corrective actions:
a. Replace the diaphragm installed in the manifold assembly in accordance with instructions given in VSB XXG00-35-004 Revision 02, and
b. If the container is installed on an aeroplane:
(i) Perform a leak check of the cabin emergency oxygen system in accordance with Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) 35-23-00-790-801, and
(ii) Perform a system door release test in accordance with AMM 35-23-00-710-805.
4. Identify the PN and SN of spare manifold assemblies in accordance with VSB XXG00-35-004 Revision 02. For each spare manifold assembly, if both P/N and S/N are listed in the VSB, replace the diaphragm installed in the manifold assembly in accordance with VSB XXG00-35-004 Revision 02.
If either the P/N or the S/N of the manifold assemblies is not listed in VSB XXG00-35-004 Revision 02, this Directive requires no further action.
Later versions of the following documents which are approved by the Direction Générale de l’Aviation Civile of France are acceptable for accomplishing the requirements of this Directive:
Airbus AOT35A3013 Revision 01 dated 26 August 2004MMEL TR N° 01-21/01Z ISSUE 01MMEL TR N° 01-36/01Z ISSUE 01
Note 2: DGAC AD F-2004-152 R2 (EASA Approval 2004-11119) refers.
Compliance:
For Requirement 1 - Remains unchanged as “As of the effective date of the original issue of this Directive’.
For Requirements 2 and 3 - Remains unchanged as “Before 31 October 2004”.
For Requirement 4 - Remains unchanged as “Before installation on an aircraft but no later than 31 October 2004”.
This Amendment becomes effective on 17 February 2005.
Background:
Qualification test and subsequent flow test, performed by the oxygen system supplier Dräger Aerospace, revealed that the oxygen flow of the passenger gaseous oxygen container assemblies may be degraded or blocked by sticking manifold diaphragm when used during a cabin decompression.During a slow depressurisation (loss of air conditioning packs or loss of the cabin pressure control system) and if the oxygen masks are triggered between flight level 150 and 250, the oxygen supply pressure will not be sufficient to free the diaphragm and oxygen will not flow to the passenger masks while deployed.
The original issue of this Directive required:- limitation of dispatch conditions by modifying the MMEL in case of one CPC or one air conditioning or one bleed air supply system inoperative,- an oxygen diaphragm replacement on the affected manifold assemblies, and- after replacement of the diaphragm on aircraft, a leak check of the cabin emergency oxygen system.
This Amendment does not require additional work but is issued to reduce the applicability by reference to Airbus modification 53578.
The original issue of this Airworthiness Directive became effective on 22 September 2004.
The above AD is notified in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette on 26 January 2005.
AD/A330/41 Amdt 1
AD/A330/41 Amdt 1
AD/A330/41 Amdt 1
Passenger Gaseous OxygenContainers Diaph
Passenger Gaseous OxygenContainers Diaphragm
Passenger Gaseous Oxygen
Containers Diaphragm
2/2005
2/2005
2/2005
Source text: opening excerpt
Sourced from the Federal Register of Legislation (legislation.gov.au), CC BY 4.0.
Airbus Industrie A330 Series Aeroplanes Airbus Industrie A330 Series Aeroplanes
Airbus Industrie A330 Series Aeroplanes
AD/A330/41 Amdt 1
Passenger Gaseous OxygenContainers Diaphragm
2/2005
Applicability:
Model A330 aeroplanes, all serial numbers, on which Airbus modification 40257 has been embodied during production (installation of Passenger Gaseous Oxygen System) but on which Airbus modification 53578 was not embodied.
Note 1: Aircraft delivered after 11 September 2004, the effective date of DGAC Airworthiness Directive (AD) F-2004-152, are not affected by the requirements of this Directive.
Requirement:
1. The following dispatch limitations are mandatory for all flights:
- When dispatch is made with either one Cabin Pressure Controller (CPC) inoperative (MMEL item 21-31-01) or one air conditioning pack inoperative (MMEL 21-52-01), operators MUST ensure that from any point of the route, obstacle clearance is ensured to allow a rapid descent to FL 100.In that respect, following MMEL procedure must be added in the dispatch conditions for one CPC or one air conditioning pack inoperative:“... provided from any point of the route,obstacle clearance is ensured to allowa rapid descent to FL 100.”- When dispatch is made with one bleed air supply system inoperative (MMEL item 36-11-01), operators MUST ensure that from any point of the route, obstacle clearance is ensured to allow a rapid descent to FL 220 in case of remaining bleed failure. At FL 220, APU bleed air supply system is used for cabin pressurization.In that respect, following MMEL procedure must be added in the dispatch conditions for one bleed air supply inoperative:“... provided from any point of the route,obstacle clearance is ensured to allowa rapid descent to FL 220.”
Incorporation of MMEL TR N° 01-21/01Z ISSUE 01 and MMEL TR N° 01-36/01Z ISSUE 01 or a copy of this Directive in the aircraft operations manual is a satisfactory method of complying with this Requirement.
2. Identify the part number(s) (P/N) of the passenger gaseous oxygen container assemblies either installed on the aircraft or held as spares. For container assembly P/N(s) not listed in Airbus All Operator Telex (AOT) 35A3013 Revision 01, no further action is required by this Directive.
3. For container assemblies with P/N(s) listed in AOT 35A3013 Revision 01, identify the manifold assembly P/N and serial number (S/N) in accordance with Dräger Aerospace Vendor Service Bulletin (VSB) XXG00-35-004 Revision 02. If both P/N and S/N of the manifold assembly are listed in VSB XXG00-35-004 Revision 02, apply the following corrective actions:
a. Replace the diaphragm installed in the manifold assembly in accordance with instructions given in VSB XXG00-35-004 Revision 02, and
b. If the container is installed on an aeroplane:
(i) Perform a leak check of the cabin emergency oxygen system in accordance with Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) 35-23-00-790-801, and
(ii) Perform a system door release test in accordance with AMM 35-23-00-710-805.
4. Identify the PN and SN of spare manifold assemblies in accordance with VSB XXG00-35-004 Revision 02. For each spare manifold assembly, if both P/N and S/N are listed in the VSB, replace the diaphragm installed in the manifold assembly in accordance with VSB XXG00-35-004 Revision 02.
If either the P/N or the S/N of the manifold assemblies is not listed in VSB XXG00-35-004 Revision 02, this Directive requires no further action.
Later versions of the following documents which are approved by the Direction Générale de l’Aviation Civile of France are acceptable for accomplishing the requirements of this Directive:
Airbus AOT35A3013 Revision 01 dated 26 August 2004MMEL TR N° 01-21/01Z ISSUE 01MMEL TR N° 01-36/01Z ISSUE 01
Note 2: DGAC AD F-2004-152 R2 (EASA Approval 2004-11119) refers.
Compliance:
For Requirement 1 - Remains unchanged as “As of the effective date of the original issue of this Directive’.
For Requirements 2 and 3 - Remains unchanged as “Before 31 October 2004”.
For Requirement 4 - Remains unchanged as “Before installation on an aircraft but no later than 31 October 2004”.
This Amendment becomes effective on 17 February 2005.
Background:
Qualification test and subsequent flow test, performed by the oxygen system supplier Dräger Aerospace, revealed that the oxygen flow of the passenger gaseous oxygen container assemblies may be degraded or blocked by sticking manifold diaphragm when used during a cabin decompression.During a slow depressurisation (loss of air conditioning packs or loss of the cabin pressure control system) and if the oxygen masks are triggered between flight level 150 and 250, the oxygen supply pressure will not be sufficient to free the diaphragm and oxygen will not flow to the passenger masks while deployed.
The original issue of this Directive required:- limitation of dispatch conditions by modifying the MMEL in case of one CPC or one air conditioning or one bleed air supply system inoperative,- an oxygen diaphragm replacement on the affected manifold assemblies, and- after replacement of the diaphragm on aircraft, a leak check of the cabin emergency oxygen system.
This Amendment does not require additional work but is issued to reduce the applicability by reference to Airbus modification 53578.
The original issue of this Airworthiness Directive became effective on 22 September 2004.
This is an opening excerpt, not the complete document.
Fifth, the directive accepts alternate demonstrable compliance by incorporation: incorporating MMEL TR N° 01-21/01Z ISSUE 01 and MMEL TR N° 01-36/01Z ISSUE 01 or a copy of this Directive into the aircraft operations manual is “a satisfactory method of complying” with Requirement 1. Lastly, the AD allows later versions of specified documents that are approved by the DGAC to be used to accomplish the requirements (AOT 35A3013 Revision 01 dated 26 August 2004; MMEL TR N° 01-21/01Z ISSUE 01; MMEL TR N° 01-36/01Z ISSUE 01).
These concepts together create a rule that mixes operational constraints (flight dispatch and crew actionability), parts traceability criteria (P/N and S/N matching lists in supplier VSB), mandated rectification where a match exists (diaphragm replacement), and verification testing for in-service installations, with clear compliance windows and specified documentary paths to compliance.
Aircraft lessors and purchasers: Because the AD’s applicability is configuration-based (Airbus modification 40257 embodied, but not modification 53578), lessors, buyers and their technical lessee/lessor consent processes must account for whether an airframe is in scope. Note 1 excludes aircraft delivered after 11 September 2004; therefore delivery date and embodiment of Airbus mod 53578 determine whether obligations fall on the current operator or were avoided by earlier production embodiment.
Document approvers and foreign authorities: The AD permits using later versions of several documents provided they are approved by the DGAC of France. Organisations operating internationally will need to confirm acceptability of alternative versions and ensure that the DGAC (or other certifying authority) approval is in place.
Who pays: the text assigns no explicit question of who bears costs. Practically, the operator or the maintenance organisation performing the work will absorb the labour, parts and downtime costs; spare parts holders will incur costs to check and, where necessary, replace diaphragms before installation. The AD itself does not specify cost-recovery or funding mechanisms.
Conditionality limits the duty to list-matching: A central feature of the AD is conditionality based on parts lists. The duty to take further action is triggered only where both the manifold P/N and S/N are listed in VSB XXG00-35-004 Revision 02 (Requirements 3 and 4). If either is not listed, “this Directive requires no further action.” That creates a specific, verifiable right to refrain from replacement when the parts do not match the supplier VSB list.
Use of later approved document versions: The AD allows later versions of certain documents (AOT 35A3013 Rev 01; MMEL TRs) approved by the DGAC to be used to accomplish the AD’s requirements. This creates a right to use updated, DGAC-approved technical material instead of the explicitly quoted versions in the AD.
Operational discretion and implied duties
Duty to ensure obstacle clearance: Although the AD prescribes the MMEL wording, it leaves operators responsible for ensuring the underlying flight planning and operational capability (obstacle clearance, alternate aerodromes, descent profiles) to permit the specified rapid descents. The AD does not supply contours or quantitative obstacle-clearance standards; operators must interpret and implement the MMEL wording in their flight operations context.
Documentation and record-keeping duties
The AD does not set out a record-retention schedule, but identification of P/Ns and S/Ns, completion of diaphragm replacements, and completion of AMM checks will necessarily generate maintenance records. The AD also specifies that incorporation of the MMEL TRs or a copy of the Directive into the operations manual is an acceptable compliance step for Requirement 1, which implies a duty to alter the operations manual and preserve that revision in operational records.
Limitations on duties
Temporal limits: The AD retains compliance timing from the original directive: Requirement 1 as of the original effective date, Requirements 2 and 3 “Before 31 October 2004,” and Requirement 4 “Before installation on an aircraft but no later than 31 October 2004.” The amendment itself states it does not require further work but reduces applicability by reference to Airbus modification 53578. Operators must reconcile these time-bound duties with their current fleet status.
The AD text does not state penalties or civil sanctions for breach within its text. It is a CASA instrument signed by a Delegate and notified in the Gazette, and compliance obligations are set out as mandatory actions; the enforcement mechanism and sanctions regime are not specified in the AD itself.
Record evidence: The AD’s conditional obligations pivot on verifiable facts (P/N and S/N lists in supplier VSB; incorporation of MMEL TRs or directive copy into operations manual). Therefore enforcement activity likely would focus on documentary and physical evidence consistent with the AD’s steps (records of P/N/S/N checks, maintenance action cards showing diaphragm replacement, AMM test results, and operations manual revisions). The AD does not specify retention periods, but the presence of discrete, verifiable tasks means an operator’s evidence trail will be a central enforcement focus.
Bottom line for practitioners: The AD creates mandatory duties and specifies technical steps and documentary means of compliance, but the enforcement and penalty mechanisms are not specified in the text provided. Operators should treat the directive as a binding regulatory instrument and maintain documentary proof of compliance; advice from legal/regulatory counsel or CASA should be obtained if there is uncertainty about enforcement consequences or the interplay with other CASA powers (which are not detailed in the AD).
Potential operational law interactions
Contractual obligations and airworthiness: Replacing diaphragms, performing AMM tests, and changing MMEL wording can affect operational availability, leasing covenants, insurance representations and warranties and maintenance schedules. The AD does not address contract law consequences; operators and lessors should consider contractual clauses on compliance with airworthiness directives, warranty coverage for parts and services, and rights to seek cost recovery from suppliers or lessors where relevant.
International operations and foreign authority acceptance: The AD explicitly contemplates DGAC-approved later documents. For operators flying internationally, the interplay between CASA ADs and foreign national airworthiness directives (e.g. DGAC/EASA ADs) matters. The AD’s acceptance of DGAC approvals for updated documents suggests a willingness to harmonise with the French authority’s technical approvals. However, the AD does not legislate how other civil aviation authorities will treat this Australian AD; operators should consider whether other authorities require separate compliance to permit operations into their jurisdictions.
Safety reporting and investigation frameworks: The AD arises from supplier qualification and flow tests (Background). The AD does not mention mandatory reporting or post-action reporting obligations beyond tests and maintenance tasks. Interactions with mandatory occurrence reporting or incident investigation regimes are not specified in the AD and would be governed by the broader safety reporting and investigation laws outside this document.
In short, the AD cross-references and depends upon manufacturer and supplier documentation and DGAC approvals, and it sits inside CASA’s regulatory apparatus by virtue of being a formal CASA AD. It does not itself detail statutory enforcement mechanisms or specify interactions with commercial law, but compliance will have knock-on effects for contracts, operational authorisations and international acceptance that require consideration outside the AD text.
Practical consequences of the amendment history
For operators who complied with the original AD, the amendment’s explicit narrowing of applicability by reference to Airbus modification 53578 likely removed some aircraft from the AD’s scope, reducing the universe of aircraft that needed diaphragm replacement or MMEL changes. The AD’s note that aircraft delivered after 11 September 2004 are not affected also operates as a delimiting event.
The inconsistent timing,original compliance dates in October 2004, amendment effective February 2005,means a practitioner must check fleet records to determine whether compliance was already required, whether retrospective work was necessary, and whether the amendment changes any retrospective obligations. The amendment text states it “does not require additional work” but reduces applicability, implying no new tasks were added by the amendment.
The AD’s allowance for later DGAC-approved documents creates an open pathway for operators to use updated technical materials without seeking further CASA amendments, provided DGAC approves those materials.
Recordation and audit trail
The AD itself is a formal published amendment and should be recorded in an operator’s continuing airworthiness records. The Gazette notification date and signature should be logged for compliance evidence. Given the interplay of dates, operators should retain records demonstrating timing of any diaphragm replacements and MMEL or operations manual changes to show whether the original deadlines were met.
Spare parts obligation before installation
Requirement 4 mandates identification and diaphragm replacement for spare manifold assemblies listed in the VSB “before installation on an aircraft but no later than 31 October 2004.” Facilities that hold large inventories of spares, or who source parts from multiple suppliers, risk failing to check S/Ns before installation if traceability is incomplete. The AD’s requirement to act before installation creates a process-control burden in inventory management.
Reliance on supplier lists and document versions
The AD’s triggering lists live in an external supplier VSB (Dräger VSB XXG00-35-004 Revision 02) and Airbus AOT 35A3013 Revision 01. If the supplier list is updated, the AD allows later versions approved by DGAC, but only if DGAC-approved. Operators relying on unapproved versions or informal notes risk non-compliance. The AD’s acceptance of later DGAC-approved versions adds flexibility but also requires diligence in tracking approvals.
Acceptable method of compliance for Requirement 1 is incorporation into ops manual
The AD says incorporation of MMEL TR N° 01-21/01Z ISSUE 01 and MMEL TR N° 01-36/01Z ISSUE 01 or a copy of the Directive into operations manual is “a satisfactory method of complying” with Requirement 1. However, simply keeping a copy on file without operationalising crew training, dispatch processes and flight planning might not fulfil the operational implications of the MMEL wording. Operators must implement the operational procedures implied by the MMEL wording, not merely file the document.
No penalties detailed in the AD text
The AD does not state penalties or enforcement mechanisms in its text. Operators should not interpret this as meaning non-enforcement; rather, the AD is silent on sanctions, which leaves open the need to consult CASA’s wider enforcement framework. For audit purposes, lack of AD-specified penalties does not remove the need to keep evidence of compliance.
Testing requirements reference AMM tasks
Post-replacement verification for in-service components requires performing AMM leak checks and system door release tests (AMM 35-23-00-790-801 and AMM 35-23-00-710-805). Failure to follow the exact AMM tasks could be considered non-compliant even if a diaphragm has been physically replaced.
International interplay and approvals
The AD uses DGAC-approved documents as acceptable compliance paths and references the DGAC/EASA AD. Operators engaged in international operations must ensure that the path they use (DGAC-approved later versions, Airbus AOT) satisfies CASA and the authorities of states into which the aircraft operates; the AD does not specify cross-acceptance by other states.
In summary, the AD’s conditional triggers (P/N & S/N), configuration-based applicability (Airbus mods and delivery date), date inconsistencies, and reliance on external supplier/manufacturer documents create several practical compliance risks. An operator must maintain rigorous parts traceability, clear records of operations manual changes, and documented implementation of the MMEL dispatch wording and maintenance actions to avoid inadvertent non-compliance.
Step D , For P/Ns listed in the AOT, identify manifold P/N and S/N per VSB and act (Requirement 3)
Follow Dräger VSB XXG00-35-004 Revision 02: identify the manifold assembly P/N and S/N for each container with a P/N listed in the AOT.
Trigger condition: only where both the manifold P/N and S/N are listed in VSB XXG00-35-004 Revision 02 is a diaphragm replacement required.
Perform diaphragm replacement per VSB instructions for every matched manifold.
Post-replacement tests (if the container is installed on an aeroplane): perform the cabin emergency oxygen system leak check in accordance with AMM 35-23-00-790-801, and perform a system door release test in accordance with AMM 35-23-00-710-805.
Documentation: log VSB work cards, record serial numbers, sign-off tasks, and attach AMM test results to the maintenance release paperwork.
Step E , Spares management and pre-installation action (Requirement 4)
Identify P/N and S/N of all spare manifold assemblies per VSB procedures.
For each spare manifold where both P/N and S/N are listed in VSB XXG00-35-004 Revision 02, replace the diaphragm per the VSB before installation on an aircraft. If either P/N or S/N is not listed in the VSB, the AD requires no further action for that spare.
Control inventory: segregate spares that require replacement until the work is done, and mark spares that are free of the VSB listing accordingly.
Recordkeeping: log replacement activities and maintain evidence that no listed spare was installed without diaphragm replacement.
Step F , Timing and retrospective compliance
Be aware of compliance deadlines retained from the original AD: Requirements 2 and 3 “Before 31 October 2004”; Requirement 4 “Before installation on an aircraft but no later than 31 October 2004”. The Amendment (effective 17 February 2005) states it does not require additional work but reduces applicability by reference to mod 53578. Document whether the work was completed before the stated dates or whether the amended applicability removes the requirement for particular airframes; preserve correspondence and technical records that establish timeline compliance.
Step G , Use of later document versions and approvals
If using later versions of Airbus AOT, MMEL TRs or other referenced documents, ensure those later versions are approved by the Direction Générale de l’Aviation Civile (DGAC) as the AD allows DGAC-approved later versions to be acceptable for accomplishing the AD’s requirements. Maintain approvals or correspondence evidencing DGAC acceptance.
Step H , Maintain an auditable trail
Maintain a compliance dossier per aircraft including: configuration/embodiment records for Airbus mods 40257 and 53578, delivery date evidence, AOT cross-reference reports, VSB P/N and S/N checks, maintenance work orders for diaphragm replacements, AMM test reports, operations manual revisions and MMEL entries, and any DGAC approvals for later document versions.
Ensure the operations manual includes the MMEL wording or the MMEL TRs and that distribution to flight ops, training and dispatch is recorded.
Step I , Operational risk control and training
Train flight crew and dispatchers on the revised MMEL dispatch wording and on procedures for rapid descent planning and obstacle-clearance considerations. Update emergency and abnormal procedures where necessary to align with the forced-descent profile implications of the AD.
Coordinate maintenance scheduling to minimise aircraft downtime when diaphragm replacements are required.
Step J , Contact and verification
Use Dräger VSB XXG00-35-004 Revision 02 and Airbus AOT 35A3013 Revision 01 as the primary technical sources for lists and replacement procedures; where ambiguities arise, document queries and responses.
If there is uncertainty about the AD’s enforcement, seek clarification from CASA or legal/regulatory counsel; the AD does not spell out enforcement mechanics within its text.
By following these steps and maintaining careful records tied to the precise P/N and S/N matching rules in the AD and supplier VSB, an operator or maintenance organisation can demonstrate compliance consistent with the directive’s explicit instructions.