AD/A330/73 Amdt 1 - APU Generator Oil Pump Module

Applicability and scope: The AD applies to “AIRBUS A330 series aircraft” (Applicability). It is not limited to a subset of serial numbers or operators in the provided text; the applicability statement is broad and covers the model family as described.

Unsafe condition and causal focus: The unsafe condition is an uncontained APU generator failure with the risk that loose generator parts could damage the APU firewall and degrade fire extinguishing capability, potentially causing a temporary uncontrolled fire (Background). The AD focuses mechanistically on the generator scavenge-oil pump inlet screen (last chance filter) and on the lube and scavenge filters’ differential pressure indicators, i.e. on contamination/debris and filter differential pressure as proximate contributors to the failures reported (Requirement 1 and Requirement 2).

Required technical documents: Compliance is to be performed “in accordance with the instructions of AIRBUS All Operators Telex (AOT) A330-24A3042 dated 22 March 2007 or later EASA approved revisions” (Requirement 1 and Requirement 2). The AD therefore incorporates Airbus operator guidance by reference and conditions compliance on following the AOT or its later EASA-approved revisions.

Differential treatment by operational status: The AD creates a conditional exemption. Requirement 2 is imposed only for aircraft operating under the two specified MMEL items (24-22-01 and 36-11-01), and the AD explicitly relieves operators from the repetitive element of Requirement 2 for aircraft operated under MMEL item 36-11-01 if the APU generator is removed or deactivated (Requirement 2). The AD thus links inspection burden to operational configurations and MMEL use.

Temporal regimen: The AD imposes a one-time inspection to be completed by 31 May 2007 unless already done (Compliance), and an interim repetitive check “before each flight, after the effective date of this AD, until 31 May 2007” for those aircraft to which Requirement 2 applies (Compliance). The amendment takes effect on 1 May 2007.

Relation to EASA ADs: The AD references EASA AD No. 2007-0080-R1 dated 13 April 2007 and notes that it supersedes an earlier EASA Emergency AD (No. 2007-0080-E dated 26 March 2007) (Requirement note). The instrument thereby situates CASA’s requirement within a wider airworthiness response coordinated with EASA directives and an Airbus AOT.

Operational goal vs. investigative status: The AD states that investigations are ongoing to determine the root causes of the two ground events (Background). The immediate procedural goal is therefore diagnostic and risk-mitigation: obtain fleet status through a one-time inspection, while limiting additional short-term operational checks to MMEL-affected aircraft, or exempting them if APU generator removed or deactivated.

Who pays, who decides, behaviour change: Operators of A330 aircraft pay the direct compliance cost (inspection labour, downtime, possible corrective actions); CASA, via the AD, decides the mandatory action and the timetable; operators must change pre-flight processes in the short window specified where Requirement 2 applies and must execute a one-time fleet inspection by the compliance date.

Primary affected parties: The AD explicitly applies to “AIRBUS A330 series aircraft” (Applicability). Therefore the primary group that must comply is operators (airlines, lessors operating the aircraft, or other entities responsible for continued airworthiness) of any Airbus A330 series aeroplane covered by that applicability statement as written in the instrument.

Maintenance organisations and technicians: Maintenance providers tasked with A330 APU servicing, scheduled checks and unscheduled rectification will be directly affected. They must carry out the one-time inspection of the APU generator scavenge-oil pump inlet screen and any corrective actions required, and where applicable, perform pre-flight differential pressure indicator button checks on the lube filter and generator scavenge filter consistent with the Airbus AOT referenced in the AD.

Flight operations and dispatch: For aircraft operating under MMEL item 24-22-01 (“AC Main Generation”) or MMEL 36-11-01 (“Bleed Air Supply System failure”), flight operations personnel must incorporate a pre-flight check of the differential pressure indicator button on the lube and scavenge filters into the dispatch/flight release process for the period specified (the AD requires this check before each flight after the effective date until 31 May 2007, per Compliance). Dispatchers and flight crew will bear the operational burden of conducting, recording or confirming those checks until the compliance window closes.

Lessors and owners: Lessors whose aircraft are leased to operators will find that compliance is an operator responsibility under the AD, but the lessor may need assurance that a one-time inspection has been carried out and corrective actions completed prior to transfer or return, and that records reflect compliance. The instrument does not change ownership rights but imposes an airworthiness requirement on the aircraft while registered/operated.

Regulatory bodies and certification authorities: CASA, as the issuer, enforces the AD within Australia; the AD explicitly references EASA AD No. 2007-0080-R1 and Airbus AOT as the compliance documents, so EASA and Airbus are functionally involved through these referenced documents. The AD’s reliance on EASA-approved revisions implies that the regulatory interplay will involve EASA determinations of any revised AOTs.

Passengers and the travelling public: Indirectly affected through potential flight delays or cancellations if aircraft are grounded for inspection or for corrective actions. The AD’s short compliance windows mean operational disruption risk is concentrated in the immediate period around the AD’s effective and compliance dates.

Who does not have to comply: The AD’s text provides a specific limited relief: for aircraft operated under MMEL item 36-11-01, the repetitive check of Requirement 2 is not required if the APU generator is removed or deactivated (Requirement 2). No other exemptions are identified in the text. The AD does not carve out particular serial numbers or sub-configurations beyond the MMEL-linked relief.

Economic allocation of costs: The instrument places the inspection, possible corrective action and any operational checks on the operators and their maintenance providers. The text does not allocate costs to third parties, and does not state compensation or funding mechanisms.

Mandated duties (exact wording and source references): The AD prescribes two duties.

• Duty 1: Carry out a one-time inspection of the inlet screen (last chance filter) for the APU generator scavenge-oil pump for signs of debris and, if necessary, apply the associated corrective actions, “in accordance with the instructions of AIRBUS All Operators Telex (AOT) A330-24A3042 dated 22 March 2007 or later EASA approved revisions” (Requirement 1).

• Duty 2 (conditional): For A330 aircraft operating under MMEL 24-22-01 or MMEL 36-11-01, perform a check of the differential pressure indicator button on the lube filter and the generator scavenge filter, “in accordance with the instructions of AOT A330-24A3042 dated 22 March 2007 or later EASA approved revisions” (Requirement 2). The AD further specifies that the repetitive check of Requirement 2 is not required for aircraft operated under MMEL item 36-11-01 provided the APU generator is removed or deactivated (Requirement 2).

Timing duties: Compliance timing is explicit. Requirement 1 must be completed, unless already accomplished, no later than 31 May 2007. Requirement 2’s repetitive check, where applicable, must be performed before each flight after the AD’s effective date until 31 May 2007 (Compliance). The amendment becomes effective 1 May 2007.

Documentary duty (implied but present via reference): The AD requires operators to follow the Airbus AOT A330-24A3042 (dated 22 March 2007) or later EASA-approved revisions. Following that AOT entails performing the procedures described therein; the AD makes that AOT the operative technical standard for the inspections and checks. The AD therefore imposes a duty to hold and execute work in accordance with that AOT or its EASA-approved subsequent versions.

Rights and relief: The AD provides a limited right to relief from the repetitive check element of Requirement 2 for aircraft under MMEL 36-11-01 where the APU generator is removed or deactivated. This is an operational exemption tied to a physical configuration change. The AD does not state any broader rights of appeal, alternative means of compliance, or extensions within the text provided.

Who decides method details: The AD defers technical methodology to Airbus AOT A330-24A3042 and any later EASA-approved revisions (Requirement 1 and Requirement 2). That means Airbus and EASA determine the detailed inspection and correction procedures; CASA has adopted those procedures by reference in this AD.

Record-keeping and proof: The AD itself does not include an explicit record-keeping provision in the provided text, but the requirement to carry out prescribed inspections and corrective actions implies operators must be able to demonstrate compliance. The AD’s compliance dates and reference to the AOT create an expectation that maintenance records will show the inspection, checks, and any corrective actions applied, although the instrument text does not state record retention periods or format.

Interaction with MMEL/dispatch rights: Operators using MMEL items 24-22-01 or 36-11-01 are subject to the additional repetitive check duty unless the specific relief condition applies. That effectively modifies the operational allowances under the MMEL by imposing a pre-flight procedural requirement for the AD’s duration.

Delegation and performance: The AD mandates actions but does not specify whether only licensed maintenance engineers may perform the checks or inspections; however, given the reference to an Airbus All Operators Telex and the nature of APU and filter systems, compliance will typically be performed by authorised maintenance organisations. The instrument does not explicitly state limits on who may perform the work.

Text‑level content on penalties: The provided AD text does not set out monetary penalties, criminal sanctions or an enforcement regime within its own wording. The instrument specifies compliance actions and dates, and it is signed by David Punshon as Delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority with an effective amendment date (Background and signature block), but it contains no explicit penalty clause or administrative sanction schedule in the supplied text.

Enforcement implications and practical effect: Although penalties are not enumerated in the AD text, the instrument is an airworthiness directive issued by CASA. The AD’s effective date (1 May 2007) and concrete compliance deadlines (no later than 31 May 2007 for the one-time inspection; before each flight for Requirement 2 until 31 May 2007 where applicable) place a compliance obligation on operators. In practice, failing to comply with an AD typically results in aircraft not being in an airworthy condition, which in turn affects an operator’s legal ability to operate the aircraft; the AD makes the inspections mandatory steps in preserving airworthiness. The AD does not itself describe the remedial administrative steps CASA might take if an operator fails to comply, within the supplied text.

Where enforcement discretion lies: The AD is issued by CASA (signed by the Delegate). Any decisions about enforcement priorities, inspections, audits, or follow-up action would be made by CASA or its delegates under statutory powers not included in the document. The AD’s incorporation by reference of Airbus AOT and EASA-approved revisions frames technical compliance standards; CASA would be the authority to determine whether those standards have been met in any enforcement or compliance audit.

Operational control and grounding risk: Non-compliance with the AD’s requirements by the stated dates would leave an aircraft potentially non-compliant with an airworthiness requirement; while the AD does not itself state a penalty, failure to meet an AD is a material regulatory breach that could lead to regulatory actions such as grounding, enforcement notices or other measures under CASA’s broader statutory powers. These enforcement consequences are not detailed in the AD itself.

Proof and auditability: The AD’s requirement to carry out inspections “in accordance with” a specified Airbus AOT provides a concrete technical benchmark against which regulator verification can be measured. Operators should expect that, if audited, CASA will check that the inspection and any corrective actions conform to the referenced AOT, and that the actions were completed within the AD’s timeframes.

Relief and disputes: The AD gives a narrow operational relief (non‑repetitive Requirement 2 where APU generator removed or deactivated under MMEL 36-11-01). The text does not set out a process for disputing the AD content, seeking an alternate means of compliance, or requesting extensions. Any such procedures would be governed by CASA administrative practice or by statutory mechanisms outside the text provided.

Incorporation and reliance on external airworthiness instruments: The AD expressly references and instructs compliance with an Airbus All Operators Telex (AOT A330-24A3042 dated 22 March 2007) or later EASA-approved revisions for the detailed inspection and corrective steps (Requirement 1 and Requirement 2). It also references EASA airworthiness directives: “EASA Airworthiness Directive (AD) No. 2007-0080-R1 dated 13 April 2007 refers. AD No 2007-0080-R1 supersedes EASA Emergency AD No. 2007-0080-E dated 26 March 2007.” The AD therefore operates as a national measure that adopts or tracks actions taken by the type certificate holder (Airbus) and by EASA. Compliance is therefore an exercise in following documents produced by international and manufacturer authorities as incorporated by reference.

Interaction with MMEL regime: The AD is explicit about its interaction with the MMEL framework. It imposes an additional pre-flight check duty for aircraft operating under MMEL items 24-22-01 (“AC Main Generation”) or 36-11-01 (“Bleed Air Supply System failure”) (Requirement 2). It also provides relief for aircraft operated under MMEL item 36-11-01 where the APU generator is removed or deactivated. This links the AD’s inspection regime to an operator’s use of MMEL relief, effectively modifying operational procedures that relate to dispatch under the MMEL.

Airworthiness and certification law (contextual interaction): The AD is a corrective airworthiness measure. While the AD text does not recite the specific statutory power under which CASA issued it, the employment of an AD is a standard instrument in airworthiness regulation. The AD therefore interfaces with broader statutory provisions that govern airworthiness, continuing airworthiness obligations for aircraft operators and maintenance organisations, and the legal framework through which CASA can issue mandatory directives. None of these statutory provisions are reproduced in the supplied text, so the AD only indicates that CASA has issued the directive and that it is effective as of the stated date.

EASA and cross‑jurisdictional alignment: By referencing EASA AD No. 2007-0080-R1, the AD aligns Australian requirements with EASA’s airworthiness determinations. This can affect operators based in multiple jurisdictions by harmonising technical standards and schedules. The AD’s instruction to use “later EASA approved revisions” for the Airbus AOT ties the standard of compliance to EASA’s approval status for any future revisions, not to unilateral manufacturer revisions that lack EASA approval.

Maintenance and technical documentation regime: The AD’s incorporation of an Airbus AOT means that operators must ensure they have access to that AOT and any later EASA-approved revisions. The interaction therefore creates a dependency on manufacturer and EASA documentation for the technical content of compliance. Any discrepancies between the AOT and an operator’s maintenance manuals or national regulations will need to be resolved with reference to the AD’s instruction to follow the AOT/EASA-approved revisions.

No interaction clauses beyond those cited: The supplied text does not mention interactions with other specific national laws, industrial relations, privacy, or tort law. It does not provide an alternative means of compliance or an appeal mechanism. Any other legal interactions must be inferred from the regulatory context rather than drawn from this AD’s text.

Dates and identified amendments in the text: The instrument is labelled “AD/A330/73 Amdt 1” and bears the date 26 April 2007 alongside the signature of David Punshon, Delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. The amendment “becomes effective on 1 May 2007” (Compliance). The text records that the “original issue of this AD became effective on 29 March 2007” (Background). The AD therefore has at least two iterations: an original issue effective 29 March 2007 and a first amendment captured by this instrument effective 1 May 2007.

Relationship to EASA ADs and chronology: The AD text notes that EASA Airworthiness Directive No. 2007-0080-R1 dated 13 April 2007 “refers” and that AD No. 2007-0080-R1 supersedes EASA Emergency AD No. 2007-0080-E dated 26 March 2007 (Requirement note). The chronology implied is:

• 26 March 2007 , EASA Emergency AD No. 2007-0080-E (superseded).
• 29 March 2007 , original issue of the CASA AD became effective (per Background).
• 13 April 2007 , EASA AD No. 2007-0080-R1 issued (supersedes the 26 March Emergency AD).
• 26 April 2007 , this Amendment 1 bears the Delegate’s signature date.
• 1 May 2007 , this Amendment 1 becomes effective.
• 31 May 2007 , the AD’s specified ultimate compliance date for the one-time inspection and the terminal date for the repetitive checks required under Requirement 2.

Nature of Amendment 1: The text states “The current amendment of this AD provides relief to the operators from complying with Requirement 2 in certain circumstances.” The specific relief is the non-requirement of the repetitive check of Requirement 2 for aircraft operated under MMEL item 36-11-01 provided the APU generator is removed or deactivated. That is the discrete substantive change the amendment introduces, alongside confirming compliance timing in the table.

Record-keeping of amendment in instrument header: The header repeats “AD/A330/73 Amdt 1” and “6/2007 DM”, which identifies the AD number, the amendment number and a date code. The duplication of headings and the presence of the amendment identifier indicates this is a formal amendment to the original AD text.

No further amendments listed: The supplied text does not list any other prior or subsequent amendments beyond the original issue and Amdt 1. It does not include consolidated revision history beyond stating the original effective date and the amendment effective date.

Implication for operators: Operators need to be attentive to the amendment’s relief provision and to the effective dates. The amendment narrows the repeated pre-flight burden in circumstances where the APU generator is removed or deactivated under a specific MMEL item.

Content in the AD text: The supplied instrument contains no references to any litigation, judicial proceedings, appeals, administrative enforcement actions, or legal challenges. It does not name any cases, list litigation outcomes, or describe disputes concerning the AD or the events underlying it.

What the absence of litigation references means for legal research: Because the AD itself does not document any litigation history, there is no judicial interpretation, published enforcement decision, or appellate decision contained within the provided text to inform how courts have construed this AD’s language or CASA’s authority in this instance. Researchers seeking litigation history will need to consult court records, administrative enforcement files, or legal databases outside of the AD text to discover whether any proceedings arose from the events described or from an operator’s compliance or non-compliance with this AD.

Practical consequences for risk assessment: The absence of litigation information in the instrument means that, from the AD text alone, there is no precedent about how strict regulators have been in enforcing similar ADs, whether disputes about the sufficiency of compliance with referenced AOTs have been litigated, or whether alternative means of compliance have been accepted judicially. Operators must therefore assume regulatory compliance and administrative enforcement are the applicable pathways rather than relying on any case law arising from this AD, at least based on the supplied document.

Procedural avenues that are not set out in the AD: The AD does not set out an appeal or adjudication mechanism within its text. Whether an operator could challenge the AD or seek an alternate means of compliance would depend on statutory or administrative processes outside the text provided, and any such litigation history would need to be found elsewhere.

No named litigants or reported disputes: The Background mentions two A330 operators who reported incidents, but they are not named and there is no indication that they pursued litigation. The AD does not indicate any compensation claims, insurance disputes, or other legal proceedings arising from the events described.

Tight compliance windows: The AD sets a short compliance timeframe. The one-time inspection must be completed “no later than 31 May 2007” unless already accomplished, and the repetitive pre-flight checks under Requirement 2 must be performed “before each flight, after the effective date of this AD, until 31 May 2007” (Compliance). Given the amendment becomes effective 1 May 2007, the window for both commencing and completing the required actions is compressed to a month, which can produce scheduling and operational challenges.

Dependence on an external AOT and EASA approvals: The AD requires performing inspections “in accordance with the instructions of AIRBUS All Operators Telex (AOT) A330-24A3042 dated 22 March 2007 or later EASA approved revisions” (Requirement 1 and 2). Operators must ensure they obtain the correct version of the Airbus AOT and verify whether any later EASA-approved revisions exist; using a non‑EASA-approved or non‑authorised revision could be treated as non-compliant even if the practical procedure is substantially similar.

Scope of applicability language: The applicability reads simply “AIRBUS A330 series aircraft” (Applicability). That broad phrasing requires operators and registries to confirm whether any narrow exclusions or specific serial-number applicability apply via other referenced documents or type acceptance records. The AD text as supplied does not list serial numbers or subtypes, so operators must treat it as applicable to the whole series unless otherwise clarified by CASA or Airbus.

Operational ambiguity around MMEL interaction: Requirement 2 applies only to aircraft “operating under MMEL item 24-22-01 ‘AC Main Generation’ or MMEL item 36-11-01 ‘Bleed Air Supply System failure’.” Operators must be precise about whether they are in a condition of using those MMEL items. For example, the state of dispatch, the presence or absence of certain faults, and the application of MMEL relief must be correctly documented to determine whether Requirement 2 applies. Misapplying the MMEL status could lead either to unnecessary repetitive pre-flight checks or to failing to perform required checks.

Relief condition requires physical removal or deactivation: The AD’s relief from the repetitive Requirement 2 for MMEL 36-11-01 is conditional on the APU generator being “removed or deactivated” (Requirement 2). Operators seeking to rely on that relief must ensure the generator is physically removed or demonstrably deactivated and that such configuration is recorded so that auditors can verify relief eligibility. Simply declaring operational unavailability without physical removal or a clear deactivation procedure may be insufficient.

Potential operational disruption: The requirement to check filter differential pressure indicators “before each flight” while the requirement is in force can impose pre-flight labour costs and could delay departures if checks reveal issues requiring corrective action. The AD’s short effective period concentrates that operational burden into a limited timeframe.

Corrective action scope uncertain in AD text: The AD mandates that, if necessary, associated corrective actions be applied in accordance with the Airbus AOT, but the AD text does not enumerate those corrective actions. Operators therefore must obtain the Airbus AOT and ensure the corrective actions are within their maintenance organisation’s capability and certification.

Recordation and compliance proof not specified: The AD does not include explicit record-keeping standards or formats in the supplied text. That can be a source of regulatory friction because auditors often look for contemporaneous entries in maintenance logs and release-to-service paperwork. Operators should not assume that completion of the task without clear documentation will be accepted.

Reliance on EASA approvals for future AOT revisions: The AD’s instruction to follow “later EASA approved revisions” of the Airbus AOT means that if Airbus issues a revised AOT that has not (yet) been EASA-approved, operators should be cautious about implementing it as the operative compliance standard is the EASA-approved revision.

No penalty or enforcement detail in text: As noted above, the AD does not state enforcement mechanisms or penalties. Operators must not infer leniency; the AD is a mandatory safety instrument, and enforcement practice will be governed by CASA’s broader regulatory framework outside the AD text.

Step 1 , Confirm applicability and operational status: Determine whether each aeroplane in the fleet is within the AD’s applicability (“AIRBUS A330 series aircraft”). For each aeroplane, establish whether the aircraft is being operated under MMEL item 24-22-01 or MMEL item 36-11-01 at the relevant times, since that determines whether Requirement 2 applies. For relief under MMEL 36-11-01, confirm whether the APU generator has been physically removed or deactivated.

Step 2 , Obtain and review the referenced Airbus AOT and EASA approvals: Secure a copy of AIRBUS All Operators Telex A330-24A3042 dated 22 March 2007 and check for any later EASA-approved revisions. The AD requires compliance “in accordance with the instructions” of that AOT or later EASA-approved revisions for both the one-time inspection and the differential pressure indicator checks. Do not attempt to substitute an unapproved internal procedure for the AOT without prior regulatory approval.

Step 3 , Plan the one-time inspection (Requirement 1): Schedule the one-time inspection of the inlet screen (last chance filter) for the APU generator scavenge-oil pump at a convenient maintenance opportunity, ensuring it is completed “no later than 31 May 2007” unless already accomplished. Coordinate availability of certified maintenance personnel, tooling and any parts that Airbus AOT specifies as necessary for corrective action.

Step 4 , Execute corrective actions per AOT: If the inspection reveals debris or other defects, apply the corrective actions exactly as set out in the Airbus AOT (Requirement 1). Ensure that maintenance release and certification procedures are followed for any corrective action that affects airworthiness.

Step 5 , Implement Requirement 2 where applicable: For aircraft operating under the specified MMEL items, implement the pre-flight differential pressure indicator button check on the lube filter and generator scavenge filter as a pre-flight task, as required by the AD, until 31 May 2007. Ensure relevant flight crew and ground crew are trained or briefed on how to perform and log the check in accordance with the AOT instructions. If relying on the relief for MMEL 36-11-01 via removal or deactivation of the APU generator, document the physical removal/deactivation and ensure the configuration is recorded in aircraft records.

Step 6 , Document everything contemporaneously: Even though the AD text does not specify record retention, contemporaneous entries in maintenance logs, maintenance release documentation and flight logs will be the primary evidence an operator can use to demonstrate compliance. Record the date and serial number of the inspected component, the findings of the inspection, any parts changed, and the references to the Airbus AOT revision used to perform the work.

Step 7 , Communicate with stakeholders: Notify lessors, customers, and other stakeholders of inspection status for particular airframes where contracts require status reporting. For operations relying on MMEL relief and the AD’s conditional exemption, ensure that documentation demonstrating removal or deactivation of the APU generator is available to auditors and lessor representatives.

Step 8 , Verify regulatory expectations post-action: Given the AD’s reliance on EASA ADs and Airbus AOTs, confirm with CASA or through your continuing airworthiness contact point whether any registration- or operator-specific reporting is required beyond the maintenance records,especially if corrective action has led to extended grounding or parts replacement. If in doubt about the adequacy of corrective actions relative to the AOT, seek clarification from CASA or the type certificate holder.

Step 9 , Consider risk to operations and plan minimisation: Because the compliance window is short, sequence inspections to minimise fleet downtime. Prioritise aircraft with heavier APU usage or those that have reported APU anomalies. For aircraft subject to Requirement 2, incorporate the pre-flight check into the normal dispatch checklist for the AD’s duration to avoid last-minute delays.

Step 10 , Maintain traceability to the AOT and EASA approvals: Keep a copy of the specific Airbus AOT revision used and any EASA approval record as part of the maintenance file for each aircraft inspected. If Airbus issues further revisions to the AOT that are EASA approved, track whether any further actions are required and whether CASA issues any supplementary guidance or further ADs.

Practical compliance note: The AD requires actions “in accordance with” the AOT and sets firm dates. Operators should treat the AOT plus the AD compliance schedule as the binding technical standard for the tasks described. If an operator believes an alternative method of compliance is justified, that pathway is not set out in the AD; any request for an alternative means of compliance should be made through the regulator using established CASA processes that are external to this AD text.