This AD is built around a small set of interlocking concepts and references. Understanding those is necessary to see what it actually changes for operators and maintainers.

• Applicability by model and serial number. The AD applies only to True Flight Holdings (Gulfstream / Grumman / American General) AA-5 series aeroplanes with the serial numbers listed in the Applicability block. It also contains an explicit carve-out: it does not apply to aeroplanes that "comply with Tiger Aircraft LLC Service Instruction SI 06-01, as in force from time to time" (Applicability). That creates a conditional exemption based on accomplishment of a specified manufacturer's service instruction.

• Mandatory inspection workscope referenced to service documents. The substantive inspection requirement is to "Inspect the aircraft in accordance with Gulfstream Aerospace Service Bulletin (SB) 165A, as in force from time to time" (Requirement). The AD itself does not set the detailed inspection steps; it delegates the procedure to SB 165A and requires operators to follow the most recent edition.

• Time-in-service trigger and repetitive intervals. The AD sets an initial compliance window ("within 25 hours' time in service after 26 November 1979") and then recurring maximum intervals ("thereafter at intervals not exceeding 100 hours' time in service") unless the aileron has been modified under SK-150 (Compliance). The initial trigger date and the legacy 25-hour requirement are carried forward in the AD text.

• Modification pathway and operational consequence. Operators may modify ailerons using Gulfstream Aerospace Service Kit No. 150 (SK-150). That modification trims the aileron trailing edge, which the Background says increases control forces "which exceed the capability of the autopilot and permanent disconnection of the autopilot is therefore required." The AD therefore conditions additional compliance: if the aileron has been modified in accordance with SK-150, the operator must comply with a note on page 2 of SB 165A concerning the autopilot and, for certain torque tube assemblies, also comply with SB 168 (Compliance; Background).

• Additional inspections tied to specific hardware. For AA5A, AA5B and AA5 model aeroplanes fitted with aileron torque tube assemblies part number 5202035-505, the AD requires compliance with SB 168 and specifies inspections every 100 hours' time in service for five consecutive inspections without defect (Compliance).

• Alternate terminating action via Tiger SI 06-01. The AD states that it does not apply to aeroplanes that comply with Tiger Aircraft LLC Service Instruction SI 06-01 (Applicability) and the Background explains that SI 06-01, released in 2006, is an accepted FAA AD 79-22-04 alternate means of compliance that eliminates the 100-hour inspections by verifying aileron contour using a template. Amendment 4 approves SI 06-01 as terminating action for the 100-hour repetitive inspections required by both FAA AD 79-22-04 and SB 165A (Background).

• "As in force from time to time" as an updating mechanism. The AD repeatedly uses the phrase "as in force from time to time" for the referenced SBs, service kit and SI, and the AD contains a specific Note stating those words "require compliance with the most recent version of the referenced document." That makes the AD a live linkage to evolving manufacturer documents rather than to a fixed historical edition.

Conceptually, then, the AD delegates technical detail to manufacturer service documents, prescribes inspection cadence tied to time-in-service, conditions inspections and additional requirements on whether a modification has been fitted, and permits an alternative compliance path that, if followed, avoids the repetitive inspections. The AD therefore operates as a regulatory overlay that ties mandatory compliance to the content and evolution of private-sector service documents.

The AD names the affected aeroplanes precisely and creates a small universe of impacted parties. From the text, the direct and indirect affected parties are:

• Owners and operators of True Flight Holdings (Gulfstream / Grumman / American General) model AA-5, AA-5A and AA-5B aeroplanes bearing the serial numbers specified: AA5-0001 and subsequent; AA-5A-0001 and subsequent; AA5B-0001 and subsequent (Applicability). Any duty to comply sits with the operator/owner responsible for airworthiness of those specific aeroplanes.

• Maintenance organisations and certifying engineers who perform the mandated inspections and modifications. The AD requires inspections "in accordance with Gulfstream Aerospace SB 165A" and, where applicable, work under Service Kit No. 150 and SB 168; those tasks will fall to certificated maintenance organisations or licensed engineers who must use the current versions of the referenced documents.

• Pilots and operators who use autopilots on affected aeroplanes. The Background makes explicit that the SK-150 aileron modification "creates much greater control forces which exceed the capability of the autopilot and permanent disconnection of the autopilot is therefore required." Where SK-150 has been fitted or where SB 165A's note requires it, pilots will lose autopilot capability permanently unless reversed by further action not described in this AD.

• Regulators and delegated CASA personnel. The AD is issued by CASA (signed by delegate Pieter van Dijk); CASA as the regulator enforces compliance, records AD status, and manages continuing airworthiness oversight. The AD references FAA AD 79-22-04 and manufacturers’ documents, so there is an international compliance interface for regulators.

• Third-party suppliers and parts manufacturers. The AD references specific hardware (ailerons trimmed under SK-150, torque tube part number 5202035-505) and service documents. Suppliers of parts, tools for trimming or contour verification templates, and documentation templates will be involved in implementing technical solutions such as SI 06-01's contour inspection template.

• Insurers and lessors. Although not stated in the AD, lessors or insurers who require compliance with airworthiness directives will be affected indirectly because the AD changes annual maintenance and operational capability (autopilot capability) for aircraft under their policies or lease covenants.

Who pays. The source is explicit about the technical steps required but does not set out who bears the cost; logically and in aviation practice those costs fall upon the aircraft owner/operator and the maintenance organisation that performs the work. The AD itself does not allocate costs, subsidies or administrative fees.

Who decides. CASA decides by issuing the AD. However, the AD delegates detailed inspection and compliance procedure to the latest versions of Gulfstream Aerospace SB 165A, SB 168, SK-150, and allows an alternate termination path if Tiger SI 06-01 has been carried out. That means manufacturers and their evolving service documents materially determine the technical compliance steps, subject to CASA's approval (as reflected in the AD).

Who changes behaviour. Owners/operators must adjust maintenance schedules (initial inspection deadlines and 100-hour recurring inspections), maintenance providers must perform inspections per the specified SBs, pilots may need to stop relying on autopilot if SK-150 modification is fitted and the relevant SB note applies, and organisations that previously relied on a 100-hour inspection regime may instead adopt SI 06-01's contour verification template where that has been accomplished.

The AD sets out duties (mandatory actions) and imbeds conditional rights (the right to use an alternate compliance path). The AD text defines both.

Key duties

• Inspect per SB 165A. The primary duty is to "Inspect the aircraft in accordance with Gulfstream Aerospace Service Bulletin (SB) 165A, as in force from time to time" (Requirement). This is a direct, mandatory duty for operators of applicable aeroplanes unless they comply with the SI 06-01 exemption.

• Meet the initial and recurring time limits. Operators must "Conduct the inspection within 25 hours’ time in service after 26 November 1979, and thereafter at intervals not exceeding 100 hours’ time in service" unless modified under SK-150 (Compliance). The AD therefore imposes an initial retrospective window and an ongoing inspection cadence.

• Follow additional requirements if modified with SK-150. If an aileron has been modified under Gulfstream Aerospace Service Kit No. 150, operators must (a) "comply with the note (about the autopilot) on page 2 of SB 165A, as in force from time to time," and (b) for certain aeroplanes fitted with torque tube assembly 5202035-505, "also comply with Gulfstream Aerospace Service Bulletin SB 168, as in force from time to time" (Compliance). SB 168 prescribes inspections every 100 hours for five consecutive inspections without defect.

• Use current versions of referenced documents. The AD contains a Note that "The words 'as in force from time to time' require compliance with the most recent version of the referenced document." That places an ongoing duty on operators and maintenance organisations to track and use the latest issued versions of SB 165A, SB 168, SK-150 and SI 06-01 where relevant.

Conditional rights / terminating action

• Exemption through Tiger SI 06-01. The AD explicitly states it "does not apply to aircraft that comply with Tiger Aircraft LLC Service Instruction SI 06-01, as in force from time to time" (Applicability). The Background records that SI 06-01, released in 2006, is an accepted FAA AD 79-22-04 alternate means that eliminates the 100-hour inspections by verifying aileron contour via a fabricated template. Amendment 4 approves SI 06-01 as terminating action for the 100-hour repetitive inspections required by FAA AD 79-22-04 and SB 165A. Therefore, an operator who can demonstrate compliance with SI 06-01 has a right to avoid the repetitive 100-hour inspection regime.

Operational consequences that are duties in practice

• Autopilot disconnection where SK-150 fitted. The Background instructs that SK-150's trailing edge trim "creates much greater control forces which exceed the capability of the autopilot and permanent disconnection of the autopilot is therefore required." Although the AD does not itself instruct CASA to physically disconnect autopilot, it requires compliance with the note in SB 165A which the Background identifies as requiring permanent autopilot disconnection for modified aeroplanes. This becomes an operational duty on the operator and a change to the aircraft's equipment status.

• Specific part-number linkage. The duty to comply with SB 168 (and its five‑inspection requirement) is linked to aeroplanes fitted with aileron torque tube assembly part number 5202035-505 (Compliance). That creates a hardware-specific obligation.

What the AD does not set out

• The AD does not specify civil penalties, suspension of certificates, or enforcement processes in its text. It likewise does not provide forms, reporting obligations, or exact record-keeping requirements. It also does not set out who certifies the termination of the repetitive inspections when SI 06-01 is accomplished.

• The AD does not prescribe an exception process other than by reference to the "as in force from time to time" documents and the SI 06-01 alternate means of compliance; the AD itself does not describe any CASA approval process beyond its issuance.

In sum, the AD imposes mandatory inspection duties tied to time-in-service and hardware configuration, requires use of the latest manufacturer documents, conditions further inspection or operational restrictions on certain modifications, and explicitly allows an alternate terminating path via Tiger SI 06-01.

The AD text supplied does not specify civil penalties, criminal sanctions, or the detailed enforcement mechanisms within the AD itself. The document is an Airworthiness Directive issued by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (signed by Pieter van Dijk as delegate), and it contains the commencement date (17 April 2020), but it does not include penalty provisions or a clause detailing enforcement measures, penalties, or remedies for non-compliance.

What the AD does say that is relevant to enforcement

• Mandatory nature of the directive. By stating inspection and modification obligations and commencing on a date, the AD operates as a regulatory instrument that prescribes continuing airworthiness requirements for the specified aeroplanes (Requirement; Compliance; Commencement).

• Delegation and signature. The AD is issued under CASA authority and is signed by a delegate (Pieter van Dijk), which places the instrument within CASA’s enforcement domain; however, the AD text does not enumerate enforcement steps.

Consequences that follow from the AD’s content (as stated in the source)

• Non-compliance will necessarily affect the aircraft’s airworthiness status. The AD mandates inspections and modifications intended to address aileron oscillation and torque tube looseness. Failure to comply with an AD typically means the aircraft is not in conformance with an applicable airworthiness requirement; the AD does not itself state consequences, but the status of non-conformance is implicit in the directive’s mandatory language.

• The AD references manufacturer service documents and an alternate terminating action. Whether compliance is achieved via the SBs or SI 06-01 is a matter of record and inspection; the AD itself does not identify the administrative steps for demonstrating compliance to CASA.

Gaps in the AD text

• No monetary penalty schedule or enforcement protocol is present in the AD text supplied. It does not set out inspector powers, rectification timelines beyond the inspection intervals, or the process for CASA to suspend operations or require grounding for non-compliance.

• The AD does not set out any post-action reporting obligations (for instance, notifying CASA of the accomplishment of an SB or SI), nor does it specify documentation that must be lodged with CASA to demonstrate compliance.

Practical implication for operators and maintainers based on the AD text

• Operators should assume the AD is mandatory and that aircraft not inspected or modified in accordance with the AD (or that do not qualify under SI 06-01) will be in breach of an applicable airworthiness requirement. Although the AD text does not list penalties, the absence of compliance would be material to any airworthiness certification, insurance claim, lease condition, or regulatory oversight process.

• Because the AD ties compliance to current versions of manufacturer documents ("as in force from time to time"), operators have an ongoing obligation to monitor those documents and apply updates; failing to do so could be construed as non-compliance with the AD’s explicit Note.

Readers should be aware that enforcement mechanisms, penalty scales, and administrative processes are ordinarily set out elsewhere in aviation regulation and in CASA enforcement policy rather than in each AD. The AD as provided confirms mandatory requirements and commencement date but does not itself set out penalty or enforcement procedures.

The AD’s text explicitly references and interfaces with other regulatory and manufacturer instruments; the interaction is primarily one of cross-reference and approval of alternate means of compliance rather than amendment of other laws.

References and cross-references in the AD

• FAA AD 79-22-04 Amdt. 39-3600. The Background states that the FAA released AD 79-22-04 simultaneously with Gulfstream American SB 165. The Amendment documents that the actions required here correspond to that earlier FAA AD. The AD therefore operates in parallel with or as a complementary CASA AD to the FAA action.

• Gulfstream/American service documents. The AD requires inspections "in accordance with Gulfstream Aerospace Service Bulletin (SB) 165A, as in force from time to time", references Gulfstream Aerospace Service Kit No. 150 (SK-150), and requires SB 168 for certain torque tube assemblies. Those manufacturer documents contain the technical means, and the AD makes adherence to them mandatory for compliance purposes. The phrase "as in force from time to time" legally binds operators to the current editions of those private-sector documents.

• Tiger Aircraft LLC Service Instruction SI 06-01. The AD explicitly excludes aircraft that comply with SI 06-01 from its applicability and the Background records that SI 06-01 was released in 2006 and is an accepted FAA AD 79-22-04 alternate means of compliance that eliminates the 100‑hour inspections. Amendment 4 approves SI 06-01 as terminating action for the repetitive inspections. That creates an interaction where a manufacturer-approved SI, accepted by FAA, is also accepted by CASA via this AD amendment.

Nature of the interaction

• Delegation of technical specifics to manufacturer materials. The AD does not restate the technical inspection steps but requires operators to follow the manufacturer SBs/SIs and Service Kit. This creates an operational dependency on the manufacturer documents to give effect to CASA’s regulatory requirement; changes in those documents (since the AD requires the most recent version) will alter the operative technical requirements without further amendment to the AD.

• Approval of alternate means of compliance. By approving SI 06-01 as terminating action for the 100-hour inspections required by FAA AD 79-22-04 and by SB 165A, the AD recognises and adopts a manufacturer's SI as a regulatoryly effective alternate measure. The SI thus becomes a compliance pathway under CASA’s AD regime.

• Equipment/operational regulation cross-over. The AD ties a maintenance modification (SK-150) to operational capability (autopilot performance). That illustrates an interaction where a maintenance action affects operational safety equipment and therefore intersects with operational regulatory requirements that govern equipment fitment and operational limits.

What the AD does not do

• The AD does not explicitly re-write or repeal other statutory provisions; it is an instrument operating within the aeronautical regulatory framework, cross-referencing other administrative instruments. It does not attempt to amend the FAA AD; rather, it references it.

• It does not set out the interface with enforcement legislation or specify how CASA will exercise enforcement powers; as noted earlier, those aspects are typically handled under CASA’s general enforcement framework rather than in each AD.

Implication for operators in relation to other laws

• Compliance with this AD must be demonstrated while also complying with other regulatory requirements governing maintenance records, airworthiness certification, crew licensing, and operational rules. The AD links to private-sector technical materials which, when updated, change the technical compliance obligations. Operators therefore must manage both regulatory AD obligations and the technical updates of manufacturer documents in their airworthiness system.

• Where a modification (SK-150) changes equipment capability (autopilot inoperability), operators must reconcile this AD’s maintenance and configuration outcomes with any operational authorisations, limitations, or flight crew operating procedures required under other parts of aviation regulation.

In short, this AD interacts primarily by incorporating and updating manufacturer service documents into CASA’s mandatory regulatory framework and by recognising an alternate compliance route via a manufacturer's service instruction already accepted by FAA.

The instrument before you is identified as AD/AA-5/23 Amendment 4, dated 8/2020, signed 3 April 2020 and commencing 17 April 2020. The AD itself sets out a concise amendment rationale in its Background. The AD documents the following changes or historical steps as stated in the source:

• Original manufacturer response to reported aileron oscillation. The Background explains that Gulfstream American initially released SB 165 to respond to reports of aileron oscillation in flight. That original SB was later amended and released as Gulfstream Aerospace SB 165A (Background).

• FAA action. The Background says that "Simultaneously the FAA released AD 79-22-04 Amdt. 39-3600." This places the original technical concern and FAA AD at the origin of the inspection/modification regime.

• Service Kit SK-150 and associated operational effect. The Background records that the SK-150 modification trims the trailing edge of each aileron and that trimmed ailerons increase control forces beyond autopilot capability, necessitating permanent disconnection of the autopilot. This is part of the modification history that informs this AD's conditional requirements.

• Subsequent reports and SB 168. Later reports of looseness in the aileron torque tube joints in aeroplanes modified with SK-150 led Gulfstream Aerospace to release SB 168, which addresses torque tube joint concerns. The AD requires SB 168 in respect of aeroplanes fitted with torque tube assembly 5202035-505 (Background; Compliance).

• Tiger Aircraft SI 06-01 (2006). The Background states that in 2006 Tiger Aircraft released Service Instruction SI 06-01, which provides an accepted FAA AD 79-22-04 alternate means of compliance. SI 06-01 eliminates the 100-hour inspections by verifying aileron contour via a template that can be fabricated; the AD approves SI 06-01 as terminating action for the repetitive inspections (Background; Applicability).

• This Amendment (Amdt 4) updates a referenced document and approves the SI as terminating action. The explicit purpose of Amendment 4 is "to update a referenced document from Gulfstream American SB 165 to Gulfstream Aerospace SB 165A and to approve the accomplishment of SI 06-01 as terminating action for the 100 hourly repetitive inspections required by both FAA AD 79-22-04 and Gulfstream American SB 165A" (Background).

• Commencement date. The AD states it "commences on 17 April 2020." The signature date is 3 April 2020 (Commencement; signature block).

What is not in the AD’s amendment history

• The AD does not list previous amendment versions in full text here, nor does it reproduce the earlier amendments or their dates beyond the historical narrative in the Background. It does not include a formal revision table or change log beyond the statement of the two specific updates effected by this amendment: update SB 165 → SB 165A and approve SI 06-01 as terminating action.

• The AD does not contain a register of subsequent revisions after Amendment 4; the AD itself instructs users to comply with "as in force from time to time" versions of the referenced documents, which effectively makes future manufacturer updates operative without necessarily requiring another AD amendment unless CASA decides otherwise.

Taken together, the amendment history in the AD text creates a chain: initial SB 165 and FAA AD 79-22-04; release of SB 165A (amendment of SB 165); SK-150 and subsequent SB 168 to address torque tube looseness; Tiger SI 06-01 (2006) as an FAA-accepted alternative; and Amendment 4, which (a) updates the AD’s reference to SB 165A and (b) approves SI 06-01 as terminating action for the repetitive inspections.

The document supplied contains no litigation history. It does not reference any court proceedings, tribunal decisions, appeals, or enforcement actions arising from AD/AA-5/23 or its predecessors. The Background records technical reports, manufacturer service bulletins, FAA ADs and manufacturer service instructions, but there is no mention of legal challenges, judicial review, or administrative appeals in the provided text.

Therefore, based solely on the supplied AD text:

• There are no cases, disputes or litigation entries referenced in the AD.
• The AD does not describe any legal contests to its issuance, nor does it summarise prior disputes over compliance pathways such as SI 06-01 or SK-150.
• The AD does not cite any court authority or decisions that interpret its terms.

Practically, for an operator or adviser seeking litigation context or precedent, the AD provides no internal record. Any inquiry into litigation or administrative appeals would need to proceed outside the AD text, for example by searching CASA enforcement records, tribunal or court databases, or by consulting stakeholders. The AD itself is a technical regulatory instrument and, as presented, contains no litigation record.

The AD contains a number of technical and administrative features that can create practical pitfalls if not carefully addressed. These are facts drawn from the AD text; they point to implementation risks, record-keeping traps and operational consequences.

1. The "as in force from time to time" linkage changes the operative requirement over time. The AD explicitly states that the words "as in force from time to time" require compliance with the most recent version of the referenced document (Note). That means operators must actively monitor revisions to Gulfstream SB 165A, SB 168, SK-150 and Tiger SI 06-01. Failure to use the current version could be a compliance issue even where an operator followed an earlier edition.

2. An apparently odd initial compliance date and retrospective window. The AD requires the inspection "within 25 hours’ time in service after 26 November 1979" and "thereafter at intervals not exceeding 100 hours" (Compliance). The AD itself commences in 2020. Operators must treat the legacy 25-hour window historically; in practice the 25-hour requirement has effect only where it remains incomplete, but the text as written can confuse implementers. Operators should verify their maintenance records to confirm whether the initial action was ever completed and, if not, take remedial steps.

3. Modification SK-150 requires permanent autopilot disconnection. The Background clarifies that trimming the aileron trailing edge under SK-150 "creates much greater control forces which exceed the capability of the autopilot and permanent disconnection of the autopilot is therefore required." That is both a safety and operational impact: fitting SK-150 reduces aircraft capability (no autopilot) and may affect operational authorisations, pilot workload and insurance/lease covenants.

4. Hardware-specific inspection escalation. The AD singles out aileron torque tube assembly 5202035-505; for aeroplanes fitted with that part number, SB 168 applies and inspections must be conducted every 100 hours for five consecutive inspections without defect (Compliance). The part-number linkage means operators must know and record the part numbers on their aeroplanes; failing to do so could result in overlooking required inspection intensity.

5. Exemption through SI 06-01 requires demonstrable compliance. The AD excludes aeroplanes that "comply with Tiger Aircraft LLC Service Instruction SI 06-01." The Background explains SI 06-01 eliminates the 100-hour inspections by verifying aileron contour via a template. The "gotcha" is that to rely on this exemption an operator must be able to demonstrate that SI 06-01 has been accomplished in accordance with the current SI (again, "as in force from time to time"). Mere assertion without maintenance records will be insufficient.

6. Delegation of technical content to manufacturer documents. Because the AD does not contain the inspection steps but refers to SBs and SIs, operators must obtain and follow those manufacturer documents, which may carry commercial cost, technical ambiguity, or require specific parts/tools. The AD’s efficacy therefore depends on access to, and interpretation of, manufacturer materials.

7. Interaction between modification and inspection rules. If an aileron is modified under SK-150, the AD appears to create both an operational limit (autopilot disconnection) and an inspection regime (SB168 for specific torque tubes). Operators might assume that once modified the 100-hour inspection cadence disappears; the AD clarifies that modified aeroplanes have conditional inspection obligations rather than wholesale relief, and for certain hardware the 100-hour inspections continue for five consecutive inspections.

8. No enforcement details in the AD itself. The absence of specified penalties or reporting processes in the AD text might lead some operators to assume informal compliance is acceptable; the AD’s mandatory language should be treated as regulatory obligation even though enforcement mechanisms are not described in the AD.

9. Record management requirements are implicit, not explicit. The AD does not state what form of records must be kept to evidence inspections, compliance with SBs, or accomplishment of SI 06-01. However, the requirement to rely on the most recent documents and to demonstrate compliance implies that detailed maintenance records, part-number records and certification of work will be necessary.

10. Potential ambiguity over the SB 165A "note" on page 2. The AD requires compliance with "the note (about the autopilot) on page 2 of SB 165A," but the AD does not reproduce that note. Operators must access SB 165A and read page 2 to determine the exact requirement; overlooking that could lead to operational mismatch between maintenance actions and autopilot status.

Each gotcha follows directly from the AD’s wording. Operators and maintainers should therefore ensure they have up-to-date copies of the referenced SBs/SIs, complete and accessible maintenance records, a clear inventory of fitted hardware part numbers, and documented evidence of any work that would qualify the aircraft as exempt under SI 06-01.

The AD sets a small set of concrete compliance steps, but the detailed technical work is delegated to manufacturer documents. The following is a practical compliance checklist derived from the AD text; it is a facts-only procedural outline grounded in the AD’s Requirement, Compliance and Background sections.

1. Confirm applicability to your aeroplane. Check the aircraft model and serial number against the AD’s Applicability block: the AD applies to True Flight Holdings (Gulfstream / Grumman / American General) AA-5 aeroplanes with serial numbers AA5-0001 and subsequent, AA-5A aeroplanes AA-5A-0001 and subsequent, and AA-5B aeroplanes AA5B-0001 and subsequent. If the aircraft complies with Tiger Aircraft SI 06-01 (as in force from time to time), the AD does not apply (Applicability).

2. Obtain the current documents. The AD requires compliance with Gulfstream Aerospace SB 165A, SB 168, SK-150 and Tiger SI 06-01 "as in force from time to time", and contains a Note expressly requiring use of the most recent versions. Obtain current editions of:

   • Gulfstream Aerospace Service Bulletin SB 165A;
   • Gulfstream Aerospace Service Bulletin SB 168 (if relevant);
   • Gulfstream Aerospace Service Kit No. 150 (SK-150) documentation (if planning modification);
   • Tiger Aircraft LLC Service Instruction SI 06-01 (if seeking terminating action).

3. Verify historical compliance. Check maintenance logs to determine whether the initial inspection window (within 25 hours’ time in service after 26 November 1979) was ever completed. If not, arrange for inspection per SB 165A without delay. The AD requires the inspection within the specified initial window and thereafter at 100-hour intervals unless modified under SK-150 (Compliance).

4. Perform inspections per SB 165A. If the aircraft does not qualify for the SI 06-01 exemption, conduct the inspection specified in SB 165A using the current edition. Then schedule recurring inspections at intervals not exceeding 100 hours’ time in service in accordance with the AD unless SK-150 modification applies (Requirement; Compliance).

5. If considering or if fitted with SK-150, follow the SB 165A autopilot note and SB 168 if required. If the aileron has been modified in accordance with SK-150:

   • Comply with the note on page 2 of SB 165A (the AD requires this; Background indicates the note concerns autopilot disconnection and that SK-150 increases control forces beyond autopilot capability).
   • For AA5A, AA5B and AA5 models fitted with aileron torque tube assembly part number 5202035-505, also comply with Gulfstream Aerospace SB 168. SB 168 requires inspections every 100 hours’ time in service for five consecutive inspections without defect (Compliance).

6. If seeking to eliminate the 100-hour inspections, accomplish SI 06-01. The AD states it does not apply to aircraft that comply with Tiger SI 06-01, and Amendment 4 approves SI 06-01 as terminating action for the 100-hour repetitive inspections required by FAA AD 79-22-04 and SB 165A (Applicability; Background). To rely on this:

   • Obtain the current SI 06-01 and follow it exactly, including fabricating and using the contour inspection template specified in the SI (Background).
   • Maintain documentary evidence and sign-offs that show SI 06-01 was accomplished in accordance with the current SI.

7. Record-keeping. Although the AD does not specify record formats, maintain clear maintenance records evidencing:

   • The SB 165A inspection dates and findings;
   • Any SK-150 modification details and the consequential autopilot disconnection action per SB 165A;
   • Part numbers for aileron torque tube assemblies (specifically whether 5202035-505 is fitted);
   • SB 168 inspection dates and defect records (if applicable);
   • SI 06-01 accomplishment records where relied on as terminating action. These records will be the primary evidence of compliance.

8. Operate within changed operational limits. If SK-150 has been fitted and the SB 165A note requires permanent autopilot disconnection, ensure flight operations and crew procedures reflect loss of autopilot. Update flight manuals or operating procedures as necessary in accordance with applicable operational rules and the SB 165A note.

9. Monitor for document updates. Because the AD ties compliance to the latest editions of SBs and SIs, set up a process to monitor revisions from Gulfstream Aerospace and Tiger Aircraft LLC, and execute any changes required by updated documents. The AD’s Note explicitly requires compliance with the most recent versions.

10. Liaise with CASA where clarification is required. The AD does not set out reporting or enforcement steps. If there is uncertainty about whether a particular action satisfies the AD (for example, whether an older SI was carried out to the exact current standard), consult CASA or CASA’s published guidance to confirm documentation or acceptability criteria.

11. Consider commercial and operational consequences. Although not specified in the AD, an SK-150 modification that requires autopilot disconnection may affect insurance, lease terms, or operational authorisations. Operators should review those arrangements in parallel with the technical compliance.

Following these steps will implement the AD’s mandatory obligations as set out in the AD’s Requirement and Compliance blocks and will create a documented audit trail showing reliance on SB 165A, SB 168, SK-150, or the SI 06-01 terminating action.