AD/AT-6/2 Amdt 1 - Horizontal Stabliser Rear Spar Connector Fittings

The instrument revolves around a small set of tightly specified technical concepts. Each is stated plainly in the AD text and carries direct operational consequences:

• Applicability and parts identity: The AD applies only to aircraft fitted with the single-piece rear spar connector fittings (part number 7721021, four fittings per spar), and excludes aircraft equipped with the two-piece connector fittings (part numbers 77210213 and 77210214, eight fittings per spar). The applicability statement therefore turns on an equipment-based criterion rather than a manufacture date or serial number range. This is the primary gating concept: owners must identify their fittings’ part numbers before determining whether the AD applies.

• Removal and access: The AD requires removal of the fuselage-to-vertical stabiliser fairing assembly and the rear fairings at the horizontal stabiliser as a precursor to inspection, and removal of the 1/4-inch bolts that secure the upper and lower spar connection fittings. Those steps set out the physical access procedure and imply a non-trivial disassembly sequence consistent with maintenance manual practice.

• Inspection technique: The AD specifies dye-penetrant inspection to check for cracks, and requires paint removal prior to that inspection. Dye-penetrant inspection is a standard non-destructive testing method; the AD therefore mandates a particular inspection standard rather than an adjudicative or subjective visual check.

• Fit tolerance and measurement: The AD requires checking the fit between the connection fittings and the spar with a feeler gauge and prescribes a maximum clearance of 0.010 inches. If gaps exceed that, the AD requires shim installation to achieve the tolerance. The tolerance is an engineering specification that conditions whether further intervention (shim fabrication and installation) is necessary.

• Shim fabrication and installation: Where required, aluminium shims must be fabricated at specified nominal dimensions , 3 1/8-inch by 15/16-inch and of the thickness necessary to achieve the maximum clearance , and have holes drilled to match the fitting. The AD requires removing all drilling chips prior to reassembly, a directive aimed at preventing foreign object damage.

• Repair/replacement and repainting: Any cracked fittings must be replaced with serviceable fittings; fittings that pass inspection must be repainted. The AD therefore contemplates either repair-through-replacement or refurbishment (repaint) depending on inspection outcomes.

• Reinstallation standard: The AD requires bolts and other removed parts to be reinstalled “in accordance with the aircraft maintenance manual.” The maintenance manual becomes the reassembly authority, anchoring the AD’s physical work to the manufacturer's procedural standards.

• Cross-references: The AD states that the Canadian AD CF-82-23 and FAA AD 81-14-10 “refer.” Amendment 1 explicitly adds aircraft specified in FAA AD 81-14-10 to the applicability section to ensure compliance of future imported aircraft. Those references signal alignment with foreign airworthiness authorities and show that the AD is harmonising its applicability and requirements with pre-existing foreign directives.

• Timing and effect: The AD sets the compliance deadline: unless previously accomplished, the work must be done before 31 July 2009, and the amendment took effect on 2 July 2009. The directive thus imposes a hard temporal requirement on affected operators.

Those main concepts together define a standard inspection-and-corrective action regime: identify affected aircraft by part number; remove fairings and bolts to access fittings; remove paint and perform dye-penetrant inspection; measure fit and install shims if necessary; replace cracked fittings; repaint and reassemble to the maintenance manual standard; and meet the compliance deadline. Each step names a specific tool or tolerance (feeler gauge, dye-penetrant, 0.010 inch clearance, 1/4-inch bolt, shim dimensions), reducing ambiguity about acceptable techniques and outcomes. The AD does not, within its text, provide a compliance-cost estimate, nor does it specify penalties for non-compliance; it does reference foreign ADs for context.

The AD directly affects the registered owners and operators of the listed Rockwell/Noorduyn AT-6/Harvard family aeroplanes that are fitted with the single-piece design rear spar connector fittings part number 7721021. Concretely, that group is defined in the AD as “All Model Harvard 2 and Harvard 4 aircraft and Model AT-6D (SNJ-5), AT-6F (SNJ-6), SNJ-7 and T-6G aircraft; equipped with single piece design horizontal stabiliser rear spar connector fittings, part number 7721021 (4 fittings per spar).” Because the applicability criterion is equipment-based, the principal immediate cost-bearers are the owners/operators, maintenance organisations engaged by those owners and, where relevant, insurers who cover maintenance liabilities.

Secondary affected parties include maintenance organisations and engineers who must plan and carry out the removal of fairings, perform dye-penetrant inspection, measure gaps with a feeler gauge, fabricate and drill shims to the specified dimensions and reinstall components in accordance with the aircraft maintenance manual. That work requires tooling, access to non-destructive testing (NDT) capability for dye-penetrant inspection, and a capacity to fabricate shims to the specified nominal size (3 1/8-inch by 15/16-inch) and to drill matching holes; the directive thus affects MROs by creating short‑term workload and parts requirements.

Parts suppliers are affected insofar as replacement connecter fittings (serviceable fittings) may be required if cracks are discovered. The directive does not nominate a supplier or part specification beyond the part numbers, but it does create demand for serviceable fittings that match the single-piece configuration when cracks are found. Fabrication of shims suggests a demand for raw aluminium sheet stock cut and drilled to the specified dimensions.

Regulators and importers have an indirect interest because Amendment 1 explicitly added aircraft identified in FAA AD 81-14-10 to the applicability “to ensure compliance of future imported aircraft.” That language signals that importers and the regulator must be attentive to equipment fitment at the time of import to confirm whether aircraft fall within the AD’s reach. The AD’s cross-reference to Transport Canada AD CF-82-23 and FAA AD 81-14-10 also affects operators who operate internationally or who follow multinational fleet standards, because equivalence and coordination between airworthiness authorities matter for compliance and record-keeping.

Owners of aircraft equipped with the two-piece connectors (P/Ns 77210213 and 77210214) are excluded from the AD; the text explicitly states it is “not applicable to aircraft equipped with two piece design connector fittings part numbers 77210213 and 77210214 (8 fittings per spar).” Those owners are not required by this specific AD to take the steps described.

Finally, the AD affects no other named classes of users in its text: it does not extend to other aircraft models, nor does it specify any operational limitations, ferry flights, or temporary flight prohibitions. The directive is limited to inspection and corrective works with a fixed compliance date. The text also does not specify penalties or enforcement mechanisms within itself; affected parties must therefore rely on CASA’s usual administrative and regulatory processes outside this document for questions on enforcement.

The AD sets out specific duties for affected operators, maintenance organisations and engineers in clear operational terms. Those duties, as stated in the AD text, are:

• Duty to determine applicability: Owners/operators must determine whether the aircraft is among the specified models and whether it is equipped with the single-piece rear spar connector fittings P/N 7721021. The AD’s applicability is equipment-based, so a preliminary duty is to verify part numbers fitted to each spar.

• Duty to disassemble for access: The AD requires removal of the fuselage-to-vertical stabiliser fairing assembly and the rear fairing assemblies at the horizontal stabiliser to access the fittings. The AD also requires removal of the 1/4-inch bolts attaching the upper and lower spar connection fittings.

• Duty to inspect: The AD requires removal of paint from the connection fittings and performance of a dye-penetrant inspection to check for cracks. The directive names a specific NDT method and therefore imposes a duty to employ that technique (or an equivalent NDT standard accepted by the maintenance manual or CASA) to detect cracking.

• Duty to act on inspection results: If fittings are cracked, the operator must “replace any cracked fittings with serviceable fittings.” If fittings are free of cracks, the operator must repaint them.

• Duty to measure and correct fit: The operator must check the fit between the connection fittings and the spar with a feeler gauge. Where gaps greater than 0.010 inches exist, the operator must fabricate and install aluminium shims (3 1/8-inch x 15/16-inch and of necessary thickness), place shims on either side of the spar flanges to maintain a parallel overall dimension, drill the shims to match the fitting holes and ensure the overall clearance does not exceed 0.010 inches.

• Duty to maintain cleanliness and follow reassembly standards: The AD requires the removal of drilling chips and reinstallation of bolts and other removed parts “in accordance with the aircraft maintenance manual.”

• Duty to meet the compliance timeline: The AD imposes a deadline: unless previously accomplished, the work must be completed “before 31 July 2009.” The Amendment became effective on 2 July 2009. This time-limited requirement defines the administrative duty to schedule and perform the works within the prescribed window.

Rights reflected or implied in the AD text are limited because the document is a regulatory directive focused on duties. The AD affords the following practical rights or discrete choices to the operator:

• Right to choose means for achieving the specified inspection and reinstallation outcome, subject to the AD’s explicit techniques and the maintenance manual. For example, the operator must use dye-penetrant inspection specifically for cracking detection and a feeler gauge to measure clearances; however, for reassembly the AD defers to the aircraft maintenance manual (“in accordance with the aircraft maintenance manual”), which allows the operator to use the approved procedures and tools recorded there.

• Right to replace vs repaint: The AD prescribes replacement where cracking exists and repainting where fittings are crack-free. Operators therefore have the right to retain existing fittings if they pass the prescribed inspection, rather than being forced to replace all fittings as a precaution.

• Right to fabrication: The AD permits operators or maintenance organisations to fabricate required aluminium shims rather than requiring a supplied aftermarket or OEM shim, so long as the fabricated shims meet the dimensional requirements and are drilled to match the fitting holes.

The AD does not describe appeal or review mechanisms in its text, nor does it specify a process for alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs) within the document. The AD does not list enforcement provisions or penalties for non-compliance in its own text; it imposes duties without enumerating administrative or criminal enforcement measures in the printed directive. Therefore, affected parties must treat the AD as an immediate mandatory technical requirement and consult CASA or their regulatory records for procedural questions about approvals, AMOCs or enforcement.

The AD text itself does not specify civil or criminal penalties, nor does it set out detailed enforcement machinery. The directive records the requirements, the applicability criteria, the inspection and corrective steps, the compliance deadline (“before 31 July 2009”) and the effective date of the amendment (“This Amendment becomes effective on 2 July 2009”), and is signed by a CASA delegate (David Villiers). The document also cites corresponding foreign ADs (Transport Canada AD CF-82-23 and FAA AD 81-14-10) and states that Amendment 1 adds aircraft specified in FAA AD 81-14-10 to the applicability.

Because the AD text contains no penalty clause, readers must note that the directive is an operational airworthiness requirement with mandatory tasks and a deadline. The absence of penalty language in the printed AD does not necessarily mean there are no regulatory consequences for non-compliance; CASA’s airworthiness regulatory framework and enforcement processes , which are not reproduced in this AD text , normally govern compliance and may provide mechanisms for enforcement, administrative penalties, grounding notices or other regulatory actions. The AD itself is silent on those matters.

Practically, the AD imposes a clear obligation to complete specified maintenance actions by a stated date. Enforcement in practice will therefore depend on CASA’s routine oversight, certificate-holder obligations, and any administrative actions CASA chooses to take outside the AD text. The AD’s signature and issuance date give the directive administrative force; its statement of a compliance deadline sets the timeframe by which CASA would expect affected operators to have complied.

The AD’s cross-reference to FAA AD 81-14-10 and Transport Canada AD CF-82-23 implies that comparable foreign regulators have treated the issue as an airworthiness concern, and those authorities’ enforcement regimes may contain explicit enforcement or penalty provisions; however, this AD does not itself incorporate those provisions or specify transnational enforcement consequences.

Because the document does not define enforcement or penalties in situ, stakeholders who need to assess legal exposure or enforcement risk must consult CASA’s enforcement policies, their air operator’s certificate conditions, and the broader civil aviation regulatory code to determine the consequences of non-compliance. The AD itself is limited to directive content: parts identity, inspection method, tolerance, replacement/repair and deadline.

The AD text explicitly cross-references foreign airworthiness directives but does not elaborate on the statutory framework under which CASA issued the directive. The AD states: “Note: Transport Canada AD CF-82-23 and FAA AD 81-14-10 refer.” Amendment 1 adds aircraft specified in FAA AD 81-14-10 to the applicability section “to ensure compliance of future imported aircraft.” Those statements indicate coordination or harmonisation with Transport Canada and FAA airworthiness action on the same technical defect or recurring concern. Practically, this means that an aircraft subject to the FAA or Transport Canada ADs will likely fall within the same technical concern addressed by CASA’s AD when fitted with the single-piece connector fittings (P/N 7721021).

The AD anchors its reassembly direction to the aircraft maintenance manual: bolts and other removed parts must be reinstalled “in accordance with the aircraft maintenance manual.” That instruction ties the AD’s physical requirements to manufacturer-provided maintenance procedures, which are often incorporated into continuing airworthiness obligations. This linkage creates an operational bridge between CASA’s directive and the aircraft’s maintenance data, which is itself the product of type-certification and airworthiness documentation. The AD therefore operates alongside the existing legal regime that gives the maintenance manual authority over reassembly and torqueing, rather than supplanting it.

The AD does not purport to modify registration, certification, or operational rules, and it does not specify ferry-flight allowances, grounding, or airworthiness limitation changes. It is strictly an inspection-and-corrective-action directive. Hence its primary legal interaction is with continuing airworthiness obligations (maintenance schedules, defect rectification and record-keeping) and with import control processes insofar as Amendment 1 explicitly addresses future imported aircraft by adopting the FAA applicability list.

Because the AD references FAA and Transport Canada ADs, operators engaged in international operations or transfers of ownership across jurisdictions must ensure that their maintenance records and fitted parts comply with the CASA AD as well as the foreign ADs where applicable. The AD’s exclusion of two-piece connector fittings (P/Ns 77210213 and 77210214) means that aircraft with those fittings will not be subject to this instrument, though they might be subject to other ADs in other jurisdictions; the AD itself does not direct modification of parts beyond the specified inspection and repair regime.

The directive’s technical requirements (dye-penetrant inspection, feeler gauge tolerance, shim fabrication and hole-drilling) interact with maintenance standard practices and occupational health and safety obligations for maintenance personnel, though the AD does not mention OH&S. The fact that the AD requires paint removal and drilling invites application of standard workplace procedures for handling solvents, paint stripping, metalworking and chip control; but the AD text itself does not set out those ancillary legal obligations.

In short, the AD sits within a network of continuing airworthiness obligations, references foreign ADs for harmonisation, and delegates procedural specifics to the aircraft maintenance manual for reassembly. The AD does not, in its text, alter other statutory regimes or list enforcement mechanisms; those interactions must be inferred from the regulatory environment and from the AD’s cross-references rather than being described in the AD itself.

The AD is titled “AD/AT-6/2 Amdt 1” and the text makes clear that this document is an amendment to an earlier directive (the original AD/AT-6/2). The amendment was signed by David Villiers, Delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, and dated 18 May 2009; the amendment itself is stated to become effective on 2 July 2009. The compliance window in the amended text is “Unless previously accomplished, before 31 July 2009.” The AD’s text explicitly states that “Amendment 1 adds aircraft specified in FAA AD 81-14-10, which has the same requirements as this Directive, to the applicability section. This amendment is issued to ensure compliance of future imported aircraft.” That sentence is the only express history or rationale for the amendment contained in the text.

The background paragraph also states that “The Canadian Airworthiness Authority required accomplishment of the requirements this Directive to detect cracking of the horizontal stabiliser rear spar connector fittings, and to check the fit of the connector fittings and the spar.” It therefore situates the origin of the issue as a concern recognised by Transport Canada and indicates that harmonisation with FAA AD 81-14-10 motivated the amendment to broaden applicability for imported aircraft. The AD also contains a note referencing Transport Canada AD CF-82-23 and FAA AD 81-14-10.

The amendment history present in the text is limited to a single step: Amendment 1 to AD/AT-6/2. The AD carries both the original AD designation and the amendment numbering (Amdt 1), and it includes the operative changes: the addition of aircraft identified in FAA AD 81-14-10 to the applicability. No other prior amendments, revisions or supersessions are recorded in the printed text provided. There is no chronological list of prior versions, no table of changes beyond the stated addition to applicability, and no indication within the AD text of later amendments or revocations.

Because the document is an amendment and identifies its effective date and compliance deadline, affected parties must check maintenance records and regulatory notices to ensure they implemented the change in the window specified (before 31 July 2009) and that aircraft imported after the amendment were assessed for the now-broadened applicability. The AD’s own recorded history is limited: it records the amendment’s purpose (to add FAA-specified aircraft) and the harmonisation intent with the Canadian and FAA ADs; it does not provide a longer audit trail of iterative changes or administrative commentary beyond the brief background paragraph. Any more detailed amendment history, later revisions or superseding directives would need to be located outside this AD text, in CASA’s AD database or subsequent Notices to Airmen or amendments, none of which are reproduced in the material provided.

The AD text contains no litigation history, no references to judicial decisions, and no mention of legal proceedings either challenging the AD or interpreting its requirements. The document records the issuing authority (a CASA delegate) and provides technical and procedural instructions, but it does not indicate that the AD has been the subject of court review, administrative appeal, or other litigation.

Because the directive itself does not document litigation, readers cannot conclude from this AD text whether any enforcement actions, disputes between operators and CASA, or legal challenges occurred. The text’s silence is purely a feature of the AD content provided here; it does not constitute evidence either that litigation did not occur or that remedial administrative steps were not taken elsewhere. To determine if there is litigation history, a reader must consult court records, CASA enforcement documents, or legal databases for cases referencing AD/AT-6/2 Amdt 1, none of which are included in this AD.

The AD does, however, reference related foreign ADs (FAA AD 81-14-10 and Transport Canada AD CF-82-23). The presence of related foreign directives creates the rhetorical context for possible cross-border regulatory coordination or disputes, but the AD text contains no evidence of dispute resolution or judicial interpretation concerning those foreign directives either.

Operationally, the lack of litigation history in the AD means the AD stands on its technical and administrative merits in the document and, as drafted, leaves legal enforcement channels and dispute mechanisms unarticulated. Affected parties wishing to verify whether the AD has been subject to judicial review or administrative appeal should therefore consult external legal sources, CASA’s records and the administrative tribunal or court dockets for any recorded proceedings relating to this AD. The AD text itself provides no materials, case citations, or references to litigation outcomes.

The AD contains several precise technical and administrative points that can cause non-obvious compliance problems if overlooked. These are concrete, source-based “gotchas” that operators and maintenance organisations should note:

• Applicability is equipment-specific, not model-only. The AD applies only to aircraft fitted with the single-piece connector fittings part number 7721021 (four fittings per spar). Aircraft of the same model fitted with two-piece connectors (part numbers 77210213 and 77210214, eight fittings per spar) are explicitly excluded. Failure to verify the fitted part number could lead to unnecessary work or failure to comply where required. The AD’s applicability line is explicit: “This Directive is not applicable to aircraft equipped with two piece design connector fittings part numbers 77210213 and 77210214 (8 fittings per spar).”

• Removal of fairings is required. Some operators might assume a visual inspection from an access panel would suffice; the AD requires removal of “the fuselage to vertical stabiliser fairing assembly and the rear fairing assemblies at the horizontal stabiliser” to access and remove the fittings for paint removal and dye-penetrant inspection. Underestimating disassembly time and labour may lead to scheduling problems and increased man-hours.

• Paint must be removed prior to dye-penetrant inspection. The AD specifies that the fittings must be removed and the paint removed before performing the dye-penetrant inspection. In practice this requires appropriate paint-stripping techniques that avoid damage to the metal substrate and must ensure that the NDT method is applied to bare metal for valid results.

• Dye-penetrant inspection is prescriptive. The AD names dye-penetrant inspection explicitly as the method for detecting cracks. Using a different NDT method without regulatory acceptance or prior approval could raise compliance questions unless such an alternative method is authorised elsewhere.

• Fit tolerance is tight: 0.010-inch maximum clearance. The AD states that “If gaps greater than 0.010-inches exist, shims are necessary.” Achieving and verifying this tolerance requires accurate feeler-gauges and skilled measurement; small measurement errors could lead to unnecessary shim fabrication or failure to achieve the specified clearance.

• Shim fabrication dimensions are specified. The AD requires aluminium shims of 3 1/8-inch x 15/16-inch nominal size “and of necessary thickness,” and that they be placed on either side of the spar flanges to maintain parallelism and fit within the connector with maximum 0.010-inch clearance. The AD permits in-house fabrication but specifies drilling holes to match fittings and the removal of drilling chips. Failure to match holes precisely, failure to maintain parallelism, or failure to remove chips can create fit or foreign object problems.

• Bolt specification and reinstallation procedure: The AD requires removal of the 1/4-inch bolts attaching the upper and lower fittings and mandates reinstallation “in accordance with the aircraft maintenance manual.” Operators must ensure torque values and reassembly sequences are taken from the maintenance manual rather than assumed.

• Repainting of uncracked fittings is required. The AD requires repainting of fittings that are found to be crack-free following inspection. Operators must ensure appropriate repainting procedures and materials are used consistent with the maintenance manual and corrosion-protection standards.

• Cross-reference to foreign ADs: The AD explicitly notes Transport Canada AD CF-82-23 and FAA AD 81-14-10, and Amendment 1 adds FAA-specified aircraft to the applicability. Operators importing aircraft must ensure historical compliance; the amendment’s rationale is ensuring compliance of future imported aircraft, so imported aircraft must be checked against this broadened applicability.

• Compliance deadline is fixed and near-term in the AD: Unless previously accomplished, the AD mandates compliance “before 31 July 2009.” The amendment’s effective date is 2 July 2009. The short window requires scheduling MRO resources quickly; operators who relied on later scheduling could face administrative non-compliance.

• The AD does not state enforcement tools or penalties. The printed AD does not detail administrative penalties or processes for alternative methods of compliance within its text. Operators should not assume any informal or discretionary grace but must seek regulatory guidance on enforcement possibilities if they cannot meet the deadline.

These “gotchas” are concretely specified in the AD’s text. They represent practical pitfalls: mistaken applicability assessment, underestimation of disassembly/inspection work, incorrect NDT practice, mismeasurement of clearance, improper shim fabrication and drilling, foreign object debris risk if chips are not removed, failure to follow maintenance manual torque and reassembly instructions, and regulatory exposure due to the fixed compliance date. Each of these is directly traceable to language in the directive.

Compliance with the AD requires following the sequence and tolerances stated in the AD text. The AD sets out a clear work flow. To translate the AD’s requirements into an actionable compliance plan, affected operators and maintenance organisations should adopt the following procedural checklist, drawn directly from the AD text and linked to maintenance manual standards:

1. Establish applicability:

   • Verify the aircraft model against the AD’s applicability list: Model Harvard 2, Harvard 4, AT-6D (SNJ-5), AT-6F (SNJ-6), SNJ-7 and T-6G.
   • Verify the installed horizontal stabiliser rear spar connector fittings part numbers. The AD applies only if the fittings are single-piece design P/N 7721021 (four fittings per spar). If the aircraft has two-piece design fittings P/Ns 77210213 or 77210214 (eight fittings per spar), the AD is not applicable.

2. Schedule work within the compliance window:

   • The AD requires completion “unless previously accomplished, before 31 July 2009.” Given the effective date of the amendment (“This Amendment becomes effective on 2 July 2009”), schedule the inspection and rectification promptly to meet the deadline.

3. Plan disassembly and access:

   • Remove the fuselage-to-vertical stabiliser fairing assembly and the rear fairing assemblies at the horizontal stabiliser to gain access to the rear spar connector fittings.
   • Remove the 1/4-inch bolts which attach the upper and lower spar connection fittings (P/N 7721021) from the rear spar assembly.

4. Remove fittings and prepare for NDT:

   • Remove the four connection fittings from the spar.
   • Remove paint from the connection fittings in preparation for dye-penetrant inspection. Use paint-stripping processes that do not damage the substrate and that are compatible with subsequent NDT.

5. Conduct dye-penetrant inspection:

   • Perform dye-penetrant inspection on the fittings to detect cracks as specified by the AD. Ensure NDT personnel are qualified and follow documented NDT procedures consistent with the dye-penetrant technique. Document the inspection findings.

6. Address inspection outcomes:

   • If fittings are cracked, replace them with serviceable fittings that match the required specification.
   • If fittings are found to be crack-free, repaint the fittings following appropriate paint and corrosion-control procedures.

7. Check fit and measure gap:

   • Inspect the fit between the connection fittings and the spar using a feeler gauge. Verify that any clearance does not exceed 0.010 inches.

8. Fabricate and install shims where required:

   • If gaps exceed 0.010 inches, fabricate aluminium shims of nominal dimensions 3 1/8-inch x 15/16-inch and of the required thickness to achieve the maximum clearance of 0.010 inches when installed.
   • Place shims on either side of the spar flanges, maintaining a parallel overall dimension such that the assembly fits inside the connection fitting with maximum clearance of 0.010 inches.
   • Drill holes through the shims to match those of the fitting. Ensure hole alignment precision to avoid stress concentrations or misalignment under bolt load.
   • Remove all drilling chips and foreign debris prior to reassembly.

9. Reassemble per the maintenance manual:

   • Reinstall bolts and other removed parts “in accordance with the aircraft maintenance manual.” This requires following torque values, sequences, locking methods, and any safety wiring or locking feature specified by the maintenance manual for the connector bolts and fairing reinstallation.

10. Record-keeping and documentation:

• Record the work performed, inspection results (including NDT reports), shim dimensions installed (if any), parts replaced (part numbers and serials), and reference to the AD and maintenance manual procedures used. Ensure the maintenance release documents the completion of the AD.

11. Verify final airworthiness:

• Ensure that the aircraft's maintenance release and continuing airworthiness records are updated and that any required approvals or certification for the maintenance work have been obtained from the responsible certifying staff.

12. For imported aircraft:

• If an aircraft was imported or is to be imported, verify the aircraft’s compliance history versus FAA AD 81-14-10 and Transport Canada AD CF-82-23, since Amendment 1 added FAA-specified aircraft to the applicability to ensure future imported aircraft comply.

Operational notes tied to the AD’s text:

• Use qualified personnel for dye-penetrant inspection and for shim fabrication and hole-drilling.
• Ensure facilities are suitable for paint removal and chip containment; the AD requires removal of drilling chips.
• If replacement fittings are required, obtain serviceable fittings that conform to the aircraft’s type design and that are authorised by the maintenance organisation and maintenance manual.

The AD prescribes methods and an outcome rather than allowing open-ended discretion. It requires the dye-penetrant method for crack detection; feeler-gauge measurement of clearance with a 0.010-inch maximum; specific shim nominal dimensions and drilled matching holes; and reassembly in accordance with the maintenance manual. Complying exactly with those points and documenting the work in the aircraft’s maintenance records will satisfy the AD as written. If an operator believes an alternative method is necessary, the AD text does not specify an alternative-method approval process within itself; operators should therefore consult CASA for any authorised alternative methods of compliance or for regulatory guidance before deviating from the stated inspection and correction technique.