AD/B717/13 Amdt 1 - Horizontal Stabilizer Outer Skin Panels

The AD is organised around a small number of operative concepts that determine scope, permissible methods and decision‑makers. These concepts, as stated in the AD text, are:

• Applicability: The AD applies to Model 717-200 aircraft as listed in Boeing Service Bulletin 717-55-0005 Revision 1 dated 18 January 2005, or later revisions approved by the FAA as an AMOC. The service bulletin therefore functions as the normative specification that translates the AD's mandate into concrete inspection steps and any associated workscopes (see "Applicability").

• Requirement: The AD requires operators to carry out inspections in accordance with the referenced Boeing Service Bulletin. Where defects are found and the service bulletin instructs to contact Boeing, the AD prescribes the path for repair approvals: either a method approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, FAA, or data meeting the type certification basis that has been approved by a Boeing Company Designated Engineering Representative who has been authorised by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO (see "Requirement"). The AD explicitly links defect remediation to FAA approval pathways.

• Compliance window: The AD sets a dual trigger for compliance: a flight cycle threshold and a calendar window, namely before 10,000 total flight cycles or within 15 months after 15 April 2004, whichever occurs later (see "Compliance"). That dual trigger defines the compliance deadline for each aircraft according to its usage profile.

• Ultrasonic inspection and targeted area: The mandated inspection method is ultrasonic testing, and the target location is the areas around the barrel nut holes of the outboard skin panels of the horizontal stabilizer (see "Background"). The AD identifies a manufacturing-origin risk that could cause cracking at those attachment points.

• AMOC and later revisions: The AD permits the use of later revisions of the Boeing service bulletin where approved by the FAA as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC). This gives a defined pathway for operators or Boeing to adopt revised technical procedures subject to FAA acceptance (see "Applicability" and "Background").

• Cross-reference to FAA AD: The AD references FAA AD 2004-03-21 Amdt 39-13465, which is material to the directive and the AMOC framework (see the "Requirement" note).

• Authorising officers and DERs: The text identifies the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, as the approving authority for repairs where the service bulletin calls for Boeing contact. It also recognises repair data approved by a Boeing Company Designated Engineering Representative (DER) authorised by that Manager as an acceptable alternative (see "Requirement"). Thus the AD places FAA-designated officials and Boeing DERs at the centre of repair approval for non-routine or bespoke fixes.

These concepts determine the chain of authority and the modes of compliance. The AD makes the Boeing service bulletin the operative technical instrument, while reserving approval authority and AMOC acceptance to FAA channels named in the directive.

The AD directly affects operators and owners of Boeing 717-200 aeroplanes that are listed in Boeing Service Bulletin 717-55-0005 Revision 1 dated 18 January 2005 or later FAA‑approved revisions (see "Applicability"). Those operators are obliged to carry out the ultrasonic inspection and to execute any required repairs under the approval conditions set out in the AD (see "Requirement" and "Compliance"). Maintenance organisations contracted by those operators will perform the inspections and any authorised repairs; they must therefore work to the Boeing service bulletin procedures or to the FAA‑approved AMOC where applicable.

Boeing is affected in the sense that the AD requires actions that may trigger Boeing to be contacted when the service bulletin specifies that step. Where the service bulletin directs contact with Boeing, Boeing is called on to provide repair solutions or engineering data that meet the type certification basis and that can be approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, or by an authorised Boeing DER (see "Requirement" and "Background").

The United States Federal Aviation Administration is an operational decision-maker within the compliance regime that the AD imports. The AD explicitly refers to FAA approvals, the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, and FAA AD 2004-03-21 (see "Requirement" and "Note"), and allows later revisions of the service bulletin only if approved by the FAA as an AMOC (see "Applicability" and "Background"). These references make FAA acceptance an essential gate for alternative compliance methods, repair approvals, and revised service instructions.

Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) appears as the issuing authority because the document is framed as an AD issued under CASA's delegate (signed by David Villiers, Delegate of CASA, dated 25 May 2005). As issuer, CASA sets the operative requirement for Australian-registered aeroplanes, but the AD integrates other agencies and private actors into the compliance process via FAA approvals and Boeing engineering data.

Who pays: The AD itself does not state cost figures. It imposes duties that will be carried out by aircraft operators and their maintenance providers, and therefore operators will directly bear the cost of the ultrasonic inspections and any repairs required. If repairs require engineering work or parts, operators will bear those costs unless contractual arrangements allocate them elsewhere. The AD does not specify funding, subsidies or cost-sharing arrangements.

Who decides: For ordinary inspection execution, the operator and its maintenance provider implement the Boeing service bulletin procedures. For alternative compliance, revision adoption, or for repair approval when the service bulletin specifies contacting Boeing, decision authority rests with the FAA Manager, Los Angeles ACO, or with a Boeing Company DER authorised by that Manager (see "Requirement"). The AD itself is silent on any domestic review or appeal mechanism in CASA for these specific approval decisions.

Operational impact: aircraft that reach the compliance triggers (10,000 cycles or the calendar window) must be inspected; where defects require repair and the repair method must be FAA‑approved, the aircraft may not return to flight until the required approval and remedial work is completed, because the AD requires that repair be done "Before further flight" in such cases (see "Requirement").

Duties

• To inspect: Operators of applicable Boeing 717-200 aeroplanes must perform an ultrasonic inspection of the areas around the barrel nut holes of the outboard skin panels, in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 717-55-0005 Revision 1 dated 18 January 2005, or a later revision approved by the FAA as an AMOC (see "Requirement" and "Applicability"). The AD makes the service bulletin the operative technical standard for the inspection steps.

• To meet compliance timing: Operators must do the inspection before the accumulation of 10,000 total flight cycles, or within 15 months after 15 April 2004, whichever occurs later (see "Compliance"). Each aeroplane's compliance deadline will therefore depend on its cycle count and the time elapsed since the reference date.

• To remedy defects before further flight where required: If defects are found and the service bulletin directs contact with Boeing, the AD requires that, before further flight, the aircraft be repaired either according to a method approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, FAA, or according to data meeting the type certification basis and approved by a Boeing Company DER authorised by that Manager (see "Requirement"). This creates an operational obligation that limits flying until remedial approval and work are completed where the service bulletin so requires.

• To use FAA-approved AMOCs for later service bulletin revisions: The AD allows the use of later revisions of the Boeing service bulletin only if those later revisions are approved by the FAA as an alternative method of compliance (see "Applicability" and "Background"). That requires operators or Boeing to secure FAA approval for any deviation from the referenced revision.

Rights and pathways

• Right to use later SBA revisions if FAA approves them as AMOC: Operators are able to rely on later revisions of the Boeing service bulletin provided they are accepted by the FAA as AMOCs (see "Applicability"). This gives operators a clear pathway to adopt updated procedures without being strictly limited to Revision 1.

• Right to repair under FAA-approved DER data: Where the service bulletin instructs contact with Boeing, operators may implement repair data that meets the type certification basis and is approved by a Boeing Company DER who has been authorised by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO (see "Requirement"). This provides a faster‑moving, DER-based approval pathway as an alternative to direct Manager ACO approvals, provided the DER has the necessary authorisation.

Decision-making points and responsibilities

• Inspection scheduling and execution: The operator schedules and conducts the ultrasonic inspection in accordance with the referenced service bulletin. The AD does not delegate the scheduling to CASA; the duty rests on the operator.

• Repair approval: For defects that require Boeing contact, the AD centralises approval authority with the Manager, Los Angeles ACO or with an authorised Boeing DER (see "Requirement"). This places the onus on operators and Boeing to secure those approvals before the aircraft may return to service when the service bulletin so mandates.

• AMOC adoption: To use a later service bulletin revision as the operative instruction, the operator (or Boeing) must secure FAA approval of that later revision as an AMOC. The AD sets no domestic alternative approval route in the text; FAA approval is specified as the required authorisation (see "Applicability" and "Background").

The AD does not articulate any process for domestic appeals, cost relief or alternative compliance apart from the FAA AMOC pathway. It also does not specify recordkeeping requirements or reporting obligations beyond adherence to the service bulletin steps and the specified approval routes for repairs.

The text of the AD supplied does not specify criminal or administrative penalties, infringement fines, or the mechanics of regulatory enforcement. The document prescribes actions (inspection by ultrasonic means, timing triggers, and approved repair routes) and operational constraints (repairs required "Before further flight" in specified circumstances), but it does not set out sanctioning provisions or an enforcement regime within the instrument itself.

What the AD does do, by its terms, is mandate actions that affect an aircraft's ability to fly where defects require FAA‑approved repair. Specifically, when the service bulletin instructs contacting Boeing and defects are found, the AD requires that the aircraft be repaired per a method approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, or per approved Boeing DER data, "Before further flight" (see "Requirement"). That label functions operationally as a restriction on continuing flight operations until the required approvals and repairs are in place. The AD therefore imposes a condition that, if not met, would prevent lawful return to flight under the AD's terms.

The AD references FAA approval authorities and an FAA AD (FAA AD 2004-03-21 Amdt 39-13465). It designates the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, FAA, as the approval authority for repairs in cases where the service bulletin specifies contacting Boeing, and it recognises Boeing DER approvals authorised by that Manager (see "Requirement"). This places FAA decision-makers at the hub of repair authorisations, and so any enforcement consequences arising from failure to obtain those approvals would depend on the regulatory interaction between operators, Boeing, CASA and the FAA. The supplied text does not describe how CASA would enforce the AD in Australia, nor does it describe procedures for suspension, revocation of certificates, or monetary penalties.

In short, the AD is prescriptive about required technical and operational steps, but silent in the supplied text about the explicit sanction regime. Practically, the directive contains mechanisms that can have immediate operational effect, because repairs required "Before further flight" will ground the aircraft for commercial operations until the prescribed approvals and work are completed. The text does not elaborate further enforcement mechanisms or penalties.

This AD explicitly interfaces with United States Federal Aviation Administration processes and decisions. It references FAA AD 2004-03-21 Amdt 39-13465 (see the "Requirement" note) and repeatedly ties acceptance of later Boeing service bulletin revisions to FAA approval as an AMOC (see "Applicability" and "Background"). For repairs where the service bulletin directs contacting Boeing, the AD requires either a Manager, Los Angeles ACO, FAA-approved method or repair data approved by a Boeing Company Designated Engineering Representative who is authorised by that Manager (see "Requirement"). These references import the FAA's approval and certification authorities into the operational regime applicable to Australian-registered aircraft covered by the AD.

The AD also refers to the aircraft's type certification basis. It permits repair "per data meeting the type certification basis of the aircraft approved by a Boeing Company Designated Engineering Representative who has been authorised by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, to make such findings" (see "Requirement"). That means the AD's required repairs must be consistent with the aircraft's type certification, and any DER approvals relied upon must be authorised by the FAA Manager named. The instrument therefore links domestic compliance to the FAA's type certification framework and authorised DER processes.

Within the supplied text, CASA is the issuing authority (the AD is signed by David Villiers as Delegate of CASA). The AD does not, however, set out or modify Australian statutory aviation law itself; rather, it is an operational directive applying to aircraft within CASA's remit. The text does not state how the AD will be integrated into Australian civil aviation rules, such as continuing airworthiness obligations under national regulations, nor does it describe the relationship between CASA enforcement powers and the FAA approval functions it references. Those aspects are not in the supplied text.

The AD does not mention other domestic regulatory instruments, administrative remedies, or civil liability implications. It also does not specify any interaction with commercial or contractual law between operators, maintenance organisations, lessors, insurers or Boeing, although a practical effect of the AD will be that operators must obtain FAA approvals or DER authorisations for certain repairs and that may trigger contractual or insurance consequences in the ordinary course. Those commercial interactions are not articulated in the text.

Finally, the AD replaces or amends an original issuance from 15 April 2004, updating the revision status of the Boeing service bulletin and authorising use of later FAA-approved service bulletin revisions as AMOCs, but explicitly stating there is no change to the requirements or compliance (see "Background"). This shows a constrained amendment that references both domestic amendment practice and foreign (FAA) acceptance routes without changing substantive obligations.

The instrument is presented as Amendment 1 to AD/B717/13. The supplied text states that the original issue of the AD became effective on 15 April 2004 and that the Amendment becomes effective on 7 July 2005 (see the separate note "The original issue of this AD became effective on 15 April 2004" and "This Amendment becomes effective on 7 July 2005"). The AD's header identifies it as "AD/B717/13 Amdt 1", and the subject is "Horizontal Stabilizer Outer Skin Panels", with a date notation "7/2005".

The text of the Amendment explains its purpose for the record: the Amendment is issued to update the revision status of the referenced Boeing service bulletin and to allow the use of later revisions of the bulletin, provided they are approved by the FAA as an AMOC. The Amendment expressly states that there is no change to the requirements or compliance deadlines (see "Background"). That means the Amendment is procedural and permissive with respect to later technical revisions, not substantive with respect to inspection requirements, compliance triggers or repair approval pathways.

The AD reproduces the original applicability, requirement, and compliance provisions and maintains their operative effect. It references Boeing Service Bulletin 717-55-0005 Revision 1 dated 18 January 2005 as the base service bulletin for applicability and inspection procedure. It also includes the same compliance timing as the original AD: before 10,000 total flight cycles, or within 15 months after 15 April 2004, whichever occurs later (see "Compliance").

The document is dated 25 May 2005, and it is signed by David Villiers as Delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. The Amendment's effective date is explicitly stated as 7 July 2005. The text includes a note that FAA AD 2004-03-21 Amdt 39-13465 refers, which ties the amendment to an existing FAA directive.

No other prior or subsequent amendments are recorded in the supplied text. The Amendment does not modify the inspection technique, the target structure, nor the compliance deadlines; it only changes the status of the referenced service bulletin and permits later FAA-approved revisions to be used as AMOCs.

The supplied AD document does not provide any litigation history. It contains no references to judicial decisions, administrative appeals, or adjudicated disputes arising from the AD or the underlying manufacturing defect claims. The text does not mention any proceedings, challenges or case names, nor does it cite any tribunal or court adjudications.

Because the instrument is purely the AD text, signed by a CASA delegate, and limited to technical and procedural mandates, it records the directive and its amendment purpose only. The absence of litigation references in the document means that, insofar as the supplied text is concerned, there is no recorded litigation history to summarise. The AD itself cross-references FAA AD 2004-03-21 Amdt 39-13465, but the included note does not describe any court or administrative review of that FAA AD.

For readers seeking a litigation record, the AD does not indicate whether disputes about compliance, cost allocation, or repair approvals have been litigated or administratively contested. The AD also does not set out an internal CASA mechanism for appeals or reviews within the document, and it does not record outcomes of any enforcement actions, if any, that might have been taken in relation to the directive. Any such litigation or enforcement history would therefore need to be sourced outside the supplied AD text from regulators' public records, court dockets or other public materials; nothing of that nature is contained within the AD text provided here.

In short, the document provided contains no litigation history or references to legal challenges; the AD stands as a technical and administrative directive with no recorded adjudicative narrative included in this text.

Several practical issues and potential points of confusion are embedded in the AD's text and structure. The following are material items drawn directly from the instrument:

• Dual compliance trigger could be misunderstood: The compliance requirement is before the accumulation of 10,000 total flight cycles, or within 15 months after 15 April 2004, whichever occurs later (see "Compliance"). Operators must calculate both triggers for each aeroplane. For high-cycle aircraft, the 10,000-cycle trigger will be decisive. For lower-use aircraft, the 15-month calendar window tied to 15 April 2004 is decisive. The AD does not provide worked examples, so operators must determine which deadline applies to each airframe.

• Effective date versus compliance timing: The Amendment becomes effective on 7 July 2005 (see "This Amendment becomes effective on 7 July 2005") but the compliance window references 15 April 2004 and 15 months after that date (see "Compliance"), and the original AD became effective 15 April 2004. Operators referencing only the Amendment's effective date could miss that compliance deadlines depend on the original issue date. The AD explicitly states there is no change to requirements or compliance in the Amendment (see "Background"), but the temporal markers are spread across the document and merit careful attention.

• AMOC restricted to FAA-approved revisions: The AD allows the use of later revisions of the Boeing service bulletin only when those later revisions are approved by the FAA as an AMOC (see "Applicability" and "Background"). That means domestic acceptance of later service bulletin revisions depends on FAA approval, not on CASA alone, according to the AD text.

• Repair approval path is narrow where the bulletin requires contact with Boeing: If the service bulletin directs contacting Boeing when defects are found, the AD requires repairs to be performed per an FAA Manager-approved method or via DER-approved data authorised by that Manager (see "Requirement"). Those approval gates are with the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, FAA, and an authorised Boeing Company DER. That restricts the route for implementing bespoke repairs and may introduce administrative delay if approvals are needed.

• "Before further flight" requirement: Where defects are found and the service bulletin calls for Boeing contact, repairs must be completed "Before further flight" (see "Requirement"). That phrase has immediate operational consequence. If an operator interprets the service bulletin as permitting temporary flight operations pending repair, the AD will override that unless the repair path has been approved as an AMOC or by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, or by an authorised Boeing DER.

• Reference to type certification basis: The AD permits repair "per data meeting the type certification basis of the aircraft" approved by an authorised Boeing DER (see "Requirement"). Operators relying on DER-approved data must ensure the DER is authorised by the named Manager, Los Angeles ACO. The AD does not define the process for DER authorisation in the supplied text; it simply requires that authorisation.

• No penalties or enforcement detail in the text: The AD does not specify penalties, enforcement steps or administrative processes (see "Penalties and enforcement"). That absence means operators must rely on their understanding of CASA's broader regulatory framework for enforcement consequences and should not assume penalty provisions are contained in the AD text.

• Cross‑reference to an FAA AD: The AD notes that FAA AD 2004-03-21 Amdt 39-13465 refers (see the note in "Requirement"). Operators must consider that FAA AD and any FAA amendments when planning compliance, because the AD imports FAA processes into its compliance and approval framework.

• The service bulletin is the operative technical instrument: The AD defers the detailed inspection and repair procedure to Boeing Service Bulletin 717-55-0005 Revision 1, and only later revisions accepted by the FAA as AMOCs are allowed. Operators must have access to the correct revision and confirm FAA acceptance of any later revision they intend to use.

• The AD is narrow in subject matter but precise in approval gatekeepers: The AD only addresses the horizontal stabilizer outboard skin panels and barrel nut hole areas; nevertheless, it sets precise approval gatekeepers (Manager, Los Angeles ACO and authorised Boeing DER) for cases where Boeing contact is required. That combination of narrow technical scope and precise approval routes can create significant operational impact if many aircraft are affected simultaneously.

Each of these items is contained in, or follows directly from, the AD's stated "Applicability", "Requirement", "Compliance", and "Background" language. Operators and maintenance providers should identify which of these issues apply to their fleet and plan accordingly.

The AD sets a straightforward but procedurally specific compliance pathway. Below are concrete, source‑grounded steps that an operator or maintenance organisation should take to comply, mapped to the instrument's operative language.

1. Confirm applicability using the service bulletin reference:

   • Determine whether each Boeing 717-200 airframe in the operator's fleet is listed in Boeing Service Bulletin 717-55-0005 Revision 1 dated 18 January 2005. The AD's "Applicability" ties the requirement to the list in that service bulletin. If an operator proposes to use a later revision of the service bulletin, confirm that the later revision has been approved by the FAA as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) before relying on it (see "Applicability" and "Background").

2. Calculate the compliance deadline for each aircraft:

   • For each applicable airframe, determine whether the aircraft will reach 10,000 total flight cycles before the calendar window (15 months after 15 April 2004). Compliance must occur before the accumulation of 10,000 total flight cycles, or within 15 months after 15 April 2004, whichever is later (see "Compliance"). Record the applicable trigger and the resulting deadline for scheduling the inspection.

3. Schedule and perform the ultrasonic inspection in accordance with the service bulletin:

   • The AD requires an ultrasonic inspection of the areas around the barrel nut holes of the outboard skin panels, performed in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 717-55-0005 Revision 1, or a later FAA-approved revision (see "Requirement" and "Background"). Ensure maintenance personnel follow the inspection steps and acceptance criteria as prescribed in the relevant service bulletin revision.

4. If defects are found and the service bulletin directs Boeing contact:

   • Follow the service bulletin's instruction to contact Boeing. The AD then requires that, before further flight, repairs must be carried out per a method approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, FAA, or per data meeting the type certification basis approved by a Boeing Company Designated Engineering Representative who has been authorised by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO (see "Requirement").
   • Therefore, obtain either: a) an FAA Manager, Los Angeles ACO approval for a specific repair method, or b) Boeing DER-provided repair data that is approved by a DER authorised by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO.

5. Do not return the aircraft to flight until required approvals and repairs are completed:

   • The AD obliges operators to repair per an approved method "Before further flight" where the service bulletin instructs contact with Boeing and defects are found. Practically, this prevents return to service until the necessary FAA or authorised DER approvals and the physical repair are completed (see "Requirement").

6. Use AMOC process for later service bulletin revisions:

   • If adopting a later revision of Boeing Service Bulletin 717-55-0005, secure FAA approval of that revision as an AMOC before relying on it as the basis for inspection and repair work (see "Applicability" and "Background").

7. Maintain records and correspondence:

   • Although the AD itself does not set out specific recordkeeping obligations in the supplied text, operators should document the inspection results, any defects detected, communications with Boeing, the approvals obtained from the Manager, Los Angeles ACO or authorised Boeing DER, and the details of the repairs done. These records will be necessary to demonstrate compliance if asked by regulators, maintenance auditors, purchasers, lessors or insurers.

8. Coordinate with Boeing and FAA early where defects are suspected:

   • Because the AD places FAA approval gates on certain repairs and recognises DER approvals only if authorised by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, early coordination with Boeing and timely submission to the FAA for approval will minimise aircraft downtime. The AD explicitly contemplates contacting Boeing when the service bulletin prescribes that step and then securing FAA or authorised DER approvals for repairs (see "Requirement").

9. Check the FAA AD referenced:

   • The AD notes that FAA AD 2004-03-21 Amdt 39-13465 refers. Operators should review that FAA AD to understand any related or additional FAA requirements that may be relevant to the inspection and repair process (see the note in "Requirement").

10. Be mindful of the Amendment's scope:

    • The Amendment updates the revision status of the referenced service bulletin and permits later FAA-approved revisions as AMOCs without changing the substantive inspection or compliance requirements (see "Background"). Operators must therefore ensure that their chosen service bulletin revision is either Revision 1 or a later revision that has FAA AMOC approval.

Following these steps will align an operator's actions with the AD's stated requirements. The AD prescribes technical inspection steps via the Boeing service bulletin and defines FAA-based approval gates for repairs, so compliance is achieved by performing the ultrasonic inspections as required, securing the needed approvals for any required repairs, and not returning the aeroplane to flight until the AD's conditions have been met.