AD/B717/27 - Fuel Boost Pump Wiring

The Directive rests on a small set of interlocking technical and regulatory concepts that determine both the substance of the required work and which documents or approvals are acceptable evidence of compliance.

Applicability and identification: The Directive’s Applicability is narrowly phrased: “Model 717-200 aeroplanes, as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin (SB)717-28-0007, Revision 1, dated 23 September 2003” (Applicability). Compliance hinges on whether an aeroplane appears in that SB’s applicability list; the Directive does not broaden applicability beyond the set identified in the SB.

Mandated action: The Requirement is to “modify the conduit for the forward fuel boost pump of the centre fuel tank, by accomplishing all of the actions specified in SB 717-28-0007, Revision 1” (Requirement). The language “all of the actions specified” imposes a completeness standard: compliance requires following the SB’s full set of procedures and tasks, not selected parts.

Conditional acceptance of earlier work: The Directive allows prior work, performed “before the effective date of this Directive in accordance with Boeing SB 717-28-0007, dated 22 August 2002,” to be accepted provided a leak check is accomplished “in accordance with Boeing 717 Aeroplane Maintenance Manual (AMM) Task 28-22-28-700-801” (Requirement). The acceptance is conditional and explicitly procedural: the leak test must follow the specified AMM task.

Cross-jurisdictional approvals: The Directive recognises FAA procedural decisions. It accepts “later revisions of the above SB(s), approved by the United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as an Alternate Method of Compliance (AMOC) to FAA AD 2008-01-12” as acceptable for compliance with the Directive’s “equivalent Requirements” (Requirement). The Directive also notes that “FAA AD 2008-02-12 Amdt 39-15342 refers” (Requirement/Note). Those references create a specific mechanism for using FAA AMOC approvals and later SB revisions as an alternate compliance route.

Safety risk named: The Background sets out the proximate mechanical hazard targeted by the Directive: chafing within the volute assembly of the forward boost pump can lead to wiring damage that allows arcing into a 45-degree angle fitting; when combined with flammable fuel vapours this could cause a fuel tank explosion and loss of the aeroplane (Background). The Directive therefore ties a discrete maintenance action (conduit modification and leak test) to the mitigation of a named ignition source/fuel vapour combination.

Temporal constraint: The Compliance provision sets a single fixed compliance period of 78 months from the effective date (Compliance). The effective date is given as 13 March 2008 (Compliance). That places a firm temporal boundary on when the required modifications must be completed.

Issuing authority: The instrument is an Airworthiness Directive (AD/B717/27), signed and dated (29 January 2008) by David Punshon, Delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (signature block). The Directive is therefore a regulatory instrument issued under Australian aviation regulatory structures, and it explicitly cross-references FAA regulatory materials.

Together, these concepts determine which aeroplanes are covered, what work must be done and documented, which previously completed or later revised procedures are acceptable, and what safety failure the work is intended to prevent. The Directive’s text confines the acceptable alternatives to narrowly specified SB variants and FAA AMOC approvals, and it requires a specified AMM leak-test when older SB work predates the Directive.

The Directive names its applicability explicitly: “Model 717-200 aeroplanes, as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin (SB)717-28-0007, Revision 1, dated 23 September 2003” (Applicability). That clause defines the primary class of aircraft that are within the Directive’s scope. The text does not list specific tail numbers or registrants, but it ties applicability to the identification list within the cited Boeing SB. Any aeroplane not listed in SB 717-28-0007 Rev 1 falls outside the Directive’s stated Applicability.

Parties operationally implicated by the text include those who are in a position to perform, document or accept the required modification specified in SB 717-28-0007 Rev 1. The Requirement mandates the modification by “accomplishing all of the actions specified in SB 717-28-0007, Revision 1” (Requirement). The Directive also references the Boeing 717 Aeroplane Maintenance Manual (AMM) Task 28-22-28-700-801 for the leak test that makes previously-completed work acceptable (Requirement). The documents named in the Directive identify the procedural route for compliance and therefore identify the technical documentation and tasks that must be used when the work is carried out.

The Directive invites reliance upon FAA determinations: it accepts later SB revisions “approved by the United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as an Alternate Method of Compliance (AMOC) to FAA AD 2008-01-12” (Requirement). That means those holding an FAA-approved AMOC, or those using an SB revision with such FAA approval, are addressed by the Directive’s conditional acceptance clause.

The Directive’s issuer is the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, as evidenced by the signature block: “David Punshon, Delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority” with a date of 29 January 2008 (signature block). The Directive therefore affects parties operating within the regulatory remit of the Authority who have aircraft that meet the SB’s identification criteria.

The Background explains the safety risk motivating the Directive: “a potential chafing condition exists in the volute assembly of the forward boost pump for the centre fuel tank” and a consequent risk of arcing into a 45-degree angle fitting, which, combined with fuel vapours could produce a fuel tank explosion (Background). That places particular emphasis on those responsible for fuel-system maintenance and inspection of the centre fuel tank and its boost-pump wiring.

The Directive’s text does not identify other affected groups such as parts suppliers, insurers, or third-party maintenance providers explicitly. It also does not state who bears the cost of the modification, nor does it state administrative enforcement steps or penalties. The identity of “who it affects” is therefore limited by the Directive text to the class of aeroplanes identified in the cited SB and to those involved in performing and certifying the specified SB and AMM tasks, with FAA-approved AMOCs recognised where specified.

The Directive sets out a short list of express duties and two narrow rights (conditional acceptances).

Primary duty to modify: The decisive obligation is in the Requirement: “Modify the conduit for the forward fuel boost pump of the centre fuel tank, by accomplishing all of the actions specified in SB 717-28-0007, Revision 1, dated 23 September 2003.” The duty is procedural and prescriptive: compliance requires accomplishing the SB’s full set of actions rather than partial or alternative procedures (Requirement).

Timing duty: There is a timing duty: the work must be completed “within 78 months after the effective date of this Directive” (Compliance). The Directive also states its effective date: “This Airworthiness Directive becomes effective on 13 March 2008” (Compliance).

Conditional rights to accept previous work: The Directive grants a right (an acceptance) for certain prior actions: “Actions accomplished before the effective date of this Directive in accordance with Boeing SB 717-28-0007, dated 22 August 2002, are acceptable for compliance with the Requirements of this Directive provided that a leak check of the conduit is accomplished in accordance with Boeing 717 Aeroplane Maintenance Manual (AMM) Task 28-22-28-700-801, ‘Leak Test of the Fuel Pump Electrical Conduit.’” That clause supplies a right to treat specified prior work as compliant, but only upon completion of the specified leak test to the standard in the AMM task (Requirement).

Conditional right to use later SB revisions with FAA AMOC: The Directive allows another limited right: “Later revisions of the above SB(s), approved by the United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as an Alternate Method of Compliance (AMOC) to FAA AD 2008-01-12, are considered acceptable for compliance with the equivalent Requirements of this Directive.” That creates a rights-based route to use later SB revisions, but strictly conditioned on FAA AMOC approval to a named FAA AD (Requirement).

Cross-reference note: The Directive adds a reference: “Note: FAA AD 2008-02-12 Amdt 39-15342 refers.” That acts as an informational link rather than a separate duty (Requirement/Note).

Statements of safety purpose: The Background states the Directive’s safety purpose: to prevent chafing and resultant arcing and the possible chain to fuel tank explosion and loss of the aeroplane (Background). This is a purpose claim within the Directive text and grounds the Directive’s duties.

No explicit penalties, exemptions, or administrative appeal mechanisms are contained within the Directive text. The duties are framed as mandatory (“Modify … by accomplishing all of the actions specified”), and the limited rights are framed as conditional acceptances based on a specified older SB combined with a leak test, or later SB revisions that carry FAA AMOC approval. The Directive therefore prescribes a single required work activity, supplies two narrowly defined acceptances, specifies the compliance timing, and cross-references FAA actions for alternate compliance acceptance.

The Directive text itself does not specify penalties, fines, or enforcement procedures. The only enforcement-adjacent elements present in the text are (1) the mandatory Requirement to “modify the conduit … by accomplishing all of the actions specified in SB 717-28-0007, Revision 1,” (2) the compliance timeframe “within 78 months after the effective date of this Directive,” and (3) conditional acceptance clauses for prior work or alternative SB revisions approved by the FAA as AMOCs (Requirement; Compliance). The instrument is signed by a Delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, which identifies the issuing authority (signature block).

Because the Directive contains no textual provisions describing penalties, suspension, revocation, or specific enforcement actions, the Directive itself does not set out how non-compliance will be processed or sanctioned. The Directive does establish a clear compliance obligation and timeline and identifies specific procedural conditions under which prior or alternative work is acceptable. Any enforcement, certification, surveillance or sanctioning would therefore have to be located in the broader regulatory framework administered by the issuing authority or in applicable civil aviation law and regulatory instruments outside the text of this Directive. The Directive does not include any such cross-reference to enforcement schedules or administrative remedies within its own text.

The Directive’s recognition of FAA AMOCs and FAA AD references (notably FAA AD 2008-02-12 Amdt 39-15342 and FAA AD 2008-01-12, as referenced) establishes a mechanism by which evidence of FAA-approved alternative compliance can satisfy the Directive’s requirements (Requirement). That recognition functions as a form of discretionary acceptance: it authorises equivalence, subject to FAA approval, but the Directive does not state any enforcement steps should that equivalence be disputed.

In short, the text creates mandatory technical obligations and conditional acceptance pathways but does not itself state penalties or enforcement procedures; any enforcement consequences or dispute-resolution mechanisms are not contained in the Directive text and would therefore need to be sought in the legislative or regulatory instruments that enable or support Airworthiness Directives and their enforcement. The Directive does not provide those enabling or enforcement provisions within its text.

The Directive directly cross-references and integrates with specific non-Australian regulatory and manufacturer documents, creating a narrow set of interactions that are explicit in the text.

Interaction with Boeing service documentation: The Requirement ties compliance to Boeing Service Bulletin SB 717-28-0007 Revision 1 (dated 23 September 2003) by directing that “all of the actions specified in SB 717-28-0007, Revision 1” be accomplished (Requirement). It also accepts SB 717-28-0007 dated 22 August 2002 for prior completed work, but only if complemented by the specified AMM leak test (Requirement). Therefore the Directive’s legal effect depends on the substantive content and applicability lists inside the cited Boeing SBs and the Boeing 717 AMM task; those manufacturer documents are thus incorporated by reference as the technical standard for compliance.

Interaction with FAA Airworthiness Directives and AMOCs: The Directive refers to and relies on FAA instruments. It expressly states that “Later revisions of the above SB(s), approved by the United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as an Alternate Method of Compliance (AMOC) to FAA AD 2008-01-12, are considered acceptable for compliance with the equivalent Requirements of this Directive” (Requirement). It also contains a note that “FAA AD 2008-02-12 Amdt 39-15342 refers” (Requirement/Note). These clauses create a defined mechanism for cross-acceptance of FAA-approved AMOCs: where the FAA has approved a later SB revision as an AMOC to the specified FAA AD, that FAA approval functions as a basis for accepting the later SB revision under this Directive.

This creates a procedural interface between the Australian Directive and FAA regulatory determinations: the Directive does not automatically accept any later SB revision; it accepts only those later revisions that have a specific FAA AMOC linkage to a specified FAA AD. The Directive therefore relies on FAA processes to adjudicate alternate compliance in at least some cases.

Interaction with the Boeing Aeroplane Maintenance Manual: The acceptance of pre-effective-date work is conditioned on a leak check “in accordance with Boeing 717 Aeroplane Maintenance Manual (AMM) Task 28-22-28-700-801, ‘Leak Test of the Fuel Pump Electrical Conduit’” (Requirement). That ties a component of compliance evidence to a specific AMM task and means the AMM’s procedural standard becomes part of the Directive’s compliance regime.

No citation to domestic enabling statute or enforcement provisions: The Directive text does not quote or reference the Australian enabling statute for airworthiness directives, nor does it set out enforcement mechanisms or administrative appeal routes. The only statutory/regulatory interactions spelled out in the Directive are with FAA ADs, FAA AMOC approvals, Boeing SBs, and the Boeing AMM task named in the Requirement.

Net effect: The Directive functions as an integrating instrument that mandates a manufacturer-prescribed technical fix, accepts narrowly defined pre-existing work if accompanied by a manufacturer AMM leak test, and explicitly recognises FAA AMOC approvals to a named FAA AD for later revisions. Its textual interactions are therefore tightly scoped: they incorporate specific manufacturer documents and specified FAA regulatory approvals, but they do not expand to state other domestic legal interactions or enforcement mechanisms within the Directive text itself.

All amendment and date references appearing in the Directive’s text are reproduced and ordered here. The Directive itself carries metadata and references to specific document revisions; the Directive’s text identifies the following dated materials and timestamps:

• Boeing Service Bulletin (SB) 717-28-0007, Revision 1, dated 23 September 2003. This SB is the primary procedural document named in the Requirement and is the revision specifically mandated for use (Applicability; Requirement).

• Boeing Service Bulletin (SB) 717-28-0007, dated 22 August 2002. The Directive accepts actions accomplished prior to the Directive’s effective date if done in accordance with this earlier SB, but only if followed by a leak check per the named AMM task (Requirement).

• Boeing 717 Aeroplane Maintenance Manual (AMM) Task 28-22-28-700-801, titled “Leak Test of the Fuel Pump Electrical Conduit.” The leak test per this AMM task is a condition of acceptance for prior SB 22 August 2002 work (Requirement).

• FAA AD 2008-01-12 is referenced indirectly; the Directive accepts later SB revisions if they have been approved by the FAA “as an Alternate Method of Compliance (AMOC) to FAA AD 2008-01-12” (Requirement). The Directive therefore treats FAA AD 2008-01-12 as the FAA-level regulatory reference for AMOC approval decisions.

• FAA AD 2008-02-12 Amdt 39-15342 is expressly referred to in the Directive’s note: “FAA AD 2008-02-12 Amdt 39-15342 refers” (Requirement/Note).

• The Directive’s own dates: The instrument’s effective date is stated as 13 March 2008 (Compliance). The signature block contains the date 29 January 2008 adjacent to the Delegate’s signature. The Directive is labelled AD/B717/27 and also carries the notation 3/2008 (header data).

No amendment history within the Directive text itself indicates subsequent revocations, supersessions, or later amendments to AD/B717/27. The Directive does not contain any in-text record of being amended, nor does it list prior versions of AD/B717/27. The only temporal or revision detail inside the Directive is the relationship to the dated manufacturer and FAA documents set out above, and the effective and compliance dates for this Directive.

If one seeks any action beyond these dates and referenced documents (for example, acceptance of an SB revision that lacks FAA AMOC approval), the Directive’s text does not provide any mechanism or authority to accept such alternative revisions; it limits acceptability to FAA-approved AMOCs to the named FAA AD. The Directive as written therefore contains the full set of amendment and revision references that it relies upon; it does not itself present an internal history of amendments beyond its own effective date and signature.

The Directive’s text does not include, cite or summarise any litigation, judicial review outcomes, legal challenges, or precedential cases. There are no case names, no references to court decisions, and no statement of disputed legal interpretation within the body of the Directive as presented. The instrument therefore contains no litigation history within its own text.

Because the Directive is a short operational regulatory instrument that ties specified technical actions to compliance deadlines and cross-references manufacturer and FAA materials, the absence of litigation references in the Directive should be read as an absence of any litigation record within the Directive text itself. The document does not purport to resolve legal disputes, report prior legal determinations, or invoke judicial interpretations; it simply states technical requirements, conditional acceptances, applicable documents, the effective date, and the compliance timeframe.

Accordingly, anyone seeking litigation history, judicial decisions interpreting this Directive, or case law applying or challenging the Directive would need to consult external legal databases, tribunal or court records, or administrative adjudication files outside the Directive text. The Directive does not provide such materials or references within its own content.

The Directive contains several narrowly worded provisions and cross-references that create potential compliance pitfalls. These are drawn from the text and should be checked carefully when determining whether a particular aircraft or past action satisfies the Directive.

Narrow applicability by SB identification: Applicability is “Model 717-200 aeroplanes, as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin (SB)717-28-0007, Revision 1, dated 23 September 2003” (Applicability). That wording ties applicability to the list contained within the SB, not merely to the generic model designation. The practical implication is that an aeroplane operator must consult SB 717-28-0007 Rev 1 to confirm whether a specific airframe is listed. Assuming all Model 717-200 aeroplanes are covered without checking the SB could be incorrect.

Completeness requirement for the SB actions: The Requirement mandates accomplishing “all of the actions specified in SB 717-28-0007, Revision 1” (Requirement). Partial compliance or selective application of SB procedures does not meet the Directive’s wording. Readers should note that the Directive’s text does not allow for executing only parts of the SB: the full sequence of actions must be completed.

Conditional acceptance is limited and procedural: The Directive accepts earlier work done under the 22 August 2002 SB only if a leak check is performed in accordance with AMM Task 28-22-28-700-801 (Requirement). Merely having executed the older SB before the effective date is not sufficient; the specified AMM leak test is an explicit and necessary condition.

Later SB revisions are acceptable only with FAA AMOC to a named FAA AD: The Directive accepts later SB revisions solely when those revisions have been “approved by the United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as an Alternate Method of Compliance (AMOC) to FAA AD 2008-01-12” (Requirement). If a later SB revision exists but has not been approved by the FAA as an AMOC to FAA AD 2008-01-12, the Directive’s text does not accept it. The conditionality is specific: it ties acceptance to FAA AMOC approval to a particular FAA AD, not merely to generic FAA acknowledgement.

Cross-reference complexity: The Directive contains a note that “FAA AD 2008-02-12 Amdt 39-15342 refers” (Requirement/Note). That reference may require readers to check multiple FAA AD documents (FAA AD 2008-01-12 and FAA AD 2008-02-12) to understand the FAA-side compliance landscape. The Directive itself does not restate the FAA AD provisions, meaning users must consult those FAA documents externally to confirm AMOC status or related technical content.

Compliance time window: The compliance deadline is “within 78 months after the effective date of this Directive” (Compliance). The effective date is “13 March 2008” (Compliance). The long numeric window could be misread as permissive; however, the Directive sets that as the firm compliance period. Users should calculate the precise calendar deadline and ensure documentation and proofs of work satisfy the Directive’s requirement within that timeframe.

Documentation expectations implicit but not enumerated: The Directive prescribes specific SB and AMM tasks for the work and the leak test but does not list what documentary proof of compliance must look like. The Requirement’s phrasing , mandating adherence to specified SB and AMM tasks , implicitly expects that work will be performed and recorded to those procedural standards, but the Directive does not itself specify recordkeeping formats, certification stamps, or acceptance procedures.

No internal enforcement language: Because the Directive contains no explicit enforcement or penalty provisions, parties cannot rely on the Directive text alone to determine enforcement mechanisms or remedial steps for non-compliance. That gap can be a source of uncertainty about consequences; the Directive itself provides no process details.

Signature and issuing delegate timing: The signature block shows the Directive’s issuance on 29 January 2008 and an effective date of 13 March 2008 (signature block; Compliance). Users should note the short interval between signature and effective date in case any immediate actions were taken in that timeframe.

In short, the core “gotchas” are the SB-based applicability list (not simply “all 717-200s”), the requirement to perform “all” SB actions, the exact leak-test condition for prior work, the requirement that later SB revisions carry a specific FAA AMOC to a named FAA AD, and the lack in the text of explicit documentary or enforcement procedures. Each of these is explicitly or implicitly present in the Directive text and can lead to unsuccessful compliance if not checked against the precise wording.

The Directive’s Requirement and related clauses set out a clearly limited procedural route to compliance. The steps below rest strictly on the Directive text and its cross-references.

1. Confirm applicability against SB 717-28-0007 Rev 1 (Applicability).

   • The Directive applies to “Model 717-200 aeroplanes, as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin (SB)717-28-0007, Revision 1, dated 23 September 2003” (Applicability). The first compliance step is therefore to obtain SB 717-28-0007 Revision 1 dated 23 September 2003 and check whether the particular airframe(s) appear in the SB’s applicability list.

2. If the aeroplane is listed, perform the mandated modification (Requirement).

   • The Requirement directs modification of “the conduit for the forward fuel boost pump of the centre fuel tank, by accomplishing all of the actions specified in SB 717-28-0007, Revision 1, dated 23 September 2003.” Compliance requires carrying out the SB’s full set of specified actions; partial completion is not authorised by the Directive wording (Requirement).

3. If the work was already completed before the Directive’s effective date, verify compliance conditions (Requirement).

   • The Directive accepts “Actions accomplished before the effective date of this Directive in accordance with Boeing SB 717-28-0007, dated 22 August 2002,” but only if “a leak check of the conduit is accomplished in accordance with Boeing 717 Aeroplane Maintenance Manual (AMM) Task 28-22-28-700-801, ‘Leak Test of the Fuel Pump Electrical Conduit’” (Requirement). Therefore, if the SB 22 August 2002 work was done prior to 13 March 2008, complete the AMM leak test as specified and retain documentation showing the AMM task was performed to meet the Directive’s acceptance condition.

4. If considering a later SB revision, confirm FAA AMOC status to the named FAA AD (Requirement).

   • The Directive states: “Later revisions of the above SB(s), approved by the United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as an Alternate Method of Compliance (AMOC) to FAA AD 2008-01-12, are considered acceptable for compliance with the equivalent Requirements of this Directive.” That requires obtaining any later SB revision and verifying that the FAA has approved that revision as an AMOC to FAA AD 2008-01-12. Without that FAA AMOC approval to FAA AD 2008-01-12, the later SB revision is not accepted under this Directive’s terms.

5. Note FAA AD references for context and verification (Requirement/Note).

   • The Directive’s note states “FAA AD 2008-02-12 Amdt 39-15342 refers.” Users should consult the cited FAA AD materials to validate AMOC approvals and equivalence statements; the Directive does not itself reproduce FAA AD provisions.

6. Meet the compliance timeline and document completion (Compliance).

   • The Directive’s deadline is “within 78 months after the effective date of this Directive,” and it became effective on “13 March 2008” (Compliance). Ensure the modification or accepted alternative route is completed and documented within that window. Documentation should demonstrate that the SB Rev 1 actions were fully performed, or that prior SB 22 Aug 2002 work plus the AMM leak test were performed as required, or that a later SB revision relied upon carries the FAA AMOC specified.

7. Preserve evidence of performance to the cited documents.

   • The Directive ties compliance to specific documents: SB 717-28-0007 Rev 1 (23 September 2003), the earlier SB (22 August 2002) where used, and AMM Task 28-22-28-700-801 for the leak test. Explicitly reference the edition and date of the SB or AMM used in maintenance records to match the Directive text.

8. Be mindful of the issuer and effective dates (signature block; Compliance).

   • The Directive is issued as AD/B717/27, dated in its signature block as 29 January 2008 and effective 13 March 2008. Use those dates when establishing whether prior work was “before the effective date” and thus eligible for conditional acceptance.

9. If relying on FAA AMOC acceptance, obtain and retain the FAA approval documentation showing that the later SB revision has been approved as an AMOC to FAA AD 2008-01-12.

   • The Directive conditions acceptance of later SB revisions on FAA AMOC approval to FAA AD 2008-01-12 (Requirement). Proof of such FAA approval is therefore a necessary compliance record if that route is used.

10. Recognise that the Directive’s text does not specify enforcement or penalty procedures.

• The Directive mandates the technical actions and timing but contains no enforcement language. While that does not change the technical steps required under this Directive, it should prompt maintainers and operators to ensure that their recordkeeping, sign-offs and evidence of compliance match the SB and AMM task references in the Directive.

Following these steps, as spelled out by the Directive text, satisfies the Directive’s stated requirements: modify the conduit per SB 717-28-0007 Rev 1 (or rely on the narrowly stated conditional acceptances), perform any required AMM leak test where applicable, confirm FAA AMOC approvals for later SB revisions if used, and complete the work within the 78-month compliance window from 13 March 2008. The Directive’s reference to FAA AD 2008-02-12 provides a further external document to consult for FAA-side alignment; the Directive itself, however, prescribes the specific SB and AMM items that constitute compliance evidence.