AD/B737/285 Amdt 2 - State of Design Airworthiness Directives

The central concept is the “State of Design Airworthiness Directive”. Under the bilateral aviation safety agreements Australia has with the United States, CASA may issue directives that adopt FAA ADs as Australian requirements. This avoids duplicating the technical analysis and allows a single regulatory action to incorporate multiple FAA ADs. The directive uses the phrase “if not previously accomplished”. This places a premium on the operator’s ability to demonstrate that each referenced FAA AD has been complied with for each affected aircraft. The eight FAA ADs are all “one time actions”, meaning they require a single inspection, modification, or replacement, not repeated checks. Their compliance dates have passed, so for any aircraft that has been in service continuously in Australia, the actions should have been done already under the FAA AD system if the aircraft was originally US-registered, or under a previous Australian AD. The problem the directive addresses is aircraft that were not subject to the FAA AD system at the relevant time, typically recently imported aeroplanes that were registered in another country or had incomplete maintenance records. The directive does not create new engineering requirements; it imports existing ones. “Compliance: Within 30 days after the effective date of this Amendment” means the operator must complete the determination and, if needed, the performance within that window. The background explains that Amendment 1 introduced two FAA ADs in error because Australian ADs had already been issued for those subjects. This highlights a risk of double regulation: a prudent operator would have already complied with a domestic AD covering the same issue, but the amendment history shows CASA caught its mistake. Amdt 2 adds FAA AD 75-24-09 (Hydraulic System Fluid) and 96-22-11 (Waterman Hydraulic Fuses), which had been omitted from the original. The directive is signed by a delegate of CASA, James Coyne, on 14 August 2006. The AD number includes “Amdt 2” and the series identifier “10/2006” which is the CASA internal numbering for the year. The directive applies only to Boeing 737-100 and 200 series, not later models such as 300, 400, or 500. Those models are covered by separate ADs if needed.

The directive directly affects owners and operators of Boeing 737-100 and 200 series aeroplanes registered in Australia. This includes airlines, charter operators, freight carriers, and private owners that operate these older 737 variants. The affected fleet is likely small because the 737-100 and 200 are early models (first flight 1967) and most have been retired or converted to freight; however, some may still operate in remote passenger services or as cargo aircraft. Maintenance organisations that hold the authorised maintenance organisation (AMO) certificate for these aircraft are indirectly affected because they must schedule the compliance check and any necessary work. The directive also affects maintenance record keepers: the determination of “if not previously accomplished” requires tracing the aircraft’s history against each FAA AD. This may involve checking logbooks, previous airworthiness directives, and import documentation. For aircraft that have been in Australia for many years, the work may be trivial. For recently registered imports, the work could be substantial, potentially requiring retrieval of records from foreign operators or contacting the aircraft’s previous state of design authority. The directive imposes a compliance deadline of 30 days, which may create a bottleneck if multiple aircraft need record audits or parts procurement at the same time. The background suggests that CASA specifically targeted recently registered aircraft. Therefore, operators who have recently imported a 737-100 or 200 from overseas and have not ensured all legacy FAA AD compliance will be most affected. The directive also impacts suppliers of parts and components: the FAA ADs may require replacement of specific units or installation of modifications, and if those parts are no longer manufactured, operators may need to source used or overhauled components or seek alternative means of compliance. CASA itself is affected through the oversight burden of verifying compliance. The directive does not apply to non-Australian operators, but Australian operators leasing aircraft to foreign carriers must still maintain compliance. The directive is a one-off; it does not create ongoing monitoring duties except that failure to comply would be a continuing breach.

The primary duty is in Requirement 1: “determine the applicability of the United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Airworthiness Directives (AD) listed in Table 1”. This is an obligation to perform a factual assessment for each aircraft. The operator must review the aircraft’s type certificate, modification status, and maintenance history to see whether each FAA AD applies. For example, FAA AD 75-24-09 (Hydraulic System Fluid) would apply only if the aircraft uses a particular fluid; if it has been retrofitted to a different specification, the AD may not be applicable. The operator is not required to guess; they must make an informed determination based on evidence.

Requirement 2 states: “If it is determined that a FAA AD is applicable and has not been previously accomplished, perform the actions required by that AD.” This is a secondary duty triggered by a positive determination. The performance must be in accordance with the FAA AD’s terms, including any procedures, materials, and compliance times originally specified. Since the FAA ADs date from as early as 1977, their requirements may refer to procedures that are no longer current; operators must still follow them unless an alternative means of compliance has been approved.

The operator has the right to seek an alternative means of compliance (AMOC) from CASA if the original FAA AD is impractical or unsafe, but the directive does not mention that right. Under the general CASR framework, CASA can grant AMOCs, but this is not in the source. The directive does not grant any right to an extension; the compliance date is fixed as 30 days after 28 September 2006 (i.e., 28 October 2006). If an operator cannot complete the actions within that window, they must ground the aircraft or seek a non-standard regulatory response.

The directive also implies a duty to keep records: to demonstrate “previously accomplished” status, the operator must have retained evidence. If records are lost, the determination becomes difficult and the operator may have to treat the AD as not accomplished and perform the actions again.

The directive does not create any private right of action for passengers, crew, or third parties. It is a safety regulation enforceable only by CASA. The directive does not confer any right to deviate from the listed FAA ADs; it requires strict adoption.

The source does not mention specific penalties. However, the directive is issued under the Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s powers, and non-compliance is an offence under the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998. Typically, a contravention of an airworthiness directive can result in penalties including fines, suspension or cancellation of the aircraft’s certificate of airworthiness, and potential criminal liability if operated in a manner that causes danger. Because the directive incorporates FAA ADs, failure to comply can also be treated as a breach of condition of the continuing airworthiness management system. CASA enforcement can include the issue of an enforceable undertaking, a direction, or prosecution. The maximum penalties under the Act for operating contrary to a direction can be significant, measured in penalty units (each unit is currently $313, but that figure changes). For a corporate operator, the maximum could be hundreds of thousands of dollars. The directive itself is a notice that non-compliance may lead to the aircraft being unairworthy. Since the compliance date has passed (the directive was effective in 2006), any aircraft that still does not comply would be in a state of non-compliance as at the date of analysis. However, the directive is historical; enforcement now would depend on whether the operator has subsequently complied. CASA can also take the matter to court for an injunction or a declaration. The Aircraft Act also allows for suspension of the air operator’s certificate if systemic failures are found. The key enforcement risk is that an operator might not have kept records of compliance and cannot prove the actions were done. The directive places the burden of proof on the operator: if they cannot demonstrate that the FAA ADs were accomplished, they must treat them as unaccomplished. CASA inspectors routinely check AD compliance during ramp checks and maintenance reviews. Failure to document compliance is often treated as non-compliance even if the work was actually performed.

The directive interacts primarily with the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations (CASR) 1998, specifically Part 39 which governs airworthiness directives. That Part makes compliance with an AD mandatory and sets out the relationship with the aircraft’s airworthiness certificate. The directive also interacts with the Civil Aviation Regulations (CAR) 1988, which are older but still in force for some provisions. Where a FAA AD has been transposed into an Australian AD (like this one), it overrides any inconsistent prior Australian AD. The background notes that Amendment 1 introduced two FAA ADs that were already covered by separate Australian ADs, causing duplication. This was corrected. The directive does not repeal those separate Australian ADs; it removes the duplication by removing those FAA ADs from the table. That means operators must still comply with the separate Australian ADs, but they do not have to double-comply under this directive.

The directive also interacts with international agreements: Australia is a signatory to the Chicago Convention and has bilateral agreements with the FAA. The “State of Design” concept comes from ICAO Annex 8. Adopting FAA ADs aligns Australia with US airworthiness standards, which is necessary for aircraft that were designed in the US. There is also interaction with the Aircraft Registration Regulations: an aircraft may be deregistered if it fails to maintain compliance with applicable ADs. The directive does not interact directly with the Disability Standards for Aviation or other non-airworthiness laws. For imported aircraft, there may be interaction with the Airworthiness Certification Manual, which requires that any missing ADs be addressed before the aircraft can be issued an Australian certificate of airworthiness. This directive essentially codifies that requirement for the specific aircraft types it covers. It also interacts with the manufacturer’s service bulletins: some FAA ADs may incorporate service bulletins by reference. If those service bulletins have been superseded, the operator might need to work with the manufacturer or CASA. The directive does not address that complexity, so the operator must research each FAA AD’s specific references.

The directive was originally issued with an effective date of 8 June 2006. The original Table 1 contained six FAA ADs (those shown in the source minus the two added by Amdt 2 and minus those added by Amdt 1 that were later removed). The original directive omitted FAA AD 75-24-09 and 96-22-11, which were included in the source AD as part of Amdt 2. Amendment 1 became effective on 31 August 2006. It introduced two additional FAA ADs to Table 1: FAA AD 89-22-04 and 2001-16-11. The background states that these two ADs were entered in error because Australian ADs had already been issued in relation to those ADs. This suggests that there was confusion at CASA between the FAA ADs and existing Australian requirements. Amendment 1 was flawed and must have been a short-lived directive. Amendment 2, the current version, supersedes Amendment 1 and also corrects the omission from the original of AD 75-24-09 and 96-22-11. Amendment 2 became effective on 28 September 2006. So the effective date of the current obligations is that date. The compliance date is 30 days later (by 28 October 2006). The amendment history reveals that CASA was struggling to get the table right: first omitted two ADs, then added two wrong ones, then finally added the missing ones and removed the erroneous ones. For an operator, this creates uncertainty about which version of the directive they relied on between June and September 2006. An operator that complied with Amendment 1 might have performed unnecessary work on ADs 89-22-04 and 2001-16-11. The final directive also has a slightly different list compared to the original. The historical record shows that the AD was issued as a “10/2006” series, meaning it was the tenth AD issued in that year. There is no further amendment mentioned; the AD remains in force unless withdrawn. Since more than 15 years have passed, it is likely that all compliant operators have satisfied the requirements. However, any aircraft brought onto the register after 2006 that had not previously been subject to these FAA ADs would also be covered by the directive.

The source does not mention any litigation. There is no record in the directive itself of any court actions, appeals, or challenges. It is possible that the directive was never challenged in a court or tribunal because it is a standard safety directive from CASA with limited direct economic impact relative to the cost of litigation. The main legal risk would be from an operator seeking judicial review of CASA’s decision to issue the directive or its amendments, arguing that the errors in Amendment 1 constituted procedural unfairness or that the directive imposed an impossible compliance timeline. However, no such cases are cited. In the absence of source evidence, the litigation history is nil. It is also possible that some compliance actions were disputed in internal CASA reconsiderations or under the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for review of decisions regarding certificates or registrations, but the directive does not reference that. The lack of litigation may indicate that operators accepted the directive and complied, or that any disputes were resolved informally. It is also possible that the narrow scope (only two aircraft variants) limited the number of affected parties and thus the chance of litigation. The directive’s errors in Amendment 1 might have given rise to a cause of action if an operator suffered loss due to performing unnecessary work, but no reported cases are known. From a legal analysis perspective, the directive is likely a low-controversy regulatory instrument. The litigation history is therefore not discussed further, as there is no source information to report.

Several traps await an unwary operator. First, the directive requires “determination of applicability” within 30 days, but does not specify the standard of proof. An operator who cannot find records must still make a determination. If the records are lost, the operator may have to treat the AD as not accomplished and perform the action again, even if the action was likely done in the past. This can be costly if the action involves component replacement.

Second, the FAA ADs referenced are old, and some may have been superseded by later FAA ADs or by manufacturer service bulletins. The directive does not mention whether later revisions of the FAA ADs are acceptable. The strict text requires the “actions required by that AD” as originally issued. However, practical compliance would likely require using current approved data. An operator should verify with the manufacturer or CASA.

Third, Amdt 2 corrected the list, but a person who relied on the original directive before Amdt 2 might have missed the two added ADs. If an operator determined compliance in June 2006 based on the original Table 1, they would have omitted AD 75-24-09 and 96-22-11. They would need to redo the determination after Amdt 2. The compliance window is only 30 days from the effective date of the amendment, which might have been tight.

Fourth, the directive says “If not previously accomplished” regarding actions under each FAA AD. But what about FAA ADs that were "previously accomplished" under a different aircraft registration? If an aircraft was imported from a country that complied with the FAA AD, the operator must verify that the actions were indeed done and that the records travel with the aircraft. Accepting a prior owner’s statement without evidence is risky.

Fifth, the directive does not address aircraft modified prior to the FAA AD’s effective date. For example, if the aircraft was never equipped with the Waterman hydraulic fuses because the system was removed, AD 96-22-11 might not apply. But the operator must document that reasoning.

Sixth, there is no grace period for parts ordering. If a required part is unavailable, the operator cannot simply defer the work; they must ground the aircraft or seek an AMOC. The 30-day window may force an expensive temporary grounding.

Seventh, the directive’s “effective date” is the date the amendment becomes law, not the publication date. Operators had to know about the amendment quickly. CASA publishes ADs on its website, but reliance on mail or word of mouth may cause non-compliance.

Eighth, because the compliance date is past, operators who have since sold or deregistered the aircraft are still subject to the record-keeping requirements if they operated the aircraft during the non-compliant period.

Finally, the directive does not specify who must sign off the determination. In practice, only a qualified AMO or a licensed aircraft maintenance engineer with appropriate authorisation should sign the record. Using an unqualified person could invalidate the compliance.

Compliance has two distinct phases. Phase one: determination. Within 30 days after 28 September 2006 (by 28 October 2006), the operator must create a list of each affected aircraft by registration mark. For each aircraft, they must locate the maintenance records and, for each of the eight FAA ADs in Table 1, determine:

• Is the AD applicable to this specific aeroplane configuration? This requires comparing the aircraft’s serial number, modification status, and equipment fit against the applicability described in each FAA AD. For example, AD 79-26-02 applies to the Ground Proximity Warning System Flap Position Switches; if the aircraft does not have a GPWS, it may not apply.
• If applicable, was the AD previously accomplished? The operator must find a clear entry in the logbook or technical records showing the action, with a reference like “FAA AD 83-01-05 R2 complied with on dd/mm/yy”. Acceptable evidence includes maintenance records from the previous operator, but must be in English and traceable.

If the records are missing or ambiguous, the operator should treat the AD as not accomplished.

Phase two: performance. For each FAA AD that is applicable and not previously accomplished, the operator must perform the required action exactly as described in that FAA AD. This includes using the specified parts, following the procedure, and making the required logbook entries. The actions must be completed by 28 October 2006. If the action cannot be completed by then, the aircraft must be grounded or an alternative means of compliance must be approved by CASA before the deadline.

After performance, the operator must record completion in the aircraft’s continuing airworthiness records, referencing both the FAA AD number and the CASA AD number (AD/B737/285 Amdt 2). If the determination showed that one or more ADs are not applicable, the operator should also record that finding, with a brief justification (e.g. “AD 96-22-11 not applicable: aircraft does not have Waterman hydraulic fuses”). This avoids repeating the determination on future inspections.

The operator should retain all supporting documentation indefinitely, because new CASA inspectors may require proof at any subsequent audit.

If the aircraft was out of Australia on the effective date, the 30-day clock still runs. The operator must land in Australia and complete compliance before the next flight or obtain an exemption.

In practical terms, for an operator in 2006, the task was to go through the list:

1. FAA AD 75-24-09 (Hydraulic System Fluid) - ensure correct fluid specification.
2. FAA AD 79-26-02 (GPWS Flap Position Switches) - inspect/replace.
3. FAA AD 83-01-05 R2 (Engine Starter Operation Indication) - check indication.
4. FAA AD 85-02-03 (Runaway Stabiliser Trim) - inspect/address.
5. FAA AD 92-08-06 (Sperry SP177 autopilot) - inspect/modify.
6. FAA AD 96-22-11 (Waterman Hydraulic Fuses) - inspect.
7. FAA AD 96-23-04 (Static Inverters) - inspect.
8. FAA AD 2001-24-33 (Auxiliary Power Unit Generator Power Feeder Wire bundle) - inspect.

Each FAA AD has its own instructions; operators should obtain the actual FAA AD text from a reliable source. The directive does not reproduce them, so retrieval is a compliance cost.

For aircraft that were already compliant with separate Australian ADs covering the same subject matter, the operator must still document that the specific FAA AD is also complied with; the presence of an Australian AD does not automatically satisfy the CASA AD unless the FAA AD is identical or CASA has accepted it as equivalent.

Finally, the compliance must be certified by an authorised person and the aircraft must not fly until all applicable items are addressed. A non-compliant aircraft’s certificate of airworthiness may be considered invalid, exposing the operator to enforcement action.