AD/B747/374 - Korry Pushbutton Switches

The directive operates by reference to manufacturer service information and a small set of component-level definitions. Core concepts that determine compliance and operational choices are: configuration D master module, part number identification at both switch and panel assembly level, the specific P/Ns listed in Table 1, operational tests following replacements, and the dry-motor safety requirement for certain engine tests.

Configuration D master module: The AD uses the presence of a "configuration `D' master module" as a pass condition for switches on a panel assembly. Where switches have that configuration, or the switch P/N is listed in Table 1, different actions flow (Requirements 3 and 4). The directive instructs operators to identify configuration D master modules during a general visual inspection as defined in Note 1. The ASB and Korry service bulletins referenced provide the technical method for replacing a switch master module with configuration D (Note 2).

Part numbers and panel-level vs switch-level inspection: Requirement 1.b offers a panel-level shortcut: inspect the panel assembly P/N; if that P/N is identified as a "new P/N" in Appendix B of the ASB, no further inspection of individual switches is required. If the P/N is not listed as new, the operator must perform the switch-level general visual inspection (Requirement 2). If failures are found at switch-level and the switch P/N is not one of those in Table 1, the operator has three remedial options: replace the switch with a Table 1 P/N switch, replace the switch master module with configuration D, or,if all switches on the panel already meet required conditions,revise the panel assembly P/N (Requirement 3.a-c and 4). Table 1 specifies Boeing P/N range S231T290-4201 through -4325 and corresponding Korry P/N range; it also includes switches that have a configuration D master module.

Operational tests and safety mitigation: After replacement of panel assemblies, switches or master modules, operators must "carry out all applicable operational tests in accordance with ASB 747-33A2280, Revision 1" (Requirement 5). The AD modifies one test procedure in the ASB: when ASB paragraph 3.B.14.b.(3) specifies testing the engine ignition control/fuel jettison module assembly, the AD requires dry-motoring the engine to remove fuel from the tailpipe before doing that test because the engine igniter will be energised (Requirement 6). This is an explicit safety mitigation appended to the manufacturer's procedure.

Interoperability with other orders and documents: The AD explicitly identifies certain Boeing component service bulletins as additional sources of information for replacement, testing and P/N identification (Table 2). It also states that actions done before the AD’s effective date in accordance with Boeing ASB 747-33A2280 dated 19 December 2001 are acceptable for compliance provided the later ASB Revision 1's additional panel assemblies are addressed. Later Boeing SB revisions that are approved by the FAA as an Alternate Method of Compliance (AMOC) to FAA AD 2008-02-14 are considered acceptable for compliance with the equivalent requirements of this Directive. The AD therefore embeds a mechanism for cross-acceptance of FAA-approved AMOCs and earlier manufacturer compliance actions.

Definition of inspections: The AD supplies an explicit definition of "general visual inspection" (Note 1), describing proximity, lighting, mirrored access and removal of access panels as required. That definition governs the standard to which Requirement 1.a is to be applied, and thus affects labour time, access equipment needs, and the scope of the inspection.

Compliance timing: The AD prescribes a long lead time for the initial inspections,60 months for Requirements 1 and 2,while imposing immediate rectification for defects discovered by the visual inspection, since Requirements 3-5 must be completed before further flight following a Requirement 1.a inspection. This creates a scheduling choice for operators: defer inspection work until closer to the 60-month deadline where panel P/Ns make the switch-level inspection unnecessary, or commit earlier in order to identify and correct any immediate defects that would ground the aeroplane until fixed.

The applicability clause is precise: "Model 747-400, -400D and -400F series aeroplanes as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) 747-33A2280, Revision 1, dated 25 September 2003." Therefore the primary affected parties are the operators of those Boeing 747 variants whose aircraft and installations are within the identification scope of ASB 747-33A2280 Rev 1. The AD also affects maintenance organisations that perform inspections and repairs on those aeroplanes, technical record-keepers, and component suppliers for the listed Boeing and Korry part numbers.

Maintenance personnel and licensed engineers must interpret and apply the AD in conjunction with ASB 747-33A2280 Revision 1 and referenced Korry and Boeing component service bulletins. Note 2 instructs operators that the ASB refers to Korry Service Bulletin SB433-33-05 dated 23 July 2001 as an additional source for locating configuration D switches and for replacement procedures and operational tests. Note 3 points operators to Korry SB 433-33-06 dated 7 November 2001 for a one-to-one correlation between existing switches and new part numbers. Table 2 lists numerous Boeing component service bulletins (with their revision dates and "critical location" descriptions) that form part of the technical compliance material, and these bulletins will constrain the technical actions performed by suppliers and maintenance organisations (for example, modules listed include Rain Removal/Anti-ice, Bleed Air Control, Engine Ignition Control/Fuel Jettison and others).

Regulatory and oversight entities are affected insofar as CASA will monitor compliance with the AD. The document is signed by a CASA delegate and gives an effective date; enforcement and acceptance of compliance records will rest with CASA’s oversight apparatus and any relevant continuing airworthiness requirements. The AD also interacts with FAA processes: it references FAA AD 2008-02-14 and provides that later Boeing SB revisions approved by FAA as AMOCs to that FAA AD will be acceptable as equivalent compliance for this CASA AD. Therefore affected parties will include those managing international regulatory equivalence, and operators that may use FAA-approved AMOCs to satisfy CASA requirements.

Supply chain impacts: Component suppliers and parts inventories are directly implicated. Table 1 lists a contiguous Boeing P/N range and corresponding Korry P/N range, and the AD provides replacement options that require availability of switches with those P/Ns or configuration D master modules. Operators that discover non-conforming switches must either source replacement switches with the Table 1 P/Ns or acquire configuration D master modules. This affects procurement planning and spares inventories. Additionally, if a panel assembly requires a part-number revision under Requirement 3.c or 4, record-keeping and possible procurement of new panel P/Ns will be necessary.

Operational impact and downtime: The AD creates a potential immediate operational constraint: if a non-conforming switch is found during a Requirement 1.a inspection, the operator must correct it before further flight (Requirements 3-5), which may ground the aeroplane until replacements and operational tests are completed. The directive’s compliance windows (60 months for the initial inspections, immediate rectification after a failing inspection) therefore have implications for maintenance scheduling, fleet availability and costs for operators, maintenance organisations and lessors. Finally, entities that perform engine tests must adopt the dry-motor requirement in Requirement 6 to avoid an ignition-related hazard.

Duties

• Conduct the required inspections. Operators must perform either the switch-level general visual inspection (Requirement 1.a) or the panel-level P/N inspection (Requirement 1.b) as specified in ASB 747-33A2280, Revision 1. If a panel P/N inspected under Requirement 1.b is not identified as a new P/N in Appendix B of the ASB, the operator is required to perform the general visual inspection described in Requirement 1.a (Requirement 2). The AD defines "general visual inspection" in Note 1, which prescribes proximity, lighting and access requirements.

• Remedy non-conforming switches. If, during a Requirement 1.a inspection, any switch lacks a configuration D master module and the switch P/N is not one of those specified in Table 1, the operator must take one of the three corrective actions in Requirement 3: replace the switch with a Table 1 P/N switch (3.a), replace the switch master module with a configuration D master module (3.b), or if all switches on a panel assembly meet the configuration D or Table 1 P/N conditions, revise the panel assembly P/N per ASB procedures (3.c). If all switches on a panel already have configuration D or Table 1 P/Ns, the operator must revise the panel assembly P/N (Requirement 4).

• Perform operational tests. Whenever panel assemblies, switches or master modules are replaced as a result of the AD, operators must carry out all applicable operational tests in accordance with ASB 747-33A2280, Revision 1 (Requirement 5). Where the ASB specifies an engine ignition control/fuel jettison module assembly test in paragraph 3.B.14.b.(3), operators must dry-motor the engine to remove fuel from the tailpipe before conducting the test (Requirement 6).

• Observe compliance timing. Requirements 1 and 2 must be accomplished within 60 months after the AD’s effective date. Requirements 3, 4 and 5 must be done before further flight after the Requirement 1.a inspection. Requirement 6 must be done before carrying out the engine ignition control/fuel jettison module assembly test (Compliance section).

Rights and procedural options

• Option to perform panel P/N inspection instead of switch-level inspection. Requirement 1.b provides an alternative path: inspecting panel assemblies for their part numbers may avoid the more intrusive general visual inspection if the panel P/N is identified as a new P/N in Appendix B to the ASB.

• Choice of remedial action. Where a non-conforming switch is found, Requirement 3 gives operators a menu: replace the switch (3.a), replace the master module (3.b), or revise the panel assembly P/N if the panel already meets requisite conditions (3.c). That choice affects parts sourcing, labour, and downtime.

• Use of previously accomplished actions. The AD states that "Actions accomplished before the effective date of this Directive in accordance with Boeing ASB 747-33A2280 dated 19 December 2001, are considered acceptable for compliance ... provided that the actions specified in this Directive are done on the switches for the additional panel assemblies specified in Revision 1 of the service bulletin." That allows credit for earlier ASB-compliant work subject to the caveat about additional panel coverage.

• Acceptance of FAA-approved AMOCs. The AD accepts later revisions of Boeing SBs that have been approved by the FAA as an Alternate Method of Compliance (AMOC) to FAA AD 2008-02-14 as acceptable for compliance with equivalent requirements of this Directive. Operators can therefore use FAA-approved AMOCs to satisfy CASA’s AD where those AMOCs exist.

Record-keeping and procedural obligations implied by the AD: While the directive does not explicitly recite record-keeping language in the provided text, it requires part-number revisions and operational tests per the ASB, and it anchors compliance to documented manufacturer procedures and FAA AMOCs. Operators therefore must maintain contemporaneous maintenance records that demonstrate compliance with the inspection, replacement and testing requirements identified in the AD and the ASB cited.

Safety-specific duty: The AD imposes a specific safety precaution when testing the engine ignition control/fuel jettison module assembly: all fuel must be removed from the engine tailpipe before performing the test because the igniter will be energised (Requirement 6). This is a duty aimed at preventing inadvertent ignition during maintenance testing.

The text of the directive itself does not set out civil or criminal penalties, nor does it specify enforcement mechanisms or sanction ranges in statutory form. The document is an Airworthiness Directive issued by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and signed by a CASA delegate (David Punshon), with an effective date of 10 April 2008. As an AD, it sits within CASA’s statutory regulatory framework for continuing airworthiness and safe operation of aircraft; however the AD text provided here contains no express penalty clauses or schedules of administrative fines.

Practical enforcement implications follow from the AD’s form and provenance. CASA-issued ADs are conditions of continuing airworthiness; operators are required to comply with ADs applicable to their aircraft. Non-compliance with a CASA AD will typically expose operators and relevant maintenance organisations to regulatory enforcement action under the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations and associated enforcement instruments. The AD establishes mandatory actions (inspections, replacements, tests) and schedules, and deviations would normally require an approved Alternate Method of Compliance (AMOC) or equivalent authority agreement. The AD text explicitly recognises FAA-approved AMOCs in relation to FAA AD 2008-02-14 for the purpose of compliance equivalence; that indicates a route to lawful non-standard compliance where a formal FAA AMOC exists for the equivalent Boeing SBs.

What the AD does specify about compliance windows is concrete and enforceable: Requirements 1 and 2 within 60 months after the effective date of 10 April 2008, Requirements 3-5 before further flight after a failing Requirement 1.a inspection, and Requirement 6 prior to carrying out the engine ignition control test. These time constraints function as immediate operational constraints and would be the subject of inspector verification during audits.

Because the AD references specific manufacturer ASBs and SBs as the method of compliance, evidence of compliance will likely require retention of the maintenance records, parts P/N verification and operational test results identified in ASB 747-33A2280, Revision 1 and the associated Korry and Boeing component service bulletins. Enforcement therefore will practically rest on CASA’s assessment of maintenance records, physical inspections, and whether any AMOC was approved when operators did not follow the exact steps in the AD.

Absent specific penalty text in the AD, readers should consult the Civil Aviation Act and Civil Aviation Safety Regulations for the statutory enforcement regime and potential sanctions applicable to non-compliance with ADs. The AD, by itself, documents mandatory technical actions and timeframes to which CASA will hold operators accountable under the civil aviation regulatory framework.

The directive integrates with other regulatory and manufacturer instruments through explicit cross-references. First, it references the FAA’s AD 2008-02-14 Amdt 39-15344 in Note 5 and elsewhere, indicating that this CASA AD is harmonised with FAA action on the same defect. The AD states that "Later revisions of the above Boeing SBs, approved by the United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as an Alternate Method of Compliance (AMOC) to FAA AD 2008-02-14, are considered acceptable for compliance with the equivalent Requirements of this Directive." This creates a mechanism by which FAA-approved AMOCs can be relied upon for CASA compliance equivalence. That is a legal interaction giving cross-jurisdictional effect to FAA AMOCs insofar as they correspond to this CASA AD.

Second, the AD anchors compliance to specific manufacturer service information,Boeing ASB 747-33A2280 Revision 1, dated 25 September 2003,and to Korry and Boeing component service bulletins listed in Table 2. Those documents supply the technical methods and tests for accomplishing the AD requirements. By mandating compliance through those SBs, the AD imports their technical content into regulated obligations; any conflicts between a CASA AD and manufacturer SB are resolved in favour of the AD where the AD prescribes a specific variation (for example, the AD requires dry-motoring the engine before specified tests, modifying the ASB procedure).

Third, the AD gives effect to previously accomplished work: "Actions accomplished before the effective date of this Directive in accordance with Boeing ASB 747-33A2280 dated 19 December 2001, are considered acceptable for compliance ... provided that the actions specified in this Directive are done on the switches for the additional panel assemblies specified in Revision 1 of the service bulletin." That clause recognises historical compliance under an earlier ASB and thereby interacts with an operator’s existing maintenance records and past work performed under manufacturer directives prior to this AD.

Fourth, the AD’s operational requirements implicate broader aviation safety statutes and regulations that govern continuing airworthiness, maintenance release procedures, and record-keeping. While the AD does not restate general statutory maintenance obligations, operators must satisfy those statutory duties in performing the AD tasks. The AD’s requirement that remedial actions be completed "before further flight" after certain inspections places this AD within the established regime in which AD compliance is an element of the continuing airworthiness obligations that are enforced under the Civil Aviation safety regulatory scheme.

Finally, the AD’s acceptance of FAA-approved AMOCs and later Boeing SB revisions approved by the FAA creates a pathway to bilateral regulatory harmonisation. Where operators choose to rely on FAA AMOCs, they must ensure the AMOC covers the equivalent CASA requirements and obtain CASA acceptance where necessary, as the AD limits equivalence to FAA-approved AMOCs for revisions of Boeing SBs that were AMOCs to FAA AD 2008-02-14.

In short, the AD interacts with manufacturer service bulletins, prior Boeing ASBs, FAA ADs and AMOCs, and the statutory/civil aviation regulatory framework that governs AD enforcement and continuing airworthiness. Compliance therefore requires attention to a set of documents and approvals that combine to form the operative legal and technical compliance matrix.

The directive text embeds a limited amendment and predecessor-history trail. It references three chronological sources of service information and a related FAA AD. The ASB central to the AD is Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-33A2280, Revision 1, dated 25 September 2003. The AD notes that actions performed in accordance with Boeing ASB 747-33A2280 dated 19 December 2001, done before the AD’s effective date, are considered acceptable for compliance with the AD’s corresponding actions, subject to the additional panel assemblies specified in Revision 1 of the ASB. That indicates the AD recognises an earlier ASB and creates credit for work done under it, with a caveat requiring that any additional scope in Revision 1 must be addressed.

Table 2 in the directive lists Boeing component service bulletins with their revision status and dates, all dated 25 September 2003 for several listed items (for example, 233U3201-30-04, Revision 1, 25 September 2003; 233U3206-28-01, Revision 1, 25 September 2003). One Boeing component SB listed, 257U0002-32-04 including Appendix A, is dated 19 December 2001. The AD therefore incorporates service bulletins spanning the 2001-2003 period and tracks the ASB’s revision history.

The AD explicitly ties itself to FAA action: Note 5 says "FAA AD 2008-02-14 Amdt 39-15344 refers." The AD also declares that later revisions of the Boeing service bulletins listed in Table 2, if approved by the FAA as an AMOC to FAA AD 2008-02-14, are acceptable for compliance with the equivalent requirements of this Directive. That clause establishes a forward-looking amendment mechanism whereby subsequent FAA-approved changes to the manufacturer’s SBs can be relied upon for CASA compliance.

The AD’s own effective date is 10 April 2008; the document is dated 26 February 2008 by the CASA delegate. There are no later amendments recorded in the text provided. The AD provides procedural credit for prior Boeing ASB compliance, and it permits equivalence to later FAA-approved AMOCs for Boeing SBs. Absent further updates in the supplied text, the AD stands as originally issued effective 10 April 2008 with the recognized linkage to earlier Boeing ASB 19 December 2001 and the ASB Revision 1 of 25 September 2003.

Readers seeking a complete amendment history should consult CASA’s AD record system and any subsequent ADs or notices amending AD/B747/374, as the text provided does not include later amendments or revocations. The AD itself, however, documents its relationships to the key historical technical instruments that determine compliance and acceptance of prior actions.

The provided AD text contains no mention of litigation, disputes, court decisions, or judicial review outcomes related to AD/B747/374 or the underlying factual basis. It is an administrative safety instrument issued by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and signed by a CASA delegate, David Punshon, dated 26 February 2008, with an effective date of 10 April 2008. The AD does reference related FAA regulatory action (FAA AD 2008-02-14 Amdt 39-15344), but the text does not report any litigation surrounding that FAA AD either.

Given the absence of litigation references or case names in the supplied text, there is no source-grounded litigation history to report. The AD’s background describes a factual genesis for the directive: "The FAA has received a report indicating that the integrated drive generator failed in flight due to a possible switch malfunction." That background explains the safety rationale for the AD but does not note any contested administrative proceedings, appeals, petitions for reconsideration, or judicial cases in relation to the AD.

For practitioners wanting to assess whether litigation or legal challenges exist, the AD as supplied does not contain that information. To establish whether any legal proceedings occurred after issuance,such as judicial review of CASA decisions, industry petitions, or disputes over compliance costs,one would need to consult court databases, CASA public records, or industry regulatory filings that fall outside the content of this AD. The AD itself does provide an acceptance channel for FAA AMOCs and acknowledges earlier ASB work as acceptable, which suggests administrative accommodation rather than contentious regulatory action in the text supplied.

The directive contains several technical and procedural nuances that can catch operators and maintenance providers if not attended to carefully.

1. Two-stage inspection path and the fallback rule. Requirement 1 gives operators a choice: either inspect individual switches (1.a) or inspect panel assembly part numbers (1.b). However, Requirement 2 mandates that if, after the Requirement 1.b panel P/N inspection, the P/N is not identified as a new P/N in Appendix B of the ASB, the operator must then perform the Requirement 1.a general visual inspection. Operators who take the panel-level shortcut and fail to confirm a "new P/N" status must be ready to perform the more invasive switch-level inspection.

2. The definition of "general visual inspection" matters in practice. Note 1 defines it as a visual examination from within touching distance under normal available lighting, and it contemplates use of mirrors, removal of access panels, stands, ladders and platforms. This is not a simple cursory look; it may require disassembly and access equipment, with attendant labour implications. Operators should budget sufficient time and access resources for Requirement 1.a.

3. Immediate grounding risk for discovered defects. Requirements 3, 4 and 5 must be done "Before further flight after the Requirement 1.a inspection." That means if a non-conforming switch is discovered during a Requirement 1.a inspection, the aeroplane may be unairworthy until the operator accomplishes one of the corrective options and completes applicable operational tests. Operators who delay the initial inspection until close to the 60-month deadline risk discovering defects that require immediate replacement and testing, leading to potential unplanned downtime.

4. P/N revision as a remedial action. Requirement 3.c permits revising the part number of the panel assembly "if all switches on a panel assembly have a configuration `D' master module or have a switch P/N specified [in] Table 1." Pragmatically, operators must ensure that the revision of a panel assembly P/N is documented in maintenance records and that any associated differences in part configuration are traceable. Mis-documentation could create downstream compliance uncertainty.

5. Table 1 P/N ranges are contiguous numerical ranges. Table 1 covers Boeing P/N S231T290-4201 through -4325 inclusive and Korry P/N 4336731004-4201 through -4325 inclusive, or switches that have a configuration D master module. Operators must ensure part number matching is precise; partial matches or typographical errors in record entries could lead to erroneous conclusions about compliance.

6. Operational tests energise systems; special caution for engine ignition tests. Requirement 5 requires "all applicable operational tests" after replacements, per ASB 747-33A2280, Revision 1. Requirement 6 modifies the ASB test procedure for the engine ignition control/fuel jettison module assembly by requiring that the operator dry-motor the engine to remove fuel from the tailpipe before performing the test because the engine igniter will be energised. Failure to dry-motor could create a hazard; compliance requires coordination with certified maintenance engineers and appropriate tooling.

7. Prior work credit has a caveat. The AD accepts actions performed prior to the effective date according to Boeing ASB dated 19 December 2001 as acceptable "provided that the actions specified in this Directive are done on the switches for the additional panel assemblies specified in Revision 1 of the service bulletin." Operators that rely on prior work must therefore verify the earlier work actually covered the panels now required by Revision 1, or else perform the additional tasks.

8. Reliance on FAA AMOCs is limited and conditional. The AD accepts later Boeing SB revisions approved by the FAA as AMOCs to FAA AD 2008-02-14 as acceptable for equivalence, but only where the FAA has approved them as AMOCs. Operators cannot assume manufacturer SB revisions alone create compliance; they must confirm FAA AMOC status or seek CASA acceptance.

9. The AD does not specify penalty language. The directive itself does not contain penalties for non-compliance in the supplied text. While non-compliance will have regulatory consequences under broader aviation law, readers should not expect penalty details within the AD. This absence means operators should consult CASA's broader enforcement framework for the consequences of non-compliance.

10. Documentation and traceability. The AD requires P/N identification and revisions, part replacements and operational tests. Failure to properly record part numbers, replacements and test outcomes could impair an operator’s ability to demonstrate compliance, especially since the AD provides for crediting earlier actions only under specific conditions. Operators must maintain clear maintenance records tied to the ASB procedures cited.

Step 1. Establish applicability. Confirm whether your aircraft are within the AD’s applicability: Model 747-400, -400D and -400F series aeroplanes as identified in Boeing ASB 747-33A2280, Revision 1, dated 25 September 2003. Obtain and review ASB 747-33A2280 Revision 1 and Appendix B to determine which panel assemblies and part numbers are in scope.

Step 2. Acquire referenced service information. Obtain Boeing ASB 747-33A2280 Revision 1 and the Korry service bulletins referenced by the ASB: in particular Korry SB 433-33-05 (23 July 2001) for locating configuration D switches and replacement procedures, and Korry SB 433-33-06 (7 November 2001) for one-to-one switch correlation. Also secure the Boeing component service bulletins listed in Table 2 as applicable to your panel assemblies.

Step 3. Plan the inspection route. Decide whether to adopt Requirement 1.b panel-level P/N inspection as the initial step or perform a Requirement 1.a general visual inspection of switches. If the panel P/N is listed as a "new P/N" in Appendix B of the ASB, Requirement 1.b removes the need for switch-level inspection. If not, the operator must perform switch-level general visual inspections. Remember Requirement 2 mandates the fallback to 1.a where 1.b does not identify a new P/N.

Step 4. Schedule inspections within the compliance window. Requirements 1 and 2 must be accomplished within 60 months after the AD’s effective date. However, if the operator prefers to delay, be aware of the risk that an inspection could reveal defects requiring rectification before further flight. Coordinate inspection timing with fleet availability and spares.

Step 5. Prepare for general visual inspection logistics. Note 1 defines "general visual inspection" and anticipates use of mirrors, removal of access panels, stands, ladders or platforms and appropriate lighting. Allocate time, access equipment and maintenance personnel accordingly.

Step 6. If defects are found, choose and execute remedial option(s). If, during a Requirement 1.a inspection, a switch lacks a configuration D master module and the switch P/N is not in Table 1, the operator must: (a) replace the switch with a Table 1 P/N switch in accordance with ASB 747-33A2280 Revision 1; or (b) replace the switch master module with a configuration D master module per the ASB; or (c) if all switches on the panel already have configuration D or Table 1 P/Ns, revise the panel assembly P/N as provided in the ASB (Requirement 3.a-c). Ensure replacements are sourced to the exact P/Ns listed in Table 1 or that master modules are the configuration D type.

Step 7. Conduct and document operational tests. After any panel assemblies, switches or master modules are replaced, "carry out all applicable operational tests in accordance with ASB 747-33A2280, Revision 1" (Requirement 5). Ensure all test procedures are fully documented in maintenance records and signed off by appropriately authorised maintenance personnel.

Step 8. Comply with the engine ignition test safety step. If the applicable ASB test procedure in paragraph 3.B.14.b.(3) requires testing the engine ignition control/fuel jettison module assembly, dry-motor the engine to remove fuel from the tailpipe before performing the test because the engine igniter will be energised (Requirement 6). Document the dry-motoring action and confirm absence of fuel before energising the igniter.

Step 9. Record part-number revisions and prior work. If earlier work was done under Boeing ASB 747-33A2280 dated 19 December 2001, verify that the actions specified in the current AD are done on the additional panel assemblies specified in Revision 1, and update records to reflect any panel P/N revisions required by Requirements 3.c and 4. Accurate records establish compliance and support potential CASA audits.

Step 10. Consider FAA AMOC equivalence where practical. Where later revisions of the Boeing SBs are approved by the FAA as an AMOC to FAA AD 2008-02-14, those revisions are accepted as equivalent compliance for the AD’s requirements. If relying on such FAA AMOCs, obtain and retain the FAA approval documentation and confirm whether CASA requires additional notification or acceptance for domestic compliance.

Step 11. Maintain compliance evidence. Retain inspection findings, part numbers, replacement invoices, operational test data, signatures of authorised personnel and any AMOC approvals or CASA correspondence. These records will be essential to demonstrate compliance with the AD and to support airworthiness audits.

Step 12. Coordinate with maintenance managers and operational planners. Because remedial steps after a failing inspection must be completed before further flight, plan for spare parts availability, potential grounding time for affected aircraft and prioritisation of inspections across the fleet to minimise operational disruption.

Step 13. Seek clarification or alternative methods where necessary. If a non-standard method of compliance is proposed, coordinate with CASA for formal acceptance. Where FAA AMOCs are available covering equivalent Boeing SB revisions, document their applicability and ensure any domestic acceptance requirements are met.

Following these steps, and implementing the specific ASB procedures and test sequences cited in the AD and the referenced Korry/Boeing SBs, will place the operator in a position to demonstrate compliance with AD/B747/374.