AD/B747/398 - State of Design Airworthiness Directives - 1

State-of-design airworthiness directive. The Directive is titled “State of Design Airworthiness Directives - 1”. This concept reflects that, for Boeing 747 aircraft, the United States is the state of design under the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention). Australia, as a state of operation, typically adopts the airworthiness directives issued by the FAA (the state-of-design authority) to ensure that aircraft operating in Australia continue to meet the type-certification basis. The Directive does not rewrite the FAA ADs; it enforces their requirements under Australian law.

Determination of applicability. The Directive requires the operator to “determine the applicability” of each FAA AD listed in Table 1. This is a positive obligation that involves reviewing the aircraft’s manufacture date, modification history, configuration, and engine type. Because many of the ADs address specific serial numbers or modifications, the operator must check each FAA AD’s applicability paragraph against the aircraft’s records. The Directive acknowledges that some ADs may not apply to any Australian-registered 747s, but the operator still bears the burden of making that determination for each aircraft.

Once-only actions. The Directive notes that the FAA ADs require once-only actions, meaning they are not recurring inspections or modifications. Typical examples include a one-time inspection of a structural component, a replacement of a part, or a retrofit. Once performed and recorded, the action is considered accomplished for the life of the aircraft, unless a later FAA AD supersedes it or the aircraft later enters a configuration that triggers the AD again (e.g., a repair that removes the retrofit). The Table 1 ADs date from as early as 1991 (AD 91-13-11 on wire bundles) to 2007 (AD 2007-04-10 on decompression panels), and many were originally due long before the Directive’s 2010 effective date.

Incorporation by reference of FAA ADs. The Directive does not set out the substantive actions (e.g., inspection procedures, part replacement instructions, torque values). Instead, it incorporates the FAA ADs by reference, including any later FAA-approved revision. This means the operator must obtain each FAA AD from the FAA’s Regulatory and Guidance Library (referenced at http://rgl.faa.gov) and comply with the text of that AD. The use of later FAA-approved revisions gives operators flexibility to use updated approved methods without seeking separate CASA approval, provided the revision is genuinely FAA-approved and not merely an FAA notice.

Compliance date distinction. The Directive creates two scenarios for compliance timing: pre-certificate of airworthiness for new aircraft (not yet registered or entering service) and within sixty days of the effective date for aircraft already holding a certificate. The sixty-day window is a one-time deadline; it does not reset after maintenance events or change of ownership. For imported aircraft that previously complied with the FAA ADs in another jurisdiction, the operator must verify that accomplishment records exist and that the actions were performed per the FAA AD, as a later FAA-approved revision, or per an approved equivalent. The Directive does not provide for alternative means of compliance; it references only FAA-approved revisions.

Background statement as a claim. The Directive states that “CASA has determined that these ADs may be applicable to some Australian aircraft” and that the Directive is issued “to ensure compliance with all State of Design ADs”. This is CASA’s stated rationale. The recognition that many ADs may not apply is not a defence for not checking; it merely cautions operators not to adopt a blanket approach of assuming all ADs apply merely because they are listed.

The principal affected parties are the registered owners and operators of Boeing 747-400 aeroplanes and of Boeing 747 aeroplanes fitted with General Electric CF6-80 series engines or Rolls-Royce engines. The Directive expressly excludes 747s powered by Pratt & Whitney engines, and it does not extend to all 747 variants (e.g., the 747-200 or 747-300 unless they meet the engine criteria). The effect is to apply to the Australian-registered 747 fleet that comprises those engine types. At the time of the Directive’s issue, the Australian 747 fleet was largely made up of 747-400s operated by Qantas and a few freight operators; these aircraft typically used CF6-80 or Rolls-Royce RB211 engines, and the Directive captures them.

The Directive also affects maintenance organisations and licensed aircraft maintenance engineers who must perform the actual inspections, repairs, and modifications required by the underlying FAA ADs. These include both Part 145 approved maintenance organisations and any engineers who issue certificates of release to service for the work. Because the FAA ADs often require specialist tooling, procedures, and parts, the cost and availability of those resources are imposed on the maintenance provider and ultimately passed to the operator.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority itself is affected as the issuer, but the Directive creates no new obligations on CASA beyond enabling enforcement. The FAA is indirectly affected because its ADs are used as the substantive content; however, no FAA approval or interaction is required unless an operator wishes to use a later FAA-approved revision not previously covered.

A secondary set of affected parties includes lessors, financiers, and insurers of 747 aircraft. Lease agreements commonly contain clauses requiring compliance with all applicable airworthiness directives of the state of registry. A failure to comply with this Directive could constitute a breach of lease or insurance policy conditions, potentially grounding the aircraft until the matter is rectified. Similarly, purchasers of used aircraft must verify compliance before accepting delivery.

The practical incidence of the Directive is concentrated: the number of Australian 747 operators is small (likely fewer than ten entities), and the compliance burden is one-off rather than recurring. However, for those operators, the determination of applicability across fifteen separate FAA ADs, some dating back nearly twenty years, requires significant records research. The mechanical steps of the underlying ADs vary greatly in scope; for instance, AD 95-13-06 (Nacelle strut and wing structure) may require major structural inspection and possible repairs, while AD 92-13-08 (Drain masts) is likely a simple inspection or replacement. The costs are not uniform.

Duty to determine applicability. The operator must, for each aircraft in the fleet, review each of the fifteen FAA ADs in Table 1 and assess whether that AD applies to the specific aircraft based on its serial number, modification status, engine type, and maintenance history. This duty is not satisfied by a blanket statement that none of the ADs apply; it requires an active investigation. The Directive does not prescribe the form of the determination, but prudent operators would create a written record for each AD.

Duty to perform actions. If an FAA AD is applicable and has not been previously accomplished, the operator must perform the actions required by that AD (or a later FAA-approved revision) within the specified compliance time. The “or later FAA-approved revision” clause is a right, not a duty: the operator may choose to follow the original AD or a later approved revision, but must ensure that any revision used is genuinely FAA-approved. This includes revisions that may extend compliance times or offer alternative methods.

Right to rely on prior accomplishment. The Directive does not require an operator to repeat actions that have already been accomplished. However, the operator must be able to demonstrate that the actions were performed in accordance with the corresponding FAA AD (or an earlier approved alternative, if accepted by CASA). The burden of proof is on the operator. If accomplishment records are missing or unclear, the operator should treat the AD as not yet accomplished.

Right to access the FAA ADs. The Directive includes a note providing the FAA’s internet URL (http://rgl.faa.gov) for accessing the listed ADs. This is a practical, not legal, right; the operator must independently obtain and understand the AD text.

Right to demonstrate non-applicability. If an AD does not apply because of the aircraft’s date of manufacture, configuration, or modifications, the operator has the right to treat that AD as compliant without performing any action. However, this right is contingent on documented evidence. For example, AD 95-02-13 (Fire extinguishers in engine nacelles) may apply only to certain engine strut configurations; if the aircraft never had that configuration, the operator may note the AD as “N/A - configuration not installed”.

No duty to seek CASA approval. Unlike some CASA directives that require an alternative means of compliance application per CASR Part 39, this Directive expressly allows any FAA-approved revision. No separate CASA approval is needed to use an FAA-approved revision. That reduces one layer of regulatory delay, though the operator still bears the risk of misinterpreting what constitutes an “FAA-approved revision” (e.g., a final rule versus a notice of proposed rulemaking, or a unilateral Boeing service bulletin not yet incorporated into an FAA AD).

Duty to meet the compliance time. For aircraft with a certificate of airworthiness, the duty requires compliance before further flight after sixty days from the effective date. The wording “before further flight after 60 days” means the aircraft may be flown during the sixty-day period, but not after that period ends unless the actions are completed. This may create operational pressure for aircraft that require major structural work that cannot be scheduled within sixty days. The Directive does not provide for extensions or waivers; any relief would require a separate CASA instrument.

The Directive itself does not state the penalties for non-compliance. However, because the Directive is issued under the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998, the consequences flow from those instruments. Specifically, operating an aircraft that is not in compliance with an applicable airworthiness directive is likely a breach of the conditions of the aircraft’s certificate of airworthiness. This could lead to CASA issuing a direction under regulation 39.035 of CASR (if that regulation was in force at the time) grounding the aircraft until compliance is achieved. In addition, the operator may face civil penalty proceedings under the Civil Aviation Act, with penalties currently reaching significant sums per contravention. Infringement notices (on-the-spot fines) may also apply for less serious breaches.

CASA’s enforcement approach typically involves escalating steps: a notice of non-compliance, a direction to ground, and ultimately suspension or cancellation of the certificate of airworthiness. Criminal prosecution is possible if the non-compliance was reckless or intentional. The practical deterrent, however, is the grounding of the aircraft: an airline cannot fly revenue services without a valid certificate of airworthiness, and the cost of a grounding far exceeds the cost of compliance for most ADs.

Because the underlying FAA ADs are incorporated by reference, failure to comply with a procedural detail in the FAA AD (e.g., using an incorrect torque value) could be treated as a breach of the Directive. The standard of liability is likely strict; the Directive does not contain a fault element. The operator bears the risk of mistaken interpretation.

The Directive does not create a private right of action. Passengers or third parties cannot sue directly for breach of the Directive; however, evidence of non-compliance could be used in civil litigation involving an aircraft accident as evidence of negligence or breach of statutory duty under civil aviation law.

The Directive operates within the framework of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 (Cth) and the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR). Specifically, CASR Part 39 (as it existed in 2010, or equivalent provisions under the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988) deals with airworthiness directives. The Directive is a legislative instrument likely registered under the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 (now the Legislation Act 2003), making it enforceable like a regulation.

The Directive interacts with the FAA’s regulatory system by incorporating FAA ADs into Australian law. This is not a guarantee that CASA has independently verified the safety benefit or cost effectiveness of each FAA AD. It is an adoption, which may mean Australian operators must comply with FAA ADs that were originally issued for a US fleet, even though the Australian operational environment (e.g., typical flight cycles, maintenance schedules, climatic conditions) might differ. The Directive does not provide for any deviation based on Australian conditions; it enforces the FAA’s rule.

The Directive also interacts with the maintenance regulations under CASR Part 42 (continuing airworthiness) and Part 145 (approved maintenance organisations). The actions required by the FAA ADs must be recorded in the aircraft’s continuing airworthiness records. Compliance with the Directive is a prerequisite for the release to service of any affected aircraft after the deadline.

In addition, the Directive may interact with the Fair Trading Act or Competition and Consumer Act 2010 if the cost of compliance affects competition among operators. However, because the number of operators is small and all face the same regulatory requirement, this is unlikely to create a competitive distortion.

The Directive does not explicitly supersede or repeal any prior CASA airworthiness directive. However, by requiring compliance with the listed FAA ADs, it may effectively require actions that were previously addressed under a different CASA AD. Operators must check whether any earlier CASA AD covered the same subject; if so, the later Directive likely overrides to the extent of any inconsistency, provided the earlier AD is not more stringent. The Directive’s background language (“once-only actions”) suggests that any prior compliance under an earlier CASA AD with the same FAA AD would satisfy the requirement, as long as it was performed per the FAA AD.

The Directive itself is a single instrument, AD/B747/398, signed on 14 July 2010 and effective 30 July 2010. The source text does not indicate that it has been amended since issuance. The Directive incorporates by reference fifteen FAA ADs, each of which has its own amendment history within the FAA system. Some of those FAA ADs may have been superseded, amended, or withdrawn by the FAA after the Directive’s effective date. The Directive’s text allows the use of “later FAA-approved revision”, which implicitly permits operators to comply with an amended FAA AD even if the original version is listed. However, if the FAA later withdraws an AD or changes it in a way that makes it no longer applicable, the Directive could arguably be read as requiring compliance only with the current FAA-approved version. The operator bears the risk of monitoring post-2010 changes to the listed FAA ADs.

The Directive does not reference an earlier version or predecessor AD. It appears to be a catch-up Directive, compiling long-outstanding FAA ADs that may not have been previously mandated in Australia. There is no indication that this Directive supersedes any prior CASA AD; operators should search CASA’s archives for any earlier ADs covering the same FAA AD numbers. If a prior CASA AD required compliance with an FAA AD listed here, the prior compliance record should satisfy the requirement, provided the actions were performed per the FAA AD or an FAA-approved revision.

No amendment history for this Directive has been located in the source; it is a one-off instrument, and it is unknown whether CASA later issued a cancellation or revision. The reference number AD/B747/398 suggests it is the 398th B747 AD issued by CASA, meaning there were at least 397 prior ADs for this type. This Directive is likely one of many incremental mandates.

The source text contains no reference to any litigation. Airworthiness directives are regulatory instruments that are generally not directly litigated in court unless an operator challenges CASA’s power to issue the directive, the reasonableness of the compliance timeline, or the incorporation of a particular FAA AD. Australian courts have occasionally reviewed CASA decisions under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 or under the tribunals system (Administrative Appeals Tribunal). However, no known case involves AD/B747/398 specifically.

The fact that the Directive compiles FAA ADs whose original compliance dates have passed reduces the likelihood of litigation, because the safety justifications are already established and the FAA ADs have been in effect for years in the US. However, an Australian operator might theoretically challenge the Directive on the ground that CASA did not properly assess whether each FAA AD is appropriate for the Australian operating environment or that the sixty-day compliance period is manifestly unreasonable for certain ADs requiring long lead-time parts. The source does not address such a challenge, and no precedent is cited.

In general, litigation about airworthiness directives tends to be rare; operators usually comply rather than risk grounding. Disputes more commonly arise in the context of enforcement actions, where CASA alleges non-compliance and the operator contests the facts (e.g., whether the AD was actually applicable, or whether the action was properly performed). Such disputes would be heard by the AAT or a court, but no case law specific to this Directive has been identified.

The absence of litigation history in the source is not conclusive of future risk; it merely confirms that the Directive has not been judicially tested. Lawyers advising operators should note that the Directive’s incorporation by reference of outside documents may raise questions about whether the FAA ADs were properly accessible and whether CASA complied with legislative instrument requirements. A challenge under the Legislation Act 2003 regarding the incorporation of external material without sufficiently stating the effect might be possible, but the Directive does include the FAA website and the AD numbers, which likely satisfies the basic requirements.

The onus of determining applicability rests entirely with the operator. CASA does not issue a compliance matrix showing which ADs apply to which tail numbers. The operator must invest time and money into researching aircraft configuration and history. An operator who mistakenly concludes that an AD does not apply will be non-compliant even if the error was reasonable. There is no “reasonable steps” defence in the Directive.

The Directive covers only 747 aircraft with CF6-80 or Rolls-Royce engines. If the operator has a 747 with Pratt & Whitney engines (e.g., older 747-200s or 747-300s), the Directive does not apply. But note that other CASA directives may cover those aircraft separately. The operator must not assume that because this Directive does not apply, no directive is needed for those other engine types.

The 60-day compliance window is firm. The Directive includes this deadline without provision for extension. If an FAA AD requires a part that has a lead time longer than 60 days, the operator must ground the aircraft until the part is installed, unless the operator can use a later FAA-approved revision that allows an extension, or can argue that the AD is not applicable. Operators should immediately assess whether any AD requires a part with long lead times and, if so, order the part before starting the 60-day clock.

“Later FAA-approved revision” can be a trap. The Directive allows compliance with “later FAA-approved revision” of an FAA AD. However, the operator must ensure that the revision is genuinely FAA-approved. The FAA often issues “Proposed Rules” or “Notices” that are not final. Reliance on a non-final revision would not satisfy the Directive. Also, if the FAA reissues an AD with an earlier compliance date, the later revision must still be an “FAA-approved revision” (i.e., a final rule). Operators should check the FAA’s docket for each AD to confirm the current basis.

The Directive’s background says some ADs “will not be applicable to any aircraft presently registered in Australia”. An operator might be tempted to apply that statement to their whole fleet and skip the determination. That would be a mistake. The statement is a general observation; it does not exempt any specific aircraft. Each operator must verify for each AD and each tail number. The aircraft that “presently registered” qualification also means that if a new aircraft is imported later, the operator cannot rely on the old generality.

Record keeping is essential. The Directive does not prescribe how to document the determination or accomplishment, but CASA enforcement relies on records. An operator who, for example, claims that AD 96-08-05 is not applicable because the aircraft never had the subject strut fuel tubes must have documentary evidence to prove that (e.g., original build specification, modification log). Without records, CASA may treat the AD as non-compliant.

The Directive references FAA ADs by number only. The operator must obtain the full text of each AD. The URL given (http://rgl.faa.gov) may not be permanent; the FAA changed its website structure after 2010. The operator may need to search by AD number. If an AD is no longer listed on the FAA site (e.g., superseded and removed), the operator should use the current version or contact CASA.

The Directive does not address the scenario where an FAA AD has been superseded by another FAA AD not listed. For example, if FAA AD 2002-23-15 was later superseded by AD 2008-12-05 (not listed), which version must the operator use? The Directive requires compliance with the listed AD “or later FAA-approved revision”. The phrase “later FAA-approved revision” could be read to include a superseding AD that replaces the listed AD entirely, not merely an amendment to it. A conservative approach would be to comply with the superseding AD if it fully replaces the listed one. But if the superseding AD contains different actions, the operator might be caught between two directives. The safe option is to contact CASA for guidance.

The Directive is a one-off catch-up AD. It does not require ongoing monitoring of future FAA ADs. However, CASA may issue similar directives in the future for other state-of-design ADs. Operators should not assume that complying with this Directive means they are up to date with all FAA ADs for the aircraft type.

1. Obtain the full text of each FAA AD listed in Table 1. The Directive gives a URL: http://rgl.faa.gov. The operator should download the PDF for each of the fifteen ADs (91-13-11, 92-04-05, 92-06-01, 92-13-08, 92-14-07, 93-18-07, 94-22-08, 95-02-13, 95-13-06, 96-03-10, 96-08-05, 96-11-03, 2000-11-08, 2002-23-15, 2005-05-20, and 2007-04-10). The operator should also check whether each AD has a later FAA-approved revision that would be acceptable. If a revision exists that simply changes formatting but not substance, it can be used. If a revision changes actions or compliance times, the operator should consider whether to use the original or the revision; either is permissible.

2. For each aircraft in the fleet, compile a comprehensive configuration and modification history. This must include the aircraft serial number, original manufacturer’s build specification, all modifications (including design changes, service bulletins, repairs), and engine type (GE CF6-80 or Rolls-Royce). Also gather the complete maintenance and AD compliance history since the aircraft was built. This step is the most labour-intensive; for older aircraft with incomplete records, it may require physical inspections to identify part numbers and configurations.

3. Compare each FAA AD’s applicability against the aircraft’s data. For each AD, note whether:

   • The AD applies based on serial number or configuration;
   • The AD has been previously accomplished (with evidence);
   • The AD is not applicable (with rationale). Create a compliance matrix or log that records these findings for each aircraft. This log should be retained in the aircraft’s continuing airworthiness records.

4. For ADs that are applicable and not yet accomplished, schedule the required actions. Review the text of the AD to determine the nature of the work (inspection, repair, replacement). Identify required parts, special tools, and approved data. If the AD requires a one-time inspection, ensure that qualified engineers are available during the 60-day compliance window. If parts need to be ordered and lead times exceed 60 days, contact CASA immediately to discuss options; however, the Directive offers no extension.

5. Perform the actions in accordance with the AD. Use an approved maintenance organisation (or an appropriately authorised person if CASR permits). After completion, sign off the work in the maintenance release and update the AD compliance record. For structural or major modifications, the aircraft’s modification history should reflect the change.

6. Document all determinations, even negative ones. There is no formal CASA form required, but the operator should create a written record that demonstrates a genuine determination for each AD. For example: “AD 95-13-06 - checked aircraft configuration; aircraft does not have the subject nacelle strut part number; therefore not applicable.” For ADs that are not applicable because the aircraft’s production date predates the AD’s applicability range, note the date and explain.

7. Ensure that before the end of the 60-day period (or before the certificate of airworthiness is issued for new aircraft), each aircraft is in full compliance. After the deadline, the aircraft cannot be lawfully flown unless the ADs are accomplished or documented as non-applicable. Release to service is contingent on this.

8. Monitor for any subsequent amendments to the Directive. Although the source does not show amendments, assume that CASA may issue an AD/B747/398Amd1 or a sup erseding directive. Subscribe to CASA’s airworthiness directive notification service. Also monitor the FAA for any revisions to the incorporated ADs; if a revision is issued, the operator may choose to adopt it or stick with the original, but must track which version they have complied with.

9. Consider consulting an experienced aviation lawyer or compliance specialist if the determination process reveals ambiguities or if the aircraft’s modification history is complex. The cost of misinterpretation (grounding, fines, loss of revenue) far exceeds the cost of professional advice.

10. Maintain the compliance records for the life of the aircraft. Because the actions are once-only, future owners and operators will need to verify compliance. Keep the matrix, the FAA AD texts, and the accomplishment evidence in a permanent file.