AD/B747/399 - State of Design Airworthiness Directives - 2

Airworthiness Directive (AD). An AD is a legally enforceable notification issued by an aviation safety authority requiring an owner or operator of an aircraft type to inspect, repair, modify, or replace a component or system to correct an unsafe condition. In Australia, ADs are issued under the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (CAR 1988). Failure to comply with an AD renders the aircraft unairworthy and may result in enforcement action. This AD (AD/B747/399) is a single directive that bundles multiple foreign ADs.

State of Design AD. The phrase “State of Design” refers to the country where the aircraft type was originally designed and certified. For Boeing 747 aircraft, the State of Design is the United States, and the FAA is the design authority. The concept is rooted in the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention), under which the State of Design is responsible for issuing ADs for its aircraft types. Other states, such as Australia, typically adopt or recognise State of Design ADs to maintain international consistency and avoid duplicating engineering analysis. This directive explicitly adopts FAA ADs as the required actions, thereby treating US ADs as binding in Australia for the listed aircraft.

CASA delegate. The directive is signed by David Punshon as “Delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.” This means CASA has delegated its statutory power to issue ADs to an authorised person. The signature and date (14 July 2010) give the directive its legal force. The directive number AD/B747/399 and the CASA reference 14/2009 indicate it is part of a series of directives for Boeing 747 aircraft.

Table 1. The heart of the directive is Table 1, which lists 26 FAA ADs by their FAA designation (e.g., 2008-05-03), effective date, and a short title. The titles are indicative only (e.g., “Rear engine mount bulkhead,” “Thrust links of the rear engine mounts,” “Struts, spars and bolts,” “Fuel line,” “Wire bundles”). The actual technical requirements are found in the FAA AD documents themselves, which are not reproduced in this directive. The directive directs operators to access them via the URL http://rgl.faa.gov.

Determination of applicability. The operator must first decide whether each listed FAA AD applies to the specific aircraft. This is not a trivial step. Many ADs apply only within certain serial number ranges, engine variants, or configuration blocks. For a 747 that has undergone modifications or repairs, establishing applicability may require reviewing the aircraft’s modification history, service bulletins, and logbooks. The directive does not provide any certification or guidance on how to make this determination; it simply demands that the operator do it.

Compliance timing. The compliance column states: “Before issue of a certificate of airworthiness.” This is the only compliance deadline. For an aircraft already holding a current certificate of airworthiness, the directive may not immediately require action, but if the certificate is surrendered or expires, the directive would apply upon re-issue. This creates uncertainty for operators who may need to demonstrate compliance even if the aircraft has been continuously registered and maintained in another jurisdiction that may not have required those specific FAA ADs.

Background rationale. The background paragraph explains the directive’s rationale explicitly: “The FAA ADs listed in Table 1 of this Directive require once-only actions for which the compliance date and/or period has passed. Boeing 747 aircraft to which these FAA ADs apply may be registered in Australia in the future. This Directive is issued to ensure such aircraft comply with all State of Design ADs.” This is a statement of regulatory intent: the directive is a catch-up mechanism for aircraft entering the Australian register that have not previously been required to comply with these ADs. It reflects the Australian policy of aligning with FAA ADs for US-designed aircraft, but it does not acknowledge that some of the ADs may have been superseded, superseded by airworthiness limitations, or rendered irrelevant by subsequent modifications.

Primary duty holders. The directive applies to any person who operates, owns, or is responsible for the maintenance of a Boeing 747 aircraft fitted with General Electric CF6-45, CF6-50, or Pratt & Whitney JT9D engines. This includes Australian air operators (airlines, charter companies, freight operators), private owners, and entities that lease or import such aircraft into Australia. Because the compliance trigger is tied to the issue of a certificate of airworthiness, the directive most directly affects those seeking to register a 747 in Australia for the first time or to re-issue a certificate after a period of non-operation. Operators of 747s already holding Australian certificates of airworthiness as of 30 July 2010 are not automatically required to take new action, but they may be affected if their certificate is suspended, revoked, or voluntarily surrendered, or if the aircraft undergoes a major modification that requires a new certificate.

Secondary affected parties. Maintenance organisations, repair stations, and engineering firms engaged to verify compliance with the listed FAA ADs will face increased workload and liability. They must locate and interpret the FAA ADs, sometimes for aircraft that have been out of production for decades and for which service documentation may be difficult to obtain. Parts suppliers may also see demand for components or kits referenced in the ADs. Insurers underwriting hull and liability coverage for 747 operators will need to confirm that the aircraft is compliant before binding coverage, and may adjust premiums or exclusions based on the cost or availability of compliance.

Indirectly affected parties. Buyers and sellers of Boeing 747 aircraft on the secondary market will be affected because the directive increases the cost of placing an aircraft onto the Australian register. This can reduce the resale value of aircraft that cannot readily demonstrate compliance, or that require expensive retrofits. It may also influence lessors’ decisions about where to register aircraft, potentially pushing 747s toward registries with less demanding retrofit requirements. Australian passengers and third parties on the ground bear the safety risk that the directive is designed to mitigate, but they also pay indirectly through higher airfares or reduced aircraft availability if compliance costs are passed through.

Geographic scope. The directive applies to aircraft registered in Australia; it does not apply to foreign-registered 747s operating into Australia unless they are applying for an Australian certificate of airworthiness. This can create a competitive distortion: a foreign operator can fly a 747 into Australia that has not complied with these ADs, so long as it remains on a foreign register. An Australian operator must comply, placing it at a cost disadvantage relative to foreign competitors on the same route. This dynamic is not unique to this directive but is inherent in State of Design AD adoption regimes.

Economic characteristics of affected operators. Boeing 747 aircraft with CF6-45/50 or JT9D engines are predominantly older models (747-100, -200, -300, -SP) that have declining commercial value. Many are operated by specialised cargo carriers, charter operators, or as government/VIP transports. These operators tend to have thin margins and limited capacity to absorb unplanned compliance costs. The directive imposes a fixed cost per aircraft that is likely proportionally larger for a small operator than for a large airline. Conversely, the safety benefit may be real but is not quantified by the directive, and the risk of an unsafe condition may be lower on aircraft that were originally built to later standards or have undergone subsequent modifications not covered by the FAA ADs. The directive does not distinguish between aircraft based on actual risk; it applies a blanket requirement.

Duty to determine applicability. The directive requires each affected operator to “determine the applicability of the FAA Airworthiness Directives (AD) listed in Table 1.” This is an affirmative duty to conduct an investigation. The standard of care is not specified, but given the legal status of ADs, a court or CASA would likely expect a diligent, documented review by a person qualified in aircraft maintenance and engineering. The operator cannot simply claim ignorance of a listed AD; it must actively review each of the 26 entries.

Duty to perform required actions. “[I]f it is determined that an FAA AD listed in Table 1 is applicable and has not been previously accomplished, perform the actions required by that AD or later FAA-approved revision.” This is a binary duty: either the actions have been done, or they must be done now. There is no discretion to deviate, seek an alternative means of compliance, or argue that the condition is already rectified by other work. The only alternative allowed is use of a later FAA-approved revision of the same AD, which may reduce the burden if the FAA has amended the AD to accept different actions.

Right to use later FAA-approved revisions. The operator may comply using a later FAA-approved revision rather than the original AD as of the effective date shown in Table 1. This is a valuable right because FAA ADs are frequently amended to extend compliance times, expand or restrict applicability, or accept alternative terminating actions. However, the operator bears the burden of locating the current revision, verifying its approval, and demonstrating that the revision applies to the specific aircraft. The directive does not specify what constitutes an “FAA-approved revision”; presumably it must be an amendment issued by the FAA as a formal AD revision or a superseding AD.

No right to alternative means of compliance. The directive does not grant the operator the right to propose an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) to CASA. In many other ADs, CASA allows operators to submit an AMOC for approval. This directive is silent, meaning any deviation from the exact actions required by the listed FAA ADs would be non-compliant. This is a significant restriction, particularly for aircraft that have undergone modifications that may have already addressed the unsafe condition in a different way.

No duty to re-do previously accomplished actions. If the operator determines that an applicable FAA AD has already been accomplished, there is no further duty. However, the directive does not specify what constitutes adequate evidence of previous accomplishment. In practice, this means the operator must have logbook entries, maintenance records, or engineering approvals that demonstrate the actions were performed in accordance with the FAA AD or an equivalent accepted by the FAA at the time. Records from foreign jurisdictions that do not follow FAA procedures may be insufficient, forcing the operator to repeat the work at its own cost.

No explicit duty to notify CASA. The directive does not require the operator to submit a compliance report to CASA before operating. Compliance is a self-assessment obligation; however, CASA may inspect records during a routine audit or in response to an incident. The risk is that if CASA later finds a non-compliance, the operator may face enforcement even if it believed in good faith that it was compliant.

Source of penalty provisions. The directive itself does not state penalties; they arise from the broader regulatory framework. Under the Civil Aviation Act 1988 (Cth), operating an aircraft that does not comply with an applicable AD is an offence. Section 20A of the Act makes it an offence to operate an aircraft that is not airworthy. Additionally, Civil Aviation Regulation 1988 regulation 42ZC (as in force in 2010) required compliance with ADs. Contravention could lead to civil penalties of up to 550 penalty units for individuals and 5,500 penalty units for bodies corporate (at the time, a penalty unit was $110, so maximum civil penalties were approximately $60,500 for individuals and $605,000 for corporations). Criminal penalties may also apply for deliberate or reckless non-compliance. CASA can also suspend or revoke a certificate of airworthiness, grounding the aircraft indefinitely.

Enforcement discretion. CASA has broad discretion to investigate, issue infringement notices, accept enforceable undertakings, or pursue court proceedings. The directive’s background notes that the compliance dates have passed, suggesting CASA expects operators to achieve immediate compliance or face consequences. However, CASA may exercise leniency for operators who can demonstrate they are taking steps to comply, or who can show that the FAA AD is ambiguous or outdated. The risk of enforcement is highest for operators that fly the aircraft without having done the verification work.

Liability for false records. If an operator claims that an FAA AD has been previously accomplished without adequate verification, and that claim is later found false, the operator may face charges of making false or misleading statements to CASA, which carries separate penalties under the Act. This creates a strong incentive to obtain original maintenance documentation or repeat the work to be certain.

Interaction with other legal regimes. A finding of non-compliance with an AD can also affect insurance coverage, lease agreements, and contracts with third-party operators. Lessors often include clauses requiring compliance with all applicable ADs; failure to comply could constitute a default under the lease. Similarly, an AD non-compliance could void hull insurance or limit liability coverage. These commercial consequences may far exceed the regulatory penalties.

Absence of amnesty or grace period. The directive provides no transition period. It becomes effective on 30 July 2010, and compliance is required before a certificate of airworthiness is issued. For an aircraft that is already on the register but whose certificate is being re-issued, the directive could apply immediately upon the effective date if the certificate is re-issued after that date. Operators may be caught unaware if they assume the directive only applies to new imports. The background paragraph suggests the directive is primarily aimed at future registrations, but the compliance wording “before issue of a certificate of airworthiness” does not distinguish between initial and re-issue. This ambiguity creates legal risk for operators who renew certificates routinely.

Relationship with the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and Civil Aviation Regulations 1988. The directive is issued under the authority of those laws. The Act gives CASA the power to issue ADs, and regulation 42ZC of CAR 1988 (as it then stood) made compliance mandatory. The directive does not displace any other provisions of the Act or Regulations; it adds an additional layer of specific requirements. Other obligations, such as the requirement to maintain the aircraft in an airworthy condition, to follow the approved maintenance program, and to ensure that all mandatory modifications are embodied, continue to apply concurrently.

Relationship with other CASA ADs. AD/B747/399 is specific to Boeing 747 aircraft with certain engines. There may be other CASA ADs applicable to the same aircraft type covering different systems (e.g., landing gear, flight controls, cabin pressurisation). Compliance with this directive does not relieve the operator from complying with any other AD, whether from CASA or adopted from the FAA. Operators must maintain a complete list of all applicable ADs and ensure each is satisfied.

Relationship with FAA ADs and US law. The directive does not adopt the FAA ADs by reference in a formal legislative sense; it requires the operator to comply with them as if they were Australian law. This means the operator must obtain the full text of each FAA AD. The FAA ADs themselves are issued under US law (14 CFR Part 39). If the FAA later amends or supersedes an AD, the operator may use the later revision, but only if it is “FAA-approved.” A superseding AD that consolidates multiple earlier ADs might be acceptable, but the operator must verify that the superseding AD covers the same unsafe condition. If the FAA cancels an AD because the condition has been addressed through other means (e.g., a service bulletin that has been mandated by other means), the operator cannot simply rely on the cancellation unless the later FAA revision explicitly terminates the earlier requirements.

Interaction with bilateral airworthiness agreements. Australia and the United States have a bilateral aviation safety agreement (BASA) that facilitates acceptance of each other’s airworthiness approvals. This directive is consistent with that framework by adopting US ADs rather than conducting independent Australian engineering analysis. The directive does not, however, address situations where the FAA has issued an AD that conflicts with an Australian regulation or where the aircraft has been modified under Australian supplemental type certificates (STCs) that may affect compliance. Operators should check whether the STC includes FAA or CASA approval that supersedes the AD.

Interaction with the Australian maintenance regulations. CAR 1988 requires that aircraft be maintained in accordance with an approved maintenance program. The actions required by the FAA ADs may be incorporated into the maintenance program. If an AD requires a one-time inspection, that inspection must be performed, but it does not need to be repeated unless the AD or a later revision says so. For repetitive inspections, the operator must ensure the program includes them at the required intervals.

Interaction with aircraft leasing and financing laws. The Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) and general contract law govern aircraft leases. Non-compliance with a mandatory AD can be a breach of an airworthiness covenant, potentially entitling a lessor to terminate the lease or demand full repayment. This directive could therefore trigger lease defaults if the lessee cannot demonstrate compliance before the certificate of airworthiness is issued, even if the lessor does not control the registration process.

The source document is dated 14 July 2010 and shows no prior amendments; it is the original issue of AD/B747/399. The document references “AD/B747/399” and a CASA reference “14/2009”. The number 14/2009 suggests this directive was originally drafted or numbered in 2009, but it was not signed until July 2010. The background explains that the FAA ADs have compliance dates in the past, implying the directive was needed because those ADs had not been previously adopted for Australian registration purposes. There is no indication that this directive has been amended, replaced, or superseded. A search of the subject-matter would be required to verify its current status, but based solely on the source text, there is no amendment history.

It is possible that subsequent directives have updated the list of FAA ADs, but the source does not mention any. An operator should check CASA’s current AD database to see if this directive remains in force or has been replaced by a later directive covering additional FAA ADs. The directive title “State of Design Airworthiness Directives - 2” implies there may be a Part 1 (perhaps AD/B747/398 or similar) covering different FAA ADs, and there may be later parts. Without those documents, we cannot assess the full scope or whether this directive has been implicitly amended by later issuances. The existence of a “-2” in the title suggests a series, so operators should verify the complete list of active directives for the type.

The source document contains no references to litigation, court cases, or tribunal decisions. There is no known (from this text) challenge to the validity of this directive, nor any judicial interpretation of its terms. Given that the directive was issued in 2010 and its requirements are largely mechanical (adoption of existing FAA ADs), it is unlikely to have generated significant litigation on its own. However, the underlying FAA ADs may have been litigated in the United States if manufacturers or operators challenged their scope or economic impact. The directive’s reliance on foreign law may raise issues if the FAA ADs are unclear or inconsistent with Australian procedures, but no such case is mentioned.

The absence of litigation history does not mean the directive is uncontroversial; it may simply reflect that compliance has been enforced through administrative means or that the limited number of affected operators have chosen to comply rather than contest. If an operator were to challenge the directive, potential grounds could include that CASA failed to consider the cost-benefit of applying ADs with expired compliance dates, that the directive is ultra vires the Act (though likely not), or that the adoption by reference of foreign ADs violates procedural fairness if the text is not readily accessible or if English translations are deficient. None of these arguments have been tested.

The lack of litigation also means there is no judicial guidance on ambiguous terms such as “determine the applicability” or “later FAA-approved revision.” Operators must use ordinary English and engineering judgment, bearing the risk that CASA may later disagree with their interpretation.

Compliance dates are already past. Every FAA AD listed in Table 1 has an effective date before 8 April 2008. The directive becomes effective on 30 July 2010, meaning an operator who discovers that an applicable AD has not been accomplished has no grace period; the work must be done immediately, before the certificate of airworthiness can be issued. There may be a backlog at maintenance facilities if many aircraft need the same inspection simultaneously.

Need to locate original FAA ADs. The directive provides only the FAA AD number, effective date, and a short title. It does not reproduce the full text. Operators must download the ADs from the FAA’s Regulatory and Guidance Library website. That website may not be reliably accessible from all locations, and some older ADs may be poorly scanned or difficult to interpret. The cost of retrieving and reviewing 26 ADs could be several person-days per aircraft.

No guidance on establishing previous accomplishment. The directive does not define what constitutes “previously accomplished.” Must the work have been performed exactly as required by the AD, or will an equivalent action acceptable to the FAA at the time of performance suffice? If the aircraft was registered in a country that accepted different standards, the records may not match the FAA requirements. The operator may need to seek a CASA interpretation, but none is provided.

Unclear interaction with later FAA ADs. The directive allows use of a “later FAA-approved revision.” However, the FAA may have issued a superseding AD that combines multiple earlier ADs into one. The operator must ensure the superseding AD is approved by the FAA (not just a draft) and that it covers all the conditions of the original AD. If the FAA has cancelled an AD because it is no longer applicable (e.g., due to design changes), the operator cannot simply rely on the cancellation; the cancellation is not a “later revision” that can be used as an alternative means of compliance.

Applicability determination may require engineering judgment. Some FAA ADs apply based on serial number, production block, or modification status. An aircraft may have been modified in a way that removes the unsafe condition, but the AD may not officially recognise that. The operator must decide whether to rely on a one-time inspection or a modification that is not referenced in the AD. If the operator chooses not to comply based on engineering judgment, and CASA later disagrees, the operator bears enforcement risk.

Implicit requirement for documentation. Even if the operator determines that no FAA AD in Table 1 applies, that determination should be documented. Without written evidence, an audit may find the operator non-compliant for failing to perform the determination. The directive does not explicitly require a written record, but prudent operators will create one.

Potential overlap with other CASA ADs. The list in Table 1 covers only 26 FAA ADs. There may be other CASA or FAA ADs that apply to the same aircraft but are not listed. The directive does not state that compliance with Table 1 satisfies all State of Design ADs; it only ensures compliance with those specific ones. The background wording “this Directive is issued to ensure such aircraft comply with all State of Design ADs” may be aspirational but is not a statement that Table 1 is exhaustive. Operators should not stop at Table 1.

No alternative means of compliance provision. Unlike many CASA ADs that allow an operator to propose an AMOC for approval, this directive is silent. An operator who believes a modification or inspection not specifically listed in the FAA AD achieves the same safety result cannot rely on an AMOC unless they obtain a separate CASA determination. This increases compliance inflexibility, especially for aging aircraft with custom modifications.

Step 1: Locate the full text of each FAA AD in Table 1. The directive provides only the AD number and a short title. The official source is the FAA Regulatory and Guidance Library at http://rgl.faa.gov. For each of the 26 entries, download the PDF of the AD as originally issued, and check for any later amendments or revisions. The directive permits use of a later FAA-approved revision, so download the most recent version. Verify that the revision is indeed approved by the FAA; a draft or proposed rule is not sufficient. Store the PDFs in the aircraft’s continuing airworthiness records.

Step 2: Determine applicability of each FAA AD to the specific aircraft. This requires a technical inspection of the aircraft’s type certificate data sheet, serial number, engine type and model, modification history, and any existing airworthiness limitations. For each AD, read the applicability section (usually listed at the beginning). If the AD applies only to certain serial number ranges, confirm whether the aircraft falls within that range. If the AD applies only to certain engine configurations, check the engine model and build standard. Document your determination in writing, with reasons and references. For ADs that are clearly not applicable (e.g., concerning a different engine variant or a structural part not installed on the aircraft), state that explicitly and keep the record.

Step 3: For applicable ADs, determine whether the required actions have been previously accomplished. Review the aircraft’s logbooks, maintenance records, and service bulletin history. Look for entries that describe the specific inspection, modification, or replacement required by the AD. If the AD has multiple actions (e.g., initial inspection followed by repetitive inspections), ensure all actions up to the current date have been performed. If the AD requires a one-time modification and it has been done, there is no further obligation. If the AD requires repetitive inspections, ensure the most recent inspection was within the compliance interval. If records are missing or unclear, treat the AD as not accomplished and proceed to step 4.

Step 4: For any applicable AD that has not been previously accomplished, perform the required actions. Engage a licensed aircraft maintenance engineer or approved maintenance organisation to carry out the work exactly as specified in the FAA AD or its latest FAA-approved revision. Use original manufacturer instructions or FAA-adopted service bulletins. If the AD requires replacement parts, ensure they are approved for installation (PMA parts or OEM). Document the accomplishment in the aircraft’s logbook with reference to the FAA AD number, date of compliance, and the person or organisation that performed the work.

Step 5: Ensure compliance is achieved before the certificate of airworthiness is issued. If the aircraft currently holds a valid certificate of airworthiness that will not be re-issued in the near future, the directive may not require immediate action. However, any time a new certificate is applied for (whether for initial registration, after a period of suspension, or after a major modification), the directive applies. Plan compliance activities well in advance of the certificate application to avoid delays.

Step 6: Maintain a consolidated compliance record. Create a summary sheet that lists each FAA AD from Table 1, the applicability determination, the accomplishment date (or a statement that compliance has been verified from records), and any reference to later FAA revisions used. Keep this record with the aircraft’s continuing airworthiness documentation. It will be the first thing CASA requests during an audit. Consider using a digital AD tracking system to avoid manual errors.

Step 7: Monitor for changes. The FAA may amend, supersede, or cancel the ADs listed in Table 1 after the directive’s effective date. While the directive only requires compliance as of the time of certificate issue, it is prudent to check for changes annually and update compliance accordingly. If an AD is superseded, you may be able to use the later revision to reduce future repetitive inspections. If an AD is cancelled and you have already complied, no further action is needed. However, if you have not yet complied and a later revision is available, use it if it reduces the compliance burden.

Step 8: Consult CASA for ambiguous cases. If the applicability of an AD is unclear, or if you believe the required actions are redundant due to subsequent modifications, seek a written interpretation from CASA before proceeding. The directive does not offer an AMOC route, but CASA may issue a separate determination or a letter of no objection. Do not rely on informal advice; obtain it in writing. If CASA is unhelpful, consider engaging a consultant with expertise in regulatory compliance for aging aircraft.