AD/B767/146 Amdt 2 - Horizontal Stabiliser Pivot Bulkhead

The instrument operates by cross-reference to technical materials rather than by reproducing technical inspection criteria. Its core structural concepts are applicability, imported technical requirement, optional terminating repair, and an AMOC regime tied to FAA approval.

Applicability determines scope. The AD applies to "Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series aircraft, as listed in Boeing Service Bulletin (SB) 767-53A0078, Revision 4, dated 26 September 2002 or a later revision approved by the FAA as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC)" (Applicability). That means the exact set of aircraft is defined by the list in the referenced Boeing service bulletin, not by a blanket model designation alone. The AD literal text therefore makes the SB the determinative source for tail numbers and serial numbers included.

Imported requirement. The AD does not set out inspection intervals, repetitive inspection tasks or repair procedures directly. Instead the Requirement clause instructs operators to "Action in accordance with the technical requirements of FAA AD 2005-11-02 Amdt 39-14104" (Requirement). This imports the FAA AD as the operational rulebook. The Compliance clause reinforces that actual timing and technical steps are "As specified in the Requirement document." Thus the CASA AD is a regulatory pointer, making the FAA AD the operative technical standard for affected Australian aircraft.

Optional permanent repair and terminating action. The AD records that the Requirement document "provides a permanent repair, which is optional for aircraft with no cracks, and if accomplished, constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by this directive" (Requirement, Note 2). The AD therefore creates a choice for operators of crack-free aircraft between continuing a regime of repetitive inspections or electing to perform the permanent repair described in the FAA/Boeing documentation to stop the repetitive inspections. The AD does not reproduce the content of the permanent repair; it only records its legal consequence within the AD’s inspection regime.

AMOC and revision control by FAA. The AD permits the use of later Boeing service bulletin revisions only where "approved by the FAA as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC)" (Applicability; Background referencing Amendment 1). Amendment 1 specifically "update[d] the revision status of the referenced service bulletin and [allowed] the use of later revisions of the service bulletin providing that the later revision has been approved by the FAA as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC)" (Background). Therefore, technical permissibility of later vendor revisions is contingent on FAA approval, and CASA’s amendment explicitly defers to FAA determinations on acceptable alternative compliance.

Safety rationale. The stated technical rationale is that the FAA "received reports that fatigue cracking of the horizontal stabiliser pivot bulkhead has been found" and that analysis shows "flight loads on the horizontal stabiliser in the upper corner of the Station 1809.5 bulkhead are higher than expected" (Background). The AD links undetected cracking in that location to the potential for "loss of the horizontal stabiliser" (Background), explaining why repetitive inspections and a permanent repair option are mandated.

Temporal and administrative facts. The instrument records the amendment number, effective date and the delegate who authorised the amendment. It states the amendment becomes effective on 4 August 2005 and is signed as a CASA delegate by David Villiers on 22 June 2005. It also records the original AD effective date of 27 December 2001 and explains that Amendment 2 was issued in response to a new FAA AD that includes new requirements for cracks not covered previously (Background).

The AD targets a defined and limited population: operators and owners of Boeing 767-200, -300, and -300F series aircraft that are listed in Boeing Service Bulletin 767-53A0078 Revision 4 dated 26 September 2002, or listed in a later revision but only if that later revision has been approved by the FAA as an AMOC (Applicability). The AD text makes clear that the list in the Boeing service bulletin, not model designation alone, is the operative determinant of which individual airframes are subject to the directive.

Consequently the immediate costs and operational obligations fall on owners and operators of those specific airframes. The Requirement clause makes the FAA AD the source of the technical activity, so affected operators must carry out inspections or repairs "in accordance with" FAA AD 2005-11-02 Amdt 39-14104 (Requirement). The Compliance clause reinforces that scheduling and technical content are contained in that Requirement document ("As specified in the Requirement document"). That positions the FAA AD and Boeing service bulletin as the documents an operator must consult to determine the exact inspection tasks, intervals, and repair procedures.

The AD also affects maintenance organisations and airworthiness engineers who perform inspections and repairs, because the technical work demanded is specified in the FAA AD and Boeing SB. Those entities will need access to and familiarity with the referenced FAA AD and the named Boeing service bulletin revision to perform the mandated inspections or to install the permanent repair described. Any use of a later Boeing SB revision or alternative method of compliance must be "approved by the FAA as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC)" (Applicability; Background). That requirement affects operators and maintenance organisations seeking to rely on later revisions or non‑standard repair methods, because they will have to secure FAA approval for the AMOC.

Regulatory decision-makers are also implicated. CASA, acting by its delegate, has determined to make the FAA AD’s technical requirements mandatory for Australian-registered aircraft within the defined applicability. The AD record shows coordination or deference to FAA determinations: the AD imports the FAA AD and requires FAA approval for later SB revisions or AMOCs. The Background states Amendment 2 was issued "in response to a new FAA AD, which includes new requirements to address cracks in areas not covered by the previous AD."

Finally, passengers and third parties are indirectly affected through the safety objective. The Background links undetected fatigue cracking to potential loss of the horizontal stabiliser. The AD’s inspections and repair options are targeted at mitigating that risk by mandating inspection and repair steps prescribed in the FAA AD and Boeing SB.

Duties

• Follow the Requirement document. The AD imposes a duty on owners/operators of affected aircraft to "Action in accordance with the technical requirements of FAA AD 2005-11-02 Amdt 39-14104" (Requirement). The AD does not restate technical tasks or intervals; compliance requires following the FAA AD’s content and the referenced Boeing service bulletin.

• Observe applicability limits. Operators must verify whether a given aircraft is "listed in Boeing Service Bulletin (SB) 767-53A0078, Revision 4 ... or a later revision approved by the FAA as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC)" (Applicability). The obligation attaches only to aircraft that appear on the SB list or are covered by an FAA‑approved later revision.

• Adhere to compliance scheduling. The Compliance clause requires action "As specified in the Requirement document." The FAA AD will set inspection intervals, thresholds for repair, and any repetitive inspection cadence that needs to be followed. The CASA AD makes those prescribed intervals legally mandatory for the defined fleet.

• Obtain FAA approvals for AMOCs and later SB revisions. The AD only allows "later revision[s] approved by the FAA as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC)" to extend or replace the referenced Boeing SB revision 4 list (Applicability; Background). That creates a procedural duty to secure FAA approval before relying on later revisions or alternative methods of compliance.

Rights and options

• Optional permanent repair for crack-free aircraft. The AD records a right for aircraft without detected cracking to elect the permanent repair described in the Requirement document: "the Requirement document provides a permanent repair, which is optional for aircraft with no cracks" (Requirement, Note 2). Choosing that repair has a further legal consequence since the AD specifies the repair "constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by this directive" (Requirement, Note 2).

• Access to AMOC pathway. Operators may seek to use later revisions of the Boeing SB or alternative procedures, but only with FAA approval as an AMOC. The AD thereby preserves a formal pathway to authorise alternatives, subject to FAA discretion (Applicability; Background).

Delegated decision-making recorded

• CASA delegate signature. The AD is executed by a CASA delegate, David Villiers, dated 22 June 2005. That shows the administrative decision to adopt the FAA AD’s technical requirements for Australian aircraft was taken under CASA’s delegated authority and recorded in the instrument.

What is not in the AD

• The AD itself does not set monetary fines, suspension mechanisms or criminal sanctions in the text provided. It sets out duties to perform inspections and repairs by importing the FAA AD. Any enforcement or penalty regime applicable to noncompliance is not specified in the AD text provided here. The AD makes compliance mandatory by effect, but the instrument does not enumerate enforcement steps or penalties.

Operational implications of the duties and rights

• Operators must inspect their fleet against the Boeing SB list to establish which airframes are captured, then consult FAA AD 2005-11-02 for the technical steps and scheduling. If an aircraft is crack-free, operators may choose to carry out the permanent repair described in the Requirement document, and doing so will stop the need for the repetitive inspections that the FAA AD specifies. If an operator wants to rely on an updated Boeing service bulletin revision or an alternative repair method, FAA approval as an AMOC is required before relying on those materials for compliance with this CASA AD.

The AD text provided does not specify penalties, enforcement mechanics or sanctioning processes. It records the directive, applicability, the requirement to act "in accordance with the technical requirements of FAA AD 2005-11-02 Amdt 39-14104" and the effective date. It is silent on fines, administrative penalties or criminal sanctions in the text reproduced here. The record shows only that the instrument is an amendment made effective on 4 August 2005 and signed by a CASA delegate on 22 June 2005. Any statutory enforcement powers or penalty regimes that CASA may have available are not described in the AD text provided.

What the AD does for enforcement is procedural rather than punitive. By importing the FAA AD as the Requirement document and by specifying an Applicability list derived from a Boeing service bulletin, the AD establishes a clear compliance standard and a clear set of actions "as specified in the Requirement document" (Compliance). In regulatory practice, that clarity enables oversight and compliance checking because inspectors can compare operator records against the FAA AD instructions and the Boeing SB listing. However, the instrument itself does not set out those oversight or sanction mechanisms.

The AD also establishes rules about permissible alternative compliance methods by requiring FAA approval for later service bulletin revisions or AMOCs. This creates a compliance gate: operators seeking to rely on revisions or alternatives must obtain FAA approval before treating those materials as compliant. The AD thereby imposes a procedural constraint on reliance for compliance, and failure to obtain the required FAA approval would mean the operator is not complying with the AD’s stated terms regarding alternative revisions.

In short, the AD creates mandatory technical obligations by reference, and defines the pathway for alternatives via FAA AMOC approval, but it does not articulate enforcement procedures or penalties within the provided text. Those matters are outside the AD text supplied here.

The instrument explicitly interacts with and depends on a foreign regulator’s directive and a manufacturer’s service bulletin. The CASA AD imports and enforces the FAA AD’s technical requirements for Australian‑registered aircraft within the stated Applicability. Specifically, it directs action "in accordance with the technical requirements of FAA AD 2005-11-02 Amdt 39-14104" (Requirement) and permits use of "a later revision approved by the FAA as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC)" (Applicability). This creates a direct regulatory linkage between CASA’s administrative action and FAA technical determinations.

Service bulletin as list and technical source. The AD’s Applicability is defined by the Boeing Service Bulletin SB 767-53A0078, Revision 4, dated 26 September 2002, or a later revision approved by the FAA as an AMOC. The SB therefore functions in two distinct legal roles: first, it supplies the specific list of aircraft captured by the AD (the applicability list); second, the Boeing SB is the manufacturer’s route to present technical actions and repairs that the FAA AD will incorporate. The AD delegates the substantive technical content to the FAA AD and to the Boeing SB.

AMOC and foreign approval. The AD ties the admissibility of later Boeing SB revisions and alternative compliance paths to FAA approval. That means CASA’s legal instrument delegates technical acceptance of alternative procedures or updated SB revisions to the FAA: a later Boeing revision will not be accepted for compliance with the CASA AD unless the FAA approves it as an AMOC. The AD’s Background indicates Amendment 1 was issued precisely to allow such later revisions subject to FAA AMOC approval, and Amendment 2 responds to an FAA AD that extends requirements to areas not previously covered. This creates a sequential interaction where CASA’s mandate for Australian aircraft follows the FAA’s technical determinations.

Temporal interaction with prior amendments. The AD records a chain of amendments: the original AD effective 27 December 2001, Amendment 1 (which updated the SB revision status and allowed later FAA‑approved revisions), and Amendment 2 (this instrument) which responds to a new FAA AD adding requirements to address additional crack areas. The AD therefore interacts with its own prior versions by superseding or supplementing prior instrument content and by importing new FAA requirements into Australian regulatory effect.

What the AD does not do. The AD does not itself amend or create criminal or civil penalty provisions in the text supplied here. It also does not supplant FAA authority for approving AMOCs and later SB revisions. Instead, it defers to FAA determinations for those technical approvals. The AD is thus an instrument of domestic enforcement that incorporates and defers to foreign technical authorisations where explicitly stated.

In summary, the AD operates at the intersection of domestic regulatory authority (CASA), foreign technical standards and approvals (FAA), and manufacturer technical documentation (Boeing SB). The legal effect for Australian-registered aircraft is to make FAA-prescribed inspections and repairs mandatory, while anchoring permissibility of later SB revisions and alternative methods in FAA approvals.

The AD document presents a short but specific amendment timeline embedded in its Background and header material.

• Original AD: The text records that the "original issue of this AD became effective on 27 December 2001." That is the initial instrument that addressed fatigue cracking in the horizontal stabiliser pivot bulkhead.

• Amendment 1: The Background explains Amendment 1 "was issued to update the revision status of the referenced service bulletin and to allow the use of later revisions of the service bulletin providing that the later revision has been approved by the FAA as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC)." Amendment 1 therefore created procedural flexibility for later Boeing SB revisions, subject to FAA AMOC approval, and updated the cross-reference to the manufacturer’s service bulletin.

• Amendment 2 (current instrument): This instrument is labelled AD/B767/146 Amdt 2 and dated 8/2005. The Background states this amendment "is issued in response to a new FAA AD, which includes new requirements to address cracks in areas not covered by the previous AD." The text also records the effective date for this amendment as 4 August 2005 and the CASA delegate signing and dating the instrument on 22 June 2005. The header and table entries repeat the AD identification, the subject "Horizontal Stabiliser Pivot Bulkhead" and the amendment identifier with the date code.

What changed between versions as recorded in the AD text

• Applicability and service bulletin control: Amendment 1 explicitly authorised the use of later Boeing SB revisions, but only if they are approved by the FAA as an AMOC. That is a procedural relaxation compared to rigidly fixing the SB revision, yet it ties permissibility to FAA approval.

• Substantive scope: Amendment 2 was issued because of a new FAA AD that introduced "new requirements to address cracks in areas not covered by the previous AD." That indicates the subject matter of the FAA AD had expanded the loci of concern around the horizontal stabiliser pivot bulkhead; CASA responded by amending its AD to import those new FAA requirements into the Australian regulatory regime.

Dates and administrative record

• Effective date of Amendment 2: 4 August 2005, as stated under the Compliance or header material.

• Delegate signature: The instrument is signed by David Villiers as "Delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority" and dated 22 June 2005.

Limitations of the recorded amendment history

• The AD text summarises the reasons for amendment but does not reproduce the contents of the earlier ADs or the new FAA AD. It records that the original AD had earlier effective date and that later amendments changed revision status and imported new FAA requirements. The AD does not provide a full redline or consolidated text of the original AD and its amendments; it records the key changes and the current operative references.

Operational consequence of the amendment sequence

• Operators must track the SB revision list and FAA AD developments. Amendment 1 introduced a permissive pathway for later SB revisions via FAA AMOC approval. Amendment 2 expanded the CASA AD’s coverage by importing the new FAA AD requirements addressing additional crack locations. The cumulative effect is a CASA requirement that follows, updates with, and defers to FAA technical judgments as those judgments evolve.

The AD text provided contains no information about any litigation, judicial review, disputes, enforcement proceedings, or administrative appeals relating to this AD, Amendment 1, Amendment 2 or the underlying FAA AD. It records only administrative facts: the original AD effective date (27 December 2001), the amendment purpose statements, the effective date of the current amendment (4 August 2005), and the delegate signature (22 June 2005). No court proceedings, appeals to tribunals, or any case names or outcomes are cited in the provided material.

Because the source document is an administrative directive rather than legislation reporting adjudicative outcomes, it is unsurprising that no litigation history is included. Where an affected party wished to challenge the AD or seek relief, any such proceedings would be external to the AD text and are not recorded in the instrument supplied. Therefore, for purposes of legal research grounded solely in this source, there is no litigation history to report.

If a practitioner requires litigation precedent, judicial decisions, or administrative determinations that interpret or apply this AD or the FAA AD it imports, those materials are not present in the AD text and must be sought in external case law and administrative records. The AD itself contains no references to judicial review, appeals, or any case names.

This AD’s structure and wording create several practical pitfalls that are explicit in the text and which operators and maintenance organisations must recognise.

1. Applicability is defined by the Boeing service bulletin list, not by model alone. The AD applies to "Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series aircraft, as listed in Boeing Service Bulletin ... Revision 4 ... or a later revision approved by the FAA as an AMOC" (Applicability). Operators who assume all 767-200/-300/-300F airframes are captured risk error. The relevant step is to check whether a specific airframe appears on the Boeing SB list referenced.

2. Technical detail is not in the AD. The AD imports FAA AD 2005-11-02 as the Requirement. That means none of the specific inspection tasks, thresholds for crack detection, inspection intervals or repair procedures appear in the CASA AD text. Practitioners must obtain and follow FAA AD 2005-11-02 and Boeing SB 767-53A0078 Revision 4 (or FAA‑approved later revision) to know what to do and by when. The Compliance clause explicitly states actions are "As specified in the Requirement document."

3. Permanent repair choice requires care. The AD states the Requirement document "provides a permanent repair, which is optional for aircraft with no cracks, and if accomplished, constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by this directive" (Requirement, Note 2). That creates a meaningful operational decision: electing the permanent repair abolishes repetitive inspections. Operators should not assume that the permanent repair is mandatory or that conducting temporary repairs is equivalent to the permanent repair. The AD ties the terminating effect specifically to the permanent repair as described in the Requirement.

4. Later Boeing service bulletin revisions require FAA AMOC approval. Amendment 1 authorised later revisions only where the FAA has approved them as an AMOC (Background). That means operators cannot unilaterally adopt a later Boeing SB revision for compliance; they must check whether the FAA has approved that later revision as an AMOC. Relying on a later revision without FAA approval would mean failing to comply with the AD’s specified AMOC requirement.

5. The AD does not state penalties or enforcement procedures. The AD prescribes compliance but does not include enforcement mechanisms within its text. Practitioners must not assume sanctions or enforcement procedures are set out in the AD; they are absent from the provided text.

6. Dates and effective timing. The AD becomes effective on 4 August 2005 per the Compliance paragraph. Operators must observe that effective date for compliance obligations and ensure that any inspections, repairs or alternative approvals align with that timing. The original AD effective date being 27 December 2001 is recorded but the current amendment’s effective date of 4 August 2005 is the operative deadline for the amended obligations.

7. The AD was issued in response to FAA developments. Amendment 2 was "issued in response to a new FAA AD, which includes new requirements to address cracks in areas not covered by the previous AD" (Background). That means obligations can expand as FAA identifies additional crack areas. Operators need to monitor both FAA ADs and revisions to Boeing SBs since CASA’s ADs have been framed to follow FAA technical determinations.

8. Multiple documents to reconcile. Compliance requires reconciling three documents: CASA AD/B767/146 Amdt 2 (this instrument), FAA AD 2005-11-02 Amdt 39-14104 (Requirement), and Boeing SB 767-53A0078 Revision 4 or later FAA‑approved revision (Applicability). Practitioners must ensure consistency across these documents and treat the FAA AD and the Boeing SB as the primary technical sources.

9. Delegation and administrative record. The AD is signed by a CASA delegate. For administrative or procedural queries, enforcement notices, or record requests, the signature indicates the delegate and administrative office responsible for the instrument. The AD provides no further procedural contact details.

10. No technical tolerances included. Because the AD does not reproduce the FAA AD language, do not assume any specific crack size, repair standard or acceptable damage tolerance. All technical limits are in the Requirement document.

The AD’s compliance path is explicit: follow the FAA AD and Boeing SB as specified. The following steps set out the minimum tasks derived strictly from the AD text.

1. Determine applicability for each airframe. Consult Boeing Service Bulletin 767-53A0078 Revision 4 dated 26 September 2002 and any later Boeing SB revisions only if those later revisions have been approved by the FAA as an AMOC. The AD’s Applicability clause makes the SB listing the determinative source: the AD applies to "Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series aircraft, as listed in Boeing Service Bulletin ... Revision 4 ... or a later revision approved by the FAA as an AMOC" (Applicability).

2. Obtain the Requirement document. The AD requires operators to "Action in accordance with the technical requirements of FAA AD 2005-11-02 Amdt 39-14104" (Requirement). Get the full text of FAA AD 2005-11-02 Amdt 39-14104 and read its inspection procedures, intervals, repair thresholds and permanent repair instructions.

3. Follow the FAA AD’s inspection and repair instructions exactly. The CASA AD makes compliance with the FAA AD mandatory by reference. The Compliance clause reads "As specified in the Requirement document." Therefore follow the FAA AD’s required inspections, nondestructive test methods, damage acceptance criteria and repair processes as written.

4. Elect permanent repair or repetitive inspections. If the Requirement document identifies a permanent repair and an aircraft has no detected cracks, electing to accomplish that permanent repair will "constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by this directive" (Requirement, Note 2). Make a documented decision on whether to perform the permanent repair and, if performed, record that it terminates repetitive inspections pursuant to the AD.

5. Secure FAA approval before relying on later SB revisions or alternative methods. If you intend to rely on a later Boeing SB revision rather than Revision 4, or if you plan to use an alternative method of compliance, secure FAA approval for that SB revision or method as an AMOC before treating it as compliant with the CASA AD. The AD explicitly conditions the use of later revisions on FAA AMOC approval (Applicability; Background).

6. Observe effective dates. The current amendment became effective on 4 August 2005. Ensure required actions are scheduled to meet any deadlines or initial inspections set out in the FAA AD, recognising the effective date in the CASA instrument as the point at which the amended obligations take legal effect.

7. Document compliance. Keep maintenance records that demonstrate identification of applicable aircraft via the Boeing SB list, the inspections performed in accordance with FAA AD 2005-11-02, any crack findings, any repairs performed (temporary or permanent), and any FAA AMOCs relied upon. The AD does not specify recordkeeping in its text, but importing a foreign AD as the Requirement normally means records will be the primary evidence for inspectors or a reviewing authority.

8. Coordinate with maintenance providers and the manufacturer guidance. Because the FAA AD and Boeing SB contain the technical requirements, coordinate with appropriately certificated maintenance organisations and ensure technicians are working to the FAA AD and Boeing SB procedures as the AD requires.

9. Monitor further FAA and Boeing publications. Amendment 2 was issued "in response to a new FAA AD, which includes new requirements to address cracks in areas not covered by the previous AD" (Background). That indicates the FAA may issue additional ADs or clarifications. Monitor FAA AD publications and Boeing SB revisions for changes that could be adopted into CASA requirements by amendment.

10. Seek clarifications or approvals where necessary. Where the FAA AD or Boeing SB leave questions about applicability, inspection interpretation or repair scope, raise those questions with the FAA for AMOC consideration. Remember that the AD requires FAA approval for later SB revisions and AMOCs, so do not proceed on a proposed alternative without obtaining that approval.

These steps reflect the instrument’s expressed legal requirements: determine Applicability via the Boeing SB list, execute the technical actions in FAA AD 2005-11-02, choose between repetitive inspections or the optional permanent repair where applicable, and obtain FAA approvals for any alternative compliance method or later SB revision. The CASA AD delegates the technical detail to the FAA AD and the Boeing SB, and compliance must be demonstrated against those documents.