AD/B767/167 Amdt 3 - Centre/Auxiliary Fuel Tank Override/Jettison Fuel Pumps

The directive deploys a small set of interlocking regulatory concepts. Each concept is stated in the source and determines what the operator must do and when.

Applicability: The AD explicitly limits its scope to Boeing 767-200, -300 and -300F series aeroplanes (Applicability). That establishes the universe of affected aircraft.

Incorporation-by-reference of a foreign AD: The technical requirements are set by reference to FAA AD 2001-15-08, Amdt 39-12342. The Australian AD does not reproduce the full technical steps; it requires operators to "revise the Limitation Section of the Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM), replace override fuel pumps, carry out repetitive inspections of override/jettison fuel pumps and install modified override and override/jettison fuel pumps in accordance with the requirements of FAA AD 2001-15-08, Amdt 39-12342" (Requirement). The Australian instrument therefore uses the FAA document as the requirement document.

Repetitive inspections and terminating action: The directive pairs interim repetitive inspection obligations with longer-term hardware replacement/modification that, when accomplished, terminate earlier obligations. The text states that accomplishment of paragraph (e) of the FAA AD constitutes terminating action for AD/B767/77 Amdt 2, and that accomplishment of paragraph (i) constitutes terminating action for specified paragraphs of FAA AD 2001-15-08 and for AD/B767/77 and AD/B767/55 (Requirement, Terminating Actions). Mechanically, operators face continuing inspection duties until they install the specific modified pumps or perform the FAA-specified terminating actions.

Phased compliance timing and extension: The AD specifies different timing buckets. For actions other than paragraph (i) of the FAA requirement document, compliance is "as detailed in the requirement document from the effective date of the original issue of this directive" (Compliance (a)). For paragraph (i) actions, compliance is within 84 months from the effective date of the original issue (Compliance (b)). The document records an FAA-approved extension of 48 months to the original compliance period, documented in FAA letter 140S-03-120 dated 1 May 2003 attached to Boeing Service Letter 767-SL-28-036 dated 10 July 2003 (Compliance Note 4). The structure therefore mixes immediate/short-term deadlines with a substantially longer schedule for certain hardware changes.

Safety rationale: The background identifies the failure mode the AD targets , ignition of fuel vapours caused by sparks from steel-to-steel contact when pumps operate dry (Background). This identifies the engineering hazard (electrical/mechanical sparking in an inertial environment combined with fuel vapour) that motivates the inspection and replacement/modification requirements.

Interplay with prior ADs: The directive explicitly links its requirements to earlier Australian directives AD/B767/77 Amdt 2 and AD/B767/55 (Terminating Actions and Notes). The instruction that specified actions constitute terminating actions for those earlier directives creates an ordered migration from old fixes to the fixes mandated by FAA AD 2001-15-08.

Administrative formality: The amendment history shows iterative updates. The original AD became effective on 17 April 2003; Amendment 1 on 30 October 2003; Amendment 2 on 20 January 2005; and this Amendment 3 becomes effective on 22 December 2005 (Background; Compliance). The document includes signature and date by James Coyne, Delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (11 November 2005).

In sum, the main concepts are (1) incorporation of FAA technical requirements, (2) a mix of interim inspections and long-term hardware change, (3) explicit terminating actions for prior directives, (4) split compliance timelines with an FAA-approved extension, and (5) applicability limited to specific Boeing 767 types.

The directive’s textual applicability is narrow and identifies the affected parties specifically. It applies to operators and owners of Boeing 767-200, -300 and -300F series aeroplanes (Applicability). Those operators are therefore the primary actors who must implement the AD’s requirements.

Operators: Airlines, leasing companies, and other holders of the affected aircraft will be directly affected. They must revise the Limitation Section of the AFM, carry out repetitive inspections, and either replace existing pumps or install modified override and override/jettison pumps as required by the FAA AD referenced in the directive (Requirement). Until terminating actions are accomplished, operators must maintain the inspection regime.

Maintenance organisations and MROs: Maintenance providers that perform pump replacements, modifications and inspections will receive demand for labour, parts and engineering work. The AD’s reliance on FAA AD 2001-15-08 for technical content means MROs will need access to, and to follow, that FAA document when performing work.

Parts suppliers and pump manufacturers: The AD creates demand for modified override and override/jettison pumps intended to mitigate the specified ignition risk. Suppliers of qualifying pumps (including any Boeing-specified replacement parts) will be affected. The source remarks that Boeing was engaged in tests and investigations and that Boeing submitted for additional time , that shows Boeing’s involvement in providing modified parts and technical input (Background). The AD’s terminating-action structure concentrates benefits on operators that obtain the modified pumps.

Regulatory authorities: The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) issued and amended the AD; it delegates the authority to act (James Coyne, Delegate of CASA). The directive cross-references FAA ADs; CASA’s approach here is to adopt FAA technical requirements as the operative work instructions for Australian operators (Requirement, Background).

Lessors and financiers: Aircraft lessors and financiers holding affected aircraft will be affected by requirements that may impose downtime and capital expenditure obligations on operators. The AD’s terminating actions can alter residual compliance obligations for an aircraft in service, and any decision to install terminating-action modifications may affect marketability.

Flight crews and dispatch: The AFM Limitation Section revision requirement affects flight crew documentation and may change dispatch or operational limits until the hardware modifications are installed (Requirement). Flight operations departments must ensure the AFM in the flight deck matches the revised Limitation Section mandated by the AD.

In summary, owners and operators pay the direct costs of inspections and hardware changes; maintenance providers and parts suppliers bear production and compliance responsibilities; CASA and FAA play decision and technical-document roles; flight crews and lessors are indirect stakeholders due to changes in AFM limitations and aircraft availability. The AD itself names the exact aircraft types and delegates the technical steps to the FAA AD 2001-15-08, so affected parties must consult that FAA document for the specific tasks to be performed.

The AD imposes obligatory duties on operators; it does not enumerate rights within the text provided. The duties are expressed as mandatory actions "in accordance with the requirements of FAA AD 2001-15-08, Amdt 39-12342", and are summarised in the Requirement and Compliance entries.

Duties

• AFM revision: Operators must revise the Limitation Section of the Aircraft Flight Manual to incorporate the limitations or procedures specified by the FAA AD. The AD instructs this as a discrete requirement (Requirement). That imposes an administrative duty on operators to update flight documentation and ensure revised AFMs are in place.

• Pump replacement and installation of modified pumps: Operators must replace override fuel pumps and install modified override and override/jettison fuel pumps as specified in the FAA AD (Requirement). Those replacements are technical maintenance duties that will require certified maintenance personnel and appropriate documentation.

• Repetitive inspections: Until terminating actions are accomplished, operators must carry out repetitive inspections of override/jettison fuel pumps as required by the FAA AD (Requirement). The adjective "repetitive" implies a continuing inspection schedule which operators must integrate into maintenance planning.

• Compliance timing: For actions other than paragraph (i) of the FAA AD, compliance is required "as detailed in the requirement document from the effective date of the original issue of this directive" (Compliance (a)). For paragraph (i) actions, the compliance date is within 84 months from the effective date of the original issue (Compliance (b)). Operators must therefore calendar and execute work within those timescales.

• Terminating-action obligations: If operators perform the actions in paragraph (e) or paragraph (i) of the FAA AD, those actions constitute terminating actions for specific earlier AD obligations (Requirement, Terminating Actions). Operators who accomplish those FAA-paragraph steps benefit by ceasing the corresponding earlier AD requirements.

Delegated technical content: The Australian AD delegates the detailed technical instructions to FAA AD 2001-15-08, Amdt 39-12342. That means operators must consult and follow that FAA document closely to discharge their duties under the Australian AD (Requirement). The Australian AD does not restate the technical sequences.

Rights and administrative interactions reflected in the text

• Terminating action as relief: The AD provides a method (accomplish paragraph (e) or paragraph (i) of the FAA AD) by which prior AD obligations are terminated. This functions as an explicit regulatory relief pathway for operators: by performing specified modifications or replacements, operators can cease to be subject to prior AD requirements identified in the directive (Terminating Actions). The right to rely on that terminating-action pathway is contingent on performing the precise FAA-specified steps.

• Use of FAA-authorised extension: The AD acknowledges an FAA-approved extension to the compliance period for paragraph (i), documented by FAA letter 140S-03-120 dated 1 May 2003 and attached to Boeing Service Letter 767-SL-28-036 dated 10 July 2003 (Compliance Note 4). That record implies operators may rely on the extended compliance period as approved by FAA, as reflected in the Australian AD’s compliance table.

What the AD does not state

• The text of the AD does not provide an explicit catalogue of penalties, rights of appeal, or exception mechanisms; it sets mandatory technical and documentation obligations and ties their particulars to the FAA AD. The operator’s duties therefore consist in performing the FAA-specified tasks within the stated timeframes and filing necessary documentation (Requirement; Compliance).

In practice, meeting the AFM revision, inspection and replacement duties will require coordination between flight operations, maintenance planning, parts procurement and, where applicable, lessors. The terminating-action provision creates a strategic decision point for operators: perform the hardware changes to eliminate recurring inspection obligations from prior ADs, or continue inspections until the terminating action is practicable.

The text of the AD, as provided, sets out mandatory requirements and compliance timelines but does not specify sanctions, penalty amounts or an enforcement mechanism within the body of the directive itself. The document records effective dates and compliance deadlines, the specific actions required "in accordance with the requirements of FAA AD 2001-15-08, Amdt 39-12342", and identifies terminating actions for prior ADs (Requirement; Compliance; Terminating Actions). The directive becomes effective on 22 December 2005 (Compliance), and earlier versions had effective dates set out in the Background.

What the AD states about compliance but not about penalties

• The AD contains explicit compliance requirements and deadlines (Compliance and Requirement), but it does not, in the text supplied, set out monetary penalties, suspensions, or administrative enforcement procedures. It records the mandatory nature of the actions by stating that the actions required "are intended to prevent ignition of fuel vapours" and by prescribing required modifications and inspections (Background; Requirement).

Implications for enforcement practitioners and operators

• In the absence of penalty text within the AD itself, enforcement and penalty mechanisms would ordinarily derive from the broader statutory framework under which CASA issues ADs. The Australian AD is an instrument of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority; enforcement actions, sanctions or remedial measures,if and when applied,will flow from CASA's statutory powers and enforcement policies rather than from this AD’s textual provisions. Those broader statutory powers and processes are not set out in the AD text provided.

• The AD’s effective dates and compliance timetables create clear obligations that CASA may expect operators to meet. Operators should therefore treat the specified requirements and deadlines as mandatory action items and maintain contemporaneous records showing compliance with the FAA requirement document that the AD incorporates by reference. The directive explicitly notes the FAA letter that authorised a compliance extension and the Boeing service letter that attached it (Compliance Note 4); those documents should be retained as part of the compliance record.

• Given the AD’s explicit terminating-action clauses, enforcement in practice may involve verifying whether an operator has accomplished the terminating steps in paragraphs (e) or (i) of the FAA AD, as recorded in maintenance documentation and AFM revisions. Absent such records, inspectors would have to verify whether ongoing repetitive inspections remain in place.

Because the AD text provided does not itself articulate penalties or enforcement steps, practitioners should consult CASA’s regulatory and enforcement instruments and processes for authority on sanctions, and should ensure that maintenance and operational records clearly document compliance with the FAA AD actions that the Australian AD requires.

The AD explicitly interacts with prior airworthiness directives and with foreign (FAA) airworthiness directives by cross-reference and by defining terminating actions that supersede earlier requirements. The directive itself references and conditions its obligations on several prior instruments.

Cross-references and terminating actions

• FAA AD 2001-15-08, Amdt 39-12342: The Australian AD makes the FAA AD the operative technical requirement document. It requires actions "in accordance with the requirements of FAA AD 2001-15-08, Amdt 39-12342" (Requirement). That incorporation-by-reference means the FAA AD's content determines the substantive work to be done, and the Australian AD’s compliance obligations must be read alongside the FAA AD.

• AD/B767/77 Amdt 2 (refer FAA AD 94-11-05, amendment 39-8921 dated 31 May 1994): The Australian AD states that accomplishment of paragraph (e) of the FAA AD constitutes terminating action for the requirements of AD/B767/77 Amdt 2 (Requirement, Terminating Actions). It further states that accomplishment of paragraph (i) of the FAA AD constitutes terminating action for the requirements of paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (g) and (h) of FAA AD 2001-15-08 and the requirements of AD/B767/77 (Requirement, Terminating Actions). The AD therefore creates a migration path that discharges older Australian AD obligations once specified FAA-specified modifications are completed.

• AD/B767/55 (relates to FAA AD 91-15-11): The AD says that accomplishment of paragraph (i) of FAA AD 2001-15-08 constitutes terminating action for the requirements detailed in AD/B767/55 (Requirement, Terminating Actions; Note 3). In practical terms, the AD links compliance with a later FAA-specified hardware modification to release from older Australian AD obligations.

Administrative relationship with FAA and Boeing

• The Australian AD documents that an FAA letter (140S-03-120 dated 1 May 2003) approved an extension of 48 months to the original compliance period for paragraph (i), and that this letter was attached to Boeing Service Letter 767-SL-28-036 dated 10 July 2003 (Compliance Note 4). That shows the Australian AD’s timing and compliance expectations were shaped by FAA decisions and Boeing submissions recorded at the time. The directive therefore sits in a regulatory ecosystem where CASA adopts FAA technical determinations and acknowledges FAA administrative decisions insofar as they affect compliance timelines and terminating actions.

Effects on documentation and AFM obligations

• The requirement to revise the AFM Limitation Section implicates the set of operational documents that govern flight crew behaviour and Dispatch/Operations approvals (Requirement). Changes to AFM limitations may have downstream interaction with operational approvals, company procedures, and flight crew training. Those interactions are not spelled out in the AD but are functionally relevant to aircraft operations and to any domestic regulatory approvals required for operational changes.

Limitations of the provided text

• The AD text provided does not reference broader aviation statutes or CASA enforcement rules, nor does it reproduce the technical content of FAA AD 2001-15-08. Therefore, to determine full legal obligations, relevant enforcement pathways, or to reconcile the AD with other national regulations, operators must look beyond the AD text to the FAA AD itself and to CASA’s governing legislation and enforcement instruments. The AD functions as a directive that imports an external technical standard and creates terminating-action relationships with prior Australian ADs.

In sum, the AD’s interactions with other laws and directives are primarily: (1) technical incorporation of FAA AD 2001-15-08, (2) terminating-action relationships that supersede AD/B767/77 Amdt 2 and AD/B767/55 upon completion of specified FAA-paragraph actions, and (3) acknowledgement of FAA administrative extensions documented in FAA and Boeing correspondence. Those linkages determine both what work must be done and how older regulatory obligations are retired.

The source provides a concise sequence of the instrument’s evolution and documents key administrative milestones and attachments. The amendment history and associated notes set out the AD’s administrative chronology and the factual basis for timing changes.

Key dates and amendments recorded in the AD text

• Original issue: The Airworthiness Directive’s original issue became effective on 17 April 2003 (Background). The Requirement section states the actions are to be carried out "in accordance with the requirements of FAA AD 2001-15-08, Amdt 39-12342."

• Amendment 1: Amendment 1 of this Directive became effective on 30 October 2003 (Background). The text records that Amendment 1 provided terminating actions as detailed in the requirement document with reference to the relevant Australian directive (Background).

• Amendment 2: Amendment 2 became effective on 20 January 2005 (Background). Amendment 2 changed the original compliance period for paragraph (i) of the requirement document following issue of an FAA letter approving an extension. The AD explains that Boeing submitted for additional time to carry out tests and to investigate operator reports of intermittent fuel imbalance caused by modified replacement pumps; this prompted the FAA extension and Amendment 2’s change to the compliance period (Background).

• Amendment 3 (this Amendment): The current text is AD/B767/167 Amdt 3 and states that this Amendment becomes effective on 22 December 2005 (Compliance). The AD is signed by James Coyne, Delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, on 11 November 2005, which provides the administrative record for the amendment’s issuance.

Attachments and approvals referenced

• FAA letter 140S-03-120 dated 1 May 2003: The AD records that this FAA letter approved an extension of 48 months to the original compliance period for paragraph (i); it notes that this letter is attached to Boeing Service Letter 767-SL-28-036 dated 10 July 2003 (Compliance Note 4). That correspondence is incorporated into the AD’s compliance framework insofar as it justifies the extended timeline.

• Boeing Service Letter 767-SL-28-036 dated 10 July 2003: The AD notes that the FAA letter approving the extension was attached to this Boeing service letter (Compliance Note 4). The service letter is therefore part of the documented administrative record that shaped compliance timing.

Relation to earlier ADs

• The AD explicitly links its terminating actions to earlier directives: AD/B767/77 Amdt 2 (referencing FAA AD 94-11-05, amendment 39-8921 dated 31 May 1994) and AD/B767/55 (relating to FAA AD 91-15-11) (Requirement; Notes). The amendment history documents how newer FAA-specified modifications supplant or terminate obligations established in those earlier ADs.

Contextual note in Background

• The Background paragraphs describe the safety rationale behind the directive and explain the reason for the compliance-extension request from Boeing: operator reports of intermittent fuel imbalance caused by modified replacement pumps required tests and investigation before broad implementation (Background). That sequence explains the rationale for the FAA extension and the administrative record that appears in the amendment history.

Taken together, the amendment history shows an iterative regulatory response: the original AD in 2003, an early amendment to provide terminating-action clarity, a subsequent amendment giving additional time while Boeing and operators investigated pump-related imbalance reports, and this Amendment 3 which became effective in December 2005. The administrative record explicitly references FAA correspondence and a Boeing service letter as parts of the justification for extended compliance timing.

The provided AD text contains no litigation history. It records the directive's issuance dates, amendment dates, the FAA correspondence approving an extension, and the Boeing service letter attachment, but it does not reference any judicial or administrative appeal outcomes, litigation proceedings, or contested enforcement actions.

What the text does record that may be relevant to potential disputes

• Administrative record: The AD documents a sequence of FAA and Boeing interactions (FAA letter 140S-03-120 dated 1 May 2003; Boeing Service Letter 767-SL-28-036 dated 10 July 2003) that authorised an extension of the compliance period for paragraph (i). That administrative trail would be relevant background evidence in any dispute about the timetable or the reasonableness of compliance dates (Compliance Note 4).

• Terminating actions and interactions with prior ADs: Because the AD expressly ties terminating actions to prior AD/B767/77 and AD/B767/55 obligations, any litigation or dispute over whether a particular action counts as terminating would likely focus on whether the operator complied with the precise FAA-paragraph steps referenced in the AD. The text itself does not describe dispute resolution mechanisms or appeals, nor does it state whether CASA administrative decisions around AD issuance have appeal rights or processes in the AD text itself.

Absence of reported cases or challenges in the AD

• The AD does not recount any court or tribunal decisions, appeals, injunctions or other litigation relating to the directive, its amendments or the FAA/ Boeing correspondence. If practitioners require litigation history or precedent, they will need to consult external sources such as CASA records, court databases, or industry bulletins, because the AD does not provide that material.

In short, the AD’s text contains no litigation history. It is an administrative instrument recording technical requirements, compliance deadlines and the administrative correspondence that supported timing decisions, but it does not document or cite any legal contests or adjudications arising from the AD.

This directive contains several points where operators, maintenance organisations, lessors or flight operations departments can easily misread obligations or fail to capture administrative relief. These are practical pitfalls documented in the source text.

Reliance on an external requirement document

• The AD does not spell out the step-by-step technical procedures; it directs operators to perform the work "in accordance with the requirements of FAA AD 2001-15-08, Amdt 39-12342" (Requirement). A common operational mistake would be to treat the Australian AD in isolation. Operators must obtain and follow the FAA AD precisely. Failure to do so could mean performing incomplete work or missing a specified inspection interval or terminating-action condition contained in the FAA document but not repeated in the Australian text.

Ambiguous timing phrasing for different paragraphs

• The AD distinguishes between actions other than paragraph (i) and the paragraph (i) action of the FAA AD. For "other than paragraph (i)" it says compliance is "as detailed in the requirement document from the effective date of the original issue of this directive" (Compliance (a)). For paragraph (i) it says within 84 months from the effective date of the original issue (Compliance (b)). If an operator does not map the Australian AD’s references to the specific paragraphs of the FAA AD, it may misunderstand which tasks fall into which timing bucket. Operators should cross-reference FAA AD paragraph numbering to ensure correct scheduling.

Termination mechanics require specific paragraphs

• The AD makes terminating actions conditional on accomplishing paragraph (e) or paragraph (i) of the FAA AD. The terminating action releases obligations under AD/B767/77 Amdt 2 and AD/B767/55 (Requirement). A gotcha is to assume that any pump replacement or modification suffices to terminate prior ADs. Only the precise FAA-paragraph actions identified in the AD constitute terminating action.

Retention of FAA/Boeing correspondence

• The compliance period for paragraph (i) reflects an FAA-approved extension documented by FAA letter 140S-03-120 dated 1 May 2003 attached to Boeing Service Letter 767-SL-28-036 dated 10 July 2003 (Compliance Note 4). Operators who rely on the extended 84-month schedule should retain copies of that FAA letter and the Boeing service letter as part of their compliance records. Failure to retain or produce those documents during an inspection could lead to misunderstanding about permissible compliance timing.

AFM Limitation Section obligations affect flight operations

• The AD requires revision of the AFM Limitation Section (Requirement). Operators must ensure that the AFM carried on the aeroplane and used for operational dispatch reflects the revised limitations. A common operational gotcha is to update maintenance records but not to ensure that AFMs in the flight deck are revised, signed-off and distributed to flight crews.

Interim repetitive inspections vs. terminating modification scheduling

• Until the terminating modifications are installed, repetitive inspections are required (Requirement). Operators may underestimate the cumulative cost and scheduling burden of repetitive inspections. Conversely, operators who plan to perform terminating modifications must account for parts availability, testing and any operational impacts. The AD’s Background notes that Boeing requested additional time to investigate reports of intermittent fuel imbalance caused by modified replacement pumps, indicating potential technical complications with replacement pumps (Background). That history suggests operators should assess both inspection costs and the practicalities of installing modified pumps.

Confusion over which earlier ADs are terminated

• The AD states which specific previous directives are terminated by the appropriate FAA-paragraph actions, but the text references several documents: AD/B767/77 Amdt 2 (refer FAA AD 94-11-05), and AD/B767/55 (relates to FAA AD 91-15-11) (Notes). Operators with complex maintenance records or aircraft with varied modification histories may misidentify which prior AD obligations remain. A careful reading of the AD and the referenced FAA paragraphs is required to confirm whether prior ADs still apply to a particular airframe.

Recordkeeping: demonstrating compliance

• Because this AD relies on accomplishing tasks in an FAA AD, the compliance record must clearly show the specific FAA-paragraph actions performed, the dates, and the serial numbers of parts installed. Operators should ensure maintenance release forms, logbook entries and AFM revisions identify the FAA AD paragraph numbers used to satisfy terminating actions.

In summary, the primary gotchas are: failure to consult the FAA AD itself; mis-mapping of paragraph (i) vs. other paragraphs for timing; assuming any pump change is a terminating action; not retaining FAA/Boeing correspondence that justifies extended compliance; not updating AFMs properly; underestimating the scheduling and technical complexity of modified pumps; and failing to document which AD obligations have been terminated. Each of these risks is grounded in the wording of the directive and its cross-references.

The AD is prescriptive but defers technical specifics to FAA AD 2001-15-08, Amdt 39-12342. Compliance therefore requires operators to undertake a sequence of administrative and technical steps to ensure documentary and maintenance conformity with the AD and with the FAA AD it incorporates. The following is an operational checklist grounded in the source text.

1. Identify affected aircraft

• Confirm the fleet contains Boeing 767-200, -300 or -300F series aeroplanes (Applicability). For each airframe, confirm the serial number and configuration to determine whether the AD applies.

2. Obtain and study the FAA requirement document

• Acquire FAA AD 2001-15-08, Amdt 39-12342 and review its full text. The Australian AD explicitly requires action "in accordance with the requirements of FAA AD 2001-15-08, Amdt 39-12342" (Requirement). Ensure that maintenance planners and certifying engineers have the FAA AD and any referenced service bulletins before planning work.

3. AFM Limitation Section revision

• Revise the Limitation Section of the AFM as required by the FAA AD. Update the AFM documents carried on the aeroplane, circulate changes to flight crews, and log the AFM amendment in company records. Ensure the revised AFM is entered into the aircraft's technical records and that operators have signed approvals where needed.

4. Schedule and perform repetitive inspections

• Implement the repetitive inspection regime mandated by the FAA AD for override/jettison fuel pumps pending replacement or modification (Requirement). Integrate inspection intervals into the maintenance control programme and ensure inspections are performed by appropriately certificated personnel, recorded in the aircraft logbook, and that any findings are addressed per the FAA AD instructions.

5. Procure and install replacement/modified pumps

• Procure the modified override and override/jettison pumps specified in the FAA AD and arrange for replacement/installation. Ensure parts are issued with proper identification and conformance documentation. Installation must follow the FAA AD or approved Boeing service instructions. Record part numbers, serial numbers and maintenance releases in the aircraft records.

6. Decide on terminating-action strategy

• Review FAA AD paragraph (e) and paragraph (i) to determine which actions will constitute terminating action for the earlier Australian AD obligations cited (AD/B767/77 and AD/B767/55). If operators choose to perform the paragraph (e) or (i) steps, ensure that the completion is documented with explicit reference to the paragraph number so that regulatory reviewers can verify terminating action status.

7. Adhere to compliance timing

• For actions other than paragraph (i) of the FAA AD, comply as specified in the requirement document from the effective date of the original AD issue (Compliance (a)). For paragraph (i), accomplish the required action within 84 months from the effective date of the original issue (Compliance (b)). The AD notes that the 84-month period reflects an FAA-approved extension (FAA letter 140S-03-120 dated 1 May 2003 attached to Boeing Service Letter 767-SL-28-036 dated 10 July 2003). File that FAA letter and Boeing service letter with your compliance documentation if relying on the extended timeframe.

8. Maintain documentary evidence

• Keep comprehensive records demonstrating compliance: AFM revisions, inspection logs, maintenance releases, part numbers and serial numbers for installed pumps, and the specific FAA AD paragraph references that were satisfied. Retain copies of FAA letter 140S-03-120 and Boeing Service Letter 767-SL-28-036 if relying on timing extensions approved under those documents (Compliance Note 4).

9. Coordinate with lessors and financiers

• If the aircraft is leased, notify lessors of the required actions, expected downtime, and any costs that may be lessor obligations under the lease. Coordinate approvals for modifications that might affect aircraft value or return conditions.

10. Communicate with CASA

• Ensure CASA is informed of compliance actions as required by domestic rules on AD compliance and recording. Although the AD text itself does not spell out reporting requirements, Australian operators must follow CASA’s standard procedures for AD compliance record-keeping and for any required notifications.

11. Monitor for follow-up directives

• Track FAA and CASA communications for any further amendments or service information updates related to pumps, fuel imbalance reports or other fuel-tank safety matters. The directive records a history of amendments responding to test results and operator reports (Background), so remain alert to subsequent ADs or service bulletins.

12. Risk assessment for modified pumps

• The Background notes Boeing’s investigation into intermittent fuel imbalance reported by operators after initial replacement pumps were introduced (Background). Before broad installation of modified pumps, conduct an engineering review of potential impacts on fuel system behaviour and balance, and plan trials where appropriate. If uncertainty exists, coordinate with the manufacturer or CASA before fleet-wide implementation.

13. Verify terminating action discharge

• After performing the designated FAA-paragraph actions intended to terminate earlier AD obligations, verify and document that those earlier AD obligations (AD/B767/77 Amdt 2 and AD/B767/55 where relevant) are discharged. Explicitly reference the FAA AD paragraph numbers in maintenance records to show that the AD’s terminating-action condition has been met.

14. Train flight crews

• Ensure flight crew training materials and briefing packs reflect AFM Limitation Section changes resulting from the AFM revision. Confirm that crews understand any operational limitations or procedural changes connected to interim inspections or to the new pump hardware.

Following these steps, and maintaining a detailed compliance file keyed to the FAA AD paragraph references, will address the Australian AD’s requirements as recorded in the source text. The overriding point is that the Australian AD delegates the technical execution to FAA AD 2001-15-08, and compliance must therefore be measured against that FAA document as well as the Australian AD’s timing and terminating-action prescriptions.