AD/B767/214 - Pegasus Flight Management Computer System

The Directive operates around a small set of concrete concepts and instruments.

• Applicability: The Directive applies only to Model 767-200, -300, -300F and -400ER series aeroplanes that have a Pegasus FMC with the Air Traffic Services (ATS) data link function enabled. The Applicability clause therefore limits the universe of affected aircraft to those where the particular avionics configuration and enabled function are present (Applicability).

• Prescriptive technical remedy: The Directive mandates replacement of two pieces of embedded software in the Pegasus FMC, namely the Operational Programme Software (OPS) and the Flight Information and Data Output (FIDO) software. The replacement must be done "in accordance with the applicable service bulletin specified in either Table 1 or Table 2" (Requirement). The Directive does not prescribe alternative technical mitigations within the document; it prescribes particular software versions and the manufacturer's service bulletins as the implementation documents.

• Dual compliance routes: The Directive lists two sets of service bulletins grouped as Table 1 (Pegasus 2003 OPS and FIDO) and Table 2 (Pegasus 2005 OPS and FIDO). Each table identifies which Boeing service bulletin applies to which aeroplane model and gives the dates and revision numbers where provided. That creates two acceptable upgrade targets, each linked to a concrete Boeing document.

• Time-limited compliance: The Directive sets a single deterministic compliance period: "Within 18 months after the effective date of this Directive" (Compliance). The effective date is stated as 24 November 2005. The timing is therefore a hard scheduling constraint operators must respect.

• Source documents and cross-reference: The remedy is implemented by following Boeing Alert Service Bulletins and Boeing Service Bulletins identified in the tables. The Directive also contains a Note referring to an FAA airworthiness directive, FAA AD 2005-18-09 Amdt 39-14249, indicating that the same or similar failure prompted action by another regulator (Table note).

• Stated hazard: The Background states the technical failure reported to the FAA , "‘old’ or expired air traffic control (ATC) clearance messages being displayed on the control display unit (CDU) of the FMC system during subsequent flights" , and links that symptom to the hazard that an aeroplane could enter unauthorised airspace or follow a flight path that does not maintain required separation, "which could result in a near miss or mid-air collision" (Background).

These concepts convert an operational software defect into a binding maintenance action, specify the technical path for correction through manufacturer documents, constrain the set of affected aircraft by configuration and model, and impose a finite timing window for compliance.

The Directive identifies directly affected machines and, by implication, several classes of economic actors.

• Aircraft operators and owners: The Applicability clause restricts coverage to "Model 767-200, -300, -300F and -400ER series aeroplanes, equipped with a Pegasus flight management computer (FMC) system operating with an Air Traffic Services data link function enabled." Therefore the primary economic actors who must implement the Directive are operators and owners of those models that both (1) have the Pegasus FMC installed and (2) have the ATS data link function enabled. Aircraft of the same type without Pegasus FMC or with the ATS data link function disabled are not within the stated applicability.

• Maintenance organisations and avionics shops: Compliance requires replacement of embedded OPS and FIDO software "in accordance with the applicable service bulletin." That directs operators to follow Boeing's service bulletin instructions, which typically means authorised maintenance organisations, avionics providers, or licensed engineers will perform the work. The Directive therefore affects the service providers that implement Boeing service bulletins and software loading.

• Fleet planners and schedulers: The 18-month compliance window and the need to take equipment out of service for a software update will require scheduling decisions by fleet managers and airlines. The Directive's compliance timeframe creates an operational obligation for planning, downtime allocation and possibly rescheduling of flights to accommodate the change.

• Regulators and compliance staff: The instrument is issued by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, evidenced by the signature of a CASA delegate, Jayaprakashan Ambali, and the Directive is dated 4 October 2005 and effective 24 November 2005. CASA compliance staff and delegated personnel would be tasked with monitoring and recording compliance, though the Directive text itself does not supply enforcement mechanics (signature; Effective date; Compliance).

• Cross‑jurisdictional operators: The Directive expressly notes FAA AD 2005-18-09 Amdt 39-14249 in a note. Operators that conduct operations into or from jurisdictions subject to FAA oversight, or that maintain records for multiple regulators, may need to reconcile their compliance with both the CASA AD and the FAA AD. The Directive therefore affects internationally operating carriers using affected 767s.

• Suppliers of software and parts: Boeing, as the provider of the service bulletins and software versions (Pegasus 2003 and Pegasus 2005), is implicated as the source of the corrective action. Entities supplying the software packages, data media or upgrade kits will be part of the operational chain for fulfilment.

The Directive does not name lessors, insurers, or passengers, and it does not specify contractual or liability consequences for non‑compliance within the text. Those downstream effects are possible in practice, but they are not articulated in the Directive itself.

Duties in the Directive are narrowly defined and technical.

• Mandatory replacement duty: The central duty is to "Replace the Operational Programme Software (OPS) and Flight Information and Data Output (FIDO) software of the existing FMC with Pegasus 2003 OPS and FIDO software or Pegasus 2005 OPS and FIDO software" and the work must be done "in accordance with the applicable service bulletin specified in either Table 1 or Table 2" (Requirement). The duty is expressed as an affirmative action to change software to one of the listed versions, and to follow the Boeing service bulletin procedures.

• Model and configuration duty filter: The duty attaches only if the aircraft meet the Applicability condition: 767-200, -300, -300F and -400ER series aeroplanes with Pegasus FMC and ATS data link enabled. If an aircraft does not meet those conditions, the Directive's replacement obligation does not, on its face, apply.

• Timing duty: The replacement must be completed within 18 months of the Directive's effective date. The Directive states "Within 18 months after the effective date of this Directive" and the Directive "becomes effective on 24 November 2005" (Compliance; Effective date). The duty therefore includes scheduling the work inside that period.

• Implementation method duty: The Directive confines the method of compliance to Boeing's identified service bulletins. Table 1 lists Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-34A0389, Revision 2 dated 16 December 2004 for 767-200/-300/-300F series and 767-34A0390 dated 19 February 2004 for 767-400ER series; Table 2 lists Boeing Service Bulletin 767-34-0471 and 767-34-0472, both dated 17 March 2005, mapped to the respective models. The Directive requires operators to implement the software change "in accordance with the applicable service bulletin specified" in the tables.

Rights or omissions in the Directive that affect operators and service providers are notable.

• No exemptions or alternatives stated: The Directive does not set out any explicit exemptions, waivers, or alternative mitigation measures within its text. It offers two target software releases but does not describe conditions where an alternative course could be accepted. The absence of an exemption clause means the only described compliance mechanism is the listed replacement performed according to the named Boeing service bulletin.

• No remedial instructions beyond SBs: The Directive defers to Boeing's service bulletins for technical execution. Rights to deviate from those implementation documents are not articulated in the Directive itself.

• Silence on enforcement remedies: The Directive sets a mandatory duty and a deadline but does not, within the text supplied, specify enforcement mechanisms, penalty regimes, or reporting formats. The absence of such material is a drafting choice that leaves operational detail , for example how CASA will verify compliance , outside the document.

• Delegation and issuance: The Directive is issued by CASA, signed by a delegate, Jayaprakashan Ambali, which reflects the regulator’s decision-making channel. The document shows who decides at the administrative level, but it does not enumerate rights of appeal, review, or seeking an extension within the text.

In short, the Directive places a clear, time‑bounded technical duty on a narrowly defined set of aircraft and defers technical detail to specific Boeing service bulletins, while not specifying exemptions, alternate compliance paths or enforcement terms inside the Directive itself.

The Directive contains explicit operational requirements and a compliance deadline but does not set out penalties or a defined enforcement mechanism in the text supplied.

• Mandatory nature and deadline: The Directive’s operative language requires the software replacement and specifies "Within 18 months after the effective date of this Directive" for completion, and asserts an effective date of 24 November 2005. That structure presents the action as mandatory for aircraft meeting Applicability; however, the Directive text does not identify the administrative or legal consequences of failing to comply.

• Absence of penalty clauses: Nowhere in the Directive’s text are monetary fines, suspension mechanisms, criminal sanctions, or infringement notice procedures specified. The document does not state how CASA will treat non-compliance, what notices or enforcement steps will follow, or whether non-compliant aircraft may be grounded. The Directive merely states the requirement and effective date.

• Delegation of implementation to service bulletins: The Directive mandates compliance "in accordance with the applicable service bulletin," which implicitly channels technical verification and practice to Boeing's procedures. The Directive does not describe how CASA will audit or accept evidence of compliance, nor does it reference a returns procedure, compliance report form, or registry entry in the text.

• Regulator identity and signature: The Directive is signed by a CASA delegate, Jayaprakashan Ambali, and dated 4 October 2005. The presence of the signature documents CASA's issuance, but the document itself is silent about CASA’s enforcement steps.

• Cross-reference to FAA AD: The Directive includes a note pointing operators to FAA AD 2005-18-09 Amdt 39-14249. The FAA AD may, in its own jurisdiction, specify enforcement and compliance mechanisms; however, the CASA Directive text does not incorporate or reproduce any such enforcement mechanisms.

• Practical inference versus textual fact: Practically, airworthiness directives function as mandatory corrective actions in regulatory regimes, and operators typically must demonstrate compliance to their regulator. The Directive creates a clear expectation of compliance by a specified date. However, strictly from the text provided, there are no explicit penalty or enforcement provisions; any enforcement practices remain outside the four corners of this Directive as presented.

If a practitioner needs to advise on enforcement risk or likely regulatory steps post non-compliance, the Directive’s silence on those items indicates the need to consult CASA’s broader enforcement policy, the relevant civil aviation regulatory framework, or subsequent CASA communications that may have established verification, reporting or sanction protocols. Those documents are not part of the text supplied here.

The Directive positions the CASA action in a technical and cross-jurisdictional regulatory context, but the text itself contains limited cross‑references.

• Direct cross-reference to FAA AD: The Directive’s Note says "FAA AD 2005-18-09 Amdt 39-14249 refers." That is an explicit interaction with an FAA airworthiness directive addressing the same or a similar issue. The reference indicates that the technical hazard and manufacturer remedy have also attracted regulatory attention in the United States. The practical effect for operators is that compliance obligations could arise under more than one regulator’s regime, and the Directive points operators towards the FAA action as relevant background information.

• Manufacturer service bulletins as the procedural link: The Directive requires that replacement of OPS and FIDO software be performed "in accordance with the applicable service bulletin specified" in Table 1 or Table 2. This creates an interaction between regulatory compulsion and manufacturer-prescribed procedural material. The Directive relies on Boeing's service bulletin content to define the technical steps for compliance, thereby embedding manufacturer instructions into the regulatory requirement.

• Interaction with airworthiness certification obligations: Although not spelled out in the text, the action is an Airworthiness Directive, which by nature interacts with ongoing airworthiness and maintenance obligations that operators are required to meet. The Directive does not, within its text, restate those broader statutory obligations or reference specific sections of civil aviation legislation or regulations; it is therefore an operational instrument that complements, rather than restates, the surrounding regulatory framework.

• Absence of domestic legal citations: The Directive text does not cite specific provisions of Australian aviation law or set out how compliance should be documented or certified in the operator's continuing airworthiness records. The Directive’s interaction with domestic legal mechanisms for verification and enforcement is therefore left implicit.

• Potential international effect: The explicit FAA reference suggests commonality of technical standards and potential for harmonised enforcement expectations for multinational operators. The Directive does not indicate whether CASA will treat compliance with the FAA AD as sufficient for Australian registry aircraft, or vice versa. The Directive simply invokes the FAA AD as related material.

• No explicit interaction with commercial law: The Directive does not address contractual, lease, insurance, or liability consequences. Those interactions will be consequential in practice but are not articulated in the Directive itself.

In sum, the Directive operationally interacts with manufacturer service bulletins and with an FAA AD, but it does not specify procedural interactions with other statutes or regulatory instruments in the text provided. Practitioners requiring certainty on cross-jurisdictional acceptance, documentation standards, or enforcement procedures will need to consult CASA’s broader regulatory instruments or the FAA AD text referenced.

The Directive text supplies a limited record of dates and related document versions, but it does not list any subsequent amendments to the Directive itself in the material provided.

• Issue and effective dates: The Directive is dated 4 October 2005 (signed by Jayaprakashan Ambali, Delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority) and "becomes effective on 24 November 2005" as stated in the document. The Directive also carries a header giving its ID and calendar reference: "AD/B767/214", "Pegasus Flight Management Computer System", and "12/2005" appears in the header information.

• Service bulletin dates and revisions captured in tables: The two compliance routes reference Boeing service documents with explicit dates and a revision number for one of them:

  • Table 1 (Pegasus 2003 OPS and FIDO - Applicable Service Bulletins):

    • For 767-200/-300/-300F series: Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-34A0389, Revision 2, dated 16 December 2004.
    • For 767-400ER series: Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-34A0390, dated 19 February 2004.

  • Table 2 (Pegasus 2005 OPS and FIDO - Applicable Service Bulletins):

    • For 767-200/-300/-300F series: Boeing Service Bulletin 767-34-0471, dated 17 March 2005.
    • For 767-400ER series: Boeing Service Bulletin 767-34-0472, dated 17 March 2005.

• Cross-reference to FAA action: The Directive includes a Note stating that "FAA AD 2005-18-09 Amdt 39-14249 refers." That FAA action is recorded as part of the background and cross-jurisdictional linkage. The Directive does not include the FAA AD text or its dates beyond that reference.

• No listed amendments to this Directive within the supplied text: The material provided does not contain any later amendment, superseding AD, cancellation notice, or revision history for AD/B767/214. There is no explicit "Amendment" section or entries noting changes after the 4 October 2005 signature. The header shows "12/2005" which aligns with the period of issuance but does not by itself constitute an amendment log.

• Practical record-keeping implication: Because the Directive references specific revision numbers and dated Boeing documents, the effective content of the Directive is tied to the particular versions of service bulletins listed. Absent any later amendment text in the Directive itself, those versions are the operative references.

For a practitioner auditing compliance or advising on regulatory exposure, the Directive’s own amendment history as supplied here is confined to the issuance and effective date plus the dated service bulletins. Any later changes, supersessions or companion ADs would need to be sought from CASA’s published AD repository or subsequent regulatory communications; they are not present in the text provided.

The Directive text does not include, cite or summarise any litigation related to AD/B767/214. There are no cases named, decisions referenced, or legal challenges recorded inside the document.

• No judicial decisions or appeals recorded: The supply of the Directive contains only the operative technical requirement, tables of service bulletins, compliance deadline, effective date, a background safety statement referencing FAA reports, and the signature of a CASA delegate. It does not reference any litigation or administrative appeals.

• No recorded disputes or enforcement actions in the document: There are no reported enforcement outcomes, penalty notices, or compliance disputes described.

• Practical consequence for legal research: To identify any litigation or legal disputes that may have arisen in respect of AD/B767/214, practitioners would need to search external sources, such as court databases, tribunal records, or CASA enforcement announcements. Those materials are not included in the Directive text provided.

• Note on FAA AD: The Directive references FAA AD 2005-18-09 Amdt 39-14249. Any litigation history related to the FAA AD would be captured in U.S. records, not in this document. The Directive does not summarise or reproduce any such litigation history even where it references the parallel FAA action.

In short, within the four corners of the AD document offered, there is no litigation history to report. Any assertion about legal challenges or enforcement cases must be derived from sources external to this Directive.

The Directive’s brevity and technical focus create several practical pitfalls and points where implementers commonly make mistakes. These are drawn directly from what the Directive requires and what it omits.

• Applicability interpreted narrowly by configuration: The Directive applies only to aircraft "equipped with a Pegasus flight management computer (FMC) system operating with an Air Traffic Services data link function enabled" (Applicability). A common error is to treat all 767-200/-300/-300F/-400ER aircraft as captured. In reality, the operator must confirm both the Pegasus FMC installation and that the ATS data link function is enabled. Aircraft with Pegasus hardware but with ATS data link disabled, or aircraft with a different FMC, are outside the stated applicability.

• Two software pathways, one choice to make: The Directive permits either Pegasus 2003 OPS and FIDO software (Table 1) or Pegasus 2005 OPS and FIDO software (Table 2). The operative text requires replacement "with Pegasus 2003 OPS and FIDO software or Pegasus 2005 OPS and FIDO software, in accordance with the applicable service bulletin specified in either Table 1 or Table 2" (Requirement). Implementers must map their aeroplane model to the correct service bulletin and choose a single upgrade route; implementing the wrong bulletin for the model is non-compliant.

• Version and revision specificity: Table 1 includes a revision number for Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-34A0389, Revision 2 dated 16 December 2004. Following an incorrect revision of a service bulletin may lead to non‑compliance with the Directive’s precise instruction to follow the "applicable service bulletin specified" in the tables.

• Timing trap: The compliance window is "Within 18 months after the effective date of this Directive." Because the Directive "becomes effective on 24 November 2005," the cut‑off is clearly 24 May 2007. Missing that window could create exposure, yet the Directive text itself does not state the consequences of late compliance. Operators should not assume informal extensions; the Directive does not provide any grace period.

• Reliance on manufacturer service bulletins: The Directive delegates execution detail to Boeing's service bulletins. If an operator attempts to perform a different technical mitigation, or to use in-house procedures that deviate from the specified Boeing SBs, the Directive text offers no path for that deviation. Practitioners should ensure the implemented procedure mirrors the named SB.

• Cross-jurisdictional complexity: The Note that "FAA AD 2005-18-09 Amdt 39-14249 refers" signals that the same issue was the subject of FAA action. Operators that conduct operations across jurisdictions must ensure their compliance positions align with both ADs; the Directive does not explain whether satisfying the FAA AD will be accepted by CASA, or vice versa.

• Documentation and evidence gap in the Directive: The Directive does not set out a reporting, recordkeeping or certification process to show compliance. That omission can lead to inconsistent evidence being kept. Practitioners should not assume that any particular format suffices in discussions with CASA, because the Directive itself is silent on proof of compliance.

• Potential operational downtime and scheduling impact: The Directive does not describe how long the software replacement takes or whether any post‑installation checks are required, but the nature of software replacement on FMCs normally involves aircraft downtime and test work. Operators should plan for that although timing details are not provided in the AD.

• No stated exceptions or waiver process: The Directive lists the requirement and the means but does not provide an explicit waiver or alternative compliance method within its text. Where an operator believes an alternative technical fix is safer or operationally necessary, the Directive does not state how to obtain acceptance of such an alternative.

• Multiple documents to obtain: Compliance requires the Boeing Alert Service Bulletins and Boeing Service Bulletins listed in Tables 1 and 2. Failing to obtain the correct bulletin versions (including revision numbers and dates) risks failing to meet the Directive's specified requirements.

These practical "gotchas" arise from the Directive’s technical specificity, narrow applicability, reliance on manufacturer documents, and its silence on reporting and enforcement detail.

The Directive defines a concise compliance pathway. Below are concrete steps an operator or maintenance manager should follow, derived directly from the Directive’s text and tables.

1. Confirm applicability:

   • Verify the aircraft model is one of the listed models: 767-200, -300, -300F or -400ER.
   • Confirm the aircraft is "equipped with a Pegasus flight management computer (FMC) system" and that the "Air Traffic Services data link function [is] enabled" on that FMC. The requirement attaches only where both model and configuration conditions are met (Applicability).

2. Determine the upgrade route and applicable service bulletin:

   • If choosing the Pegasus 2003 route, use the service bulletins in Table 1:
     • For 767-200/-300/-300F series: Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-34A0389, Revision 2, dated 16 December 2004.
     • For 767-400ER series: Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-34A0390, dated 19 February 2004.
   • If choosing the Pegasus 2005 route, use the service bulletins in Table 2:
     • For 767-200/-300/-300F series: Boeing Service Bulletin 767-34-0471, dated 17 March 2005.
     • For 767-400ER series: Boeing Service Bulletin 767-34-0472, dated 17 March 2005.
   • The Directive requires replacement "in accordance with the applicable service bulletin specified in either Table 1 or Table 2" (Requirement). Match model to the correct bulletin and verify revision/date.

3. Procure the required software and documentation:

   • Obtain the specified Pegasus software package (Pegasus 2003 OPS and FIDO or Pegasus 2005 OPS and FIDO) and the corresponding Boeing service bulletin documentation matching the dates and revision numbers listed in the Directive’s tables.

4. Schedule and perform the software replacement:

   • Plan the maintenance slot so the installation and any necessary post-installation testing can be completed.
   • Execute the software replacement strictly following the procedural instructions in the relevant Boeing service bulletin, as the Directive directs operators to act "in accordance with" that bulletin.

5. Meet the deadline:

   • Complete the software replacement "within 18 months after the effective date of this Directive." The Directive "becomes effective on 24 November 2005." Therefore, for the record in this Directive, the compliance window expired on 24 May 2007. If advising contemporaneously at the time of issuance, plan to complete the work within that 18-month period.

6. Cross-reference and check related ADs:

   • Note the Directive’s reference to FAA AD 2005-18-09 Amdt 39-14249. Operators that fall under multiple jurisdictions should obtain and review the FAA AD to understand parallel requirements and any differences in technical instructions or verification expectations.

7. Document the work:

   • Although the Directive does not specify a reporting form, maintain clear records of:
     • Aircraft registration and serial number.
     • The Pegasus version installed previously and the replacement version installed.
     • The Boeing service bulletin number, revision, and date used for the procedure.
     • Dates and details of the maintenance actions and post‑installation functional tests.
     • Name and authorisation of the maintenance organisation or engineer who performed the work.
   • Keep these records in case CASA requests evidence of compliance, or for internal airworthiness audit purposes; the Directive itself does not prescribe the format.

8. Verify operational checks:

   • Follow any in-bulletin test procedures specified by Boeing to verify the software installation corrected the reported failure mode (display of ‘old’ or expired ATC clearance messages). The Directive’s background identifies that symptom as the reason for the software change; the service bulletin is the procedural source for verification steps.

9. Seek clarifications if necessary:

   • If there is uncertainty about whether an aircraft’s configuration triggers the Applicability clause, or if an alternative mitigation is proposed, seek clarification from CASA or the delegated authority who issued the Directive. The Directive is silent on waiver procedures; any deviation from the listed compliance path should be coordinated with the regulator.

10. Maintain awareness of related regulatory communications:

• Because the Directive references related FAA AD material, monitor CASA communications and Boeing releases for any later ADs, service bulletin revisions, or regulatory guidance that might alter the compliance posture. The Directive itself contains no amendment history beyond the issuance data.

Following these steps will align an operator with the Directive’s text: confirm applicability, select the correct service bulletin from Table 1 or Table 2, perform the Pegasus software replacement per Boeing instructions, and complete the work within the 18-month window set by the Directive.