AD/B767/228 - Forward and Aft Cargo Compartments Water and Drain Line Heaters

Airworthiness Directive: A legally binding instrument issued by CASA under the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and Civil Aviation Regulations 1988. An AD mandates inspection, modification, or operational limitation on a specific type of aircraft to address an identified unsafe condition. Non-compliance makes the aircraft ineligible for a certificate of airworthiness and exposes the operator to enforcement action including suspension of that certificate.

General visual inspection: Defined implicitly through its use in the service bulletin. It means a visual examination of accessible areas without requiring disassembly beyond opening panels or access doors. The inspection does not involve specialised equipment beyond normal lighting, but must be carried out carefully enough to detect the specified discrepancies. The AD distinguishes this from more intrusive inspection types such as detailed or special inspections.

Foreign object debris or contamination: The Directive requires checking for any foreign material or soiling on, near, or around the potable water supply and grey water drain lines. The rationale is that such material could ignite if the heater tape overheats. The term includes lint, dust, spillage, cleaning residues, or any other substance that is not part of the normal assembly.

Heater tape and protective tape: Heater tape is an electrical heating element wrapped around water and drain lines to prevent freezing. The protective tape is a covering intended to shield the heater tape from mechanical damage and moisture. The AD looks for heat damage (discolouration, melting), exposed foam insulation (the underlying thermal layer), or missing or damaged protective tape. Any of these conditions indicates the heater tape may not be functioning correctly or may be vulnerable to further deterioration.

Terminating action: Completing Requirement 3 (replacement with Adel Wiggins ribbon heaters, or deactivation and removal of defective tape plus foam insulation) ends the obligation to perform the repetitive inspections under Requirements 1.a and 1.b. This is a standard feature of airworthiness directives: a one-time modification eliminates the need for ongoing checks. The choice between the two terminating actions appears to be the operator’s, subject to engineering judgment and the availability of parts. Note that the deactivation and removal option applies only to defective heater tape; if all tape is intact and not defective, the operator must replace it with the ribbon heaters or await a defect to justify deactivation. The AD does not explicitly state that deactivation of non-defective tape is permitted.

Closed and open cargo floor configurations: The Directive’s Note 1 defines these. An open configuration means no panels installed between roller trays; a closed configuration has panels between all roller trays. The configuration affects access to the drain lines and may influence the inspection difficulty and the scope of the terminating action, but the AD applies to both configurations equally.

Variable numbers (VN): Production variant designations used by Boeing. The AD identifies specific VNs for which prior actions using earlier service bulletins are credited. For VN471 and VN472, actions in the forward cargo compartment under the 16 December 2004 alert service bulletin or the 29 September 2005 revision are acceptable. For VS704 through VS707 inclusive, only the 2005 revision is credited for the forward compartment. For all other VNs, actions in both compartments under either earlier bulletin are credited. This grandfathering reduces rework burden for operators who already complied with earlier versions.

Alternate Method of Compliance (AMOC): The Directive accepts later revisions of the Boeing service bulletin that have been approved by the FAA as an AMOC to the corresponding United States AD (FAA 2007-02-18). This means Australian operators do not need separate CASA approval to use those later revisions; they are deemed acceptable. This is a significant delegation of compliance authority to a foreign regulator and a foreign manufacturer.

The Directive directly binds the registered operators of Boeing 767-200 and 767-300 series aeroplanes on the Australian aircraft register as of the effective date (15 March 2007) or that enter the register after that date. The applicability clause ties the obligation to the aircraft type as listed in Boeing Service Bulletin 767-30A0038, Revision 2. This covers essentially all 767-200 and 767-300 variants in commercial passenger, cargo, or charter operations, provided they have the identified potable water and grey water drain line heater tape installations. The Directive does not apply to the 767-400ER series or the 767-300F unless they are within the model range covered by the service bulletin.

Maintenance organisations are indirectly affected. Those holding CASA Part 145 or equivalent approvals must have the capability to perform the general visual inspections, the corrective actions, and the terminating modifications. The requirement to use the manufacturer’s service bulletin means the organisation must hold current technical data for the relevant revision. If the organisation uses the FAA-approved later revisions, it must ensure it has the correct revision and that the applicable data is properly controlled. The inspection intervals (600 and 1800 hours) require careful tracking in the maintenance program, and the organisation must ensure that the aircraft is returned to service only after any discrepancy is corrected before further flight.

Parts suppliers are affected because the Directive mandates either Adel Wiggins ribbon heaters or foam insulation wrap. The ribbon heaters may require procurement from a specific manufacturer or an approved equivalent. The AD does not explicitly approve alternative parts, so any substitution would likely need an AMOC from CASA. This imposes a procurement lead time and cost, particularly if the heaters are not commonly stocked in Australia.

Aircraft lessors and financiers have an interest because compliance with all applicable ADs is a standard condition in lease agreements and insurance policies. Non-compliance could trigger defaults, affect residual value, or void coverage. The Directive’s compliance timeline (tied to original certification date) may create liabilities where a lessor or previous operator deferred the terminating action, leaving the incoming operator with a short compliance window.

Regulatory authorities: CASA must manage the AD’s implementation, including responding to AMOC applications, auditing compliance, and potentially handling enforcement. The incorporation of FAA-approved revisions reduces CASA’s workload but also means that changes in US regulatory policy (e.g., extending compliance dates) automatically flow into Australia without local consultation.

Crew and ground handlers are minimally affected except that the inspection regime requires access to cargo compartments, which may temporarily reduce cargo capacity. The terminating action is a one-time event and should not affect ongoing operations once completed.

Smaller operators and charter companies face a disproportionate compliance burden because they have fewer aircraft over which to spread the one-time modification cost and because the 600-hour inspection cycle may generate more frequent groundings if discrepancies are found. The flexibility between replacement and deactivation gives some cost control, but deactivation may reduce the operational envelope (e.g., flying in cold climates without heated drain lines could cause freezing). This could force operators to choose between more expensive replacement and reduced utility.

The Directive imposes the following duties and confers the following rights on affected persons.

Duty to inspect: The registered operator must ensure that the general visual inspections under Requirement 1.a and 1.b are carried out at the specified intervals. The initial compliance deadline is the later of 18 months from original certification and 90 days after the effective date. For each subsequent inspection, the operator must comply within the maximum time in service stated. If the aircraft reaches the hour limit before the calendar deadline (e.g., a high-utilisation aircraft), the operator must perform the inspection at that point, not wait for the calendar date.

Duty to correct discrepancies: If the inspection reveals any FOD, contamination, heat damage, exposed foam, or missing/damaged protective tape, the operator must carry out corrective action before further flight. The corrective action must follow the service bulletin. This is an immediate grounding condition unless the discrepancy can be rectified on site. The operator has a duty to ensure that the aircraft is not flown until the condition is remedied. This creates operational risk: a discovery on a remote route may cause a delay or cancellations.

Duty to modify: The operator must complete Requirement 3 by the applicable deadline. The operator has the right to choose between the two terminating options. If the operator elects to deactivate and remove defective heater tape and wrap with foam, this must be done only for defective tape. The AD does not explicitly allow deactivation of all heater tape as a blanket solution, only of defective tape. If all tape is non-defective, the operator must replace with ribbon heaters. This is a key distinction: the two options are not fully interchangeable; the deactivation route is conditional on existing defects.

Right to prior action credit: The Directive expressly accepts actions accomplished under earlier service bulletins for certain variable numbers. The operator of a covered aircraft has the right to rely on those prior actions without repeating work, provided the prior action was performed in the correct compartment and in accordance with the correct bulletin revision. The operator bears the burden of proving that the prior action meets the criteria, which may require searching maintenance records.

Right to use later FAA-approved revisions: The operator may use later revisions of the Boeing service bulletin that have been approved by the FAA as an AMOC to FAA AD 2007-02-18. This right is self-executing; the operator does not need to seek separate CASA approval. However, the operator must verify that the FAA has actually approved the revision and that the revision covers the same subject matter. If CASA later determines that a later revision is not acceptable despite FAA approval, the AD’s language would seem to preclude that, because the AD expressly says later revisions approved by the FAA are considered acceptable for compliance with the equivalent requirements. But this creates a potential conflict if CASA issues a conflicting direction.

Duty to maintain records: Although not stated explicitly in the AD, under general regulatory requirements the operator must document all inspections and modifications. Records must show that the inspections were performed by the applicable deadline, that any discrepancy was corrected before further flight, and that the terminating action was completed. The operator should also retain evidence of the aircraft’s original certification date, the VN, and the prior service bulletin history to support grandfathering claims.

No right to extend deadlines: The Directive does not contain a provision for automatic extension. An operator unable to meet the compliance deadline must apply to CASA for an AMOC or a specific extension. There is no right to defer compliance pending parts availability if the deadline has passed; the aircraft would be grounded.

The text of the Airworthiness Directive does not itself state penalties. Instead, the legal consequences flow from the parent regulatory framework: the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988. Under that framework, operating an aircraft that does not comply with an applicable AD is an offence. The AD is a mandatory condition of the aircraft’s certificate of airworthiness. If a defect is found that is not corrected, or if the inspection or modification deadlines are missed, the certificate of airworthiness is no longer valid for that aircraft. Flying with a lapsed or suspended certificate under these circumstances can lead to criminal prosecution, with maximum penalties that can include significant fines and, in serious cases, imprisonment. Civil penalties may also apply under the Civil Aviation Act’s strict liability provisions for operating an unairworthy aircraft.

CASA has broad enforcement powers. It can issue a direction to ground the aircraft, suspend or cancel the certificate of airworthiness, or impose conditions on continued operation. For minor non-compliance that does not create an immediate safety risk, CASA may issue a remedial notice or an infringement notice (on-the-spot fine) under the regulatory framework. In practice, for an AD of this type, CASA’s enforcement approach often involves issuing a formal direction to comply within a specified period, followed by suspension if compliance is not achieved.

The operator also faces private law consequences. Non-compliance with an AD is likely a breach of the operator’s lease or financing agreements, which typically require that the aircraft be maintained in accordance with all applicable ADs. This can trigger default clauses, acceleration of payments, or repossession. Insurance policies often exclude coverage for incidents arising from non-compliance with ADs or from operating an aircraft with a known uncorrected defect. This means that if a fire occurs that the AD was designed to prevent, the operator could lose coverage entirely.

The Directive itself does not create a private right of action for third parties. Passengers or cargo owners harmed by a fire could not sue for breach of the AD directly, but the AD would be strong evidence of the standard of care in a common law negligence claim. Demonstrating compliance with the AD would be a strong defence, while non-compliance would make it very difficult to argue that reasonable care was taken.

Enforcement is not limited to Australian authorities. Under bilateral agreements, the FAA or other national aviation authorities may take action if a Australian-registered aircraft operates into their airspace in non-compliance, but the primary enforcement rests with CASA.

This Airworthiness Directive sits within a layered regulatory framework. At the top is the Civil Aviation Act 1988, which empowers CASA to issue ADs. The Act makes it an offence to operate an aircraft that does not comply with an AD. Below that, the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (CARs) set out general continuing airworthiness requirements, including the obligation to comply with ADs as part of maintaining the certificate of airworthiness. The Directive is therefore not a standalone instrument but a specific application of the general duty.

The Directive interacts directly with the aircraft type certificate and the original certificate of airworthiness. The compliance deadlines are pegged to “the date of issuing the original certificate of airworthiness or the date of issuing the original export certificate of airworthiness.” This means that the AD relies on the certification dates assigned by the country of manufacture (likely the United States) for export certificates, or by CASA for Australian original certificates. For used imports, the export certificate date may differ from the date of first entry into service in Australia. Operators must determine which date applies and ensure they have records to support it. The AD imposes a new condition that effectively amends those original certificates by requiring additional work.

The Directive also incorporates external standards. It requires compliance with Boeing Service Bulletin 767-30A0038, Revision 2. That bulletin is a manufacturer’s document, not a regulation, but by reference it becomes legally binding. Later revisions approved by the FAA are acceptable alternatives, which means the Australian regulatory regime is delegating compliance determination to a foreign government agency. This is unusual in other areas of Australian law and raises questions about accountability and transparency, but it is standard practice in aviation ADs to maintain harmonisation.

The Directive does not conflict with workplace health and safety laws, but it complements them. An in-flight fire is an obvious safety hazard to cabin crew and passengers. Compliance with the AD reduces the risk of such a fire, which aligns with the operator’s duty of care under state and territory work health and safety legislation.

There is no interaction with trade practices or competition law directly, but the mandatory nature of the Directive restricts the operator’s ability to choose alternative maintenance schedules or methods. Operators cannot decide to simply accept a higher fire risk and defer the work; they must comply or ground the aircraft.

The AD may also have implications under international agreements. Australia is a signatory to the Chicago Convention and adopts ICAO standards. The Directive mirrors FAA AD 2007-02-18, so it is consistent with US requirements. This helps Australian operators when the aircraft fly internationally, because the AD is essentially the same as the US requirement. Operators of Australian-registered aircraft that are based in the US or have frequent US operations do not face conflicting regimes.

Finally, the AD interacts with the operator’s maintenance organisation approvals. Only CASA-approved maintenance providers can perform the work. The AD does not on its face require the work to be done by the manufacturer or a specific repair station, but the need to follow the service bulletin means the maintainer must have access to that proprietary data and be authorised to use it.

The Airworthiness Directive itself is not an Act of Parliament and does not undergo formal amendment like primary legislation. However, the sequence of service bulletins referenced within the Directive reveals a history of incremental modification before and after the Directive’s effective date.

The earliest referenced bulletin is Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-30A0038, dated 16 December 2004. This was the initial manufacturer notification of the unsafe condition and provided instructions for inspection and corrective action. It was superseded by Service Bulletin 767-30A0038, Revision 1, dated 29 September 2005. That revision presumably updated the affected population, refined inspection procedures, or incorporated initial field experience. The current Directive is based on Revision 2, dated 23 February 2006, which became the mandatory standard.

The Directive itself, AD/B767/228, was signed by the CASA delegate on 1 February 2007 and became effective on 15 March 2007. It has not been amended by a superseding CASA AD within the source material. However, the Directive does contemplate future change by accepting later revisions of the Boeing service bulletin approved by the FAA as AMOC. This is an indirect amendment mechanism: if Boeing issues Revision 3 or 4 of SB 767-30A0038, and the FAA approves it as an AMOC to the corresponding US AD, then that revision automatically becomes acceptable in Australia without a separate CASA amendment. This means the effective requirements of the AD can be updated without formal amendment to the AD document itself, but only for the purposes of alternative compliance. The core obligations (inspection intervals, terminating action, grandfathering) remain set by the 2007 text.

There is also an earlier parallel service bulletin line: Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-30A0037, dated 28 May 2002, and its Revision 1 dated 19 July 2002. These addressed the same heater tape issue but were apparently limited to a different scope or earlier aircraft. The Directive makes compliance with those earlier bulletins relevant for calculating the terminating action deadline: if the heater tape was replaced in accordance with those earlier bulletins, the operator gets a later compliance deadline for Requirement 3. This creates a chain of amendments that affect compliance timeline calculations.

Overall, the amendment history from the source shows that the subject matter was identified at least by 2002, with iterative service bulletin revisions through 2006, leading to the CASA AD in 2007. The ability to accept future FAA-approved revisions means the AD can evolve without formal CASA amendment, but that is a process issue, not a traditional amendment.

The source text contains no information about any litigation involving AD/B767/228, the underlying FAA AD 2007-02-18, or the Boeing service bulletins. There are no references to court or tribunal decisions. This does not mean no litigation exists; it only means the source is silent. The user has instructed that only cases named in the source may be cited, so no litigation history can be reported from this source.

However, the analyst can note that airworthiness directives are routinely challenged in various jurisdictions, but not typically in Australia for a single AD of this nature. The likely forum for any challenge would be the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) or the Federal Court, but no record of such challenge is found in the provided text. The absence of case law from the source suggests that the AD was not the subject of a high-profile dispute, or that any disputes were settled or did not result in published decisions.

Operators should not assume that the AD is unchallengeable. The mechanism for contesting an AD is to apply to CASA for an AMOC or to seek review of CASA’s decision to issue the AD. The AAT can review CASA’s decisions on their merits. However, the statutory scheme gives CASA broad discretion to determine what constitutes an unsafe condition, and courts typically defer to that technical judgment.

The source also does not mention any litigation between Boeing and CASA, or between operators and Boeing, regarding the sufficiency of the service bulletin. Again, none can be reported.

For the purposes of this deep dive, the litigation history section must state that the source provides no information on litigation and that no cases are available from the text. The analyst should avoid speculating about unreported decisions.

Several subtleties in the AD can trap the unwary operator or maintainer.

Compliance time tied to original certification, not in-service date. The deadlines for initial inspection and terminating action are set by reference to the original certificate of airworthiness or the original export certificate of airworthiness. For an aircraft that enters service many years after certification, the 18-month or 42-month period may already have expired by the effective date. The fallback is 90 days or 24 months after the effective date, so the operator must check both dates and use the later. But if the original certification date is lost or ambiguous, the operator may struggle to determine compliance. The original certification date is the date the aircraft first received a certificate of airworthiness from the country of manufacture, not the date it entered service in Australia.

The two terminating options are not equally available. Option (b) (deactivate and remove defective heater tape and wrap with foam) is only available if the heater tape is defective. If all tape is intact and functioning, the operator must replace it with Adel Wiggins ribbon heaters. This means an operator cannot deliberately choose the cheaper deactivation option unless there is an actual defect. That may force replacement on older aircraft where the tape is still good, increasing costs. An operator could theoretically create a defect to trigger option (b), but that would be a fraudulent maintenance practice and a separate offence.

Different inspection intervals for the two discrepancies can cause confusion. Requirement 1.a (FOD and contamination) repeats every 600 hours; Requirement 1.b (heat damage, exposed foam, missing tape) repeats every 1,800 hours. If an operator inspections both at the same time, the shorter interval governs for the next inspection. A common mistake would be to treat both as having the same repeat interval. Additionally, the initial deadlines are the same for both, so the first inspection covers both, but thereafter the intervals diverge.

Interpretation of “cargo compartment” for the terminating action. The AD says the terminating action applies to “the forward and aft cargo compartments, as applicable.” For certain variable numbers, the forward compartment only is credited for prior actions, but the AD does not state that the aft compartment is exempt. It says “as applicable,” meaning the operator must determine whether the aircraft is one to which the aft compartment requirements apply. The variable number table in the AD only discusses forward compartment credit; it does not state that aff compartment action is not required. The safest interpretation is that both compartments require the terminating action, unless the service bulletin explicitly limits it.

The meaning of “grey water drain lines.” These are the drain lines from sinks and galleys. Some may be harder to access in the cargo compartment. The AD does not provide a definition, but the service bulletin would clarify. Operators should not assume that only the potable water lines are covered; the grey water drains are equally subject to the inspection and modification.

Hours time in service vs calendar time. The repeat intervals are in hours time in service. For a low-utilisation aircraft, the calendar time between inspections can be very long. The operator must track hours carefully. A 600-hour inspection for an aircraft that flies 30 hours per month means an inspection every 20 months. That is less frequent than many calendar-based checks, but the risk is that the operator may forget the hour-based deadline.

Compliance with prior service bulletins may not fully satisfy this AD. The grandfathering provisions are limited to specific VNs and specific earlier bulletin revisions. An operator that complied with an earlier bulletin but does not fall within the VN list must still perform all actions under this AD. An operator that has a later VN not on the list cannot rely on any prior work.

The AD is effective immediately but compliance deadlines are in the future. Operators must have the service bulletin on hand from the effective date. The AD does not allow a grace period to obtain the SB. If the SB is not available, the operator cannot perform the work and may be in default.

The note about open vs closed cargo floor configurations may affect the inspection. In an open configuration, the drain lines may be more exposed and easier to inspect. In a closed configuration, panels may need to be removed. The AD does not require panel removal as part of the general visual inspection; it is limited to accessible areas. But if panels block the view, the operator may need to justify why the inspection is still adequate, or they may need to remove panels, which is additional work not explicitly described.

Compliance with AD/B767/228 requires a structured program of engineering, maintenance, and record-keeping. The following steps are based solely on the text of the Directive and its referenced service bulletin.

Step 1: Identify applicability. Determine whether each aircraft in the fleet is a Boeing 767-200 or 767-300 series aeroplane as identified in Boeing SB 767-30A0038, Revision 2. Obtain that service bulletin now. Verify the variable number (VN) from the aircraft records. If the VN is VN471, VN472, or VS704 through VS707, note the specific grandfathering limitations.

Step 2: Determine the original certification date. Locate the date of issue of the original certificate of airworthiness (if the aircraft was first certificated in Australia) or the original export certificate of airworthiness (if imported). This date is needed to calculate all compliance deadlines. If the records are missing, contact the manufacturer or CASA for assistance. Record this date in the aircraft log.

Step 3: Calculate the initial inspection deadline. For Requirement 1.a (FOD and contamination): take the later of 18 months after the original certification date and 90 days after 15 March 2007. For Requirement 1.b (heat damage, exposed foam, damaged tape): same later-of calculation. The deadlines may be the same if the certification date is recent. If the certification date is many years ago, the 90-day fallback will apply. Note that these are the deadlines for the first inspection; the inspection itself must be performed by that date, not planned for after.

Step 4: Perform the initial inspection. Have a qualified maintenance organisation perform a general visual inspection of both the forward and aft cargo compartments, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of SB 767-30A0038, Revision 2. The inspection must cover both categories (FOD/contamination and tape condition). Document the date and findings. If any discrepancy is found, go to Step 5. If no discrepancy, note that repetitive inspections are required until the terminating action is done.

Step 5: Corrective action if discrepancies found. For any discrepancy identified in Step 4, do not return the aircraft to service until corrective action is completed in accordance with the same service bulletin. Note that the corrective action may include cleaning, removal of FOD, repairing tape, or other steps. The requirement says “applicable corrective action”, so follow the SB. Record all actions.

Step 6: Plan the terminating action (Requirement 3). Determine which of the two options will be used:

• Option (a): Replace all heater tapes on the potable water supply and grey water drain lines in the forward and aft cargo compartments (as applicable) with Adel Wiggins ribbon heaters.
• Option (b): Deactivate and remove any defective heater tape(s) from the same lines and wrap the drain lines with foam insulation. Option (b) is only available for defective tape; if the existing tape is not defective, only Option (a) is permitted. The operator may need to judge whether existing tape is defective beyond the criteria used in the inspection. If in doubt, consult the manufacturer.

Step 7: Calculate the terminating action deadline. Use the formula from the AD:

• If, as of the effective date, the heater tape had not been replaced under ASB 767-30A0037 (May 2002) or SB 767-30A0037 Revision 1, then the deadline is the later of 42 months from the original certification date and 24 months after 15 March 2007.
• If the tape had been replaced under those earlier bulletins, the deadline is the later of 42 months after that replacement and 24 months after the effective date. This requires accurate records of any prior replacement. The operator must also verify that the prior replacement was done in accordance with the stated bulletins, not other versions.

Step 8: Perform the terminating action. Carry out the chosen option in accordance with the service bulletin. Document the date and the work performed. Note that completing the terminating action ends the requirement for repetitive inspections under Requirements 1.a and 1.b. Mark the records accordingly.

Step 9: For aircraft with prior actions, verify grandfathering. If the aircraft has VN471, VN472, or VS704 through VS707, check that the prior inspection or corrective action was performed in the forward cargo compartment only (for these VNs) using the correct earlier bulletin version. If so, that portion of the AD is satisfied. If the prior action was on a different VN, it may be credited for both compartments. Ensure records are clear to avoid rework.

Step 10: Ongoing compliance after terminating action. If the terminating action is done, no further inspections under this AD are required. If the terminating action is deferred to a later date, continue the repetitive inspections at the prescribed hour intervals. Note that if the aircraft is sold or transferred, the new operator must be informed of the compliance status and whether the terminating action has been completed.

Step 11: Accepting later FAA-approved revisions. If, after the effective date, Boeing issues a later revision of SB 767-30A0038 and that revision is approved by the FAA as an AMOC to FAA AD 2007-02-18, the operator may use that revision for inspection or modification work. The operator must verify the FAA approval (checking FAA website or the bulletin itself). No separate CASA AMOC is needed. However, using a later revision does not change the deadlines in the AD; it only changes the method of compliance. The deadlines must still be met.

Step 12: Record keeping and audit readiness. Maintain all records of inspection dates, findings, corrective actions, and the terminating action. Retain a copy of the service bulletin used. Be prepared to show CASA that the aircraft is in compliance on request. Non-compliance can lead to grounding, so a proactive approach is essential.