AD/B767/229 - Main Tank Fuel Boost Pump Flame Arrestor

The AD introduces several concepts that are central to understanding the obligations it imposes. “Detailed inspection” is given a specific meaning in Note 2, borrowed from FAA practice. It is “an intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity.” The inspection requires lighting that is normally supplemented by a direct source, and may require inspection aids such as mirrors, magnifying lenses, or elaborate surface cleaning. This definition matters because it sets a higher standard than a general visual inspection; it implies the need for trained personnel, proper equipment, and possibly additional time and cost. The AD does not require non‑destructive testing, but the level of scrutiny is greater than a walk‑around check.

“Flame arrestor” is the device fitted to the pump shaft to prevent a flame from propagating from the pump inlet into the fuel‑tank vapour space. The AD does not define the term itself, but the inspection and measurement requirements aim to verify its presence and correct positioning. The “measurement of the flame arrestor’s position” implies that the arrestor must be within certain tolerances specified in the Boeing service bulletins. The “corrective actions” refer to any steps needed if the arrestor is missing, damaged, broken, or out of position; these are defined in the official Accomplishment Instructions.

“Line number” (L/N) is a Boeing production sequence number that identifies each airframe. The AD uses L/N to assign different compliance timeframes. Aeroplanes with L/N 1 through 914 are treated as a population that may have accumulated significant service time by the effective date, so the initial inspection deadline is a fixed 12 months from the AD’s effective date. Aeroplanes with L/N 915 and on are newer and may have lower hours, so the initial deadline depends on whether they have exceeded 15,000 total flight hours. The concept of “total flight hours” is cumulative time from first flight. The AD uses it both to set initial compliance and to determine repetitive intervals.

“Optional terminating action” is a means to avoid the inspection and measurement requirements for a specific pump. It is triggered by a “records review” that conclusively establishes the pump’s P/N as 5006003D. That part number indicates a pump already modified to include a pinned flame arrestor. If the records are sufficient, the operator need not inspect or measure that pump. However, this only terminates the repetitive measurement for that pump; the replacement requirement of Requirement 2 still applies unless the pump is already P/N 5006003D (which already meets the replacement standard). The “replacement” under Requirement 2 also terminates the repetitive measurement for that pump, but it is a different action: installation of a new or modified pump per later service bulletins.

The “compliance interval” is expressed as “6,000 flight hours or 24 months, whichever comes first.” This is a common airworthiness directive formulation that requires the most frequent of the two intervals. If an aeroplane operates many hours, the hourly limit is the binding constraint; if it flies infrequently, the calendar limit is. The AD also creates a special transition for aeroplanes with 15,000 or fewer hours at the initial action: the first repeat can be delayed until the later of 12 months after reaching 15,000 hours or 24 months after the initial inspection. This prevents an operator from having to repeat the measurement very soon after the initial action if the aeroplane has low utilisation.

Finally, the AD references Boeing and Hamilton Sundstrand service bulletins as detailed procedural sources. The AD does not incorporate the full text of those bulletins; compliance requires obtaining them. Notably, the Hamilton Sundstrand bulletin for earlier inspections specifies returning pumps to a repair shop if the flame arrestor is damaged, but the AD explicitly states that action “is not required by this AD.” The operator therefore only needs to do what the Boeing ASB says, and the corrective actions are defined within the Boeing instructions.

The primary duty‑holders are the operators of Boeing 767‑200, ‑300, ‑300F, and ‑400ER aeroplanes registered in Australia or operated under an Australian Air Operator’s Certificate (AOC). Because the AD is issued under the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations, it applies to any aircraft to which CASA has jurisdiction. Operators of foreign‑registered 767s operating into Australia might also be affected if they are subject to equivalent FAA or EASA directives, but this specific Australian AD imposes its own deadlines and actions. For Australian operators, the AD binds the person responsible for the airworthiness of the aircraft, typically the registered operator or the AOC holder.

The AD also imposes duties on maintenance organisations and repair stations that perform the inspections, measurements, and replacements. While the AD does not name them directly, the work must be carried out in accordance with approved maintenance data, and the organisation must hold the appropriate maintenance approvals under Part 145 or Part 42 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations. The AD references Boeing service bulletins as the source of the Accomplishment Instructions; a licensed aircraft maintenance engineer (LAME) or an appropriately rated organisation must execute those instructions. The rectification of any defects found during the inspection (e.g., a missing flame arrestor) is a corrective action that must be done before further flight, which creates urgency and prioritisation for maintenance scheduling.

Aircraft owners and lessors are indirectly affected because they bear the economic burden of compliance. An owner who leases an aircraft to an Australian operator may need to ensure that the lessee’s maintenance plan includes the AD actions, or the cost may be passed through. The AD also affects suppliers and original equipment manufacturers. Hamilton Sundstrand (now part of Collins Aerospace) produces the pump and the modification kit referenced in the service bulletins. The required replacement parts (new or modified pumps with P/N 5006003D) must be available, and any shortage could delay compliance and force operators to continue repetitive inspections indefinitely. The AD does not mandate the use of specific repair shops, but the Boeing bulletins may identify approved sources.

CASA itself is affected in its enforcement and oversight role. The AD creates a measurable compliance standard; CASA inspectors can check maintenance records for documentation of the inspection, measurement, and replacement. The AD also references the FAA directive (FAA AD 2007‑04‑16), indicating that this is a harmonised action between civil aviation authorities. Australian operators who also operate under FAA oversight (e.g., aircraft on the US register operated by an Australian AOC) need to comply with both directives, though the requirements are substantively identical.

Finally, the AD indirectly affects passengers and cargo shippers, not as duty‑holders but as beneficiaries of the risk reduction. The cost of compliance is ultimately borne by consumers through ticket prices or freight rates, though the effect is likely small given the small fleet size and the one‑off nature of the replacement.

The AD imposes three principal duties. First, the operator must ensure that a detailed inspection and measurement of each main tank fuel boost pump flame arrestor is performed within the specified compliance time, and that any corrective actions identified are completed before further flight. This duty continues on a repetitive basis (every 6,000 flight hours or 24 months, whichever comes first) until the pump is replaced under Requirement 2. The operator may inspect the left and right pumps separately, but all pumps must be addressed within the overall compliance window.

Second, the operator must replace the left and right main tank fuel boost pumps with new or modified pumps within 36 months after the effective date. This replacement terminates the repetitive inspection requirement for the replaced pump only. If the operator chooses to replace only one pump at a time, that pump no longer needs repeated measurements, but the other pump must still be inspected until it is replaced. The operator is free to schedule the replacement earlier than 36 months, which would stop the recurring inspection burden earlier.

Third, from the effective date, only pumps that satisfy one of two conditions may be installed on any aeroplane: either the pump has been inspected and corrected in accordance with Requirement 1, or it has P/N 5006003D. This duty applies to any installation, whether as a replacement, a new build, or a component transferred from another aircraft. It effectively bans the installation of older unmodified pumps.

The AD also confers rights on the operator. The optional terminating action via records review allows the operator to avoid performing the initial and repetitive inspections for a pump if maintenance records conclusively show that the pump already has P/N 5006003D. This is a right, not a duty; the operator may choose to rely on records rather than physically inspecting the pump. However, the burden of proof is on the operator: the determination must be “conclusive.” If records are ambiguous, incomplete, or lost, the operator must proceed with the inspection. The AD does not specify the standard of conclusiveness, but in practice a documented part number from the original build record or a certified maintenance log entry would suffice. This right saves significant labour and aircraft downtime for aircraft that already have the improved pump.

Another right is the ability to use inspections accomplished before the effective date in accordance with the earlier March 2003 versions of the Boeing service bulletins. This grandfathering prevents operators from having to repeat work already done, provided the earlier work met the procedures of the then‑current bulletin. The operator must document that the earlier inspection used the correct bulletin.

The operator also has the right to perform the inspection and measurement on the left and right pumps separately. This gives scheduling flexibility, but the AD warns that all actions must be completed within the compliance time. Practically, if the inspection interval is 24 months, the operator could inspect the left pump at month 1 and the right pump at month 23, but then the next interval for both would start from their respective inspection dates.

Finally, the AD does not require the operator to return pumps to a repair shop as specified in the Hamilton Sundstrand bulletin. The operator may choose to perform corrective actions in‑house if the maintenance organisation has the capability, as long as the actions follow the Boeing ASB. This right avoids mandatory off‑site repairs, potentially reducing downtime.

Compliance with an airworthiness directive is mandatory under Australian law. The primary enforcement mechanism is through the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations (CASR). Specifically, regulation 39.005 of CASR makes it an offence to operate an aircraft that does not comply with an applicable AD. The maximum penalty can be significant, often expressed in penalty units under the Act. For a serious breach, a court may impose a fine of hundreds of thousands of dollars for a body corporate, and imprisonment or lower fines for individuals.

CASA has administrative enforcement powers short of prosecution. It can issue a direction under regulation 39.007 requiring the operator to ground the aircraft until compliance is achieved. Alternatively, CASA can suspend or cancel the aircraft’s certificate of airworthiness, rendering it illegal to fly. If an operator fails to comply with a direction, CASA may initiate civil penalty proceedings or seek an injunction. The practical effect is that the AD carries weight similar to a statutory rule; non‑compliance is not a mere contractual breach.

CASA’s field inspectors routinely check maintenance records and logbooks during ramp inspections and audits. A finding that an AD action is overdue can lead to immediate grounding. The AD itself does not create a separate penalty regime; it relies on the existing framework under the Civil Aviation Act and the CASR. The enforcement regime is risk‑based: CASA may take into account the operator’s compliance history, the nature of the non‑compliance, and whether corrective action was taken voluntarily.

The AD contains a note that references “FAA AD 2007‑04‑16 Amdt 39‑14948,” indicating that the same requirement exists in the United States. An Australian operator who also operates under FAA authorisation (e.g., a foreign‑registered aircraft on an Australian AOC) must comply with both directives, and enforcement by FAA could include civil penalties and revocation of airworthiness certificates.

Operators should also be aware that insurance policies often require compliance with all applicable ADs. Failure to comply could void coverage in the event of an incident. Similarly, lessors and financiers may treat non‑compliance as an event of default under lease or loan agreements.

The AD itself does not specify a defence or safe harbour. However, the regulator may consider whether the operator took all reasonable steps to comply, for example, if parts were unavailable. That is a mitigation factor, not a defence.

AD/B767/229 is issued under paragraph 33(1)(b) of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and Part 39 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations. Part 39 sets out the process for making, amending, and approving ADs. The AD is a legislative instrument, but it is not subject to the same disallowance procedures as regulations because Parliament has delegated the function to CASA. It sits alongside other regulatory instruments such as the Manual of Standards and Type Certificate Data Sheets.

The AD does not replace or override the general maintenance obligations under Part 42 (Continuing Airworthiness) and Part 145 (Approved Maintenance Organisations). Those Parts require that all maintenance be performed in accordance with approved data. The Boeing service bulletins referenced in the AD are not automatically approved data under Part 42 unless they have been accepted by CASA or the operator’s approved maintenance programme. The AD effectively elevates those bulletins to mandatory status, so compliance with the bulletin is required regardless of whether the operator’s maintenance programme already incorporates it.

The AD explicitly references and appears to be harmonised with FAA AD 2007‑04‑16. Australian operators who also hold FAA authorisation must comply with both directives. The timing and actions are the same, but the legal basis differs. An operator could comply with the FAA AD and document it, but must also satisfy the CASA AD if the aircraft is on the Australian register. In practice, the same maintenance event satisfies both.

The AD also interacts with other Boeing‑issued ADs and service bulletins that address the 767 fuel system. For example, there may be separate directives concerning fuel tank ignition prevention (e.g., FAA SFAR 88 or CASA equivalent). The operator must ensure that compliance with this AD does not conflict with other requirements, such as the need to maintain fuel system bonding or to avoid introducing contamination. The AD’s note about “only main tank fuel boost pumps identified in paragraphs (a) and (b) may be installed” creates a restriction that may affect the sourcing of spare parts. An operator cannot install an otherwise serviceable pump that has not been inspected or does not have P/N 5006003D, even if it was previously in stock.

The AD does not directly address recordkeeping, but regulation 42.050 of CASR requires the operator to maintain records of all maintenance, including AD compliance. The optional terminating action via records review places particular importance on accurate, retrievable records. If the records are not conclusive, the operator cannot rely on the relief.

Finally, the AD pre‑empts any contractual allocation of responsibility between lessor and lessee. The lessee as operator bears the legal duty. However, under a typical aircraft lease, the lessee is required to maintain the aircraft in accordance with all applicable ADs and regulations. Non‑compliance could amount to a default. The lessor may also be liable if they have retained operational control or if the aircraft is on the Australian register in the lessor’s name.

The AD as issued is the original version, signed by David Punshon as a delegate of CASA on 23 February 2007. It became effective on 12 April 2007, 21 days after publication in the Airworthiness Bulletin, presumably in accordance with regulation 39.015 of CASR. There is no indication within the document that it has been amended or superseded. The AD number is AD/B767/229, with a separate reference “4/2007” likely indicating it is the fourth AD issued for the 767 in 2007.

The AD itself references earlier versions of the supporting service bulletins (March 2003 versions) as acceptable for compliance with the initial inspection. Those bulletins have since been revised to Revision 1 (July 2004), and the AD requires use of Revision 1 unless the earlier version was used before the effective date. This grandfathering effectively creates a cut‑off: any inspection performed after the effective date must use Revision 1.

The optional terminating action is based on the recognition that pumps with P/N 5006003D are already in service, presumably as a result of earlier service bulletins or production changes. The AD does not amend or repeal any earlier ADs; it is a standalone requirement. However, if a prior AD required inspection of the same component, this AD supersedes it to the extent of any inconsistency. There is no mention in the text of any prior AD being cancelled.

CASA occasionally reviews and updates ADs, but no amendment appears on the face of this document. Operators relying on this AD should check the CASA website or the Airworthiness Bulletin for any subsequent version. The FAA AD referenced (2007‑04‑16) may have been amended by later FAA action, but that does not automatically change the Australian AD unless CASA re‑issues or amends it.

The AD text does not mention any litigation, and there is no case law referenced within it. Airworthiness directives are rarely the subject of judicial review in Australia because they are legislative instruments that bind operators immediately. Challenges are possible under the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 or by seeking judicial review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977. However, the grounds are limited: an operator would need to show that the AD was beyond power, procedurally invalid, or based on irrelevant considerations. No reported decisions concerning AD/B767/229 appear to have been published.

If an operator were to challenge the AD, they might argue that the compliance times are unreasonably short or that the risk assessment was flawed. However, courts generally defer to CASA’s technical expertise on airworthiness matters. Litigation is more likely to arise in a contractual context: a lessor suing a lessee for failing to comply, or an insurer denying a claim for non‑compliance. Such cases turn on the contract language rather than direct AD interpretation.

The existence of the FAA AD suggests that the United States may have had enforcement actions, but those are not relevant to Australian law. The AD is relatively old (2007), and most aircraft covered by it will have complied. It is unlikely that modern operators face novel legal disputes about this directive.

Several traps in the AD can catch unwary operators. One of the most significant is the requirement that the records review for the optional terminating action be “conclusively” determinative of the pump P/N. If a maintenance record is missing, illegible, or incomplete, the operator cannot rely on this relief and must perform the inspection. The AD does not define “conclusively,” but a reasonable interpretation would be that a single entry in the logbook that could be subject to doubt (e.g., a hand‑written P/N without a reference to the source) may not suffice. Operators should ensure that any record used includes the part number, the date of installation, and the signature of a certifying person. If the pump was installed before the operator’s recordkeeping system began, the burden is on the operator to prove the P/N.

Another trap is the interaction between the optional terminating action and the replacement requirement. The optional terminating action only eliminates the inspection and measurement obligation; it does not satisfy the replacement requirement under Requirement 2. If a pump is P/N 5006003D, that pump is already the modified standard and presumably no further replacement is needed (since Requirement 2 calls for installation of new or modified pumps, and P/N 5006003D qualifies as a modified pump). But the AD text says: “Accomplishment of the replacement terminates the repetitive measurement detailed in Requirement 1 of this AD for that pump only.” That applies when you actually replace the pump. If you already have P/N 5006003D, you are not replacing it, but the AD also says that only pumps with that P/N or that have been inspected may be installed. So having P/N 5006003D means you do not need to inspect, but you also do not need to replace. This is clear, but a hasty reading might cause an operator to think they still need to replace a 5006003D pump within 36 months.

The compliance intervals are another area for error. The AD sets a repetitive interval of 6,000 flight hours or 24 months, whichever comes first. However, for aeroplanes with L/N 1‑914 that had 15,000 or fewer hours at the initial inspection, the first repeat can be delayed until the later of 12 months after the aeroplane reaches 15,000 hours or 24 months after the initial inspection. This creates a situation where the first repeat might be due far in the future, but subsequent repeats revert to the 6,000‑hour/24‑month rule from that first repeat date. Operators must track the flight hours on the date of the initial inspection and recalculate after each event. If the aeroplane crosses the 15,000‑hour threshold shortly after the initial inspection, the first repeat could be only 12 months later, not the full 24 months.

The AD permits separate inspection of left and right pumps, but the compliance time for each is the same overall deadline. If the operator inspects the left pump at month 11 and the right pump at month 12 (within the 12‑month deadline), the next interval for the left pump begins from month 11, and for the right pump from month 12. This means the two pumps will fall due at different times, potentially doubling the administrative burden. It is simpler to do both pumps at the same time.

The AD’s definition of “detailed inspection” is borrowed from Note 2, which includes a requirement for “surface cleaning and elaborate procedures” where necessary. This can be time‑consuming and may require the aircraft to be out of service longer than a visual check. Operators should budget for the additional labour.

The AD does not require the return of pumps to a repair shop per the Hamilton Sundstrand bulletin, but the corrective actions in the Boeing ASB may still be substantial. For example, if the flame arrestor is missing, the operator must install one. That might require obtaining a kit and following the Boeing instructions. The operator cannot simply return the pump.

Finally, the AD applies to aeroplanes with L/N 915 and on that have 15,000 or fewer flight hours as of the effective date. For those aeroplanes, the initial inspection is triggered when the aeroplane accumulates 15,000 total flight hours. If the aeroplane accumulates those hours years after the AD’s effective date, the operator must ensure that the records are still accessible and that the necessary service bulletins are still available. The 36‑month replacement deadline runs from the effective date, not from the date the 15,000 hour threshold is reached. So even if the aeroplane is low‑time, the pumps must be replaced within 36 months of April 2007, i.e., by April 2010. That may mean replacing pumps on a low‑time aeroplane before the initial inspection is even due.

Compliance with AD/B767/229 requires careful planning and documentation. The following steps outline a practical approach.

Step 1: Identify affected aircraft and determine line number. The operator must confirm that each Boeing 767 in the fleet is one of the affected models. Then find the Boeing line number (L/N) from the aircraft’s history records. This determines which compliance schedule applies.

Step 2: Obtain the current service bulletins. The operator must obtain Boeing ASB 767‑28A0077 Revision 1 (for Models 767‑200, ‑300, ‑300F) or Boeing ASB 767‑28A0081 Revision 1 (for 767‑400ER), both dated 8 July 2004. Also obtain Boeing ASB 767‑28A0088 or 767‑28A0089, both dated 24 February 2005, for the replacement. These bulletins contain the detailed procedures. The Hamilton Sundstrand bulletins are referenced as additional source data but are not required.

Step 3: Assess existing pump part numbers from records. For each main tank fuel boost pump, review the maintenance records to determine the P/N. If the P/N is conclusively shown to be 5006003D, that pump requires no initial or repetitive inspection, and it already satisfies the replacement requirement. Document the record reference in the aircraft logbook.

Step 4: Schedule the initial inspection (if not relieved by Step 3). For L/Ns 1‑914, the inspection must be completed within 12 months of 12 April 2007 (i.e., by 12 April 2008). For L/Ns 915 and on, the time depends on total flight hours as of the effective date. If the aircraft had more than 15,000 total hours, the inspection is due within 12 months of the effective date. If 15,000 hours or fewer, the inspection is due within 12 months after the aircraft accumulates 15,000 total hours. The operator must track flight hours and schedule accordingly.

Step 5: Perform the inspection. The inspection must be a detailed inspection as defined in Note 2. It involves checking for the presence of the flame arrestor, measuring its position, and performing any corrective actions specified in the Boeing ASB. All corrective actions must be completed before further flight. If the inspection was performed prior to the effective date using the March 2003 version of the ASB, that inspection meets the requirement. Document the inspection in the maintenance records.

Step 6: Determine the repetitive interval. Record the total flight hours at the time of the initial inspection. For L/Ns 1‑914, the repeat interval is 6,000 flight hours or 24 months, whichever comes first. However, if the aeroplane had 15,000 total hours or fewer at the initial inspection, the first repeat is due at the later of 12 months after the aircraft reaches 15,000 total hours or 24 months after the initial inspection. For L/Ns 915 and on, the same intervals apply from the date of the initial inspection. Set up a tracking system for each pump.

Step 7: Replace the pumps within 36 months. All left and right main tank fuel boost pumps must be replaced with new or modified pumps per the applicable Boeing ASB. This must be done within 36 months of 12 April 2007 (by 12 April 2010). The replacement can be done at any time earlier; if done before the initial inspection, it will make the inspection unnecessary for that pump. After replacement, no further inspection or measurement is required for that pump. The operator may replace left and right pumps separately, but all must be replaced within the 36‑month window.

Step 8: Restrict future installations. From the effective date onward, only pumps that have been inspected and corrected in accordance with Requirement 1, or pumps having P/N 5006003D, may be installed. This restricts the spare parts inventory. Operators must ensure that any replacement pump procured after the effective date meets this standard.

Step 9: Maintain thorough records. The AD requires documentation of the inspection, measurement, corrective actions, and replacement. For the optional terminating action, records must be sufficient to conclusively establish the P/N. All entries should be signed and dated by a LAME or other certifying authority.

Step 10: Monitor and comply with repetitive intervals. If the pump has not been replaced by the 36‑month deadline, the operator must continue to repeat the inspection at the required intervals until replacement. Even if the pump is replaced on month 35, the last inspection interval must be observed until the actual replacement. After replacement, no further repeats are needed for that pump.

Step 11: Consider harmonisation with FAA AD. Australian operators with FAA oversight should confirm that the same actions under the same deadlines satisfy both the FAA and CASA directives. Document compliance under both systems.

Step 12: Budget for cost and downtime. The detailed inspection and replacement require specialised labour and potential aircraft downtime. Parts (pumps) must be sourced in advance. The AD provides significant lead time, but late compliance can result in grounding.