AD/B767/237 Amdt 1 - Korry Pushbutton Switches

The Directive organises compliance around three core operational concepts: targeted applicability tied to specific Boeing ASBs, switch-level and panel-level inspections, and conditional corrective actions with mandatory operational testing. Applicability is narrowed to the Boeing 767 subtypes listed in Table 1 and to the particular switches and panel assemblies identified in the referenced Boeing ASBs (see Table 1 entries for ASB 767-33A0087 Revision 1 dated 25 September 2003 and ASB 767-33A0088 including Appendix A dated 19 December 2001). The referenced Boeing Alert Service Bulletins therefore function as the technical normative documents that identify which panel assemblies and individual switches are in scope, and that supply the stepwise procedures operators must follow.

Inspection regime. The Directive provides two inspection pathways. Requirement 1.a requires a "general visual inspection" (Note 1 defines this as a non-invasive visual check from within touching distance, possibly using a mirror, under normal lighting and with access panels opened if necessary) to identify configuration "D" master modules and to read switch part numbers. Requirement 1.b provides an alternative, panel-level approach where an operator inspects panel assembly part numbers; if the panel P/N is listed as a new P/N in paragraph 2.E or Appendix B of the applicable service bulletin, no further action is required for that panel. The Directive anticipates that some operators may elect the panel-level inspection as a quicker filter where panel part numbers clearly indicate the replacement has already occurred.

Corrective options. If a switch lacks a configuration "D" master module and its P/N is not already in Table 2, the operator must either (1) replace the switch with one of the specified Table 2 P/Ns, in accordance with the applicable Boeing ASB (Requirement 3.a), or (2) replace the switch master module with a configuration "D" master module in accordance with the ASB (Requirement 3.b). Following replacement, if all switches on the panel are compliant (either have configuration "D" modules or Table 2 P/Ns), the panel assembly P/N must be revised per the ASB (Requirement 3.c and Requirement 4). Any replacement triggers operational testing as specified in the ASBs (Requirement 5).

Approved sources and cross-references. The Directive does not duplicate detailed technical steps, it cross-references Boeing Alert Service Bulletins and Korry Service Bulletins for procedural detail (Note 2 refers to Korry SB 433-33-05 dated 23 July 2001 for locating configuration "D" switches, replacing master modules, and operational tests; Note 3 points to Korry SB 433-33-06 dated 7 November 2001 for one-to-one switch correlation; Table 3 lists Boeing component SBs and the critical panel locations they address). It also harmonises with the FAA regulatory approach by permitting later revisions of Boeing ASBs approved by the US FAA as an Alternate Method of Compliance to FAA AD 2008-02-14 to be acceptable for compliance with the equivalent Requirements of this Directive.

Timeline and immediacy. The compliance windows create two tiers of urgency. Requirement 1 and 2 inspections are due within 60 months after the original AD issue (the original issue became effective 10 April 2008), giving operators a longer period to survey their fleets. Conversely, if a non-compliant switch is discovered during the Requirement 1.a inspection, the corrective actions required by Requirements 3, 4 and 5 must be completed "before further flight" after that inspection, which imposes immediate corrective obligations for any aeroplane found non-compliant at that inspection.

Framing of safety rationale. The AD text states the FAA received a report that an integrated drive generator failed in flight due to a possible switch malfunction, and that the AD is issued to ensure flightdeck lighted pushbutton switches do not malfunction and thereby prevent the flightcrew from being able to control critical systems and continue safe operation (Background paragraph). That operational risk drives the AD to mandate inspection and, where necessary, immediate corrective action before further flight.

Primary affected parties named by the Directive are operators and maintainers of Boeing 767-200, -300, -300F and -400ER series aeroplanes as identified in the Boeing ASBs listed at Table 1. The Directive's applicability is concrete: the aeroplane models are those referenced in the ASBs in Table 1, and the in-scope equipment is the specific lighted pushbutton switches and the panel assemblies named in those ASBs (Requirement 1, Table 1). This means registered aircraft operators, aircraft owners, and third-party maintenance organisations that carry out scheduled or unscheduled maintenance on the flightdeck panels and switches for those 767 models must plan and execute the inspections and any corrective actions.

Maintenance providers and MROs. The Directive requires hands-on inspections and possible parts replacement and operational tests "in accordance with the applicable ASB as listed in Table 1" (Requirements 1.a, 3.a, 3.b, 5). That places the detailed procedural burden on organisations authorised to carry out such work, including approved maintenance organisations, licensed engineers, and line stations that perform inspections and replacements. The required general visual inspection may require access panels to be opened and items to be read; Note 1 explicitly contemplates the use of mirrors and stands or ladders. Operational testing after replacements is also explicitly required (Requirement 5).

Parts suppliers and OEMs. The Directive singles out certain part numbers as compliant (Table 2 lists Boeing P/N S231T290-4201 through -4325 inclusive, Korry P/N 4336731004-4201 through -4325 inclusive, or switches that have a configuration "D" master module). Suppliers of these parts (Boeing, Korry or aftermarket vendors stocking the listed P/Ns) are implicated because operators will need access to these parts for replacements. Korry service bulletins are cited as the source for replacement procedures and part correlations (Notes 2 and 3). The Directive does not itself award exclusivity, but it designates the acceptable P/Ns operators must use to meet the AD.

Regulators. The Directive is issued by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) (signed by David Punshon, Delegate of CASA), and it references FAA AD 2008-02-14 as related regulatory material (Note 5). The text accepts FAA-approved Alternate Methods of Compliance for later Boeing ASB revisions, which means CASA will recognise FAA AMOCs in respect of the ASB revisions identified.

Flightcrew and operations managers. While the AD is equipment-focused, the stated safety consequence concerns flightcrew ability to control critical systems. Operationally, discovery of a non-compliant switch during the Requirement 1.a inspection triggers corrective action that must be completed "before further flight" (compliance statement for Requirements 3, 4 and 5). That creates an operational consequence for flight operations schedulers and dispatch because aeroplanes found non-compliant will be grounded until the required action and testing are completed.

Insurers and lessors. The Directive will be relevant to lessors and insurers as it imposes mandatory maintenance obligations and immediate grounding risk for non-compliance. The Directive itself does not refer to commercial arrangements, but the obligation to effect replacement or module exchange and to carry out operational tests before further flight will affect aircraft available time and maintenance records that lessors and insurers will want to monitor.

No penalties or enforcement provisions are specified in the AD text. The Directive prescribes actions, timelines and acceptable service information sources; it does not include statutory penalty clauses in the text provided.

Duties prescribed by the Directive are operationally specific, and they flow to the aircraft operator or maintenance organisation responsible for the aeroplane in question.

Duty to inspect (Requirements 1 and 2). Operators must accomplish either Requirement 1.a or 1.b for the applicable panels and switches listed in the Boeing ASBs at Table 1. Requirement 1.a requires a general visual inspection to identify configuration "D" master modules and to record the switch part number, with the inspection scope defined by the applicable ASB figures (e.g., step 1 of Figure 1 in ASB 767-33A0087 Rev 1 for 767-200, -300 and -300F; and step 1 of Figure 1 of ASB 767-33A0088 for 767-400ER) and the panel assemblies specified in the service bulletin (Requirement 1.a(i)-(iii)). Requirement 1.b allows inspection of panel assemblies to determine panel P/Ns; if the panel P/N is identified as a new P/N in paragraph 2.E "Existing Parts Accountability" or Appendix B of the applicable service bulletin, no further action is required for that panel.

Obligation to act on non-compliance (Requirement 3). If an inspection under Requirement 1.a reveals any switch that does not have a configuration "D" master module and whose switch P/N is not listed in Table 2, the operator must choose either to replace the switch with a Table 2 switch in accordance with the applicable ASB (Requirement 3.a), or to replace the switch master module with a configuration "D" master module in accordance with the ASB (Requirement 3.b). After replacement, panel assembly P/Ns must be revised in accordance with the ASB if all switches on the panel assembly meet the compliant condition (Requirement 3.c).

Duty to revise panel P/Ns (Requirements 3.c and 4). If a panel assembly has all switches with configuration "D" master modules or switches with P/Ns specified in Table 2, the operator must revise the part number of the panel assembly in accordance with the applicable Boeing ASB. Requirement 4 requires that if during any Requirement 1.a inspection a configuration "D" switch master module is found on all switches for a panel assembly, or the switch P/Ns for all switches are specified in Table 2, the panel assembly P/N must be revised per the ASB.

Operational testing (Requirement 5). Any time a panel assembly, switch or master module is replaced in the course of complying with the Directive, the operator must carry out all applicable operational tests in accordance with the applicable Boeing ASB listed in Table 1.

Timing obligations (Compliance section). The Directive sets specific deadlines: Requirements 1 and 2 must be completed within 60 months after the effective date of the original AD issue (the original issue became effective 10 April 2008), while Requirements 3, 4 and 5 must be completed "before further flight" after the Requirement 1.a inspection.

Rights and acceptable alternatives. The Directive recognises certain acceptable alternatives and pre-existing work. Actions done before the effective date of the Directive in accordance with Boeing ASB 767-33A0087 dated 19 December 2001 are considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding action, provided the additional panels specified in Revision 1 are also addressed. Additionally, later revisions of Boeing ASB 767-33A0087 or 767-33A0088 are acceptable for compliance where they have been approved by the US FAA as an Alternate Method of Compliance to FAA AD 2008-02-14. This creates a limited right for operators to use FAA-approved AMOCs to meet the Directive, but only where the later ASB revision is explicitly FAA-approved as an AMOC to the FAA AD.

Definition of inspection standard (Note 1). The AD defines "general visual inspection" within the Directive text, limiting the inspection to what is reasonably readable and observable from touching distance under normal lighting. That definition constrains the duty to non-destructive visual work, but contemplates removal of access panels and use of aids such as mirrors and ladders where necessary.

Scope of acceptable parts (Table 2). The AD prescribes which replacement parts are acceptable. Operators are duty-bound to use Boeing or Korry P/Ns listed in Table 2 or switches that have a configuration "D" master module. Note 3 points operators to Korry SB 433-33-06 for one-to-one switch correlation, which is required to ensure the replacements correspond correctly.

No explicit penalty provisions. The Directive text does not include sanctions or penalties; it imposes mandatory compliance obligations, but the AD text itself does not detail enforcement mechanisms or pecuniary penalties.

The Directive text provided does not contain explicit provisions setting out penalties, fines or the detailed enforcement regime for non-compliance. The document is limited to prescriptive technical requirements (inspections, replacements, part-number revisions and operational tests), compliance timing, acceptable service information sources and cross-references to related FAA AD material. It states the effective dates and the person who issued the Directive as a CASA delegate (David Punshon, Delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority), but it does not set out statutory penalty provisions within the body of the AD text supplied here.

What the Directive does provide that bears on enforcement is (1) clear mandatory actions and deadlines , for example, Requirements 1 and 2 are due within 60 months of the original issue effective date and Requirements 3, 4 and 5 must be completed before further flight after a Requirement 1.a inspection , and (2) technical references that define acceptable methods and parts for compliance (the Boeing ASBs and Korry SBs listed in Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3, and the FAA AD reference at Note 5). These form objective criteria that a regulator or inspector could use to assess compliance. The text also specifies which prior actions are acceptable for compliance (actions in accordance with Boeing ASB 767-33A0087 dated 19 December 2001 are acceptable provided additional panels in Revision 1 are done; later ASB revisions approved by FAA as AMOC are also acceptable), which creates a determinate rule for acceptability of prior maintenance actions.

Absent penalties in the AD, enforcement actions (if any) would follow from CASA's general regulatory powers and enforcement framework under the Civil Aviation legislation and regulations, which are not reproduced in this Directive. The Directive does reference FAA AD 2008-02-14 (Note 5), but it does not import FAA enforcement or penalty mechanisms into the text supplied. Therefore, the AD text should be read as imposing mandatory technical obligations; any enforcement or penalty consequences for non-compliance would need to be located in CASA's broader enforcement rules or supplementary regulatory instruments, which are not part of the Directive text provided.

Operators should therefore treat the AD's mandatory actions and timing as compliance obligations, document completion against the specified ASBs and retain records showing operational testing and part-number revisions, in order to demonstrate compliance to CASA or any auditing/enforcement inquiry. The Directive’s clear "before further flight" trigger for Requirements 3, 4 and 5 will be a practical enforcement leverage point because it ties remedial work to aircraft dispatchability.

The Directive explicitly cross-references and integrates service information and regulatory materials from other jurisdictions and manufacturers, but it does not itself restate broader legal frameworks. The interactions set out in the Directive are procedural and technical rather than introducing new legal instruments.

Reference to Boeing and Korry service bulletins. The AD operates by delegating procedural detail to manufacturer service bulletins. It lists Boeing Alert Service Bulletins 767-33A0087 Revision 1 and 767-33A0088 (Table 1) as the primary technical sources for determining affected switches and panels and for executing replacements and tests. It also references Korry Service Bulletins (Notes 2 and 3) as sources for locating configuration "D" switches, replacing master modules, doing operational tests, and correlating old to new switch part numbers. Table 3 lists multiple Boeing component service bulletins that provide service instructions for specific critical panel locations. The Directive instructs compliance "in accordance with the applicable ASB as listed in Table 1," thereby making service bulletins an integral compliance instrument.

Harmonisation with FAA AD procedures. The Directive expressly cites FAA AD 2008-02-14 and states that later revisions of Boeing ASB 767-33A0087 or 767-33A0088 that are approved by the FAA as an Alternate Method of Compliance to FAA AD 2008-02-14 are acceptable for compliance with the equivalent requirements of this Directive. This creates a direct regulatory bridge to FAA processes: CASA will accept FAA-approved AMOCs related to the listed ASBs as fulfilling the CASA AD’s requirements. Note 5 explicitly refers to FAA AD 2008-02-14 Amdt 39-15344. That interjurisdictional recognition limits duplicate compliance work where an operator already has FAA-approved AMOCs for the relevant Boeing ASB revisions.

Relation to operators’ maintenance obligations. The AD functions as a mandatory safety requirement that must be implemented by operators under CASA authority. While the AD text does not reproduce CASA’s statutory enforcement and certification framework, the Directive sits within that regime and is a specific instrument requiring maintenance action. The AD’s references to specific service bulletins and to FAA ADs mean operators will need to reconcile their maintenance procedures and maintenance release documentation with the ASBs and any FAA AMOCs relied upon.

Prior compliant actions. The Directive also interacts with prior maintenance work by declaring that actions accomplished before the effective date of the Directive in accordance with Boeing ASB 767-33A0087 dated 19 December 2001 are considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding action specified in the Directive, provided the actions specified in the Directive are done on the switches for the additional panel assemblies specified in Revision 1 of the service bulletin. That provision creates an interaction between legacy maintenance records and the current AD’s obligations; operators who can demonstrate prior work in accordance with the earlier ASB may rely on that work to meet parts of the current AD, but only if any additional panels required by the revision are also addressed.

No substantive conflict clauses. The Directive’s text does not identify any conflicts with other Australian laws or with CASA’s general regulations; it simply sets out its requirements and cross-references external documents. Operators must ensure that any reliance on FAA-approved ASB revisions or AMOCs is documented and acceptable to CASA for Australian-registered aeroplanes. The Directive therefore operates within a framework in which CASA prescribes specific technical requirements while recognising FAA AMOCs for related ASB revisions.

In sum, the AD interacts procedurally with manufacturer service information and FAA regulatory outputs. It relies on those external documents for technical compliance detail, it recognises certain prior actions under Boeing ASBs as acceptable, and it accepts FAA-approved AMOCs to the relevant Boeing ASBs as an alternative compliance path. The AD text does not itself set out enforcement mechanisms or penalties nor does it amend other legislation.

The AD as provided shows a concise amendment history comprising an original issue and a subsequent amendment. The Directive identifies the original issue as becoming effective on 10 April 2008 (Background paragraph), and the Amendment (Amdt 1) as becoming effective on 8 May 2008 (compliance header line "This Amendment becomes effective on 8 May 2008."). The amendment explicitly "continues the requirements of the original issue of the Directive and corrects a typographical error in Requirement 3" (Background paragraph). The signature block records the document being issued by David Punshon, Delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, dated 13 March 2008, which indicates the amendment’s formal issuance date precedes the effective dates stated.

Content preserved and corrected. The Amendment does not change the substantive requirements; rather it continues the original AD’s requirements and corrects a typographical error in Requirement 3. The Directive therefore should be read as preserving the original inspection and corrective-action obligations while refining the text to correct the typographical inaccuracy. The specific nature of the typographical correction in Requirement 3 is not reproduced in a manner that allows comparison of the original and amended texts within the body provided, but the Amendment statement makes clear the intent to correct an error without departing from the underlying compliance logic.

Acceptance of earlier compliance work. The Directive’s amendment also clarifies acceptability of earlier actions: "Actions accomplished before the effective date of this Directive in accordance with Boeing ASB 767-33A0087, dated 19 December 2001, are considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding action specified in this Directive, provided that the actions specified in this Directive are done on the switches for the additional panel assemblies specified in Revision 1 of the service bulletin." This clause gives operators retrospective compliance credit where prior work was done under the earlier Boeing ASB, subject to supplementation for additional panels added in the later revision. The amendment thereby confirms continuity with industry practice and provides legal certainty for pre-existing maintenance.

Reconciling later ASB revisions and FAA AMOCs. The amendment also contains a provision allowing later revisions of Boeing ASB 767-33A0087 or 767-33A0088, when approved by the US FAA as an AMOC to FAA AD 2008-02-14, to be considered acceptable for compliance with the equivalent Requirements of this Directive. This creates an amendment-level cross-approval pathway that extends the AD’s compliance options to later ASB revisions, but only to the extent those revisions have been FAA-approved as AMOCs for the FAA AD. The Directive therefore embeds a mechanism to incorporate subsequent manufacturer technical updates via FAA approval into CASA compliance acceptance.

Effective dates and compliance window. The amendment establishes the effective date of the amendment itself as 8 May 2008. The compliance timing provisions remain linked to the effective date of the original issue: Requirements 1 and 2 are to be complied with "within 60 months after the effective date of the original issue of this Directive." The original issue effective date is explicitly stated as 10 April 2008 in the Background paragraph, which fixes the 60-month compliance horizon.

Record of issuance. The signature block records the person and date of issue (David Punshon, Delegate of CASA, 13 March 2008), which provides administrative provenance for the Directive and reflects the usual practice of issuing ADs by delegated regulatory officers.

The Directive text contains no information about litigation, judicial review, challenges, or case law arising from this AD. There are no judicial decisions, appeals or legal disputes referenced in the document provided. The AD is an administrative safety instrument setting out technical compliance obligations; the text does not summarise or report any litigation history concerning its issuance, implementation, or challenge.

Because the Directive cross-references FAA AD 2008-02-14 and accepts FAA-approved ASB revisions as AMOCs for compliance, any judicial or administrative review matters that might arise in relation to FAA approval processes would not be reflected in this document. Likewise, any disputes between operators and regulators over compliance, enforcement or factual determinations (for example over whether a given switch has a configuration "D" master module) would take place under CASA’s enforcement and dispute-resolution mechanisms or in courts, but no such entries appear in this AD text.

Operators and counsel should therefore note that the AD as supplied provides the technical, temporal and documentary framework for compliance. Any litigation or regulatory proceedings arising from application of this Directive would be external to the text, and would need to be researched in separate decision databases, court records or regulatory enforcement records. The absence of litigation history in the AD means the document itself should be treated as a primary source of the current obligations, not as a record of any disputes or precedents.

Several practical and legal traps are embedded in the Directive that will affect how operators plan and evidence compliance. These are explicit in the text and hinge on timing, scope interpretation, acceptable documentation and the immediate trigger for remedial action.

"Before further flight" immediacy. If any non-compliant switch is found during a Requirement 1.a inspection, Requirements 3, 4 and 5 must be completed "before further flight after the Requirement 1.a inspection" (Compliance section). That phrasing imposes an immediate grounding risk for any aeroplane found non-compliant at that inspection. Operators must be prepared to obtain replacement parts, perform module swaps, and carry out operational tests without delay, or have an agreed AMOC in place that resolves the non-compliance.

Choice of inspection pathway. The Directive allows either a switch-level visual inspection (1.a) or a panel-level part-number inspection (1.b). Operators who choose 1.b must be careful: Requirement 2 states that if, as a result of Requirement 1.b inspection, the P/N is not identified as a new P/N, then Requirement 1.a must be accomplished. In other words, the panel-level shortcut only absolves the operator from further work where the panel P/N clearly indicates a completed modification. If the panel P/N does not indicate that, the operator must still perform the more granular switch-level inspection.

Definition of "general visual inspection". Note 1 constrains the inspection to a "general visual inspection" defined as a visual examination from within touching distance under normal lighting, possibly using mirrors and requiring removal or opening of access panels. This sets boundaries on what is required, but also means that operators cannot rely on less-than-sufficient inspections; if a switch P/N or master-module configuration cannot be read from a general visual inspection, removal or opening of panels is contemplated to obtain visibility. Misreading or mischaracterising what constitutes a general visual inspection could create compliance gaps.

Panel P/N revision requirement. The Directive requires operators to revise the panel assembly P/N when all switches on a panel have configuration "D" master modules or have switch P/Ns specified in Table 2 (Requirement 3.c and Requirement 4). This is an administrative duty that must be executed in accordance with the applicable Boeing ASB. Failure to update panel P/N records may lead to future confusion over whether the panel has been modified and thus to unnecessary repeat inspections. Operators must ensure their parts records and logbooks reflect panel P/N revisions in accordance with the ASB.

Dependence on external service information. The Directive delegates procedural detail to Boeing ASBs and Korry SBs (Notes 2 and 3, Table 3). Practical missteps can occur where operators rely on the wrong revision of an ASB, or on an ASB revision that has not been FAA-approved as an AMOC where required. The AD explicitly accepts later ASB revisions only if they are FAA-approved as AMOCs to FAA AD 2008-02-14. Operators must verify the revision status and FAA approval status of any ASB they rely on.

Inclusive ranges and correlation. Table 2 lists Boeing and Korry P/N ranges "through -4325 inclusive." Operators must ensure they interpret the numeric ranges correctly and that they use the one-to-one correlation in Korry SB 433-33-06 dated 7 November 2001 to map existing switch P/Ns to the Table 2 replacements. Relying on an incorrect mapping could produce parts non-compliance even after replacement.

Pre-existing work caveat. The Directive allows earlier work in accordance with Boeing ASB 767-33A0087 dated 19 December 2001 to be considered acceptable, provided actions for additional panel assemblies in Revision 1 are also done. Operators who assert compliance based on earlier work must be prepared to demonstrate that their prior actions covered the scope required by the revised ASB or that they supplemented earlier work to cover the additional panels. Records must show the dates, methods and ASB revision applied.

AMOC reliance boundaries. The Directive accepts later ASB revisions that have FAA-approved AMOCs to FAA AD 2008-02-14. That creates an administrative dependency: an operator cannot unilaterally elect to follow a later ASB revision unless it has the requisite FAA AMOC approval. Operators intending to rely on AMOCs must maintain copies of the FAA approval documentation and ensure CASA acceptance.

Operational testing requirement. Requirement 5 mandates "all applicable operational tests" in accordance with the applicable ASB when any panel assembly, switch or master module is replaced. This is not optional; failure to execute the operational tests, or to document their completion, will leave the operator without evidence of functional safety verification after parts replacement.

Typographical correction in Requirement 3. The Amendment states it corrects a typographical error in Requirement 3. Operators and maintenance organisations need to ensure they are referencing the amended text and not an earlier draft or mis-typed version, because reliance on the uncorrected text could cause misapplication of the replacement or part-number revision logic.

Integration with scheduling and dispatch. Because Requirements 1 and 2 can be deferred up to 60 months from original issue, operators may defer inspections until late in that window. That creates a scheduling concentration risk where many inspections could be due around the same period, raising logistical and parts-supply bottlenecks. Planning should therefore spread work across the compliance window to avoid concentrated downtime and supply-chain strain.

No penalty language in AD text. The absence of explicit penalty clauses within the AD does not remove the need to comply. Operators should not treat the AD as optional; CASA’s broader regulatory enforcement powers apply even if not restated in the Directive. Operators should therefore document compliance thoroughly.

This section sets out a practical compliance checklist drawn directly from the Directive’s Requirements, Notes and Tables, and indicates the records and approvals operators should obtain to demonstrate compliance.

1. Identify applicability.

   • Confirm whether each aeroplane is within the AD’s applicability: Model 767-200, -300, -300F and -400ER series aeroplanes identified in the Boeing ASBs listed in Table 1 (see ASB 767-33A0087 Revision 1 dated 25 September 2003; ASB 767-33A0088 including Appendix A dated 19 December 2001). Use the ASB figures cited in the Directive (for example, step 1 of Figure 1 in the relevant ASB) to determine the panels and switches in scope (Requirement 1.a(i)-(iii)).

2. Decide inspection method.

   • Elect either the switch-level general visual inspection (Requirement 1.a) or the panel-assembly P/N inspection (Requirement 1.b). Be aware that if a panel P/N inspected under 1.b is not identified as a new P/N in paragraph 2.E or Appendix B of the applicable service bulletin, you must then perform the Requirement 1.a inspection (Requirement 2).

3. Conduct the inspections.

   • For Requirement 1.a: perform a "general visual inspection" as defined by Note 1. Ensure personnel are prepared to open access panels, use mirrors, ladders or lighting as needed to read switch P/Ns and identify configuration "D" master modules.
   • For Requirement 1.b: inspect panel assembly P/Ns and check those P/Ns against paragraph 2.E "Existing Parts Accountability" or Appendix B of the applicable ASB. If the panel P/N is listed as a new P/N there, record it and no further action is required for that panel.

4. If non-compliant switches are found during 1.a.

   • Immediately apply Requirement 3. Choose either: a. Replace the switch with a switch whose part number is specified in Table 2 (Boeing P/N S231T290-4201 through -4325 inclusive, or Korry P/N 4336731004-4201 through -4325 inclusive), following the procedural steps in the applicable Boeing ASB (Requirement 3.a); or b. Replace the switch master module with a configuration "D" master module in accordance with the applicable Boeing ASB (Requirement 3.b).
   • After replacement, if all switches on the panel assembly have configuration "D" master modules or have switch P/Ns specified in Table 2, revise the panel assembly P/N per the applicable Boeing ASB (Requirement 3.c and Requirement 4).

5. Operational testing and documentation.

   • Whenever a panel assembly, switch or master module is replaced, perform all applicable operational tests specified in the applicable Boeing ASB listed in Table 1, and document the test results per maintenance release requirements (Requirement 5). Keep test records and the ASB revision references in the aircraft maintenance log and in the component history.

6. Comply with timing.

   • For Requirements 1 and 2, ensure inspections are completed within 60 months after the effective date of the original AD issue (the original issue was effective 10 April 2008). For Requirements 3, 4 and 5, complete the required replacements, part-number revisions and operational tests before further flight after a Requirement 1.a inspection discloses non-compliance.

7. Use the correct service information revisions.

   • Follow the Boeing ASBs and Korry SBs referenced in the Directive for technical procedure detail. Note 2 references Korry SB 433-33-05 dated 23 July 2001 for locating configuration "D" switches, replacing master modules, and operational tests. Note 3 references Korry SB 433-33-06 dated 7 November 2001 for one-to-one switch correlation between existing switches and new P/N switches. Table 3 lists Boeing component SBs that identify critical panel locations. Where relying on later Boeing ASB revisions, only use those revisions if they have been approved by the FAA as an AMOC to FAA AD 2008-02-14; retain FAA approval documentation (amendment notes explain later revisions approved by FAA as AMOC are acceptable).

8. Pre-existing actions.

   • If work was performed before the AD effective date in accordance with Boeing ASB 767-33A0087 dated 19 December 2001, document that work. It will be considered acceptable provided the additional panel assemblies specified in Revision 1 of the ASB are also addressed. Maintain evidence of the initial work and any supplemental actions.

9. Parts sourcing and part-number mapping.

   • Source replacement switches with the exact Table 2 P/Ns, or source configuration "D" master modules. Use Korry SB 433-33-06 for the one-to-one correlation mapping between existing switches and the new P/N switches (Note 3). Document part-number traceability, supplier invoices, and batch/serial numbers where applicable.

10. Recordkeeping and audit trail.

    • Maintain records of inspections, replacements, panel P/N revisions, operational test results and the service bulletin revisions used for the work. Ensure the aircraft maintenance release demonstrates compliance with the AD, lists the ASB references, and contains sign-off by an authorised maintenance certifier.

11. Contingency planning.

    • Prepare logistical plans for parts procurement and a schedule that staggers inspections across the fleet to avoid concentration of required maintenance near the compliance deadline. Have contingency arrangements for emergency part procurement in the event of an immediate "before further flight" correction being required.

12. Liaison with regulator.

    • If relying on FAA-approved AMOCs or on a later ASB revision, obtain and retain FAA approval documentation and be prepared to show CASA the FAA AMOC approval if requested. Where there is uncertainty about acceptable procedures, contact CASA for clarification or for an explicit AMOC to the CASA AD.

13. Operational impact assessment.

    • Recognise that discovering non-compliant switches during a Requirement 1.a inspection will require immediate rectification and operational testing before further flight. Include this risk in flight planning and maintenance control scheduling.

14. Verify compliance completeness.

    • When the work is completed, verify that each panel’s P/N, each switch’s P/N and every applicable operational test are recorded in the aircraft maintenance records as required by the applicable regulatory maintenance rules, and retain the manufacturer service bulletin references used.

Following the above steps will implement the Directive’s Requirements as written. Operators should ensure that the maintenance release, service documents and AMOC approvals are attached to the aircraft records so compliance can be readily demonstrated to CASA or its authorised representatives.