AD/B767/256 Amdt 1 - State of Design Airworthiness Directives

The instrument introduces and relies on several technical and legal concepts that are central to its operation. First, an Airworthiness Directive (AD) is a mandatory regulatory instrument issued under the Civil Aviation Regulations. It requires specific inspection, modification, or other action to correct an unsafe condition detected in an aircraft type. A failure to comply renders the aircraft unairworthy and may ground it. In Australia, CASA issues ADs, but often adopts or references foreign ADs from the state of design of the aircraft.

The State of Design Airworthiness Directive refers to the AD issued by the civil aviation authority that originally certified the aircraft type. For the Boeing 767, that authority is the United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Australian law typically requires that aircraft meet the continuing airworthiness requirements of the state of design. By mandating compliance with specific FAA ADs, CASA ensures Australian-registered aircraft remain aligned with the type certificate holder’s safety baseline.

The Table 1 in the instrument lists eight remaining FAA ADs (down from ten in the original issue) with their effective dates and short titles. These include directives addressing the flight deck door electronic equipment, hanger arm of the ram air turbine hydraulic pump, fuel nozzles, power feeder connectors, slat hydraulic pressure tubes, anti-ice system, and firewall seal. Each FAA AD has its own compliance date in the United States, but this Australian directive adopts them and imposes a single compliance deadline for Australian operators: before further flight after 19 October 2010, or before issue of certificate of airworthiness for new aircraft.

The concept of an Alternative Method of Compliance (AMOC) is critical. The directive states that “Service Bulletins approved by the FAA as Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOC) to the FAA ADs listed in the Table 1 are considered acceptable for compliance with the equivalent requirements of this Directive.” This gives operators flexibility to use later FAA-approved revisions or alternative service bulletins instead of the original FAA AD, provided those alternatives have been accepted by the FAA. It does not, however, permit operators to use AMOCs approved only by CASA or another authority unless those are also accepted by the FAA.

The amendment concept here is the removal of two FAA ADs. The source does not identify which two were removed, but notes they are “covered or superseded by other Airworthiness Directives.” This illustrates that ADs can be superseded or consolidated over time, and that regulators will adjust requirements to avoid duplication. The removal reduces the number of mandatory actions a compliance team must track, which lowers administrative and maintenance costs for operators.

Finally, the compliance date structure separates new aircraft (no certificate of airworthiness) from in-service aircraft. New aircraft must comply before entering service; for in-service aircraft, the compliance date is tied to a calendar date (19 October 2010) rather than a flight cycle or hour threshold. The note about relief suggests that without the amendment, the original compliance dates might have been moved, but because the amendment reduces requirements, the regulator kept the original schedule to avoid any gap in safety coverage.

The primary entities affected are the registered operators of Boeing 767 series aeroplanes on the Australian aircraft register. These are most likely commercial airlines (such as Qantas, which historically operated the 767), cargo operators, lessors, or private operators. The directive applies to the aircraft itself, not to specific individuals, so any person or organisation that holds the certificate of airworthiness or operational control of the aircraft bears the compliance obligation. This includes both Australian carriers and foreign operators that have placed an aircraft on the Australian register, though foreign registered aircraft are not directly covered.

The compliance chain extends beyond the operator to maintenance organisations that perform the required work. Engineering teams must source the relevant FAA ADs, interpret them, obtain parts and service bulletins, and execute the modifications or inspections. Records of compliance must be entered in the aircraft’s maintenance log or continuing airworthiness records. Approved maintenance organisations (AMOs) are typically engaged by operators to perform these tasks; they are indirectly affected by the directive’s requirements. However, the legal duty to ensure compliance rests with the operator or owner, not the maintenance provider.

CASA itself is affected in its enforcement role. It must ensure that aircraft covered by the directive are not flown after the compliance date without evidence of compliance. This may involve inspections, spot checks, or audits. The directive also affects CASA’s internal workload because it must keep its AD registry current and respond to any queries regarding alternative methods or applicability determinations.

The removal of two FAA ADs from Table 1 means that operators who previously had to track those two directives no longer need to do so. This reduces the administrative burden for compliance teams that maintain lists of applicable ADs. It also reduces the risk of unintentional non-compliance from overlooking the two removed ADs. However, operators must still verify that the actions required by the removed ADs are indeed covered or superseded by other ADs; if a mistake occurs and a critical action is omitted, the aircraft could be non-compliant.

The instrument does not directly affect passengers, crew (other than via safety outcomes), or the general public. However, the cost of compliance ultimately flows through to ticket prices or leasing rates. The costs of parts, labour, and grounding time are borne by operators, which in competitive markets may affect profitability or pricing. For a narrowbody type like the 767 (which has been largely retired from Australian passenger service), the affected operators are likely carrying freight or specialised operations; the cost impact is therefore concentrated among a small number of firms.

Because the directive incorporates by reference FAA ADs that may themselves reference other documents (e.g., Boeing service bulletins, maintenance manuals), the effective scope of who it affects includes Boeing as the original equipment manufacturer and the FAA as the issuing authority. These entities do not have compliance obligations under Australian law but are relevant because their documents are necessary for compliance.

The directive imposes two primary duties on operators of Boeing 767 aircraft. First, a duty to determine applicability: the operator must assess each FAA AD listed in Table 1 against the specific aircraft in question. This is not a passive obligation; it requires active investigation of the aircraft’s serial number, configuration, modification status, and maintenance history. The source notes that some listed ADs may not be applicable to any currently registered Australian aircraft. Nevertheless, the operator cannot assume non-applicability without evidence. This determination must be documented and retained as part of the continuing airworthiness records.

Second, a duty to perform required actions: if an FAA AD is found to be applicable and has not been previously accomplished, the operator must perform the actions required by that AD or by a later FAA-approved revision. The phrase “has not been previously accomplished” implies that if the operator can demonstrate that the action was already completed (whether under the original FAA AD, a service bulletin, or a prior Australian AD), no further work is required. This avoids duplication, but the operator must hold adequate records to prove past compliance.

Operators also have a right to use alternative methods. The directive explicitly states that “Service Bulletins approved by the FAA as Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOC) to the FAA ADs listed in the Table 1 are considered acceptable for compliance with the equivalent requirements of this Directive.” This allows operators to use later-developed solutions, such as improved parts or inspection techniques, that the FAA has validated as equivalent to the original AD. It does not, however, allow operators to use AMOCs approved solely by CASA or by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) unless the FAA has also approved them. This limitation may create a trap for operators who mistakenly rely on non-FAA alternatives.

Another right (or benefit) is the relief from the two removed ADs. The amendment deleted those ADs, meaning operators no longer need to track or perform their requirements. However, this relief is contingent on the removed ADs truly being covered or superseded. If a future audit reveals that an operator omitted an action that was not in fact covered by another directive, the operator could be found non-compliant retroactively. The prudent approach is to review supersedure notes carefully.

The directive does not confer any right to apply for an extension of the compliance date. The 19 October 2010 deadline is fixed, and Note 2 reiterates that compliance dates are maintained as per the original issue. Operators who cannot meet that deadline must ground the aircraft until compliance is achieved. There is no provision in the instrument itself for CASA to grant individual extensions; any such power would arise under the general regulations, not this AD.

Finally, the directive creates an implicit right to rely on the FAA’s determination that an AD is necessary. Operators might question the applicability or safety necessity of a particular FAA AD, but the directive does not allow for unilateral deviation. If an operator believes an AD is inappropriate, they must engage with the FAA or CASA through the AMOC process or a formal exemption. This limits an operator’s contractual freedom to choose maintenance procedures.

The source instrument does not specify penalties, but the consequences of non-compliance are well established under the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988. An Airworthiness Directive is a mandatory directive; failure to comply renders the aircraft unairworthy. Operating an aircraft that does not meet the requirements of an applicable AD is a serious breach of Australian aviation law.

The most immediate enforcement action is grounding. If CASA determines that an aircraft has not complied with this directive, it may suspend or revoke the aircraft’s certificate of airworthiness, or issue a direction to ground the aircraft until compliance is demonstrated. Grounding imposes direct costs on operators: lost revenue, schedule disruption, and potential contractual penalties. For a cargo operator, each day of grounding can amount to thousands of dollars in foregone income.

Beyond grounding, CASA can initiate civil penalty proceedings. Under section 20A of the Civil Aviation Act, a person may be liable for a civil penalty for contravening a civil aviation requirement. The maximum penalty for an individual can be significant (historically up to AUD 10,000 or more per contravention), and for a body corporate, penalties can reach AUD 50,000 or higher per contravention. Because the directive covers multiple FAA ADs, each unmet AD could constitute a separate contravention, potentially leading to cumulative penalties.

Criminal prosecution is also possible if the contravention is reckless or intentional, for instance if an operator knowingly flies a non-compliant aircraft. Under the Act, offences can carry fines and even imprisonment in extreme cases (though imprisonment is rare for airworthiness matters). In practice, CASA tends to favour administrative enforcement (grounding, suspension) and civil penalties for most airworthiness non-compliance, reserving criminal prosecution for egregious cases.

The burden of proof in enforcement actions typically rests on the regulator to show that the AD applied and the operator did not comply. The operator’s records of compliance become critical. If an operator claims an AD was not applicable, they must have evidence demonstrating that fact, such as engineering substantiation that the aircraft configuration does not fall within the FAA AD’s applicability. Without such evidence, the operator risks being found non-compliant.

The directive also has implications for third party liability. If an operator fails to comply and an accident occurs, the non-compliance could be used as evidence of negligence in civil litigation. Insurers may also void coverage if the aircraft was not maintained in accordance with applicable ADs.

It is worth noting that the amendment (removing two ADs) likely reduces enforcement risk slightly because operators no longer have to track those ADs. However, the remaining eight ADs still require strict compliance. The enforcement landscape remains the same for those.

This Airworthiness Directive sits within a hierarchy of aviation legislation. It is made under the Civil Aviation Act 1988 (Cth) and the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (CAR 1988) , specifically regulation 39 which empowers CASA to issue ADs. The directive has the force of law and is binding on operators and owners of the aircraft to which it applies. It prevails over any inconsistent operator maintenance procedures or contractual obligations to the extent that those would permit non-compliance.

The directive interacts with the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR 1998) , particularly Part 39 (which replaced or supplemented CAR 39 for newer aircraft types). For Boeing 767 aircraft, which are older and may have been certificated before CASR 1998 came fully into effect, both CAR and CASR provisions may apply depending on the specific aircraft’s certification basis. Operators must determine which regulatory framework governs their particular aircraft; however, the AD itself is valid under either regime.

Because the directive adopts FAA Airworthiness Directives by reference, it incorporates external legal documents that have their own status under US law. However, the Australian directive does not adopt the FAA ADs wholesale; it only requires compliance with the actions specified in those ADs. This means that any procedural or definitional elements of the FAA ADs (e.g., definitions of “overhaul” or “inspection intervals”) are effectively imported into Australian law for the limited purpose of this directive. If the FAA later revokes or supersedes one of the listed ADs, the Australian directive does not automatically update; a further CASA amendment would be required. This creates a risk that an FAA AD could be cancelled in the US but remain required in Australia until CASA amends the directive.

The directive also interacts with the aircraft’s type certificate and continuing airworthiness data. Compliance with this AD is a condition of maintaining the certificate of airworthiness. If an operator fails to comply, the aircraft’s certificate of airworthiness is no longer valid, and the aircraft cannot be operated. This ties the AD directly to the operational documents required for flight.

Other CASA ADs applicable to the Boeing 767 remain in force. This directive specifically removes two previously listed FAA ADs, so those are no longer part of the compliance set. But any other non-FAA ADs issued by CASA for the 767 (e.g., on landing gear or structural inspections) continue to apply. Operators must maintain a complete list of all applicable ADs, both CASA-issued and those adopted from foreign authorities.

The director acknowledges Service Bulletins approved as AMOC by the FAA as acceptable. This means that compliance may be achieved by following documents that are not themselves part of Australian law but are recognised as equivalent. This cross-reference reduces the risk of conflicting requirements between US and Australian regulators, a common source of compliance cost for operators of foreign-designed aircraft.

Finally, the directive may interact with contractual arrangements such as lease agreements. Lessors typically require compliance with all applicable ADs. This directive specifies precise compliance dates; lease agreements may impose earlier compliance dates. The operator must satisfy both the regulatory requirement and the contractual requirement, which may be more onerous.

The source provides limited amendment history. The original issue of this Airworthiness Directive (AD/B767/256) became effective on 20 August 2010. This amendment (Amdt 1) became effective on 10 September 2010, a mere 21 days later. The amendment’s sole change is the removal of two FAA Airworthiness Directives from the Requirements section listed in Table 1. The source states that those two ADs “whose actions are covered or superseded by other Airworthiness Directives.” The identity of the removed ADs is not disclosed in this instrument, though an operator with access to the original Table 1 would be able to compare and identify them.

The speed of the amendment suggests that CASA or the industry identified the overlap quickly after the original issue. A 21-day gap between original effective date and amendment effective date is unusually short for a regulatory instrument. This may indicate that the original issue inadvertently included redundant ADs, or that the two ADs were superseded by other directives after the original issue was prepared but before the amendment could be processed. Alternatively, the original directive may have listed ADs that were already covered by earlier CASA action, and this amendment corrects that error.

Note 2 of the instrument states that “this amendment relieves the operator of certain requirements and so the compliance dates have been maintained as per the original issue.” This language suggests that CASA intentionally kept the original compliance schedule because the amendment is beneficial (reducing obligations), and therefore no extension is needed. If the amendment had imposed new or more onerous requirements, the regulator would have likely given operators additional time to comply.

There is no indication in the source of any further amendments. However, ADs can be amended multiple times. An operator maintaining continuing airworthiness records should always check the latest amendment status on the CASA AD website. The amendment number “Amdt 1” suggests a series, meaning there may later be an Amdt 2, etc.

The amendment history has practical significance: any compliance action taken after the original effective date but before the amendment effective date (20 August 2010 to 10 September 2010) would have been assessed against the original ten-AD table. If an operator performed actions on (or tracked) the two removed ADs during that period, those efforts might have been unnecessary but not wasted, provided the actions were still relevant. The removal does not retroactively invalidate prior compliance; it simply removes the obligation going forward.

From a compliance cost perspective, the amendment reduces the number of ADs to track by two. Over the life of the aircraft, this saves administrative effort and possible maintenance costs. However, because the amendment came so soon after the original issue, operators likely incurred a one-time cost to review the original Table 1 and then re-review the amended version. That cost could have been avoided with more careful preparation of the original.

The source instrument does not reference any litigation, and there is no publicly prominent case law that addresses this specific AD/B767/256 Amdt 1. General aviation airworthiness directive litigation is rare in Australia; when it occurs, it typically involves challenges to the validity of the AD on procedural grounds (e.g., failure to consult) or disputes over whether the AD applies to a particular aircraft. Because the instrument here is a simple amendment that reduces obligations, it is unlikely to attract legal challenge.

That said, airworthiness directives issued by CASA are subject to judicial review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (ADJR Act) and under section 75(v) of the Constitution. An operator could seek review if they believed CASA exceeded its powers, failed to consider relevant matters, or acted unreasonably. The amendment’s background suggests it is a technical correction rather than a controversial policy decision, making challenge improbable.

If litigation were to arise, it might focus on the method of incorporation of the FAA ADs. Australian law requires that delegated legislation be properly published and accessible. The directive states that FAA ADs may be accessed via the FAA’s website (http://rgl.faa.gov). A court might consider whether this constitutes sufficient access for the purposes of the Legislation Act 2003. In practice, the Federal Court has accepted references to widely available foreign standards, but the issue is not settled.

Another potential ground for litigation is the retrospective effect of the original directive. The original effective date was 20 August 2010; the compliance date for in-service aircraft was “before further flight after 19 October 2010.” The period from effective date to compliance date is two months, which is arguably sufficient. However, if an operator had already performed maintenance that complied with an earlier version of the directive (e.g., before the two ADs were removed), and the amendment changes the scope, there could be confusion but not necessarily a legal defect.

Because the source provides no litigation history, the analysis must conclude that there is no recorded litigation specific to this instrument. That is not unusual; most ADs are complied with without court involvement. The presence of litigation would not in itself indicate a flaw in the AD; it could simply reflect a commercial dispute or a misunderstanding of applicability.

Several traps in this instrument can catch operators off guard. The most significant is the highly specific compliance date: “before further flight after 19 October 2010.” This is a hard deadline; no grace period is provided. An aircraft that flies even once after that date without having completed all applicable AD items is non-compliant. If the operator’s maintenance schedule does not align with this calendar date, they must halt operations. This is particularly burdensome if the required parts are on backorder; the operator must either source parts quickly or ground the aircraft. There is no provision for a “ferry flight” to a maintenance base; the directive imposes compliance before any further flight after the deadline.

Another trap is the determination of applicability. The instrument states that “due to date of aircraft manufacture or aircraft configuration and modification status, some of the ADs listed in Table 1 will not be applicable to any aircraft presently registered in Australia.” That is a general statement by CASA, not an exemption for a specific aircraft. Each operator must independently confirm non-applicability. If an operator assumes an AD does not apply based on fleet reputation but does not check the actual serial number, they may be non-compliant. The burden of proof lies on the operator.

The AMA (AMOC) trap: the directive accepts only FAA-approved alternative methods of compliance. An operator may have a service bulletin approved by EASA or Transport Canada that achieves the same safety outcome, but if the FAA has not approved it as an AMOC to the listed AD, that bulletin is not acceptable compliance under this Australian directive. The operator would still be non-compliant. This could be costly if the operator’s maintenance provider is European or Canadian and does not seek FAA approval.

Supersedure issues with the two removed ADs: The source says these ADs are “covered or superseded by other Airworthiness Directives.” The operator must ensure that the covering or superseding directive is indeed in effect for their aircraft. If the superseding AD applies only to later serial numbers or different configurations, the removal may not clear the obligation for older aircraft. The operator cannot simply ignore the removed ADs; they must verify that the replacement directive applies.

Record-keeping: If an operator had previously accomplished one of the remaining FAA ADs (e.g., under US regulations) but the Australian directive does not recognise that accomplishment because it was done before the Australian effective date, the operator may still be safe if the action was done “previously.” The directive says “has not been previously accomplished” without specifying when. As long as the action was performed at some point, even decades ago, it counts. But the operator must have documentation. Losing maintenance records could mean a repeat of the action is necessary.

The static list: The Table 1 list is frozen as of the amendment effective date. If the FAA later issues a more compliant revision (e.g., AD 2005-05-20 is revised to AD 2012-XX), the Australian directive does not automatically adopt the revision. The operator must look at the directive’s wording: “perform the actions required by that AD or later FAA-approved revision.” Wait, the directive actually says “perform the actions required by that AD or later FAA-approved revision.” So later FAA-approved revisions are acceptable. That is a relief: operators can use a more current FAA AD that is intended to replace the listed AD. However, the operator must ensure that the revision is indeed a direct revision of the listed AD, not a new standalone AD. If the FAA issues a new AD covering different unsafe conditions, that is not automatically adopted.

Operator identification: The directive applies to “Boeing 767 aircraft” without specifying models (e.g., -200, -300, -300ER, -400F). Some FAA ADs may apply only to certain models. The operator must check the applicability paragraphs in each FAA AD. Assuming all 767 models are covered is an unnecessary burden but may also lead to missed compliance if an AD excludes a model.

Compliance with this Airworthiness Directive requires a systematic approach. The first step is to obtain the current text of this directive (AD/B767/256 Amdt 1) and verify its effective date. Ensure that only the amended Table 1 is used, not the original version. The directive is accessible from the CASA AD website or the Australian Legal Information Institute.

Next, obtain the text of each of the eight FAA ADs listed in Table 1. These are available for free at http://rgl.faa.gov. For each AD, download the current version and any later FAA-approved revisions. Do not rely solely on a summary; the full text includes applicability, required actions, compliance times, and definitions. Note that some ADs may refer to Boeing service bulletins; obtain those bulletins as well.

Determine applicability for each FAA AD against each specific Boeing 767 aircraft in the operator’s fleet. This involves checking the aircraft’s serial number, manufacturer’s data plate, and maintenance history. For ADs referencing flight deck door equipment or slat hydraulic tubes, configuration data may be needed. If an AD contains a “Required” or “Applicable to” statement that excludes the aircraft (e.g., by serial number range), document that finding. Keep records of the applicability determination.

For each AD that is applicable and has not been previously accomplished, schedule the required action. The compliance deadline is “before further flight after 19 October 2010” for aircraft with a certificate of airworthiness, or before issue of that certificate for new aircraft. If the aircraft is in-service, the action must be completed before the first flight after 19 October 2010. If the aircraft is already grounded or in maintenance, that may be an opportunity to accomplish the work.

Review past compliance records to confirm whether the FAA AD (or its equivalent) has already been done. Look for logbook entries, service bulletin compliance tags, or prior CASA AD sign-offs. If there is any doubt, treat the AD as unaccomplished. For the two removed ADs, verify that the covering or superseding AD is indeed applicable; if not, contact CASA for clarification.

Decide whether to use the FAA AD directly or an FAA-approved AMOC service bulletin. If a later FAA revision exists, it is acceptable. If an approved AMOC service bulletin from Boeing or another vendor is available, it may be more efficient or cost-effective. Ensure the service bulletin contains an explicit reference to the FAA AD number and approval, not just a generic statement.

Perform the required modification, inspection, or replacement in accordance with the approved data. Use appropriately licensed engineers and an approved maintenance organisation (subregulation 42 of CAR or Part 145 of CASR as applicable). Document the work in the aircraft’s maintenance log, referencing the AD number and the specific FAA AD or service bulletin used.

Maintain a compliance register that lists each of the eight FAA ADs, the aircraft tail number, the date of compliance (or justification for non-applicability), and the supporting document reference. This register must be available for CASA audit. Also retain copies of the FAA ADs and service bulletins used, as well as FAA approval letters for AMOCs.

Monitor for future amendments. CASA may further amend this directive if new information emerges. Subscribe to CASA’s AD alerts or check regularly. Also monitor the FAA’s website for revisions to the listed ADs, as later FAA-approved revisions are acceptable under this directive.

Plan for grounding risk. If the required parts are not available before 19 October 2010, the operator must ground the aircraft rather than fly non-compliant. Identify lead times and order parts early. If a delay is unavoidable, consider requesting a CASA exemption or AMOC approval for an interim solution, though the directive does not guarantee such approval.

Finally, conduct an internal audit before the compliance deadline to confirm all steps are complete. The cost of a grounding far exceeds the cost of thorough preparation. The amendment has reduced the list of mandatory ADs, but the remaining ones still require careful execution.