AD/B767/39 Amdt 1 - Hydraulic System Component/Electrical Wiring Chafing Engine Struts

The instrument rests on a small set of interlocking concepts: applicability, method of compliance, timing, and industry/regulator interaction. Each concept is explicit in the source.

Applicability is narrow and document-driven. It applies only to "Boeing 767 series aircraft listed in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) 767-29A0054 dated 26 March 1990 together with aeroplanes line number 308 and 311." Practically this means reference to the ASB’s list of affected serial or line numbers determines whether a specific aeroplane is in scope. The Amendment also states that, if the required work was "previously accomplished in accordance with the original issue of this Directive," the inspection is not required again.

Method of compliance is delegated to manufacturer-issued service information. The Requirement is to inspect "in accordance with ASB 767-29A0054" or its Revision 1 or Revision 2 (dates are given). The instrument therefore creates a binding operational requirement that incorporates an external technical document (the ASB) by reference. The Amendment explicitly recognises multiple ASB revisions as acceptable alternatives: "767-29A0054, 767-29A0054 Revision 1 dated 24 May 1990 or 767-29A0054 Revision 2 dated 8 November 1990."

Timing is explicit and short-term. Compliance must occur "Within 500 hours time in service after the effective date of this Amendment." Time-in-service is the metric; the effective date is 24 November 2005. The short interval (500 hours) indicates the regulator considered the condition sufficiently urgent to require inspection within a limited operational window rather than at the next scheduled maintenance opportunity.

Regulatory lineage and interaction are signalled. The Background records that the Amendment "results from a request under CASR 39.006 from industry to review the original Directive" and that the Amendment includes "a reference to the superseding FAA Airworthiness Directive." The instrument expressly notes "FAA AD 91-02-03 Amdt 39-6853 refers." Thus the instrument sits in a network of aviation safety instruments: CASA’s AD, the manufacturer ASB technical content, and the FAA AD as a related foreign authority.

The safety mechanism addressed is physical separation between electrical wiring bundles and hydraulic components in the aft fairing area of the engine strut. The Background documents the causal chain observed: chafing of the AC motor pump feeder cable, arcing, thermal damage (burned holes in pump case drain tube and hydraulic reservoir boss), hydraulic fluid leakage and loss of hydraulic system function, and the potential for ignition of hydraulic fluid. The inspection requirement targets the antecedent condition, "insufficient clearance," as the actionable defect.

Finally, the Amendment performs two administrative adjustments to the original Directive: correction of the applicability statement, and inclusion of an "additional service bulletin revision as an alternate method of compliance." These are structural changes rather than new technical requirements.

The directive imposes operational duties that fall primarily on aircraft operators and their maintenance organisations, with secondary effects for other actors in the aviation ecosystem.

Primary affected parties

• Operators of the specified Boeing 767 series aircraft. The "Applicability" row makes this explicit: the AD applies to aircraft identified in the listed ASB plus line numbers 308 and 311. Operators of those aircraft must ensure the inspection is completed within the stated 500 hours time-in-service window after the Amendment’s effective date.
• Approved maintenance organisations and licensed aircraft maintenance engineers who carry out the inspection "in accordance with ASB 767-29A0054" or the listed revisions. The Requirement binds the inspection method to the ASB text, so maintenance personnel will need to obtain, follow, and document compliance with the specified ASB revision.

Secondary affected parties

• Airline operational planners and fleet managers, who must schedule the inspection within 500 hours TIS and plan for aircraft downtime, possible remedial work, and dispatch implications.
• Parts and logistics suppliers, if the inspection reveals chafing or damage that requires replacement parts, rerouting hardware, or modification kits described in the ASB.
• Regulators and delegated CASA officials responsible for monitoring AD compliance, because the Amendment is an instrument of CASA and refers to CASR 39.006 in its Background.

Who pays

• The source does not allocate funding or impose a budgetary mechanism; the practical effect is that operators bear the direct costs of the inspection and any corrective work. That includes labour, possible parts, scheduled or unscheduled downtime, and the administrative cost of record-keeping. The Background does not quantify costs.

Who decides

• The directive fixes the decision rule for whether the requirement applies: an aeroplane is in scope if it appears on the ASB list or is line number 308 or 311. The method of compliance is determined by the ASB content (ASB original, Revision 1 or Revision 2). There is no express provision in the source for alternate methods of compliance other than the ASB revisions listed; the Background does say the amendment "includes an additional service bulletin revision as an alternate method of compliance," indicating the regulator accepted additional ASB revisions for compliance.

Other stakeholders

• Insurers and safety management system owners may be affected because the directive addresses a hazard (wire/hydraulic chafing) that could lead to hydraulic system loss or ignition, outcomes insurers track. The directive may influence risk assessments, but the source does not address insurance or premiums.

Geographic and jurisdictional reach

• The instrument is an Australian AD issued by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. It references a related FAA AD, indicating cross-jurisdictional recognition of the safety issue, but the operative requirement applies to aircraft under the Australian AD’s applicability statement.

Duties

1. Inspection duty: The core duty is to inspect "the wiring in the aft fairing area of the engine struts" to "ensure sufficient clearance exists between the wire bundles and the hydraulic components in this area." This is not optional for aircraft within the stated applicability unless the work was previously completed in accordance with the original issue of the Directive.

2. Method duty: The inspection must be carried out "in accordance with ASB 767-29A0054, 767-29A0054 Revision 1 dated 24 May 1990 or 767-29A0054 Revision 2 dated 8 November 1990." The operator/maintenance organisation therefore has a duty to obtain and follow one of those ASB documents when performing the inspection.

3. Timing duty: The inspection must be completed "Within 500 hours time in service after the effective date of this Amendment." The Amendment is effective 24 November 2005, so the duty is time-bound and quantified in hours time in service.

4. Exception for prior action: The duty is qualified by the opening phrase in the Requirement, "If not previously accomplished in accordance with the original issue of this Directive," so operators who already performed the required inspection per the original AD before this Amendment need not repeat the task. The operator carries the obligation to verify prior compliance.

Rights and administrative features

1. Use of specified alternate ASB revisions: The Amendment recognizes multiple ASB revisions as acceptable. The Background states that the amendment "includes an additional service bulletin revision as an alternate method of compliance." Practically, that gives operators a right to perform the inspection using any of the listed ASB revisions.

2. Reference to FAA AD: The directive notes that "FAA AD 91-02-03 Amdt 39-6853 refers." While this is a cross-reference rather than a right, it provides operators with an additional document for technical context; the source does not convert FAA material into an Australian compliance option beyond the stated ASB revisions.

3. No specified remedial action in the AD text: The AD requires inspection "to ensure sufficient clearance exists." The instrument does not itself specify corrective steps if insufficient clearance is found; instead, the inspection is to be performed "in accordance with" the ASBs. That structure implies remedial measures will be specified by the ASB text the AD incorporates. The operator must therefore follow the ASB-prescribed corrective actions if the inspection reveals nonconformance. The AD does not itself state options such as temporary grounding, ferry flight provisions, or deferment; any such measures would be governed by the ASB, operator procedures, or further regulatory direction.

4. Administrative recordkeeping: The AD text does not set out a recordkeeping regime or reporting obligation in the extract provided. It does say that the Amendment "becomes effective on 24 November 2005," which fixes the start of the 500-hour period and the compliance window; operators will need to be able to demonstrate compliance within that timeframe if queried by CASA, although the AD extract does not spell out documentary proof requirements.

Who decides what constitutes "sufficient clearance"

• That determination is to be made "in accordance with" the ASB(s) listed, which are the technical source for clearance limits, tolerances and inspection criteria. The AD therefore delegates the technical judgement to the ASB content and the performing maintenance organisation’s application of it.

Constraints and limits

• The AD limits its own command to inspection and referencing ASBs; it does not, in its wording, impose additional technical modifications or procedures beyond those in the referenced ASBs. The AD’s authority to amend applicability and to list ASB revisions is explicit in the Background where it states the Amendment "corrects the applicability statement and includes an additional service bulletin revision as an alternate method of compliance."

The AD text provided contains no express statement of penalties, sanctioning regimes or enforcement procedures. The printed rows include Applicability, Requirement, Compliance, Effective date, and Background; none of these rows specify fines, criminal offences, or administrative penalties for non-compliance in the extract supplied.

What is present and what can be inferred from the text

• Present: a binding directive (an Amendment to AD/B767/39) with a stipulated compliance action and a compliance timeframe. The Amendment is signed by a delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and dated, giving it the character of an enforceable regulatory instrument within CASA’s administrative framework.
• Not present: any explicit enforcement mechanisms (for example, civil penalty amounts, suspension or revocation procedures, or specific inspection/audit enforcement steps) are not in the provided text.

Implications for practice

• Because the AD is a formal CASA instrument adopting a technical inspection requirement, operators should treat it as compulsory and expect that CASA will monitor adherence. The source, however, does not specify how CASA enforces ADs (for example, by airworthiness certificate conditions, operator surveillance, or targeted inspections). The Background references a request under CASR 39.006, but the extract does not quote CASR enforcement provisions or penalties.

Practical enforcement risks and compliance pressure

• Operators who do not carry out the inspection within the 500 hours TIS window would be out of compliance with the written directive. From a risk-management standpoint, that can expose the operator to regulatory scrutiny, potential grounding of non-compliant aircraft, or liability if an incident occurs attributable to the addressed hazard. The AD itself does not allocate liability or penalties on its face; those consequences derive from the broader statutory and regulatory framework that governs airworthiness and operations, which is not reproduced in this extract.

Documentation and oversight

• The AD sets a precise compliance deadline and a specified method (the ASB versions). This facilitates regulator oversight because a simple documentary check (showing that the inspection was completed in accordance with an accepted ASB within the 500 hours TIS limit) should be sufficient to demonstrate compliance. The source does not, however, mandate a form of compliance report or submission to CASA.

References to other jurisdictions

• The directive includes a note referring to a related FAA AD ("FAA AD 91-02-03 Amdt 39-6853 refers"), which provides a parallel foreign reference and indicates that the safety issue was addressed in another jurisdiction. The AD text does not say that compliance with the FAA AD alone suffices for Australian compliance; instead it lists the ASBs to be used.

In short, the instrument imposes an enforceable inspection duty but the extract supplied does not itself state the penalties for failure to comply or the specific enforcement mechanisms CASA will use. Practitioners must therefore consult the broader CASR framework and CASA enforcement policies to understand formal sanctions; the AD sets the duty and the deadline.

The AD explicitly references and interacts with two external authorities or documents: the Boeing Alert Service Bulletins (ASB) 767-29A0054 (original and revisions) and an FAA Airworthiness Directive. It also records that the Amendment "results from a request under CASR 39.006." These references create specific cross-links to other regulatory and technical instruments.

Interaction with manufacturer service information

• The AD makes the ASB(s) the operative technical standard for inspection: "inspect ... in accordance with ASB 767-29A0054, 767-29A0054 Revision 1 ... or 767-29A0054 Revision 2 ..." This is a direct incorporation by reference of manufacturer service material into a regulatory obligation. In practical terms this converts Boeing’s ASB inspection procedure and any corrective actions it contains into regulatory requirements for the affected aircraft in Australia. The AD therefore sets a hierarchical relationship in which CASA’s AD prescribes mandatory compliance, but the technical content and acceptable methods are taken from the ASB.

Interaction with foreign airworthiness directives

• The AD contains a note: "FAA AD 91-02-03 Amdt 39-6853 refers." That reference shows the Australian AD situates itself in a cross-jurisdictional safety dialogue. The AD also states in its Background that it includes "a reference to the superseding FAA Airworthiness Directive." The text does not state that FAA compliance is dispositive for Australian compliance, but it shows recognition of the FAA action and suggests the FAA AD is relevant technical context. The specifics of how CASA treats compliance with foreign ADs are not in the extract; the AD relies on the ASB versions for the method of compliance.

Interaction with Civil Aviation Safety Regulations (CASR)

• The Background says the Amendment "results from a request under CASR 39.006 from industry to review the original Directive." That locates the AD process within the CASR regime. CASR 39.006 is therefore the procedural hook that allowed industry to request a review, but this AD extract does not reproduce CASR 39.006’s text or specify how it affects enforcement, amendments, or dispute resolution. Therefore the AD’s connection to the CASR framework is acknowledged but not elaborated in this text.

Interaction with operator manuals, operations certificates and maintenance approvals

• The AD does not expressly amend operator manuals, maintenance programmes or continuing airworthiness management obligations; however, because it prescribes mandatory inspection work, operators will need to incorporate the AD task into their maintenance planning, compliance records and potentially operations control documents. The AD’s incorporation of ASBs means that maintenance organisations that rely on approved data will need to ensure the ASB content is acceptable under their approvals.

Potential conflicts or overlap

• The AD’s explicit choice of ASB revisions as accepted compliance paths reduces the risk of conflict between manufacturer instructions and the AD. The AD does not state any interaction with other Australian statutory obligations (for example, civil liability law, workplace safety law, or other aviation regulatory instruments) in the supplied extract. Any conflicts would therefore have to be resolved against the general legal framework beyond this text. The AD’s reference to prior accomplishment "in accordance with the original issue of this Directive" indicates that earlier AD-compliant work remains effective; the Amendment "corrects the applicability statement," which could change the set of aircraft to which it applies and therefore interact with prior work.

Record of supersession

• The Background records that the Amendment "includes a reference to the superseding FAA Airworthiness Directive" and that the original AD became effective on 6 September 1990. This provides historical context for how the Amendment relates to previous ADs but does not, in the extract, list any formal revocation clause for the original AD beyond the practical correction of applicability. Practitioners would need to consult the full AD series to understand precisely which parts remain in force.

In summary, the AD incorporates manufacturer ASBs as the technical standard, references a related FAA AD for cross-jurisdictional context, and arises from a CASR 39.006 industry request. The AD does not itself reproduce broader CASR enforcement provisions, nor does it detail interaction with other legal instruments beyond those references in the provided text.

The document contains a short amendment history in its Background and header data; summarising and ordering those details gives a concise chain of evolution.

Original directive

• The Background states that "The original issue of this Directive became effective on 6 September 1990." That original AD set out the initial requirement to inspect wiring in the aft fairing area of the engine struts when the hazard was first identified.

Subsequent amendment (AD/B767/39 Amdt 1)

• The present instrument is titled "AD/B767/39 Amdt 1" and is dated with an effective date: "This Amendment becomes effective on 24 November 2005." The signature block bears the name "Jayaprakashan Ambali, Delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority" and is dated 13 October 2005, indicating the delegate signed on that date and the Amendment’s effective date was later set as 24 November 2005.

Nature and purpose of the amendment

• The Background explains the Amendment’s reason: it "results from a request under CASR 39.006 from industry to review the original Directive." The Amendment "corrects the applicability statement and includes an additional service bulletin revision as an alternate method of compliance, together with a reference to the superseding FAA Airworthiness Directive." Those two technical amendments are therefore administrative corrections and an expansion of acceptable compliance documents rather than a substantive change in the technical inspection’s target.

ASB revision changes

• The Requirement field in the Amendment now lists three ASB documents as acceptable: the original ASB 767-29A0054 dated 26 March 1990, Revision 1 dated 24 May 1990, and Revision 2 dated 8 November 1990. The inclusion of Revision 2 as a later alternate method of compliance is specifically noted in the Background.

References to other ADs

• The Amendment adds a "Note: FAA AD 91-02-03 Amdt 39-6853 refers." The Background also records that the Amendment includes "a reference to the superseding FAA Airworthiness Directive." This indicates that since the original AD, an FAA AD has been issued or superseded that is relevant to the same issue, and the Amendment acknowledges that linkage.

Administrative timeline

• Original AD effective: 6 September 1990.
• Amendment signed: 13 October 2005 (signature date).
• Amendment effective: 24 November 2005.
• Compliance window: within 500 hours time in service after 24 November 2005.

Evidence of process

• The Background explicitly notes industry initiated a review under CASR 39.006, showing that the regulatory process allowed industry input to cause the correction/expansion. The Amendment’s role was therefore reactive to an industry request, rather than arising spontaneously from CASA’s surveillance.

What is not in the supplied text

• The extract does not state whether this Amendment supersedes or revokes prior paragraphs or whether additional follow-up ADs were issued subsequently. It does not list amendment numbers beyond "Amdt 1." It also does not supply the full text of the original Directive nor the specific corrections to the applicability statement beyond saying it was corrected. To reconstruct the full amendment trail, practitioners will need to consult the original AD/B767/39 and any subsequent ADs not included here.

The supplied document contains no record of litigation. There are no references to court cases, disputes, appeals, judicial review, or adjudicative outcomes against CASA or any operator concerning this Directive in the text provided.

What the source states

• The Background describes incident reports and corrective administrative action but does not refer to any legal proceedings. The technical narrative reports nine occurrences of insufficient separation and three instances of chafing that caused physical damage and hydraulic fluid leakage; no litigation or legal action is mentioned.

Implications for practitioners

• Absence of litigation in this extract does not mean that disputes could not arise; it means that this AD’s published record as provided has no litigation history to cite. If a lawyer or compliance officer requires information on whether the AD has been the subject of judicial review or administrative appeal, they must search external legal databases, CASA records, or tribunal decisions beyond the content of this AD text.

Why litigation might occur (contextual, not present in text)

• In general, disagreements that arise from ADs typically concern scope of applicability, the technical sufficiency of referenced service documents, choice or approval of alternative methods of compliance, or the legal process by which the AD was issued. None of these are recorded in the supplied source as having proceeded to litigation.

Recommendation for due diligence

• For matters where litigation history is material (for example, in advising on liability exposure or in bidding for maintenance contracts), practitioners should obtain the full AD family (original AD/B767/39 plus Amdt 1 and any later ADs), search CASA enforcement action records, and check public tribunal and court databases for any decisions that mention AD/B767/39 or its subject matter. The supplied text alone contains no litigation references.

The AD’s brevity and reliance on incorporated ASB texts create several operational risks and potential traps for practitioners and operators; these stem from wording, timing, scope and the manner in which compliance is specified in the document.

1. Narrow applicability language tied to ASB list and two line numbers

• The "Applicability" clause targets "Boeing 767 series aircraft listed in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) 767-29A0054 dated 26 March 1990 together with aeroplanes line number 308 and 311." If an operator relies on a superficial serial-number check instead of cross-referencing the ASB’s detailed list they risk misclassifying aircraft in scope. The AD also specifically adds line numbers 308 and 311; operators should verify whether their aircraft’s line or serial number corresponds to entries within the ASB or are among those two explicitly listed.

2. Conditional requirement where prior compliance matters

• The Requirement begins "If not previously accomplished in accordance with the original issue of this Directive," which creates a conditional exemption. Operators who believe prior inspections were performed must ensure past work matched the original AD’s technical standard exactly. If prior work was not "in accordance with the original issue," it does not exempt the aircraft. The AD does not define what constitutes sufficient evidence of prior compliance; operators should retain work orders, logbook entries and the ASB version used previously.

3. Multiple acceptable ASB revisions and potential differences between them

• The AD allows inspection "in accordance with ASB ... original or Revision 1 or Revision 2." Those ASB revisions may differ in inspection scope, thresholds for acceptable clearance, or corrective measures. Operators must verify which ASB revision they are following and ensure their maintenance authority accepts the chosen revision. Relying on an older revision when the later revision adds steps could be inadequate unless the AD explicitly accepts the older revision (which it does, but the AD’s background says Revision 2 was added as an alternate method, implying Revision 2 may contain additional or different content).

4. Short compliance window measured in hours time in service

• The compliance period is a quantified metric: "Within 500 hours time in service after the effective date of this Amendment." That requires accurate TIS tracking from the effective date (24 November 2005). Operators must plan maintenance scheduling to capture aircraft before exceeding 500 hours TIS. Miscalculation or failure to track hours accurately risks non-compliance.

5. Lack of explicit remedial instructions in the AD text

• The AD requires inspection "to ensure sufficient clearance exists" but does not itself specify corrective measures. The actual remedial action will be in the ASB. If the ASB requires parts, modifications, or extended downtime, operators must plan accordingly. Operators that assume simple inspection only and do not budget for potential corrective work may face logistical challenges.

6. No explicit recordkeeping or reporting requirement in the extract

• The AD text provided does not mandate submission of compliance reports to CASA or specify a format for recordkeeping. Operators should not infer absence of any reporting obligation; CASA surveillance or operator obligations under CASR may require records. Practically, you should keep contemporaneous documentation demonstrating compliance with the ASB within the 500-hour window.

7. Interplay with FAA AD left implicit

• The Note and Background reference FAA AD 91-02-03 Amdt 39-6853. There is a risk of conflation: operators might assume compliance with the FAA AD automatically satisfies the Australian AD. The AD does not state that. Compliance must be with the Australian AD as written (which in turn requires compliance with one of the listed ASB revisions).

8. The Amendment "corrects the applicability statement"

• The Background says the Amendment corrects the applicability statement. Practitioners must check prior AD text and fleet records to understand what was corrected; relying on older internal summaries could lead to overlooking aircraft newly captured by the correction.

9. Potential ambiguity in what constitutes "sufficient clearance"

• The AD delegates technical specifics to the ASB. If the ASB is ambiguous about measurement points, tolerances, or inspection methods, disputes could arise. Maintenance organisations should document their inspection methodology, measurements, and conformity to the ASB to avoid later questions about adequacy.

10. Time gap between signature and effective date

• The delegate signed on 13 October 2005, but the Amendment became effective on 24 November 2005. Operators must be careful about which date starts the 500-hour clock; the AD expressly states the effective date. Misunderstanding whether the signature date or the effective date governs could lead to mis-timing inspections.

These "gotchas" derive from the AD’s wording and its reliance on external technical documents. Practitioners should verify ASB content, confirm exact aircraft applicability, maintain traceable records of prior compliance, and plan for potential corrective work.

The AD sets a discrete compliance pathway. Below are concrete, practical steps an operator or maintenance organisation should follow to demonstrate compliance with the instrument as provided.

1. Confirm applicability for each aeroplane

• Obtain the ASB 767-29A0054 (original dated 26 March 1990) and review its list of affected aeroplanes. Confirm whether the specific aeroplane appears on that list, or whether it is one of the two explicitly added line numbers ("line number 308 and 311") mentioned in the AD’s Applicability clause. Do not rely on summary fleet lists without cross-checking ASB serial/line-number details.

2. Check prior compliance

• Determine whether the inspection was "previously accomplished in accordance with the original issue of this Directive." If a prior inspection was completed under the original AD and documentation exists proving the work was performed in accordance with that AD, the aircraft is exempt from repeating the task under this Amendment. Maintain the original work order, logbook entries, and the ASB version used as evidence.

3. Obtain the accepted ASB revision

• The AD accepts ASB 767-29A0054 (26 March 1990) or Revision 1 (24 May 1990) or Revision 2 (8 November 1990). Obtain the chosen ASB revision and review the inspection procedure and any corrective actions it specifies. Confirm that your maintenance organisation’s approvals accept that ASB content as approved data for the task.

4. Schedule the inspection within the compliance window

• The AD requires compliance "Within 500 hours time in service after the effective date of this Amendment." The effective date is 24 November 2005. Calculate the remaining hours TIS for each aircraft and schedule the inspection to occur before exceeding the 500-hour limit. If operations make scheduling within 500 hours difficult, prioritise affected aircraft and consider temporary operational adjustments.

5. Perform the inspection per the ASB

• Conduct the inspection of the wiring in the aft fairing area of the engine struts "in accordance with" the chosen ASB revision. Follow inspection steps, measurement points, tools and methods specified by the ASB. If the ASB specifies who (licenced engineer, specific approvals) must do the work, ensure personnel meet those requirements.

6. If insufficient clearance (nonconformance) is found

• The AD requires inspection "to ensure sufficient clearance exists." If the inspection reveals insufficient clearance or chafing, follow the corrective action procedures in the ASB revision used. The AD text does not itself prescribe the remedial steps; the ASB should contain instructions for repair, rerouting, protective measures or part replacement. Document the corrective work performed, parts used, and the post-repair inspection confirming clearance is restored.

7. Recordkeeping

• Although the AD extract does not specify a reporting format, retain complete records proving compliance within the 500-hour window: maintenance release signed by authorised personnel; work orders; ASB revision used; pre- and post-inspection measurements or photographs; parts replaced; logbook entries. These records will be necessary to demonstrate compliance to CASA upon request and to support any warranty or insurance claims.

8. Consider interaction with other continuing airworthiness obligations

• Update the aircraft’s maintenance records and continuing airworthiness documentation to reflect the inspection and any corrective actions. If the ASB or the AD recommends or mandates follow-up inspections or periodic checks, incorporate them into the maintenance program.

9. Liaise with CASA or delegated authority if clarification is required

• If there is uncertainty about applicability (for example, borderline serial numbers), the adequacy of prior compliance, or acceptance of another method of compliance not listed in the AD, seek clarification from CASA or the appropriate delegated authority. The Background notes industry used CASR 39.006 to request review, which implies CASA has a process for handling such queries; the AD does not reproduce that process, so obtain CASA guidance in writing if necessary.

10. Preserve evidence of time-in-service calculations

• Keep the logs that demonstrate how the 500 hours TIS deadline was calculated (flight logs, Hobbs/TIS records). This avoids disputes about whether the inspection was completed within the regulatory window.

11. Coordinate logistics and parts supply in case remedial work is required

• Because the Background records occurrences where wiring chafed through and caused arcing and hydraulic damage, remedial work could require replacement of wiring, routing hardware, protective sleeving or hydraulic component repair. Pre-order likely parts and schedule maintenance slots where possible, particularly for aircraft with higher utilisation where the 500-hour window may arrive quickly.

12. Review operator’s safety and maintenance management systems

• Incorporate the AD task into the operator’s safety management system, ensuring root-cause reviews for any nonconformances found, and consider whether similar inspections are appropriate on other variants or on other airframes not listed in the ASB if material similarities exist.

These steps track the AD’s explicit instructions: determine applicability; perform the inspection "in accordance with" a listed ASB revision; and complete the inspection within 500 hours TIS after the Amendment’s effective date (24 November 2005). Documentation is central to demonstrating compliance given the AD’s conditional exemption for previously accomplished work and its reliance on ASB-prescribed methods.