AD/BEECH 1900/2 Amdt 2 - Nose Gear Lower Shock Absorber Assembly

This Airworthiness Directive (AD/BEECH 1900/2 Amdt 2), effective 5 July 2007, imposes inspection and corrective-action obligations on specified Beechcraft 1900 and 1900C aeroplanes concerning the nose landing gear lower shock absorber fork assembly. Mechanically, it requires: (a) an inspection using fluorescent liquid penetrant or magnetic particle methods of the nose landing gear fork assembly for cracks, in accordance with Part II of Raytheon Aircraft Company Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) SB 32-2102 Revision 7, Revised: July 2003 (Requirement 1); (b) if cracks are found, incorporation of Kit No. 101-8030-1S or Kit No. 114-8015-1S as applicable, following the MSB (Requirement 2); and (c) if no cracks are found, repeat inspections at intervals not to exceed 200 hours time in service, again using Part II of the MSB (Requirement 3). The directive records that incorporation of either kit is terminating action for these inspection requirements (Note 1). The AD cites a related FAA corrected AD (FAA Corrected AD 2004-23-02 Amdt 39-13857) (Note 2), and states that Amendment 2 corrects an error in Requirement 3 where Part III of the MSB should have been Part II. The AD is signed by David Punshon, Delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, dated 9 May 2007.

The compliance schedule is explicit: for aircraft affected by the previous issue of the Directive initially inspect within 200 hours time in service after the last inspection required by the previous issue (Compliance 1.a); for aircraft not affected previously, initially inspect within 200 hours time in service after 5 July 2007 (Compliance 1.b). If cracks are found, incorporation of the specified kit must occur before further flight (Compliance 2). Repeat inspections are required at intervals not to exceed 200 hours time in service (Compliance 3). The AD notes that the compliance times for Requirements 2 and 3 remain unchanged by this issue of the Directive.

This instrument therefore converts a manufacturer service requirement into a mandatory regulatory obligation for the listed serial-numbered aeroplanes, prescribes inspection method and cadence, and prescribes a specified terminating modification when cracks are found.

The AD is short and built around three main operational concepts: a specified inspection method and reference; a discrete corrective/terminating modification; and a time-based recurring inspection cadence.

1. Specified inspection method and reference. The directive requires inspections "using fluorescent liquid penetrant or magnetic particle method" and expressly ties the procedure to "Part II of Raytheon Aircraft Company Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) SB 32-2102 Revision 7, Revised: July 2003" (Requirement 1). The MSB is the normative technical source for how to inspect the fork assembly and how to interpret findings. The AD also corrects an earlier error that had mis-referenced Part III instead of Part II, so accurate reference to the MSB Part II is essential.

2. Corrective/terminating action. If the inspection reveals cracks, the operator must "incorporate Kit No. 101-8030-1S or Kit No. 114-8015-1S, as applicable; as specified in MSB SB 32-2102 Revision 7" (Requirement 2). The directive states that incorporation of either kit is "terminating action for the inspection requirements of this Directive" (Note 1). That creates a defined pathway to cease the repetitive inspection obligation by performing the specified modification.

3. Time-based recurring inspections and staged initial compliance. The AD imposes a strict recurrence interval: inspections are to be repeated "at intervals not to exceed 200 hours time in service" (Compliance 3). Initial compliance differs depending on whether an aircraft was subject to the previous issue of the Directive: those already affected must inspect within 200 hours after their last inspection required by the previous Directive; other aircraft have an initial window of 200 hours after 5 July 2007 (Compliance 1.a, 1.b). Where cracks are found at any inspection, the kit incorporation must occur "before further flight" (Compliance 2).

Cross-references and provenance. The directive explicitly links itself to the manufacturer MSB and notes the FAA Corrected AD 2004-23-02 Amdt 39-13857 (Note 2). The Background explains that the manufacturer originally required a mandatory inspection for slippage and a dye check of the weld area, that Amendment 1 changed inspection method and added kit incorporation and aircraft to applicability, and that Amendment 2 corrects the Part reference error. These linkages show the AD’s reliance on manufacturer technical material and on corresponding FAA action as part of its justification and technical basis.

Operationally, the AD transforms manufacturer and FAA directions into mandatory action for specified serial-numbered aircraft, prescribes the exact inspection technique and cadence, and prescribes two specific kits as corrective and terminating measures.

The directive expressly sets its applicability by model and serial number. It applies to:

• Model 1900, serial numbers UA-1 through UA-3; and
• Model 1900C, serial numbers UB-1 through UB-74, and UC-1 through UC-78.

Those serial-number ranges appear in the "Applicability" block of the Directive. Because the obligation is tied to specific airframes by serial number, the direct economic and operational impact falls on the registered operators, owners, maintenance organisations and approved maintenance engineers responsible for those particular aeroplanes. The directive does not name owners or operators but prescribes actions that must be taken on the listed airframes.

Who pays. The text requires inspections and, if cracks are found, incorporation of one of two specified kits. The AD itself does not allocate or quantify costs or identify a funding source; it places the obligation to carry out inspections and incorporate kits on those responsible for the affected aircraft. The logical payment chain is therefore the operator or owner responsible for maintenance of the affected aeroplane, because they must arrange the inspection and procure and install the kit when required. The directive does not indicate any subsidy, cost-sharing, or financial assistance.

Who decides. The AD sets fixed technical requirements and references the Raytheon MSB for method and kit installation. It does not provide any discretion to deviate from the inspection methods or the kits named; the language requires the inspection "in accordance with Part II of Raytheon ... MSB" and incorporation of the specific kits "as specified in MSB SB 32-2102 Revision 7" (Requirement 1 and 2). The only decision the operator must make is operational: schedule the inspections within the stated compliance windows, and if cracks are found, install the appropriate kit before further flight.

Who records and verifies. The Directive does not prescribe record-keeping formats or verification procedures. It does, however, state timing and actions that would be observable in maintenance records: date and method of inspection, findings, and kit incorporation where applicable. The AD is signed by a CASA delegate, David Punshon, which signals regulatory issuance and administrative responsibility for publishing the Directive, but it does not specify how CASA will verify compliance on any individual airframe.

External technical parties. The directive’s reliance on the Raytheon MSB and the reference to the FAA AD mean that maintenance organisations will need access to the specific MSB text and to the kit parts and installation instructions as contained in that MSB. The AD does not describe any approval or certification process for alternative procedures or parts, nor does it authorise deviation from the MSB.

Duties:

• Inspect the nose landing gear fork assembly for cracks using either fluorescent liquid penetrant or magnetic particle inspection, following Part II of Raytheon MSB SB 32-2102 Revision 7, Revised: July 2003 (Requirement 1). The inspection is mandatory and the method is specified by the directive.
• If cracks are discovered at any inspection, incorporate Kit No. 101-8030-1S or Kit No. 114-8015-1S, as applicable, in accordance with the MSB (Requirement 2). The AD makes kit incorporation a required corrective action.
• If no cracks are discovered, repeat the inspection at intervals not to exceed 200 hours time in service, again in accordance with Part II of the MSB (Requirement 3).
• Respect the timing constraints: aircraft affected by the previous issue of the Directive must initially inspect within 200 hours time in service after the last inspection required by the previous Directive; aircraft not previously affected must inspect within 200 hours after 5 July 2007 (Compliance 1.a and 1.b). Where cracks are found, incorporation of the kit must be done "before further flight" (Compliance 2).

Rights and options established by the Directive text:

• Terminating action: incorporation of Kit No. 101-8030-1S or Kit No. 114-8015-1S is explicitly stated to be "terminating action for the inspection requirements of this Directive" (Note 1). Practically, that gives operators a clear, authorised option to cease the repetitive inspection cycle for these Directive requirements by installing the specified kit.
• Choice of inspection method: the AD permits two non-destructive test methods, fluorescent liquid penetrant or magnetic particle inspection, for detecting cracks (Requirement 1). The directive requires the inspection to be performed in accordance with Part II of the MSB, so the choice of method will be constrained by the procedures and acceptance criteria set out in that Part II.
• The directive names which kit is applicable, but does not give the operator latitude to substitute an unnamed alternative in the Directive text. The instruction to "incorporate Kit No. 101-8030-1S or Kit No. 114-8015-1S, as applicable; as specified in MSB SB 32-2102 Revision 7" constrains corrective options to those kits and the MSB installation procedure.

Limits and constraints in the Directive:

• The AD does not specify alternative compliance methods, waivers or derogations in its text. It fixes the MSB Part II as the inspection standard and the two kit numbers as corrective measures. Any deviation from those would not be authorised by the AD itself.

The text of this Directive does not set out penalties, sanctioning frameworks, or enforcement procedures. The AD contains mandatory obligations, specific compliance deadlines and an effective date, and it is signed by a CASA delegate, but it does not in the printed text prescribe how non-compliance will be detected, sanctioned or remediated, nor does it quantify fines, licence consequences, grounding authority, or other enforcement measures.

What the Directive does provide that is relevant to enforcement is a precise set of mandatory actions and timings: inspection methods tied to Part II of a named MSB, kit numbers for corrective action, initial compliance windows tied to prior status, and a recurring maximum interval of 200 hours time in service. Those precise prescriptions create objective criteria against which a regulator or inspector could measure compliance, because the Directive states what must be done and when.

The AD also contains temporal commands with operational consequences that are implicitly enforceable by the "before further flight" language for kit incorporation when cracks are found (Compliance 2). The phrase "before further flight" establishes an immediate operational restriction on the aircraft identified as cracked until the corrective action is completed, but the AD text itself does not include a penalty schedule or procedural steps for imposing or lifting official flight prohibitions.

The AD references an FAA Corrected AD (FAA Corrected AD 2004-23-02 Amdt 39-13857) and a Raytheon MSB as technical sources. The presence of those references can assist enforcement or oversight work by providing the technical baseline for inspections, findings and corrective actions, but the Directive does not explain how those cross-references affect enforcement actions.

In sum, the Directive mandates actions and timing, and sets objective technical tests and corrective measures, but the document itself does not describe penalties or an enforcement process. Any enforcement regime or sanctions would be sourced outside the text provided, by the applicable regulatory or statutory enforcement mechanisms that sit beyond this AD text, which are not included in the Directive as provided.

Within the text of the Directive itself, interaction with other regulatory and technical instruments is limited but explicit in two ways:

1. Manufacturer Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB). The AD incorporates and makes mandatory in practice certain parts of Raytheon Aircraft Company MSB SB 32-2102 Revision 7, Revised: July 2003. Specifically, the inspection requirement is mandated "in accordance with Part II of Raytheon Aircraft Company Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) SB 32-2102 Revision 7" (Requirement 1), and kit incorporation is required "as specified in MSB SB 32-2102 Revision 7" (Requirement 2). This creates an operational dependency: compliance with the Directive requires following the MSB’s procedures and installation instructions. The AD therefore functions as a regulatory instrument that compels conformity with manufacturer technical material.

2. FAA Corrected AD reference. The Directive notes that "FAA Corrected AD 2004-23-02 Amdt 39-13857 refers" (Note 2), and the Background explains that an error in the previous issue flowed from the related FAA AD. This establishes that the Australian AD is cognisant of, and linked to, FAA airworthiness directives addressing the same technical issue. The reference suggests cross-recognition of the FAA action as relevant technical context for the Australia AD, but the Directive does not adopt FAA language verbatim; it corrects the Part reference error that originated in the FAA AD.

What the Directive does not state. The text contains no explicit references to other Australian statutes, regulations, civil aviation rules, administrative procedures, or penalty provisions. It does not, for example, cite a specific enabling provision in legislation or a Civil Aviation Safety Authority regulation authorising ADs, nor does it say how the AD interacts with continuing airworthiness obligations beyond the specific inspections and kit incorporations. The Directive also does not spell out how compliance with the MSB intersects with any other service bulletins or alternative means of compliance.

Practical effect of these interactions. The AD effectively elevates the technical instructions in Part II of the identified Raytheon MSB into mandatory regulatory obligations for the serial-numbered aircraft identified. It also aligns Australian regulatory action with FAA actions by cross-reference, and corrects a mis-reference that flowed from the FAA AD. The operator must therefore coordinate access to, and adherence with, the named MSB and be aware of the related FAA AD mentioned in Note 2.

The instrument is titled "AD/BEECH 1900/2 Amdt 2", indicating this is the second amendment to the original AD. The Directive itself summarises the evolution relevant to the current amendment in the Background paragraph:

• Manufacturer action: The manufacturer initially required a mandatory inspection of the nose gear lower shock absorber for evidence of slippage at the intersection of the tube and fork assembly, and a dye check of the weld area on the fork assembly. That is recorded as the starting technical concern which the AD addresses.
• Amendment 1: The Background states that Amendment 1 required the same inspection requirements but by a different inspection method. Amendment 1 also required incorporation of an improved nose landing gear fork kit anytime a crack is found, and added additional aircraft to the applicability. The current text does not supply the exact date of Amendment 1 or its text, but records its substantive effects: change of inspection method, mandatory kit incorporation on crack detection, and expanded applicability.
• Amendment 2 (this AD): Amendment 2 is issued to correct an error in Requirement 3 in the previous issue, where Part III of the referenced Beech MSB should have been Part II. The Background notes that this error flowed from the related FAA AD 2004-23-02. Amendment 2 therefore does not materially change inspection cadence or the corrective requirement; it corrects the MSB part reference to Part II of SB 32-2102 Revision 7.

Administrative timeline present in the AD:

• The AD is signed by David Punshon, Delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, dated 9 May 2007.
• The Directive states it "becomes effective on 5 July 2007."

Other amendment notes in the compliance block state that "The compliance times for Requirements 2 and 3 remain unchanged by this issue of the Directive," meaning that Amendment 2 corrected the procedural reference but did not alter the prior timing for immediate corrective action (Requirement 2) or the inspection intervals (Requirement 3).

In short, the AD’s amendment history as set out in the document shows an initial manufacturer-driven inspection requirement, Amendment 1 converting or clarifying inspection method and mandating kit installation when cracks are found while expanding applicability, and Amendment 2 as a technical correction to which MSB Part to follow.

The Directive as provided contains no information about litigation. There are no cases, appeals, or judicial or administrative proceedings referenced in the text. The AD mentions only technical and regulatory cross-references (the Raytheon MSB and the FAA Corrected AD 2004-23-02 Amdt 39-13857), and the Background notes that an error in the previous issue flowed from the related FAA AD. The document does not record any disputes, challenges, or enforcement actions that resulted in litigation.

Because the text of the Directive itself does not include any litigation history, there is no source-grounded material on court or tribunal treatment, no caselaw citations, and no outcomes to summarise. Any record of disputes, compliance prosecutions, or judicial review of the Directive would need to be obtained from external records and is not contained within the instrument as provided.

The AD's brevity hides a number of practical detail points and potential traps operators and maintenance organisations should note carefully, all grounded in the Directive text.

1. Correct Part reference is essential. Amendment 2 corrects an earlier error where Part III of the MSB was incorrectly cited; the Directive requires inspection "in accordance with Part II of Raytheon ... MSB SB 32-2102 Revision 7" (Requirement 1). Using Part III, or earlier/later revisions without proper verification, would not conform to the AD as written.

2. Two separate initial compliance windows. Whether an aircraft must inspect within 200 hours after its last inspection (if affected by the previous issue of the Directive) or within 200 hours after 5 July 2007 (if not previously affected) is a binary distinction set out in Compliance 1.a and 1.b. Operators must determine whether their airframe was subject to the prior issue to calculate the correct initial deadline.

3. "Before further flight" for corrective action. If cracks are found during any inspection, the AD requires kit incorporation "before further flight" (Compliance 2). That creates an immediate operational consequence: the aircraft must not fly until the corrective kit is installed. That may have scheduling, cancellation and logistics implications.

4. Terminating action is only the specified kits. The AD states that incorporation of Kit No. 101-8030-1S or Kit No. 114-8015-1S is "terminating action for the inspection requirements of this Directive" (Note 1). Only those kits, as installed "as specified in MSB SB 32-2102 Revision 7", are identified as terminating the inspection obligation. Alternative repairs or substitution of parts are not authorised by the Directive text.

5. Inspection method and MSB procedures. The directive prescribes either fluorescent liquid penetrant or magnetic particle methods, but requires that the inspection be carried out "in accordance with Part II of" the MSB. The MSB likely contains acceptance criteria and preparatory steps; failure to follow the MSB Part II could leave an operator non-compliant even if some form of inspection was performed.

6. Serial-number specific applicability. The applicability is limited to discrete serial-number ranges. Misidentification of an airframe’s serial number could lead to overcompliance or undercompliance; operators must verify the serial-number ranges precisely: UA-1 through UA-3 for Model 1900, and UB-1 through UB-74 and UC-1 through UC-78 for Model 1900C.

Follow these steps, strictly following the language and references in the Directive:

1. Confirm applicability. Verify the aircraft model and serial number against the Directive's Applicability block: Model 1900 UA-1 through UA-3; Model 1900C UB-1 through UB-74 and UC-1 through UC-78. Do not assume applicability beyond these serial-numbered ranges.

2. Obtain the referenced MSB. Acquire Raytheon Aircraft Company Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 32-2102 Revision 7, Revised: July 2003, and read Part II. The Directive requires inspections "in accordance with Part II" of that MSB (Requirement 1). The MSB will contain the procedural steps, acceptance criteria, and any tooling or preparation instructions that must be followed to meet the Directive.

3. Schedule initial inspection within the correct window. Determine whether the aircraft was affected by the previous issue of the Directive. If yes, conduct the initial inspection within 200 hours time in service after the last inspection required by the previous issue (Compliance 1.a). If no, conduct the initial inspection within 200 hours time in service after 5 July 2007 (Compliance 1.b). Record the date and time-in-service at inspection as proof of compliance.

4. Perform the inspection using authorised methods. Use either fluorescent liquid penetrant or magnetic particle inspection as permitted by the Directive, and perform the inspection strictly per Part II of the MSB (Requirement 1). Apply the MSB acceptance criteria to determine whether a crack is present.

5. If cracks are found, take immediate corrective action. If any cracks are detected during an inspection, incorporate Kit No. 101-8030-1S or Kit No. 114-8015-1S, as applicable, "as specified in MSB SB 32-2102 Revision 7" (Requirement 2). The Directive requires that the kit be incorporated before further flight (Compliance 2). Plan for the aircraft to be unavailable until the kit is installed.

6. Understand terminating action. Incorporation of Kit No. 101-8030-1S or Kit No. 114-8015-1S is specified in the Directive as terminating action for the inspection requirements of this AD (Note 1). If you install the kit per the MSB instructions, the recurring inspection requirement set out in this Directive is terminated.

7. If no cracks are found, plan recurring inspections. If the inspection finds no cracks, repeat inspections at intervals not to exceed 200 hours time in service, performing each inspection in accordance with Part II of the MSB (Requirement 3). Maintain scheduling and time-in-service tracking to ensure no interval exceeds 200 hours.