The AD rests on a short set of interrelated technical and regulatory concepts taken from the directive text.

• Applicability. The directive applies to "All Model 1900, 1900C, and 1900D aircraft." This is an inclusive applicability clause that covers the entire model family named (Applicability).

• Inspection cascade. The AD creates an inspection cascade: an initial visual/control-column sweep and bolt measurement (Requirement 1), follow-up travel-board checks (Requirement 3), and a re-rigging requirement triggered by failure at any stage (Requirements 2 and 3.b). The AD describes exactly which actions are part of each step (Requirement 1.a-c, 2.a-c, 3.a-b, 4).

• Dimensional tolerance and exception. A measured stop-bolt dimension of 1.00 inch or less is explicitly acceptable for the inspection (Requirement 1.c(i)). If a bolt exceeds 1.00 inch, the AD does not automatically mandate replacement; it requires performing the travel-board inspection specified in Requirement 3.a. If that travel-board inspection is passed, the bolt is acceptable even if larger than 1.00 inch (Requirement 1.c(ii)). The AD therefore contains a dimension threshold with an operational tolerance tested by performance (travel-board) criteria.

• Performance-based limits. The AD sets performance limits on elevator travel measured with travel boards: up travel 20 degrees (+1/-0), down travel 14 degrees (+1/-0). These are prescriptive performance targets to be verified in Requirement 3.a.

• Maintenance manual prescription. Where the AD requires procedural or corrective maintenance it directs compliance with the Raytheon Aircraft Company 1900/1900C/1900D maintenance manual, as applicable. Rigging procedures and elevator control system adjustments must follow the manufacturer's manual (Requirement 1 and 2 reference the maintenance manual).

• Access and retention of access. The AD requires removal of the aft fairing from the vertical stabiliser to gain visual access to the surface stop bolts (Requirement 1.a). When re-rigging is required, the AD instructs not to reinstall the aft fairing because access to the surface stop bolt remains necessary (Requirement 2.a). When the aircraft passes inspection, the aft fairing is to be replaced (Requirement 2.c and 3).

• Triggered follow-ups and recurrent triggers. The AD sets immediate-action triggers (initial inspection by 2 February 2003) and recurrent triggers (before further flight after rigging; within 100 hours for certain travel-board checks; reporting within 10 days). Examples of events that trigger re-rigging obligations are specifically listed, including changing cable tension and replacing components such as cables, pulleys, push-pull tubes, and bellcranks (Compliance 4 and Requirement 4).

• Reporting. The AD requires operators to report initial inspection and initial travel-board inspection results to the Raytheon Aircraft Company (Requirement 5; Compliance 5). That is a mandatory reporting obligation separate from the mechanical work.

• Legal foundation. The AD is issued under subregulation 39.1(1) of CAR 1998, giving it legal force as an Airworthiness Directive issued by CASA (opening paragraph).

These concepts structure the directive as a performance-and-procedure-based corrective action, tying manufacturer maintenance procedures, bolt-dimension checks, and measured control travel together into a compliance pathway that conditions continued flight on successful verification or remediation.

The text identifies several parties with concrete obligations or roles.

• Aircraft owners/operators of Model 1900, 1900C, and 1900D aeroplanes. The applicability clause plainly states the AD applies to all aircraft of those models. The actions required (inspections, measurements, rigging, reporting) are operational responsibilities placed on whoever is responsible for the aircraft's maintenance and airworthiness status. The Compliance section uses "initially inspect" and "before further flight" time triggers, which are obligations operationally borne by the entity that decides whether an aircraft may fly.

• Maintenance personnel and organisations. The AD requires removal and replacement of the aft fairing, visual inspections, bolt measurements, use of elevator travel boards, and execution of elevator control rigging procedures "in accordance with the Raytheon Aircraft Company 1900, 1900C, or 1900D maintenance manual, as applicable" (Requirement 1 and 2). That places technical procedural obligations on licensed maintenance engineers or organisations performing maintenance. The AD specifies the maintenance manual as the authoritative procedural source.

• Raytheon Aircraft Company (manufacturer). The AD requires reporting of initial inspection and initial travel board inspection results to Raytheon (Requirement 5; Compliance 5). Raytheon is therefore a recipient of mandatory data from operators, which may be used for manufacturer follow-up, but the AD does not specify how Raytheon must use the reports.

• CASA and the delegate. The AD is issued by a CASA delegate under subregulation 39.1(1) and is signed and dated by David Alan Villiers. CASA is the regulatory authority that imposes the AD; the delegate decides the nature of the required corrective action and the compliance timing. The AD’s legal force flows from that statutory authority.

• Aircrew and passengers indirectly. While not addressees of the maintenance directives, the AD is grounded in flight safety risk that affects the aircraft occupants. The Background section explicitly ties the AD to a recent accident involving a Model 1900D and the potential for restricted elevator travel to remain undetected until the aircraft is loaded in a way that requires full elevator authority. The AD's requirements therefore address a flight-safety hazard that affects aircrew decision-making and passenger safety.

• Organisations performing modifications or component replacement. The AD lists examples of items that require re-rigging, including changing the tension on the elevator primary control cables and replacing elevator control system components such as cables, pulleys, push-pull tubes, and bellcranks (Compliance 4). Entities that replace such components must comply with the re-rigging and inspection sequences.

Who pays and who decides. The directive text does not name who pays. Practically, the owner/operator who must achieve compliance will incur the costs of inspection, potential rigging, replacement parts and labour, and the administrative reporting to Raytheon. The CASA delegate decides the content of the AD, the maintenance manual sets the technical procedures, and the owner/operator decides when to schedule and perform the work within the compliance window, subject to "before further flight" constraints.

The AD imposes a set of affirmative duties and establishes timing constraints, with several conditional exceptions. The directive text creates no express private rights beyond compliance obligations.

Key duties:

• Perform initial control column sweep inspection and bolt measurements. Requirement 1 mandates removal of the aft fairing, a full pitch-down to full pitch-up control column sweep with visual confirmation that elevator horns contact surface stop bolts, and measurement of both elevator down stop bolts from bolt-head crown to the face of the lower stop bolt support (Requirement 1.a-c). These are detailed technical duties directed to maintenance personnel.

• Apply the Raytheon maintenance manual. The AD instructs that inspections and re-rigging must be accomplished "in accordance with the Raytheon Aircraft Company 1900, 1900C, or 1900D maintenance manual, as applicable" (Requirement 1 and 2). That creates an enforceable linkage to the manufacturer's published procedures.

• Conduct travel-board inspection under specified tolerances. Requirement 3.a requires use of elevator travel boards to ensure up elevator travel of 20 degrees (+1/-0) and down elevator travel of 14 degrees (+1/-0). These are precise performance standards to be verified.

• Re-rig elevator control system when required. If inspections fail (Requirement 2 and 3.b), the AD requires the elevator control rigging procedure per the maintenance manual, and explicitly instructs not to reinstall the aft fairing during re-rigging because access to the surface stop bolt remains necessary (Requirement 2.a).

• Repeat inspection triggers. The AD requires performing the control column sweep inspection before further flight after any time the elevator control system is re-rigged (Compliance 4). Examples of triggers include changing cable tension and replacing control system components such as cables, pulleys, push-pull tubes and bellcranks.

• Reporting obligation. Operators must report the initial inspection and initial travel-board inspection results to Raytheon within 10 days after the initial inspections (Requirement 5; Compliance 5).

Timing duties and "before further flight" constraints:

• Initial inspection deadline is explicit: "Initially inspect no later than 2 February 2003" (Compliance 1). The AD became effective on 30 January 2003, which establishes the initial compliance window.

• Where an inspection or check fails, necessary corrective action must be accomplished "before further flight" (Requirements 2 and 3.b; Compliance sections). The "before further flight" language imposes an operational grounding condition until remedial steps are completed to the required standard.

Conditional exceptions and operator choices:

• Bolt-dimension conditional acceptance. If either stop-bolt measurement exceeds 1.00 inch, the AD does not require immediate bolt replacement. Instead, the operator must do the travel-board inspection in Requirement 3.a; if the aircraft then passes that travel-board inspection, the bolt is acceptable even though it exceeds 1.00 inch (Requirement 1.c(ii)). This gives the operator a conditional alternative: dimension acceptance vs performance verification.

• Reinstallation of aft fairing. The AD explicitly instructs that the aft fairing should not be reinstalled during re-rigging procedures because access to the surface stop bolt remains necessary (Requirement 2.a). The fairing is only replaced after passing the inspections (Requirement 2.c and 3).

Rights and omitted matters:

• The AD text does not create any express entitlement to compensation, nor does it provide a review mechanism within the text. It does not specify penalties, enforcement procedures, or administrative appeal rights in this document; it only states the legal basis subregulation (subregulation 39.1(1) of CAR 1998) under which the AD is issued. The absence of an enforcement or penalty clause in the AD means that enforcement processes, sanctions, or appeals, if any, must be sought in the governing regulatory framework (CAR 1998 and CASA procedures), which are not reproduced in this text.

• There is no express right to delay a "before further flight" mandate; the directive language makes compliance prior to further flight an operative condition.

In short, the AD establishes mandatory technical duties, precise performance verification standards, reporting obligations, conditional tolerance mechanisms, and timing constraints, but it does not set out enforcement measures or appeal rights within the four corners of the document.

The AD is issued under subregulation 39.1(1) of CAR 1998, which the directive cites as its statutory source. The AD text itself, however, contains no express penalty provisions, sanction schedule, or enforcement procedure. The directive establishes mandatory compliance steps tied to aircraft airworthiness , for example, repeated instructions to "accomplish" inspections, to perform rigging "before further flight" when certain failures occur, and to report inspection results to Raytheon within prescribed periods , but does not enumerate the consequences for failing to comply.

Operational enforcement mechanisms implied by the AD text:

• "Before further flight" constraints. The directive repeatedly conditions continued flight on successful completion of inspections or re-rigging ("Before further flight after the applicable Requirement 1, 3, and 4 inspection"; "Accomplish any necessary re-rigging before further flight after the inspection required by this Directive"; Compliance 2-4). In practice, such wording places an operational restriction on the aircraft, because compliance is required before the aircraft may be flown. The AD text itself does not spell out administrative enforcement procedures, but the "before further flight" language provides CASA and operators with a clear compliance threshold.

• Reporting obligation. Requirement 5 and Compliance 5 mandate that operators report the initial inspection and initial travel-board inspection results to Raytheon within 10 days. Non-reporting would breach an explicit obligation in the AD text, but the AD does not prescribe the sanction for non-compliance.

• Legal authority. The AD’s legal force is stated as arising from subregulation 39.1(1) of CAR 1998; enforcement and penalty mechanisms are therefore to be found in the broader regulatory framework attached to CAR 1998 and CASA's enforcement powers, which are not reproduced in this document.

Limitations of what the AD specifies:

• No penalties named. The AD does not assign civil penalties, criminal sanctions, or administrative fines within its text. It does not provide a notice-and-take-down process, remedial ordering powers, or a compliance follow-up schedule beyond the reporting requirement.

• No appeal or review process described. The AD does not specify a procedural right to appeal the directive, seek a deferral, or obtain an alternative method of compliance. Any such mechanisms would need to be sought in CAR 1998 or CASA administrative procedures, which are outside the provided text.

• Enforcement discretion not detailed. The AD does not indicate how CASA will verify compliance, whether CASA will audit maintenance records, or whether CASA will require submission of evidence beyond the reporting to Raytheon. The AD’s lack of enforcement detail means that the practical enforcement mechanism will rely on CASA’s general regulatory powers under CAR 1998 and institutional practice.

In summary, the AD sets mandatory technical and reporting duties and conditions continued flight on compliance, while leaving specific enforcement modalities and penalties to the broader regulatory framework under CAR 1998 rather than detailing them in the AD text itself.

This AD situates itself within the regulatory framework by referencing the governing provisions that give it legal force, and by referencing a related FAA emergency directive.

• Source of legal authority. The AD explicitly states it is issued "under subregulation 39.1(1) of CAR 1998." That locates the AD in the Civil Aviation Regulations 1998 scheme, meaning its enforceability and any ancillary legal consequences are governed by CAR 1998’s broader provisions. The AD text does not reproduce CAR 1998's enforcement provisions, appeal mechanisms, or definitions, so those interactions must be read against the regulator’s statutory toolkit.

• Interaction with manufacturer publications. The AD directs maintenance and rigging actions to be performed "in accordance with the Raytheon Aircraft Company 1900, 1900C, or 1900D maintenance manual, as applicable" (Requirements 1 and 2). This creates an operational dependency on manufacturer documentation as the procedural standard for compliance. It therefore creates a direct interaction between regulatory obligations and manufacturer technical materials, effectively incorporating the maintenance manual as the procedural norm required by the AD.

• Relationship to FAA Emergency AD. The AD notes "Note: FAA Emergency AD 2003-03-18 refers." That indicates the Australian AD is synchronized with or responsive to a contemporaneous FAA emergency AD. The AD text does not specify whether the FAA AD imposes different procedures or whether compliance with the FAA AD suffices for Australian compliance. Operators should note that the federal authority considered the matter urgent enough to have an FAA emergency AD; the Australian AD references it as related material.

• Maintenance and operational obligations. The AD’s repeated "before further flight" mandates interact with operational regulations governing aircraft dispatch and airworthiness. Operators must ensure that maintenance records and operational clearances reflect compliance with the AD before allowing flights, which may require coordination with flight operations and maintenance control systems.

• Reporting to manufacturer versus regulator. The AD requires reporting inspection results to Raytheon (Requirement 5). It does not require filing those results directly with CASA in the text. That creates an interaction where the operator has an outbound reporting obligation to the manufacturer, while CASA retains the authority to enforce compliance under CAR 1998. The AD does not, within its text, indicate whether reporting to Raytheon satisfies any regulatory reporting obligation to CASA or whether further reporting to CASA is necessary.

• Non-reproduction of enforcement mechanisms. The AD does not reproduce penalties, sanctions, or appeal rights; these will be governed by CAR 1998 and CASA administrative processes. Therefore, the AD interacts with those legal instruments by operating as a mandatory technical requirement backed by CAR 1998 but without embedding procedural enforcement details.

Overall, the AD creates a cross-cutting set of obligations that tie statutory regulatory authority under CAR 1998 to manufacturer maintenance procedures and to an international regulatory signal from the FAA, while leaving enforcement modalities and any inter-agency reporting arrangements to their respective legal frameworks, which are not reproduced in the text.

The directive text contains a concise administrative history limited to issuance and notification details. No textual amendments to the AD itself are contained within the provided document.

What the AD records about its history:

• Effective date. The AD "becomes effective on 30 January 2003" (Compliance). That establishes the AD's operative commencement.

• Initial compliance deadline. The AD sets an initial inspection deadline of "no later than 2 February 2003" (Compliance 1), creating an immediate compliance window following the effective date.

• Gazette notification. The AD states that it "is notified in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette on 30 January 2003." That confirms formal publication for regulatory notice.

• Issuing authority and signature. The AD bears the signature of David Alan Villiers, Delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, dated 29 January 2003. That provides administrative provenance and the date of signing.

• Reference to FAA emergency AD. The AD includes the notation "Note: FAA Emergency AD 2003-03-18 refers." This indicates coordination or reference to a contemporaneous FAA action but does not, in the text, incorporate the FAA AD or indicate textual amendments arising from it.

Notably absent from the document:

• No amendments or supersessions. The document does not record prior versions of this AD, nor does it indicate that it supersedes or amends an earlier AD. It is presented as a standalone AD with an initial effective date.

• No revision log. The AD does not include a revision number, amendment history, or subsequent updates. Any later amendments, if they exist, are not contained in the provided text.

• No revocation. The AD does not indicate a sunset clause or revocation date. The compliance requirements are presented as standing obligations until further regulatory action alters them; however, the document itself does not specify such later action.

For practical purposes, those seeking an authoritative amendment history should consult CASA records and the Commonwealth Gazette archives for any subsequent ADs or notices that amend, supersede, or revoke this directive, because the directive text only records its initial issuance and broadcast details.

The AD text contains no record of litigation, appeals, judicial decisions, or administrative disputes relating to this directive. It provides a factual background for issuance, citing "a recent accident involving a Model 1900D aircraft" and subsequent ground testing and review that revealed a potential for mis-rigging to restrict elevator travel. The AD uses this background to justify the prescribed inspections and corrective actions.

What is included in the directive regarding legal incidents:

• Accident background. The Background section states that following "a recent accident involving a Model 1900D aircraft," ground testing and a review of rigging procedures revealed potential for mis-rigging to restrict elevator travel, and that this condition could remain undetected until the aircraft was loaded in a condition requiring full elevator authority. This describes the safety incident that precipitated the AD but does not mention any civil or criminal litigation arising from that accident.

What is absent and consequentially must be noted:

• No mention of judicial review or challenge of the AD. The AD does not record that it has been challenged or reviewed in court or administratively. If litigation has occurred, it is not reflected in this document.

• No reference to enforcement proceedings. The AD does not include or summarise any enforcement actions taken against particular operators for non-compliance.

• No decisions or precedents cited. The document does not name any cases or administrative determinations.

If a reader requires litigation history, they must search external sources such as court records, CASA administrative records, or other public documents. The AD itself contains no litigation history.

The AD contains several technical, timing, and procedural elements that create compliance risks or operational pitfalls for operators and maintainers. These are matters where an operator might fail to meet the AD’s requirements because of ambiguity, conditional exceptions, or procedural sequencing set out in the text.

• Removal and reinstallation of the aft fairing. The AD requires removal of the aft fairing to gain visual access to the surface stop bolts (Requirement 1.a). When re-rigging is required, the AD explicitly instructs not to reinstall the aft fairing because access to the surface stop bolt is necessary (Requirement 2.a). An operator who re-installs the fairing prematurely risks non-compliance with the AD’s access requirement and may inhibit necessary verification. The AD then requires replacing the aft fairing only "when the aircraft passes the requirements of the above inspection" (Requirement 2.c). Operators must therefore coordinate fairing removal and replacement as part of the inspection and re-rigging workflow.

• Bolt-dimension conditional pass. The dimension threshold of 1.00 inch is a pass criterion for bolt length (Requirement 1.c(i)). However, if a bolt exceeds 1.00 inch, the AD does not mandate bolt replacement; it requires application of the travel-board inspection in Requirement 3.a and allows acceptance if it passes (Requirement 1.c(ii)). An operator may misinterpret the threshold as an absolute limit and replace painless bolts unnecessarily, or conversely fail to perform the travel-board test and erroneously accept oversized bolts. Correct interpretation requires understanding that exceeding 1.00 inch triggers a secondary performance check, not automatic rejection.

• Interaction of initial inspection, travel-board inspection timing, and bolt exception. The Compliance section sets the initial inspection to be done "no later than 2 February 2003" (Compliance 1) and prescribes that the travel-board inspection be done "within 100 hours time in service" after the initial inspection, unless accepted under Requirement 1.c(ii). Mis-sequencing (for example, delaying travel-board inspection beyond 100 hours when the bolt-dimension exception does not apply) could create non-compliance. Operators must ensure the correct sequencing depending on whether the bolt dimension exceeds 1.00 inch.

• "Before further flight" triggers. The AD repeatedly uses "before further flight" as the condition for accomplishing necessary re-rigging and replacement actions (Requirements 2 and 3; Compliance). This creates the risk of unintended grounding if the required maintenance cannot be completed promptly. Operators must schedule inspections and potential corrective work with the understanding that failure requires correction prior to any flight.

• Re-rigging triggers are broad. The AD requires the control column sweep inspection "before further flight after each time the elevator control system is re-rigged" and lists examples such as changing cable tension and replacing cables, pulleys, push-pull tubes and bellcranks (Compliance 4). Operators that make minor adjustments may unintentionally trigger the requirement without appreciating the compliance obligations. Maintenance shops and operators must record and communicate when any of these changes occur.

• Reliance on the Raytheon maintenance manual. The AD mandates compliance "in accordance with the Raytheon Aircraft Company 1900, 1900C, or 1900D maintenance manual, as applicable" (Requirement 1 and 2). Where multiple revisions of the maintenance manual exist, the AD text does not specify which manual revision applies. Operators must ensure they are using the correct, current revision applicable to the aircraft to avoid procedural mismatches.

• Reporting to Raytheon within 10 days. The AD requires reporting initial inspection and initial travel-board inspection results to Raytheon within 10 days (Requirement 5; Compliance 5). This administrative deadline is short and separate from regulatory reporting to CASA; operators who miss the reporting window are technically non-compliant with an explicit AD obligation.

• FAA Emergency AD reference. The AD notes "FAA Emergency AD 2003-03-18 refers." Failure to review the FAA AD or to consider any additional procedural differences could create gaps. The Australian AD does not say whether compliance with the FAA AD alone suffices.

• No enforcement detail within AD. Because the AD does not specify penalties, operators may be uncertain about enforcement risk and the appropriate documentation to demonstrate compliance to CASA inspectors. Proper record-keeping of inspections, measurements, travel-board checks, rigging actions, and the Raytheon report will be critical to demonstrate compliance if enforcement action is later initiated.

• Potential for undetected restricted travel. The Background identifies the core hazard: mis-rigging can make control column movement appear normal while elevator travel is restricted and may only show during certain loading conditions. An inspector doing only a superficial check, or a flightcrew relying on subjective feel rather than measured travel-board results, may not detect the condition. The AD therefore prescribes quantitative measurement and travel-board verification to avoid that pitfall.

Operators and maintainers should treat these as concrete operational risks emerging from the AD text and adopt checklists and documented procedures that ensure the correct sequencing, access, measurement, reporting, and re-rigging obligations are met.

Compliance with this AD requires following the directive's prescribed inspection, measurement, corrective, and reporting steps, and doing so within the specified timing windows. The AD ties procedural standards to the Raytheon maintenance manual, prescribes specific measurement criteria and travel-board targets, and imposes "before further flight" constraints. The following is a practical, source-grounded compliance checklist derived from the directive text.

1. Identify applicability and schedule initial inspection

   • Confirm the aircraft is a Model 1900, 1900C, or 1900D. The AD applies to all aircraft of these models (Applicability).
   • Schedule the initial control column sweep inspection so it is completed no later than 2 February 2003, given the AD became effective 30 January 2003 (Compliance 1).

2. Prepare technical documentation and personnel

   • Have the applicable Raytheon Aircraft Company 1900/1900C/1900D maintenance manual available, since inspections and any re-rigging must be accomplished "in accordance with" that manual (Requirement 1 and 2).
   • Ensure appropriately licensed maintenance personnel and tools are allocated, including elevator travel boards and measurement tools capable of measuring from the bolt-head crown to the stop-bolt support face.

3. Remove aft fairing and conduct control column sweep

   • Remove the aft fairing from the vertical stabiliser to gain visual access to the surface stop bolts on the elevator control horn support (Requirement 1.a).
   • Perform a full pitch-down to full pitch-up control column sweep; visually ensure the elevator horns contact the surface stop bolts at both full pitch-down and full pitch-up positions (Requirement 1.b).

4. Measure elevator down stop bolts

   • Measure the length of both elevator down stop bolts from the crown of the bolt head to the face of the elevator lower stop bolt support (Requirement 1.c).
   • If each stop-bolt dimension is equal to or less than 1.00 inch, the bolts pass this measurement check (Requirement 1.c(i)).
   • If either stop-bolt dimension is greater than 1.00 inch, immediately accomplish the travel-board inspection procedures in Requirement 3.a before further flight; if the travel-board inspection passes, the bolt is acceptable even if it exceeds 1.00 inch (Requirement 1.c(ii)).

5. If sweep inspection or bolt measurement fails, rig and retest

   • If the aircraft does not pass the control column sweep inspection or bolt-length requirements of Requirements 1.b, 1.c or 3.a, accomplish the elevator control rigging procedure in accordance with the applicable maintenance manual (Requirement 2.a).
   • Do not reinstall the aft fairing during re-rigging because access to the surface stop bolt is needed (Requirement 2.a).
   • After rigging, perform the control column sweep inspection and travel-board checks specified in Requirements 1.b, 3.a and 3.b (Requirement 2.b).
   • When the aircraft passes, replace the aft fairing (Requirement 2.c).
   • All required rigging and inspection to remedy a failed check must be accomplished before further flight (Requirement 2 and Compliance).

6. Conduct travel-board inspection and meet travel tolerances

   • If the aircraft passed Requirement 1 initially, replace the aft fairing and then accomplish Requirement 3.a within 100 hours time in service after the initial inspection, unless earlier travel-board inspection is required by 1.c(ii) (Requirement 3).
   • Use elevator travel boards to ensure up elevator travel of 20 degrees (+1/-0) and down elevator travel of 14 degrees (+1/-0) (Requirement 3.a(i)-(ii)).
   • If the aircraft does not pass the travel-board inspection, accomplish the elevator control system rigging procedures specified in Requirements 2.a and 2.b before further flight (Requirement 3.b).

7. Recurrent triggers and post-rigging checks

   • Perform a control column sweep inspection each time the elevator control system is re-rigged, "before further flight" after such re-rigging (Compliance 4).
   • Note the AD’s examples of actions that require re-rigging: changing tension on the elevator primary control cables, replacing elevator control system components such as cables, pulleys, push-pull tubes, and bellcranks (Compliance 4).
   • If the aft fairing is already removed for any reason, the AD indicates Requirement 1.a is not required for subsequent control column sweep checks (Requirement 4).

8. Administrative reporting

   • Report the initial inspection and initial travel-board inspection results to the Raytheon Aircraft Company within 10 days after those inspections (Requirement 5; Compliance 5).
   • Maintain records of measurements, travel-board verification, rigging work and signatures as evidence of compliance, since the AD itself specifies the reporting obligation and "before further flight" constraints but does not list additional enforcement steps. Good record-keeping will be fundamental to show compliance under CAR 1998.

9. Coordinate with operations and plan for potential grounding

   • Because several elements of the AD must be completed "before further flight," schedule inspections and potential corrective maintenance during planned downtimes or rotations to minimise operational disruption. The AD creates the practical possibility of aircraft being grounded until corrective work is completed (Requirements 2 and 3; Compliance).

10. Review related FAA AD and manufacturer guidance

    • The AD notes "FAA Emergency AD 2003-03-18 refers." Consult that FAA emergency AD and any Raytheon service bulletins for additional technical context or recommended methodologies, while ensuring there is explicit compliance with the Australian AD’s prescribed steps and reporting requirements.

11. Use consistent maintenance manual revision

    • Ensure that the maintenance manual revision used matches the aircraft configuration and that the rigging procedures used are those "in accordance with" the applicable Raytheon manual, as required by the AD (Requirement 1 and 2).

12. Verify completion and reinstate aircraft for flight

    • Only replace the aft fairing and consider the aircraft available for flight once the AD’s inspections and performance checks have been completed and any necessary rigging has been accomplished "before further flight" (Requirement 2.c and Compliance).

This checklist follows the AD’s mandatory steps and sequencing. Operators should retain all records and the Raytheon reporting acknowledgement. If any ambiguity remains in the maintenance manual applicability or the AD’s interaction with other regulatory obligations under CAR 1998, the operator should consult CASA or their aviation legal/compliance counsel for formal clarification prior to relying on any alternative interpretation.