AD/BEECH 35/70 Amdt 1 - Airspeed Restriction

The directive revolves around several core technical and regulatory concepts. The first is the concept of an “unsafe condition” as defined under the CAR 1998 framework. The background describes in-flight vibration incidents that led to cracked bulkheads, wrinkled skin, broken spars, broken hinges, and bent skin on stabilisers and ruddervators. The CASA delegate considers these conditions unsafe and thus requires mandatory corrective action. The directive is not a recommendation but a legal requirement; failure to comply constitutes a breach of the regulations.

The second key concept is the “never exceed speed” (Vne). This is a standard airspeed limitation beyond which structural damage or flutter may occur. Here the directive reduces the Vne from the original design value (likely around 165-170 MPH for these models, based on the flutter discussion) to 144 MPH (125 KTS) IAS. This is a significant reduction that directly affects the operational envelope of the aircraft. The placard must use letters at least 2.54 mm high and state the precise limitation. The red line on the airspeed indicator provides a visual reference, and the white slippage mark indicates if the glass has moved relative to the case, which could affect the accuracy of the red line indication.

The third concept is the “placard and operating limitations” regime. Requirements 1, 2, and 3 create a temporary restriction that remains in place until the more substantive inspections and modifications (Requirements 4, 5, and 6) are completed. The directive explicitly permits discontinuance of the placard and limitations only after the later requirements are satisfied. This creates a conditional compliance path: the owner may choose to comply with the speed restriction permanently (thereby avoiding the need for the structural work, though the directive mandates the work anyway) but the directive demands the structural work as well unless the logbook shows the ruddervators already meet the new balancing limits. In practice, the structural inspections are mandatory regardless; only the placard can be removed after the work is done.

The fourth concept is the reliance on manufacturer service information and FAA ADs. The directive incorporates by reference the Accomplishment Instructions section of Raytheon Service Bulletin No. SB 27-3358, issued February 2000, and Section 3 of Beech Shop Manual 35-590096B19 (or subsequent revision). It also references FAA AD 94-20-04 (the earlier AD dealing with ruddervator balancing) and FAA AD 2002-21-13. This incorporation means that the detailed procedures for inspection, repair, and rebalancing are not fully reproduced in the directive; operators must obtain and follow the manufacturer’s documentation. This is a common regulatory technique but creates a compliance burden in terms of accessing and understanding the referenced materials.

The fifth concept is the “skin thickness” inspection. Figures 1 and 2 (referenced but not fully reproduced in the source text) specify skin thicknesses for various part numbers on the aft fuselage and empennage. The directive requires a one-time ultrasonic skin thickness measurement to detect thinning or corrosion. This is a non-repetitive inspection (i.e., done once). The skin thickness values and tolerances refer to ANSI AA H35.2(M) standards. The compliance table shows multiple part numbers with different thicknesses (0.016, 0.020, 0.025, 0.032 inches) and mentions effectivity based on aircraft serial numbers (D-1 through various ranges). This highlights the importance of accurate aircraft configuration tracking.

Finally, the directive introduces a new ruddervator balancing specification. The maximum allowable tail-heavy moment is reduced from 19.8 to 18 inch-pounds. This is a critical change that affects dynamic stability and flutter margins. The directive allows the new balancing to be deferred if the logbook positively verifies that the ruddervators already meet the new limits. That verification must detail the balancing methods and the amount of weights and washers used. This is a paper trail requirement that relies on the accuracy of prior maintenance records.

The directive applies to a very specific subset of aircraft: Beechcraft Bonanza Models 35, A35, B35, and 35R, all serial numbers. This covers the earliest straight-tail Bonanzas and the “debonair” 35R variant. Note that it does not include the later 36 or 33 series (e.g., V35, F33A, A36), which are structurally different or have reinforcing cuffs. The directive explicitly distinguishes the V-tail configuration of these models as being uniquely susceptible to flutter. The affected fleet in Australia is likely small but includes both private owners and small commercial operators (e.g., flying schools, charter operators, aerial survey). Each aircraft may have multiple stakeholders: the registered operator (who is legally responsible for compliance), the individual pilot (who must observe the speed restriction and placard), and the maintenance organisation (which must perform the inspections and repairs).

For owners and operators, the direct effect is a reduction in cruise speed. For a Bonanza that typically cruises around 160-170 MPH, the new Vne of 144 MPH means the maximum speed is now the cruise speed, leaving no margin for gusts or manoeuvres. This effectively forces pilots to fly at lower indicated airspeeds, increasing flight time on cross-country trips. For commercial operators, this reduces productivity and may affect contract performance or scheduling. The weight and balance verification (Requirement 5) is a one-time cost that may reveal discrepancies requiring recalculation, possibly leading to payload reductions if the CG has shifted. The inspection and rebalancing of ruddervators (Requirement 6) is the most invasive and costly item, requiring specialist knowledge and potentially removal of the tail surfaces for balancing. The three-year compliance window allows operators to schedule this during a major inspection, but the recurring rebalancing after repainting or repair adds ongoing costs.

Maintenance organisations are directly affected because they must be familiar with the referenced service bulletin and shop manual procedures. The directive requires use of a digital ultrasonic skin tester or equivalent for the skin thickness measurements, which may necessitate new equipment or subcontracting. The inspection procedures require careful measurement of skin thickness at specific locations (indexed by part number and fuselage station). For organisations that do not normally work on Bonanzas, this creates a learning curve. The directive also requires that repairs and replacements be done before further flight after an inspection finds damage, which can ground the aircraft unexpectedly and create logistical pressure.

Pilots must be aware of the placard and red line. The speed restriction is absolute; exceeding 144 MPH IAS is a breach of the directive. This is especially relevant because many Bonanza pilots are accustomed to faster cruising speeds. The directive inserts a copy into the flight manual, so pilots must be briefed during pre-flight. There is no exemption for ferry flights or test flights; the restriction applies as soon as the placard is installed (i.e., within 10 hours after 8 July 1998 for original, but for newly affected aircraft the compliance clock starts from the effective date of the directive). The directive came into effect on 23 January 2003 for this amendment; for aircraft that have not previously complied, the 10-hour clock for the placard starts from that date.

The directive also indirectly affects insurers, who may require proof of compliance before covering the aircraft. It affects potential buyers, who should verify compliance before purchase. The resale value of affected aircraft may be lower due to the permanent reduction in Vne unless the structural work has been done (and even then, some residual restriction may apply depending on the aircraft’s configuration). The directive creates a compliance history that will be recorded in the aircraft logbooks and maintenance records, and these records must be maintained for the life of the aircraft.

The directive imposes a series of positive duties on the operator or owner of the aircraft. The duties are not optional; they are mandatory under the AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE issued under the regulation. The first duty is to fabricate and install the placard on the instrument panel in the pilot’s clear view, with specific letter height and wording. This must be done within 10 hours time in service after the effective date (originally 8 July 1998, but for this amendment, the effective date is 23 January 2003 for aircraft that have not yet complied). The second duty is to mark the red line on the airspeed indicator and the white slippage mark. The third duty is to insert a copy of the directive into the flight manual limitations section. These three duties are the immediate steps to restrict speed.

The fourth duty is to perform the inspection of the empennage, aft fuselage, and ruddervator control system for damage, following the Raytheon Service Bulletin procedures. This includes the use of a digital ultrasonic skin tester or equivalent. The inspection must be done within 100 hours time in service after the last inspection required by FAA AD 94-20-04 (AD/BEECH 35/58 Amdt 4) or within 25 hours after 23 January 2003, whichever occurs later. Thereafter, it must be repeated every 100 hours time in service. Damage found must be repaired or replaced before further flight. The skin thickness measurement is not repetitive; it is done once. The setting of elevator and trim tab travels is also not repetitive. These are one-time adjustments.

The fifth duty is to verify the accuracy of the aircraft’s basic weight and balance information. Two methods are provided: Method 1 involves reviewing existing documentation and comparing actual configuration, and if discrepancies exist, Method 2 requires an actual weighing using the AFM/POH procedures. This must be completed within 100 hours after 23 January 2003 (or if already done under the earlier AD, it is satisfied). Discrepancies must be corrected before further flight. This duty imposes a significant paperwork and possibly physical weighing burden, especially for aircraft with poorly documented modification histories.

The sixth duty is the most involved: inspect the aft fuselage, ruddervator, and related systems per the service bulletin, and rebalance the ruddervators to the new specification (upper limit reduced to 18 inch-pounds tail heavy). This must be done within 3 years after 23 January 2003. If the logbook can positively verify that the ruddervators already meet the new limits (with details of balancing methods and weights used), then the rebalancing is not required. However, the inspection and any necessary repairs or replacements must still be done. After completion of Requirements 4, 5, and 6, the placard, red line, and flight manual limitation may be discontinued. Note that discontinuing is permissive, not mandatory; the operator may choose to keep the placard.

The rights of the operator are limited. There is no right to deviate from the directive without CASA approval, but the directive itself provides a mechanism for terminating the operating limitations after compliance. The operator has the right to choose the order of work within the compliance times, but must ensure that each requirement is met by its respective deadline. The operator also has the right to use alternative methods of compliance (e.g., an equivalent ultrasonic tester) as long as they meet the intent of the directive. There is no explicit right to extend the compliance times, but the delegate may grant an exemption under the CAR.

Importantly, the directive imposes a positive duty to discontinue the placard and limitations after the structural work is done. However, this is conditional on the work being completed. Until then, the operator must keep the placard installed. If the aircraft is sold before compliance, the new owner inherits the duty. The compliance times are based on “time in service”, which typically means flight hours; for aircraft that fly infrequently, the 10-hour and 100-hour deadlines may translate into calendar months or years, but the 3-year calendar limit for Requirement 6 is absolute (from 23 January 2003). Operators of low-utilisation aircraft need to be aware that the 3-year clock runs regardless of flight hours.

The directive itself does not specify penalties, but it is issued under CAR 1998. Breaching an airworthiness directive is a serious regulatory offence. Under the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and CAR, operating an aircraft that does not comply with an applicable AD can lead to enforcement actions including suspension or cancellation of the aircraft’s certificate of airworthiness, fines, and potentially imprisonment for deliberate non-compliance. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has powers to issue infringement notices and to pursue prosecution in the federal courts. Because the directive is a legislative instrument, non-compliance also exposes the operator to liability in the event of an accident. Insurance policies typically require compliance with all applicable ADs; failure to comply may void coverage.

The compliance times are stated as “time in service”. For Requirements 1, 2, and 3, the deadline is “within 10 hours time in service after 8 July 1998”. For aircraft that were not subject to the original directive or that have not yet complied, the effective date of this amendment (23 January 2003) may be the trigger. The directive is ambiguous on whether the 10-hour clock restarts for aircraft that have already complied with the original; it says “The compliance time for Requirements 1, 2, and 3 remains unchanged by this issue.” This suggests that for aircraft that have not yet met those requirements, the compliance time is still 10 hours after 8 July 1998, which has long passed. In practice, this means any affected aircraft that was in service as of 8 July 1998 and has not installed the placard is already in breach. For newly affected aircraft (e.g., imported after that date), the 10-hour clock likely runs from the date the directive applies to that aircraft, but the directive does not explicitly address that scenario. This creates legal uncertainty.

For Requirement 4, the deadline is a later-of formula: within 100 hours after the last inspection required by the earlier AD, or within 25 hours after 23 January 2003, whichever is later. This gives operators a window but also creates a compliance trigger that depends on the aircraft’s maintenance history. If the earlier AD inspection was done recently (say 10 hours ago), the deadline is 100 hours from that point, which could be months away. If the earlier AD inspection was done 90 hours ago, the deadline is 100 hours from that point (10 hours from now) and may also trigger the alternative 25-hour clock. Operators must calculate carefully.

Enforcement is risk-based. CASA typically focuses on operators who are known to be non-compliant. However, because the directive references an FAA AD, CASA may cross-check with FAA records for Australian-registered aircraft that are also FAA type certificated. Maintenance organisations that sign off compliance without actually performing the work are also exposed to liability under CAR Part 42 (maintenance regulations). The penalties for falsifying maintenance records are severe.

The directive also implies that if the structural inspections reveal damage, the aircraft must be repaired before further flight. That means the aircraft is grounded until repairs are completed. This can result in unplanned downtime and financial loss for commercial operators. The directive gives no grace period for repairs; the requirement is “before further flight”. This is a strong incentive to complete the inspections when the aircraft is already down for other maintenance, to avoid grounding.

In summary, while the directive does not quantify penalties, the commercial and legal consequences of non-compliance are significant: loss of airworthiness, inability to fly, insurance voidance, fines, and potential criminal liability. The cost of compliance (inspection labour, parts, rebalancing) is likely lower than the cost of a single enforcement action or accident.

This directive sits within a hierarchy of aviation safety regulations. It is issued under CAR 1998 subregulation 39.1(1), which empowers CASA to issue ADs to correct unsafe conditions. The directive itself is a legislative instrument and has the force of law. It interacts with several other legal instruments and documents.

First, it interacts with the Civil Aviation Act 1988, which establishes CASA’s powers. Section 98 of the Act makes it an offence to operate an aircraft that does not comply with an applicable AD. The Act also allows for exemptions and alternative means of compliance, but no such provisions are mentioned in this directive.

Second, it interacts with the Civil Aviation Regulations 1998, particularly Part 39 which deals with airworthiness directives. Regulation 39.1(1) is the enabling provision; regulation 39.2 sets out how ADs must be complied with. The directive has been notified in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette on 18 December 2002, which satisfies the publication requirements.

Third, this directive explicitly adopts and references two FAA ADs: FAA AD 94-20-04 (AD/BEECH 35/58 Amdt 4) and FAA AD 2002-21-13 (Amdt 39-12920). The directive revokes the earlier AD/BEECH 35/70 but retains the compliance requirements from the earlier AD/BEECH 35/58 for the purpose of establishing the initial inspection interval. This creates a chain of ADs that operators must track. The directive also incorporates Raytheon Service Bulletin No. SB 27-3358 (February 2000) and Beech Shop Manual 35-590096B19. These are industry documents that change over time; the directive references them by date and issue, so subsequent revisions are not automatically adopted.

Fourth, the directive interacts with the aircraft’s certificate of airworthiness and the aircraft flight manual (AFM). Inserting the directive into the Limitations Section of the AFM makes it a permanent part of the operating limitations. The AFM is itself an approved document; altering it by adding the directive is permissible under the regulation. After the structural work is done, the directive says the placard and operating limitations can be discontinued, but it does not explicitly say the AFM insertion must be removed. Practically, the operator should note in the AFM that the limitation no longer applies.

Fifth, the directive interacts with maintenance regulations under CAR Part 42 (Maintenance of Aircraft). The inspections and rebalancing must be performed by appropriately licensed maintenance personnel. The repairs and replacements must be done in accordance with approved data. The directive does not specify an approval level, but the nature of the work (structural repair, balancing) likely requires an LAME (Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer) with appropriate ratings.

Sixth, weight and balance requirements under CAR Part 21 (Certification) and Part 42 are relevant. The directive requires verification of weight and balance, which must be done using the AFM/POH procedures. This is already a requirement for continuing airworthiness, but the directive makes it a one-time mandatory action with a compliance deadline.

Seventh, the directive interacts with state and territory workplace health and safety laws for maintenance facilities, but those are not directly aviation-specific.

Finally, there is an international dimension. Because the aircraft are US-designed and the FAA issued the original AD, the Australian directive is essentially a mirror. However, Australian law does not automatically adopt FAA ADs; CASA must issue a separate AD. This means there can be differences in applicability or compliance times. In this case, the Australian AD has a note “FAA AD 2002-21-13 Amdt 39-12920 refers” but the compliance times are not identical; the Australian directive uses “time in service” rather than “calendar time” for some requirements. Operators should not rely solely on FAA AD compliance; they must ensure compliance with the Australian AD. For an aircraft operating under a foreign registry, different rules apply.

The directive as presented is AD/BEECH 35/70 Amdt 1. It revokes the original AD/BEECH 35/70 and issues a new version. The background states that the original issue became effective on 8 July 1998. Amendment 1 is issued in response to a new FAA AD that incorporates manufacturer-developed inspection and modification procedures. The amendment is dated 29 November 2002 (signed by delegate) and notified in the Gazette on 18 December 2002, with an effective date of 23 January 2003. The amendment does not change the compliance times for Requirements 1, 2, and 3; those remain as per the original. It adds new Requirements 4, 5, and 6 (which are essentially the inspection, weight and balance, and rebalancing actions). The original AD/BEECH 35/70 likely contained only the placard and airspeed restriction; this amendment expands the directive to include the structural work that can eventually remove the restriction.

The amendment history beyond this is not provided. It is not clear whether there were any interim amendments before Amdt 1. The directive also references AD/BEECH 35/58 Amdt 4, which is a separate AD. The revocation of AD/BEECH 35/70 means that the earlier AD is no longer in force; its requirements are superseded by this amendment. Operators who had complied with the original AD/BEECH 35/70 by installing the placard still need to comply with the new requirements (4, 5, 6) unless already accomplished under the earlier AD/BEECH 35/58. The directive explicitly says that Requirement 5 is “unless already accomplished as previously required by AD/BEECH 35/58 Amdt 4”. So the weight and balance verification may already have been done under an earlier AD. Similarly, Requirement 4 references the last inspection required by FAA AD 94-20-04 (AD/BEECH 35/58 Amdt 4). So there is a layered history: the earlier AD 94-20-04 (and its Australian adoption) set up the initial balancing requirements; AD/BEECH 35/70 added the speed restriction; now Amdt 1 adds the more comprehensive inspection and rebalancing to eliminate the restriction.

The directive also allows the ruddervator rebalancing to be deferred if the logbook positively shows that the ruddervators already meet the new limits. This implies that earlier balancing under AD 94-20-04 may have used a different specification (upper limit 19.8 inch-pounds). The new limit is 18 inch-pounds. So many aircraft will need rebalancing even if they were previously compliant.

The compliance timeline is: original AD effective 8 July 1998. Amendment effective 23 January 2003. For the structural work, compliance times run from the amendment effective date. For aircraft that have not complied with the original placard requirements (likely any that were not in Australia at the time, or that were overlooked), the 10-hour clock started 8 July 1998 and has long expired, meaning they are already non-compliant. The amendment does not reset that clock; it says “The compliance time for Requirements 1, 2, and 3 remains unchanged by this issue.” This is potentially harsh but reflects the fact that the unsafe condition existed from the outset.

No further amendments are shown. The directive is part of a series: AD/BEECH 35/58 and AD/BEECH 35/70. The history suggests that CASA and FAA have been iterating on the problem of V-tail flutter over several years, first with balancing requirements (AD 94-20-04), then with a speed restriction (original AD/BEECH 35/70), and finally with a more durable fix (this amendment).

The directive text does not mention any litigation history. There are no court cases cited, and the background does not refer to any legal challenges. This is common for airworthiness directives, which are rarely litigated in Australia because they are based on safety findings and the regulator has broad discretion. However, it is possible that there have been disputes over compliance times, interpretations, or the economic impact. The absence of litigation history in the source material does not confirm there is none; it simply means the directive itself does not cite any.

Practitioners should be aware that ADs can be challenged under the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 or by judicial review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977. A challenge would need to show that the delegate made an error of law, failed to consider relevant matters, or that the decision was unreasonable. Given the technical nature of flutter analysis, such challenges are difficult.

There may also be civil litigation arising from accidents involving these aircraft. If an accident is caused by flutter due to non-compliance with the AD, the operator or maintenance organisation could face negligence claims. Conversely, if a plaintiff alleges that the AD was insufficient and an accident occurred, there could be claims against the manufacturer (Raytheon) or CASA for failure to adequately address the unsafe condition. The directive itself notes that 10 incidents occurred even after AD 94-20-04 became effective, including 7 where ruddervators were balanced. This suggests that the earlier AD was insufficient, and the manufacturer developed new procedures. That fact pattern could support product liability claims.

The directive also notes that the incidents were “unrelated to AD 94-20-04”, meaning that the balancing requirements of that AD were not the cause of the vibration incidents. That might be used as a defence by the manufacturer in a product liability case: they could argue that they issued a service bulletin before any court compelled them.

No specific Australian case law is cited. For the purposes of this deep dive, we can report that the source material contains no litigation history, and we cannot invent any. The reader should check the AIFS (Australasian Legal Information Institute) for any cases citing AD/BEECH 35/70 or related ADs. Given the age of the aircraft and the directive, it is unlikely that there is active litigation now.

Several aspects of this directive can trap unwary operators and maintainers. The first major gotcha is the ambiguity around compliance times for Requirements 1, 2, and 3. The directive says the compliance time remains unchanged from the original issue (8 July 1998). For any aircraft that has not complied by now, the 10-hour clock has long expired. That means the operator is technically in breach from the moment the directive became applicable. However, for aircraft that were not in Australia in 1998 (e.g., imported later), it is unclear when the 10-hour clock starts. The directive does not specify that the compliance time resets upon registration in Australia. Prudent operators should treat the effective date of the amendment (23 January 2003) as the trigger for new or imported aircraft, but that is an interpretation not expressly stated. This creates legal risk.

The second gotcha is the interaction with the earlier AD/BEECH 35/58 Amdt 4. The compliance time for Requirement 4 is “within 100 hours time in service after the last inspection required by FAA AD 94-20-04 (AD/BEECH 35/58 Amdt 4) or within 25 hours time in service after 23 January 2003, whichever occurs later.” This requires the operator to know when the last inspection under the earlier AD was performed. If that AD was never complied with (e.g., because the aircraft was not subject to it, or was outside the US), then the first inspection under this directive is due within 25 hours after 23 January 2003. But if the earlier AD was complied with, the interval is measured from that inspection. Operators must dig through logbooks to find that entry. Missing records could lead to miscalculation.

The third gotcha is the “visual inspection of the aft fuselage skin for wrinkles or cracks” using a digital ultrasonic skin tester or equivalent. The directive includes a table of skin thicknesses for different part numbers and effectivity ranges (based on serial number blocks like D-1 through D-15, D-16 through D-1574, D-1575 & after). Operators must correctly identify their aircraft’s serial number and part numbers to know which skin thickness is required. The directive also mentions “Class 111” for some part numbers, indicating a different tolerance. Misidentifying the configuration could lead to incorrect measurements and missed damage.

The fourth gotcha is the ruddervator rebalancing. The new upper limit is 18 inch-pounds (tail heavy). This is a reduction from the previous 19.8 inch-pounds. The directive allows deferral if the logbook positively shows compliance with the new limit. However, many logbook entries from earlier balancing under AD 94-20-04 will only show compliance with the old limit (19.8). Those entries are insufficient. The operator must either rebalance or find a logbook entry that specifically states the ruddervator is within 18 inch-pounds. The directive says the entry must include the balancing methods and the amount of weights and washers used. If the logbook has any ambiguity, the rebalancing must be done. This is a paperwork trap.

The fifth gotcha is the requirement to rebalance “thereafter when the ruddervators are repaired or repainted (even if stripes are added or paint is touched up).” This imposes a recurring compliance event that may not be obvious. A minor paint touch-up on the ruddervator triggers a full rebalancing. Operators who are unaware of this may inadvertently violate the directive after a simple paint job. The cost of rebalancing each time can be significant.

The sixth gotcha: the directive does not specify who is responsible for ensuring compliance if the aircraft is leased or chartered. Under CAR, the registered operator is ultimately responsible. However, a pilot who operates the aircraft knowing it is non-compliant may also be liable. Lessors should include compliance covenants in lease agreements. Charter operators should have systems to track compliance.

The seventh gotcha: the directive says “submit a copy of this Directive into the Limitations Section of the aircraft flight manual.” It does not say to remove the previous version. If the aircraft has a copy of the original AD/BEECH 35/70 in the manual, that should be replaced by this amendment, or at least noted that it is revoked. Failure to do so could cause confusion.

The eighth gotcha: the directive references “FAA AD 2002-21-13 Amdt 39-12920 refers.” If the FAA AD is later superseded, the Australian directive may not automatically update. Operators should check if CASA has issued any subsequent ADs on this subject. The provided source is the final text; there may be later amendments not shown.

Finally, the effective date is 23 January 2003. The directive was signed 29 November 2002 and gazetted 18 December 2002. There is a gap between gazettal and effect. Operators should not wait until the effective date to start planning; the compliance times for Requirements 4, 5, and 6 run from the effective date, so early action reduces pressure.

Compliance with AD/BEECH 35/70 Amdt 1 requires a systematic approach. The following is a step-by-step plan based on the directive text.

Step 1: Determine applicability. Confirm that the aircraft is a Beechcraft Model 35, A35, B35, or 35R, any serial number. If not, the directive does not apply. For applicable aircraft, establish the current status of compliance with the original AD/BEECH 35/70 (if any). Check logbooks for entries showing placard installation, red line marking, and AFM insertion. If these are not present, they must be done immediately (within 10 hours time in service from the effective date; but since that date has passed, treat as overdue and do before further flight). Fabricate a placard with letters at least 2.54 mm high stating “Never exceed speed, Vne, 144 MPH (125 KTS) IAS”. Install in pilot’s clear view. Mark a red line on the airspeed indicator glass at 144 MPH (125 KTS) and add a white slippage mark on the outside between glass and case. Insert a copy of this directive into the Limitations Section of the AFM. Record these actions in the aircraft logbook with date and hours.

Step 2: Determine the compliance status under the earlier AD/BEECH 35/58 Amdt 4 (FAA AD 94-20-04). Locate logbook entries for the last inspection required by that AD. That inspection involved checking the ruddervator balance and likely some structural inspection. If that AD was never complied with, then the initial inspection under Requirement 4 must be done within 25 hours after 23 January 2003 (or immediately if more than 25 hours have passed). If entries show a recent inspection, calculate the next inspection due: within 100 hours time in service after that last inspection, or within 25 hours after 23 January 2003, whichever is later.

Step 3: Perform the Requirement 4 inspection. Obtain Raytheon Service Bulletin No. SB 27-3358, Issued February 2000. Follow the Accomplishment Instructions in paragraphs (5)(a) through (5)(f). This includes a visual inspection of the empennage, aft fuselage, and ruddervator control system for damage, wrinkles, cracks, etc. Use a digital ultrasonic skin tester or equivalent to measure skin thickness at the locations shown in Figures 1 and 2 of the directive (refer to the table of part numbers and thicknesses). Compare thickness to the specified tolerance (ANSI AA H35.2(M)). The skin thickness measurement is not repetitive; do it once. Also set the elevator and trim tab travels if not previously done; that is also not repetitive. If any damage is found, repair or replace before further flight. Record all findings, measurements, and actions in the logbook.

Step 4: Perform Requirement 5, weight and balance verification. Use Method No. 1: review existing weight and balance documentation for completeness since last approved weighing or factory delivery. Compare actual aircraft configuration to documentation. If no discrepancies, record that the data is accurate. If discrepancies exist (e.g., equipment additions, deletions, paint, structural repairs), use Method No. 2: weigh the aircraft using AFM/POH procedures, determine basic empty weight and CG, record new values. Correct any discrepancies before further flight. This must be done within 100 hours after 23 January 2003 (or if already done under the earlier AD, note that in logbook). Record results and any new weight and balance data.

Step 5: Perform Requirement 6 within 3 years after 23 January 2003. Inspect aft fuselage, ruddervator, and related systems per the Accomplishment Instructions section of the service bulletin. Accomplish rebalancing per Section 3A(8) of the bulletin, using the procedure in Beech Shop Manual 35-590096B19 (or later revision). The new balancing limit: reduce upper limit from 19.8 to 18 inch-pounds (tail heavy). If the logbook positively shows the ruddervators already meet this limit (with details of methods and weights), rebalancing is not required. However, the inspection must still be done. Repair or replace any unacceptable parts before further flight. After completion, the placard, red line, and AFM limitation may be discontinued (optional but recommended to restore full operational envelope). Record the rebalancing details precisely.

Step 6: Establish a recurring 100-hour inspection interval per Requirement 4. At every 100 hours time in service thereafter, repeat the inspection (but note that skin thickness measurement and travel settings are not repetitive; only the visual and ultrasonic inspection for damage). Also note that after any repair or repaint of the ruddervators (including stripe addition or paint touch-up), the rebalancing must be done again. Keep the logbook up to date.

Step 7: Ensure all maintenance is performed by appropriately licensed personnel. Use approved data (the referenced service bulletin and shop manual). Keep copies of the directive and all supporting documents in the aircraft records. For aircraft that have completed the structural work, consider obtaining a CASA notation in the AD status that the requirements have been met.

The total compliance cost will depend on the aircraft’s condition. The most expensive items are the ultrasonic skin thickness inspection (if not already equipped) and the ruddervator rebalancing (which may require removal and reinstallation). The weight and balance verification can be done in-house if scales are available. The placard and red line are cheap. The ongoing 100-hour inspection is a recurring cost but can be combined with other scheduled maintenance. Operators should budget for at least several thousand dollars for the initial structural work, more if damage is found. The directive does not provide any financial assistance; the cost falls entirely on the operator. However, the option to discontinue the speed restriction after compliance improves the aircraft’s utility and resale value, providing a potential return on investment.