The AD is built around a small set of technical and administrative concepts: applicability, staged inspection obligations, life limits and retirement, permitted on-condition maintenance for some models, and mandatory defect reporting. The AD’s applicability is broad within the product line, it covers "All models of Textron Aviation (Beechcraft) 55, 58 and 95-55 series aircraft" (Applicability). The core technical focus is the wing attach bolts, nuts, washers and associated fittings, and the local structure such as the wing attach fitting recess and drain holes.

Inspections are divided across two levels. The first is a recurring visual inspection of the recess and exposed bolt areas every 12 calendar months for every aircraft, with attention to corrosion, loss of inhibitor and blocked drain holes (Requirement 1). The second is a removal and detailed inspection of the wing bolts, washers, nuts and fittings in accordance with the manufacturer’s maintenance manual procedures (Requirement 2). The AD makes visible corrosion discovered in Requirement 1 a trigger to perform Requirement 2 before further flight.

The AD distinguishes operational categories. Aircraft used only in private operations have a different inspection schedule for Requirement 2 than aircraft in other operational categories. Specifically, private operators may delay the thorough removal inspection so long as the bolt has been inspected using the manufacturer's procedures within 10 years of initial installation, otherwise an inspection is required within 100 hours TIS or 12 months from the AD commencement date, with re-inspection intervals not to exceed 10 years. For other operations the comparable initial window is 5 years and re-inspection is every 5 years (Requirement 2, Compliance).

Life limits and retirement replace or supplement the periodic removal inspections. For models 55 and 58 series, zero-time new wing bolts must be retired and replaced before 20 years TIS after the first installation; for 58P and 58TC models, the limit is 15 years TIS. For 55 and 58 models the AD recognises an alternative path: maintaining the bolts on condition per Table 201 of the Beechcraft Baron Maintenance Manual 55-590000-13 Revision H2 (Requirement 3, Compliance; Note 6).

Reporting is mandatory for both NIL findings and confirmed defects from Requirement 2 inspections and must be filed through CASA’s Defect Reporting Service or Form 404 (Mandatory reporting requirements). The AD references particular revision states of Beechcraft maintenance manuals as the normative technical documents, and it requires compliance with those manuals "as in force on the date of commencement of this AD". The Background section records a series of previous amendments, reflecting changes to maintenance manual revision status, removal of alternative means of compliance, staging of compliance times and lifecycle limits imposed or altered over the years.

Operationally significant technical details include a torque check recommendation prior to removal to confirm correct torque and to identify if other maintenance is required, and an explicit instruction that wing attach nuts should always be replaced with new items when removing the wing attach bolts for inspection (Requirement 2, Note 2; Compliance Note 6). The AD also provides operational guidance on how to inspect difficult to view areas, specifying use of bright light and mirrors or magnifying aids (Requirement 1, Note 1).

This AD affects every operator and owner of Textron Aviation (Beechcraft) 55, 58 and 95-55 (Baron) series aircraft, across private and non-private operations, because the Applicability section states "All models" of those series. The practical set of affected actors includes aircraft registered in Australia or operated here, maintenance organisations and engineers who carry out inspections and replacements, airworthiness managers, and the persons responsible for defect reporting to CASA.

Operators using the aircraft solely for private operations are treated differently for certain compliance timelines. For Requirement 2, private operators have an extended interval between mandated removal inspections, with re-inspection intervals not to exceed 10 years where the manufacturer’s inspection has previously been performed within 10 years of initial installation; otherwise an initial removal inspection is required within 100 hours TIS or 12 months from AD commencement. Operators engaged in commercial, charter, aerial work or other non-private operations face a shorter interval: inspection within 100 hours TIS or 12 months unless the manufacturer's inspection has been performed within 5 years of installation, and re-inspection intervals not exceeding 5 years (Requirement 2, Compliance).

Maintenance engineers and organisations engaged to complete the mandated inspections will need to follow the specific Beechcraft Baron Maintenance Manual sections cited by the AD: Beechcraft Baron Maintenance Manual 55-590000-13 Revision H2 (Section 57‑10‑00) for models 55 and 58 series, and Baron Maintenance Manual 102‑590000‑5 Revision A25 (Section 57‑00‑00) for models 58P and TC series. The AD makes those manuals the requirement documents "as in force on the date of commencement of this AD" (Requirement 2 and Requirement 3). The AD therefore imposes an obligation on maintenance providers to have access to and follow those exact revisions, or demonstrate equivalence if seeking an alternative means of compliance through CASA, noting that previous alternative means of compliance have been removed in earlier amendments (Background).

Owners and operators who have previously installed new zero time wing bolts must manage life limits: 20 years TIS for 55 and 58 models and 15 years TIS for 58P and 58TC models , unless 55 and 58 operators elect the on-condition option permitted by the cited maintenance manual table (Requirement 3, Compliance; Background). The AD also affects record-keeping and safety reporting systems because it mandates reporting of both NIL findings and confirmed defects from the Requirement 2 inspections through CASA’s Defect Reporting Service or Form 404 (Mandatory reporting requirements). That will require operators and maintenance organisations to be able to supply the requisite data in the CASA reporting formats and to track compliance and reporting dates.

Regulatory actors are also implicated. The AD is signed by a delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, David Punshon, and the commencement date is specified. CASA is identified as the repository for mandatory defect reports, hence CASA will receive the data stream the AD requires. The AD’s interaction with the manufacturer is material, because the AD ties in to the type certificate holder’s Instructions for Continued Airworthiness and specific maintenance manual revisions, and Amendment 7 follows a change in the Beechcraft Maintenance Manual that created the on-condition option. Finally, insurers, auditors and those responsible for airworthiness certification will be affected because compliance or non-compliance with the AD is a determinative factor for continued airworthiness and insurability, even though the AD text itself does not list penalties.

Duties

• Annual visual inspection duty. Every aircraft must have the inspection covers removed from the wing attach fitting recesses and must be inspected for corrosion or loss of inhibitor, and drain holes must be checked for blockage every 12 calendar months (Requirement 1).

• Triggered removal inspection duty. If visible corrosion is found during the Requirement 1 inspection in the recess or on visible portions of bolts, nuts, washers or fittings, the operator must perform the Requirement 2 removal and inspection before further flight (Requirement 1, Requirement 2).

• Removal and detailed inspection duty. Requirement 2 demands removal and inspection of wing bolts, washers, nuts and fittings in accordance with the Beechcraft maintenance manuals specified for each model group, as in force on the commencement date of the AD, with the timing of initial and recurrent inspections set by operational category (Requirement 2, Compliance).

• Retirement and replacement duty. Requirement 3 requires retiring wing bolts, washers and nuts and replacing them with new hardware per the maintenance manuals. The AD sets life limits for new zero time bolts: replace before 20 years TIS after first installation for models 55 and 58 series, and before 15 years TIS for models 58P and 58TC (Requirement 3, Compliance).

• Mandatory reporting duty. Both NIL findings and confirmed defects discovered during Requirement 2 inspections must be reported through CASA’s Defect Reporting Service or by using Form 404 (Mandatory reporting requirements).

• Maintenance process duties. The AD includes maintenance process expectations such as checking bolt torque before removal to confirm correct torque value and identify additional maintenance needs, and rendering retired hardware unserviceable (Requirement 2, Note 2; Requirement 3).

Rights and options

• On-condition alternative for models 55 and 58. For those series only, operators have an alternative to the time-based retirement: the bolts may be maintained on condition in accordance with Table 201 of Beechcraft Baron Maintenance Manual 55-590000-13 Revision H2, as in force on commencement of the AD. That provides a discretionary, maintenance-led path instead of mandatory replacement at 20 years TIS (Requirement 3, Note 6).

• Use of specific manufacturer documents as normative. The AD gives operators a clear normative instrument to follow, namely the specified sections of the two Beechcraft maintenance manuals "as in force on the date of commencement of this AD". The right is to comply with those documents to meet the AD requirements without inventing alternative procedures, subject to CASA processes for approvals of any alternative means of compliance.

• Time windows contingent on operational category. Private operators enjoy longer re-inspection intervals for the removal inspection, including the potential to rely on inspections performed under the maintenance manual within 10 years of initial installation to defer immediate action; non-private operators have shorter 5 year windows. That is a limited right to operate with different compliance timing depending on the operational classification (Requirement 2, Compliance).

• Reporting formats. Operators have the right to choose either of the two reporting pathways specified by the AD, CASA’s online Defect Reporting Service or Form 404 (Mandatory reporting requirements).

Operational obligations that are expressed as notes and interpretative guidance in the AD are presented as mandatory expectations in practice. For example, the AD states "Always replace wing attach nuts with new items when removing the wing attach bolts for inspection" which directs a concrete maintenance action rather than optional guidance (Compliance Note 6). Similarly, the AD suggests torque checking prior to removal as a means to determine whether bolts were appropriately torqued and whether additional maintenance is required, which is integrated into the inspection duty (Requirement 2, Note 2).

The AD does not set out its own monetary penalties or enforcement sanctions in the provided text, nor does it provide an administrative appeal mechanism within the instrument text. The AD does, however, place clear operational and record-keeping duties on operators, maintenance organisations and reporting obligations to CASA.

The AD text supplied sets out mandatory technical obligations and reporting requirements but does not specify penalties, fines or the procedural enforcement steps that will be used in the event of non-compliance. The instrument states commencement and mandates inspections, retirements and reporting, however it contains no express penalty clause or statutory sanction text within the provided material.

Practically, the AD requires reporting of both NIL findings and confirmed defects from Requirement 2 inspections via CASA’s Defect Reporting Service or Form 404 (Mandatory reporting requirements). That obligation creates an auditable paper trail, because the reporting channels are defined and the CASA portal and form references are provided. The AD also ties normative compliance to specific maintenance manuals "as in force on the date of commencement of this AD", which gives CASA a clear benchmark against which to measure technical compliance during any audit or surveillance activity.

The text records the AD was signed by a CASA delegate, David Punshon, indicating the issuing regulator and the delegated administrative authorisation behind the directive. The document’s background recounts prior amendments, including removal of previously issued alternative means of compliance and changes to compliance times. Those historical changes show an administrative pathway for modifying AD requirements over time, but the current AD text does not set out an enforcement procedure such as suspension or revocation processes, infringement notices, or criminal offences.

Because the AD is an airworthiness directive issued by the regulator, non-compliance is likely to have practical consequences for the continued legality of flight operations, airworthiness certification, and insurance. The AD’s retirement and inspection requirements are framed as mandatory for continued airworthiness; if an aircraft does not meet those requirements the operator will lack the issued AD-required evidence of compliance. The AD itself does not describe the administrative remedies CASA would apply, for example grounding an aircraft, issuing directions, or imposing an administrative penalty, therefore any actions by CASA in response to non-compliance will follow separate regulatory powers and procedures not included in the AD text supplied here.

The AD provides the channels and benchmarks for compliance monitoring through CASA’s reporting interface and the specified manufacturer manuals. That creates an operational enforcement mechanism in the form of records, mandatory reports and defined technical standards. Entities responsible for maintenance should therefore expect that CASA will be able to determine compliance through inspection of maintenance records, defect reports and physical checks against the AD requirements. The AD’s absence of explicit penalties in the text supplied means the specific sanctions that may follow non-compliance must be derived from CASA’s broader regulatory powers and the Civil Aviation Safety Act and associated instruments, which are not quoted in this AD document.

The AD incorporates and references manufacturer maintenance manuals as normative technical documents and therefore interacts directly with the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness and the Beechcraft Baron Maintenance Manuals cited: Beechcraft Baron Maintenance Manual 55-590000-13 Revision H2 Section 57‑10‑00 for models 55 and 58 series, and Baron Maintenance Manual 102‑590000‑5 Revision A25 Section 57‑00‑00 for models 58P and TC series. The AD requires compliance with those manuals "as in force on the date of commencement of this AD", establishing them as a regulatory standard for purposes of this AD.

The AD specifies reporting through CASA’s Defect Reporting Service or using Form 404. That references CASA’s own regulatory reporting regime and situates operators within the national safety reporting infrastructure. Interactions with the administrative law framework occur because the AD is issued by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and signed by its delegate, embedding the AD in CASA’s statutory regime for airworthiness directives. Although the AD text supplied does not quote the underlying legislative instruments providing CASA with power to issue mandatory ADs, the AD operates as an instrument under CASA’s regulatory authority which will interact with statutory obligations under the Civil Aviation Safety Act and associated regulations.

The AD’s lifecycle limits and on-condition option for certain models reflect changes made by the type certificate holder in the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness, as recorded in the Background. For example, Amendment 6 followed a change to the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness that increased the life limit of the wing bolts to 20 years for models 55 and 58 series. Amendment 7 follows a further amendment of the Beechcraft Maintenance Manual allowing for on-condition maintenance. That chain shows how manufacturer ICA changes can be adopted and folded into regulatory mandates, so the AD interacts with the manufacturer’s ICA and with CASA’s mechanism for recognising and mandating those ICA changes.

Operational categorisation interacts with aviation operating rules and certifications. The AD differentiates between "aircraft operating only in private operations" and "all other operational categories" for inspection intervals. That means an operator’s legal status under aviation operating rules will determine AD compliance timing. The AD thus intersects with the regulatory definitions and approvals that classify an aircraft’s use as private, commercial, charter, aerial work, training, or other categories. Operators will need to align their AD compliance schedule with their operating certificate and recorded operational category.

The AD references the use of manufacturer documentation "as in force on the date of commencement of this AD", which raises interactions with document control and standards law. Maintenance organisations will need to ensure they are using the exact revisions specified or have approved alternatives. Where operators seek an alternative means of compliance to the manuals, they will need to engage CASA’s mechanisms for approval, and that process will interact with CASA’s administrative law processes for approvals, variations and exemptions.

The AD does not specify enforcement penalties or proceedings within its own text. Therefore any enforcement measures for non-compliance will interact with CASA’s broader powers under aviation laws and regulations, and possibly general administrative law remedies. The AD’s mandatory reporting requirement introduces an interaction with administrative record-keeping requirements, and failure to report could engage separate regulatory obligations, but the AD text itself does not prescribe sanctions for failure to report.

Finally, the AD’s technical instructions, such as "render unserviceable all hardware retired" and "always replace wing attach nuts with new items when removing the wing attach bolts for inspection", create maintenance practice obligations that will interact with contractual and safety obligations between owners, operators and maintenance providers, and with insurance policies that typically condition cover on compliance with airworthiness directives.

The AD’s Background section provides an explicit amendment chronology beginning with the initial AD issuance and recording six prior amendments before Amendment 7, which is the current instrument. The chronological elements documented in the AD show iterative administrative changes that altered inspection modalities, alternate compliance means, compliance times and life limits.

• Initial issue, effective 1 February 1996. The original AD made mandatory the inspection and replacement periods for the wing attachment hardware as detailed in the requirement document. That establishes the baseline regulatory intervention.

• Amendment 1. Updated the revision status of the Beech 55 Shop Manual. The AD’s text does not provide the amendment date or the precise manual revision number changed by Amendment 1, but it records an update to the maintenance document reference.

• Amendment 2. Added the Note to Requirement 2 and added the fittings as an item to be inspected when the wing bolts, washers and nuts are removed and inspected. This amendment expanded the scope of items during the detailed inspection stage to include fittings and provided interpretative guidance.

• Amendment 3. Removed the alternative means of compliance that had been issued to allow in-situ inspection of the wing attachment bolts and nuts rather than conduct the manufacturer’s required magnetic particle inspection, MPI. That amendment eliminated an avenue that had allowed less invasive inspection techniques, reverting to the manufacturer-prescribed MPI requirement.

• Amendment 4. Issued to extend the compliance time for Requirement 1 by two months while the proposed airworthiness directive process was conducted for AD/BEECH 55/79 Amendment 5. That indicates CASA’s administrative process management and temporary relaxation of compliance timing to permit consultation or process completion.

• Amendment 5. Allowed aircraft used in private operations to be visually inspected for corrosion in the exposed areas of the wing attach bolts and wing fitting recess with the inspection interval increased from 5 to 10 years, in lieu of using the manufacturer’s maintenance instructions. For all other types of operations, the inspection requirements remained unchanged, requiring inspection of the wing attach hardware and fitting recess per the manufacturer’s maintenance data. That amendment differentiated operational categories and allowed an alternative visual inspection path for private operators.

• Amendment 6. Issued following a change to the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness by the type certificate holder, increasing the life limit of the wing bolts to 20 years and only requiring a removal and visual inspection at the five-year interval. This change applied only to models 55 and 58 series and not to models 58P and 58TC. That reflects manufacturer-led ICA changes translating into regulatory modification.

• Amendment 7 (current). The AD notes that Amendment 7 follows the amendment of Beechcraft Maintenance Manual 55-590000-13 Revision H2 allowing for the wing attach bolts to be maintained on condition following their 20 year in service life as an option to replacing the bolts. Amendment 7 thus recognises and adopts the manufacturer’s authorisation for on-condition maintenance for models 55 and 58 series.

The amendment history shows a pattern of interplay between CASA and the type certificate holder’s ICA and maintenance manual revisions, with CASA updating the AD to reflect manufacturer changes, to adjust compliance intervals, and to modulate acceptable inspection methods. It also documents CASA’s removal of previously granted alternative compliance means, indicating a tightening or reversion in technical compliance expectations at certain points.

The AD’s record does not provide the full text of earlier amendment instruments, nor the consultation documents or reasons for each change beyond the terse background summary. It does, however, show that the AD has been administratively maintained for nearly three decades, with changes reflecting both procedural needs and manufacturer-driven technical reassessments.

The AD document supplied does not include any litigation history. It contains no references to cases, regulatory appeals, or judicial review proceedings related to AD/BEECH 55/79 or its amendments. The Background lists administrative amendments and policy changes but does not record any legal challenges or court decisions.

Absent any litigative record in the AD text, practitioners should note the following issue areas that commonly lead to legal disputes in the AD context, and that could plausibly arise here based on the instrument’s content. These are analytical observations tied to the AD’s provisions, rather than records of existing litigation.

• Interpretation of "as in force on the date of commencement of this AD." The AD makes certain manufacturer maintenance manual revisions the requirement documents "as in force on the date of commencement." Disputes can arise over whether later manual revisions apply, how to treat ambiguities in a given revision, or whether an operator may rely on newer manuals without CASA approval. The AD text itself is the benchmark and the words used are precise, but operators and maintainers may face compliance questions at the margins.

• Classification of operational category. The AD differentiates private operations from "all other operational categories" for inspection intervals. Legal disputes can arise over whether a given use of aircraft is properly classified as private or not, with consequences for compliance timing. The AD text does not further define "private operations", so reliance will be on existing regulatory definitions outside the AD.

• Alternative means of compliance and CASA approvals. The AD references prior removal of alternative means of compliance and provides for an on-condition alternative for certain models based on a manufacturer manual. Questions might arise about CASA’s discretionary approvals of alternative compliance pathways. The AD’s history shows that CASA has previously issued and subsequently revoked alternative means of compliance, which illustrates administrative discretion that could be subject to challenge in particular circumstances.

• Reporting obligations. The AD mandates reporting of NIL findings as well as confirmed defects. Disputes could arise over timeliness, sufficiency and content of reports, and whether failures to report are addressed under separate regulatory powers. The AD does not set out penalty provisions, leaving enforcement to broader regulatory frameworks which could be contested.

• Scope of inspection requirements. The AD instructs removal of inspection covers and inspection of recesses and drain holes, and requires removal and inspection of bolts and fittings per the maintenance manuals. Disagreements could arise about what constitutes adequate inspection, or whether certain findings require grounding the aircraft, or only further maintenance.

These points are areas where factual disputes and administrative law issues typically emerge. The AD’s text provides the technical baseline but not the full administrative or legal apparatus for resolving complex compliance disagreements. Practitioners needing to advise on litigation or dispute risk should therefore cross-reference the AD with statutory instruments governing CASA’s powers, maintenance standards, operational definitions and administrative remedy provisions, none of which are expanded in the supplied AD text.

• "As in force on the date of commencement" is specific and binding. The AD requires compliance with particular revisions of the Beechcraft maintenance manuals "as in force on the date of commencement of this AD". Operators cannot assume later revisions are automatically compliant for AD purposes unless CASA expressly incorporates them, or the later revision is identical on the relevant procedures. That exact phrasing narrows the acceptable normative texts to the versions in force at commencement.

• Annual visual check does not substitute for removal inspection unless conditions are met. Requirement 1 is an every-12-month visual inspection of the recess and exposed bolt areas. Visible corrosion found in that visual check is a trigger to perform the more intrusive Requirement 2 removal and inspection before further flight. Operators cannot avoid removal inspections if corrosion is found.

• Different timelines by operational category. Private operators have a longer re-inspection interval for removal inspections (up to 10 years) compared to other operational categories (5 years). If an operator’s use changes from private to non-private, the applicable inspection schedule changes, potentially exposing the operator to overdue inspections if the change in operational classification is not tracked carefully.

• Torque check before removal matters for follow-up work. The AD instructs that bolt torque should be checked before removal as this could indicate additional maintenance is required if torque is incorrect. Failing to torque-check before removal could mask or misattribute maintenance needs.

• Nuts must be replaced when bolts are removed. The AD explicitly instructs to always replace wing attach nuts with new items when removing the wing attach bolts for inspection. That creates a recurring consumable cost that maintenance planners must budget. The AD also requires rendering retired hardware unserviceable.

• On-condition alternative limited to particular models. The on-condition maintenance alternative is available only to models 55 and 58 series per Table 201 of the Beechcraft manual. Models 58P and 58TC are not eligible for the on-condition alternative and retain a 15 year retirement limit for zero-time bolts. Operators need to identify model precisely to know whether they can elect the on-condition route.

• Mandatory NIL reporting expands reporting scope. The AD requires reporting of NIL findings for Requirement 2 inspections. That is an additional administrative obligation that can generate routine reports, and maintenance organisations must manage filing and record retention accordingly.

• Commencement versus signature date. The AD is signed on 13 June 2025 but commences on 13 July 2025. Operators must not mistake the signature date for the date from which compliance intervals are measured; the AD explicitly states the commencement date.

• Replacement deadlines tied to "first installation of new zero time wing bolts." The life limits are measured from the "first installation of new zero time wing bolts". Operators must maintain and verify installation histories and zero-time documentation to determine when a replacement is due. Ambiguity in records could create compliance uncertainty.

• Removal and inspection frequency counting includes re-installations. The AD notes that "Installation of the wing bolts includes where they are removed for inspection purposes and re-installed," meaning reinstallation after an inspection counts as an installation for time-based triggers. That can reset or affect timing depending on how the maintenance manual tables are interpreted, so record-keeping must track each removal and reinstallation event precisely.

• The AD does not itself provide enforcement penalties. The AD mandates actions but does not list penalties in its text provided. Operators should not read that omission as meaning there are no consequences for non-compliance , separate regulatory tools and certification requirements will interact with the AD, and non-compliance can affect airworthiness status, regulatory conformity and insurance standing.

1. Confirm applicability and inventory. Identify every Textron Aviation (Beechcraft) 55, 58 and 95-55 series aircraft in your fleet. Verify model designation to establish whether the aircraft are 55, 58, 58P, 58TC or 95-55 models because the AD’s life limits and the availability of the on-condition alternative differ by model (Applicability; Requirement 3).

2. Note key dates. The AD commences on 13 July 2025. Use that date as the reference point for "as in force on the date of commencement" when obtaining the specified Beechcraft maintenance manual revisions and for any initial compliance deadlines tied to the commencement date. The AD was signed on 13 June 2025 by David Punshon, Delegate of CASA.

3. Obtain the requirement documents. For models 55 and 58 series, obtain Beechcraft Baron Maintenance Manual 55-590000-13 Revision H2 Revision date 29 May 2024, Section 57‑10‑00. For models 58P and 58TC, obtain Baron Maintenance Manual 102‑590000‑5 Revision A25 Revision date 1 June 2002, Section 57-00-00. Ensure the versions you rely on are the ones "as in force on the date of commencement of this AD". Maintain copies as part of the aircraft’s maintenance records.

4. Implement Requirement 1, annual visual inspection. Every 12 calendar months, remove inspection covers from wing attach fitting recesses and inspect for corrosion or loss of inhibitor, and inspect drain holes to ensure there is no blockage. Use bright lighting and mirrors or magnifying glass to inspect hard-to-view areas as recommended by the AD (Requirement 1, Note 1). Record the inspection in the aircraft maintenance log.

5. If any visible corrosion is found, immediate action. If Requirement 1 reveals visible corrosion in the recess or on visible parts of bolts, nuts, washers or fittings, do not fly the aircraft until Requirement 2 has been accomplished. Requirement 2 must be completed before further flight (Requirement 1).

6. Implement Requirement 2, removal and detailed inspection schedule. Schedule removal and inspection of wing bolts, washers, nuts and fittings in accordance with the relevant maintenance manual section. For aircraft operating only in private operations, if the required manufacturer inspection has not been performed within 10 years of the initial installation of the wing bolts, inspect within 100 hours TIS or 12 months from AD commencement, whichever is earlier, then re-inspect at intervals not exceeding 10 years. For all other operational categories, use the 5 year benchmark for prior compliance, otherwise inspect within 100 hours TIS or 12 months from commencement and re-inspect at intervals not exceeding 5 years (Requirement 2, Compliance).

7. Pre-removal torque check. Before removing wing bolts for inspection or replacement, check bolt torque to confirm whether bolts were torqued to the correct value and to determine whether other maintenance action is required. Record torque readings and any corrective action taken (Requirement 2, Note 2).

8. Replace nuts when bolts are removed. Always replace wing attach nuts with new items when the wing attach bolts are removed for inspection. Render any retired hardware unserviceable and keep a record of the disposed parts and their serials if applicable (Compliance Note 6).

9. Implement Requirement 3, retirement and replacement. For models 55 and 58 series, ensure that new zero time wing bolts are retired from service and replaced before 20 years TIS after their first installation, unless the on-condition Table 201 procedure in the Beechcraft manual is adopted for those models. For models 58P and 58TC, retire and replace before 15 years TIS after first installation of new zero time bolts. If electing the on-condition alternative for 55/58 models, document the decision and follow Table 201 exactly as in the cited manual revision (Requirement 3, Compliance; Note 6).

10. Manage installation and re-installation records. Track when bolts were first installed as "new zero time", and record every removal and re-installation event because the AD notes that installation includes removal for inspection and re-installation. Accurate timestamps and time-in-service calculations are essential to determine when the life limit or re-inspection intervals apply.

11. File mandatory reports. For every Requirement 2 inspection, whether the inspection finds defects or finds nothing, report the result through CASA’s Defect Reporting Service online portal at https://www.casa.gov.au/resources-and-education/our-systems/defect-report-service or by using Form 404 available from https://www.casa.gov.au/defect-report. Keep copies of submitted reports and any correspondence from CASA for audit purposes.

12. Coordinate with maintenance providers. Ensure the maintenance organisation or personnel performing the required inspections are competent with the specific Beechcraft manual procedures cited, have the correct revision manuals, and follow the AD instructions regarding inspection technique, torque checking, nut replacement and rendering retired hardware unserviceable.

13. Update operational procedures and checklists. Revise maintenance and airworthiness control processes to include the AD’s annual visual inspection, removal inspection schedules based on operational category, life limit tracking, pre-removal torque checks, mandatory nut replacement, and the reporting workflow.

14. Review insurance and certification implications. Confirm with insurers and certification authorities that records demonstrating compliance with this AD are handled appropriately, because absence of compliance evidence may affect airworthiness certification and coverage even though the AD itself does not list enforcement sanctions.

15. Plan for consumable costs and downtime. Account for the recurring expenditure of new nuts and bolts when retiring hardware, potential drain hole cleaning, possible MPI or non-destructive inspections in accordance with the manuals, and the aircraft downtime associated with removal and re-installation inspections.

16. Engage CASA early if seeking alternatives. If you believe an alternative method of compliance is technically appropriate, engage CASA promptly. The AD’s history shows that alternative means of compliance have been previously issued and later removed, so any alternative must be authorised by CASA to be accepted as AD compliance evidence.

Following these steps will align maintenance practice with the explicit requirements and timelines set out in AD/BEECH 55/79 Amendment 7, create auditable records for CASA, and reduce the risk of inadvertent non-compliance due to record-keeping, operational reclassification, or misapplication of the manufacturer’s specified revisions.