AD/BEECH 55/95 - Landing Gear Up-lock Mechanism

The directive contains a small number of tightly specified technical concepts and operational controls. Key concepts and how they function in the text are:

• Applicability by serial-number grouping. The AD separates affected aeroplanes into two groups and lists the precise serial-number blocks for each group. Group 1 covers Model 58 serial numbers TH-1 through TH-174 and a set of Model 95-55 variants with serial numbers TC-1 through TC-1402 and TE-1 through TE-846. Group 2 covers Model 95-B55B (T-42A) S/N TF-1 through TF-70. The AD’s requirements apply only to aircraft that fall within these enumerated ranges, making the applicability deterministic rather than discretionary.

• Identification of component types. The AD distinguishes between a greasible up-lock roller and a non-greasible up-lock roller by the inner-race geometry: greasible rollers have a drilled and grooved inner race; non-greasible rollers have a solid inner race. The first required action is a determination, using the referenced SI, of which type is installed on each roller.

• Mandatory replacement and modification steps. If a roller is the non-greasible type, the AD requires replacement with the greasible type. It also requires installing hollow zerk-ended mounting bolts on the up-lock rollers. Both replacement and bolt installation are specified as mandatory actions under the AD.

• Lubrication regime. The AD mandates lubrication of the up-lock mechanism and sets out initial and repetitive lubrication schedules tied to TIS. The frequency differs between Groups for initial compliance, but the repetitive interval is set to 100 ±10 hours TIS in both groups after the initial action window.

• Reliance on service instructions. The AD requires operators to use Beechcraft Service Instructions No. 0448-211 at any FAA approved revision status as the method for accomplishing the determinations, replacements, installations and lubrication. This links the AD’s mandatory actions to a technical document maintained by the manufacturer and approved by the FAA.

• Cross-reference to FAA ADs. The AD explicitly refers to FAA AD 2007-08-08 (Amendment 39-15025 dated 06 April 2007) and states that that FAA AD supersedes FAA AD 72-22-01. This links the Australian AD to the FAA regulatory history and to an FAA-approved technical route.

• Operational trigger language. The AD uses terminology such as “Unless already accomplished,” “Before further flight, after the determination required by Requirement 1,” and explicit TIS windows. These phrases create hard operational triggers that determine when actions must be done relative to flight operations and maintenance scheduling.

Each of these concepts operates through prescriptive maintenance action and time-in-service deadlines. The AD is narrow in scope: it targets a discrete failure mode (seizure of up-lock rollers) and prescribes specific engineering and maintenance steps aimed at reducing that risk.

The AD affects defined sets of Beechcraft Baron series aeroplanes and the stakeholders who operate, maintain, or certify those aircraft as follows:

• Aircraft owners and operators of the listed serial-number ranges. The AD’s Applicability table explicitly enumerates the affected models and serial numbers belonging to two groups. Operators of aircraft within those serial-number blocks must perform the mandated inspections, replacements, installations and lubrication in the specified time frames. The AD’s language “Unless already accomplished” indicates owners/operators who have already completed equivalent work at or before the effective date may not need to repeat it, but the AD itself is the authority that sets the compliance windows.

• Maintenance organisations and licensed engineers. The technical steps are to be carried out using Beechcraft SI No. 0448-211 at any FAA approved revision status. That implicates aircraft maintenance organisations, licensed maintenance engineers and persons authorised under civil aviation rules to perform the relevant maintenance and log compliance. These entities will be required to locate the appropriate SI revision, perform the physical checks, fit replacement greasible rollers where needed, install hollow zerk-ended mounting bolts, and carry out lubrication and follow-up servicing at intervals mandated by the AD.

• Certifying authorities and compliance record-keepers. Although the AD text does not set out record-keeping obligations, the AD becomes effective law on 7 June 2007 and the maintenance actions it requires will need to be reflected in the aircraft’s maintenance records and certification documents where applicable to show compliance with the AD’s requirements. Typically, compliance with an AD is recorded in maintenance logs and certificates; the AD’s text itself, however, does not prescribe specific record templates or filing procedures.

• Pilots and flight operations personnel. The AD uses operationally binding phrasing such as “Before further flight, after the determination required by Requirement 1 of this AD.” That creates immediate operational consequences where an in-service determination reveals a non-greasible roller: flights cannot continue until the replacement or other mandated action is performed. Therefore, flight crews and operations control will need processes to ensure maintenance actions required by the AD are completed before returning the aeroplane to service.

• Regulators and inspectors. The instrument is issued by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority via a delegate (signature by David Punshon). The AD cross-references FAA documentation; regulators and their inspectors will use this AD as the compliance requirement for the affected fleet in their jurisdiction.

Who pays: The AD imposes the work on aircraft owners/operators and their maintenance providers. The text requires replacement parts (greasible rollers and hollow zerk-ended mounting bolts where non-compliant parts are present), lubrication materials and labour time. The AD itself does not provide funding, exemptions, or alternative compliance paths in the text provided; therefore the economic burden falls to those operating the affected aircraft.

Who decides: The AD establishes the work that must be done, the time windows for completion and the technical standard (SI No. 0448-211 at any FAA approved revision status). Decisions about scheduling, whether work is already accomplished, and the selection of a maintenance provider are operational choices made by owners/operators and maintenance organisations within the AD’s constraints.

The AD imposes discrete duties on those responsible for the affected aeroplanes and establishes limited procedural rights by implication. The duties and the operational contours of rights are set out in the AD’s requirements and compliance wording.

Key duties

• Use the referenced service instructions. The AD requires “Using the information contained in Beechcraft Service Instructions (SI) No. 0448-211 at any FAA approved revision status” as the means of compliance. That duty requires locating the appropriate SI and following it. The AD ties compliance to a manufacturer and FAA-approved technical document.

• Determine roller type (Requirement 1). Operators must identify whether each up-lock roller is greasible (drilled and grooved inner race) or non-greasible (solid inner race). This is the first mandatory action, and it is procedural in nature but a precondition for further steps.

• Replace non-greasible rollers (Requirement 2). If a roller is determined to be non-greasible, the AD requires replacement with the greasible type. This is a mandatory physical modification for any non-compliant component discovered.

• Install hollow zerk-ended mounting bolts (Requirement 3). The AD imposes a duty to install these specific bolts on the up-lock rollers.

• Lubricate the up-lock mechanism (Requirement 4). The AD requires lubrication and sets the timing for initial and repetitive lubrication intervals, which differ by group for the initial action and converge on a repetitive 100 ±10 hours TIS interval.

• Observe compliance windows. The AD specifies when each duty must be performed: Group 1 initial actions “within 100 hours time in service (TIS) after the effective date of this AD” unless already done; Group 2 initial actions “within 300 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD” unless already done. The AD also uses “Before further flight, after the determination required by Requirement 1,” which means that if a non-greasible roller is found, replacement must be done prior to the next flight.

Implied rights and procedural features

• Right to rely on “Unless already accomplished.” The AD recognises previously completed work. Where an operator can demonstrate that the required actions have already been carried out, the AD’s obligations do not need to be duplicated. The text does not set out the evidence required to demonstrate prior compliance; it simply contains the phrase “Unless already accomplished,” which indicates operators may avoid redundant work if they can show prior accomplishment.

• Right to use any FAA-approved revision of the SI. The AD permits compliance using SI No. 0448-211 at any FAA approved revision status. This gives operators and maintenance providers flexibility to use the currently FAA-approved version of the SI.

• No alternative method of compliance provided in the text. The AD does not set out a formal alternative means of compliance or exemption mechanism within the text provided. The instrument prescribes a specific set of steps and references an SI as the method of accomplishment.

Constraints and operational effects of the duties

• Immediate operational constraint where non-greasible rollers are found. The “Before further flight” language creates an immediate grounding requirement until replacement is carried out for any non-greasible roller located during the determination required by Requirement 1.

• Recurrence duty. The lubrication duty is recurring, requiring long-term maintenance schedule changes for affected aircraft to ensure lubrication at the specified intervals.

• Technical dependency. Compliance requires access to the SI, parts (greasible rollers and hollow zerk-ended bolts), and maintenance capability. If those are unavailable, aircraft operators face scheduling and operational decisions constrained by the AD’s timing.

The AD states its safety purpose , to “decrease the possibility of gear-up landings caused by seizure of the up-lock rollers” , but it does not set out enforcement penalties or procedural appeal routes in the text provided. Therefore the AD’s rights and duties are primarily operational and technical.

The text of the AD provided does not include express penalty provisions or a detailed enforcement section. What the AD does provide in relation to enforcement and operational effect is limited to timing, the effective date and mandatory language:

• Effective date. The AD “becomes effective on 7 June 2007.” From that date the compliance windows start to run (e.g., 100 hours TIS or 300 hours TIS from that effective date, as applicable).

• Mandatory language. The AD uses mandatory phrasing such as “Determine,” “Replace,” “Install” and “Lubricate,” and operationally limiting phrases such as “Before further flight, after the determination required by Requirement 1 of this AD.” That wording creates immediate operational requirements that personnel responsible for airworthiness must follow.

What the AD does not supply in the supplied text

• No specified civil or criminal penalties. The AD text does not include express statutory penalties, fines or criminal liability provisions for non-compliance within the document provided. It does not set out the enforcement powers or administrative processes by which the regulator will pursue non-compliance.

• No administrative procedure described. The AD does not set out procedures for notification, enforcement notices, or formal administrative proceedings in case of non-compliance. It does not provide a route for alternative compliance or exemptions within the text provided.

Interpretative consequences for regulators and operators

• Practical enforcement implication. Although penalties are not described in the AD text, the use of mandatory language and an effective date implies that compliance becomes a legal or regulatory requirement enforceable under the general powers and framework of the regulator, since the AD is issued by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority via its delegate. The AD itself, however, does not enumerate the powers or sanctions available to the regulator.

• Operational enforcement trigger. The “Before further flight” language is an immediate operational enforcement tool because it prohibits flights pending required corrective action where a non-greasible roller is found. That creates an operational compliance mechanism without enumerating penalties.

• Record and audit expectation. While the AD does not mandate specific record-keeping, compliance with an AD is typically evidenced through maintenance logs and airworthiness documentation. The AD text does not specify what documentary proof will be accepted by the regulator.

In short, the AD sets mandatory technical and timing obligations, but the document provided does not include express penalty clauses or procedural enforcement steps. The operational enforcement effect therefore resides in the timing controls and the regulator’s broader oversight and enforcement powers outside the text.

The AD explicitly cross-references FAA material and therefore situates itself in relation to existing foreign airworthiness directives and manufacturer service instructions. The interactions identified in the text are:

• Reference to FAA ADs. The AD states: “Note: FAA 2007-08-08 Amendment 39-15025 dated 06 April 2007 refers. FAA AD 2007-08-08 supersedes FAA AD 72-22-01 Amendment 39-1544.” This links the Australian AD to the FAA’s regulatory actions on the same subject. In practice, that means the technical route required by the AD is consistent with FAA mitigation measures and replaces the lineage of an earlier FAA AD with an updated FAA AD.

• Reliance on manufacturer service instructions as regulatory standard. The AD requires “Using the information contained in Beechcraft Service Instructions (SI) No. 0448-211 at any FAA approved revision status.” By making adherence to a manufacturer SI at an FAA-approved revision a component of legal compliance, the AD ties Australian regulatory compliance to both the manufacturer’s technical specifications and the FAA’s approval process. This creates an interaction where Australian compliance references a document whose approval status is determined by a foreign regulator.

• Supersession chain. The AD’s note that FAA AD 2007-08-08 supersedes FAA AD 72-22-01 implies an updating of technical expectations. The Australian AD is therefore not isolated; it is framed within a sequence of FAA directives that have changed over time. The AD gives operators a particular technical standard by referencing the current FAA-approved SI revision.

What the AD does not state about other laws

• No internal statutory citations. The AD text supplied does not cite the enabling provision in Australian aviation legislation or set out the legislative authority under which the AD is issued. It is signed by a delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, but the AD text does not reproduce cross-references to the Civil Aviation Act or Regulations.

• No interaction with civil liability or contractual law. The AD does not discuss how compliance interacts with insurance, contractual warranties, leasing arrangements or civil liability. The document does not prescribe whether compliance will affect contractual obligations between operators and owners or between operators and maintenance organisations.

Practical implications of these interactions

• Technical harmonisation. By relying on SI No. 0448-211 and referencing FAA ADs, the AD promotes harmonisation of the technical method of compliance with the FAA and the manufacturer’s instructions. That is a practical benefit for operators who operate internationally or use FAA-approved maintenance procedures.

• Dependency on FAA-approved SI revision status. Because the AD permits any FAA-approved revision status of the SI, changes to the SI’s FAA approval status could affect the permitted method of compliance in Australia. Operators must therefore monitor that SI’s FAA approval status to ensure they are using an approved revision to satisfy this AD.

In sum, the AD interacts with foreign airworthiness directives and with the manufacturer’s service instructions but does not set out broader legislative or civil-law interactions within the text provided.

The AD text contains limited explicit amendment history details. The items set out in the AD that relate to amendment or supersession are:

• Effective date. The AD “becomes effective on 7 June 2007.” The AD is signed and dated 26 April 2007 by David Punshon, Delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, suggesting internal processing recorded on that date prior to the effective date.

• Cross-reference to FAA AD amendments. The AD expressly notes the existence of FAA AD 2007-08-08 (Amendment 39-15025 dated 06 April 2007) and states that FAA AD 2007-08-08 supersedes FAA AD 72-22-01 (Amendment 39-1544). Thus in the lineage of related foreign airworthiness requirements, the AD aligns with FAA AD 2007-08-08, which itself replaced an earlier FAA AD.

• Supersession of earlier FAA AD. The AD does not say that it supercedes any earlier Australian AD; rather, it copies the FAA’s note about supersession among FAA ADs. The AD as provided does not include annotations indicating it amends, replaces or reissues any Australian AD.

• No in-text amendments. The AD text provided includes redundant header repetitions and formatting artifacts but contains no amendment history entries such as prior AD numbers, dates of amendment to the Australian AD, or revocations.

Implications for operators

• Primary update mechanism is via cross-referenced FAA AD and SI revisions. The AD relies on the SI at any FAA-approved revision status. If the SI is updated in FAA approval, operators must use a revision approved by the FAA to comply with this AD’s requirements as the AD adopts that SI as its compliance method.

• The provided text records the contemporaneous FAA amendment as current at the date of the AD. The AD explicitly points operators to FAA AD 2007-08-08 and its amendment identifier. That provides a clear reference point for operators reviewing the state of the art as at the time the AD was issued.

• No Australian formal amendment trail in text. The AD does not include subsequent amendment records in the excerpt provided. If operators need to confirm whether the AD has later amendments or revocations, that information is not present in the text and would need to be checked in the regulator’s current AD register.

The AD text provided contains no litigation history. It does not cite any cases, legal challenges, appeals, or tribunal decisions concerning the AD or the subject matter. Specific points to note from the source:

• No judicial or administrative appeals described. The AD does not include any record of court or tribunal proceedings challenging the AD’s validity, the delegate’s authority, or its technical requirements.

• No references to precedent. The AD does not cite case law, regulatory decisions or prior judicial determinations. It is an administrative safety directive focused on a technical corrective action.

• No enforcement actions recorded. The supplied text does not document any enforcement actions, compliance notices or sanctions issued in relation to this AD.

Consequences for readers

• Absence of litigation record in the text does not preclude cases existing elsewhere. The AD simply does not contain litigation material. To determine whether any litigation, disputes or enforcement actions have arisen in practice, a reader would need to consult external regulatory or judicial records. The AD itself provides only the technical directive and related FAA references.

• For compliance planning, the lack of reported litigation in the AD means there are no judicial interpretations or precedent in the document to inform ambiguous provisions such as acceptable proof of “already accomplished” work or procedures for alternative compliance. Operators will need to interpret the AD’s language in consultation with maintenance authorities and the regulator where uncertainty exists.

This section flags specific textual, timing and operational pitfalls in the AD as written; all observations are grounded in the AD text.

• “Using the information contained in Beechcraft Service Instructions (SI) No. 0448-211 at any FAA approved revision status.” The AD requires use of the SI at any FAA-approved revision. The gotcha is that operators must verify the FAA approval status of the SI revision they intend to use. The AD does not accept an outdated non-approved revision for compliance. Failure to use an FAA-approved revision could lead to a compliance deficiency even if the physical work matches the manufacturer’s later or earlier guidance.

• “Determine if each up-lock roller is of the greasible type (one having a drilled and grooved inner race).” The AD’s determination step is phrased as a discrete inspection. Operators must be precise in classifying the inner race geometry; misclassification could cause unnecessary replacements or leave non-greasible rollers in service.

• “Before further flight, after the determination required by Requirement 1 of this AD.” The AD requires that, after the determination, any further flight must await action where necessary. Practically, if a non-greasible roller is found, the aircraft is grounded pending replacement. The gotcha is that operators must have parts and maintenance capability available quickly or face immediate flight cancellations.

• Differing initial compliance windows for groups. Group 1 initial windows are “within 100 hours TIS after the effective date” whereas Group 2 initial windows are “within 300 hours TIS after the effective date.” However, Group 2’s recurring interval is the same 100 ±10 hours TIS “thereafter.” The gotcha is scheduling: an operator of a Group 2 aircraft may think the longer initial window reduces ongoing maintenance frequency. It does not; repeated lubrication must subsequently occur at the tighter 100 ±10 hour cadence.

• Ambiguity in phrasing and sequencing. The compliance text lists Requirement 1 and then, separately, compliance steps with numbering that repeats. Operators must follow the sequence: determine roller type; if non-greasible, replace before further flight; install hollow zerk-ended bolts; lubricate. The AD’s tabular formatting and repeated numbering can cause misreading of which timing applies to which requirement if not parsed carefully.

• “Unless already accomplished.” The AD allows pre-existing work to be credited, but it does not specify what documentary proof is acceptable. Operators should keep contemporaneous maintenance records that demonstrate previous accomplishment; otherwise they risk having to re-perform work.

• Parts availability and compatibility. The AD mandates replacement with the greasible roller type and installation of hollow zerk-ended mounting bolts. The AD does not provide part numbers or supply channels. Operators must ensure the greasible rollers and hollow zerk-ended bolts they procure match the Beechcraft SI’s specification and are acceptable under the FAA-approved SI revision.

• No enforcement detail included. The AD contains no penalty clauses, so the practical consequences of non-compliance are enforced through the regulator’s general powers, operational “before further flight” limits, and the aeroplane’s airworthiness status. However, the AD itself offers no procedural guidance about audits, approvals of alternative compliance, or appeals.

• Reliance on foreign-approved documents. The AD requires an FAA-approved SI revision. Operators must ensure the SI revision they use is indeed FAA-approved; relying solely on Beechcraft’s internal revision history without checking FAA approval could produce a mismatch with the AD’s requirement.

• The AD’s narrow scope. The AD was prompted by an incident on a Model 95-B55B (T-42A), but the applicability is broader, covering other Model 95-55 variants and Model 58 aircraft. Operators of models not listed are not covered by the AD; conversely, some models similar in appearance may not be included and operators must verify serial numbers rigorously.

The AD defines a specific compliance pathway and schedules. The following is a stepwise compliance checklist based strictly on the AD’s text and timing language. Operators and maintenance providers must follow the Beechcraft SI No. 0448-211 at any FAA approved revision status to perform the technical work.

Step 1, confirm applicability

• Verify the aeroplane’s model and serial number against the AD’s Applicability table. The AD lists the exact serial-number ranges for Group 1 and Group 2. Only aircraft within those enumerated serial-number blocks are subject to the AD’s requirements.

Step 2, obtain the SI

• Obtain Beechcraft Service Instructions No. 0448-211 at an FAA approved revision status. The AD requires the SI at any FAA approved revision status as the method of compliance.

Step 3, perform the mandatory determination (Requirement 1)

• Using the SI, physically inspect each up-lock roller and determine whether it is the greasible type (inner race drilled and grooved) or non-greasible (solid inner race). Record the determination in maintenance records.

Step 4, react to the determination (Requirements 2 and “Before further flight” clause)

• If any up-lock roller is non-greasible, replace it with the greasible type as required by Requirement 2.
• The AD specifies that after the determination required by Requirement 1, any necessary replacement is to be completed “Before further flight.” Practically, if non-greasible rollers are found, the aircraft must not be flown further until replacements are installed.

Step 5, install hollow zerk-ended mounting bolts (Requirement 3)

• Install hollow zerk-ended mounting bolts on the up-lock rollers as required. Use the SI’s procedures to ensure proper removal, installation torque, and any compatibility checks.

Step 6, lubricate the up-lock mechanism (Requirement 4)

• Perform lubrication of the up-lock mechanism following the SI’s guidance. The AD sets initial and recurring intervals, which differ by applicability group:
  • Group 1: initial compliance steps (determination, replacement where necessary, installation of zerk-ended bolts, and lubrication) are required “unless already accomplished, within 100 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD.” Additionally, lubrication is required “initially within 100 plus/minus 10 hours TIS, and repetitively thereafter, at intervals not to exceed 100 plus/minus 10 hours TIS.”
  • Group 2: initial compliance steps are required “unless already accomplished, within 300 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD.” Lubrication is required “initially within 300 hours TIS, and repetitively thereafter, at intervals not to exceed 100 plus/minus 10 hours TIS.”

Step 7, scheduling and record-keeping

• Because the AD uses TIS windows and a “Before further flight” clause, schedule the inspections and parts procurement to meet the group-specific initial timing. Maintain records showing the date, TIS at the time of action, details of the SI revision used, part numbers of replacements, and the technician who completed the work. While the AD text does not specify record formats, demonstrable maintenance records will be essential to establish credit for “Unless already accomplished” and to show ongoing compliance with the recurrent lubrication intervals.

Step 8, parts, tools and technical personnel

• Ensure availability of greasible up-lock rollers and hollow zerk-ended mounting bolts that conform to the SI’s specifications. Ensure that maintenance personnel authorised to perform the work are familiar with SI No. 0448-211 and the AD’s timing requirements.

Step 9, contingency planning

• Because the AD’s “Before further flight” clause can ground an aircraft pending replacement, operators should identify supply chains for parts and maintenance slots to avoid operational disruption. If an operator believes an alternative method of compliance would be appropriate, the AD text provided does not set out an alternative compliance route; any pursuit of an alternative will require engagement with the regulator outside the AD’s text.

Step 10, monitor for updates

• The AD permits the use of SI No. 0448-211 at any FAA-approved revision status. Monitor FAA and Beechcraft releases to ensure the SI revision used remains FAA-approved. Also monitor the regulator’s AD register for any amendments, supersessions or related directives.

Timing examples derived from the AD’s effective date wording

• Effective date is 7 June 2007. For a Group 1 aeroplane, unless already accomplished, the initial determination and required actions would need to be completed within 100 hours TIS from that date. For a Group 2 aeroplane, initial completion is within 300 hours TIS from the effective date. Thereafter, lubrication must occur on the 100 ±10 hours TIS cadence specified.

In short, compliance requires (1) determining roller type using the SI, (2) replacing non-greasible rollers with greasible ones, (3) installing hollow zerk-ended bolts, (4) performing and scheduling recurring lubrication at the specified TIS intervals, and (5) maintaining maintenance records showing the SI revision used and what was accomplished. All actions must be performed in accordance with Beechcraft SI No. 0448-211 at an FAA-approved revision status and within the TIS windows and “before further flight” constraints set out in the AD.