AD/BR700/4 Amdt 1 - Engine Electronic Controller

The AD organises obligations around a small set of technical and administrative concepts drawn from engine maintenance practice, service bulletins and operational indicators. The principal concepts are:

• Affected engine models: BR700‑715A1‑30, BR700‑715B1‑30 and BR700‑715C1‑30 (Applicability). The AD applies only to these specific BR700 variants as listed.

• EEC/FADEC system condition monitoring: Requirement 1 mandates reading the EEC/FADEC system maintenance messages on the cockpit MCDU and taking actions prescribed in a specified Rolls‑Royce Germany service bulletin (SB‑BR700‑73‑900334 Rev 1, dated 26 September 2003). The monitoring is tied to a defined procedure in the manufacturer SB rather than freeform inspection practice.

• Maintenance messages and annunciation triggers: The AD distinguishes between routine interval monitoring (every 50 hours TIS) and event‑driven checks (within 20 flights after the “Eng Sys Fault” message). The annunciation of an “Eng Sys Fault” on the MCDU is a trigger for the defined compliance action where SB‑BR700‑73‑101422 is incorporated (Compliance: For Requirement 1 b).

• Service bulletin incorporation status: Whether particular Rolls‑Royce SBs have been incorporated on an engine (SB‑BR700‑73‑101318 and SB‑BR700‑73‑101422) alters the inspection timing obligations. The AD explicitly conditions inspection intervals on incorporation status (Compliance: For Requirement 1 a and b).

• Serial‑numbered hardware removal and modification: Requirement 2 imposes removal of EECs with serial numbers below 0351 and their return to BAe Systems Controls for modification under SB‑BR700‑73‑900316 Rev 2 (Requirement 2). The serial number cut‑off creates a discrete set of units subject to physical modification.

• Time references and effective dates: The AD was originally effective 15 October 2003 (Background). This amendment becomes effective 30 June 2005 and it specifies deadlines such as “initially inspect by 10 July 2005” for certain engine groups, and for Requirement 2 the stated compliance remains “Before 31 December 2004”, as carried forward unchanged (Compliance).

• External cross‑references: The AD references Rolls‑Royce Germany service bulletins by number and revision date, BAe Systems Controls as the modification recipient, and the German LBA AD 2003‑235 (Note; Requirement text).

These concepts structure operator decision points: identify affected engines, determine incorporation status of SBs, establish an inspection regime (either periodic or event‑driven), monitor MCDU messages and respond per the manufacturer SB, and identify and return serial‑numbered EEC units for modification. The AD thereby converts manufacturer guidance (service bulletins) into a regulatory duty with specified time frames and triggers. The AD’s effect is therefore procedural (monitor and act) and tangible (remove and modify specified units).

The source text identifies the directly affected parties and implies a small chain of secondary stakeholders. Directly regulated entities are aircraft operators and maintenance organisations responsible for BR700‑715 engines of the listed types. The Applicability clause confines the AD to BR700‑715A1‑30, BR700‑715B1‑30 and BR700‑715C1‑30 engines, so operators of other engine types are not governed by this instrument as drafted.

Maintenance organisations and engineers who perform engine inspections and maintenance are operationally affected because the AD prescribes reading engine maintenance messages on the cockpit MCDU and taking actions defined in a Rolls‑Royce Germany service bulletin (Requirement 1). Those organisations must ensure their maintenance procedures incorporate the referenced SB (SB‑BR700‑73‑900334 Rev 1) and that personnel are trained to read and act on MCDU annunciations. The AD also conditions required inspection intervals on whether earlier SBs (SB‑BR700‑73‑101318 and SB‑BR700‑73‑101422) have been incorporated, so maintenance record‑keeping and modification tracking are material compliance tasks (Compliance: For Requirement 1).

BAe Systems Controls is explicitly involved as the party to which removed EECs must be returned for modification (Requirement 2). That creates a logistical and commercial relationship; operators holding EECs with serial numbers below 0351 must arrange removal, shipment, and acceptance by BAe Systems Controls under the referenced SB (SB‑BR700‑73‑900316 Rev 2). The AD does not specify costs or commercial terms for the modification, but it prescribes the physical pathway.

Regulatory and oversight actors are signalled by the instrument. The AD is an instrument of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), signed by James Coyne as a delegate of CASA (signature block). The instrument also cross‑references a German LBA AD (LBA AD 2003‑235), implying coordination or mutual recognition may be relevant where operators or maintenance actions are under other jurisdictions (Note). The AD therefore affects compliance practices of operators that may operate across jurisdictions or source parts and service internationally.

Less directly, airworthiness authorities in other jurisdictions and insurers have a stake insofar as the AD responds to in‑flight shutdowns linked to EEC/FADEC faults (Background). However, the text does not establish mandatory reporting beyond the required monitoring and removal obligations, nor does it explicitly extend the requirement to third‑party suppliers beyond returning EECs to BAe Systems Controls.

In sum, who pays and who must act: operators and maintenance organisations of the listed engines must perform the monitoring, inspections and removals; BAe Systems Controls must accept and modify returned EECs; CASA is the enforcing authority for the AD. The AD allocates the operational burden to those who operate and maintain the affected engines; it allocates the modification task to BAe Systems Controls under the defined SB pathway.

The AD converts manufacturer service instructions into mandatory duties for operators and maintenance organisations. The central duties are:

• Duty to carry out condition monitoring: Operators must read EEC/FADEC system maintenance messages on the cockpit MCDU in accordance with Rolls‑Royce Germany SB‑BR700‑73‑900334 Revision 1, dated 26 September 2003, and take the actions set out in that SB within the time limit specified in the SB (Requirement 1). The duty is procedure‑bound; compliance requires following the steps and time limits in the SB.

• Duty to perform scheduled and event‑driven inspections: For engines with SB‑BR700‑73‑101318 incorporated but not SB‑BR700‑73‑101422 incorporated, operators must initially inspect by 10 July 2005 and thereafter at intervals not exceeding 50 hours TIS (Compliance: For Requirement 1 a.i). For engines with SB‑BR700‑73‑101422 incorporated, operators must inspect within 20 flights after the “Eng Sys Fault” message is annunciated (Compliance: For Requirement 1 b). If an engine already had the original issue of the Directive accomplished, the inspection schedule continues every 50 hours TIS (Compliance: For Requirement 1 a.ii).

• Duty to remove and return EECs below a serial‑number threshold: Operators must remove EECs with serial numbers below 0351 from the engine and return them to BAe Systems Controls for modification in accordance with SB‑BR700‑73‑900316 Revision 2, dated 10 September 2003 (Requirement 2). The AD prescribes the recipient of returned units and the modification standard.

• Duty to adhere to time limits: Requirement 2 remains stated as having to be accomplished “Before 31 December 2004” (Compliance: For Requirement 2), while the amendment itself became effective on 30 June 2005. The AD sets specific deadlines for compliance actions under Requirement 1 (e.g., initial inspection by 10 July 2005; continuous 50 hour TIS intervals; 20 flights after annunciation for certain engines).

The AD does not enumerate statutory rights such as appeals, waivers or exemptions directly in the text provided. It does, however, implicitly allow for differential treatment depending on maintenance history: incorporation status of SBs alters inspection obligations (Compliance). The AD references specific manufacturer SBs by number and revision date, which implies a right or expectation for operators to rely on those SB procedures to demonstrate compliance.

The AD also places operational judgement downstream of the SB prescriptions. Requirement 1 requires operators to “take the appropriate action specified in the SB within the time limit specified in the SB.” The AD therefore delegates technical action‑choice to the SB content and its time limits, rather than prescribing step‑by‑step remedial action in the AD text.

Record‑keeping duties are not explicitly specified in the AD text provided, but compliance logically requires maintenance records showing SB incorporation status, inspection dates, TIS calculations, annunciation events, and records of EEC removal and shipment to BAe Systems Controls. Those record‑keeping tasks are implied by the AD’s dependence on prior SB incorporation and specific deadlines.

In summary, the AD establishes procedural duties (monitoring, inspection, removal and return) tied to explicit manufacturer SBs and to clearly stated timeframes. It prescribes who must undertake the physical and monitoring tasks (operators and maintenance organisations) and prescribes the recipient and modification SB for returned EECs (BAe Systems Controls per SB‑BR700‑73‑900316 Rev 2). The AD does not enumerate remedies, appeals or enforcement penalties within the provided text.

The provided AD text does not specify statutory penalties, fines or the enforcement mechanisms and sanctions that CASA may apply for non‑compliance. The instrument is signed by a CASA delegate (James Coyne, Delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority), which indicates issuance under CASA’s regulatory remit (signature block). However, the AD itself, as printed, confines its content to applicability, requirements, compliance times, background and cross references; it does not state explicit penalty provisions, enforcement processes, or consequences for failing to comply.

In practice, the absence of penalty language in the AD text supplied does not mean there are no enforcement consequences; it means the AD document uses the normal form of an airworthiness directive, which in the Australian regulatory framework is typically enforceable under the relevant aviation safety legislation and regulations. Because those enforcement provisions are not reproduced in the supplied text, this AD must be read alongside CASA’s general enforcement powers, civil aviation regulations, and any industry or operator safety case obligations to identify the full set of sanctions and remedies for non‑compliance. The AD itself, however, contains no internal provision that describes inspections, notices, or penalties.

The AD does include prescriptive timelines and actions (for example, initial inspection by 10 July 2005 for certain engines, and removal of EECs below serial number 0351 before 31 December 2004) that create clear compliance milestones. Those milestones allow an enforcing authority to determine whether an operator has complied with the AD’s duties. The AD also cross‑references specific manufacturer service bulletins, which standardise the required technical steps and their timing; that technical specificity creates an evidentiary basis for enforcement , an inspector can check records for SB incorporation, TIS calculations, MCDU readings and returned units.

The document cites a German LBA AD (LBA AD 2003‑235) in a note, indicating international regulatory alignment or concurrent action by another airworthiness authority (Note). Where an operator or maintenance provider operates under multiple jurisdictions, regulators could coordinate enforcement or take action under their own legal regimes; again, the AD text does not itself set out those procedures.

Operationally, enforcement risk for operators derives from the presence of explicit deadlines and actions. Absent explicit penalties in the text, enforcement would rely on CASA’s standard compliance and enforcement toolkit and any civil aviation statutory offences in the applicable legislation, which are not reproduced in the AD document provided.

The AD explicitly interacts with other instruments and documents through cross‑references to manufacturer service bulletins and foreign airworthiness directives. The text notes that “German LBA AD 2003‑235 refers,” indicating that a parallel or related airworthiness directive exists from Germany’s Luftfahrt‑Bundesamt, and that the Australian AD takes that external instrument into account (Note). The AD also explicitly requires compliance with Rolls‑Royce Germany service bulletins and BAe Systems Controls modification procedures by referencing particular SB numbers and revision dates (Requirement 1: SB‑BR700‑73‑900334 Rev 1 dated 26 September 2003; Requirement 2: SB‑BR700‑73‑900316 Rev 2 dated 10 September 2003).

The AD conditions its inspection obligations on whether specific Rolls‑Royce SBs have already been incorporated on an engine (SB‑BR700‑73‑101318 and SB‑BR700‑73‑101422). That means the AD interacts operationally with an operator’s maintenance records, continuing airworthiness management system, and any existing modification logbooks. Incorporation of manufacturer SBs is part of maintenance practice; the AD leverages existing SB statuses to tailor obligations, thereby integrating with maintenance law and regulation by treating SB incorporation as a determinative fact for compliance scheduling (Compliance: For Requirement 1 a and b).

The AD’s reference to MCDU maintenance messages and a specified SB converts manufacturer technical guidance into regulatory obligation. Operators will therefore need to ensure that their maintenance procedures, checklists and manuals (which are themselves regulated under aviation maintenance regulations and operator obligations) incorporate the SB content as required by the AD. That creates an interaction between the AD and an operator’s regulatory obligations under the broader civil aviation regulatory framework to maintain aircraft in an airworthy condition.

The AD does not explicitly mention exemptions, alternative means of compliance, or processes for obtaining a different compliance schedule under CASA rules; any such mechanisms would be found in the broader regulatory framework but are not in the text supplied. Therefore, interaction with other laws such as CASA’s powers to grant exemptions, variations or approvals is not stated here.

Finally, the AD’s requirement to return specific EEC units to BAe Systems Controls for modification introduces commercial and cross‑border interactions. The operator must comply with BAe/ Rolls‑Royce SB procedures, which may involve contractual arrangements; however, the AD does not specify commercial terms or import/export/ customs interactions, nor any interplay with consumer or product safety laws. The AD’s linkage to a German LBA AD raises the possibility of cross‑jurisdictional parallel obligations for operators that are subject to both authorities, but the AD text supplied does not set out the mechanics of harmonisation or mutual recognition.

In sum, the AD interacts directly with manufacturer service bulletins, an earlier Australian AD (original issue), and a German LBA AD. It relies on SB incorporation status recorded in maintenance documentation to vary obligations and converts SB requirements into enforceable regulatory duties, thereby embedding manufacturer guidance within the regulatory compliance chain.

The document contains its own short amendment history and cross‑references to an earlier, original AD. Key points in the available text are:

• Original AD: The original issue of this Directive became effective on 15 October 2003 (Background). That original AD required condition monitoring of the EEC/FADEC system to detect early indications of faults, followed by modification of the EEC units to increase engine reliability and aircraft dispatchability (Background). The AD as amended continues those original requirements.

• Amendment: This document is labelled AD/BR700/4 Amdt 1 and is dated 8/2005 DM in the header (table headings). The amendment “becomes effective on 30 June 2005” (Compliance). The signature block records 24 June 2005 and is signed by James Coyne, Delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, which identifies the issuance date and delegate authority for the amendment (signature block).

• Clarification of inspection periods: The amendment’s explicit stated purpose in the background is to continue the requirements of the original issue but to clarify inspection periods for engines with different configurations (Background). The amendment therefore is not introducing new technical requirements beyond the original AD insofar as the two core actions (monitoring and EEC modification) remain the same; rather it is adjusting and clarifying timing and conditional triggers based on SB incorporation (Compliance: For Requirement 1).

• Service bulletin references and revision dates: The amendment cements the operator’s obligations by naming specific manufacturer SB revisions and dates: SB‑BR700‑73‑900334 Revision 1, dated 26 September 2003 for the monitoring procedure (Requirement 1), and SB‑BR700‑73‑900316 Revision 2, dated 10 September 2003 for the EEC modification (Requirement 2). It also refers to SB‑BR700‑73‑101318 and SB‑BR700‑73‑101422 as prior SBs whose incorporation status matters for inspection timing (Compliance: For Requirement 1).

• Compliance dates carried forward: The amendment restates the compliance timing for Requirement 2 as unchanged, i.e. “Before 31 December 2004” (Compliance: For Requirement 2). The maintained language indicates that the original AD set that deadline and the amendment does not alter it; however the amendment’s effective date is 30 June 2005, which means the AD as amended post‑dates that requirement’s deadline. The AD text thus records a compliance obligation that, as stated, had a deadline earlier than the amendment’s effective date.

• Referential notes: The AD includes a note that German LBA AD 2003‑235 refers (Note), indicating an earlier or parallel directive in another jurisdiction that was relevant to the original issue and remains connected to the subject matter in the amendment.

The amendment history in the supplied text is concise: an original AD effective 15 October 2003; an amendment recorded as AD/BR700/4 Amdt 1 that clarifies inspection periods and names the SBs and deadlines, and becomes effective on 30 June 2005. The text does not list any further amendments, revocations, or superseding instruments within the supplied material.

The supplied AD text contains no mention of litigation, judicial review, appeals, or any case names. There are no references to legal proceedings, contested enforcement actions, or dispute outcomes. The document is administrative in nature and limited to regulatory requirements, compliance deadlines, SB references and the statutory signature line; it does not recount any litigation history or provide a record of legal challenges.

Because the AD does not include litigation information, the absence of litigation references in the text should be treated as silence on that topic rather than evidence of absence of any legal disputes in practice. The AD supplies technical and compliance material, not legal history. Analysts and practitioners seeking litigation history must therefore consult external case law databases, regulatory enforcement records, or CASA’s administrative records, none of which are reproduced or summarised in the document supplied.

For practical purposes within the scope of this document, the relevant points are:

• The AD does not identify any enforcement action, contested determinations, or adjudicated rulings regarding its terms in the supplied text.

• There is no statutory appeal or review procedure referenced in the AD itself (for example, no mention of CASA administrative review, tribunal, or court process in the text provided).

• Analysts must be cautious about inferring the absence of litigation from the document alone; the AD simply makes no reference to any litigation history.

Consequently, when advising clients or constructing compliance postures, practitioners should treat the AD as a standing regulatory instrument with technical obligations and specified timings, and undertake separate research to identify any enforcement actions or litigation that might have tested or interpreted similar AD provisions. That further research is outside the content of the supplied AD text.

The AD contains several technical and timing features that present practical pitfalls for operators and maintenance organisations if they are overlooked. The following are source‑grounded problem points to monitor and address:

• Conditional inspection schedules tied to SB incorporation: The AD modifies inspection timing depending on whether SB‑BR700‑73‑101318 or SB‑BR700‑73‑101422 has been incorporated on an engine (Compliance: For Requirement 1 a and b). Operators must maintain accurate, auditable records of SB incorporations because those records determine whether the inspection schedule is a 50‑hour TIS cycle or a 20‑flight post‑annunciation check. Failure to track these SB incorporation statuses may lead to missed inspections or incorrect scheduling.

• Two separate time‑basis metrics: The AD uses different time bases: hours time in service (TIS) for routine intervals (every 50 hours TIS) and flight count (within 20 flights after an annunciated “Eng Sys Fault”) (Compliance). Operators need to implement both TIS and flight‑count tracking for the same system and align both with maintenance scheduling systems. Misalignment between flight cycles and TIS accounting can create non‑compliance risks.

• Prescribed hardware serial‑number cutoff with anachronistic deadline: Requirement 2 requires removal and return of EECs with serial numbers below 0351 for modification before 31 December 2004 (Compliance: For Requirement 2). The AD amendment itself is effective 30 June 2005, which post‑dates that “before 31 December 2004” deadline. That timing creates an apparent inconsistency or a requirement that, as stated in the amendment, had a deadline in the past. Operators must reconcile their records to demonstrate when and how Requirement 2 was complied with, and be prepared to show evidence of compliance even though the AD amendment formalises the requirement after the deadline.

• Reliance on MCDU messages: Requirement 1 anchors monitoring to reading EEC/FADEC maintenance messages on the cockpit MCDU (Requirement 1). Proper detection therefore depends on functioning cockpit displays, crew or maintenance personnel recognising and acting on specific annunciations, and correct interpretation aligned with the SB. If MCDU logic, software versions or cockpit interfaces vary between fleets, there is a risk that expected messages are not presented or are interpreted differently. The AD expects operators to follow SB‑BR700‑73‑900334 Rev 1; deviation from that SB may not meet the AD’s requirements.

• Exact SB revision numbers and dates matter: The AD refers to specific SB numbers and revisions (SB‑BR700‑73‑900334 Rev 1 dated 26 September 2003; SB‑BR700‑73‑900316 Rev 2 dated 10 September 2003; SB‑BR700‑73‑101318; SB‑BR700‑73‑101422). Compliance requires affirmative use of the specified revisions. Operators who use a different revision without formal acceptance could find their action does not meet the ADs stated prescriptive references.

• Logistics for returning EECs to BAe Systems Controls: Requirement 2 prescribes removal and return of EECs below a serial‑number threshold to BAe Systems Controls for modification. That creates transport, customs, warranty, and scheduling logistics that the AD does not address. The AD prescribes the recipient and the SB; it does not describe costs, lead times, or acceptance criteria, so operators must confirm these operational details with BAe Systems Controls proactively.

• Cross‑jurisdictional considerations: The AD notes that German LBA AD 2003‑235 refers (Note). Operators operating across Australia and jurisdictions governed by the LBA must ensure compliance with both directives and reconcile any differences. The AD does not set out the mechanism for such reconciliation.

• Record evidence: Because the AD’s compliance triggers are event‑based (annunciation) and interval‑based (50 hours TIS or 20 flights), operators who cannot produce precise TIS logs, flight counts, SB incorporation certificates, or records of EEC return may struggle to demonstrate compliance. The AD does not specify record‑keeping requirements, but the procedural obligations imply that contemporaneous records are necessary.

These “gotchas” do not add new obligations beyond those written into the AD, but they highlight areas where administrative or operational oversights can produce non‑compliance. Each is grounded in the AD’s text: the conditionality on SB incorporation, the metrics (TIS vs flights), the serial‑number removal rule and its deadline, the dependence on MCDU annunciation, and the references to specific SB revisions and the German LBA AD.

The AD sets out a finite set of concrete steps and conditional choices; operators and maintenance organisations should implement the following source‑grounded compliance workflow and controls:

1. Identify affected assets: Confirm which aircraft have engines of model BR700‑715A1‑30, BR700‑715B1‑30 or BR700‑715C1‑30 (Applicability). Maintain an inventory showing engine serial numbers, installed EEC serial numbers and history of SB incorporations.

2. Determine SB incorporation status: For each affected engine, verify whether Rolls‑Royce Germany SB‑BR700‑73‑101318 and SB‑BR700‑73‑101422 have been incorporated. The AD conditions inspection frequency on this incorporation status (Compliance: For Requirement 1 a and b).

3. Implement condition monitoring procedure: Incorporate the procedure in Rolls‑Royce Germany SB‑BR700‑73‑900334 Revision 1, dated 26 September 2003 into the operator’s maintenance instructions. Requirement 1 requires reading EEC/FADEC maintenance messages on the cockpit MCDU and taking the actions specified in that SB within the SB’s time limits (Requirement 1). Ensure maintenance personnel and flight crew are trained to recognise and escalate the relevant MCDU messages.

4. Set inspection scheduling rules:

   • If SB‑BR700‑73‑101318 is incorporated but SB‑BR700‑73‑101422 is not, perform an initial inspection by 10 July 2005 and thereafter at intervals not exceeding 50 hours TIS (Compliance: For Requirement 1 a.i and a.ii).
   • If SB‑BR700‑73‑101422 is incorporated, schedule an inspection within 20 flights after the “Eng Sys Fault” MCDU message is annunciated (Compliance: For Requirement 1 b).
   • For engines where the original issue of the Directive was already accomplished, continue inspections at intervals not exceeding 50 hours TIS (Compliance: For Requirement 1 a.ii).

5. Monitor annunciations and act promptly: For engines with SB‑BR700‑73‑101422 incorporated, if an “Eng Sys Fault” is annunciated on the MCDU, execute the inspection and the SB‑prescribed actions within 20 flights (Compliance: For Requirement 1 b). Ensure the event is logged and inspection completion documented.

6. Identify and return affected EECs: Check EEC serial numbers. For all EECs with serial numbers below 0351, remove the unit from the engine and return it to BAe Systems Controls for modification as required by SB‑BR700‑73‑900316 Revision 2, dated 10 September 2003 (Requirement 2). The AD specifies BAe Systems Controls as the modification recipient; coordinate logistics, clearance and acceptance with that organisation.

7. Address the “before 31 December 2004” requirement for EEC return: The AD states Requirement 2 “remains unchanged as ‘Before 31 December 2004’” (Compliance: For Requirement 2), while the amendment is effective 30 June 2005. Operators should confirm records to demonstrate whether the required removals and returns occurred before that date or, if not, seek clarification from CASA about how to regularise late compliance. Maintain contemporaneous evidence of removal, shipment and acceptance by BAe Systems Controls in case of regulatory inquiry.

8. Maintain traceable records: While the AD does not set out explicit record‑keeping rules, compliance will require keeping: SB incorporation documentation (with revision numbers and dates), inspection logs with TIS and flight counts, MCDU annunciation event logs, records of EEC serial numbers and their removal, and BAe Systems Controls acceptance/receipt/modification certificates for returned units.

9. Cross‑reference related directives: Note the AD’s reference to German LBA AD 2003‑235 (Note). If the operator is subject to foreign airworthiness authority jurisdiction or operates internationally, ensure that compliance actions also address any related LBA requirements.

10. Align maintenance manuals and training: Update operator maintenance manuals, continuing airworthiness management processes and crew/maintenance training to reflect the SB procedures specified by the AD, including how to read MCDU messages and the decision logic required to act within SB time limits.

11. Prepare for inspections by regulators: Because the AD specifies fixed inspection intervals and prescriptive actions per the SBs, ensure documentation is easily produced for CASA or other authority audits to show SB incorporation, timing calculations (TIS and flight counts), completion of inspections and outcomes, and records of EEC return and modification.

12. Clarify outstanding questions with CASA or manufacturer if needed: Where the AD’s timing (for example the Requirement 2 date) is anomalous relative to the amendment effective date, or where SB revision versions create uncertainty, operators should obtain formal guidance from CASA or confirmation from Rolls‑Royce/BAe to ensure actions meet the AD’s obligations.

Following these steps aligns operational practice with the AD’s two core requirements: procedural monitoring and physical EEC modification. Each step maps directly to a clause in the AD (Applicability; Requirement 1 and 2; Compliance timings; SB references; Note). Operators should ensure that the specified SB revisions are the ones utilised and retained as evidence of compliance.