AD/CASA/29 - Pitot Static Tubes

The Directive rests on a small set of technical and regulatory concepts stated in the text: applicability by aircraft model and part number, a two-step compliance process (inspection, then replacement if defect present), prescriptive reference documents for inspection and replacement procedures, specified compliance intervals, and cross-reference to related foreign airworthiness directives and service material.

Applicability is limited to aircraft models and to the specific pitot tube part numbers 212-61105.1 and 212-61105.2. The Directive therefore targets an intersection of airframe model and installed component. The text emphasises that the same pitot tubes were supplied to multiple types, hence the targeted approach (Applicability; Background).

Requirement 1 establishes the diagnostic task: a detailed inspection focused on radial cracking around the top lip of the dynamic port. The inspection method is not left to arbitrary choice; it must follow the procedures in EADS-CASA C-212 Maintenance Manual, Chapter 5, Rev 5, June 2002. The Directive thereby delegates the technical how-to to the manufacturer’s maintenance manual and mandates conformity to that published procedure (Requirement 1).

Requirement 2 is conditional and remedial. If cracks are found during Requirement 1 inspections, the defective pitot tube must be replaced with a specified part number, P/N 212-A0150-0001 or 212-A0150-0002. The replacement must be performed following EADS-CASA SB 212-34-11 Revision 1 (Requirement 2). The Directive also allows later revisions of the Maintenance Manual or the Service Bulletin, but only if those later revisions are approved by EASA. This creates a controlled update mechanism that ties procedural currency to an accepted regulator (Requirement 2 paragraph).

Temporal controls are explicit: the initial inspection window is “within one calendar month or 300 hours TIS, whichever occurs first after the effective date”, and the recurrence is at intervals not to exceed 300 hours TIS; replacement must be done before the next flight after detection (Compliance). These time-based controls convert a design-safety concern into regular maintenance work that affects scheduling and aircraft availability.

The Background paragraph frames the safety rationale. It reports incidents on Britten-Norman BN-2 aircraft in which the inner shell of the pitot/static heads developed cracks, traces the probable root cause to operation of those tubes outside their voltage specification, notes prior action by the UK CAA and EASA on BN-2 types, and connects that occurrence to the C-212 fleet by stating that the same tubes were supplied to EADS-CASA and installed on C-212 aircraft, one on the pilot side and one on the co-pilot side. The Background concludes that, although EADS-CASA had received no reports of cracked pitot tubes from C-212 operators, there was potential for similar failures that could lead to incorrect instrument readings (Background).

The Directive therefore combines a manufacturer-prescribed inspection method, a defined remedial replacement with specified part numbers, and firm compliance timing into a narrowly focused safety intervention triggered by observed failures on another type using the same component.

The Directive identifies, by explicit text, the categories of parties directly affected. Primary affected parties are operators of the listed EADS-CASA C-212 models (C-212-CB, C-212-CC, C-212-CD, C-212-CE, C-212-CF, C-212-DE, C-212-VA) on which pitot tube P/N 212-61105.1 or 212-61105.2 are installed (Applicability). The Directive applies to “all serial numbers” of those models, but only when the specified part numbers are present.

Secondary affected parties are maintenance organisations and engineers responsible for complying with maintenance manual instructions and service bulletin procedures. Requirement 1 mandates inspection “in accordance with the instructions of EADS-CASA C-212 Maintenance Manual, Chapter 5, Revision 5, June 2002,” and Requirement 2 mandates replacement “in accordance with the instructions of EADS-CASA SB 212-34-11 Revision 1.” That channels the technical work to those licenced and competent to carry out manufacturer-prescribed maintenance and service-bulletin tasks.

Component suppliers and the manufacturer are implicated in narrower ways. The Directive prescribes replacement parts P/N 212-A0150-0001 and 212-A0150-0002, bringing into play suppliers able to provide those exact pitot tube part numbers. The Background identifies the original pitot tubes as supplied by Thales Optronics for other aircraft types, and highlights that the same tubes were supplied to EADS-CASA for installation on C-212 aircraft. That factual linkage affects manufacturers and supply-chain actors insofar as the safety concern traces to a supplied component.

Pilots and flight operations are indirectly affected because replacement is mandatory “before the next flight after any inspection accomplished in accordance with Requirement 1” if cracks are found (Compliance). This imposes a no-go condition: where a crack is detected, the aircraft must be grounded for that aircraft until the specified replacement has been carried out.

Who pays. The Directive places the operational tasks and replacement requirement on operators and their maintenance providers. The text does not specify funding arrangements or reimbursements. From the stated requirements, operators will bear the direct costs of the inspections at the mandated intervals and the cost and downtime associated with replacement when cracks are found. The Directive also notes that inclusion of Models C-212-CF, C-212-DE and C-212-VA is proactive despite no known civil-registered examples in service (Note 1), which means registrants of any such aircraft, should they exist or re-enter civil service, would also be covered.

Regulatory actors are named in the document: the Civil Aviation Safety Authority is the issuing body; the document is signed by the CASA Delegate (Charles Lenarcic) and references EADS-CASA documents and EASA approvals. The Directive therefore operates in a transnational document ecosystem but directly imposes duties on Australian-registered aircraft operators and their maintenance organisations as per the textual applicability statement.

The Directive imposes a small number of clearly stated duties and one explicit allowance that resembles a limited right. The principal duties are the inspection duty, the remedial replacement duty, and adherence to the specified timing.

Inspection duty. Requirement 1 obliges a detailed inspection for radial cracking around the top lip of the dynamic port of the affected pitot/static tubes. The duty is to carry out that inspection “in accordance with the instructions of EADS-CASA C-212 Maintenance Manual, Chapter 5, Revision 5, June 2002” (Requirement 1). The duty has two temporal components: the initial inspection must be completed “within one calendar month or 300 hours TIS, whichever occurs first” after the Directive’s effective date; thereafter inspections must be repeated “at intervals not to exceed 300 hours TIS” (Compliance). This creates both an immediate compliance obligation and a recurring maintenance obligation.

Remedial replacement duty. Requirement 2 creates a conditional obligation. If cracks are found during any Requirement 1 inspection, the specific duty is to replace the tube with a new P/N 212-A0150-0001 or 212-A0150-0002 pitot tube “in accordance with the instructions of EADS-CASA SB 212-34-11 Revision 1” (Requirement 2). The compliance timing for this duty is strict: replacement is required “before the next flight after any inspection accomplished in accordance with Requirement 1” if cracks are found (Compliance).

Procedural duty: adherence to manufacturer instructions. Both duties require following specified manufacturer documents: the Maintenance Manual for inspection and the Service Bulletin for replacement. The Directive also allows the use of later revisions of those documents only when approved by EASA. That links the duties to the content of those documents and the EASA approval status.

One limited right or flexibility. The Directive explicitly permits the use of later revisions of the Maintenance Manual or Service Bulletin, provided those later revisions are approved by EASA. That is an explicit procedural flexibility in the Directive; it allows operators and maintainers to comply using updated technical guidance once it has regulatory approval (Requirement 2 paragraph).

What the Directive does not say as duties. The text does not establish reporting obligations, record-keeping requirements, or cost-sharing arrangements. It does not specify who determines compliance beyond following the named documents. It does not include an explicit waiver or exemption process in the text provided. Those absent elements may still exist in broader regulatory frameworks but are not present in the Directive’s text.

Operational consequence for flight. The requirement to replace cracked tubes before the next flight creates an operational control: a detected crack must be remedied with the specified replacement parts prior to conducting further flights in that aircraft. This directly affects aircraft dispatch decisions at the moment of detection.

The Directive text provided does not set out monetary penalties, civil sanctions, or criminal offences. It also does not include a procedural description of enforcement actions such as rectification directions, grounding orders, or administrative fines in this document. The text is limited to prescriptive maintenance and replacement requirements, timing for those actions, and references to manufacturer documentation and related EASA material.

The Directive is issued by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and signed by the CASA Delegate, which identifies the issuing authority and the effective date stipulated (effective 15 September 2008; signature dated 8 September 2008). The format and language identify it as an Airworthiness Directive, a regulatory instrument used by aviation authorities to mandate inspection and corrective actions. However, the Directive text provided does not detail how CASA will monitor, verify or enforce compliance, nor does it prescribe specific penalties for non-compliance within the document itself.

Because the document does not describe enforcement mechanisms or penalties, readers must treat the Directive as the operative technical mandate without built-in sanctions in the text. It is common for airworthiness directives to be enforced through the broader regulatory framework of the issuing authority; nevertheless, those broader enforcement powers and any applicable sanctions are not specified in this document and therefore cannot be asserted from the Directive’s text alone.

The Directive does reference other regulatory material, including an EASA AD and historical CAA UK action, but does not cross-reference enforcement provisions in those instruments in the portion of the text supplied. The absence of explicit penalties or enforcement procedures in this text is a factual observation of the instrument as provided.

The Directive situates itself within a network of manufacturer documents and foreign airworthiness directives. It explicitly requires compliance with EADS-CASA documents: the C-212 Maintenance Manual, Chapter 5, Revision 5, June 2002 for inspections, and EADS-CASA Service Bulletin SB 212-34-11 Revision 1 for replacement (Requirement 1; Requirement 2). The Directive allows the use of later revisions of those documents provided they are approved by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). That creates an interaction where technical compliance can be satisfied by later, EASA-approved technical material. The Directive thus links CASA-mandated action to manufacturer procedures and to EASA’s approval process.

The Background references prior regulatory actions taken by other authorities on related aircraft types. It cites the United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority issuance of ADG-2005-0034 (EASA approval number 2005-6447) and its subsequent supersession by EASA AD 2006-0143 (AD/BN-2/84 Amdt 2). Those referenced instruments required inspections and leak tests on the Britten-Norman BN-2 type. The Directive notes that the same suspect pitot tubes were supplied to EADS-CASA for installation on C-212 aircraft. The Directive therefore mirrors the foreign safety concern and translates it into a CASA AD for affected Australian-registered types when the same part numbers are present.

The Directive also explicitly references EASA AD 2008-0155 (Note 2). The mention of EASA AD 2008-0155 indicates contemporaneous or related action at EASA that operators and maintainers may need to consult. The Directive, however, does not incorporate or reproduce the contents of that EASA AD; it simply refers to it.

What the Directive does not do in relation to other laws. The text does not attempt to modify or override the content of the Maintenance Manual or Service Bulletin; instead it requires compliance with those documents’ instructions, subject to EASA-approved revisions. The Directive also does not, within the text provided, prescribe interaction mechanisms with airworthiness certification procedures, continuing airworthiness management approvals, or licensing requirements. It does not set forth any delegation of enforcement powers between CASA and EASA. Any such interactions would depend on the broader regulatory framework and bilateral/regulatory relationships, which are not specified in this Directive.

For readers assessing legal interoperability, the key textual interactions are: (1) mandatory adherence to manufacturer-maintenance and service-bulletin procedures as the method of compliance; (2) conditional acceptance of later EASA-approved revisions; and (3) factual cross-reference to UK CAA and EASA actions on related types. Those are the explicit interaction points reflected in the Directive’s text.

The text supplied contains its own effective date and background references but does not supply a history of amendments to this specific Directive. The instrument becomes effective on 15 September 2008, and it is signed by the CASA Delegate on 8 September 2008. There are internal references to versions of manufacturer documents that the Directive prescribes: EADS-CASA C-212 Maintenance Manual, Chapter 5, Revision 5, June 2002, and EADS-CASA Service Bulletin SB 212-34-11 Revision 1. The Directive also expressly permits the use of later revisions of those documents if approved by EASA (Requirement 2 paragraph).

The Directive’s text refers to EASA AD 2008-0155 and to earlier UK CAA and EASA ADs that addressed the same component on Britten-Norman BN-2 aircraft: UK CAA ADG-2005-0034 (EASA approval number 2005-6447) and later EASA AD 2006-0143 (AD/BN-2/84 Amdt 2). Those references show that the safety issue has a regulatory chronology on other types, but the Directive itself does not recount changes to its own wording or any prior iterations of AD/CASA/29.

In summary, the explicit amendment-related facts in the document are:

• The Directive prescribes specific revisions of manufacturer documents (Maintenance Manual Rev 5 June 2002; SB 212-34-11 Revision 1) as the procedural basis for compliance.
• The Directive allows later revisions of those documents to be used for compliance only if approved by EASA, which creates a mechanism for future updates to be incorporated into the compliance regime without amending the Directive text itself.
• There is no textual history of amendments to AD/CASA/29 provided in the document.

If readers require a formal amendment history for AD/CASA/29 beyond the effective date and the referenced documents, that history is not present in the supplied instrument and would need to be sought from CASA’s AD repository or subsequent issuances and revisions, which are outside the text provided.

The Directive contains no litigation history, case references, or judicial decisions. The only legal instruments and authorities named are administrative and technical: the Civil Aviation Safety Authority as issuer, EADS-CASA maintenance and service documents, and referenced airworthiness directives issued by the United Kingdom CAA and EASA. The Background describes incidents and subsequent administrative safety directives on BN-2 aircraft, but it does not mention any litigation connected to those incidents or to the underlying component failures.

Therefore, based on the document supplied, there are no court decisions, legal proceedings, or dispute records referenced that relate to AD/CASA/29. Any legal disputes that may have arisen in relation to the facts or requirements of this Directive are not recorded in the text provided.

For legal research purposes, practitioners should note that the absence of litigation information in the Directive does not mean that litigation never occurred; it means the Directive itself does not record or report litigation. To locate any litigation connected to this safety issue, users would need to query court records, regulatory enforcement records, or industry dispute records outside the supplied document.

The Directive contains several technical and procedural details where operational misunderstanding could result in non-compliance or unintended operational consequences. The following points are grounded in the document text.

Applicability is both model- and part-specific. The Directive applies only where pitot tube P/N 212-61105.1 or 212-61105.2 is installed on the listed C-212 models. Operators who assume the Directive applies to all C-212 aircraft will be overinclusive; conversely, operators who assume it is irrelevant because their model is not listed might be mistaken if those part numbers are fitted. The applicability sentence is precise: “Model C-212-… aircraft, all serial numbers, if part number (P/N) 212-61105.1 or 212-61105.2 pitot tubes are installed” (Applicability).

Models with no civil-registered examples are included. Note 1 explicitly states that Models C-212-CF, C-212-DE and C-212-VA are included even though there are “no civil-registered” examples known to be in service today. That means registrants of those model types, if any appear, would be covered and should not assume omission because of lack of registrants (Note 1).

Inspection scope is narrowly defined. The inspection mandated is for “radial cracking around the top lip of the dynamic port.” Operators should not treat the inspection as a generic pitot-system check; the Directive ties the task to a specific defect mode and to procedures in the named Maintenance Manual chapter (Requirement 1). Misinterpreting the inspection scope may lead to failure to detect the specified cracking.

Timing uses two alternative metrics. The initial compliance deadline is expressed as one calendar month or 300 hours TIS, whichever occurs first. That requires operators to calculate both metrics and act by the earlier. For fast-utilisation aircraft, the 300 hours TIS limit will likely be the binding limit; for aircraft that fly infrequently, the one calendar month deadline will be binding.

Replacement part numbers differ from affected part numbers. The pitot tube part numbers targeted for inspection are 212-61105.1 and 212-61105.2. The mandatory replacements are specified as P/N 212-A0150-0001 and 212-A0150-0002. Operators must ensure they procure the correct replacement P/Ns specified in Requirement 2, and not confuse those with the inspected P/Ns.

Replacement is mandatory before the next flight. If a crack is found during an inspection, replacement must be done before the next flight following that inspection. That is an operationally significant requirement and will cause aircraft downtime where cracks are found (Compliance). Operators should plan for the possibility that a routine inspection could yield an immediate grounding for replacement.

Procedural compliance is tied to specific documents and approvals. Both the inspection and replacement must be performed “in accordance with” specified EADS-CASA documents. The Directive allows later revisions of those documents only if approved by EASA. That means operators cannot adopt informal or third-party procedures for compliance unless those procedures are incorporated into an EASA-approved revision of the named documents.

Reference to prior foreign ADs does not equate to identical requirements. The Background notes UK CAA and EASA ADs on BN-2 aircraft, but the Directive for C-212 imposes the inspection and replacement requirements as set out in this document. Do not assume identical testing, intervals, or remedial parts across those instruments; compliance must be to this Directive for the specified aircraft and part numbers.

No enforcement or penalty details in the text. The Directive does not state enforcement mechanisms or penalties in the supplied text. This absence is a potential administrative “gotcha” if operators assume the Directive’s text contains enforcement or appeal provisions. Those elements, if relevant, will be found in CASA’s broader regulatory framework rather than in the Directive’s text provided.

The Directive’s text provides a concise, document-centred compliance pathway. To comply exactly with the Directive:

1. Determine applicability. Check each C-212 aircraft to confirm whether the pitot/static tubes installed are P/N 212-61105.1 or 212-61105.2. The Directive applies only to the listed C-212 models when those part numbers are fitted (Applicability).

2. Schedule the initial inspection. The first detailed inspection for radial cracking must be completed within one calendar month or 300 hours time in service, whichever occurs first after the Directive’s effective date (effective date 15 September 2008) (Compliance; Requirement 1). Calculate both metrics for each aircraft and plan the inspection to meet the earlier deadline.

3. Perform the inspection as specified. Carry out the detailed inspection for radial cracking around the top lip of the dynamic port strictly “in accordance with the instructions of EADS-CASA C-212 Maintenance Manual, Chapter 5, Revision 5, June 2002.” Follow the chapter’s listed procedures and acceptance criteria for detecting radial cracking (Requirement 1).

4. Repeat inspections at mandated intervals. After the initial inspection, repeat inspections at intervals not to exceed 300 hours TIS (Compliance). The Directive makes that the maximum interval; schedule future inspections so the aircraft is not operated beyond that interval without a new inspection.

5. If cracks are found, execute the remedial replacement before any further flight. Where an inspection discovers cracks, replace the affected pitot tube with a new P/N 212-A0150-0001 or P/N 212-A0150-0002 pitot tube “in accordance with the instructions of EADS-CASA SB 212-34-11 Revision 1.” Ensure the replacement is completed before the next flight after the inspection that found the crack (Requirement 2; Compliance).

6. Use EASA-approved later revisions if available. If more recent revisions than those named in the Directive exist for the Maintenance Manual or Service Bulletin, those later revisions may be used for compliance only if they are approved by EASA. Confirm EASA approval status before relying on later revisions (Requirement 2 paragraph).

7. Procurement and parts control. Order and obtain the specified replacement parts P/N 212-A0150-0001 and 212-A0150-0002 if replacement may be required. Ensure the correct part numbers are sourced and available to avoid delayed return to service in the event of detected cracks. The Directive mandates these exact replacement P/Ns (Requirement 2).

8. Operational planning. Recognise that the discovery of a cracked pitot tube requires replacement before the next flight. Plan maintenance scheduling and spares availability to accommodate potential unscheduled removals and ensure continuity of operations.

9. Cross-reference related material. Consult the referenced EADS-CASA documents for detailed procedural steps, and note the Directive’s cross-reference to EASA AD 2008-0155 and prior CAA UK/EASA action on BN-2 aircraft for broader context (Background; Note 2). Use EADS-CASA Maintenance Manual Chapter 5 and SB 212-34-11 Revision 1 as the primary procedural sources.

10. Documentation of compliance. The Directive requires actions to be carried out in accordance with the named maintenance documents; operators should ensure maintenance records reflect the inspections and any replacements performed under this Directive. The Directive does not specify record-keeping requirements in its text, but adherence to the named maintenance documentation and any applicable regulatory record-keeping obligations will assist proof of compliance.

These steps follow the Directive’s prescriptive language: inspection per the Maintenance Manual, replacement per the Service Bulletin, adherence to the specified timeframes, and acceptance of later revisions only if EASA-approved. The Directive does not provide alternative methods of compliance within the supplied text, so compliance should be achieved by following the enumerated instructions and timing.