AD/CESSNA 185/49 - Alternate Static Air Source Valve

Airworthiness directive. An airworthiness directive is a mandatory regulatory instrument issued under the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations. It requires aircraft owners or operators to inspect, modify, or replace a component within a specified timeframe to correct an identified unsafe condition. Non-compliance renders the aircraft unairworthy and illegal to operate. AD/CESSNA 185/49 is one such instrument, adopted from a comparable FAA airworthiness directive.

Alternate static air source selector valve. This is a manual or automatic valve that allows the pilot to select an alternate source of static air pressure for the flight instruments (altimeter, airspeed indicator, vertical speed indicator) if the primary static port becomes blocked or iced. The valve in question, P/N 2013142-18, is a replacement part for earlier valve variants (P/N 2013142-9, -13, -17). It incorporates a plastic or metal part number identification placard attached to the valve body.

Obstructed static port. The valve has a small inlet port through which ambient static air pressure enters the instrument system. The placard, intended only for identification, was positioned on the valve body such that it covered this port. A covered port either blocks or restricts airflow, causing incorrect pressure transmission to the instruments. This results in erroneous altimeter readings, airspeed errors, and false vertical speed indications. A pilot relying on those instruments could fly into terrain, exceed structural limits due to incorrect airspeed data, or mishandle the aircraft in instrument meteorological conditions.

Type certificate and parts supply chain. The directive interacts with the type certificate for the Cessna 185 series. Parts installed on type-certificated aircraft must be approved for the type. The P/N 2013142-18 valve is a Cessna-approved replacement part. The directive does not affect the approval status of the part itself, but requires inspection of any unit already installed or about to be installed.

Record inspection vs. physical inspection. The directive creates two alternative first-step actions: a maintenance record search to determine whether the valve was installed after 19 November 2007, or a direct physical inspection of the valve. The first option can be done by the operator with a private pilot licence, which reduces the need to involve a maintenance organisation for a simple records check. This is a deliberate variation by CASA from the FAA AD, which may have required a more qualified person. It reflects an attempt to reduce compliance burden for basic administrative checks.

Effective date and compliance timing. The directive becomes effective on 13 May 2008. For aeroplanes already in service with a -18 valve, the records check or physical inspection must be completed before further flight after that date. For rectification (placard removal), the requirement is also before further flight after the inspection that reveals the obstruction. For valves installed after the effective date, the inspection must be performed before that installation. There is no grace period for a first flight after the effective date, meaning an aeroplane flown on the morning of 13 May 2008 would be non-compliant if not already inspected. This imposes a strict deadline on operators.

Manufacturing error and quality control. The background explains that the problem was discovered during a quality control check at Cessna. The defective placard placement occurred on valves manufactured between 20 November 2007 and 18 February 2008. Cessna corrected all stock held at its facility, but had no way of verifying how many assemblies were already shipped to the field. Therefore the directive captures all -18 valves installed after 19 November 2007, regardless of production date, to catch any that may have been shipped during that period and subsequently installed. This is a classic example of a precautionary approach: the regulator imposes a broad inspection requirement because it cannot trace the defect to individual serial numbers.

The primary affected population is owners and operators of Cessna 185 series aeroplanes (all serial numbers) that have an alternate static air source selector valve P/N 2013142-18 installed after 19 November 2007. The AD does not apply to aeroplanes that have only the earlier part number variants (P/N 2013142-9, -13, or -17) unless those were superseded by the -18 after the cut-off date. Given the -18 was a direct replacement for those earlier numbers, the most likely scenario for an affected aircraft is one where the valve was replaced during maintenance or an upgrade after November 2007. Aircraft that were originally manufactured with a -18 valve would need to check their production records: if the valve was fitted at the factory before 20 November 2007 (production date), then it is not affected. But if the factory installed the valve after that date, and if the aircraft was delivered after that, it would be captured.

The directive also affects maintenance organisations that hold P/N 2013142-18 valves as spares. Even if the valve is not yet installed, if it is installed on or after the effective date, it must be inspected before installation. This imposes a one-time burden on mechanics and parts suppliers to inspect each -18 valve in stock before fitting. The directive does not apply retroactively to valves already installed before 19 November 2007, so an operator who replaced the valve in 2006 with an earlier -9 or -13 and later replaced that with a -18 after the cut-off date is covered; but if the operator never replaced the original valve, no action is required.

The secondary effect is on Cessna itself, which would need to ensure that any new -18 valves shipped after the directive conform to the corrected placard location. The directive does not impose a duty on Cessna, but the AD’s existence puts pressure on the supply chain to deliver corrected parts.

The directive also indirectly affects lessors, insurers, and aircraft buyers. An aeroplane that cannot show compliance with this AD on its records is not airworthy, which affects its marketability and insurability. For lessors leasing Cessna 185s, they must ensure that the lessee has performed the required inspection. For a buyer, the pre-purchase inspection should confirm that the valve has been checked and cleared or the placard removed.

In terms of compliance burden, the largest cost falls on an operator who must physically inspect the valve. That requires access to the aircraft interior, adjustment of seats, and a flashlight and mirror. The labour time is minimal (perhaps 15 to 30 minutes) but the opportunity cost is the downtime: the aircraft cannot be flown until the inspection is completed and any placard removal is performed. For a commercial operator, this could mean a lost flight hour. For a private owner, the inconvenience is small.

There is also a cost for the records-based check: pulling the maintenance logbook and checking for entries related to valve replacement since November 2007. This can be done by the operator themselves if they hold at least a private pilot’s licence. That reduces the need to engage a licensed engineer for that step. However, the operator must still know how to interpret the records and certify the determination. A less experienced pilot may need guidance.

The directive does not affect aeroplanes outside the Cessna 185 model, despite the background mentioning other models (172, 175, 180, 182, 206, 207, 208, 210, 303). Those models are addressed by separate CASA ADs (not this one). That could be a trap: an operator of a Cessna 182 reading this document might mistakenly think it applies to them because the background lists multiple models. But the applicability table only lists the 185. The background is explanatory only. So the AD is narrower than it appears at first reading.

Duty to inspect. The central duty is to inspect either the maintenance records (Requirement 1.b) or the physical valve (Requirement 1.a) before further flight after 13 May 2008. This is a mandatory obligation on the registered operator of an affected aeroplane. The operator may delegate the physical inspection to a licensed aircraft maintenance engineer, but remains responsible for compliance.

Right of the operator to self-certify the records check. Under Note 2 of the directive, the operator may accomplish and certify for the Requirement 1.b inspection and determination provided they hold at least a private pilot’s licence. This is an important right: it allows the operator to avoid the cost and scheduling delay of having a maintenance organisation perform a simple records review. The operator can look through the aircraft’s maintenance records to see if a P/N 2013142-18 valve was installed after 19 November 2007. If the records show no such installation, the operator can log that determination and no further action is required. If the records are ambiguous or missing, the operator would need to proceed with the physical inspection or seek professional assistance.

Duty to perform physical inspection when triggered. If the records check reveals that a -18 valve was installed (or if the operator elects to skip the records check and go directly to physical inspection), the duty is to conduct a visual check for placard obstruction as described in Requirement 3. This involves moving seats aft, using a flashlight and mirror to view the forward port, and confirming the placard is not covering the port.

Duty to rectify. If the placard is found to be obstructing the port, the duty is to remove the placard from the valve body, discard it, and ensure the port is open and unobstructed (Requirement 4). The directive does not require the placard to be replaced or repositioned elsewhere. There is no option to reposition it if that would still obstruct the port. Discarding the placard means the part number identification is lost. This could cause confusion during future maintenance if the part number needs to be identified. However, the directive does not require an alternative marking. The operator or engineer may choose to mark the valve body with the part number by another permanent means, but the directive does not mandate it.

Duty for future installations. Any P/N 2013142-18 valve installed as a modification or replacement on or after the effective date must be inspected in accordance with Requirement 3 before installation (Requirement 5). This duty falls on the person installing the valve (the engineer or owner performing the work). It means that even if a valve is acquired from a reputable supplier that claims the placard has been corrected, the installer must still perform the check before fitting. This adds a step to every installation of that part number going forward.

Right to rely on records if no installation occurred. The directive allows the operator to stop after the records check if no -18 valve was installed. This is a significant right because it avoids the need for a physical inspection on a possibly hard-to-reach valve. The operator is entitled to rely on the accuracy of their maintenance records. If the records are lost or incomplete, this right may be practically unavailable.

Duty to keep records of compliance. While the directive does not explicitly state that records must be kept, standard regulatory practice requires that compliance with an AD must be recorded in the aircraft’s maintenance records or logbook. An operator who performs the records check and finds no installation should still log that determination, with reference to this AD. An operator who performs the physical inspection and clears the valve should log the inspection and any placard removal. Failure to maintain adequate records may lead to enforcement action or difficulties on sale.

No duty to replace the valve. The directive does not require replacement of the valve. It only requires removal of the obstructing placard. The valve itself remains serviceable. This keeps costs low. However, if the placard removal leaves an exposed adhesive residue or a slight surface irregularity, the valve’s function is not affected.

The directive does not create any rights against Cessna or the FAA for the defective part. The directive is a safety mandate, not a product liability determination. The operator must bear the cost of compliance themselves unless they can claim under warranty or from the supplier. The directive does not address compensation.

The source text does not specify penalties for non-compliance. As an airworthiness directive issued under the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations, failure to comply is a breach of those regulations. The general enforcement framework for CASA ADs includes several mechanisms, though the directive itself is silent.

Non-compliance renders the aircraft unairworthy. Operating an aircraft that does not comply with an applicable airworthiness directive is an offence. The Civil Aviation Safety Regulations provide for infringement notices (on-the-spot fines) for some breaches, and for more serious cases, CASA can initiate prosecution in a court. Penalties may include fines for individuals and corporations. In addition, CASA has administrative powers: it can suspend or cancel the aircraft’s certificate of airworthiness, require the aircraft to be grounded until compliance is demonstrated, or issue a direction to the operator. For a licensed maintenance engineer who certifies compliance when it has not been performed, the engineer may face disciplinary action including suspension or revocation of their licence.

The enforcement risk for this particular directive is likely low due to the minor nature of the defect and the ease of rectification. However, if an operator knowingly flies an aircraft that has not completed the inspection, and if a subsequent incident or accident occurs related to instrument errors, the non-compliance could be used as evidence of negligence or regulatory breach. Insurance policies may be voided if the aircraft is not maintained in compliance with applicable ADs.

CASA’s enforcement approach is guided by its enforcement policy, which emphasises proportionate response. For a first-time, minor oversight, CASA may issue a warning or a remedial direction. For a persistent or deliberate failure, escalation to civil penalty proceedings is possible.

Operators who are unsure of their compliance status should note that CASA cannot determine which aircraft have the defective valve. Therefore random audits of maintenance records may occur. The directive’s requirement that compliance be recorded before further flight means that enforcement can be triggered by a routine ramp check. If CASA inspectors find no record of compliance, they can issue a notice and require the aircraft to be grounded until compliance is shown.

There is no limitation period stated in the directive. The obligation is continuing: the aircraft must comply before flight on or after the effective date. An aircraft that was out of service on 13 May 2008 must be compliant before its first flight after that date. An aircraft that has been parked and then returned to service years later must demonstrate compliance before flying. The obligation does not expire.

The directive does not provide for alternative means of compliance (AMOC) approval. Operators who believe they can achieve an equivalent level of safety through a different method may request an exemption from CASA, but the directive does not mention that option. The AD is prescriptive: either inspect records or inspect the valve; either remove the placard or not. There is no provision for a temporary fix or a deferral. The strictness suggests that any departure from the prescribed actions would require regulatory approval.

Given the small compliance burden, the enforcement incentives are straightforward. The cost of compliance (a few minutes of labour) is far lower than the cost of a penalty or grounding. Most operators will likely comply before flight, so enforcement action is improbable for inadvertent non-compliance. However, ignorance of the cut-off date (19 November 2007) could lead an operator to think their valve is not affected when it is. That scenario is a potential enforcement trap.

AD/CESSNA 185/49 is a standalone airworthiness directive. It does not repeal or amend any other CASA instrument. It references FAA AD 2008-10-02 (Amendment 39-15508) as its basis, but it is a separate Australian directive. An operator who has complied with the FAA AD on an aircraft registered in the United States may need to show compliance with the CASA version when the aircraft is imported or operated in Australia. The Australian directive is not automatically equivalent to the FAA AD, though they contain the same substantive requirements.

The directive interacts with the Civil Aviation Regulations (CARs) and the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations (CASRs). In particular, CAR 1988 requires that an aircraft’s maintenance release or certificate of airworthiness includes confirmation that all applicable airworthiness directives have been complied with. Regulation 42 of CASR may impose ongoing obligations on operators to ensure their aircraft are maintained in accordance with the approved maintenance program, which includes ADs. The directive is part of the broader system of continuing airworthiness.

The directive also interacts with the Cessna 185 series type certificate. The type certificate holder (Textron Aviation, formerly Cessna) is not directly obligated by the directive, but the directive is issued under the authority of CASA’s continuing airworthiness powers. The directive does not change the type certificate data sheet or the approved maintenance manual. It imposes a one-time action that is not part of the scheduled maintenance program.

There is an interaction with parts supply and approval. The replacement valve P/N 2013142-18 was originally approved as a replacement part for the earlier variants. The directive does not affect that approval, but it imposes an additional inspection before installation. Anyone selling or installing that part number must be aware of the inspection requirement. A seller who does not inform the buyer of the AD could be exposed to liability if the buyer installs the valve without inspection.

The directive may also interact with insurance policies. Many aircraft hull and liability policies require the insured to maintain the aircraft in compliance with all applicable airworthiness directives. Failure to do so could void coverage or lead to a claim being denied if an incident occurs. For example, if a pilot suffers an accident caused by erroneous instrument readings, and it is later found that the placard obstruction was present and the AD had not been complied with, the insurer may refuse indemnity.

For aircraft rented or chartered, the operator must ensure compliance before the aircraft is flown by a third party. If a renter pilot were to fly an aircraft that has not had the inspection, both the operator and the pilot could be in breach. The pilot has a duty to conduct a pre-flight inspection and to confirm the aircraft is airworthy. The existence of the AD means the pilot should check that the compliance has been logged.

The directive also interacts with the regulations concerning the recording of maintenance. The Civil Aviation Regulations require that any inspection or rectification undertaken to comply with an AD be entered in the aircraft’s maintenance records, with the signature of the certifying person. For the records-based check performed by an operator with a private pilot licence, that certification is permitted by Note 2. That is a departure from the usual requirement that only a licensed aircraft maintenance engineer may certify maintenance. The directive creates a limited exception to that rule for this specific records check.

If there is any conflict between the directive and an aircraft’s approved maintenance manual, the directive takes precedence as a mandatory regulatory instrument. The aircraft cannot be operated unless the directive is complied with, even if the manual does not mention the check.

No interaction with state or territory laws is apparent. The directive is a federal aviation safety instrument.

The source is a single airworthiness directive issued on 6 May 2008 and effective 13 May 2008. The document does not indicate that it amends or supersedes any earlier CASA instrument. There is no amendment history within the text because it is the original issuance. The document’s reference number is AD/CESSNA 185/49. The version shown is the only version in the source. There is no reference to any earlier version, corrigendum, or subsequent amendment.

The directive adopts FAA AD 2008-10-02, which itself is an amendment to the FAA’s Part 39 airworthiness directives. That FAA AD had an effective date of 12 May 2008. The CASA directive gives a slightly later effective date of 13 May 2008. It is possible that the FAA AD was later amended or superseded by the FAA, but that information is not in the source. For Australian purposes, the CASA directive stands on its own. If the FAA were to later revoke or amend its AD, CASA would need to issue a new or amending instrument to reflect that. The source does not indicate any such follow-up.

Because the directive addresses a specific quality control batch of valves, the defect is likely to have been corrected in production by Cessna. Therefore, the AD may have become obsolete over time. However, it remains on the books for aircraft that have not been inspected, or aircraft that may later have an older -18 valve installed from spares. There is no sunset clause. The directive is still legally in effect unless CASA has since withdrawn it, which the source does not show.

The directive carries a CASA reference number (AD/CESSNA 185/49) and a TX number (7/2008). This suggests it was the 49th airworthiness directive for Cessna 185 series and the 7th in 2008 for that series. No amendment history is provided; it appears as the original.

In terms of regulatory process, the directive was signed by James Coyne as a delegate of CASA. There is no evidence of consultation or public comment, as is typical for ADs adopted to address safety issues. The directive was issued under delegated authority, not by the CASA Board, so it is a subordinate instrument.

The absence of amendment history implies that the requirements have remained unchanged. However, CASA may have issued later directives that modify or supplement this one. For example, later ADs may expand the applicability to other serial numbers or part numbers, but they are not part of this document. An operator or researcher should check the CASA website for the current list of ADs for Cessna 185 to see if any subsequent instrument has altered the status of AD/CESSNA 185/49. This deep dive can only report on the source provided.

The source contains no reference to any litigation related to this Airworthiness Directive. There is no mention of any court case, tribunal review, or legal challenge. The document is a standard safety directive issued by a regulator in response to a manufacturing defect. It does not contain any statements about disputes or enforcement proceedings.

Given the nature of the directive, litigation is improbable. The AD imposes a low-cost, one-time inspection and a simple corrective action. The affected population is small (Cessna 185 series with a specific part installed after a date). There is no penalty or fee involved. Compliance is trivial: either a records check or a visual inspection. The safety rationale is clear. There are no affected interests with significant economic incentives to challenge the directive. For example, no manufacturer’s commercial interest is seriously harmed because the valve can still be used after placard removal. No operator would face substantial economic loss from the required action.

However, the absence of litigation in the source does not conclusively prove that no legal action was ever taken. Litigation could have occurred but not be referenced in the AD itself. For instance, an operator might have sought judicial review of CASA’s decision to issue the AD, challenging the necessity or the scope. The source does not provide that information. As an analyst, we cannot assume that no litigation occurred; we can only state that the source does not mention any.

There is also the possibility of product liability litigation by an operator against Cessna or the valve manufacturer. Such litigation would be separate from the AD itself. The AD is issued by a regulator and is not a determination of fault. A plaintiff could use the AD as evidence that a defect existed. But the source does not discuss any such proceedings.

In the broader context of aviation law, airworthiness directives are rarely the subject of direct litigation. Courts typically defer to the technical expertise of the regulator. Judicial review is possible on grounds such as procedural error or unreasonableness, but few ADs are challenged. This AD is particularly technical and narrow, making a legal challenge unlikely.

The source’s background section notes that the FAA received reports of improper installation and that the problem was discovered during quality control. Those facts could be used in tort claims, but no such claim is referenced. The absence of any mention of legal proceedings suggests that the directive was accepted and complied with without controversy.

For a lawyer assessing risk, the lack of litigation history means there is no case law interpreting this AD. There are no precedents on what constitutes sufficient records, or what happens if the placard is removed and the part number is lost. The terms of the AD are straightforward and unlikely to be disputed.

Thus, for the purposes of this deep dive, the litigation history is effectively a blank slate. The directive has not generated any known legal dispute, nor does the source provide any hint of one. The prudent practitioner will treat the directive as clear and enforceable, with no contested interpretations from the courts.

Several aspects of AD/CESSNA 185/49 could trip up an unwary operator, engineer, or compliance officer.

Cut-off date is precise. The directive applies only to valves installed after 19 November 2007. If the valve was installed on 19 November 2007, is that date included? “After 19 November 2007” means 20 November or later. An operator who misreads this as “on or after” might incorrectly include valves installed on the 19th. Conversely, if the record shows a valve replaced on 19 November 2007, that date is before the cut-off, but if the record is ambiguous about the exact day, the operator may need to assume the worst. Also, the background mentions valves manufactured between 20 November 2007 and 18 February 2008, but the AD uses the installation date of 19 November as a catch-all. So an operator who installed a -18 valve in January 2007 (unlikely because the -18 was a new part number) would not be covered, but one who installed a -18 in December 2007 is covered even if the valve was manufactured before 20 November 2007. This creates a gap: a valve manufactured after the 18 February 2008 correction could still be installed after the cut-off date, and must still be inspected. The directive does not exempt valves manufactured after the correction window.

The placard removal has downstream consequences. The directive requires the placard to be discarded. It does not mandate an alternative means of part number identification. After removal, the valve body has no part number marking. Future maintenance personnel may not be able to identify the valve as P/N 2013142-18, leading to errors when ordering replacements or performing later inspections. An engineer might inadvertently think the valve is a different variant. The directive does not prohibit re-marking the valve with a permanent marker or engraving the part number elsewhere, but it does not require it. The best practice is to apply a permanent marking elsewhere on the valve using an approved method, but this is optional.

Physical inspection requires specific tools and positioning. Requirement 3 specifies adjusting the pilot and copilot seats as far aft as possible and using a flashlight and mirror to inspect the forward port. In some Cessna 185 interiors, the valve may be difficult to access even with seats moved. The directive does not provide an alternative if the valve is obscured by other components. If the inspector cannot see the port, they may need to remove panels or the valve itself. The directive does not authorise disassembly beyond moving seats and using a mirror. If access is inadequate, the operator may need to consult CASA for an alternative method, but this is not stated.

The records check option is not available to all operators. Note 2 says the operator may accomplish and certify the inspection and determination if they hold at least a private pilot’s licence. But what if the operator is a company or a trust? The registered operator might be a legal entity, not an individual. In that case, who is the “operator” for this purpose? The directive probably refers to the person who actually operates the aircraft (the pilot) or the person who conducts the records check. A corporate operator would need to have an individual with at least a PPL perform the check. That could be a employee pilot or a director who holds a licence. If no licence holder is available, the operator must engage a licensed aircraft maintenance engineer to do the records check, which could cost more. The directive does not clarify.

Failure to log compliance is a trap. Even if the operator performs the records check and finds no -18 valve, they must still log that determination in the maintenance records. Many operators might think no action equals no record needed. But without a log entry, a future inspector or buyer will not know whether the AD has been complied with. The operator could be asked to demonstrate compliance years later and have no proof. CASA’s enforcement can be triggered by the absence of a log entry. The directive itself does not explicitly say “record this”, but standard regulatory practice requires it.

The directive applies to aeroplanes that have the valve installed, regardless of registration location. The AD is issued by CASA for aircraft on the Australian register. But an imported aircraft that had the valve installed overseas after 19 November 2007 would be captured when it comes onto the Australian register. The compliance date is before further flight after the effective date of the directive. If an aircraft is imported in 2024 and the AD has never been complied with, it must be complied with before its first flight in Australia. The AD does not expire.

Requirement 5 applies to any installation on or after the effective date. This means that even if a valve was inspected and cleared after removal of the placard, if it is later removed and reinstalled on a different aircraft, it must be inspected again? No, because the inspection requirement for future installations applies to the valve before installation. Once the placard is removed, the valve is permanently corrected. But if the placard was never removed because it was not obstructing, the valve presumably is fine for the original aircraft. But if that valve is then removed and installed on another aircraft, the new installer is required to perform the inspection before installation. That would reveal no obstruction, so it is just a redundant check. But it is still mandatory. So a mechanic who frequently swaps valves between aircraft would have to inspect each time.

The directive does not address pilot seat adjustment for all configurations. The procedure states “adjust the pilot and copilot seats as far aft as possible.” But if the seats are already aft, or if the aircraft has only one seat (unlikely), the instruction may be ambiguous. Also, the directive does not specify that the seat needs to be removed or that the inspection area must be well-lit.

The placard removal is mandatory, not optional. Even if the placard is only partially covering the port, it must be removed. The directive does not allow for repositioning the placard elsewhere on the valve body if that would be safe. The placard must be discarded. This is a one-way correction that removes the part number info.

Cross-model trap in the background. The background lists many Cessna models that had the same problem (172, 175, 180, 182, 185, 206, 207, 208, 210, 303). But this AD only applies to the Cessna 185 series. An operator of a Cessna 182 might read this and assume it applies, or conversely, assume that because they saw the note in the AD, their aircraft is covered. It is not. Separate ADs would cover the other models.

The effective date is 13 May 2008, but the FAA AD became effective on 12 May 2008. If an Australian aircraft was overseas and complied with the FAA AD on 12 May, does that count for the CASA AD? Possibly, because the requirements are identical. But the operator must still ensure the compliance is recorded in the aircraft’s Australian maintenance records and that the CASA directive is referenced. The CASA directive is the legal requirement in Australia. So simply having the FAA AD compliance log may not be sufficient for an Australian-registered aircraft. The operator should also note the CASA directive number.

Compliance with AD/CESSNA 185/49 involves a straightforward sequence of checks and actions, but attention to detail is essential to avoid non-compliance through oversight.

Step 1: Determine applicability. First, confirm that the aircraft is a Cessna 185 series (all serial numbers). If the aircraft is another model listed in the background, this AD does not apply; disregard it. If it is a 185, go to step 2.

Step 2: Check the valve part number. Is there an alternate static air source selector valve P/N 2013142-18 installed? This part number replaced earlier numbers -9, -13, and -17. If the aircraft has one of those earlier numbers, this AD does not apply. If the aircraft has the -18, proceed to step 3.

Step 3: Determine installation date. When was the P/N 2013142-18 valve installed? The AD applies only if installed after 19 November 2007. Check the maintenance records for the date of replacement or original installation. If the valve was installed on or before 19 November 2007, the AD does not apply. If the records are unclear or do not show the installation date, treat the valve as potentially affected and proceed to the physical inspection. If the records show installation after 19 November 2007, continue.

Step 4: Decide first action path. The directive offers two paths for the initial step: (a) physical inspection of the valve, or (b) maintenance records inspection to see if the -18 valve has been replaced since 19 November 2007 (which you already did in step 3 effectively). If the records show that the -18 valve was installed after 19 November 2007, you must proceed to physical inspection. If the records show no such installation, log that determination and stop. If you have not yet done the records check, you can choose to do it now, which can be certified by the operator if they hold at least a private pilot’s licence.

Step 5: Physical inspection of the valve. This must be done if the records reveal a -18 valve installed after the cut-off date, or if you skipped the records check and elect to inspect directly. The procedure under Requirement 3 is: adjust both pilot and copilot seats as far aft as possible. Use a flashlight and mirror to inspect the forward end of the valve. Confirm that the part number identification placard is not covering the port. The port must be clearly visible. If the placard is covering the port, proceed to Step 6. If the placard is not covering the port, no further action is needed for this valve.

Step 6: Rectification. If the port is obstructed, remove the placard from the valve body. Discard it (do not reattach or reposition). Then assure that the port is open and unobstructed. This may involve cleaning any adhesive residue.

Step 7: Record compliance. Enter the compliance action in the aircraft’s maintenance records. The entry should include the AD number (AD/CESSNA 185/49), the date of the action, what was done (records check, physical inspection, placard removal), and the name and licence number of the person who performed and certified the action. For the records check performed by an operator with a private pilot licence, include that licence number. For physical inspection and placard removal, the certifier should be a person authorised by the Civil Aviation Regulations to release the aircraft to service (typically a LAME). Without a log entry, the AD is treated as not complied with.

Step 8: Future installations. Any P/N 2013142-18 valve installed on or after the effective date (13 May 2008) must be inspected per Step 5 before installation. This applies even if the valve is new from a supplier. The installation log must record that the pre-installation inspection was performed.

Step 9: Ongoing obligations. If the aircraft is sold, the new owner must be alerted to the compliance status. If the aircraft is exported and later re-imported, compliance must be shown. If the valve is ever removed and reinstalled on the same or another aircraft, the pre-installation inspection (Step 5) is required again.

Cost considerations. The time required for the records check is minimal if the logbooks are well organised. The physical inspection takes about 15 minutes. If placard removal is needed, add 10 minutes. The only material cost is a flashlight and mirror. No spare parts need to be purchased. The main cost is the opportunity cost of the aircraft being on the ground for the inspection. For an operator with a private pilot licence who can do the records check themselves, the cost is negligible.

Common mistakes to avoid. (a) Assuming the AD applies to all Cessna models listed in the background. (b) Only checking the valve part number but not the installation date. (c) Failing to log a negative finding (no -18 valve installed). (d) Replacing the placard instead of discarding it. (e) Inspecting the valve without using a mirror, leading to an incomplete view. (f) Not obtaining the required certification for the physical inspection if the operator is not an authorised person. (g) Flying the aircraft on the effective date without prior compliance. The directive does not include a grace period for the effective date.

Alternative means of compliance. If for any reason the prescribed inspection cannot be performed (e.g., valve is inaccessible without major disassembly), the operator should contact CASA to request approval of an alternative method. The directive itself does not provide a process, but CASA’s standard practice is to consider such requests.

Record keeping. The maintenance records should clearly show that AD/CESSNA 185/49 has been complied with. This is particularly important for aircraft that may be sold or leased. A logbook entry such as “In compliance with AD/CESSNA 185/49: records check performed 12 May 2008 - no P/N 2013142-18 installed.” Or “Physical inspection performed 12 May 2008 - placard not obstructing port.” Or “Placard removed per Requirement 4 on 12 May 2008.” This will satisfy future auditors.