AD/CESSNA 310/58 Amdt 1 - Fuel Flow Transducer

Applicability: The AD applies to a single, precisely identified aeroplane model/serial combination: Cessna Model 310R series, serial number 1865 (Applicability). The regulated hardware is a single part number assembly: Cessna P/N 9910395-9, which the AD notes corresponds to Aerosonics Corp P/N 33184-2 (Requirement). The AD treats the transducer’s serial number as the risk discriminator: transducers with serial numbers in the block 2364 through 2930 are treated as potentially defective and therefore must be replaced (Requirement).

Two-step compliance structure: The AD is procedural and conditional. First step is an action to discover risk (inspect to determine serial number). Second step is a remedial action only if the discovery produces a match to the prohibited serial-number block (replace before further flight) (Requirement; Compliance). The AD therefore creates conditional obligations that depend on the factual outcome of the inspection.

Temporal constraints and administrative substitution: The AD places a timing constraint on the inspection, tying it to the administrative act of issuing an Australian Certificate of Airworthiness (Compliance). That timing converts the inspection into a pre‑clearance requirement for entry into Australian civil aviation services, rather than a repeated operational inspection cadence. Where replacement is necessary, the AD requires replacement before the aircraft next flies after the inspection, creating an immediate grounding mechanism where a prohibited transducer is found (Requirement; Compliance).

Interjurisdictional reliance: The AD explicitly references the FAA AD 80-13-14 (Note 2) and says records demonstrating compliance with that FAA AD will be accepted as compliance with this AD (Note 1). The AD also frames CASA’s obligation to issue an AD reflecting an AD issued by the State of design , in this case the FAA , as the rationale for issuing the Australian AD (Background). That establishes a procedural interplay between the foreign-design authority’s ADs and the domestic regulator’s obligations.

Risk basis stated: The stated technical risk origin is fuel leaks in the engine compartment caused by defective transducers (Background). The AD does not elaborate technical failure modes, test procedures, or in-service data beyond citing the FAA AD and noting that similar incidents have not been reported in Australia (Background).

Amendment mechanics: This document is an amendment to the original AD. The amendment corrects a minor typographical error in the Background and reiterates the requirements and timing (Background). It records the original effective date and the amendment’s effective date (Background; Compliance). The AD is signed by a CASA delegate and dated (end matter).

Aircraft owner/operators: The primary economic actors affected are the owner(s) and operator(s) of the single, identified Cessna 310R serial 1865. For that aircraft, the AD prescribes inspection and conditional replacement of the specific fuel flow transducers on each engine (Applicability; Requirement).

Importers and parties seeking an Australian Certificate of Airworthiness: The inspection requirement is expressly timed “Prior to the issue of an Australian Certificate of Airworthiness” for Requirement 1 (Compliance). Therefore importers or registrants seeking an Australian Certificate of Airworthiness for that airframe must ensure the inspection is completed and documented before the Certificate is issued. CASA records indicate the only currently affected 310R was not on the Australian register at the time of the AD, but the aircraft may be imported later (Background). The AD is therefore specifically designed to influence import timing and CofA issuance.

Maintenance organisations and certificated engineers: The AD requires a physical inspection of a part on each engine and potential replacement of the transducer, which triggers labour, parts procurement, and maintenance-record tasks. Maintenance organisations that carry out inspections and replacements will be the executors of the AD’s requirements and will be the custodians of the records that Note 1 says will be accepted as compliance. That includes verifying the part numbers (Cessna P/N and Aerosonics P/N where relevant) and the individual transducer serial numbers (Requirement; Note 1).

Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA): CASA, represented by its delegate (James Coyne signed the amendment), is the issuer and effective decision-maker for the AD (signature line). CASA also frames its statutory or procedural obligation (as stated in the AD) to issue an AD reflecting the State of design’s AD (Background). CASA will be the body that assesses compliance for CofA issuance and may rely upon the records referred to in Note 1.

Supply chain and parts vendors: If replacement is required, the owner/operator will need to acquire replacement transducers with serial numbers outside the specified block. The AD identifies the part numbers to be inspected and thus those in the supply chain that must be checked or provided (Requirement).

No broad operator class affected: The AD is narrowly targeted to a single serial-numbered airframe; it does not, on its face, create obligations for owners/operators of other Cessna 310 variants or other serial-numbered airframes unless they share the exact applicability indicated (Applicability). CASA acknowledges only one affected aeroplane not on the Australian register at time of issue (Background).

Record-keepers and auditors: Because Note 1 allows prior FAA AD compliance documented in maintenance records to satisfy this AD, auditors, registrars, and compliance personnel must be able to verify historical maintenance records for the transducer inspections/replacements that might have occurred outside Australia (Note 1).

Primary duties (inspect and replace): The AD creates two duties. Duty A: Inspect the fuel flow transducer (Cessna P/N 9910395-9 / Aerosonics Corp P/N 33184-2) on each engine to determine the serial number (Requirement 1). Duty B: If the inspection reveals a serial number in the numeric block 2364 through 2930, replace the transducer with one whose serial number is not in that block (Requirement 2). These duties are discrete and sequential: the replacement duty only arises conditional on the inspection outcome (Requirement).

Timing duties: Duty A must be completed prior to the issue of an Australian Certificate of Airworthiness (Compliance). Duty B must be completed before further flight after the inspection if a transducer in the prohibited serial number block is found (Compliance). Those timing constraints make the inspection an administrative gate and the replacement a grounding trigger until completion.

Evidentiary and administrative rights: Note 1 explicitly provides that maintenance records indicating compliance with FAA AD 80-13-14 will be considered acceptable evidence of compliance with this AD. That creates a right for the owner/operator or importer to rely on existing maintenance documentation to satisfy the Australian compliance requirement, avoiding duplicative physical work where the FAA AD has already been complied with and properly recorded (Note 1). The AD does not specify format for records, but the inclusion of that note assigns evidentiary weight to maintenance records.

No express exemptions in the text: The AD does not list exemptions, variances, or alternative means of compliance in the text provided. It does, however, permit substitution of FAA AD compliance records in place of performing the inspection/replacement locally, to the extent recorded evidence exists (Note 1). The AD therefore provides a practical compliance pathway that recognises prior corrective action done under the State of design’s AD.

Operator obligations are discrete per engine: The AD requires inspection of the transducer on each engine (Requirement 1). That imposes a per‑engine compliance duty even though the applicability is to a single airframe. There is no language permitting a sample inspection or allowing one engine’s compliance to stand in for the other.

No internal appeal or review mechanism described: The AD itself does not describe a process for seeking relief, deferral, or an alternative method of compliance. The AD does record dates and the delegate’s signature (end matter), but it contains no procedural rights text for challenging, varying, or applying for an alternative compliance method within this document.

Who decides compliance: Practically, CASA will judge compliance for issuance of an Australian Certificate of Airworthiness because the inspection is tied to the CofA issuance (Compliance). The AD’s Note 1 suggests CASA will accept FAA AD compliance records as satisfying the inspection/replacement duty, creating a deference to the State of design’s compliance action where documented (Note 1).

Operational consequence: The AD’s timing for replacement , “Before further flight after the Requirement 1 inspection” , creates an immediate operational constraint: if a prohibited serial-number transducer is found, the aircraft must be grounded until an acceptable replacement is fitted (Compliance). The owner/operator or operator’s maintenance organisation is responsible to effect that replacement.

Textual absence of penalties: The AD text supplied does not contain any express penalty provisions, monetary fines, or administrative sanction language. It sets out inspection and replacement requirements and compliance timings but does not, within the provided text, specify the consequences of non-compliance in terms of penal sanction or civil liability (Requirement; Compliance).

Operational enforcement mechanisms implicit in timing: The AD links the inspection to issuance of an Australian Certificate of Airworthiness and requires replacement prior to further flight if the transducer serial number falls within the listed block (Compliance). Those timing and operational constraints function as practical enforcement mechanisms: non-compliance can prevent CofA issuance or continued flight. The AD therefore creates de facto enforceability through the administrative control CASA exercises over certificate issuance and via the operational grounding requirement for unsafe equipment, insofar as CASA enforces those administrative outcomes. The AD text itself does not detail how CASA will enforce these outcomes or what procedural steps CASA will take to verify or compel compliance.

Regulatory context reference: The AD states that CASA is “obliged to issue an AD reflecting the requirements of an AD issued by the State of design” (Background). That statement indicates a regulatory rationale and an inter-authority obligation, but the AD text does not set out enforcement mechanisms beyond the compliance timing constraints and the acceptance of FAA compliance records (Note 1).

Record evidence and compliance assessment: Note 1’s acceptance of FAA AD 80-13-14 compliance records as evidence implies that CASA will assess compliance, at least in part, on documentary evidence rather than on repeated rework. This affects enforcement insofar as a registrant who can produce clear records may avoid further intervention by CASA. The AD does not specify what constitutes sufficient records.

No criminal or civil remedies specified: The supplied AD does not invoke criminal sanctions or statutory penalty provisions directly, nor does it reference any civil remedies or contractual consequences. Any criminal, civil, or administrative penalties that may attach to non-compliance would be located in the broader legal/regulatory framework outside this AD; those are not set out in the AD text itself and therefore are not recited here.

Amendment and effective dates as enforcement thresholds: The AD records that the original AD became effective on 8 May 2008 and that this Amendment becomes effective on 28 August 2008 (Background; Compliance). These dates function as temporal boundaries for enforcement expectations: actions taken after the effective date are subject to the AD’s requirements. The signature date of 16 July 2008 indicates authorisation timing but the AD explicitly sets the effective date for the amendment.

Reference to FAA AD 80-13-14: The AD explicitly refers to FAA AD 80-13-14 (Note 2) and states that compliance with that FAA AD, as evidenced by maintenance records, will be accepted for compliance with this Australian AD (Note 1). This creates a cross‑recognition mechanism between CASA’s AD and the FAA AD, allowing an importer or operator to rely on earlier actions taken in the State of design to meet domestic compliance obligations.

CASA obligation to mirror State‑of‑design ADs: The AD states a reasoned legal or procedural obligation: CASA is “obliged to issue an AD reflecting the requirements of an AD issued by the State of design of the aircraft or appliance, in this case FAA AD 80-13-14” (Background). That passage frames CASA’s AD issuance as an act of regulatory alignment with a foreign design authority’s directive. The AD therefore functions within an administrative practice of adopting or mirroring foreign mandatory corrective actions for domestically registered aircraft that are designed abroad.

Interaction with Australian Certificate of Airworthiness issuance: The AD links Requirement 1 to the administrative process of issuing an Australian Certificate of Airworthiness by requiring the inspection prior to issuance (Compliance). That ties technical airworthiness compliance to an administrative licensing decision. Any statutory conditions or administrative procedures governing the issue, suspension, or refusal of a CofA are outside the AD text; but the AD creates a compliance precondition that must be met for CofA issuance in practice.

Records and evidence as cross-jurisdictional proof: By accepting FAA AD compliance records, the AD creates an interaction between foreign maintenance records and domestic evidentiary requirements for aviation safety oversight (Note 1). That affects how audit, import, and tracing obligations will work across jurisdictions: maintenance actions taken overseas can discharge Australian obligations where recorded evidence exists.

No mention of variations, AMOs or alternative methods under Australian rules: The AD text does not set out an alternative means of compliance, nor does it reference Australian maintenance organisation certificates, approvals, or an AMOC procedure (Alternative Method of Compliance). If such mechanisms exist elsewhere in Australian regulatory instruments, they are not invoked or described in this AD. Therefore, the AD operates as a discrete requirement within the AD regime, with an explicit acceptance of FAA records but no procedural cross‑references to other domestic legislative instruments within the document.

Interaction with import timing and registry procedures: The AD explicitly acknowledges that the affected aeroplane was not on the Australian register at the time and may be imported later (Background). By making the inspection a precondition to issuance of an Australian CofA, the AD affects the import process and interacts operationally with customs, import certification, and CASA administrative processes that control aircraft entry into domestic civil aviation use. The text does not reference customs or import statutes, but functionally the AD alters the paperwork and inspection requirements associated with registration and airworthiness certification.

No express interplay with contractual obligations or commercial insurance: The AD does not refer to contracts, warranties, or insurance. However, because it imposes an inspection and possible replacement obligation prior to domestic certification and flight, it will have practical implications for sellers, buyers, and insurers during transactions affecting the specified airframe. Those contractual and insurance implications are not specified in the AD itself.

Original issue and reason: The AD records that its original issue became effective on 8 May 2008 (Background). The original issue followed an internal review of Australian Airworthiness Directives which had indicated that an Australian AD was not issued in response to FAA AD 80-13-14 (Background). The FAA AD had been issued to detect and replace potentially defective fuel flow transducers that may cause fuel leaks in the engine compartment; that safety concern underpinned the original AD’s issuance (Background).

Amendment purpose and effective date: This document is an amendment (Amdt 1) to the original AD and states that it corrects “a minor typographical error in the Background Statement following advice from the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances” (Background). The amendment became effective on 28 August 2008 (Compliance).

Signature and administrative record: The amendment is signed by James Coyne, Delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, and dated 16 July 2008 (signature block). The AD text uses that signature to record authorisation of the amendment, while the effective date is explicitly stated as 28 August 2008 (end matter; Compliance).

Notational records about register status: The Background includes a note that CASA “acknowledges that currently the only affected 310R aeroplane is not on the Australian register of aircraft” (Background). That status is recorded as part of the historical circumstances surrounding the AD’s original issue and the amendment. The AD frames its compliance timing (inspection prior to CofA) as a practical outcome of the elapsed time since the FAA AD and the absence of similar incidents reported in Australia (Background).

Citation of FAA AD: The AD’s Note 2 refers readers to FAA AD 80-13-14 Amdt 39-3844 (Note 2). The Australian AD thereby documents its substantive lineage back to the FAA directive that originally identified the transducer problem.

No subsequent amendments in the supplied text: The supplied document contains a single amendment (Amdt 1) correcting a typographical error, and records the two effective dates and the signature. There is no textual indication in the supplied document of further amendments beyond Amdt 1.

No litigation referenced: The AD text contains no references to any litigation, judicial decisions, or disputes arising from the AD, the FAA AD 80-13-14, or the transducer failures (entire text). The AD’s Background even notes that “similar incidents have not been reported in Australia” (Background), which suggests an absence of domestic incident reports but does not equate to litigation absence. The document does not name any cases or administrative appeals.

No procedural challenges recorded in document: The text does not record any administrative appeals, stays, or requests for variation in relation to the original AD or this amendment. The only administrative action on record in the supplied document is the issuance of the original AD (effective 8 May 2008) and this amendment (effective 28 August 2008), with a signature dated 16 July 2008.

Implications for legal risk assessment: Because the supplied AD contains no litigation history and explicitly notes the lack of similar incidents reported in Australia, any assessment of litigation exposure must rely on sources outside this document. The AD itself provides no case law or dispute record to assist in anticipating legal challenges or precedent.

Record acceptance as compliance evidence: Note 1 states that maintenance records evidencing prior compliance with FAA AD 80-13-14 will be accepted for this AD. That procedural choice could affect future litigation or dispute resolution over whether compliance occurred, because documentary records accepted by the regulator typically carry evidentiary weight. The AD does not specify the evidentiary standard or form of records accepted; it simply states acceptance will be given (Note 1).

Narrow applicability, broad inspection duty: The AD applies narrowly to a single serial-numbered airframe (Applicability) yet mandates inspection of the transducer on each engine (Requirement 1). If the aircraft has been modified, or if there is ambiguity in how the part is identified in maintenance logs, registrants may face difficulty proving whether the in-service transducers are the part numbers listed. The AD names both the Cessna P/N and the Aerosonics P/N; failure to check both identifiers could produce an incorrect compliance conclusion (Requirement).

Reliance on maintenance records requires scrutiny: Note 1 allows prior compliance with FAA AD 80-13-14 documented in maintenance records to be accepted for compliance with this AD. That creates a shortcut to compliance, but it transfers the burden to the owner/importer to produce adequate, credible records. Records that omit the transducer serial number, or that do not clearly identify the exact part number mapping (Cessna P/N to Aerosonics P/N), may be insufficient. The AD does not specify the minimum record content required.

Timing risk on importation/CofA: Requirement 1’s timing is “Prior to the issue of an Australian Certificate of Airworthiness” (Compliance). If the aircraft is being imported and the inspection has not been performed, issuance of the CofA could be delayed until the inspection and any necessary replacements are completed. Given that CASA noted the aircraft was not on the register at AD issue (Background), importers should not assume the inspection has been done overseas; even if it has been done, the records must be producible and acceptable.

Part procurement and grounding risk: If an inspection discovers a serial number in the prohibited block, the aircraft must have the transducer replaced “Before further flight after the Requirement 1 inspection” (Compliance). That creates immediate grounding risk if replacement parts are not readily available or certified for installation. The AD supplies no parts-supply or alternative-compliance route; supply-chain delays become a costs and scheduling risk for operators or importers.

Serial number identification challenges: Serial numbers are the decisive criterion. If serial numbers are worn, obscured, or not recorded in maintenance records, operators must physically access the transducer to read the serial. The AD requires inspection on each engine, which may require engine access or partial disassembly depending on installation practice; this could increase labour cost and downtime.

Interplay with foreign compliance regimes: While FAA AD compliance records are acceptable (Note 1), operators should be careful to verify that the FAA action actually addressed the same Cessna P/N and serial numbers specified. The AD does not provide technical detail about interchangeability of later transducer models. An operator who relies on FAA records without verifying the precise parts and serials risks an adverse finding on audit.

Regulator discretion unstated: The AD does not describe appeal, variation, or alternative compliance procedures; it does not state how CASA will inspect or verify compliance documentation. That leaves some procedural uncertainty for registrants about how to contest a CASA finding or seek an approved alternative method, if needed.

No stated record retention schedule: The AD accepts prior FAA AD compliance records but does not state how long those records must be retained, or whether CASA requires submission of records for verification at the time of CofA application. Operators should therefore not assume a particular retention period is sufficient without confirming CASA’s documentary requirements elsewhere.

Typographical amendment might hide substantive change risk: This amendment corrects a “minor typographical error in the Background Statement” (Background). While the AD declares the error minor and limits the amendment to background text, parties should verify the amendment text they rely upon is the operative one and that no substantive compliance changes were introduced inadvertently during amendment.

Step 1 , Identify applicability: Confirm whether the aeroplane in question is Cessna Model 310R serial number 1865 (Applicability). The AD’s applicability is precise; do not assume broader applicability to other 310 variants or serial numbers.

Step 2 , Identify parts to inspect: Locate the fuel flow transducer(s) on each engine and confirm the part identification: Cessna P/N 9910395-9, which corresponds to Aerosonics Corp P/N 33184-2 according to the AD (Requirement). Verify both the P/N inscriptions and any maintenance-record P/N entries to ensure correct part identification.

Step 3 , Perform the inspection: Physically inspect each engine’s fuel flow transducer to determine the transducer’s serial number (Requirement 1). The inspection must be completed prior to issue of an Australian Certificate of Airworthiness (Compliance). Ensure inspection is carried out by authorised personnel in accordance with existing maintenance practices; the AD requires the action but does not prescribe a special inspection protocol.

Step 4 , Assess serial numbers: Compare identified serial numbers to the numeric block 2364 through 2930 specified in the AD (Requirement). If a transducer’s serial number falls within that block, the AD mandates replacement.

Step 5 , Replace if necessary: If any transducer serial number is in the specified block, replace that transducer with a transducer whose serial number is not within 2364-2930 (Requirement 2). The AD requires replacement “Before further flight after the Requirement 1 inspection” (Compliance). Plan for parts acquisition and scheduling of maintenance to ensure prompt replacement to avoid extended grounding.

Step 6 , Documentation and records: If the inspection and any replacement were performed previously under FAA AD 80-13-14, assemble the maintenance records that demonstrate such compliance because Note 1 explicitly states that such records are acceptable for compliance with this AD (Note 1). Where work is performed in Australia to comply with this AD, record the inspection findings, transducer serial numbers, and any replacement work in the aircraft’s maintenance records. Although the AD does not specify a form, thorough records should identify the part number mapping, serial numbers, dates, signatures of authorised personnel, and referenced FAA AD documentation where relevant.

Step 7 , Coordinate with CASA for CofA issuance: Because Requirement 1 timing is prior to Australian CofA issuance (Compliance), present inspection results or FAA maintenance records to CASA or the relevant authorising body when applying for the CofA. If replacements were required, ensure documentation of the replacement parts (make/model and serial numbers) is available to demonstrate that the installed transducers are outside the prohibited block.

Step 8 , Verify part provenance and compatibility: Confirm that replacement transducers are certified/approved for installation on the Cessna 310R and that the replacement transducer serial numbers are not in the prohibited block. The AD does not address maturity of replacement parts or airworthiness approval pathway; verify any installation approvals and applicable maintenance manuals at the same time.

Step 9 , Prepare for audit and record review: Because Note 1 accepts FAA AD compliance records as satisfying this AD, ensure that any overseas maintenance work is supported by clear, signed maintenance entries showing the part numbers and serial numbers inspected or replaced. Keep those records accessible for CASA review at the time of CofA issuance or later audit.

Step 10 , Manage operational timing and supply chain: Anticipate the possibility of needing replacement transducers before flight if inspections reveal prohibited serials. Factor in procurement lead times and the potential need to ground the aircraft until replacements are fitted (Compliance). Where the aircraft is being imported, build the inspection and any necessary remedial work into timelines for registration and CofA application to avoid unplanned delays.

Step 11 , Note amendment and effective dates: Be aware that the Amendment became effective on 28 August 2008 and the original AD was effective on 8 May 2008; the amendment was signed 16 July 2008 (Compliance; Background). Use the latest operative version of the AD as the compliance benchmark.

Step 12 , Seek clarification if records are insufficient: If maintenance records are incomplete or ambiguous, and FAA AD compliance cannot be demonstrated conclusively, perform the inspection and, if necessary, replacement in accordance with the AD to avoid CofA delays. The AD provides no stated alternative-compliance procedure in the text; where uncertainty persists, contact CASA for clarification before applying for a Certificate of Airworthiness.

These steps implement the AD’s dual objectives: to detect transducers with serial numbers within the specified block and to ensure any such units are replaced before the aircraft next flies (Requirement; Compliance). The AD accepts prior FAA AD actions as satisfying the Australian requirement where records support that action (Note 1), but in the absence of clear records the standing compliance pathway is inspection plus conditional replacement.