AD/CIRRUS/9 - Rudder and Aileron Rigging

Directly affected persons and organisations are owners, operators, and maintainers of the specified Cirrus SR20 and SR22 aeroplanes identified by serial number in the Applicability block. Where the AD requires inspection and corrective action (Requirement 1), the immediate responsibility falls on the operator or maintenance organisation that controls the aircraft’s maintenance. The AD does not itself state which maintenance certificates or approvals are required to perform the work; the AD makes compliance conditional on following the named Cirrus service bulletin (Requirement 1).

Administratively, CASA is the recipient of reports under the Service Difficulty Reporting (SDR) system (Requirement 2). The template for required reporting asks for information about the person who performed the inspection, telephone contact, aircraft model, serial number, total hours TIS, date of inspection, whether the aircraft logs contain entries related to flight control system maintenance/preventative maintenance/alteration, and the inspection results with a request to copy any relevant log book entries (reporting template). That creates a direct reporting obligation from the inspector/operator to CASA in the event an out‑of‑rig condition is found.

Indirectly affected parties include parts suppliers and maintenance facilities. The AD requires replacement of “the attaching hardware for the rudder‑aileron interconnect in accordance with Cirrus Service Bulletin No. SB 2X‑27‑14 R3” (Requirement 1). That implies procurement of specified hardware and adherence to the manufacturer’s procedural steps, and therefore affects supply chains and the capacity of maintenance shops to obtain parts and carry out the prescribed replacement.

Aircraft not listed in the Applicability are not covered by this AD text. Notably, the SR22 serial list contains discontinuities: SN 2334 and SN 2420 are omitted from the enumerated ranges. The AD’s applicability language therefore requires precise serial‑number checking by owners/operators to determine whether a specific airframe is subject to the AD.

Key duties under the AD are explicit and limited to those set out in the Requirements and Compliance sections.

Duties:

• Inspect the rudder, aileron, and rudder-aileron interconnect rigging (Requirement 1).
• Correct any out‑of‑rig condition discovered (Requirement 1).
• Replace the attaching hardware for the rudder-aileron interconnect in accordance with Cirrus Service Bulletin No. SB 2X‑27‑14 R3 dated 10 October 2007 (Requirement 1).
• Report to CASA via the Service Difficulty Reporting system any out‑of‑rig conditions discovered during the inspection, using the specified information fields, and file that report within 10 days after the inspection if an out‑of‑rig condition is discovered (Requirement 2; reporting template; Compliance).

Timing duties:

• Perform the inspection (and associated corrective work) within 25 hours TIS after the AD’s effective date or within the next three months, whichever occurs first (Compliance).
• If an out‑of‑rig condition is discovered as a result of the inspection, submit the SDR report within 10 days after the inspection (table row).

Specified procedure duty:

• The replacement work must be done “in accordance with” the named Cirrus service bulletin (Requirement 1). That conditions the technical content of the replacement task on manufacturer instructions.

Rights and limitations stated in the AD:

• Note 1 explicitly limits the reporting duty: “There is no need to report if there are no out‑of‑rig conditions discovered.” This narrows the reporting obligation to discovered defects only.
• The AD does not set out exemptions, alternative methods of compliance, or appeal mechanisms in the text provided. The AD does not detail who may lawfully perform the inspection or the replacement work, nor does it state whether alternative procedures to the named service bulletin may be approved; those details are not present in the text supplied.

The AD identifies CASA as the recipient of reports and as the issuing authority (closing signature by David Punshon, Delegate of CASA, 6 March 2008), and specifies the administrative channel for reporting (SDR system). The AD itself prescribes the substantive duties but does not, in the provided text, elaborate enforcement or sanctioning mechanisms, nor does it provide procedural rights such as application for alternative means of compliance within the instrument.

The AD text supplied does not set out penalties, fines, or criminal or civil sanctioning provisions. It states the mandatory requirements (inspection, correction, hardware replacement and reporting) and prescribes compliance deadlines; it does not otherwise describe the enforcement mechanism, penalties for non‑compliance, or administrative remedies within the text provided.

Operationally, the AD specifies the reporting channel to CASA (Service Difficulty Reporting system) and identifies the information CASA expects when an out‑of‑rig condition is found (Requirement 2 and reporting template). The AD thus establishes an information flow that can be used by CASA for monitoring and follow up.

Because the instrument is an Airworthiness Directive issued by CASA (signature by a CASA delegate appears at the end), the AD is a regulatory instrument setting mandatory technical obligations for airworthiness. The text, however, does not contain language imposing or describing civil penalties, licence consequences, or criminal sanctions for breach. The AD also does not set out a compliance monitoring regime, spot inspection powers, or administrative enforcement process in the excerpts provided.

Practically, the AD creates administrative obligations (reporting via SDR) and scheduling obligations (inspection within 25 hours TIS or three months). Failure to undertake the inspection and the corrective tasks within the stated period, or failure to report an out‑of‑rig condition within 10 days, would be non‑compliance with the AD’s requirements as drafted. The AD does not elaborate on how CASA will treat reports, whether CASA will acknowledge or act on specific reports, nor whether CASA will publish aggregated SDR data in relation to this AD. Those operational enforcement and follow‑up matters are not specified in the AD text provided.

The AD explicitly references an FAA airworthiness directive: “FAA AD 2008‑03‑16 Amdt 39‑15367 dated 29 January 2008 refers” (Note 2). That shows alignment or parallel action between CASA and the US Federal Aviation Administration regarding the same technical problem. The AD requires compliance with a manufacturer’s service bulletin: “in accordance with Cirrus Service Bulletin No. SB 2X‑27‑14 R3, dated 10 October 2007” (Requirement 1). This creates an interaction between regulator‑mandated action (the AD) and manufacturer technical instructions (the Service Bulletin).

The AD’s reporting requirement channels information to CASA via the Service Difficulty Reporting system. That reporting regime typically interfaces with broader safety regulation and surveillance systems; however, the AD text does not specify how SDR reports will be used under other regulatory instruments or how SDR data interface with maintenance records under civil aviation maintenance regulations. The AD does require that, where flight control system maintenance entries exist in the aircraft logs, copies of those entries be included in the SDR submission (reporting template item 7b). That instruction interacts operationally with maintenance record‑keeping obligations for the aircraft and implies a linkage between logbook records and regulator reporting.

The AD does not expressly refer to any Civil Aviation Act, regulations, or administrative sanctions instruments in the text provided. It does not specify whether the replacement or inspection must be performed by certified maintenance organisations or persons, nor whether CASA will accept alternative methods of compliance. Those legal interactions are therefore either dealt with in other CASA instruments or in the broader regulatory framework, but they are not set out in this AD text.

In summary, the instrument sits at the intersection of:

• CASA regulatory action (the AD itself);
• manufacturer technical guidance (Cirrus Service Bulletin SB 2X‑27‑14 R3); and
• a parallel FAA AD (FAA AD 2008‑03‑16). The AD therefore coordinates a regulator‑mandated action with manufacturer specifications and an international regulator’s corresponding measure.

The AD text supplied contains limited material relevant to amendment history. What is present is the date lines and references that identify when the AD was processed and what prior documents it builds on:

• The AD is listed as AD/CIRRUS/9 and dated 5/2008 (header). The instrument states it “becomes effective on 8 May 2008” (table row).
• The delegate who signed the AD is named as David Punshon, Delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, and the signature block is dated 6 March 2008. The apparent sequence is: delegate signature 6 March 2008; AD effective date 8 May 2008; the header indicates the AD numbering and month/year 5/2008.
• The AD mandates compliance with Cirrus Service Bulletin No. SB 2X‑27‑14 R3, dated 10 October 2007 (Requirement 1). The inclusion of the service bulletin revision (R3) and its date establishes the manufacturer input the AD incorporates by reference.
• The AD also notes an FAA action as related material: FAA AD 2008‑03‑16 Amdt 39‑15367 dated 29 January 2008 refers (Note 2).

No prior versions of this CASA AD or subsequent amendments are contained in the text supplied. The AD itself does not include an amendment log, revocation clause, or transitional wording beyond stating the compliance windows. Any later amendments, superseding ADs, or revocations would not be visible in the document provided. The Service Bulletin referenced (SB 2X‑27‑14 R3) is identified by revision and date, which is relevant if later service bulletin revisions were issued; that would be an external document to check for amendment history relevant to the AD.

The text supplied contains no litigation history. It names no court decisions, administrative appeals, or legal challenges to the AD. It does not cite legal proceedings, nor does it record any legal determinations about the AD’s validity, interpretation, or enforcement. The only external reference is to FAA AD 2008‑03‑16, which is treated as a related regulatory document rather than as litigation.

Accordingly, within the material provided there are no reported cases, no outcomes, and no references to judicial or administrative review. Practitioners seeking case law on the effect, enforceability, or interpretation of this AD would need to search outside the supplied instrument for decisions or administrative actions that mention AD/CIRRUS/9, but no such references are in the AD text itself.

The AD text contains several points that can produce practical pitfalls:

• Serial‑number gaps. The Applicability block lists SR22 serial ranges as “SN 0002 through 2333, SN 2335 through 2419, and SN 2421 through 2437 all inclusive.” That excludes SN 2334 and SN 2420. Owners/operators must check precisely the airframe serial number against the AD’s enumerated ranges; a failure to check precisely could lead to unnecessary work (if the AD does not apply) or missed compliance (if the AD does apply). The AD’s precise serial list is the controlling scope.

• Reporting trigger versus reporting burden. The reporting obligation applies only if an out‑of‑rig condition is found. Note 1 says: “There is no need to report if there are no out‑of‑rig conditions discovered.” That limits the administrative burden when inspections are clean, but if an out‑of‑rig condition is found the operator must supply the specified items in the template and must file within 10 days of the inspection. The template requires copying logbook entries if prior flight control maintenance entries exist (reporting template items 7a/7b), which may surface historical maintenance information.

• Tight compliance timing but two alternatives. The inspection must be completed within 25 hours TIS or within three months after the AD’s effective date, “whichever occurs first” (Compliance). Aircraft that remain grounded seldom may still hit the three‑month deadline even if they do not accumulate 25 hours. Conversely, a frequently flown aircraft could reach 25 hours within days; operators must monitor both clocks. The AD does not offer an alternative method of compliance in the text supplied.

• Requirement to follow a manufacturer service bulletin. The AD requires replacement of attaching hardware “in accordance with Cirrus Service Bulletin No. SB 2X‑27‑14 R3, dated 10 October 2007” (Requirement 1). The AD does not specify who must carry out the work (e.g. certificated maintenance organisation) nor whether deviations from the service bulletin can be accepted. Practically, operators should obtain and follow the service bulletin and ensure they have access to the required parts; the AD does not provide parts or costs.

• Ambiguous performance responsibility. The AD does not state explicitly whether the inspecting person must be a licenced certifying engineer, an authorised person, or whether the operator may self‑inspect. The reporting template asks “Inspection Performed By” and telephone contact, but the AD text supplied is silent on minimum qualifications to perform the inspection, which may create operational uncertainty for operators about who must carry out the work.

• No penalties spelled out. The AD sets mandatory duties and schedules but does not specify enforcement processes, penalties, or how CASA will verify compliance in the AD text provided. That can create uncertainty about the consequences of administrative or timing non‑compliance; those matters are not resolved in the AD text.

• Minor textual errors in the AD. A line in the table reads “If there are is an out‑of‑rig condition discovered: Within 10 days after the inspection detailed in Requirement 1 of this AD is completed.” That typographical error does not change the substantive requirement but is a drafting oddity. Practitioners should rely on the substance,report within 10 days if an out‑of‑rig condition is found,rather than the typo.

• Cross‑jurisdictional reference. The AD refers to FAA AD 2008‑03‑16. Operators who fly internationally or lease aircraft across jurisdictions should check the FAA AD and the Cirrus service bulletin for any wording differences, but the CASA AD itself controls obligations for Australian‑registered aircraft. The AD text does not integrate or summarise the FAA AD; it only refers to it.

Follow the AD’s explicit steps and administrative requirements, and document compliance carefully.

1. Confirm applicability. Verify the airframe serial number against the AD’s Applicability block. The AD lists specific SR20 and SR22 serial ranges; ensure the precise SN is within those ranges before proceeding.

2. Obtain the referenced service bulletin. Get Cirrus Service Bulletin No. SB 2X‑27‑14 R3 dated 10 October 2007, because the AD requires replacement of the attaching hardware “in accordance with” that service bulletin (Requirement 1). The service bulletin will contain the parts list, drawings, torque figures, and procedural steps necessary to perform the replacement as required by the AD.

3. Schedule the inspection promptly. The AD demands inspection within 25 hours TIS or within three months after the AD’s effective date, whichever occurs first (Compliance). Track both the TIS clock and calendar days to ensure the inspection is completed before either deadline elapses.

4. Perform the inspection and correction. Inspect the rudder, aileron, and rudder-aileron interconnect rigging. If any out‑of‑rig condition is found, correct it. Replace the attaching hardware for the rudder-aileron interconnect per the service bulletin. Record all maintenance actions in the aircraft logbook consistent with maintenance recordkeeping obligations.

5. Capture inspection metadata. The reporting template requires the following fields when an out‑of‑rig condition is discovered: Inspection Performed By; Telephone; Aircraft Model; Aeroplane Serial Number; Aircraft Total Hours Time‑in‑Service; Date of inspection; whether aircraft logs contain entries describing flight control system maintenance/preventative maintenance/alteration (Yes/No), and if Yes to copy the logbook entry(s) and include the dates; Inspection Results (describe the out‑of‑rig condition in detail). Prepare that material contemporaneously during the inspection so the required SDR submission can be complete.

6. Report to CASA if required. If the inspection discovers any out‑of‑rig condition, report it to CASA via the Service Difficulty Reporting system within 10 days after the inspection (Requirement 2; Compliance). If no out‑of‑rig condition is found, Note 1 clarifies that no SDR report is required.

7. Retain evidence. Keep copies of the SDR submission, the completed logbook entries (including any copied entries referenced in the SDR), and any parts invoices or work orders evidencing replacement of the attaching hardware. The AD ties the replacement work to a specific service bulletin; maintaining documentary evidence that the procedure and parts conformed to the service bulletin will be prudent.

8. Monitor for follow‑on instructions. Although the AD text supplied contains no subsequent amendment mechanism, CASA or the manufacturer could issue follow‑up communications or revised service information. Operators should monitor CASA notices and manufacturer service documents for revisions, and check FAA AD 2008‑03‑16 (referenced in Note 2) for any related requirements that might affect internationally operated aircraft.

9. Manage operational impacts. Plan for aircraft downtime needed to complete the inspection and any corrective work, including sourcing the attaching hardware required by the service bulletin. Consider scheduling around planned flights within the 25‑hour/3‑month window to minimise disruption.

10. Clarify technical qualifications. Because the AD text does not specify who must carry out the inspection and replacement, operators should, as a matter of good practice, have the work performed or supervised by appropriately qualified maintenance personnel and document the qualifications of the person who performed the inspection in the SDR submission when relevant.

Following these steps will satisfy the substantive AD obligations as stated: inspection and correction (including hardware replacement per SB 2X‑27‑14 R3), and conditional reporting to CASA via SDR when an out‑of‑rig condition is found. Keep precise records of compliance dates and actions taken to demonstrate that the AD’s deadlines and procedural requirements have been met.