The Directive rests on a small set of interlocking concepts that determine its scope and implementation mechanics.

State of Design ADs and incorporation by reference: CASA treats the set of Transport Canada ADs listed in Table 1 as "State of Design" airworthiness directives relevant to certain CL‑600 series aeroplanes. Instead of reproducing each TCA AD, CASA lists the TCA AD identifiers, effective dates and titles in Table 1 and requires operators to determine applicability "as in force at the commencement of this AD." That phrase anchors the version of each TCA AD to the status of that AD at the Directive's commencement date (11 November 2016), rather than to later amendments.

Two-step duty: The Directive's operative mechanism is a two-step duty. First, there is a fact-finding obligation (Requirement 1): determine whether each TCA AD listed in Table 1 applies to the particular aeroplane, given its manufacturing date, configuration and modification status. Second, there is an execution obligation (Requirement 2): if a listed AD is applicable and has not already been complied with, perform the actions required by that AD. The Directive thus separates legal obligation (to determine applicability) from technical obligation (to perform the AD-prescribed action).

One-time actions with passed compliance dates: CASA explicitly recognises that many of the TCA ADs in Table 1 "require one time actions for which the compliance date and/or period has passed" (Background). The Directive is therefore a catch-up instrument, aimed at recently registered or imported aeroplanes that may not have been subject to the TCA ADs when they were first issued.

Applicability is aircraft-specific: The Directive repeatedly recognises that not all ADs in Table 1 will be applicable to every aeroplane in the CL‑600 Regional Jet family because applicability depends on aircraft manufacture date, configuration and modification status. CASA states that operators should make the necessary applicability determination under Requirement 1.

Administrative timeline: Compliance must be achieved "Within 30 days after the effective date of this Directive or prior to the issue of a Certificate of Airworthiness, whichever occurs later." This creates a short administrative window for aircraft that already have a Certificate of Airworthiness and a potentially prior-to-CoA requirement for aircraft seeking initial certification.

Amendments and dynamic list management: The document itself has amendments recorded (Amendment 1, Amendment 2, Amendment 3) that remove particular TCA ADs from Table 1 where they were superseded by later State of Design ADs. The existence of these amendments makes clear that the list in Table 1 is administratively managed and subject to update when TCA issues superseding directives.

Delegated administrative action: The Directive is signed by a CASA delegate (Pieter van Dijk), indicating a standard administrative instrument issued under CASA's airworthiness/aircraft safety delegations. The document is labelled AD/CL-600/71 Amdt 3 and dated 3 November 2016.

In sum, the main concepts are: incorporation by reference of TCA ADs as State of Design requirements; a targeted two-stage duty to identify applicability and execute required actions; retrospective application to one-time actions whose compliance windows have passed; and an administrative compliance timeframe tied to the Directive's effective date or Certificate of Airworthiness issuance.

The Directive identifies a narrowly defined set of affected persons and entities, and the document itself indicates the circumstances that bring aircraft within its scope.

Aircraft types and operators: The primary affected parties are operators and owners of Bombardier (formerly Canadair) CL-600 Regional Jet series aeroplanes specified in the Applicability clause: CL‑600‑2B19, CL‑600‑2C10, CL‑600‑2D15 and CL‑600‑2D24. Those entities must determine whether the TCA ADs listed in Table 1 apply to each aeroplane and, if so and not previously accomplished, must carry out the TCA‑mandated actions.

Recently registered or imported aircraft: CASA states in the Background that the listed TCA ADs "may be applicable to recently registered or imported Australian aircraft," and that the Directive is "issued to ensure all State of Design ADs are complied with." That wording makes clear the Directive is targeted at aircraft that entered the Australian register after the original TCA AD compliance windows had closed, and for whom previous compliance cannot be assumed.

Maintenance organisations and certifying staff: The duty to "perform the actions required by that AD" will typically be executed by maintenance organisations, certificated maintenance personnel and possibly other approved organisations that carry out airworthiness modifications and inspections. These organisations will need to consult the full text of the TCA ADs (the Directive does not reproduce the technical steps) and record compliance in maintenance logs and release-to-service documentation.

Regulatory decision-makers and CoA applicants: The compliance timing clause directly affects entities seeking a Certificate of Airworthiness in Australia for an affected aeroplane. The Directive requires compliance "within 30 days after the effective date of this Directive or prior to the issue of a Certificate of Airworthiness, whichever occurs later." For aircraft in the process of certification, CASA or its delegate will expect evidence of compliance as a precondition to CoA issuance when the CoA would otherwise be later than the 30‑day window.

Aircraft owners, lessors and purchasers: Owners, lessors and prospective purchasers of the affected CL‑600 models are indirectly affected. The Directive’s requirement to identify and, where applicable, accomplish retrospective one-time actions (many with original compliance dates long past) creates a due‑diligence need for title and pre‑purchase checks. The Directive itself recognises this implication by focusing on recently registered or imported aircraft whose maintenance history may lack documentation of older one‑time actions.

CASA as an administrative actor: CASA (through its delegate) is the issuing authority. The document is a CASA airworthiness directive and shows CASA exercises administrative judgment in having compiled and pruned the list of TCA ADs (see Amendments). CASA’s Background and the signature block indicate which administrative officeisation produced the Directive.

What is not affected (explicitly): The Directive notes that "not all the ADs listed in Table 1 will be applicable to all Regional Jet series aeroplanes" because of manufacture and modification differences. Therefore aircraft that do not meet the applicability tests in Requirement 1 are not subject to the execution obligation in Requirement 2. The Directive does not purport to apply to other aircraft types outside the listed CL‑600 series.

In short, the immediate burden falls to operators, owners, maintenance providers and CoA applicants associated with the specified CL‑600 models, with a specific focus on recently registered or imported aeroplanes whose maintenance histories need confirmation against State-of-Design (TCA) one‑time ADs.

The Directive establishes a compact set of legal duties and leaves little in the way of express "rights" within its text. The duties are precise and time‑bound; indicated rights are implicit from CASA's background acknowledgement and amendment practice.

Primary duties

• Determine applicability (Requirement 1): Operators and responsible persons must "Determine the applicability of the TCA ADs listed in Table 1, as in force at the commencement of this AD." This is a duty of review and technical assessment. The phrasing "as in force at the commencement of this AD" identifies the relevant version of each TCA AD that must be used for that determination.

• Perform required actions if applicable and not previously accomplished (Requirement 2): If, having conducted the applicability review, an AD listed in Table 1 is found to be applicable and "has not been previously accomplished," the operator must "perform the actions required by that AD." This transfers the substantive technical obligation from CASA’s Directive to the operative detail contained within each TCA AD.

• Comply within the stated timeframe (Compliance clause): For both Requirement 1 and Requirement 2 the compliance window is "Within 30 days after the effective date of this Directive or prior to the issue of a Certificate of Airworthiness, whichever occurs later." The duty is therefore time constrained and linked to CoA issuance.

Temporal and evidentiary duties

• Records and proof: While the Directive does not set out specific recordkeeping formality, the Requirement 2 obligation to perform the actions "if not previously accomplished" creates an implicit evidentiary duty: operators must be able to demonstrate whether a listed TCA AD was previously complied with. That will necessitate reference to maintenance records, logbooks, modifications documentation and any prior AD compliance records.

Discretion and judgement

• Applicability assessments are fact-dependent: The Directive recognises that applicability turns on "date of aircraft manufacture or aircraft configuration and modification status" (Background). That places a technical judgement duty on the operator or maintenance certifier to interpret both the TCA AD text and the aeroplane's configuration history.

Administrative duties on CASA

• List maintenance and amendment: CASA demonstrates an administrative duty to maintain the Directive’s Table 1; Amendments 1-3 were issued to remove items from the table where TCA ADs had been superseded. This shows CASA will revise the list administratively in step with State of Design AD changes.

Rights and protections (implicit rather than explicit)

• Right to technical clarification: The Directive’s background statement acknowledges variation in applicability and CASA's administrative adjustment by amendment, which implicitly recognises an operator’s need to approach CASA (or a delegate) for clarification where applicability or compliance is unclear. The Directive does not, however, create an express appeal or review process within its text.

• Scope limitation: Operators effectively have a "right" not to be forced to carry out AD actions that are inapplicable to their aeroplane; the Directive explicitly anticipates and allows that not all listed ADs will apply. That places the onus on the operator to document and justify non-applicability.

Limits and missing duties

• No technical stepwise instructions: The Directive does not prescribe the technical steps; it defers to the TCA ADs themselves. The duty is therefore to identify and execute the prescribed external instrument.

• No enforcement mechanisms set out in the Directive: The instrument specifies what must be done and when, but does not set out penalties, enforcement steps or dispute-resolution procedures in the text. Any enforcement procedure must be found elsewhere in CASA’s broader regulatory instruments. The Directive contains no explicit penalty provisions.

To summarise: the Directive creates a tightly circumscribed duty structure: determine applicability, perform required actions if applicable and not previously done, and do so within the stated timeframe or prior to CoA , while recognising that technical judgement and record evidence will determine applicability. CASA retains administrative control of the list via amendments.

The Directive is explicit about compliance obligations and timing, but the text of the Directive does not set out specific penalties, monetary fines or a detailed enforcement regime within the instrument itself. The document therefore must be read as a targeted compliance directive that specifies duties and a deadline, without prescribing in‑instrument enforcement mechanisms.

What the Directive states about compliance and the implied enforcement nexus

• Compliance timeline: The Directive requires Requirements 1 and 2 to be satisfied "Within 30 days after the effective date of this Directive or prior to the issue of a Certificate of Airworthiness, whichever occurs later." This creates a temporal boundary that may be operationally enforced via CASA's administrative controls over Certificates of Airworthiness: an aircraft seeking a CoA will be expected to show compliance before CoA is issued when the CoA issuance date would fall after the 30‑day window.

• Administrative leverage via CoA: The Directive ties compliance to the CoA process explicitly. While the Directive does not itself state that non‑compliance will lead to refusal, suspension or revocation of a CoA, the requirement that compliance be achieved prior to CoA issuance (if that is the later event) implies that non-compliance may be a disqualifying factor for CoA issuance. That implication follows directly from the compliance clause but is not stated as a penalty in the Directive.

Absence of explicit penalties or enforcement procedures

• No statutory penalties in the text: The AD does not specify fines, sanctions, enforcement steps, or an administrative appeal procedure. It does not cite specific statutory powers or provisions under which penalties would be imposed, nor does it specify an investigation, show-cause or remedial regime following non‑compliance.

• No mention of rectification notices, grounding or escalation: The Directive does not state that CASA will ground aircraft, issue prohibition notices, request further evidence, or otherwise escalate compliance failures. Those measures, if applicable, would arise under CASA's broader regulatory powers and instruments, which are not reproduced or referenced with specifics in this Directive.

Practical enforcement implications (as supported by the Directive)

• Documentary evidence will matter: Because the Directive differentiates between ADs "applicable and has not been previously accomplished," operators will need to present evidence either of prior compliance or of newly performed actions. In practice, lack of adequate records may be treated as failure to show compliance.

• Administrative updates and amendments: CASA has used amendment instruments to remove superseded ADs from Table 1. That demonstrates that CASA can administratively change the list of AD obligations; adherence to the current version of Table 1 will therefore matter for enforcement in the sense that CASA will expect compliance with the Directive as amended.

• Compliance relative to CoA issuance: For aircraft in certification processes, CASA’s ability to withhold CoA issuance provides an administrative lever to ensure compliance within the Directive’s timeline, even though the Directive itself does not expressly say CoA will be withheld for non-compliance.

Limitations on what can be concluded from the Directive's text

• External enforcement procedures exist outside this document: The Directive’s silence on specific penalties does not mean no enforcement options exist under Australian aviation law; it means those enforcement mechanisms are not described within this AD. Any enforcement or penalty action would be governed by CASA's general regulatory framework and applicable legislation, none of which are reproduced or invoked by specific section in the Directive text.

In short, the Directive prescribes duties and a short compliance window, and links compliance to CoA issuance, but it does not contain an internal schedule of penalties or a step‑by‑step enforcement protocol. Operational enforcement will depend on CASA's wider regulatory powers and the documentary evidence that operators provide to demonstrate compliance.

The Directive situates itself in administrative airworthiness practice by incorporating State of Design (TCA) ADs and tying compliance timing to the Certificate of Airworthiness process. The text references external instruments (the TCA ADs) and administrative procedures (CoA issuance) rather than providing an independent statutory framework. The following interactions are explicit in the text.

Incorporation of State of Design ADs: The Directive functions as an Australian administrative instrument that requires compliance with airworthiness directives issued by the State of Design authority, Transport Canada Aviation (TCA). Table 1 lists TCA AD identifiers and effective dates (for example CF‑93‑02R1, CF‑2003‑23R2, CF‑2006‑20R1), and the Directive requires operators to determine the applicability of those TCA ADs "as in force at the commencement of this AD." That creates an interaction where Australian regulatory compliance depends on the content and force of foreign ADs at a specific date.

Certificate of Airworthiness: The Directive explicitly links its compliance requirements to the Certificate of Airworthiness: operators must comply within 30 days after the Directive's effective date or prior to the issue of a Certificate of Airworthiness, whichever occurs later. This creates an operational intersection with the domestic CoA regime: CASA will expect evidence of compliance in contexts where CoA issuance or renewal is relevant. The Directive itself does not reproduce or amend CoA statutory provisions, but it uses CoA issuance as a timing and compliance checkpoint.

Supersession and domestic list maintenance: Amendments recorded in the Directive show CASA's administrative interaction with the State of Design's ongoing AD activity. The Directive removed certain TCA ADs from Table 1 where they were "superseded by" later State of Design ADs (for example Amendment 1 removed CF‑2003‑23R2 because superseded by CF‑2003‑23R3; Amendment 2 removed CF‑2002‑41 as superseded by CF‑2011‑39; Amendment 3 removed CF‑2005‑13R1 as superseded by CF‑2011‑30R1). This demonstrates an administrative coordination mechanism rather than a legislative amendment of those TCA ADs.

Records and maintenance obligations: While the Directive does not itself recite domestic recordkeeping statutes, the obligation to "determine applicability" and to perform actions "if...not previously accomplished" materially interacts with maintenance record regimes. Operators must access and supply maintenance history to show whether one‑time actions were performed. The Directive thereby presupposes the operation of domestic recordkeeping and maintenance certification practices.

Limits of cross‑jurisdictional enforcement described in the Directive: The instrument does not set out how CASA would enforce TCA ADs beyond requiring compliance; it does not reproduce TCA enforcement mechanisms, and it does not specify any direct legal effect of TCA ADs on Australian law beyond the duties established in this Directive. The Directive therefore operates as a unilateral Australian administrative instrument that references foreign ADs for the substantive technical requirements.

No express cross-reference to broader statutory enforcement: The Directive does not cite the particular Australian statutory or regulatory provisions under which CASA has issued the AD, nor does it quote specific powers or offences. Thus, while the Directive interacts operationally with CoA issuance and with maintenance practice, it does not itself set the legislative link to enforcement, penalties, or appeal avenues.

Practical consequence of interactions: The main cross‑law operational effect is that an Australian operator's compliance status vis‑à‑vis specific TCA ADs can determine readiness for CoA issuance and ongoing airworthiness acceptability. Additionally, because the Table 1 ADs are one‑time actions with compliance dates that have passed, the Directive interacts with importation and registration processes for aircraft coming into Australia after those ADs were issued.

In brief: the Directive imports foreign (State of Design) technical obligations into the Australian administrative compliance framework, connects those obligations to the CoA administrative process, and is managed by CASA via amendments where TCA ADs are superseded. It does not itself reproduce or identify the statutory bases for enforcement or cross‑jurisdictional legal mechanisms.

The document header identifies the instrument as "AD/CL-600/71 Amdt 3." The text includes three specific amendment actions recorded in the Background section. The amendment history, as presented in the Directive, is administrative and narrowly focused on maintaining the relevance and currency of the Table 1 list of TCA ADs.

Amendment 1: Removal of CF-2003-23R2

• The Background reports that "Amendment 1 was issued to remove Airworthiness Directive (AD) CF-2003-23R2 as this AD has been superseded by CF-2003-23R3 which is a State of Design AD." The practical effect recorded is the deletion of a TCA AD entry from Table 1 where the State of Design had itself superseded the AD by a later numbered AD (CF-2003-23R3).

Amendment 2: Removal of CF-2002-41

• The Background states that "Amendment 2 was issued to remove Airworthiness Directive (AD) CF-2002-41 from the list in table 1 as this AD has been superseded by AD CF-2011-39 which is a State of Design AD." That indicates that CASA updated Table 1 to replace or remove an older AD entry that had been comprehensively superseded by a 2011 TCA AD.

Amendment 3: Removal of CF-2005-13R1

• The closing lines outside the main table show an administrative note: "Amendment 3 has been issued to remove Airworthiness Directive (AD) CF-2005-13R1 from the list in table 1 as this AD has been superseded by AD CF-2011-30R1 which is a State of Design AD." The instrument therefore underwent at least three amendment cycles to excise ADs that are no longer the operative State of Design requirement because they have been replaced by later TCA ADs.

Dates associated with the Directive and signature

• The Directive lists that it "commences on 11 November 2016" and is signed by "Pieter van Dijk, Delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority" dated 3 November 2016. The header identifies the instrument as Amendment 3 (Amdt 3). The specific dates on the recorded Amendment 1 and Amendment 2 texts within the body are not given as standalone amendment dates, but the textual statements document the content of the amendments.

Nature and limits of amendments recorded

• Each amendment recorded in the Directive removes an item from the Table 1 list because it was superseded at the State of Design level. The directive therefore records that CASA will curate its Table 1 list in response to TCA activity. The amendments are reactive and aimed at keeping the list current with TCA's own AD supersession decisions.

Implication for operators

• The existence of amendments signals to operators that Table 1 is not immutable. Where a TCA AD in Table 1 has been superseded by a later TCA AD, CASA will aim to align its Table 1 accordingly. Operators should therefore check both the Directive (and its current amended Table 1) and the TCA ADs themselves to ensure they are working to the currently relevant State of Design requirements.

What the amendment history does not contain

• The Directive does not provide a comprehensive version-control history (for example, no full list of each amendment date, or a consolidated timeline), nor does it provide the reasons behind the State of Design supersessions. It simply records three instances where CASA removed older TCA ADs because the State of Design issued superseding ADs.

In sum, the amendment history in this AD is narrow: three recorded administrative removals of superseded TCA ADs from Table 1, reflecting CASA’s updating of its incorporation-by-reference list to follow State of Design AD changes.

The Directive contains no information about litigation history. It does not mention any judicial or administrative appeals, proceedings or challenges either to the Directive itself or to the underlying Transport Canada ADs listed in Table 1. The document is a CASA administrative airworthiness instrument and the text does not record any legal disputes or case references.

What the document does provide that is relevant to potential disputes

• Explicit duties and timeframes: The Directive sets out a clear two-step duty (determine applicability and perform required actions if applicable and not previously done) and a precise compliance window. These are factual predicates that could form the basis for any administrative compliance dispute, were one to be litigated, but the Directive itself contains no record of disputes.

• Administrative amendments: The presence of Amendment 1, Amendment 2 and Amendment 3 indicates CASA has exercised administrative discretion to remove superseded TCA ADs from Table 1. Administrative updating could be a focal point for dispute in some circumstances, but again the instrument records no litigation.

• Absence of enforcement detail: The Directive does not describe enforcement mechanisms, penalties or appeal routes. If a dispute arose about whether CASA could require compliance with specific TCA ADs by administrative direction, the dispute would turn on CASA’s enabling statutes and the administrative law framework, none of which are included or cited in the Directive text.

Why the Directive is silent on litigation history

• Administrative instruments commonly omit litigation summaries: It is common for administrative ADs to set obligations without including a litigation history; the absence here does not mean there have been no disputes in other contexts involving the CL‑600 series or the TCA ADs, only that this particular instrument contains none.

• External record sources would be required to establish litigation history: To identify any actual litigation over this Directive or its subject matter would require searching judicial and administrative records, which is outside the content and scope of this instrument. The Directive does not provide that search or any case citations.

Short summary: The Directive contains no litigation history in its text, and does not reference any cases or legal proceedings. Any litigation relating to the Directive, to CASA's use of State of Design ADs, or to the listed TCA ADs would have to be sourced outside this document.

The Directive’s text contains a number of practical traps and technical pitfalls that operators, certifiers and purchasers should explicitly recognise. These are not legal adjudications; they are operational consequences implied by how the Directive is drafted and how it incorporates foreign ADs.

1. "As in force at the commencement of this AD" is a fixed‑version anchor

• The requirement to determine applicability uses the precise phrasing "as in force at the commencement of this AD." That anchors which version of each TCA AD must be used to the Directive’s commencement date (11 November 2016). Operators who instead consult later TCA AD amendments or rely on later superseding ADs without reference to the Directive’s own amendment status may misapply the Directive. In practice, operators must check the TCA AD texts as they stood on 11 November 2016 unless CASA has subsequently amended the Directive’s Table 1.

2. Table 1 is a list of references, not the technical prescriptions

• The Directive does not reproduce the technical requirements of the TCA ADs. It merely lists TCA AD identifiers, dates and short titles. To know what must be done technically, an operator must retrieve and follow each TCA AD text (or any State‑of‑Design superseding ADs where CASA removed entries via amendment). Failure to consult the full TCA AD text risks performing an incorrect scope of work.

3. One‑time actions with passed compliance dates create evidential gaps

• CASA explicitly noted many of these TCA ADs were one‑time actions for which the original compliance dates had passed. For recently registered or imported aeroplanes, records may be incomplete or absent, and the operator must determine whether the actions were performed historically. Operators who cannot produce adequate records may be required to perform the work anew, even if the work was done previously, because the Directive’s Requirement 2 applies where the AD "has not been previously accomplished."

4. Applicability depends on manufacture/configuration/modification status

• The Directive recognises that "due to date of aircraft manufacture or aircraft configuration and modification status, not all the ADs listed in Table 1 will be applicable." Determination therefore requires careful review of the specific aeroplane’s serial number, configuration records and modification status, cross‑referenced against the TCA AD applicability criteria. Loose or incorrect applicability determinations can lead to unnecessary work or overlooked unsafe conditions.

5. Amendments removed specific ADs because they were superseded

• Three amendments are recorded that removed particular TCA ADs from Table 1 when superseded by later TCA ADs (e.g. CF‑2003‑23R2 removed in favour of CF‑2003‑23R3). Operators must confirm they are working to the currently operative Table 1 (as amended) and the corresponding TCA AD texts. Confusion over which AD is active could result in inconsistent compliance.

6. Compliance window is short and tied to CoA

• The compliance requirement is "Within 30 days after the effective date of this Directive or prior to the issue of a Certificate of Airworthiness, whichever occurs later." If an aircraft is seeking an initial CoA, operators must demonstrate compliance before CoA issuance if that issuance occurs after the 30‑day window. For aircraft already on‑register, the 30‑day window may impose immediate resource and scheduling burdens.

7. No in‑instrument enforcement language or penalty schedule

• The Directive sets obligations but does not list penalties or enforcement steps. That omission can create uncertainty for operators about the consequences of non-compliance. While it is reasonable to infer enforcement would flow through CASA’s broader regulatory powers, the Directive itself does not provide detail, leaving a gap that may complicate compliance planning.

8. Recordkeeping and proof of prior accomplishment

• Because Requirement 2 differentiates between ADs "applicable and has not been previously accomplished," operators without robust historical maintenance records may face rework obligations or protracted evidence-gathering. The Directive’s wording places the evidentiary burden on the operator to demonstrate prior compliance.

9. Multiple ADs with diverse technical scope

• Table 1 includes ADs addressing diverse systems (e.g. Passenger Door De-Icing, Stall Protection System, Integrated Drive Generator, Fuel Tube Failures, Wing Root Wire Damage, Landing Gear Door Separation, Hydraulic Line Shields, etc.). Each TCA AD potentially requires different trades, test regimes, parts availability and lead times. Operators need cross‑discipline planning to comply, not a single generic maintenance action.

10. Import/registration timing complexities

• Because the Directive targets recently imported or registered aircraft, parties engaged in importation, sale, or re‑registration of CL‑600 series aeroplanes must factor this Directive into transactions. Failure to identify an outstanding one‑time AD could affect transaction value or CoA timing.

These "gotchas" flow from the Directive’s wording: its fixed version anchor ("as in force at the commencement"), its reliance on external TCA documents, the status of many items as one‑time actions with passed compliance dates, and the administrative link to CoA issuance. Operators must plan for record review, technical retrieval of TCA ADs in the correct version, and allocation of maintenance resources in a compressed timeframe.

The Directive sets out a clear operational sequence for compliance. The steps below translate the Directive’s textual requirements into an actionable checklist that remains strictly anchored to the AD’s instructions and wording.

1. Identify whether your aeroplane is within the Applicability scope

• Confirm the aircraft model: the Directive applies to Bombardier (formerly Canadair) CL‑600‑2B19, CL‑600‑2C10, CL‑600‑2D15 and CL‑600‑2D24 Regional Jet series aeroplanes "as identified in the Transport Canada Aviation (TCA) Airworthiness Directives (AD) in Table 1." If the aeroplane is not one of these types, the Directive does not apply.

2. Obtain the current version of the Directive and Table 1 (including amendments)

• Verify that you are consulting the Directive as amended. The text of the Directive records Amendments 1-3 that removed certain TCA ADs from Table 1 where superseded. Only the current Table 1 entries should be used in step 3.

3. For each TCA AD listed in Table 1, obtain the TCA AD text "as in force at the commencement of this AD"

• The Directive requires that applicability be determined "as in force at the commencement of this AD." The commencement date is 11 November 2016 (the AD "commences on 11 November 2016"). Retrieve the TCA AD document as it existed on that date (or confirm via TCA records the version in force on 11 November 2016). Do not assume later amendments supersede the version relevant to this Directive unless CASA has amended its Table 1 to reflect a supersession, as noted in the Directive.

4. Determine applicability (Requirement 1)

• For each TCA AD text you have retrieved, perform a thorough applicability analysis against the aeroplane’s configuration, serial number, production/modification date and configuration status. The Directive explicitly notes that "due to date of aircraft manufacture or aircraft configuration and modification status, not all the ADs listed in Table 1 will be applicable." Document the analysis and the basis for any determination of non‑applicability.

5. Review maintenance history and records to identify previously accomplished actions

• The Directive makes the execution obligation contingent upon whether the AD "has not been previously accomplished." Search maintenance records, logbooks, previous AD compliance entries, modification records and invoices to ascertain whether the TCA AD requirements were performed historically. Retain copies of all evidence.

6. Where an AD is applicable and not previously accomplished, perform the actions required by that AD (Requirement 2)

• For each applicable and unaccomplished AD, implement the technical steps set out in the relevant TCA AD text. Those steps will include inspection, replacement, modification, or other maintenance action, and any required follow‑up inspections or reporting. Perform the work using appropriately certificated maintenance organisations and personnel. The Directive itself does not set the technical standard; the TCA AD does.

7. Record compliance and generate evidence for CASA and CoA processes

• Once actions are completed, record compliance in the aircraft maintenance records and any AD compliance log, including details of work order numbers, parts installed, certified maintenance release documentation and the identity of the certifying technician or organisation. Keep copies to demonstrate compliance within the Directive’s timeframe and to satisfy CoA issuance checks.

8. Observe the compliance timeframe

• The Directive requires compliance "Within 30 days after the effective date of this Directive or prior to the issue of a Certificate of Airworthiness, whichever occurs later." The AD's commencement date is 11 November 2016; ensure all steps above are completed within 30 days of the effective date or before CoA issuance if that is the later event. Plan maintenance slots and parts procurement accordingly.

9. If in doubt, seek technical clarification from CASA or authorised representatives

• The Directive acknowledges that applicability depends on aircraft manufacture and modification status. If after your internal review questions remain, approach CASA (or a delegate) for clarification. Although the Directive does not set out an appeal or review mechanism within its text, CASA’s administrative channels are the practical route for resolving uncertainty.

10. Re‑check for superseding State of Design ADs and directive amendments

• The Directive records that CASA has removed certain ADs from Table 1 where those ADs were superseded by later State of Design ADs. Before undertaking work, check whether the relevant TCA AD has been superseded and whether CASA has amended Table 1 accordingly. If CASA has removed an item because a State of Design AD now supersedes it, follow CASA’s current instruction and the superseding TCA AD as appropriate.

11. For aircraft being acquired or imported, include Directive checks in pre‑purchase/due diligence

• Because the Directive targets recently registered or imported aeroplanes and addresses one‑time actions, purchasers and lessors should verify the AD compliance status as part of transaction due diligence to avoid unexpected maintenance obligations post‑registration.

12. Maintain documentary evidence for future regulatory review

• Even after compliance, retain the records demonstrating both the applicability assessment and the technical accomplishment of any AD tasks. The Directive makes the difference between previously accomplished and not previously accomplished an operative one; adequate record retention prevents future disputes about whether an AD was complied with.

By following the numbered steps above, an operator will have satisfied the Directive’s two express Requirements and the compliance timing clause. The key is to use authoritative TCA AD texts in the required version, maintain clear records of applicability determinations and completed work, and align the work with the CoA and maintenance planning schedule.