AD/CON/82 Amdt 1 - Crankshaft Replacement and Ultrasonic Inspection

The AD relies on a small set of interlocking concepts and authoritative source documents. These are stated in the AD text and establish the required method, scope and permissible alternatives.

Applicability. The AD applies to a closed set of engine types. The "Applicability" block lists "Teledyne Continental Motors (TCM) IO‑360, LTSIO‑360, TSIO‑360, IO‑520, LIO‑520, LTSIO‑520 and TSIO‑520 series reciprocating engines; and Rolls‑Royce, plc IO‑360 and TSIO‑360 series reciprocating engines." That list defines the regulated population.

Manufacturing process distinction. The AD distinguishes crankshafts by manufacturing method: the "Airmelt" process and the "Vacuum Arc Remelt (VAR)" process. The AD requires identification of the crankshaft as either Airmelt, VAR, or unknown, using the identification procedure in TCM Critical Service Bulletin CSB96‑8 (25 June 1996), or a later revision provided it is approved by the FAA (Requirement 1).

Replacement obligation. If the crankshaft is Airmelt or its manufacturing process is unknown, the AD requires removal and replacement with a "serviceable crankshaft manufactured using the VAR process." The AD further mandates that removed non‑VAR crankshafts must not be refitted into any engine.

Inspection layering. The AD imposes inspection obligations on VAR crankshafts. It requires an ultrasonic inspection per TCM Mandatory SB No. MSB96‑10 (15 August 1996) or later FAA‑approved revision (Requirement 2). It explicitly states this ultrasonic inspection is "in addition to" the requirements for Magnetic Particle Inspection (MPI) or other inspections specified in the manufacturer's overhaul manuals. Separately, Requirement 3 requires MPI "as specified in TCM or Rolls‑Royce plc Overhaul Manuals as applicable." Amendment 1 clarifies the "source of approved data" for MPI.

Temporal flexibility and alternatives. The AD prescribes when actions must occur: at the next crankshaft removal after the effective date, and repetitively at each subsequent installation of the VAR crankshaft. Crucially, the AD records that MPI has been approved as an "alternate method of compliance" to the ultrasonic inspection requirement only until 31 December 2006, with the stated objective of allowing "adequate time for the build‑up of the necessary infrastructure and skills" for ultrasonic inspection.

Cross‑references to manufacturer and FAA materials. The AD explicitly anchors required actions to certain TCM service bulletins (CSB96‑8 and MSB96‑10), TCM and Rolls‑Royce overhaul manuals, and requires FAA approval for any later revisions of the service bulletins. The AD also references FAA AD 97‑26‑17 amendment 39‑10260.

Authority and signature. The directive is signed by a CASA delegate, named James Coyne, and dated 31 March 2005, with Amendment 1 effective 12 May 2005. The AD therefore operates as a CASA‑issued directive that prescribes mandatory maintenance and replacement action, tied to manufacturer documents and FAA approvals.

These concepts combine to produce a compliance regime where identification, removal, replacement and inspections are mandatory for the engines and crankshafts specified, with a narrow and temporary pathway allowing MPI as an alternative to ultrasonic inspection while ultrasonic capability is established.

The AD directly names a set of engine models; from that placement, the primary entities affected follow directly from the AD text.

Aircraft owners and operators. Owners and operators of aircraft powered by the listed engines (TCM IO‑360, LTSIO‑360, TSIO‑360, IO‑520, LIO‑520, LTSIO‑520, TSIO‑520, and Rolls‑Royce IO‑360 and TSIO‑360 series) are the primary payers and decision‑makers who must ensure compliance. The AD requires that when the crankshaft is "next removed from the engine, after the effective date", the identification and replacement obligations are to be carried out, thereby imposing action on whichever party controls maintenance decisions at that removal event. Those owners/operators will therefore face the direct costs of removal, replacement and inspections mandated by the AD.

Maintenance organisations and overhaul facilities. Licensed maintenance organisations, overhaul facilities and individual maintenance engineers who perform crankshaft removal, replacement and inspections are affected because the AD prescribes specific identification procedures (TCM CSB96‑8), specific inspection procedures (MSB96‑10 for ultrasonic), and reliance on manufacturer overhaul manuals for MPI. They must ensure they have access to the specified SBs and any FAA‑approved revisions, and that their personnel and equipment meet the inspection standards implied by the documents.

Parts suppliers and stockholders. Suppliers of serviceable VAR crankshafts and parts will be affected by the requirement that non‑VAR or unknown‑process crankshafts be replaced by VAR crankshafts. The AD thus creates demand for VAR‑manufactured crankshafts, and it prohibits re‑installation of removed non‑VAR crankshafts. Entities that hold non‑VAR crankshafts in inventory must not fit those into engines; they will need to decide whether to re‑classify, scrap or otherwise dispose of such parts in line with the prohibition.

Regulatory and oversight personnel. CASA personnel and any delegated inspectors will be affected in that they must interpret compliance with an AD that ties actions to manufacturer documents and FAA approval for later revisions. The AD is signed by a CASA delegate, but the text itself does not set out enforcement measures.

Manufacturers. Teledyne Continental Motors and Rolls‑Royce, plc are implicated because the AD anchors the mandatory procedures to their service bulletins and overhaul manuals. The AD requires use of CSB96‑8 and MSB96‑10 or later FAA‑approved revisions, and references overhaul manual procedures for MPI.

Training and infrastructure providers. The Background states MPI was accepted as an alternate method of compliance to ultrasonic inspection only until 31 December 2006 to permit "the build‑up of the necessary infrastructure and skills required to meet the requirement 2." That sentence identifies training providers and inspection equipment vendors as indirectly affected, since the AD presumes a ramp up in ultrasonic capability.

Not affected categories. The AD applies only to the listed engine series; other engines are outside its scope. The text does not purport to modify rules for other components, airframes or unrelated systems.

In sum, the people and organisations who will incur direct costs or undertake duties are: aircraft owners/operators of the listed engine types; maintenance and overhaul organisations that perform or supervise removal, replacement and inspections; parts suppliers of VAR crankshafts; and the manufacturers and training/infrastructure providers whose documents and services the AD cross‑references.

The AD lays down specific duties, anchoring them to named documents and prescribing timing. The AD text does not create a general rights framework; it is directive in nature. The following summarises the binding duties as printed in the AD.

Duty to identify manufacturing process. Operators must "Determine if the crankshaft was manufactured using the 'Airmelt' or 'Vacuum Arc Remelt (VAR)' process in accordance with the identification procedure described in TCM Critical Service Bulletin CSB96‑8, dated 25 June 1996 or later revision approved by FAA." This identification duty precedes any decision to replace or retain a crankshaft.

Duty to remove and replace non‑VAR or unknown‑process crankshafts. If identification shows the crankshaft was manufactured using the "Airmelt" process or if the manufacturing process is unknown, the operator must "remove the crankshaft from service and replace with a serviceable crankshaft manufactured using the VAR process." The duty includes the explicit prohibition: "Do not fit removed non‑VAR crankshaft into any engine."

Duty to perform ultrasonic inspection of VAR crankshafts. For VAR crankshafts, the AD requires an ultrasonic inspection "in accordance with the procedures specified in TCM Mandatory SB No. MSB96‑10, dated 15 August 1996 or later revision approved by FAA." The AD places this ultrasonic inspection in addition to other inspection requirements in overhaul manuals.

Duty to perform magnetic particle inspection (MPI). The AD requires MPI of VAR crankshafts "as specified in TCM or Rolls‑Royce plc Overhaul Manuals as applicable." The Amendment clarifies the source of approved data for MPI; the AD also expressly allows MPI as an alternate method of compliance to ultrasonic inspection up to 31 December 2006.

Timing duties. Compliance timing is explicit. Compliance item 1 states the identification and required removal/replacement must be done "whenever the crankshaft is next removed from the engine, after the effective date of this directive." Compliance item 2 mandates the ultrasonic and/or MPI inspections be done "Repetitively, at the next and subsequent installation of the VAR crankshaft in the engine." Compliance item 3 states that MPI is an alternate method of compliance to requirement 2 up to 31 December 2006.

Document reliance and approvals. The AD conditions compliance on use of specified documents: CSB96‑8 for identification and MSB96‑10 for ultrasonic inspection; both may be followed in later revisions only if those revisions are "approved by FAA." For MPI, the AD specifies that the procedures in the TCM or Rolls‑Royce overhaul manuals are to be used, and Amendment 1 clarifies the source of approved data for MPI.

No express exemptions or appeals in the text. The AD text contains no express exemption mechanism, no specified appeals process and no listed right to seek an alternative method of compliance beyond the one time‑limited allowance for MPI in lieu of ultrasonic inspection. It does state that later revisions of the named service bulletins may be followed if they are approved by the FAA.

Other specified duties. The AD clarifies that the ultrasonic inspection is "in addition to the requirements for Magnetic Particle Inspection (MPI) or any other inspections specified in TCM or Rolls‑Royce, plc Overhaul Manuals," so operators must ensure that they meet all overlapping inspection requirements in the manufacturer manuals as well as the additional ultrasonic inspection.

Rights and entitlements. The AD text does not articulate rights such as compensation, reimbursement or administrative review. The only explicit "right" implicit in the text is the option to use MPI as an alternate method of compliance in place of ultrasonic inspection, but only until the specified date and only where MPI complies with the approved data source clarified by Amendment 1.

In practical terms, the AD establishes concrete, time‑bound maintenance duties anchored to manufacturer and FAA‑approved documents, while not specifying procedural rights or appeal mechanisms in the text provided.

The AD text supplied does not set out penalties, sanctions or the enforcement process. The document prescribes mandatory maintenance and replacement measures for the applicable engines, lists the compliance timing and references specific manufacturer and FAA‑approved service documents, but it contains no express penalty clauses, infringement fines, or detailed enforcement procedures.

What the AD does show. The AD is signed by a CASA delegate, indicating it is issued under CASA authority, and it sets mandatory technical obligations. Those obligations include: identify crankshaft manufacturing process per CSB96‑8; remove and replace any Airmelt or unknown‑process crankshafts with VAR crankshafts; do not fit removed non‑VAR crankshafts into any engine; perform ultrasonic inspection per MSB96‑10; and perform MPI per overhaul manuals. The AD also sets compliance timing and allows MPI as a time‑limited alternate to ultrasonic inspection until 31 December 2006.

Absence of explicit penalties in the text. Because the supplied instrument does not state penalties or enforcement mechanisms, no specific monetary fines, criminal sanctions, suspension regimes or administrative enforcement steps can be cited from this document alone. The AD therefore obliges compliance but does not, in the text provided, describe what happens in the event of non‑compliance.

Practical implication for affected parties. The AD nonetheless imposes discrete duties that will generate practical consequences for operators: removal and replacement of crankshafts, inspections, and avoidance of refitting removed non‑VAR crankshafts. Compliance will require operator action and expenditure; the AD’s signatory and effective dates mark when those obligations commence. The AD also ties to manufacturer and FAA‑approved documents, so failure to follow those documents would be non‑compliance with the AD’s requirements as stated.

Limitations on available detail. Any enforcement, penalty, or appeal mechanisms that may exist under CASA’s broader regulatory framework are not contained in this text and are therefore outside the authority of this document as supplied. Users requiring the precise enforcement regime, procedural steps for CASA action or remedies for non‑compliance will need to consult the relevant CASA regulatory instruments or guidance not included in the supplied text.

The AD cross‑references and conditions compliance on several non‑statutory technical documents and one FAA airworthiness directive. The supplied text does not purport to amend other statutes, but it situates its requirements within manufacturer service bulletins and an FAA AD. The interaction points in the document are specific and should be observed as written.

Manufacturer service bulletins and overhaul manuals. The AD makes compliance contingent upon the use of specific Teledyne Continental Motors documents: CSB96‑8 for identification of crankshaft manufacturing process and MSB96‑10 for ultrasonic inspection. It also directs operators to MPI procedures "as specified in TCM or Rolls‑Royce plc Overhaul Manuals as applicable." In effect, the AD imports the procedural content of those manufacturer documents into its requirements. The AD allows use of later revisions of CSB96‑8 and MSB96‑10 only if those later revisions are "approved by FAA."

FAA airworthiness directive reference. The AD contains a note: "FAA AD 97‑26‑17 amendment 39‑10260 refers." This indicates that the CASA AD recognises related FAA regulatory action and aligns to it by referencing the FAA AD as a source of related or supporting information. The AD requires that later revisions of the TCM service bulletins be FAA‑approved before they are acceptable for compliance, which creates a dependency on FAA approval processes for updates to the manufacturer documents relied upon.

Manufacturer-regulator interaction. By making FAA approval relevant to the acceptability of later revisions, the AD creates an explicit interaction between CASA’s requirements and FAA processes. The AD therefore requires compliance with CASA while importing standards and approvals from manufacturer documents and FAA approvals for subsequent revisions.

No express conflict resolution or preemption clauses. The text does not include clauses addressing conflicts between the AD and other legal instruments, nor does it state how to resolve inconsistent instructions if they arise across manufacturer manuals, FAA approvals and CASA directives. The AD’s structure assumes the operator will use the listed manufacturer documents, and later revisions are acceptable only with FAA approval; the AD does not provide a procedure for resolving inconsistencies or for seeking CASA approval of alternative methods of compliance beyond the MPI/time‑limited alternate.

Temporal interaction and transitional relief. The AD explicitly provides a transitional mechanism by allowing MPI as an alternate method of compliance to ultrasonic inspection until 31 December 2006. The background frames this as permitting "adequate time for the build‑up of the necessary infrastructure and skills required to meet the requirement 2." This is a specified, time‑limited interaction between an operational technical requirement (ultrasonic inspection) and a temporary permissive alternative (MPI), which itself relies on manufacturer overhaul manuals.

Scope limitations. The AD applies only to the listed engine models. It does not amend or purport to affect other CASA instruments or statutory provisions outside the text supplied. It imports and references manufacturer documents and an FAA AD, thus creating operational linkages across documents rather than legislative or statutory overlays.

In short, the AD interacts with other regulatory and technical materials by: importing manufacturer service bulletin content into mandatory obligations; requiring FAA approval for later revisions of those documents; and referencing an FAA AD as related material. The supplied text does not provide a comprehensive reconciliation mechanism for conflicts among these sources.

The supplied instrument is Amendment 1 to AD/CON/82. The text supplies a limited but concrete amendment history.

Original AD. The AD states that "The original issue of this Airworthiness Directive became effective on 25 November 2004." That original AD established the baseline duties that Amendment 1 modifies or clarifies.

Amendment 1 details. This instrument is "AD/CON/82 Amdt 1," titled "Crankshaft Replacement and Ultrasonic Inspection," dated 5/2005 in the header and signed 31 March 2005 by James Coyne, Delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. The document states "This Amendment becomes effective on 12 May 2005." The amendment text clarifies sources for approved MPI data and establishes MPI as an interim alternate compliance method to ultrasonic inspection until 31 December 2006.

Clarification introduced by Amendment 1. The Background expressly explains that "Amendment 1 clarifies the source of approved data to be used for MPI per requirement 3 of this AD." It also states the policy reason for the temporary MPI allowance: MPI "has been approved as an alternate method of compliance to the requirement of Ultrasonic Inspection till 31 December 2006, allowing adequate time for the build‑up of the necessary infrastructure and skills required to meet the requirement 2 of this directive."

Dates and sequence. Sequence of relevant dates in the text:

• CSB96‑8 date referenced: 25 June 1996 (identification procedure).
• MSB96‑10 date referenced: 15 August 1996 (ultrasonic inspection procedure).
• Original AD effective: 25 November 2004.
• Amendment signed: 31 March 2005.
• Amendment effective: 12 May 2005.
• MPI approved as alternate until: 31 December 2006.

Related external reference. The AD contains as a note "FAA AD 97‑26‑17 amendment 39‑10260 refers," which suggests that Amendment 1 is part of a sequence of actions linked to FAA activity dating back to the 1990s and to FAA amendment 39‑10260. The supplied text does not give further historical context beyond that cross‑reference.

Practical meaning of the amendment. Amendment 1 does not rescind the original AD but clarifies the proper data sources for MPI and creates a time‑limited operational alternative to ultrasonic inspection. The amendment thus adjusts compliance procedures rather than altering the underlying applicability list or the fundamental removal/replacement prohibition.

No further amendments listed. The supplied document contains only the original AD effective date and this Amendment 1; it contains no subsequent amendments or revocations. Any later amendments, rescissions or modifications are not included in the supplied text.

The supplied document contains no litigation history, case citations, judicial reviews or references to disputes. It does reference FAA AD 97‑26‑17 amendment 39‑10260, but the text does not list any judicial proceedings arising from that FAA AD or from the CASA AD itself.

What the text does record. The AD is administrative in form, issued and signed by a CASA delegate, and contains a background explanation for Amendment 1. The Background records practical regulatory policy decisions, specifically permitting MPI as an interim alternate compliance method to ultrasonic inspection until 31 December 2006 to allow for development of skills and infrastructure.

Absence of litigation detail. Because the AD does not list case citations, appeals, or litigation outcomes, no litigation history can be drawn from the supplied text. There is no reference to legal challenges in the material provided.

Practical consequences for researchers. For any party seeking litigation history, the supplied text does not provide such material. Researchers wanting to locate litigation or administrative review of this AD would need to consult external sources, administrative records or court databases , those are not in the supplied document.

This section flags textual tight spots, implicit risks and common compliance pitfalls that follow directly from the AD’s wording. Each point is grounded in the supplied text.

Identification dependency: CSB96‑8 required and FAA approval for later revisions. The AD requires identification "in accordance with the identification procedure described in TCM Critical Service Bulletin CSB96‑8, dated 25 June 1996 or later revision approved by FAA." Operators must ensure they are following CSB96‑8 or a specific later revision that is FAA‑approved. Using a later revision without FAA approval would not satisfy the AD as written.

Unknown‑process crankshafts treated as non‑compliant. The AD treats crankshafts with unknown manufacturing process the same as Airmelt crankshafts: they must be "removed from service and replaced with a serviceable crankshaft manufactured using the VAR process." This means absence of clear markings, records or traceability effectively forces replacement.

"Serviceable" not defined in the AD text. The AD requires replacement "with a serviceable crankshaft manufactured using the VAR process." The document does not define "serviceable." Operators must therefore look to the referenced manufacturer materials (overhaul manuals, SBs) or other accepted practices to determine serviceability; the AD itself provides no definition.

Prohibition on re‑fitting removed non‑VAR crankshafts. The AD states "Do not fit removed non‑VAR crankshaft into any engine." That prohibition is absolute in the text and does not include an alternative inspection or re‑certification pathway within the AD. Removed non‑VAR crankshafts cannot be refitted.

Ultrasonic inspection is cumulative. The AD specifies that the ultrasonic inspection "is in addition to the requirements for Magnetic Particle Inspection (MPI) or any other inspections specified in TCM or Rolls‑Royce, plc Overhaul Manuals." Failure to recognise this layering could lead to non‑compliance through omission of required inspections.

MPI as an interim alternative has an end date. MPI was "approved as an alternate method of compliance to the requirement of Ultrasonic Inspection till 31 December 2006." After that date the AD does not entertain MPI as compliant in place of ultrasonic inspection. Operators relying on MPI must manage the transition to ultrasonic inspection capability by that date.

Requirement to use FAA‑approved revisions for SBs. For both the identification SB (CSB96‑8) and the ultrasonic SB (MSB96‑10), the AD allows "later revision approved by FAA." Using a manufacturer revision not yet FAA‑approved would not meet the AD as stated.

Repetitive inspection timing tied to installation. The AD requires inspection "Repetitively, at the next and subsequent installation of the VAR crankshaft in the engine." This is a recurring obligation, not a one‑time check on conversion to VAR parts. Each reinstallation triggers the inspection duty.

Cross‑reference to Rolls‑Royce. The applicability includes certain Rolls‑Royce IO‑360 and TSIO‑360 series engines. Operators or maintainers of these engines must use the Rolls‑Royce overhaul manuals for MPI procedures "as applicable," which introduces a potential source of differing procedural detail that must be reconciled with the AD’s requirements.

No enforcement mechanism or penalty language provided here. The AD sets out duties but does not specify enforcement steps, penalties or appeal routes in the supplied text. Parties should not assume specific enforcement processes are contained in this instrument.

Transitional management required. Because the AD imposes replacement obligations and phased inspection standards, operators need to manage parts procurement, inspection capability and records at each crankshaft removal and installation event. Failure to plan supply of VAR crankshafts or access to FAA‑approved SB revisions may create operational delays or grounding risk.

The AD prescribes narrowly tailored compliance steps anchored to specified documents and timing. The following practical checklist follows the AD language and sequence; it cites the relevant requirement or compliance clause where available in the text.

Step 1 , Confirm applicability. Verify the engine model is within the AD scope: TCM IO‑360, LTSIO‑360, TSIO‑360, IO‑520, LIO‑520, LTSIO‑520, TSIO‑520 series, or Rolls‑Royce IO‑360 and TSIO‑360 series. The AD applies only to those engines listed in the "Applicability" block.

Step 2 , Identification per CSB96‑8 (Requirement 1). When a crankshaft is next removed from the engine after the effective date (Amendment 1 effective 12 May 2005), determine whether the crankshaft was manufactured by the "Airmelt" or "VAR" process by following the identification procedure in TCM Critical Service Bulletin CSB96‑8 dated 25 June 1996 (or a later revision only if that revision is "approved by FAA").

• If the identification procedure confirms VAR manufacture, proceed to Step 3.
• If the procedure shows "Airmelt" or if the manufacturing process is unknown, do not return that crankshaft to service. Instead, proceed to Step 4.

Step 3 , Inspections for VAR crankshafts (Requirement 2 and Requirement 3). For VAR crankshafts, carry out both inspection streams as the AD requires.

• Ultrasonic inspection: Conduct the ultrasonic inspection "in accordance with the procedures specified in TCM Mandatory SB No. MSB96‑10 dated 15 August 1996 or later revision approved by FAA" (Requirement 2). The AD explicitly states the ultrasonic inspection is in addition to the MPI or other inspections in the overhaul manuals, so do not treat one as substituting for the other except where the AD allows MPI as a time‑limited alternate.
• MPI: Carry out Magnetic Particle Inspection per the procedures specified in TCM or Rolls‑Royce overhaul manuals as applicable (Requirement 3). Amendment 1 clarifies the source of approved data for MPI.

Step 4 , Replacement for Airmelt or unknown crankshafts (Requirement 1). If the crankshaft is Airmelt or manufacture is unknown, remove it and replace it with a "serviceable crankshaft manufactured using the VAR process." The AD states "Do not fit removed non‑VAR crankshaft into any engine." Ensure the replacement VAR crankshaft meets any manufacturer serviceability criteria in the applicable overhaul manual or service bulletins.

Step 5 , Observe timing rules (Compliance). The AD instructs that identification and removal/replacement be done "whenever the crankshaft is next removed from the engine, after the effective date of this directive" (Compliance 1). Inspections are required "Repetitively, at the next and subsequent installation of the VAR crankshaft in the engine" (Compliance 2). MPI is permitted as an alternate to ultrasonic inspection "up to 31 December 2006" (Compliance 3 and Background). Incorporate these timing rules into maintenance scheduling.

Step 6 , Use only specified or FAA‑approved revised documents. When following the identification and ultrasonic inspection procedures, use CSB96‑8 and MSB96‑10 as dated in the AD or use later revisions only if those are "approved by FAA." For MPI procedures use the TCM or Rolls‑Royce overhaul manuals "as applicable" and ensure the source of MPI data aligns with the clarification in Amendment 1.

Step 7 , Avoid re‑installation of removed non‑VAR parts. Treat removed non‑VAR crankshafts as unfit for reinstallation. The AD’s language is categorical: "Do not fit removed non‑VAR crankshaft into any engine."

Step 8 , Plan for capability transition. The AD’s Background acknowledges a capability gap in ultrasonic inspection capability and allows MPI as interim alternate up to a stated date. Operators should plan to have ultrasonic inspection capability (equipment, trained personnel, or contracted service providers) in place before the MPI allowance expires on 31 December 2006.

Step 9 , Coordinate with parts suppliers and overhaul providers. Because replacement with VAR crankshafts is required where a crankshaft is Airmelt or unknown, operators should ensure availability of serviceable VAR crankshafts and confirm their serviceability per manufacturer criteria in overhaul manuals or the service bulletins noted in the AD.

Step 10 , Document actions and ensure traceability. While the AD text does not state recordkeeping requirements, compliance will be demonstrable only if identification, replacement and inspection actions are recorded and traceable to the effective date and to the manufacturer's procedures used. Record the identification method (CSB96‑8 or FAA‑approved revision), the inspection procedures used (MSB96‑10 or FAA‑approved revision, overhaul manual MPI procedures), the part numbers and manufacturing process determinations, and the dates of removal and installation in order to demonstrate adherence to the AD’s timing and procedural requirements.

Step 11 , Monitor for FAA‑approved revisions. The AD permits use of "later revision approved by FAA" for CSB96‑8 and MSB96‑10. Maintain awareness of any such FAA approvals to ensure the version of the SB you rely on is acceptable under the AD.

Adhering to the AD requires stepwise execution: identify process at next removal, replace non‑VAR or unknown crankshafts with VAR, perform both ultrasonic and MPI inspections where applicable (subject to the time‑limited MPI alternate), and do these inspections at each VAR crankshaft reinstallation. The AD’s procedural dependencies on CSB96‑8, MSB96‑10 and manufacturer overhaul manuals must be respected, and any later revisions must carry FAA approval to be acceptable.