AD/DO 328/58 - Control Cables

The AD is structured around a small number of interlocking concepts. First, applicability: the AD applies to "Dornier 328-100 aeroplanes" (labelled "Applicability" in the source). That confines the regulatory obligation to a specific type and model. Second, mandated inspection and corrective action: the AD requires inspection for chafing and wear, replacement of parts exceeding wear limits, inspection of fairleads/swivel guides and rectification of defects, and an initial adjustment of autopilot control cables to a "new tension" at the initial inspection. Those actions are specified under "Requirement".

Third, normative procedural reference: the AD makes Dornier Alert Service Bulletin ASB‑328‑00‑011 Revision 2 (1 August 2000) the primary procedure to be followed, subject to later LBA‑approved revisions. The AD explicitly states "in accordance with Dornier 328 Alert Service Bulletin No. ASB‑328‑00‑011 Revision 2 dated 1 August 2000 or later LBA approved revision," making the ASB the technical standard. Fourth, alternative means of compliance: the AD lists other service bulletins (Honeywell SB 4005842‑22‑3; Dornier SB 328‑27‑290, SB 328‑27‑291, SB 328‑27‑292, SB 328‑27‑253, SB 328‑76‑152, SB 328‑76‑168) which, if performed, modify or obviate the need to implement particular paragraphs of the ASB. The AD therefore creates a menu of compliance paths rather than a single mandatory set of procedures.

Fifth, timing: the AD prescribes a maintenance interval regime. The "Compliance" entry states: initial inspection at 4,000 flight hours (the AD parenthetically equates that with a C‑Check), and repeat intervals not to exceed 2,000 flight hours (a 5A‑Check). The AD repeats this timing text in multiple places in the source. Sixth, safety rationale: the AD includes a "Background" statement that reports "possible chafing" on autopilot, elevator, rudder, aileron and engine control cables and links that chafing to potential cable failure and "subsequent loss of control of the relevant system." That is the stated risk the AD seeks to mitigate. Seventh, administrative formality: the AD sets an effective date (11 May 2006) and records that it was issued by a CASA delegate (signature block: James Coyne, 17 March 2006).

Those are the main operative ideas: a bounded applicability, prescriptive inspections and corrections, a procedural norm (ASB) with listed alternatives, concrete timing intervals, and an explicit safety rationale linking chafing to potential system loss of control.

The AD explicitly affects operators of Dornier 328‑100 aeroplanes. The "Applicability" line reads "Dornier 328‑100 aeroplanes," so any operator, aircraft owner, maintenance organisation, or maintenance provider responsible for continuing airworthiness of that model is within scope. The AD does not list registrants, owners, operators, lessees or maintenance organisations separately, but the obligations it imposes (inspection, replacement, rectification, adjustment) translate into actions typically carried out by the operator or by maintenance organisations contracted by the operator. The AD does not use words such as "operator" or "owner" in other parts of the source; nevertheless, the measures required (procedural compliance with an ASB or approved alternative SBs and timing tied to flight hours and maintenance checks) create operational duties for whoever holds continuing airworthiness responsibility for the aircraft.

The AD names technical documents and third‑party vendors whose performed work can change compliance obligations. If the operator or its maintenance provider has already performed certain Service Bulletins (for example, Honeywell SB 4005842‑22‑3 or Dornier SB 328‑27‑290/291/292), then the AD states that implementation of particular paragraphs of the ASB is "not required." That creates a distribution of benefit for operators who have already completed those SBs: they avoid repeating parts of the ASB work. The AD specifically references Dornier SB 328‑27‑253 and Dornier SB 328‑76‑152 and SB 328‑76‑168 as alternatives for particular ASB paragraphs. Those alternative pathways affect operators differently depending on prior maintenance history and whether specific SBs have been performed.

Regulatory decision‑makers are also implicated. The AD references "later LBA approved revision" of the Dornier ASB, indicating that the German Luftfahrt‑Bundesamt (LBA) has an approving role for later revisions of the ASB; the AD therefore recognises foreign airworthiness authority approval in establishing acceptable normative practice. The AD itself is signed by a CASA delegate (James Coyne), indicating CASA's administrative role in issuing the directive.

What the AD does not specify in the source is who bears the monetary cost of parts replaced or the form of record‑keeping required. The document similarly does not state enforcement sanctions for non‑compliance in the text provided. Those elements are therefore not specified within the AD text supplied.

Duties

• Perform inspections and corrective action as required by the AD. The "Requirement" section mandates three discrete actions: (1) inspection of control cables for signs of chafing and replacement where wear limits are exceeded; (2) inspection of fairleads/swivel guides for wear and rectification of defects; (3) adjustment of autopilot control cables to new tension at the initial inspection. The AD requires that these be "in accordance with Dornier 328 Alert Service Bulletin No. ASB‑328‑00‑011 Revision 2 dated 1 August 2000 or later LBA approved revision."
• Comply with the timing in the "Compliance" provision: unless previously accomplished, perform the initial inspection at 4,000 flight hours (C‑Check) and repeat at intervals not to exceed 2,000 flight hours (5A‑Check). The AD repeats that same timing in several lines of the source.
• Where the alternative Means of Compliance are performed, adjust obligations accordingly: the AD provides that if certain Honeywell or Dornier SBs have been performed, implementation of specified paragraphs of the ASB is "not required."

Rights / Options (procedural choices created by the AD)

• Use of alternative compliance paths. The AD explicitly allows alternative means of compliance by listing specific Service Bulletins. For example, "If Honeywell SB 4005842‑22‑3, Dornier SB 328‑27‑290, SB 328‑27‑291 and SB 328‑27‑292 are performed implementation of paragraph 1 of Dornier 328 ASB‑328‑00‑011 Revision 2 is not required." Similarly, performance of Dornier SB 328‑27‑253 obviates implementation of paragraph 2c and paragraph 3 of the ASB; performance of SBs 328‑76‑152 and 328‑76‑168 obviates paragraph 4. These clauses create discrete choices for compliance planning.
• Follow a later LBA‑approved revision. The AD names ASB‑328‑00‑011 Revision 2 (1 August 2000) but permits use of "later LBA approved revision," giving operators the option to follow a later ASB revision provided it has LBA approval.

What the AD does not specify as duties or rights

• The document does not set out administrative procedures for proving compliance within the text supplied, nor does it specify record‑keeping formats or certification language. It also does not include penalty provisions, remediation timelines beyond the inspection schedule, or audit rights. Those items are not present in the source text and therefore are not assertable from this AD alone.

In short, the AD creates enforceable technical duties to inspect and correct specific control‑cable issues on Dornier 328‑100 aeroplanes, prescribes a technical standard (an ASB or approved alternatives), and establishes timing intervals; it also grants options via specific alternative service bulletins and later LBA‑approved ASB revisions.

The AD text provided does not specify penalties or enforcement actions. The source contains the prescriptive "Requirement" and "Compliance" elements and records the effective date (11 May 2006), but it contains no language in the supplied text describing enforcement mechanisms, civil or criminal penalties, or administrative sanctioning processes for non‑compliance. The AD does include a signature block identifying "James Coyne, Delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority" and a date stamp (17 March 2006), which records the issuing authority and date of issuance. The presence of an effective date ("This Airworthiness Directive becomes effective on 11 May 2006") establishes when the obligations become operative, but the source does not set out the consequences of failing to meet the obligations after that date.

Because the AD itself does not contain penalty text, the following are observable consequences from the source document rather than prescriptive sanctions: affected parties are required to carry out the listed inspections and corrective actions "in accordance with" the specified Dornier ASB (or approved alternatives), and the AD sets clear compliance timings. The AD therefore functions as a mandatory direction while leaving unspecified in this text any enforcement instruments, avenues for challenge, or penalty scales that might exist elsewhere in the domestic regulatory framework.

Readers relying solely on the AD text must therefore note that the AD places prescriptive obligations on the responsible parties (operators/maintainers of Dornier 328‑100 aeroplanes) but does not, within the supplied pages, explain how non‑compliance will be detected, what administrative or legal sanctions apply, or how compliance will be documented and certified for regulatory auditing. The AD’s silence on enforcement mechanisms in the source means that stakeholders looking for procedural details about audits, sanctions, or dispute resolution will need to locate additional regulatory materials beyond the AD text provided here.

The AD explicitly references and interacts with other aviation‑safety instruments and vendor service documents. Within the source, the key interactions are:

• Normative reliance on a manufacturer service bulletin: the AD requires work "in accordance with Dornier 328 Alert Service Bulletin No. ASB‑328‑00‑011 Revision 2 dated 1 August 2000 or later LBA approved revision." That makes the ASB the technical standard the AD incorporates by reference. The AD therefore imports the ASB's procedural detail (inspection points, replacement criteria, adjustment procedure) into the regulatorily mandated work even though the full ASB text is not reproduced in the AD.
• Acceptance of alternative Service Bulletins: the AD names Honeywell SB 4005842‑22‑3 and a set of Dornier SBs (328‑27‑290; 328‑27‑291; 328‑27‑292; 328‑27‑253; 328‑76‑152; 328‑76‑168) as alternative means of compliance for specified paragraphs of the ASB. This creates explicit cross‑document relationships: performance of designated SBs changes which paragraphs of the ASB must be performed. The AD therefore operates as a cross‑reference hub, converting the status of certain SBs into regulatory exceptions to ASB paragraphs.
• Reference to a foreign airworthiness authority document: the AD notes "Note: LBA AD 1996‑001/4 refers." That indicates recognition of, or linkage to, an existing Luftfahrt‑Bundesamt (LBA) AD. The AD also allows use of "later LBA approved revision" of the ASB. Those references create an interaction with LBA actions and approvals, such that LBA approvals or prior LBA ADs influence what the CASA AD requires or accepts. The text supplied does not spell out the legal mechanics for such foreign‑to‑domestic recognition; however, the AD’s language makes clear that certain LBA approvals or ADs are relevant to compliance in practice.

What the AD text does not do

• The supplied AD does not itself attempt to amend or repeal other domestic legislation. It does not cite specific domestic statutory provisions, nor does it set out administrative appeals or judicial review procedures. It is silent on how the AD interacts with operators’ contractual obligations to lessors, insurers, or third parties; it also does not articulate how the AD interacts with, for example, continuing airworthiness management manuals or air operator certificates. Those interactions are thus not established in this AD text.

In summary, the AD interacts directly with manufacturer and vendor service bulletins (incorporating an ASB as normative and listing alternative SBs) and cross‑references an LBA AD and LBA approval status. Any additional cross‑legal effects or enforcement mechanisms are not set out within the supplied AD text.

The document supplied identifies a small set of dates and document revisions that form its amendment record or historical context:

• The AD itself is labelled "AD/DO 328/58 Control Cables 5/2006" and contains the notice that "This Airworthiness Directive becomes effective on 11 May 2006." The signature block shows "James Coyne, Delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority" dated 17 March 2006, which records issuance by CASA via delegate and the issuance date.
• The AD mandates compliance "in accordance with Dornier 328 Alert Service Bulletin No. ASB‑328‑00‑011 Revision 2 dated 1 August 2000 or later LBA approved revision." That establishes that the AD adopted ASB‑328‑00‑011 Revision 2 (1 August 2000) as its baseline technical document and permits later LBA‑approved revisions to be followed. The AD therefore records at least one ASB revision (Revision 2) as the operative technical reference.
• The AD indicates additional service bulletins that may be relied upon as alternatives (Honeywell SB 4005842‑22‑3; Dornier SBs 328‑27‑290, 328‑27‑291, 328‑27‑292, 328‑27‑253, 328‑76‑152, 328‑76‑168). The AD does not state their issue dates in the supplied text, but it identifies them explicitly as acceptable alternative compliance materials for particular ASB paragraphs.
• The AD contains a short "Note" recording that "LBA AD 1996‑001/4 refers." This references an earlier LBA AD (1996) relevant to the subject matter and forms part of the normative history the AD relies on.

What the AD’s text does not provide

• The AD does not include an amendment log within the supplied page noting later CASA changes to this AD. There is no line in the supplied text indicating that the AD has itself been amended after May 2006. Likewise, the AD does not include an official revision number for the AD instrument itself within the supplied text beyond the title "5/2006." Any subsequent amendments or superseding ADs are not recorded in this document excerpt. The supplied AD also does not state whether the AD was issued as an initial AD or whether it replaces an earlier domestic AD on the same subject.

For readers needing a comprehensive amendment history of the regulatory requirement, the supplied text documents the issuance and effective dates, the ASB baseline (ASB‑328‑00‑011 Revision 2, 1 August 2000) and referenced alternative SBs and a prior LBA AD, but it does not provide a longitudinal amendment log beyond those items.

The AD text supplied contains no litigation references, case citations, or judicial history. There are no cases named, no settlements recorded, and no mention of legal challenges against this AD in the source. The text is limited to administrative content: applicability, requirements, compliance timing, alternative SBs, a background safety rationale, an effective date (11 May 2006), and an issuing signatory (James Coyne, 17 March 2006).

Because the AD itself does not provide a litigation history, the source does not establish whether this AD has been the subject of dispute, appeal, judicial review or enforcement litigation. The same absence applies to any record of internal review or administrative reconsideration within the text supplied. Where a legal or factual dispute might arise in practice (for example, over whether a given alternative SB satisfies the AD’s substitute condition for a particular ASB paragraph), the AD does not provide procedural guidance within the supplied text about how to resolve such disputes. Any litigation‑related history, outcomes or guidance would therefore not be available from this document alone.

Readers requiring litigation status or precedential rulings that affect interpretation of this AD will need to consult external legal records; the AD text itself contains no litigation data. Within the AD’s pages supplied here, the only judicially relevant content is the AD’s prescriptive content, its cited ASB and alternative SBs, and its effective date; no further legal history is included.

The AD presents several operational and interpretive details that can produce confusion or unexpected compliance implications if read too quickly. These are drawn directly from the supplied text:

• Scope is narrow but absolute: the "Applicability" field is simply "Dornier 328‑100 aeroplanes." That seems straightforward, but it is absolute: if an operator has Dornier 328 variants other than the 328‑100 model, those aircraft are not listed as applicable in this AD. Conversely, operators of 328‑100 models must treat the AD as directly applicable even if other maintenance programmes exist.
• ASB paragraph numbering vs AD references: the AD lists three required actions under "Requirement" but the "Alternative Means of Compliance" language refers to implementation of "paragraph 1," "paragraph 2c," "paragraph 3" and "paragraph 4" of Dornier 328 ASB‑328‑00‑011 Revision 2. The AD’s own requirement list shows only three numbered items, but the alternative means clauses reference paragraph 2c and paragraph 4. This suggests that the ASB being referenced contains a more granular paragraph structure than the AD’s three listed items, and that mapping an AD paragraph to an ASB paragraph will require close cross‑referencing of the ASB document. Practically, that means maintenance planners must consult the full ASB text to determine which ASB paragraphs are being displaced by alternative SBs, rather than relying on the AD’s three‑item summary alone.
• Multiple alternative SBs with differing scope: the AD allows substitution for paragraph 1 of the ASB by performing a set of four SBs (Honeywell SB 4005842‑22‑3 and Dornier SBs 328‑27‑290/291/292). It separately allows substitution for paragraph 2c and paragraph 3 by performing Dornier SB 328‑27‑253. It allows substitution for paragraph 4 by performing Dornier SBs 328‑76‑152 and 328‑76‑168. That fragmentation means an operator cannot simply say "I performed all Dornier SBs" without matching which SB maps to which ASB paragraph; careful cross‑reference is required.
• Timing repetition and wording duplication: the "Compliance" block repeats the initial/interval timing several times in the source text. That repetition may reflect the AD’s intention to apply the same interval to multiple cable groups, but it also invites clerical error in implementation records. Maintenance planners should ensure the initial 4,000 FH and repeat 2,000 FH intervals are applied consistently to each control‑cable item required by the ASB or the alternative SBs.
• ASB revision permissibility tied to LBA approval: the AD allows use of "later LBA approved revision" of the ASB. That creates a dependency on LBA approval status. Operators relying on a later ASB revision must ensure that the revision is LBA‑approved per the conditional language in the AD, otherwise the AD’s acceptance of a later ASB revision does not apply.
• Missing enforcement language in the AD: the AD sets mandatory technical requirements and effective date but contains no penalties or enforcement mechanisms in the supplied text. That does not mean enforcement will not occur; it does mean the AD does not itself specify how non‑compliance will be handled. This is a practical "gotcha" for risk managers seeking to understand regulatory exposure solely from the AD’s text.
• Note about LBA AD 1996‑001/4: the AD contains "Note: LBA AD 1996‑001/4 refers." That is terse and does not explain the content or implications of the LBA AD. Operators unfamiliar with the LBA AD’s content need to obtain that document to understand any cross‑obligations it may create.

These are concrete, source‑grounded potential pitfalls: mismatches between AD summaries and ASB paragraph structure, fragmented substitution pathways, dependencies on LBA approval, repeated timing language that invites clerical error, and absence of enforcement detail.

Compliance steps based on the AD text are procedural and must be executed with reference to the ASB and any alternative SBs noted. The source‑based compliance approach is:

1. Confirm applicability. Verify the aircraft type is Dornier 328‑100, since the AD's "Applicability" line is restricted to that model.

2. Review maintenance history. Determine whether any of the alternative Service Bulletins listed in the AD have already been performed on the aircraft (Honeywell SB 4005842‑22‑3; Dornier SBs 328‑27‑290, 328‑27‑291, 328‑27‑292, 328‑27‑253, 328‑76‑152, 328‑76‑168). The AD explicitly states that performing certain SBs removes the need to implement particular paragraphs of ASB‑328‑00‑011 Revision 2. Therefore the operator must map historic SB compliance to the ASB paragraphs the AD references. Because the AD’s own requirement bullets do not present paragraph‑level mapping, the maintenance team must consult the full ASB text to identify paragraph 1, paragraph 2c, paragraph 3 and paragraph 4 and to confirm whether the performed SBs cover those paragraphs.

3. Choose the compliance pathway. Either:

   • Perform work "in accordance with Dornier 328 Alert Service Bulletin No. ASB‑328‑00‑011 Revision 2 dated 1 August 2000 or later LBA approved revision," or
   • Perform the listed alternative SBs where applicable, understanding which ASB paragraphs are thereby dispensed with. For example, performing Honeywell SB 4005842‑22‑3 and Dornier SBs 328‑27‑290/291/292 eliminates the need to implement paragraph 1 of the ASB as per the AD; performing Dornier SB 328‑27‑253 eliminates implementation of paragraph 2c and paragraph 3; performing Dornier SBs 328‑76‑152 and 328‑76‑168 eliminates paragraph 4.

4. Timing: if the required work has not "previously been accomplished," perform the initial inspection at 4,000 flight hours (the AD identifies that as a C‑Check). Where the initial inspection is performed, set the repeat interval to "not to exceed 2,000 FH (5A‑Check)" for continued compliance. The AD repeats this timing threshold and labels the checks by common maintenance nomenclature (C‑Check and 5A‑Check), so maintenance programming should incorporate those intervals into the aircraft’s maintenance schedule.

5. Carry out the specific work items. At a minimum, per the AD's "Requirement":

   • Inspect control cables for signs of chafing; replace parts which exceed wear limits.
   • Inspect fairleads/swivel guides for signs of wear; rectify any defects found.
   • At the initial inspection, carry out adjustment of Autopilot control cables to the new tension specified in the ASB (the AD mandates the "adjustment of Auto Pilot control cables to new tension at initial inspection").

6. Record keeping and technical compliance documentation. The AD itself does not prescribe the form of compliance records in the supplied text. Nonetheless, operators should document the inspection findings, parts replaced (including part numbers and wear measurements where applicable), SBs performed (with revision numbers and approval evidence where an SB substitutes for ASB paragraphs), and flight‑hours at time of inspection to demonstrate timing compliance (initial 4,000 FH and subsequent 2,000 FH intervals). Because the AD allows "later LBA approved revision" of the ASB, retain documentation that any later ASB revision used is indeed LBA‑approved.

7. Cross‑reference with LBA AD 1996‑001/4 where relevant. The AD contains a note that "LBA AD 1996‑001/4 refers." If an operator has obligations under that LBA AD, reconcile those obligations with the current AD’s requirements.

8. Implement quality control. Given the safety consequence the AD identifies ("chafing can lead to the failure of the cables and subsequent loss of control of the relevant system"), ensure that inspections are carried out by appropriately qualified maintenance personnel and that replacements and adjustments meet the tolerance and torque/tension specifications set out in the ASB or the alternative SBs.

9. Plan for fleet‑level implications. For operators with multiple Dornier 328‑100 aircraft, schedule inspections to align with scheduled C‑Checks and 5A‑Checks where possible to minimise operational downtime. Because the AD sets a flight‑hours trigger, align planning with accurate flight‑hours records.

10. If in doubt, consult the ASB and listed SBs. The AD’s three‑item summary is insufficient to map the AD‑referenced paragraph numbers without consulting the full ASB. The operator should retrieve ASB‑328‑00‑011 Revision 2 (or later LBA‑approved revision) and the listed SB texts to establish precise procedures, wear limits, and adjustment specifications.

All steps above are drawn from the AD text: the required actions (Requirement), the procedural norm (ASB with LBA approval), alternative SBs (Alternative Means of Compliance), and the timing and effective date (Compliance; "This Airworthiness Directive becomes effective on 11 May 2006").