AD/ERJ-170/2 - State of Design Airworthiness Directives

The Directive rests on three main regulatory concepts that determine practical effect: state-of-design AD adoption by reference, a two-step compliance requirement (applicability determination then remedial action), and retrospective coverage for one‑time ADs whose original compliance dates have already passed.

1. State-of-Design AD adoption by reference. Table 1 enumerates ANAC/DAC ADs by AD number, issue date and title. The Directive does not reproduce the substantive technical mandates of those foreign ADs; it requires operators to consult the source ANAC/DAC documents and to follow the actions prescribed there where applicable. This creates a cross-jurisdictional compliance pathway: CASA requires Australian registrants to conform to specific State-of-Design mandates by reference rather than restating them in full in the CASA document (Requirement 1 and 2; Table 1; Note 1).

2. Two-step compliance logic. The Directive separates assessment from action. First, an operator must “determine the applicability” of each ANAC/DAC AD listed (Requirement 1). Second, if an AD is applicable and has not been “previously accomplished”, the operator must perform the actions required by the ANAC/DAC AD (Requirement 2). The conditional language places on the operator both a due-diligence duty (to make the applicability determination) and an affirmative corrective duty (to perform outstanding one‑time actions).

3. Retroactive catch-up for one‑time ADs. The Background expressly states the listed ANAC/DAC ADs “require one time actions for which the compliance date and/or period has passed,” and CASA issued the Directive because such ADs “may be applicable to recently registered Australian aircraft” (Background). The Directive therefore converts previously time‑limited State‑of‑Design one‑time mandates into present obligations for Australian-registered ERJ‑170s that have not yet complied.

Ancillary concepts: the Directive includes an express caveat that not every AD will be applicable to every aeroplane because of manufacture date, configuration and modification status (Background). It also provides a source for retrieving the ANAC/DAC AD texts (Note 1), which operators must consult to determine the exact technical steps required.

Operationally, this instrument is procedural , it compels a compliance review and, where outstanding, execution of previously issued foreign AD remedies. The Directive defines neither penalties nor procedural steps for notification back to CASA; it states only the determinations and actions and the 30‑day compliance timeframe. The list of ADs in Table 1 covers varied systems and may, in practice, require mechanical work, software updates, inspections, or procedural changes depending on each AD’s contents.

The Directive is explicitly applicable to “ERJ-170( ) series aeroplanes” (Applicability). The primary parties who bear duties and potential costs under the Directive are operators and registrants of ERJ‑170 series aeroplanes on the Australian register. The Directive’s text and Background establish that its target population includes aeroplanes recently registered in Australia that might not have been subject to the original compliance windows imposed by the State of Design ADs. CASA’s words are, in effect, addressed to Australian registrants who must now check whether relevant one‑time State‑of‑Design ADs apply and, if so, complete any outstanding mandated tasks (Requirement 1 and 2; Background).

Secondary actors and stakeholders likely affected include Australian maintenance organisations, licensed engineers, aircraft owners, lessors and possibly insurers. Although the Directive does not explicitly invoke maintenance organisation approval processes, compliance actions required by State‑of‑Design ADs will typically involve maintenance tasks, parts replacement, modifications, software updates or inspections, and so those who perform maintenance and those that certify release-to-service will be operationally implicated. Where the ANAC/DAC AD requires parts, technical services or vendor support, suppliers and OEM support channels may also be engaged.

CASA, through its delegate (the document is signed by “Charles Lenarcic, Delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority”), is the issuing decision-maker. The AD imposes a regulatory duty without prescribing notification steps; the Directive’s compliance instruction is addressed to operators to act within 30 days after the effective date (Compliance). The Background acknowledgement that “not all the ADs listed in Table 1 will be applicable … due to date of aircraft manufacture or aircraft configuration and modification status” signals that the applicability determination will require factual, technical assessment by parties familiar with each aeroplane’s configuration and maintenance/production records.

The Directive also implicates foreign regulators and documents. It imports actions from ANAC/DAC ADs (State of Design) and points operators to a URL where those ADs “may be accessed” (Note 1). Therefore, international documentation and translation issues may affect how Australian operators determine applicability and implement corrective actions.

What the Directive does not do, in the text provided, is to specify penalties, notification procedures to CASA once actions are completed, or a process for seeking exemptions or alternative means of compliance. The absence of such procedural detail in the Directive means operators must rely on their own compliance processes and, if necessary, contact CASA for administrative guidance , although the Directive itself does not set out a contact or appeal mechanism.

Duties imposed by the Directive are concise and binary, described under the heading “Requirement”:

• Duty to determine applicability. Requirement 1 instructs the operator to “Determine the applicability of the Brazilian Agência Nacional de Avição Civil (ANAC) or its predecessor the Departamento de Avição Civil (DAC) Airworthiness Directives (AD) listed in Table 1.” This is an affirmative due‑diligence obligation: an operator must consult the list and the relevant ANAC/DAC AD texts and assess whether each one applies to their ERJ‑170 aircraft.

• Duty to perform outstanding actions. Requirement 2 states: “If it is determined that an ANAC or DAC AD listed in Table 1 is applicable and has not been previously accomplished, perform the actions required by that AD.” The duty is conditional on two facts: applicability and prior accomplishment. If both criteria are met (applicable and not previously accomplished), the operator must undertake the remedial, inspection, modification, replacement, or procedural steps specified in the ANAC/DAC AD.

• Temporal duty. The Compliance paragraph requires both Requirements 1 and 2 to be satisfied “Within 30 days after the effective date of this Directive.” The effective date is stated: “This Airworthiness Directive becomes effective on 4 April 2007.” Therefore, operators are required to complete both the applicability determinations and any outstanding remediation in a short statutory window.

Rights and latitudes in the Directive are sparse in the text. The Directive expressly notes that not all listed ADs will be applicable depending on the aircraft’s manufacture date and configuration, which implicitly recognises an operator’s right to a technical, factual determination of applicability. The Directive does not restate the ANAC/DAC ADs’ content, so operators retain the practical right to consult the original foreign AD texts (the Directive points to a URL for this purpose, Note 1). The Directive does not provide an explicit right of review, appeal or an alternative means of compliance within its text; nor does it provide a mechanics for CASA acceptance of equivalent actions. Consequently, rights to vary compliance must be sought outside the Directive text (for example, by administrative request to CASA), although the Directive does not describe that process.

The Directive privileges the State of Design ADs as the source of technical remedies: the obligations to act are framed as executing “the actions required by that AD.” Thus the substantive scope of the operator’s remedial duty is defined by foreign regulatory documents that the operator must consult and follow where applicable.

Operational responsibilities for execution will typically fall on the operator or an authorised maintenance organisation acting for the operator. The Directive does not allocate responsibility between owner and operator for aircraft that are managed or leased; the plain reading places the duty on the operator/registrant of the Australian‑registered ERJ‑170.

The Directive, as reproduced, does not specify particular penalties, infringement notices, or enforcement procedures within its text. The document contains the requirements, the compliance timeframe and an effective date, and is signed by a CASA delegate; however, it does not set out sanctions for failure to comply, nor does it describe the administrative enforcement pathway that CASA would follow for non‑compliance.

From the text provided, CASA’s authority is present by issuance: the signature block identifies the issuer as “Charles Lenarcic, Delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority” (signature and date block). That indicates the Directive is an instrument issued under CASA’s regulatory functions, but the Directive does not itself include specific penalty clauses or enforcement mechanics. Therefore, the Directive instructs operators to act within a set period but does not, within the printed material, list fines, certificate actions, grounding powers, or civil or criminal offences.

Given that regulatory ADs typically operate within a broader statutory and regulatory framework (not reproduced here), enforcement in practice would be administered under CASA’s general regulatory powers and aviation safety legislation and regulations; however, the Directive text does not cite those enabling provisions or enforcement remedies. Users should therefore note the procedural gap in the instrument: it imposes mandatory technical duties with a deadline but does not state the consequences of failing to meet them on its face.

In the absence of specified sanctions in the Directive, practical enforcement routes could include compliance monitoring, airworthiness inspections, issuance of enforcement notices, or actions against certificates in the broader CASA regulatory apparatus. The Directive does not prescribe a notification obligation to CASA upon completion , it instructs an operator to perform the required actions but does not say how to demonstrate compliance to CASA. Consequently, operators should conservatively assume that CASA expects traceable documentary evidence of compliance (maintenance entries, AD compliance records etc.) and should retain those records in case CASA seeks to verify compliance during audits or inspections, although this expectation is not set out in the Directive text itself.

Finally, because the Directive incorporates State of Design ADs by reference, some of those ANAC/DAC ADs may themselves contain compliance reporting or record requirements that operators must follow; operators must consult the original ANAC/DAC AD texts (the Directive points to a URL in Note 1) to determine whether the foreign ADs contain reporting requirements that have continuing force under the CASA directive.

The Directive explicitly imports foreign regulator instruments , ANAC or predecessor DAC Airworthiness Directives , by reference and imposes them as action items for Australian-registered ERJ‑170s. The instrument therefore operates at the intersection of CASA’s domestic regulatory authority and State of Design regulatory outputs. The Directive instructs Australian operators to consult and comply with the ANAC/DAC ADs listed in Table 1: it does not reproduce their operative technical mandates, but instead makes the actions they require the operative duties for Australian registrants where applicable and not previously accomplished (Requirement 1 and 2; Table 1).

The Directive does not cite enabling legislation or regulations that empower CASA to issue the AD, nor does it reproduce cross-references to Australian statutory provisions such as the Civil Aviation Act or Civil Aviation Safety Regulations. The document thus functions as a stand-alone mandatory instrument without explicit textual cross-reference to its enabling legal authority. Practical interplay with other Australian regulatory obligations , continuing airworthiness, maintenance release records, certificate-holder duties, or reporting obligations , are not defined in the Directive’s text. Operators therefore must reconcile this AD with their existing obligations under CASA’s broader regulatory framework, even though the Directive itself does not articulate that reconciliation.

By design, the Directive converts State‑of‑Design one‑time ADs whose original compliance dates have passed into present Australian obligations for those aircraft to which they are applicable. This produces a temporal interaction: where an aircraft has recently been registered in Australia and previously escaped the original compliance deadline, the CASA Directive makes follow-up compliance current. That interaction imposes compliance retroactivity in practice: previously time‑limited actions are now required as a condition of Australian operation.

The Directive also creates an evidentiary and procedural interface with maintenance and airworthiness record regimes. Although it does not explicitly require operators to file compliance confirmations with CASA, the nature of airworthiness oversight typically requires maintenance organisations and operators to retain records (not stated here). Therefore, operators should expect the Directive to interact with record-keeping obligations administered under CASA’s broader regime, even though those cross-links are not present in the AD text.

Internationally, the Directive exemplifies a common mechanism of harmonisation in aviation safety: incorporation by reference of State of Design ADs into the State of Registry’s continuing airworthiness programme. The Directive therefore places certain foreign technical standards and mandated corrective measures into the domestic regulatory environment for ERJ‑170s. Operators should consult both the CASA Directive and the referenced ANAC/DAC ADs to determine the full scope and technical specifics of required measures.

Note 1 supplies a web address for accessing ANAC/DAC ADs. That link is the mechanism the Directive provides for locating the foreign instruments; thus the Directive’s practical operation depends on operators being able to retrieve the ANAC/DAC AD texts and interpret them in the Australian context.

The document provided is titled AD/ERJ-170/2 and annotated “5/2007 DM,” and it is signed on 27 March 2007 with an effective date of 4 April 2007. The text shows this AD as a distinct issuance dealing with “State of Design Airworthiness Directives” for the Embraer ERJ-170 series aeroplanes. The printed content does not include any express amendment history, prior versions of the CASA AD, nor an explicit list of superseded instruments. The label “AD/ERJ‑170/2” suggests it is the second AD in the ERJ‑170 series that CASA has issued, but the Directive does not include an internal history table, revision log, or “amends” clause.

The Table 1 entries themselves include ANAC/DAC AD numbers and issue dates, some of which are marked with revision identifiers (for example, “2005‑02‑01R1” and “2006‑03‑02R1”), which reflects amendment history at the State of Design (ANAC/DAC) level for those specific ADs. The CASA Directive imports those ADs by reference using the specific AD numbers and revision markers listed, thereby reflecting, at the point of issuance, the relevant ANAC/DAC amendment status captured in Table 1. The Directive does not, however, include an explicit statement that it will be updated automatically if ANAC/DAC further revise those ADs; it simply lists current (as at issuance) ANAC/DAC ADs.

Because the Directive was issued to ensure compliance with State of Design ADs that were one‑time actions whose original compliance dates had passed, it functions as a catch‑up measure rather than an evolving rule‑making instrument. The absence of any listed amendments or later effective-dated revisions in the provided document means there is no recorded amendment history within the AD text itself.

Users requiring the most current status (for example, whether this CASA AD has subsequently been superseded, varied or withdrawn) must consult CASA records or the CASA AD database; the Directive text provided does not supply that subsequent amendment or withdrawal information. The only temporal markers present are the issue and effective dates of the CASA AD and the issue dates of the ANAC/DAC ADs in Table 1.

The document supplied contains no litigation history. It does not reference any court decisions, disputes, or judicial review involving this CASA AD or the underlying ANAC/DAC ADs. The AD text is solely a regulatory instrument comprising requirements, a compliance timeframe, a table of referenced State of Design ADs and background rationale. There are no citations to cases, no indication of litigation having been commenced or concluded, nor is there any narrative of contested administrative proceedings included in the text.

If a reader requires information about any legal challenges to this AD, associated enforcement actions, or precedent on the validity or scope of CASA ADs, that information is not present in the provided instrument and must be sourced from external legal and administrative records, court dockets, CASA enforcement records or secondary materials. The Directive itself does not provide procedural guidance on appeals, petitions for exemption, or correspondence addresses for contesting the directive, and it does not assert a legal route for judicial review or administrative appeal within the text.

Given the lack of litigation material in the AD, those seeking to know whether this AD has been litigated, amended post‑issuance, or relied upon in subsequent regulatory rulings should consult CASA’s archive, Australian administrative law reports, or the courts’ public records.

This AD contains several practical traps and operational details that can catch registrants and maintenance organisations unprepared if they treat it as a mere checklist item.

• Short compliance window. The Directive mandates that Requirements 1 and 2 be completed “Within 30 days after the effective date of this Directive,” and the AD states the effective date is 4 April 2007. That is a short timetable for retrieving foreign ADs, conducting technical applicability determinations across aircraft serial numbers, procuring parts or services, and carrying out required actions where they remain outstanding. The 30‑day window may force prioritisation of resources, potential aircraft downtime and scheduling pressures for maintenance providers.

• Retroactive, one‑time remedies. The Background notes the ANAC/DAC ADs “require one time actions for which the compliance date and/or period has passed.” Operators who have recently registered ERJ‑170s in Australia may find their aircraft were not subject to the original compliance deadlines and therefore might now be required to undertake retrofit or inspection programmes that others completed earlier. This retrospective obligation can produce supply chain strain (parts availability), cost allocation issues (who pays for retrospective work on leased aircraft?) and record‑reconstruction problems.

• Applicability complexity. The Directive expressly acknowledges that “not all the ADs listed in Table 1 will be applicable to all ERJ‑170( ) series aeroplanes” because of aircraft manufacture date, configuration and modification status. Determining applicability therefore requires detailed review of build records, modification logs, and maintenance history. Failure to properly assess applicability could lead to unnecessary work or, conversely, missed required actions.

• Content of required actions is not reproduced. CASA does not restate the substantive mandates of each ANAC/DAC AD in the Directive; it requires operators to consult the foreign AD texts (Note 1). That means operators must access, read and interpret potentially technical foreign documents, which can raise practical issues: the ANAC/DAC ADs may use different document formats, reference parts suppliers in Brazil, or assume particular maintenance practices. The Directive’s Note 1 provides a URL, but the AD text does not supply translations, interpretations or equivalence guidance. Operators must ensure they interpret the foreign ADs correctly and translate any foreign‑language materials where necessary.

• No procedural guidance for demonstrating compliance. The Directive does not state how an operator is to notify CASA, file proof of compliance, or document that actions required by the ANAC/DAC ADs were accomplished. The absence of an explicit paperwork or notification process can create uncertainty; operators should anticipate that CASA may request evidence and therefore should contemporaneously document determinations and remedial actions in maintenance records.

• Potential cost allocation issues. The Directive does not allocate the financial burden between owners, operators and lessors. For aircraft under leasing arrangements, parties will need to consult their contracts to determine who pays for retrospective AD compliance. The Directive itself is silent on cost allocation.

• Variation in AD revision status. The Table lists some ANAC/DAC ADs with revision markers (for example, “R1” suffixes). Operators must ensure they consult the correct revision of each foreign AD , the specific AD number and issue date are listed, which reduces ambiguity, but care is still required to confirm that the referenced revision is the operative one for the CASA requirement.

• Reliance on an external URL. Note 1 supplies an internet address to access ANAC/DAC ADs. That link may change or be deprecated over time; operators relying solely on that link at a later date may find the referenced data unavailable. The Directive does not include an archival copy or clause regarding which version of an ANAC/DAC AD is relevant if multiple versions exist online.

• Multi‑discipline technical implications. The Table’s titles reveal that required actions may span avionics, hydraulics, structural fittings, safety equipment, software downloads and procedural changes (for example, “Temporary Loss of Display Units,” “Hydraulic Pump Outlet Tube,” “Passenger Seat Track Attachments,” “Software Primus EPIC Load 17.3 Version”). Compliance may therefore involve several specialist vendors and engineers, each with scheduling and certification needs.

These “gotchas” flow directly from the Directive’s structure: by importing foreign ADs by reference, imposing a short deadline, and not prescribing procedural follow-up, the instrument places significant practical burdens on operators and maintainers. Operators should treat the Directive as triggering a formal continuing airworthiness action plan inclusive of records review, prioritised scheduling, parts procurement and contemporaneous documentation.

The Directive sets out two immediate steps and a statutory timeline. Operators should follow a disciplined compliance process mapped to the Directive’s requirements and the practical risks that arise from its short compliance window.

Step 1 , Confirmation of applicability and scope (Requirement 1, within 30 days of 4 April 2007)

• Identify all ERJ‑170 aircraft on the Australian register for which your organisation is the operator or registrant. The Directive’s Applicability clause is explicit: it applies to “ERJ‑170( ) series aeroplanes.”
• Retrieve each ANAC/DAC AD listed in Table 1. Note 1 provides a URL: “http://www.aviacao-civil.ifi.cta.br/DA/DAE.asp.” Use the AD numbers and issue dates in Table 1 to ensure the correct documents and revisions are viewed (for example, “2004‑10‑02 (30 October 2004) Engine Fire Handle Internal Circuit”; “2006‑06‑01 (28 June 2006) Software Primus EPIC Load 17.3 Version”).
• For each aircraft, compare its serial number, manufacture date, configuration status and modification history to the applicability criteria in each ANAC/DAC AD. The Directive expressly notes that applicability will vary with manufacture date and configuration (Background). Record the outcome of the applicability determination for each AD for each aircraft , that is, applicable/ not applicable, and whether the AD’s actions have been previously accomplished.

Step 2 , Execution of outstanding actions (Requirement 2, within 30 days of 4 April 2007)

• Where an ANAC/DAC AD listed in Table 1 is applicable and “has not been previously accomplished,” perform the actions required by the ANAC/DAC AD. Because CASA did not reproduce the foreign ADs’ operative text, the operator must follow the technical instructions in the ANAC/DAC AD exactly or seek an equivalent means of compliance approved by CASA where necessary.
• Engage appropriately certified maintenance organisations or licensed engineers to carry out inspections, modifications, part replacements, software updates or procedural changes as required by the specific ANAC/DAC AD. Ensure that maintenance release processes and certifying staff meet CASA requirements in Australia.
• Record all work: make maintenance entries, include AD compliance references, record parts used and life-limited component statuses, and retain copies of the ANAC/DAC ADs relied upon confirming version and issue date. Although the Directive does not mandate a notification to CASA, good practice is to maintain contemporaneous documentation should CASA request verification during oversight.

Practical compliance tips consistent with the Directive’s text:

• Prioritise based on aircraft schedule and operational impact. The 30‑day window may require planning to avoid grounding critical aircraft or disrupting service. Identify which aircraft have outstanding AD actions that require immediate grounding versus those that can be scheduled.
• For leased aircraft, review lease agreements to determine responsibility for AD compliance costs and schedule coordination with lessors and owners. The Directive itself does not allocate costs.
• Confirm you have the correct revision of each ANAC/DAC AD because Table 1 includes revision-suffixed AD numbers. The compliance duty is to the ADs listed in Table 1 as referenced.
• If the foreign ADs reference parts, vendors or procedures that are not readily available in Australia, plan for sourcing lead times and potential equivalent parts approvals, recognising the Directive requires performance of the foreign AD actions.
• Consider seeking CASA administrative guidance where the ANAC/DAC AD mandates actions that are technically unclear, or where an operator believes an equivalent solution exists. The Directive does not provide an alternative means of compliance pathway, but CASA typically operates administrative processes for equivalence requests outside the AD text.

Documentation essentials to retain:

• Applicability determination worksheets for each aircraft and each AD listed in Table 1, showing the rationale (manufacture date, configuration status, modification history).
• Copies (archived) of the ANAC/DAC ADs consulted (with AD number, issue date and revision) as accessed at the provided URL or from other authoritative sources.
• Maintenance log entries showing the work completed to satisfy any outstanding AD actions, including parts used, controlling work orders, certificating engineers’ signatures and release-to-service documentation.
• If applicable, communications with lessors or owners documenting cost and scheduling agreements.

By following a structured approach that mirrors the Directive’s two explicit requirements and by retaining contemporaneous records, an operator will satisfy the Directive’s textual obligations even though the AD does not specify reporting steps to CASA. Operators should nonetheless be prepared to demonstrate evidence of compliance if requested by CASA in subsequent oversight activity.