AD/F2000/1 - Braking Function Anomalies

The AD rests on three technical and operational concepts explicitly stated in the source document: (1) immediate, temporary AFM limitations to preserve certificated take-off and landing performance pending a hardware/wiring fix; (2) a definitive corrective modification embodied in a service bulletin that is the terminating action for the temporary limitations; and (3) an identified causal chain between avionics data-path errors and degraded braking/anti-skid functionality.

First, the temporary AFM change (TC 17) modifies how pilots and dispatch calculate required field lengths. For take-off, the AD prescribes that the balanced field length determined from charts must be increased by 27 per cent. The AD gives a converse rule for computing the field-limited take-off weight: that weight is reached when the charted balanced field length equals the runway available multiplied by 0.78. For landing, landing distance or landing field length from the chart must be increased by 25 per cent, with the converse rule using multiplier 0.80 to determine the field-limited landing weight. These are explicit numeric adjustments that operators must apply when using the AFM performance charts.

Second, the AD's terminating action is incorporation of SB-F2000EX-80, which the AD describes as a wiring modification to directly link the IRS to the BSCU. The AD states that incorporation of the SB cancels TC 17 and permits removal of the runway length penalties. The AD identifies SB incorporation as the technical fix that addresses the data transmission problem.

Third, the AD links the operational issue to two observed event types. One was a temporary loss of braking efficiency at landing recoverable by releasing and reapplying brakes. The other was a red “BOTH BRAKE SYSTEM” CAS message shortly after take-off accompanied by “BRAKE COMPTR#1 FAULT CODE” and “BRAKE COMPTR#2 FAULT CODE” messages. The AD states those events were associated with incorrect data being transmitted between the IRS and the BSCU, leading to failure of the BSCU to provide accurate anti-skid use and a reduction in braking efficiency. The AD’s prescribed operational limits are therefore a risk-mitigation measure designed to preserve the aircraft’s certificated take-off and landing performance until the wiring modification is incorporated.

The document also contains regulatory provenance: it is an AD issued by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, dated 24 January 2006 with an effective date of 31 January 2006, and it expressly references DGAC AD UF-2005-140 and EASA approval No. 2005-6110 (26 July 2005). The AD is limited in scope to Falcon 2000EX aircraft with M1691 EASy configuration that have not incorporated SB-F2000EX-80 or modification M2675, defining the population of affected aircraft precisely.

The AD names a tightly specified group of affected parties and implicates certain operational roles through required documentation and technical action. Directly affected are operators of Dassault Falcon 2000EX aeroplanes that are equipped with the M1691 EASy system and which have not incorporated Service Bulletin SB-F2000EX-80 or modification M2675, per the Applicability clause. These aircraft must have TC 17 added to the AFM before the next flight and must incorporate SB-F2000EX-80 by the stated terminating date.

Who pays. Operators bear the direct compliance costs. The AD imposes a two-part compliance burden: immediate administrative amendment of the AFM performance section, and a hardware/wiring modification via the service bulletin. The AFM amendment is executable by inserting a copy of the AD in the AFM performance section, as the AD itself notes, and flight crew and dispatch will therefore be expected to apply the runway-length penalties in operational planning. The wiring modification will require maintenance resources and likely involve maintenance personnel or a Dassault-approved facility to carry out SB-F2000EX-80; costs for parts, labour, and aircraft downtime are incumbent on the operator unless otherwise arranged.

Who decides. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority issued the AD (signed by James Coyne, delegate of CASA). The AD references DGAC AD UF-2005-140 and EASA approval. Operational decisions,application of the runway penalties, determining whether an aircraft has incorporated SB-F2000EX-80 or M2675, scheduling the SB,are made by the operator or their appointed maintenance organisation. The AD prescribes the deadlines: TC 17 before the next flight after the AD effective date; SB incorporation before 31 December 2006. Flight crew are responsible for applying the modified field-length rules when performing take-off and landing performance calculations; maintenance organisations are responsible for completing the SB and updating AFM material.

Other parties affected include maintenance engineers and avionics specialists who must understand the IRS-to-BSCU data path problem and implement the wiring modification described in SB-F2000EX-80. Airport operations staff and dispatch may be indirectly affected because runway-length penalties could change dispatchability and routing decisions, particularly at airports with short or wet runways. Regulators and continued airworthiness organisations must note that incorporation of the SB is the terminating action for this AD, and retain records documenting compliance. The AD does not mention passengers, insurers, or third-party providers, but operators’ decisions under the AD may have knock-on effects for scheduling and commercial operations.

This AD establishes concrete duties for operators and maintenance organisations and identifies the single terminating action that restores normal AFM performance data. The key duties are set out in the Requirement and Compliance sections.

Primary duties

• Immediate AFM amendment: Unless previously accomplished, operators must add temporary change TC 17 to the AFM performance section prior to the next flight following the AD’s effective date. The AD specifies that this can be achieved by inserting a copy of the AD into the AFM performance section. The AFM change includes precise runway-length penalties and associated calculation rules for take-off and landing.
• Apply numerical performance penalties: For take-off, increase balanced field length from charts by 27 per cent; conversely, determine the field-limited take-off weight by finding when charted balanced field length equals available runway multiplied by 0.78. For landing, increase chart landing distance by 25 per cent; conversely, landing weight is reached when chart landing distance equals available runway multiplied by 0.80. Additionally, the AD instructs that maximum take-off weight on a wet runway must never be higher than the maximum take-off weight on the same runway in dry conditions, and any take-off weight limited by balanced field length on a wet runway must be compared to the dry-runway maximum take-off weight.
• Incorporate SB-F2000EX-80: Operators must incorporate Service Bulletin SB-F2000EX-80 and cancel TC 17 by no later than 31 December 2006. The AD explicitly states that incorporation of SB-F2000EX-80 is the terminating action that permits removal of the runway-length penalties.

Rights and clarifications in the text

• Terminating action defined: The AD grants a clear procedural right to operators who incorporate SB-F2000EX-80 , upon incorporation the temporary AFM penalties may be removed. This defines an exit path from the imposed operational limitations.
• Implementation method for AFM change: The AD explicitly permits the AFM amendment by inserting a copy of the AD into the AFM performance section, which clarifies the administrative method for making the temporary change.
• Applicability limitation: The AD limits duties to Falcon 2000EX aircraft with M1691 EASy configuration that have not incorporated SB-F2000EX-80 or modification M2675. Aircraft already modified are excluded from the obligations stated.

What the AD does not state

• The document does not quantify labour hours, parts cost, or aircraft downtime for SB incorporation. It likewise does not include enforcement penalties such as fines or suspensions in the text supplied. The AD does reference DGAC AD UF-2005-140 and an EASA approval number, but it does not set out procedures for appeal or administrative review in the text provided. The key operative consequences are the immediate AFM amendment and the requirement to incorporate SB-F2000EX-80 by the deadline, with the AD’s stated effect of preserving certificated take-off and landing performance until the wiring modification directly linking IRS to BSCU is completed.

The supplied AD text does not set out explicit monetary fines, criminal sanctions, or administrative penalty regimes in this document. The AD does state that it "becomes effective on 31 January 2006" and imposes compliance deadlines: the AFM amendment (TC 17) must be in place "before the next flight following the effective date of this AD" and incorporation of SB-F2000EX-80 must be completed "before 31 December 2006." The AD further identifies incorporation of the service bulletin as the terminating action allowing removal of the temporary runway-length penalties.

Because the AD is an instrument of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, compliance obligations are mandatory for the identified aircraft under the Australian aviation regulatory framework as represented by the issuing authority. The AD references regulatory action from other jurisdictions by noting DGAC AD UF-2005-140 and EASA approval No. 2005-6110 dated 26 July 2005; these references indicate coordinated airworthiness action but do not, in the AD text provided, specify enforcement mechanisms or sanctions for non-compliance.

What is explicit in the text

• Mandatory compliance deadlines: The AD requires immediate AFM amendment and prescribes a deadline for SB incorporation. These temporal obligations are explicit.
• Termination mechanism: The AD makes clear that the incorporation of SB-F2000EX-80 cancels the temporary change TC 17 and permits removal of the runway penalties; this provides an administratively defined endpoint to the restriction.

What is not explicit in the text

• The AD does not list enforcement tools such as certificate suspension, fines, or other penalties, nor procedural steps for audits, inspections, or enforcement actions. The text offers no guidance on how CASA will verify compliance or respond to non-compliance. The AD likewise does not provide a procedural route for seeking relief or an exemption in the text supplied.

Practical implication for operators

• Operators must treat the AD’s requirements as immediately actionable: insert the AFM change before the next flight and plan for the SB incorporation by the calendar deadline. Absent explicit enforcement language in the document, operators should nevertheless assume that failure to comply could expose them to regulatory enforcement within the usual remit of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and therefore should record and demonstrate compliance. The AD itself identifies technical safety reasons for the limitations in its Background section, connecting non-compliance to actual braking anomalies observed in service.

The AD expressly references a foreign regulator action and approval, which indicates cross-jurisdictional alignment but does not itself amend or repeal other statutes. The text includes a Note that "DGAC AD UF-2005-140 EASA approval No. 2005-6110 dated 26 July 2005 refers." That reference shows the AD is part of a chain of airworthiness directives and approvals across jurisdictions, but the AD does not assert any statutory amendment to other Australian legislative instruments in the text supplied.

Document-level interactions

• Regulatory coordination: By citing DGAC AD UF-2005-140 and an EASA approval number, the AD ties its instructions to actions by European regulators. This shows that CASA’s AD tracks or recognises equivalent foreign airworthiness actions. The AD, as issued, sets operational and maintenance requirements for the affected aircraft within Australian jurisdictional scope, while the referenced DGAC/EASA documents are external approvals that informed or paralleled the CASA action.
• AFM amendments as operational regulatory compliance: The AD requires insertion of a temporary change (TC 17) in the AFM performance section. The AFM is a core operational document for an aircraft; modifications to the AFM can interact with operational rules and company operating procedures that rely on the AFM for performance metrics. The AD mandates specific performance calculation adjustments for take-off and landing that will need to be reflected in operators’ compliance with applicable flight operations rules and dispatch procedures reliant on AFM data.

What the AD does not state about statutory interactions

• The AD does not reference specific provisions of Australian aviation statutes, regulations, or the Civil Aviation Regulations. It does not enumerate enforcement powers or the administrative mechanism for verifying compliance within the text supplied. It does not reference how the AFM change interacts with other required flight documentation or whether any temporary approval process is required beyond insertion of the AD into the AFM.
• The AD does not articulate how the incorporation of SB-F2000EX-80 interfaces with continued airworthiness record-keeping requirements, though as a practical matter, such modifications would normally be logged per maintenance records. The AD itself confines its instructions to the technical and procedural steps of AFM amendment and SB incorporation.

Practical cross-checks implied by the AD

• Operators should note that the AD ties operational limitations to a specific technical fix and a defined deadline. Where an operator operates across jurisdictions, the AD’s reference to DGAC/EASA approval suggests consistency with those regulators’ airworthiness actions, but the AD does not relieve operators of any separate compliance obligations under other national or local aviation rules that may govern operations, maintenance approvals, or record-keeping.

The AD text supplied contains limited explicit amendment history. What it does state is the issuance and effective dates, the cross-reference to a DGAC/EASA approval, and the identification of the terminating action for the temporary AFM amendment.

Chronology featured in the text

• Signature and issuance: The document is signed by James Coyne, Delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, and dated 24 January 2006.
• Effective date: The AD text declares that the Airworthiness Directive "becomes effective on 31 January 2006."
• Compliance deadlines: The Compliance section requires the AFM amendment before the next flight following the AD’s effective date and requires incorporation of SB-F2000EX-80 before 31 December 2006.

References to other airworthiness directives

• The AD includes a Note referencing DGAC AD UF-2005-140 and an EASA approval No. 2005-6110 dated 26 July 2005. This reference indicates that prior or parallel regulatory action occurred under French or European authorities and that CASA’s AD aligns with or refers to that external approval. The AD does not, however, reproduce the DGAC text nor provide its amendment history.

What the document does not include

• The supplied AD does not list prior amendments to itself, supersessions, or later revisions. It does not contain a revision log, amendment numbers, or references to subsequent CASA ADs that might modify its requirements. There is no explicit record in the text of any later revocation, extension of deadlines, or amendment to the applicability criteria.
• The AD does not cite any manufacturing-service-bulletin revision numbers beyond SB-F2000EX-80 nor does it reference modification record M2675 except to exclude aircraft already modified.

Implication for records and compliance

• Because the AD provides an effective date and deadlines, operators will need to create contemporaneous records noting when TC 17 was inserted in the AFM and when SB-F2000EX-80 was incorporated, or if it had previously been incorporated. The AD itself should be retained in the AFM until SB incorporation cancels TC 17, as the AD suggests that inserting a copy of the AD into the AFM constitutes the temporary change. In the absence of an amendment log in the document, operators should rely on maintenance records and the AD text to evidence compliance.

The AD text supplied does not include any litigation history, court decisions, administrative appeals, or references to contested proceedings. No case names or legal challenges are cited in the document. The AD merely records regulatory action taken by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and references DGAC AD UF-2005-140 and an EASA approval number dated 26 July 2005, but it contains no information concerning any legal proceedings arising from or challenging these directives.

Practical consequences of the absence of litigation history in the text

• The absence of litigation details in the AD means the document itself does not disclose whether operators or other parties contested the AD, whether there were appeals to administrative tribunals, or whether court decisions have interpreted or modified its requirements. For parties needing to understand legal precedent or enforcement outcomes, the AD text does not supply that information and it would be necessary to consult external records, court databases, or CASA administrative records, none of which are included in this document.
• The AD provides technical requirements and deadlines; it does not describe dispute resolution mechanisms, nor does it give guidance on the process for seeking exemptions, deferrals, or alternative means of compliance. The AD’s silence on these points means that any dispute or challenge would proceed under the general administrative and legal frameworks applicable to CASA actions, but those frameworks are not described in the AD text.

What to check outside this document

• For researchers or practitioners seeking litigation history, one must consult CASA publication archives, court records, or regulatory enforcement reports. The AD itself does not contain an appeal history or record of enforcement outcomes. The only jurisdictional cross-reference in the AD is to DGAC/EASA approval, not to judicial determinations. The AD’s legal status as an administrative requirement is clear in the document, but the document does not provide a record of legal contention.

The AD contains precise technical numerical adjustments and applicability conditions that create practical pitfalls if misunderstood or misapplied. These are specific, source-grounded issues worth emphasising for operators, flight crew, maintenance organisations and compliance officers.

Applicability errors

• The AD’s obligations apply only to Falcon 2000EX aircraft equipped with M1691 (EASy Aircraft) that have not incorporated SB-F2000EX-80 or modification M2675. Failing to verify the aircraft’s configuration against this description could lead to unnecessarily imposing limitations on aircraft already modified, or conversely failing to apply required limitations to affected aircraft. The AD therefore requires clear configuration verification.

AFM amendment method and retention

• The AD permits adding TC 17 by inserting a copy of the AD into the AFM performance section. Operators should ensure the insertion is complete and accessible to flight crew. A gotcha is treating insertion as a mere informal note rather than a controlled amendment; the AD’s text implies the insertion itself is sufficient, but operators should maintain an auditable record showing the date and signature or authority for the AFM change because the AD imposes a before-next-flight deadline.

Numeric multiplier misapplication

• The AD gives both percentage increases and converse multipliers. For take-off, it requires increasing the balanced field length by 27 per cent, and states conversely that the field-limited take-off weight is reached when charted balanced field length equals available runway multiplied by 0.78. For landing, it requires increasing landing distance by 25 per cent and states the converse rule using multiplier 0.80. Confusion can arise if operators apply the percentage to the wrong variable (for example increasing available runway rather than increasing the charted distance) or misapply the 0.78/0.80 multipliers. The AD is explicit; careful implementation is required.

Wet-runway maximum take-off weight comparison

• The AD states "Maximum take-off weight on wet runway must never be higher than maximum take-off weight on the same runway in dry conditions." Operators must ensure operational procedures enforce that constraint. A common gotcha would be failing to make the cross-check when the take-off weight is limited by balanced field length on a wet runway, as the AD requires that in that case the weight must be compared to the dry-runway maximum take-off weight.

Termination timing and record-keeping

• The AD makes SB incorporation the terminating action and sets a 31 December 2006 deadline. An operator that neglects to document incorporation properly or fails to remove TC 17 after SB incorporation may continue to operate under unnecessary performance penalties. Conversely, removing TC 17 without SB incorporation would contravene the AD.

Technical understanding of the causal mechanism

• The AD identifies an incorrect data transmission between the IRS and BSCU as the cause of observed braking anomalies. The service bulletin’s wiring modification is described as directly linking IRS to BSCU. A gotcha would be accepting an alternative fix that does not replicate the wiring modification precisely described in SB-F2000EX-80 or M2675, since the AD conditions terminating action on incorporation of that service bulletin.

Deadlines and sequencing

• The AD requires the AFM amendment before the next flight following the effective date and SB incorporation before 31 December 2006. Misreading which action corresponds to which deadline could create compliance failures. Practically, TC 17 is immediate; SB incorporation is the medium-term fix. Operators must schedule maintenance within the specified timeline.

Cross-jurisdictional documentation

• The AD references DGAC AD UF-2005-140 and EASA approval No. 2005-6110. A gotcha is assuming those documents supply the Australian compliance pathway; the CASA AD is the operative Australian requirement. Operators should ensure they comply with the CASA AD as published.

The AD sets a clear, two-step compliance pathway with explicit timing and terminating action. The following is a stepwise checklist derived directly from the AD text for operators and maintenance organisations.

1. Confirm applicability

   • Verify the aircraft type and configuration. The AD applies to Dassault Falcon 2000EX aircraft with M1691 (EASy Aircraft) which have not incorporated Service Bulletin SB-F2000EX-80 or modification M2675. Confirm whether SB-F2000EX-80 or M2675 has already been incorporated; if either has been incorporated, the AD’s obligations do not apply to that aircraft per its applicability statement.

2. Immediate AFM amendment (before the next flight following the effective date)

   • Insert temporary change TC 17 into the AFM performance section. The AD permits achieving this by inserting a copy of the AD into the AFM performance section. Ensure the inserted copy is accessible to flight crew and retained in the AFM until the terminating action is complete.
   • Implement the performance calculation changes in operational procedures and training for relevant flight crew and dispatch staff. Specifically:
     • Take-off computations: Increase the balanced field length from the AFM charts by 27 per cent. Alternatively use the AD’s converse rule: treat the field-limited take-off weight as reached when the charted balanced field length equals the runway available multiplied by 0.78.
     • Wet-runway restriction: Do not accept a maximum take-off weight on a wet runway that is higher than the maximum take-off weight for the same runway in dry conditions. If take-off weight is limited by balanced field length on a wet runway, compare that weight to the dry-runway maximum take-off weight as required by the AD.
     • Landing computations: Increase the landing distance or landing field length from AFM charts by 25 per cent. Alternatively use the AD’s converse rule: treat the field-limited landing weight as reached when the chart landing distance equals the runway available multiplied by 0.80.
   • Record the date and authority for issuing TC 17 in maintenance and operational records to demonstrate compliance with the “before next flight” requirement.

3. Plan and schedule SB-F2000EX-80 incorporation (before 31 December 2006)

   • Arrange for incorporation of Service Bulletin SB-F2000EX-80. The AD describes this SB as effecting a wiring modification that directly links the IRS to the BSCU. Engage an authorised maintenance organisation or Dassault-approved facility as required to carry out the wiring modification.
   • Ensure maintenance records document the SB incorporation, including serial numbers, sign-off by authorised personnel, and the date of completion.

4. Post-SB actions

   • Once SB-F2000EX-80 is incorporated, cancel TC 17 from the AFM performance section as the AD states that incorporation is the terminating action which allows removal of the runway-length penalties. Update AFM material to restore standard charted performance values.
   • Maintain records evidencing SB incorporation to show the basis for removal of the AFM temporary change.

5. Record-keeping and operational controls

   • Maintain auditable records showing (a) the AFM amendment insertion date and authority, (b) the operational application of the runway multipliers during the period TC 17 is in force, and (c) the SB incorporation details once completed.
   • Ensure that flight crew and dispatch checklists and briefing materials reflect the AFM changes for the period TC 17 is in effect. Standard operating procedures should incorporate the requirement that maximum take-off weight on wet runways must not exceed the dry-runway maximum for the same runway.

6. Cross-reference and coordination

   • Be aware the AD references DGAC AD UF-2005-140 and EASA approval No. 2005-6110 dated 26 July 2005. While the CASA AD is the operative Australian requirement, coordination with overseas maintenance providers or records may require cross-referencing those documents where an aircraft has been maintained or modified outside Australia.

7. Compliance verification

   • Although the AD text does not set out an enforcement or inspection regime, operators should be prepared to demonstrate compliance to CASA or auditors by producing AFM pages with TC 17 inserted, records showing pilots applied the runway-length penalties during the applicable period, and maintenance records demonstrating SB-F2000EX-80 incorporation and cancellation of TC 17.

This sequence follows strictly from the AD: immediate AFM insertion (before next flight), application of the prescribed runway multipliers and wet-runway weight constraint, SB incorporation by the 31 December 2006 deadline, and cancellation of TC 17 upon SB incorporation. The AD identifies the wiring modification linking IRS to BSCU as the technical remedy; ensure that the work done under SB-F2000EX-80 matches that specification so the terminating action condition is satisfied.