AD/F2000/33 Amdt 1 - Main Landing Gear - Shock Absorber Restrictor

The core engineering concept targeted is the hydraulic flow restrictor sleeve and its three retaining screws inside the MLG shock absorber. The AD’s proximate safety concern is that the retaining screws can slowly unscrew during normal operation, eventually rupturing and allowing sleeve displacement. When the sleeve displaces, the energy dissipation function of the shock absorber can be lost, exposing the airframe to higher loads on landing, with particular concern for combinations of high landing weight and high vertical speed. The AD treats the screw failure as a latent, progressive mechanism that becomes hazardous only once all three screws have failed.

Operationally, the AD uses a mix of preventive and corrective mechanisms:

• Preventive/monitoring: repetitive borescope inspection of the flow restriction system per SB F2000‑366 or SB F2000EX‑167, with intervals and triggers tied to landing-count thresholds and recent steep-approach activity (Requirements 2-6). The inspection aims to detect early signs of screw loosening or sleeve displacement before complete failure.

• Corrective: repair or modification per SB F2000‑367 or SB F2000EX‑185 if inspection finds damage (Requirements 2-5). Repair instructions in those SBs are mandated within the times or LDG limits specified in the relevant SBs.

• Terminating: a modification designated M3120, which creates new part numbers for LH and RH shock absorbers (see Table 1). Embodiment of M3120 terminates the repetitive inspection requirement (explicit statement in the table material).

The AD creates a rules-based structure keyed to aircraft history metrics rather than only calendar time. The main thresholds are: 4,200 landings since new or last overhaul (immediate inspection requirement, Requirement 2); 1,900 landings with different inspection paths depending on whether the aeroplane performed six or more steep-approach landings in the six months prior to 15 January 2009 (Requirements 3 and 4); and less than 1,900 landings (Requirement 5). Repetitive inspections must not exceed intervals of 1,900 LDG (Requirement 6). A terminating modification must be embodied before accumulating 6,000 landings or 12 years since new/overhaul (Requirement 7).

The AD also addresses parts control: it bans installation of non‑modified shock absorbers as replacement parts from the AD’s effective date (Requirement 8). Table 1 lists the post‑M3120 part numbers (LH: D23365000‑4 on F2000, D23745000‑2 on F2000EX; RH: D23366000‑4 on F2000, D23746000‑2 on F2000EX). The AD recognises alternative compliance pathways by accepting later approved revisions of the referenced SBs and by stating several ways M3120 may be complied with (new production, Messier Dowty SBs, or DA SBs) in Note 2.

Structurally, the AD is an operationally prescriptive instrument: it requires maintenance-programme amendment (a change to the operator’s MP), immediate and repeated inspection actions triggered by recorded landing numbers and operations, mandatory repair or modification work per specified SBs where defects are discovered, and parts installation restrictions. The AD frames the safety rationale in the background section, linking an in‑overhaul discovery to a broader pattern (slow unscrewing) and consequent risk, and it uses that rationale to justify ongoing inspections until a modification mitigates the root cause.

The AD applies to the operator and maintenance ecosystems for Dassault Falcon 2000 family aeroplanes as specified. The applicability clause identifies DASSAULT AVIATION Falcon 2000 aircraft and all Falcon 2000EX aircraft (versions F2000DX and F2000EX EASy inclusive). That class-based applicability means:

• Aircraft operators on the register who operate the identified models must comply, including private operators, air charter companies, corporate flight departments, and commercial operators who manage those airframes. The operator must update the approved aircraft maintenance programme to incorporate MP32‑000 at revision date 06/2008 or later (Requirement 1), so the immediate legal addressee is the operator responsible for the MP.

• Maintenance organisations authorised to perform/endorse borescope inspections, repairs and modifications per the referenced SBs (F2000‑366, F2000EX‑167, F2000‑367, F2000EX‑185, and Messier Dowty SBs where cited) are affected: they must carry out the inspections, repairs and modifications in accordance with the accomplishment instructions and record the work. The AD permits repair/modification under the specified SBs and allows later approved revisions.

• Parts suppliers and component overhaul providers are affected by the prohibition on installing replaced MLG shock absorbers that lack the post‑modification part-number suffix (Requirement 8). Supply chains must ensure that replacement parts bear the correct P/N suffix listed in Table 1 once the AD is effective.

• Operators’ maintenance-programme approvers and regulatory authorities that oversee airworthiness compliance are affected because Requirement 1 mandates an update to the operator’s approved MP, which will require sign-off and potentially oversight or audit.

• Flight operations staff are indirectly affected because the AD differentiates inspection requirements depending on the number of steep-approach landings performed in the six months prior to 15 January 2009, and it points to Standard Operating Procedures for steep approaches being defined in the AFM Appendices (Note 1). Operators will need to review AFM appendices to determine whether those SOPs were used and to classify aircraft accordingly for inspection requirements.

Cost‑bearing and decision responsibilities are concentrated in the operator and maintenance provider. The operator is required to decide when and how to schedule inspections, repairs and the terminating modification in order to meet the specified LDG and calendar limits (for example, Requirement 7’s before 6,000 landings or 12 years since new/overhaul threshold). The AD does not itself itemise who pays, but operationally the operator and its maintenance contractors will bear the direct monetary costs of inspections, downtime, repairs and modification implementation. The AD prescribes documentation and MP changes that may affect contractual arrangements with maintenance organisations and parts suppliers.

Regulatory supervision and enforcement functions are represented by the signing authority, James Coyne, Delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), whose delegation appears on the AD dated 27 March 2009. The AD also cross‑references EASA ADs (EASA AD 2009‑0050 and superseded EASA AD 2008‑0178), which may be relevant to operators with international maintenance or registration considerations. The AD uses operational measures (LDG counts, steep-approach history) to allocate inspection obligations to aircraft based on their specific usage profile rather than uniformly across the fleet.

The AD imposes specific duties on operators and maintenance providers and provides limited flexibility via acceptance of alternative SB revisions and multiple compliance routes to embodying M3120. The duties are explicit and numbered; they include the following:

• Update the maintenance programme (Requirement 1): Within three months after 15 January 2009 unless previously accomplished, operators must update their approved aircraft maintenance programme to incorporate MP32‑000 at revision date 06/2008 or later. This is a duty on the operator to amend the MP and have it approved under whatever approval regime governs that MP.

• Inspect specified MLG shock absorbers (Requirements 2-5): The AD requires borescope inspection per SB F2000‑366 or F2000EX‑167 for different aircraft depending on recorded landings since new or overhaul and recent steep-approach activity:

  • Requirement 2: For MLG shock absorbers with 4,200 landings or more since new or since last overhaul as at 15 January 2009, inspect per the SB instructions.
  • Requirement 3: For MLG shock absorbers with 1,900 landings or more since new or overhaul at 15 January 2009 and installed on aeroplanes that performed six or more steep-approach landings over the six months before 15 January 2009, inspect per the SB instructions.
  • Requirement 4: For MLG shock absorbers with 1,900 landings or more since new or overhaul at 15 January 2009 and installed on aeroplanes that performed five steep-approach landings or less over the six months before 15 January 2009, inspect per the SB instructions.
  • Requirement 5: For MLG shock absorbers with less than 1,900 landings since new or since last overhaul at 15 January 2009, inspect per the SB instructions.

• Repair if damage found (Requirements 2-5): If inspection finds any damage, the AD requires repair per the accomplishment instructions of SB F2000‑367 or F2000EX‑185 within the applicable times or LDG limits specified in the relevant SBs. The AD explicitly defers the timing for repair to the SBs' specified limits.

• Repetitive inspections (Requirement 6): After accomplishment of initial inspections and any corrective actions required by Requirements 2-5, operators must repeat the shock absorber inspections and any associated corrective actions per the SB instructions at intervals not to exceed 1,900 landings.

• Implement terminating modification (Requirement 7): Install or modify LH and RH shock absorbers with the part-number suffixes listed in Table 1 and embodying M3120 before accumulating 6,000 landings or 12 years since new or since last overhaul, whichever occurs first, unless previously accomplished. The AD states that embodiment of M3120 terminates the repetitive inspection requirement described in Requirement 6.

• Parts installation prohibition (Requirement 8): From the effective date of the AD, do not install on any aeroplane a MLG shock absorber as a replacement part which does not have the appropriate part-number suffix (example -4) as given in Table 1. The AD allows the use of later approved revisions of the Service Bulletins for compliance.

Rights and flexibility in the instrument:

• The AD explicitly accepts the use of later approved revisions of the Service Bulletins for compliance. This grants operators and maintenance providers some procedural flexibility so long as the later revisions are approved.

• The AD allows the embodiment of SB F2000‑367 or F2000EX‑185 (the repair/modify SBs) without prior implementation of SB F2000‑366 or F2000EX‑167 (the inspection SBs) to satisfy Requirements 2-5. That is, an operator may choose to apply the repair/modification directly as an acceptable compliance route. Note 2 lists acceptable means of complying with M3120: as per new production, as per Messier Dowty SBs D23345‑32‑019 or D23733‑32‑004, or as per DA SB F2000‑367 & F2000EX‑185.

• The AD delegates to referenced SBs the detailed timing and limits for repairs when damage is found. The AD therefore imposes an obligation to consult and follow the SBs' specified time/LDG limits for repair compliance.

Duties not specified in the AD text:

• The AD does not itself state administrative sanctions for non‑compliance in the reproduced text. It establishes specific compliance windows and mandated actions, but enforcement mechanisms and sanctions are not described within the text provided beyond the signature and effective dates. The AD does reference EASA ADs but does not include a regulatory penalty schedule.

Record‑keeping and MP approval are implied duties: Requirement 1 requires an update to the operator’s approved MP, which will require interaction with the MP approver (operator’s nominated authority) and possible regulatory oversight. The AD places primary operational and financial duty on the operator and on maintenance providers to affect inspections, repairs and modifications in accordance with the specified SBs and within the specified LDG or calendar windows.

The AD as provided sets mandatory requirements and specified compliance windows but does not contain a schedule of civil or administrative penalties within its text. The document is signed by James Coyne, Delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), dated 27 March 2009, and the amendment is marked effective 7 May 2009; this establishes the issuing authority and the effective dates that trigger compliance obligations. However, the AD text does not itself spell out enforcement mechanisms, specific penalty amounts or criminal sanctions.

What is explicit in the instrument:

• The AD imposes compliance obligations (Requirements 1-8) and precise compliance windows tied to an initial effective date (15 January 2009 for the original AD and 7 May 2009 for the amendment). The compliance schedule table supplies when each Requirement must be completed (for example, Requirement 1 within three months after 15 January 2009; Requirements 2 and 3 within eight months after 15 January 2009 unless previously accomplished; Requirement 4 within 18 months after 15 January 2009 or before accumulation of 5,000 LDG since new or last overhaul, whichever occurs first; Requirement 6 at intervals not to exceed 1,900 LDG; Requirement 7 before 6,000 landings or 12 years since new/overhaul).

• The presence of a CASA delegate’s signature indicates administrative issuance and oversight but the AD does not itself detail how CASA will enforce compliance or the legal instruments under which enforcement would occur. Enforcement is usually conducted under the regulator’s enabling statute and aviation safety regulations rather than within the AD text; the AD records mandatory technical requirements and compliance windows.

Implications for operators and maintainers:

• Because the AD contains mandatory technical requirements, operators must treat them as enforceable airworthiness obligations. In practice, CASA enforces airworthiness directives through its regulatory powers. The AD supplies the substance of what must be done; regulatory oversight, audits, airworthiness inspections, or acceptance of maintenance records are where non‑compliance is typically discovered.

• The AD’s silence on specific penalties in the reproduced text means that anyone seeking the precise enforcement and penalty regime must consult the relevant aviation safety legislation, regulations, and CASA enforcement policy. The AD itself provides the technical mandate and effective dates, and it references EASA ADs for related action, which may carry corresponding enforcement expectations in the EASA domain.

• The AD sets hard technical stopgaps: until M3120 is embodied, repetitive inspections at intervals no greater than 1,900 LDG are required. Failure to perform such mandated inspections and corrective actions within the specified windows would leave the aircraft non‑compliant with the AD’s stated requirements and could be the basis for regulatory action, but the AD text does not quantify or describe those consequences.

In short, the AD prescribes mandatory technical duties and dates; enforcement and penalties are not enumerated in the text provided and are handled through the broader regulatory framework and CASA’s enforcement mechanisms rather than within the AD document itself.

The AD explicitly cross‑references other regulatory and technical documents and therefore interacts with them in defined ways. The instrument references and interacts with the following sources:

• Service Bulletins and maintenance programme standards: The AD requires actions to be carried out per the accomplishment instructions of Dassault SB F2000‑366, F2000EX‑167 (inspections), and SB F2000‑367, F2000EX‑185 (repairs/modifications). It requires operators to update the approved aircraft maintenance programme to incorporate MP32‑000 at revision date 06/2008 or later (Requirement 1). The AD also accepts later approved revisions of the cited SBs for compliance. These cross‑references mean the AD is operationally dependent on the SBs’ substantive inspection, repair and modification instructions and their approved revisions.

• Messier Dowty SBs: Note 2 lists Messier Dowty SBs D23345‑32‑019 and D23733‑32‑004 as acceptable forms of compliance for embodying M3120. This creates an interaction between the AD and component vendor SBs. Where the AD permits those SBs as a compliance route, operators and maintenance organisations may use the vendor SB procedures instead of, or in addition to, Dassault SBs.

• Aeroplane Flight Manual (AFM) appendices: Note 1 points out that steep approach SOPs are found and defined in the AFM appendices as listed in the Reference Publications. The AD uses the count of steep‑approach landings in the six months prior to 15 January 2009 to allocate inspection requirements. Therefore, an operator’s use of the AFM SOPs, and the records showing whether those appendices’ procedures were used, determine which inspection pathway applies and how the AD interacts with operational documentation and flight crew practices.

• EASA airworthiness directives: The AD states that EASA AD 2009‑0050 dated 5 March 2009 is referred to and that this AD supersedes EASA AD 2008‑0178. This establishes a regulatory cross‑reference with EASA’s airworthiness regime. Operators, particularly those operating under or interfacing with EASA oversight or performing maintenance in Europe, must consider EASA ADs and this AD together.

• Maintenance programme approval and regulatory oversight: By requiring an update to the operator’s approved maintenance programme, the AD interacts with the regulatory approvals regime that governs MPs. The AD’s Requirement 1 and the timing of that update will require interaction between the operator and the MP approver, which may be a national aviation authority or delegated organisation, so the AD interacts with the administrative law and certification procedures governing MP approvals.

Operational and contractual interactions:

• Parts and overhaul suppliers must ensure replacement shock absorbers bear the part‑number suffixes listed in Table 1. This interacts with commercial contracts for spares supply and maintenance contracts; operators and suppliers may need to amend contractual terms to ensure replacement parts meet the AD’s P/N requirements.

• Record‑keeping and maintenance release processes are implicated because the AD requires repeated inspections and repairs tied to LDG counts. That interacts with the law and rules requiring maintenance records and with airworthiness certification steps taken by maintenance organisations when returning an aircraft to service.

Limits of the AD’s text regarding legal interaction:

• The AD does not, in the reproduced text, specify the broader statutory basis for enforcement or describe interaction with criminal or administrative sanctions; it provides technical mandatories and cross‑references technical SBs and EASA ADs. Parties seeking the full legal context for enforcement and sanctions must consult the enabling aviation safety legislation and CASA’s enforcement policies. The AD functions as a technical mandate that sits within that broader legal framework and links technical requirements to other technical and regulatory documents.

The document supplied includes both the original AD (effective 15 January 2009) and Amendment 1 (effective 7 May 2009), and it declares relationships with earlier EASA ADs. The explicit amendment history in the text shows the following timeline and material changes:

• Original issue: The original AD became effective 15 January 2009. The AD required the initial suite of actions: update of the operator’s maintenance programme to incorporate MP32‑000 (Requirement 1) and initial borescope inspections and repairs per the referenced SBs depending on landing counts and steep‑approach history (Requirements 2-5). The compliance table in the AD sets specific time windows tied to that 15 January 2009 effective date (for example, Requirement 1 within three months after 15 January 2009; Requirements 2 and 3 within eight months after 15 January 2009; Requirement 4 within 18 months; Requirement 5 before 3,000 LDG; and Requirement 6 at intervals not to exceed 1,900 LDG).

• Amendment 1: This amendment (AD/F2000/33 Amdt 1) becomes effective on 7 May 2009. Amendment 1 introduces a mandatory terminating action to the repetitive inspection regime: the modification M3120, which when embodied gives new post‑modification part numbers for LH and RH shock absorbers (set out in Table 1) and terminates the repetitive borescope inspections required by Requirement 6. The AD’s table states explicitly that the modification leading to the new part numbers terminates the repetitive inspection requirement detailed in Requirement 6. Note 2 lists acceptable ways to comply with M3120 (new production, Messier Dowty SBs, or DA SBs). The compliance date for Requirement 7 (to install or modify shock absorbers per M3120) is specified to be before accumulating 6,000 landings or 12 years since new or since last overhaul, whichever occurs first, unless previously accomplished.

• Relationship with EASA ADs: The AD notes that EASA AD 2009‑0050 dated 5 March 2009 is referred to, and that the AD supersedes EASA AD 2008‑0178. The document therefore situates the CASA AD in relation to EASA’s earlier directives, indicating a sequence of regulatory actions on the same unsafe condition.

• Background and reason for amendment: The background section explains that the unsafe condition was discovered during overhaul and that the failure mode was a slow unscrewing of the three retaining screws followed by rupture. The original AD instituted inspections to detect the condition; Amendment 1 introduced a mandatory terminating modification, creating a pathway to end repetitive inspections by implementing M3120.

• Effective dates and signature: The AD text shows the delegate signature (James Coyne, Delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority) and the date 27 March 2009, with the amendment effective date recorded as 7 May 2009. The original AD effective date is noted as 15 January 2009.

The supplied AD text does not include any other amendments beyond Amendment 1, nor does it show later revisions. It does accept later approved SB revisions for compliance, which creates an open-ended path to use updated technical guidance, but the formal amendment history recorded in the AD text covers only the original issue and Amendment 1.

The AD text provided contains no references to litigation, court decisions, or judicial review proceedings concerning this AD, the underlying service bulletins, or the modification M3120. It also does not identify any contested administrative proceedings in the record reproduced. The only legal or quasi‑legal documents referenced are related airworthiness directives (EASA AD 2009‑0050, and the superseded EASA AD 2008‑0178), technical Service Bulletins (Dassault SBs and Messier Dowty SBs), and the operator maintenance programme revision MP32‑000 (rev 06/2008).

What the absence of litigation references implies for practitioners:

• There is no case law identified in the AD text to guide interpretation disputes about the AD’s technical requirements, compliance timing, or proper implementation methodologies. Any disputes about the meaning, scope, or enforcement of the AD, if they arose, would need to be considered against the broader aviation regulatory framework, administrative law principles and the governing Acts and regulations, none of which are included in the AD text.

• The AD’s provisions and the reference to EASA ADs suggest a parallel regulatory process in which airworthiness directives are issued by aviation safety authorities; however, the AD does not report any judicial review or litigation outcomes that interpret or challenge CASA’s approach here.

• If operators or maintenance organisations have disputes with CASA over compliance expectations, approval of MP changes, or enforcement actions, those disputes would typically be resolved through administrative remedies, regulatory appeals, or judicial review under the relevant statutes and procedures, which are not reproduced in the AD text.

• For practitioners preparing for potential disputes or seeking precedent, the lack of litigation history in the AD means they must look beyond the AD text to the broader corpus of aviation administrative law and to any jurisdictional judicial decisions interpreting CASA’s enforcement powers and the treatment of airworthiness directives.

In short, the document itself does not record any litigation history. Where litigation or interpretive issues are relevant to a party, further research beyond the AD text into CASA enforcement records, administrative appeal outcomes, or court decisions would be necessary.

This AD has a number of operational and compliance pitfalls that an operator or maintenance organisation must recognise and address:

1. Multiple landing‑count thresholds with different requirements: The AD splits inspection obligations by landing counts as recorded at 15 January 2009. The critical thresholds are 4,200 LDG, 1,900 LDG, and less than 1,900 LDG. Operators must ascertain, for each shock absorber, the correct landing count "since new or since last overhaul at 15 January 2009" to determine which inspection requirement applies (Requirements 2-5). Misclassifying an aeroplane by landing count could lead to incorrect inspection timing or scope.

2. Steep‑approach count matters: For MLG with 1,900 LDG or more, the AD distinguishes between aeroplanes that performed six or more steep‑approach landings in the six months before 15 January 2009 and those that performed five or fewer (Requirements 3 and 4). Operators must have records showing the number of steep approaches made in that specific historical six‑month window and must understand that steep‑approach SOPs are defined in AFM appendices (Note 1). Failure to reconcile historical operations with AFM definitions may result in misapplication of the inspection requirement.

3. Timing and LDG windows referenced in SBs: Where damage is found, repairs must be accomplished "within the applicable time(s) or LDG limits specified in the relevant SB F2000‑366 or F2000EX‑167" (Requirements 2-5). The AD delegates repair timing to the SBs; operators must obtain and read the applicable SBs to know the repair deadlines. The AD itself does not provide those specific repair intervals. This creates a two‑document compliance requirement: the AD plus the SB text.

4. Repetitive inspections until terminating action: Requirement 6 mandates repeating inspections per the SB instructions at intervals not to exceed 1,900 LDG after initial accomplishment. That means unless the terminating modification M3120 is embodied, operators must schedule recurrent inspections and record them. The AD explicitly states that embodiment of M3120 terminates the repetitive inspection obligation. Operators failing to embody M3120 before the 6,000 LDG or 12‑year deadline (Requirement 7) must keep inspecting every 1,900 LDG.

5. Acceptability of repair before inspection: The AD allows "Embodiment of SB F2000‑367 or F2000EX‑185 without previous implementation of SB F2000‑366 or F2000EX‑167 ... acceptable to comply with Requirements 2, 3, 4, and 5 of this AD." Operationally, this means an operator may choose to perform the repair/modification directly instead of carrying out the borescope inspection. However, that choice implies increased immediate cost and potential downtime. Practitioners must note the AD explicitly permits this route, and maintenance records should clearly document the work as satisfying the AD.

6. Part‑number suffix enforcement and spares management: Requirement 8 bans installation of MLG shock absorbers that do not carry the appropriate P/N suffix listed in Table 1. Parts inventory and procurement systems must therefore track suffixes carefully. Suppliers and logistics personnel must be notified that replacements without the compliant suffix are not installable from the AD’s effective date. Mistakes here can leave an aircraft non‑compliant and potentially grounded pending corrective action.

7. Multiple acceptable ways to comply with M3120: Note 2 states M3120 can be complied with as per new production, the Messier Dowty SBs, or DA SBs. This provides options but also requires careful selection and documentation of the chosen compliance path and ensuring the specific SB revision used is an approved revision. Using an unapproved or incorrect SB revision could render the modification non‑compliant.

8. Reliance on SB revisions: The AD accepts later approved revisions of these Service Bulletins for compliance. However, which revisions are "approved" may require sign‑off by the authority or by an authorised representative. Operators must confirm that any later revision they rely upon is indeed an approved revision.

9. Cross‑jurisdictional concerns: The AD references EASA AD 2009‑0050 and supersedes EASA AD 2008‑0178. Operators with aircraft registered outside Australia or operating under different national authorities must ensure they meet both the CASA AD obligations and any applicable jurisdictional ADs or equivalency requirements.

10. Record evidence and audit trail: The AD relies on historical operational facts (LDG counts since new/since last overhaul at a defined date, steep‑approach counts over a defined prior six months). Accurate and auditable maintenance and flight records are essential. Incomplete or inconsistent records can create legal and operational ambiguity about which Requirements apply.

11. Repair timing pinned to SBs, not AD: Because repair timeframes for damage are stated to be "within the applicable time(s) or LDG limits specified in the relevant SB," practitioners must not assume uniform repair windows across the AD. Misreading this delegation can cause missed deadlines.

12. Effective dates and retrospective snapshots: Many Requirements are anchored to the state of aircraft "at 15 January 2009." Practitioners must take that snapshot date seriously when computing LDG counts and steep approach histories; subsequent LDGs do not change which initial requirement applied, though subsequent maintenance planning will be shaped by the AD’s ongoing inspection intervals and by whether M3120 has been embodied.

In short, the AD mixes retrospective classification criteria, ongoing inspection obligations, delegation to SBs for procedural detail and timing, and a terminating modification that must be planned and documented. Precise record‑keeping, careful selection of SB revisions, correct parts control, and attention to the specified LDG windows are the principal operational gotchas.

This section sets out a practical checklist‑style pathway to comply with the AD, indicating who must act and when, with reference to the Requirements and the Table 1 modification.

1. Confirm applicability and aircraft classification:

   • Verify the aircraft model is a Dassault Aviation Falcon 2000 or a Falcon 2000EX (F2000DX or F2000EX EASy). If not applicable, no action under this AD is required.
   • For each aircraft, determine the MLG shock absorber landing count since new or since last overhaul as of 15 January 2009 (the AD’s snapshot date). Also determine the number of steep‑approach landings performed in the six months prior to 15 January 2009 (steep approach SOPs are defined in AFM appendices , Note 1).

2. Update the maintenance programme:

   • Within three months after 15 January 2009 (unless already done), update your approved aircraft maintenance programme to incorporate MP32‑000 at revision 06/2008 or later (Requirement 1). Ensure the MP amendment is approved by the appropriate authority as required under your MP approval regime.

3. Select and perform the required initial inspection:

   • If the MLG shock absorber had 4,200 LDG or more (since new or overhaul at 15 January 2009), perform the borescope inspection per SB F2000‑366 or F2000EX‑167 as applicable to the model (Requirement 2).
   • If the MLG shock absorber had 1,900 LDG or more and the aeroplane performed six or more steep‑approach landings in the prior six months (to 15 January 2009), inspect per SB F2000‑366 or F2000EX‑167 (Requirement 3).
   • If the MLG shock absorber had 1,900 LDG or more and the aeroplane performed five or fewer steep‑approach landings in the prior six months, inspect per SB F2000‑366 or F2000EX‑167 (Requirement 4).
   • If the MLG shock absorber had less than 1,900 LDG (since new/overhaul at 15 January 2009), inspect per SB F2000‑366 or F2000EX‑167 (Requirement 5).
   • Note: Requirements 2 and 3 were to be completed within eight months after 15 January 2009 unless already done; Requirement 4 within 18 months or before accumulation of 5,000 LDG as specified; Requirement 5 before 3,000 LDG. Consult the compliance table for the timing applicable to your aircraft.

4. If damage is found, repair per the SB:

   • If the borescope inspection finds any damage, repair the shock absorber per the accomplishment instructions of SB F2000‑367 or F2000EX‑185 as applicable to the model and within the times or LDG limits specified in the relevant SB (Requirements 2-5). The AD delegates actual repair timing to the SB, so obtain and follow the SB’s specified limits.

5. Consider direct embodiment of the repair/modification:

   • The AD permits embodiment of SB F2000‑367 or F2000EX‑185 without prior implementation of SB F2000‑366 or F2000EX‑167 as acceptable compliance for Requirements 2-5. If practical, operators may choose to proceed directly to the repair/modification route to satisfy the AD, but they should document the work and ensure the SB revision used is an approved revision.

6. Implement repetitive inspections until terminating modification:

   • After initial accomplishment and any corrective actions, repeat shock absorber inspections and associated corrective actions per SB F2000‑366 or F2000EX‑167 at intervals not to exceed 1,900 LDG (Requirement 6). Log each inspection and any corrective action in maintenance records.

7. Plan and complete the terminating modification M3120:

   • Install or modify the LH and RH shock absorbers to the post‑M3120 part numbers listed in Table 1 and embody M3120 before accumulating 6,000 landings or 12 years since new or overhaul, whichever is earlier, unless already accomplished (Requirement 7).
   • Table 1 post‑M3120 part numbers: LH MLG shock absorber , D23365000‑4 (F2000) or D23745000‑2 (F2000EX); RH MLG shock absorber , D23366000‑4 (F2000) or D23746000‑2 (F2000EX).
   • M3120 may be complied with as per new production, as per Messier Dowty SB D23345‑32‑019 or D23733‑32‑004, or as per Dassault SB F2000‑367 & F2000EX‑185 (Note 2). Choose a compliant route and ensure the SB revision used is approved.

8. Parts control and installation:

   • From the effective date of the AD, do not install any replacement MLG shock absorber that lacks the appropriate part‑number suffix shown in Table 1 (Requirement 8). Update spares databases, procurement specifications and supplier communications to prevent installation of non‑conforming parts.
   • Where parts are returned to service after overhaul, ensure the part numbering reflects M3120 embodiment if the modification has been applied.

9. Use of later SB revisions:

   • The AD accepts the use of later approved revisions of the Service Bulletins for compliance. Before relying on a later revision, confirm its approval status per your approval process. Document the revision used for each inspection, repair or modification.

10. Documentation and maintenance records:

    • For each inspection, repair or modification, complete maintenance release documentation, record LDG counts used for compliance, and retain copies of the SBs and any approvals for the SB revisions or alternative compliance routes used. Record the MP update and the approval of MP32‑000 rev 06/2008 or later.

11. Liaise with regulatory authority and maintenance programme approver:

    • Submit the MP update for approval where required. Keep the regulator informed of planned embodiment timelines for M3120 if requested by oversight or audit processes.

12. Cross‑jurisdiction considerations:

    • If the operator’s aircraft are registered overseas or receive maintenance under other jurisdictions, ensure that the chosen compliance path satisfies both the CASA AD and any applicable EASA directives or other national ADs that may apply; the AD refers to EASA AD 2009‑0050 and supersedes EASA AD 2008‑0178.

13. Operational record reconciliation:

    • Reconcile flight logs, AFM appendix use, and maintenance records to confirm the steep‑approach counts and LDG thresholds used in the AD. This is essential for correct classification of the required action pathway.

By following the above steps, documenting decisions and approvals, and ensuring the chosen SB revisions are approved, operators can meet the AD’s requirements and either maintain the recurring borescope inspection regime or adopt the terminating modification M3120 to remove the need for repetitive inspections.