AD/G1159/48 - Roll Axis Hardover Protection System

The Directive operates by reference to three types of documents and a single FAA approval channel. The primary operational concept is mandated compliance with manufacturer and supplier service instructions, which are incorporated by reference in Table 1. The Directive does not give new technical instructions of its own; rather, it directs operators to "do all actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions" of the listed customer bulletins and identifies an additional Vought service bulletin as another source (Requirement 1; Table 1; Note 1).

Key document relationships are explicit:

• The listed Gulfstream customer bulletins set the method and steps to repair the force link assembly wire harness (Table 1). Each bulletin is dated and numbered in the AD (G500 Customer Bulletin 14, 13 June 2005; G550 Customer Bulletin 14, 23 June 2005; GV Customer Bulletin 135, 23 June 2005).
• Note 1 explicitly states that the Gulfstream customer bulletins "include Vought Service Bulletin SB-VAIGV/GVSP-27-PG0098, dated 9 May 2005, as an additional source of service information for the repair." That is, the Vought SB is incorporated as an alternate or complementary source.
• If damage to the environmental seal is discovered, the Directive displaces the manufacturer-prescribed repair path and requires an FAA approval for an alternative repair method, specifically approval by the Manager, Atlanta ACO, and the approval letter is required to "specifically refer to FAA AD 2006-18-13" (Requirement 2).

The safety objective stated in the background ties a specific maintenance fault , cutting of the outer shield and insulation during removal of the wiring outer jacket , to a system-level failure: loss of the Roll Axis Hardover Protection System (HOPS). The background frames the AD's preventive purpose as avoiding a short circuit that could result in "reduced controllability of the aeroplane" (Background).

Operationally, the AD establishes concrete compliance windows: for Requirement 1, before 31 October 2007; for Requirement 2, repair must be made before further flight after detection of damage (Compliance). The AD's effective date is 2 August 2007, which fixes administrative timing for when those compliance windows begin.

Authority and administrative anchors in the Directive are also clear. The AD is presented under CASA authority (signed by a CASA delegate), but it delegates final approval for certain repairs to the FAA Manager, Atlanta ACO. The AD therefore uses foreign authority (FAA Atlanta ACO) as the approving body for deviations involving environmental seal repair, and it anchors that approval to a specific FAA AD (2006‑18‑13). That creates a cross-reference and a prescribed channel for discretionary approval decisions.

The Directive affects a narrowly defined set of parties and equipment. The primary affected parties are the operators, owners, and maintenance organisations responsible for the Gulfstream model/series aeroplanes listed in the applicability table and within the serial number ranges set out. Specifically, the AD applies to Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation models/series as listed under "Applicability" and in Table 1: GV (serial numbers 674 through 693 inclusive) and GV‑SP (serial numbers 5001 through 5072 inclusive). The document is therefore limited to aircraft within those serial blocks; aircraft outside those serial numbers are not covered by the AD as written.

Directly affected actors:

• Aircraft owners and operators of the specified serial-numbered aeroplanes. They must arrange and pay for the repairs referenced in the AD within the compliance window (Requirement 1 compliance date: before 31 October 2007).
• Maintenance organisations or engineers executing the repair. They must carry out the "Accomplishment Instructions" in the listed customer bulletins and Vought service bulletin if applicable (Requirement 1 and Note 1).
• The Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (FAA) , who is explicitly assigned decision authority to approve repair methods for environmental seal damage discovered during the required repair (Requirement 2). That office must issue an approval letter that specifically references FAA AD 2006‑18‑13 if approving such a repair.

Indirectly affected parties:

• Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation and Vought as the issuers of the specified service information, since the Directive makes their bulletins the compliance mechanism. The manufacturer’s instructions determine the technical scope of the repair.
• National aviation regulators and their inspectors, in particular CASA as the AD issuer and the FAA Atlanta ACO as the approving authority for certain repairs. The AD recognizes and relies on FAA guidance and approval for specific repair methods (Requirement 2; Note 3 references FAA AD 2006‑18‑13).

Who does not appear to be affected: the AD does not address other Gulfstream series outside the serial numbers given, nor does it apply universally to all G‑series Gulfstream models. It also does not create obligations on third parties not involved in maintenance or approval, such as passengers or ground service providers.

Financially, the Directive will impose costs on the owners/operators of each affected aircraft to schedule and carry out the repair (and potentially to source FAA Manager approvals if environmental seal damage is found). The AD text does not quantify those costs; it specifies only the repair work and the timing.

Finally, the AD's background identifies the safety risk , potential cutting of outer shield and insulation of primary conductors due to improper removal of the wiring outer jacket , and frames the Directive as preventive action to avoid HOPS loss and resultant reduced controllability. That risk framing explains which actors are targeted: those who operate and maintain the specified aeroplanes.

The Directive imposes discrete duties and a narrow procedural right to an FAA-approved alternative repair method. The principal duties are set out as Requirement 1 and Requirement 2. The AD does not create a broad menu of rights or exemptions; it prescribes specific actions and a specific approval channel when deviation from the prescribed repair method is necessary.

Duties:

• Repair duty (Requirement 1): Operators must repair the force link assembly wire harness "by doing all actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information identified in Table 1 of this Directive" if the repair has not already been done. The duty is to follow the manufacturer (and Vought) instructions cited, without amendment, unless an approved alternative is obtained (Table 1; Note 1).
• Timing duty (Compliance): Complete Requirement 1 before 31 October 2007. If damage to the environmental seal is discovered, Requirement 2 requires repair "before further flight" after detection (Compliance; Requirement 2). The AD therefore imposes a timing constraint that can ground an aircraft until the required work or approved repair is completed.
• Contingent approval duty (Requirement 2): If during the Requirement 1 repair any nick or other damage is found on or to the environmental seal around the installed wires (the AD cites the relevant sections of the Vought SB for where this condition is described), the operator must perform the repair using a method approved by the Manager, Atlanta ACO. The approval letter must specifically refer to FAA AD 2006‑18‑13. This creates a duty to seek and obtain FAA Manager approval for certain repairs rather than relying solely on the Gulfstream or Vought bulletins.

Rights and procedural avenue:

• Right to an approved alternative: Operators have the procedural right to use an alternative repair method, but only if that method is approved by the Manager, Atlanta ACO and the approval letter specifically references FAA AD 2006‑18‑13. The AD does not permit unilateral deviation from the specified Accomplishment Instructions; it requires prior approval for any alternate repair when environmental seal damage is present (Requirement 2).
• Right to use Vought SB as additional source: The AD recognises the Vought SB as an additional source of repair information (Note 1). That is not framed as an exemption but as an incorporated technical resource.

Constraints and absence of other rights:

• The AD provides no express right to defer the repair beyond the stated compliance dates, and it makes the "before further flight" requirement mandatory for detected environmental seal damage (Requirement 2; Compliance).
• The AD provides no express indemnities, compensation, or assistance for costs to owners/operators, nor does it describe any appeals process in the text provided. The only procedural mechanism for alternatives is the FAA Manager approval channel described.

Decision authority:

• The Manager, Atlanta ACO, is explicitly empowered to approve repair methods for environmental seal damage found during the repair. That is a defined and limited discretionary function in the AD (Requirement 2). The approval must have a specific textual reference to FAA AD 2006‑18‑13 to be valid for the Directive's purposes.

Records and evidence:

• The Directive does not expressly prescribe records to prove compliance, but its formulation relies on the operator executing the listed Accomplishment Instructions and, if necessary, obtaining the FAA Manager approval. Evidence of compliance will therefore be the completed repair per the specified service information and any FAA approval letter where relevant.

The AD text provided does not set out specific penalties, fines, or a detailed enforcement regime within its wording. It contains mandatory repair requirements and compliance dates, but it does not include express penalty clauses, civil fines, criminal sanctions, or an enforcement schedule in the document itself. The only enforcement-relevant content in the AD is the specification of required actions and timing (Requirements 1 and 2; Compliance). The AD is identified as being issued under the authority of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), as shown by the signature block naming David Punshon as a CASA delegate (21 June 2007). Beyond that, the Directive references FAA processes for approval when environmental seal damage is found, requiring Manager, Atlanta ACO approval and reference to FAA AD 2006‑18‑13 (Requirement 2).

What the text does and does not say about enforcement:

• Does say: The AD prescribes mandatory corrective action and precise compliance windows , Requirement 1 before 31 October 2007 and Requirement 2 before further flight after detection of environmental seal damage. These timing prescriptions operate as compliance obligations.
• Does not say: The AD does not articulate the enforcement mechanisms that CASA or another regulator will use to ensure operators comply. It does not state the consequences for failure to comply, nor does it provide a penalty schedule, suspension, revocation, or other administrative measures within the document.

Implications for enforcement practice (derived from the document’s content, not additional law):

• The AD’s effect is to make certain maintenance actions mandatory for the listed aircraft. In standard aviation regulatory practice, such directives are enforced within the regulator’s airworthiness oversight framework; however, the AD text provided does not itself set out the mechanisms or sanctions. Operators should therefore assume that failure to meet the AD’s requirements by the compliance dates may have regulatory consequences administered by the issuing authority (CASA) or relevant aviation enforcement bodies, but those consequences are not described in this text.

Interaction with FAA approval:

• Where environmental seal damage is encountered, the AD requires Manager, Atlanta ACO approval for the repair method and specifies that the approval letter must reference FAA AD 2006‑18‑13. This channels part of the AD’s compliance pathway to an FAA decision-maker. The AD does not specify what form of evidence or documentation the FAA approval letter must contain beyond the required reference, nor does it set other procedural requirements.

Users of this Directive should therefore treat the AD as setting mandatory actions and deadlines while recognising that the specific enforcement provisions and penalties for non-compliance are not articulated in the AD’s text and will be applied, if at all, through the issuer’s wider regulatory enforcement processes.

The AD explicitly cross-references and incorporates external service bulletins and a specific FAA AD, creating a network of document interactions rather than standalone statutory rules. The AD interacts with other regulatory instruments and technical documents in these concrete ways.

Incorporation and reference to manufacturer and supplier service information:

• The Directive requires that repairs be done "by doing all actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information identified in Table 1 of this Directive" (Requirement 1; Table 1). Table 1 lists Gulfstream customer bulletins (G500 Customer Bulletin 14 dated 13 June 2005; G550 Customer Bulletin 14 dated 23 June 2005; GV Customer Bulletin 135 dated 23 June 2005). Note 1 adds a Vought Service Bulletin (SB-VAIGV/GVSP-27-PG0098 dated 9 May 2005) as "an additional source of service information for the repair." The Directive therefore makes compliance contingent on following particular technical documents that are external to the AD, effectively importing those documents' instructions into the AD compliance requirement.

Cross-reference to FAA AD and FAA approval:

• The AD requires that, where environmental seal damage is discovered during the required repair, the alternative repair method must be "approved by the Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)" and that the Manager's approval letter must specifically refer to FAA AD 2006‑18‑13 (Requirement 2). The Directive therefore references and depends upon a specific FAA AD (2006‑18‑13) as part of the approval architecture. Note 3 in the document explicitly states "FAA AD 2006‑18‑13 Amdt 39‑14752 refers." This creates a direct interaction between this CASA-issued AD and the FAA’s regulatory architecture.

Administrative interplay and cross-jurisdictional decision-making:

• The Directive is issued by CASA (signed by a CASA delegate) but delegates a discrete approval role to the FAA Atlanta ACO for certain repairs. Consequently, the AD ties Australian regulatory compliance to an FAA managerial approval decision when an environmental seal repair is needed. The Manager's approval must reference FAA AD 2006‑18‑13; the AD requires that referential link as a precondition for the approved repair method to satisfy the AD’s Requirement 2.

Implications of document-versioning and specificity:

• The AD identifies specific dated service bulletins. That means the Directive interacts with the content and versioning of those documents. The AD does not offer operators latitude to follow later revisions of those bulletins unless explicitly accepted through the FAA Manager approval channel for environmental seal repairs. The AD thus locks compliance to the identified documents and dates unless an approved alternative is secured.

No other statutory instruments referenced:

• The text contains no references to other Australian Acts, regulations, or penalty provisions. It does not, for example, cite the specific statutory provision under which CASA issues ADs or any administrative appeal processes. The only legal cross-reference in the text is to FAA AD 2006‑18‑13 and to FAA managerial approval.

Net effect:

• Practically, this AD makes compliance a compound obligation: it imports specific manufacturer and supplier technical instructions, and for certain contingencies it requires operator liaison with a named FAA office and reliance on a specified FAA AD. It thereby creates a compliance pathway that bridges manufacturer instructions, CASA-issued AD obligations, and FAA approval processes.

The document provided contains the AD number AD/G1159/48 and a date code "8/2007" and shows the AD "becomes effective on 2 August 2007" (Compliance; Effective date). The signature block shows the AD was signed by David Punshon as delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority on 21 June 2007. The provided text does not include any subsequent amendments, corrections, superseding ADs, or formal amendment notes within the body of the text presented.

Concrete items recorded in the Directive regarding timing and identifiers:

• AD identifier: AD/G1159/48. The identifier appears multiple times in the document header and table attributions.
• Edition/date code: "8/2007" appears in the header alongside the AD identifier.
• Effective date: The AD "becomes effective on 2 August 2007" (Compliance).
• Signature and date: David Punshon, Delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, dated 21 June 2007, appears at the conclusion of the document.

No recorded amendment entries:

• The document as provided does not show any "Amendment" clauses, later amendment numbers, or dates beyond those cited above. It does not include an "amendment history" table or any footnote indicating that the AD has been revised since its effective date.

References to related FAA AD:

• The AD points to FAA AD 2006‑18‑13 (Amdt 39‑14752) in Note 3 and requires that any Manager, Atlanta ACO approval letter specifically refer to FAA AD 2006‑18‑13 (Requirement 2). That is a cross-reference but not an internal amendment to this CASA AD.

What is absent from the provided text:

• There is no textual record of a prior iteration of AD/G1159/48 being amended, nor is there any indication within the supplied document of revocation, supersession, or re-issuance. The AD stands as issued with the dates and requirements set out.

For regulatory housekeeping or compliance tracking, users should note the AD’s effective date (2 August 2007), the compliance deadlines (Requirement 1 before 31 October 2007; Requirement 2 before further flight after detection), and the external document references (the specific Gulfstream and Vought documents and FAA AD 2006‑18‑13). Any subsequent amendments, rescissions, or superseding directives would need to be checked in the official regulatory database or CASA annals outside this text, because they are not recorded here.

The provided AD text contains no litigation history. It does not mention any court cases, administrative appeals, or judicial reviews relevant to AD/G1159/48. The document is administrative in nature and records only the directive's requirements, associated service information, compliance dates, and the issuing authority's signature.

Details present and absent:

• Present: The AD includes a background explanation (an FAA report indicating possible cutting of outer shield and insulation leading to potential HOPS loss) and the safety rationale for issuing the Directive. It shows internal administrative dates (signed 21 June 2007; effective 2 August 2007).
• Absent: There is no mention of any legal challenge to the AD, no record of enforcement litigation arising from non-compliance, no appellate decisions or tribunal findings, and no judicial interpretation of the AD’s requirements in the text provided.

What users should take away from the absence:

• Because the AD does not record litigation or appeals, one cannot draw any conclusions from this text alone about whether the AD was ever contested, enforced in court, or subject to legal interpretation. Determining such matters would require an external search of judicial and administrative records, none of which are included in the AD’s text.

For practical compliance purposes, the absence of litigation history in the AD means the requirements stand on their face and should be treated as binding obligations as of the effective date unless and until formally amended or superseded by the issuing authority. Any party concerned about legal interpretations, scope, or enforcement should consult the regulator’s records or legal counsel for more comprehensive historical or jurisdictional research beyond the AD text.

This Directive contains several narrow, technical, and procedural features that can produce practical pitfalls for operators and maintenance organisations if overlooked. The following items are drawn directly from the AD’s text and are practical traps to watch for.

1. Tight compliance window for Requirement 1. The AD’s Compliance section sets Requirement 1 to be completed "Before 31 October 2007" while the AD becomes effective on 2 August 2007. That gives operators a limited interval in which to schedule and perform the repair work. Missing that date would leave the operator non-compliant with the AD’s timing requirement.

2. Applicability limited by serial number ranges. The AD applies only to the model/series aeroplanes and serial numbers specified in the Applicability and Table 1: GV serials 674-693 inclusive; GV‑SP serials 5001-5072 inclusive. Operators must check serial numbers carefully; the obligation does not extend to aircraft outside those specified ranges. Misidentifying the serial number scope can lead to unnecessary work or failure to comply where needed.

3. Required service information is specific and dated. Table 1 lists specific Gulfstream customer bulletins with dates (G500 Customer Bulletin 14, dated 13 June 2005; G550 Customer Bulletin 14, dated 23 June 2005; Gulfstream GV Customer Bulletin 135, dated 23 June 2005). The AD requires doing "all actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information identified in Table 1." Practically, this means the specified bulletin versions are the compliance standard; operators should not assume later revisions or different bulletins automatically satisfy the AD unless expressly accepted by the FAA Manager approval mechanism where applicable.

4. Vought Service Bulletin is an additional source, not necessarily a substitute. Note 1 states the Gulfstream customer bulletins "include Vought Service Bulletin SB-VAIGV/GVSP-27-PG0098, dated 9 May 2005, as an additional source of service information for the repair." The language "additional source" may create ambiguity in practice about whether following only the Vought SB is sufficient. The AD text requires doing "all actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information identified in Table 1." Operators should therefore ensure they use the Gulfstream bulletin(s) identified; the Vought SB is an additional resource, not necessarily a standalone replacement unless it is explicitly referenced in the Gulfstream bulletin being used.

5. Discovery of environmental seal damage triggers an FAA approval requirement (and a flight prohibition until repaired). Requirement 2 prescribes that if any nick or other damage is found on the environmental seal around the installed wires during the repair, the repair must use a method approved by the Manager, Atlanta ACO, and "for a repair method to be approved ... the Manager's approval letter must specifically refer to FAA AD 2006‑18‑13." Furthermore, the Compliance section requires the Requirement 2 repair to be done "before further flight" after discovery. Practically, operators who find such damage must not return the aeroplane to service pending FAA Manager approval of the repair method and completion of that approved repair. This creates potential downtime and necessitates timely contact with the FAA Atlanta ACO.

6. Manager approval must specifically reference FAA AD 2006‑18‑13. This is a narrow administrative requirement. An FAA approval that omits explicit textual reference to FAA AD 2006‑18‑13 may not satisfy the AD’s condition. Operators seeking approval should ensure the approval letter includes that reference.

7. Cross-jurisdictional approval channel. The AD is issued by CASA (signed by its delegate) but prescribes that the FAA Manager, Atlanta ACO, is the approval authority for certain repairs. This creates a practical coordination requirement with a foreign regulator for operators and maintenance organisations working under Australian jurisdiction. That can introduce administrative delay, communication overhead, or confusion over which regulator's paperwork satisfies the AD unless handled proactively.

8. AD is silent on enforcement and record-keeping detail. The AD does not state what records are to be retained or how proof of compliance is to be presented to the regulator. In practice, operators should preserve maintenance documentation, parts replacement records, and any FAA Manager approval letter that references FAA AD 2006‑18‑13, but that is an operational recommendation rather than a textual mandate in the AD.

9. Background risk is specific and technical. The background identifies the hazard as inadvertent cutting of the aileron force link assembly wiring harness outer shield and insulation due to improper removal of the wiring outer jacket. The AD aims to prevent "loss of the hardover prevention system (HOPS) in the roll axis due to a short circuit in the wiring harness" which could result in reduced controllability (Background). The technical specificity of the risk means that superficial inspections may miss the precise condition the AD is intended to correct; operators should ensure they undertake the full Accomplishment Instructions.

Operators and maintenance planners should treat these items as practical "gotchas" to be addressed: verify serial numbers, obtain the exact listed bulletins, schedule the work within the compliance window, be prepared for FAA Manager approval processes if environmental seal damage is found, and insist on the required textual reference in any FAA approval letter.

The Directive sets a compact compliance pathway. The following points distil the AD’s procedural requirements into a practical sequence, strictly grounded in the AD text.

1. Confirm applicability. Check the aeroplane model/series and serial number against the AD's Applicability and Table 1. The AD applies to Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation model/series aeroplanes as listed in the Applicability section and in Table 1. Table 1 identifies GV‑SP series and GV series with serial numbers GV‑SP 5001-5072 and GV 674-693 inclusive. If the aircraft is not within these serial ranges, the AD does not apply as written.

2. Check maintenance history. The AD requires the repair "If not previously accomplished" (Requirement 1). Verify maintenance records to determine whether the force link assembly wire harness repair called for in the identified service information has already been performed. If the repair has already been completed in accordance with the identified service information, no further action under Requirement 1 is necessary.

3. Obtain and follow the specified service information. If the repair has not been done, acquire the applicable Gulfstream customer bulletin for your model as listed in Table 1:

   • GV‑SP series: Gulfstream G500 Customer Bulletin 14 dated 13 June 2005; Gulfstream G550 Customer Bulletin 14 dated 23 June 2005 (Table 1).
   • GV series: Gulfstream GV Customer Bulletin 135 dated 23 June 2005 (Table 1). Note 1 indicates the Vought Service Bulletin SB‑VAIGV/GVSP‑27‑PG0098 dated 9 May 2005 is an additional source of service information for the repair. Perform "all actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions" of the applicable service information (Requirement 1). The AD makes those Accomplishment Instructions the operative repair steps.

4. Complete Requirement 1 within the mandated timeframe. The AD requires that Requirement 1 be completed "Before 31 October 2007" (Compliance). Schedule the maintenance to meet that deadline. The AD became effective on 2 August 2007; plan accordingly.

5. Inspect the environmental seal during the repair. The AD contemplates discovery of "any nick or other damage ... on or to the environmental seal around the installed wires" during the Requirement 1 repair. The Vought SB is cited for the procedural paragraphs describing the condition to be checked (see Requirement 2 citing paragraphs 2.B.(2)c)7. and 2.C.(2)c)7. of SB‑VAIGV/GVSP‑27‑PG0098). Follow the Accomplishment Instructions for the inspection steps.

6. If environmental seal damage is discovered, do not return to flight until repaired per an approved method. Requirement 2 requires that "If, during the Requirement 1 repair, any nick or other damage is found ... repair using a method approved by the Manager, Atlanta ACO, United States FAA." The AD further requires that this repair be done "Before further flight" after the damage is detected (Compliance). Therefore, if damage is found, obtain and implement an FAA‑approved repair method and ensure the aircraft remains grounded until the approved repair is completed.

7. Obtain the FAA Manager, Atlanta ACO approval with the required textual reference. The AD requires that "for a repair method to be approved by the Manager, Atlanta ACO, ... the Manager's approval letter must specifically refer to FAA AD 2006‑18‑13" (Requirement 2). When seeking approval, request that the approval letter state explicitly that the approval is in respect of FAA AD 2006‑18‑13 so the document fully satisfies the AD’s procedural requirement.

8. Use the Vought SB as an additional resource where relevant. Note 1 notes that the Gulfstream customer bulletins include the Vought SB as an additional source of service information. If following the Gulfstream bulletin directs you to the Vought SB, use it as an additional technical reference when performing the Accomplishment Instructions.

9. Retain the documentation that evidences compliance and approval. Although the AD text does not specify record-keeping, the compliance obligations involve two classes of documentary evidence: (a) proof that the Accomplishment Instructions were executed, and (b) any FAA Manager approval letter needed under Requirement 2 that explicitly references FAA AD 2006‑18‑13. Maintain copies of the relevant customer bulletins and Vought SB versions used, maintenance sign‑offs, and the FAA approval letter as the tangible evidence that the AD’s obligations were met.

10. Monitor for further regulatory communications. The provided text does not include any amendment history beyond the effective date. Operators should check CASA and official AD repositories for any subsequent amendments or superseding directives after the effective date, since such changes would affect ongoing compliance obligations. The AD itself does not specify a mechanism for checking amendments.

This sequence is the compliance path the AD prescribes. The core compliance steps are: (a) determine applicability; (b) check whether the repair has already been done; (c) perform the Accomplishment Instructions in the listed service information if the repair has not been done; (d) inspect for environmental seal damage and, if present, obtain FAA Manager, Atlanta ACO approval for the repair method with the required reference to FAA AD 2006‑18‑13; and (e) ensure no further flight until that approved repair is completed.