AD/HS 125/181 - Panel DA Wiring

The Directive weaves together a small set of concrete regulatory concepts: applicability (which aircraft are covered), the technical standard for inspection (a “detailed inspection”), a mandatory trigger for remedial action (wire contact or chafing), the technical source for exactly how to carry out work (Raytheon SB 24-3772), and cross-acceptance of FAA-approved alternate methods of compliance (AMOCs to FAA AD 2007-21-08).

Applicability. The AD applies to “Hawker Beechcraft Model Hawker 800XP aeroplanes, as identified in Raytheon Service Bulletin SB 24-3772, dated February 2006” (Applicability). That means the set of affected serial numbers or configurations is defined by the SB; the Directive does not duplicate a serial-number list in its text but references the SB for identification.

Detailed inspection. Note 1 in the Directive adopts a specific, non-superficial definition of “detailed inspection”. The Directive reproduces that definition: “An intensive examination of a specific item, installation or assembly to detect damage, failure or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying lenses, etc, may be necessary. Surface cleaning and elaborate procedures may be required.” That definition sets a minimum expectation about the depth and technique of the inspection, not merely a look-and-see check.

Trigger for remedial work. Requirement 2 is conditional on the inspection findings: “If… any wire is touching the panel, structure or equipment, or if evidence of chafing or exposed conductors exists, repair or replace the wires and cable ties with new ones, in accordance with SB 24-3772.” The trigger language is factual and observable: physical contact, chafing, or exposed conductors.

Technical standard and method. Both the inspection and the repairs must be carried out “in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of SB 24-3772” (Requirement 1 and Requirement 2). The SB is thus the operative technical manual for methods, materials and procedures. The Directive itself does not specify which parts to use or exactly how to route wires beyond deferring to the SB.

AMOC/cross-acceptance. The Directive permits later revisions of SB 24-3772 if those revisions have been approved by the FAA as an AMOC to FAA AD 2007-21-08: such later revisions “are considered acceptable for compliance with the equivalent Requirements of this Directive” (Requirement 3). The AD therefore creates an interchange with FAA regulatory action: FAA acceptance of a revised SB as an AMOC binds or is accepted by this Directive as a compliant method.

Compliance timing and grounding. Timing is explicit: the inspection must be done “within 600 hours time in service or 12 months after the effective date of this Directive, whichever occurs first” (Compliance). Remedial work required by the inspection must be completed “before further flight” (Compliance). The phrase “before further flight” functions as a grounding condition for aircraft with defects discovered by the inspection.

Safety rationale. The Directive records the FAA’s reporting of the defect condition and describes the hazard chain it intends to interrupt: wire-bundle interference and chafed wires can lead to electrical shorts, loss of flight-essential functions, smoke or fire in the flight compartment and main cabin (Background). The chain links observed defect to potential catastrophic outcomes; the Directive prescribes inspection and repair to interrupt that chain.

Authority and provenance. The AD is issued by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (Delegate signature), and it references FAA AD 2007-21-08 and a manufacturer service bulletin. The Directive thus sits at the intersection of national regulator action, manufacturer-supplied instructions, and foreign regulator (FAA) approval mechanisms.

The Directive identifies a narrow but operationally meaningful class of affected parties and roles. First-order affected parties are operators and owners of Hawker Beechcraft Model Hawker 800XP aeroplanes specified in Raytheon Service Bulletin SB 24-3772, dated February 2006 (Applicability). Because the Directive ties applicability to the SB, the precise subset of aircraft is the subset the SB identifies; operators must consult the SB to determine whether their airframe(s) are listed.

Second-order affected parties are the maintenance organisations, licensed maintenance personnel and technicians who will carry out the mandated detailed inspections and any consequential repairs. The Directive requires the inspection to be “in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions” of the SB and specifies what a “detailed inspection” entails (Note 1), so those performing the work must be capable of meeting the SB’s technical instructions and the detailed-inspection standard. The Directive imposes procedural requirements , for example, use of direct lighting, inspection aids such as mirrors or magnifying lenses, potential surface cleaning , which affect the resourcing and methods of maintenance organisations.

Regulatory actors are affected insofar as the Directive references regulatory interplay with the FAA. The AD accepts later revisions of SB 24-3772 that have been approved by the FAA as an AMOC to FAA AD 2007-21-08 (Requirement 3). That creates an operational touchpoint between CASA’s AD and FAA regulatory approvals: those issuing or accepting AMOCs at FAA level affect which SB revisions are acceptable under this Directive.

Aircraft dispatch planners and operators responsible for maintenance scheduling are also affected. The inspection must be completed within the shorter of 600 hours time in service or 12 months from the effective date (Compliance). Where inspections reveal defects that meet the trigger conditions, repairs must be completed before further flight (Compliance), which will influence aircraft availability, rostering and charter commitments.

Parts suppliers and logistics functions will be affected to the extent repairs require replacement wires and cable ties “with new ones” in accordance with the SB (Requirement 2). The Directive does not specify particular catalogue numbers in the text; it delegates to the SB for parts and procedural detail, so suppliers will need to follow the SB to provide compliant replacement parts.

Finally, the Directive affects safety assurance and audit functions within operator organisations and within the regulator. The AD is a record of a mandated safety action and will feed into airworthiness records, continuing airworthiness planning and any audits or checks by the regulator. The document itself is signed by a CASA delegate (signature block), indicating it is an enforceable administrative instrument within CASA’s remit.

Those not affected: aircraft types other than the Hawker 800XP as identified in SB 24-3772; maintenance action not involving panel DA wiring; or later SB revisions not approved by the FAA as an AMOC (unless and until they receive FAA AMOC approval) , the Directive’s text delineates affected and unaffected items by reference.

The Directive specifies a compact set of mandatory duties and a single explicit compliance concession (AMOC acceptance). The duties are factual, time-bound and process-bound.

Primary duties

• Duty to inspect: Operators must accomplish a detailed inspection of the DA panel wiring for clearance and for signs of chafing or exposed conductors, “in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of SB 24-3772” (Requirement 1; Applicability). The detailed-inspection definition (Note 1) requires intensified examination conditions: supplementary lighting, inspection aids such as mirrors or magnifying lenses, and possibly surface cleaning and elaborate procedures. That definition elevates the inspection beyond casual examination and sets a procedural benchmark for compliance.

• Duty to repair or replace: If the detailed inspection discovers any wire touching the panel, structure or equipment, or evidence of chafing or exposed conductors, the operator must repair or replace the wires and cable ties with new ones, “in accordance with SB 24-3772” (Requirement 2). The duty is conditional on the inspection findings and is prescriptive about the repair/replacement standard: it must align with the SB’s Accomplishment Instructions.

• Duty on timing and grounding: The inspection must be completed within “600 hours time in service or 12 months after the effective date of this Directive, whichever occurs first” (Compliance). If repairs are required by the inspection, they must be completed “before further flight” (Compliance). Those time phrases create an operational imperative for scheduling and can effectively ground an aircraft until rectification is performed.

Rights and flexibilities

• AMOC acceptance: The Directive explicitly recognises that later revisions of SB 24-3772 that have been approved by the FAA as an AMOC to FAA AD 2007-21-08 are acceptable for compliance with the equivalent Requirements of this Directive (Requirement 3). That is a form of regulatory flexibility: if the FAA approves a revision as an AMOC, operators may use that revised SB to show compliance with this AD’s requirements. The right is conditional on FAA action; the Directive does not provide an independent CASA AMOC procedure within its text.

• Technical delegation to SB: The Directive delegates technical particulars to the manufacturer’s Accomplishment Instructions. That delegation gives operators and maintenance providers a clear method to follow; following the SB is the specified route to compliance and thus protects an operator from ambiguity over procedures so long as the SB is followed.

Negative rights or omitted provisions

• The Directive contains no express exemptions, alternative compliance routes other than the FAA-AMOC-linked SB revisions, or appeal mechanisms within its text. It also contains no express monetary penalty or enforcement clause in the document itself. The absence of those provisions in the text means that the AD sets out duties without elaborating in the instrument on procedural remedies or specific sanctions (the document records no such provisions).

Operational effects of the duties

• If inspection finds defects, the aircraft cannot return to flight until repairs are made (“before further flight”). That creates an immediate operational consequence. The definition of “detailed inspection” raises the bar for what counted as compliant inspection, so operators cannot meet the duty with cursory checks.

• Reliance on the SB and FAA AMOC ties the implementable methods to manufacturer instructions and to FAA approval processes; compliance routes flow through those documents and approvals.

In sum, the Directive imposes concrete inspection and repair duties, prescribes timing, delegates technical method to the SB, and provides a single explicit flexibility by accepting FAA-AMOC-approved SB revisions. The document does not elaborate on penalties, appeals, or alternative CASA-level compliance routes within its text.

The text of the Directive itself does not set out specific penalties, fines, or enforcement mechanisms. The instrument contains mandatory requirements , inspection within a defined time window, repair or replacement before further flight where defects are found, and reliance on SB 24-3772 for the method of accomplishment , but it does not include a penalties clause or a procedural enforcement schedule in its text (Requirements; Compliance). The document is signed by a Delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, indicating its issuance by the regulator, yet no express enforcement powers or sanctions are enumerated in the AD text provided.

What the Directive does provide relevant to enforcement is procedural clarity on what constitutes compliance: the detailed inspection standard (Note 1), the necessity to follow the Accomplishment Instructions of SB 24-3772 for inspections and repairs (Requirement 1 and Requirement 2), and time-bounded compliance windows (Compliance). Those elements make it administratively straightforward for a regulator or auditor to assess whether the technical obligations were performed: an inspector can check maintenance records to see whether the inspection was carried out within the 600-hour/12-month window, whether the inspection met the detailed-inspection standard, and whether any defects found were repaired in accordance with the SB before further flight.

The Directive also provides a single cross-acceptance mechanism , later SB revisions approved by the FAA as an AMOC to FAA AD 2007-21-08 are “considered acceptable for compliance” (Requirement 3). That affects enforceability in practice because it gives a regulatoryly recognised alternative method that will be accepted, reducing disputes about method where the FAA has approved the revised SB as an AMOC.

Absent explicit penalties in the text, enforcement responsibilities and sanctions would sit with the broader aviation safety regulatory framework administered by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. The AD itself, however, does not articulate how non-compliance will be processed, what sanctions might apply, or the procedural steps for contesting or seeking relief from the Directive. The document does not set out review, objection, or appeal rights; it contains no schedule for follow-up inspections, no record-keeping paragraph, and no express administrative penalties. Those matters are likely addressed elsewhere in aviation safety law and CASA’s general enforcement procedures, but those instruments are not part of this Directive’s text and are not mentioned or reproduced in the AD as provided.

In practical terms, therefore, the Directive establishes mandatory technical duties and objective compliance benchmarks, but it leaves enforcement modalities and sanctions outside the four corners of the AD text. That will affect how operators and maintenance organisations view risk from non-compliance: the technical duty is explicit, but the AD does not itself list the administrative consequences of failing to comply.

The Directive, while self-contained on the inspection and repair duty, explicitly links to other regulatory instruments and standards, creating a narrow set of interactions:

Reference to manufacturer service bulletin. The Directive depends on Raytheon Service Bulletin SB 24-3772, dated February 2006, for both the identification of affected aeroplanes and the detailed procedures to be used. The Applicability clause states the aircraft are “as identified in Raytheon Service Bulletin SB 24-3772,” and the Requirements repeatedly specify “in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of SB 24-3772.” This creates a primary interaction: the AD uses a manufacturer’s service bulletin as the operative technical manual. Operators must therefore follow the SB to satisfy the AD.

Reference to FAA AD 2007-21-08 and AMOC process. The Directive refers to FAA AD 2007-21-08 (Note 2) and provides that later revisions of SB 24-3772 “approved by the United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as an Alternate Method of Compliance (AMOC) to FAA AD 2007-21-08, are considered acceptable for compliance with the equivalent Requirements of this Directive” (Requirement 3). That creates a cross-jurisdictional interaction: CASA’s AD accepts FAA-approved AMOCs as compliant methods for this Directive. The AD therefore recognises foreign regulator action (FAA AD and AMOC approvals) as relevant to domestic compliance.

Delegation of technical standard to SB. Because the AD delegates technical content (methods, parts, repair steps) to SB 24-3772, operators must align two sources: the AD (for the duty, triggers and timing) and the SB (for how to perform the techniques). Where the SB changes, the AD contemplates that FAA approval of a revised SB (as an AMOC to the FAA AD) will render that revised SB acceptable under the AD. The AD does not, however, specify CASA-level AMOC procedures or acceptances in the text.

Absence of other statutory references. The AD does not cite or reference other Australian statutes, regulations, or Civil Aviation Safety Authority orders in the text provided. It is therefore operationally self-contained except for the specified cross-reference to the manufacturer’s SB and the FAA AD/AMOC mechanism. Any interactions with broader aviation safety statutes, enforcement policies, maintenance licensing rules, or record-keeping obligations are not addressed in this Directive’s text; those interactions would be exercised through CASA’s general regulatory regime but are not shown or detailed in the AD.

Identity of issuing authority. The Directive was issued by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (signature: Delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority). That positions the AD as an instrument within CASA’s regulatory competence. It also means the AD’s interaction with other laws is mediated through how CASA typically implements ADs: relying on SBs, accepting certain foreign regulator approvals, and using the general enforcement apparatus of the aviation safety regime. The AD itself, however, contains none of the ancillary statutory cross-references that would ordinarily appear in more expansive statutory or regulatory instruments.

In short, the AD interacts operationally with the Raytheon SB 24-3772 and with FAA AD 2007-21-08 via the AMOC acceptance. It creates a direct compliance pathway by tying domestic obligations to manufacturer instructions and foreign regulator approvals, while leaving broader legal enforcement and administrative interaction to the general regulatory framework outside the AD’s text.

The AD text as provided contains limited internal amendment information. What the Directive records explicitly is:

• Effective date: “This Airworthiness Directive becomes effective on 20 December 2007” (Compliance). That is the instrument’s date of coming into force.

• AMOC-consequence clause: Requirement 3 provides that “Later revisions of the above SB, approved by the United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as an Alternate Method of Compliance (AMOC) to FAA AD 2007-21-08, are considered acceptable for compliance with the equivalent Requirements of this Directive.” That clause is the only operative mechanism in the document that recognises subsequent technical changes as acceptable for compliance: it imports FAA-approved SB revisions into the AD’s compliance universe.

The AD does not itself list any subsequent amendments, revisions, superseding ADs, or corrigenda. There are no in-text amendment notes showing earlier or later edits, no version history beyond the effective date, and no reference to a subsequent CASA amendment instrument within the provided text. The document does not include an “Amendment” or “History” section that records changes to the AD following issuance.

What the AMOC clause implies for amendment practice is narrow and specific: if Raytheon issues a later revision to SB 24-3772 and the FAA approves that later revision as an AMOC to its FAA AD 2007-21-08, CASA will accept that later revision for compliance with this AD. The Directive therefore provides for a limited downstream assimilation of changes where those changes have obtained FAA AMOC approval; it is not a general mechanism for CASA to accept any subsequent SB change without FAA AMOC endorsement.

No other amendments are recorded in the text provided. If operators or maintenance organisations require a record of later CASA amendments or revocations, they will need to consult CASA’s AD database, subsequent CASA publications, or register notices outside the four corners of this Directive’s text. The AD does not itself direct readers to an amendment history repository nor identify a process by which CASA will issue or record subsequent amendments in this document.

The Directive’s text contains no record of litigation, appeals, judicial review or administrative proceedings relating to this AD. There are no references to cases, court decisions, or disputes in the instrument as provided. The text also does not record any challenges to the directive, its validity, or its operation.

Because the document contains no litigation history section and cites no adjudicative outcomes, any understanding of judicial engagement with this specific AD would need to come from external sources such as court databases or CASA administrative records. The AD itself does not provide that information.

The absence of litigation history in the AD text means the instrument does not record contested interpretations or court-ordered modifications. It also means the specific content of the AD , the inspection definition, the triggers for repair, the timing requirements, and the AMOC acceptance clause , stands in the document without judicial annotation or modification. Operators and advisers therefore cannot rely on this AD text to show how courts have treated its provisions or whether disputes about compliance methods (for example, whether a particular inspection method satisfied the Note 1 “detailed inspection” standard) have been litigated and resolved.

Where an operator seeks to understand potential contest points, the AD does contain material that could be the subject of dispute , notably the detailed-inspection standard in Note 1, the scope defined by the SB-referenced applicability clause, and the reliance on FAA AMOCs for acceptance of later SB revisions. However, the Directive records none of the outcomes of any disputes or appeals on those points.

If litigation or precedent is material to compliance strategy, responsible parties must obtain and review any external judicial or administrative decisions that interpret CASA ADs generally or this AD specifically. The AD document itself provides no such litigation record; it is silent on any contested history.

The Directive’s language and structure contain several operationally important specifics and potential pitfalls for operators, maintenance organisations and programme managers. These are points the AD itself makes explicit or strongly implies; they are not additions beyond the text:

1. Applicability is defined by the SB, not set out in the AD. The AD applies only to “Hawker Beechcraft Model Hawker 800XP aeroplanes, as identified in Raytheon Service Bulletin SB 24-3772, dated February 2006” (Applicability). That means an operator cannot assume the AD applies to all Hawker 800XPs; the SB itself must be consulted to determine whether a particular airframe is listed. Failing to check the SB for aircraft identity is a practical gotcha.

2. “Detailed inspection” has a technical meaning that raises minimum standards. Note 1 defines a detailed inspection in terms that go beyond a cursory visual check: it contemplates supplementary direct lighting, inspection aids such as mirrors and magnifying lenses, and possibly surface cleaning and “elaborate procedures.” Conducting a superficial check because it is time- or cost-saving will likely fail the AD’s standard.

3. Repairs must be carried out “in accordance with SB 24-3772.” The AD does not allow ad hoc repairs; it channels remedial action to the SB’s Accomplishment Instructions. Using alternative repair methods or parts that are not those specified in the SB (unless subsequently approved via the AMOC process recognised in Requirement 3) could fail to meet the AD’s requirements.

4. AMOC acceptance is conditional and narrow. Requirement 3 accepts later SB revisions only where those revisions have been approved by the FAA as an AMOC to FAA AD 2007-21-08. That is not blanket acceptance of any SB revision; it is specifically conditioned on FAA AMOC approval. Assuming any later SB revision is compliant without confirming FAA AMOC status is a risk.

5. Timing can create short windows for scheduling. The inspection must occur “within 600 hours time in service or 12 months after the effective date of this Directive, whichever occurs first.” Depending on an operator’s utilisation profile and the effective date (20 December 2007), an airframe may reach the 600-hour threshold quickly. Operators must track hours accurately to meet the mandated deadline.

6. Defects discovered mean “before further flight.” If an inspection identifies any wire touching panel/structure or evidence of chafing/exposed conductors, the AD requires repair or replacement “before further flight.” That is an immediate operational consequence: aircraft with defects must be rectified prior to returning to service.

7. The AD does not specify parts, record-keeping or reporting requirements in the text. It delegates repair and inspection methods to the SB but does not itself demand specific parts catalogues, documentation formats or mandatory reporting back to the regulator in the AD text provided. Operators may be required by other regulations to record maintenance; but the AD itself does not describe those paperwork obligations, which can cause confusion if maintenance control and compliance records are not aligned with regulatory audit expectations.

8. No penalties or enforcement steps are described in the AD text. While the AD sets mandatory technical duties, it does not enumerate the consequences of non-compliance in its text. That absence can cause misreading of regulatory risk. Even though the AD lacks explicit penalty language, non-compliance still raises regulatory, insurance and safety exposures not spelled out in the instrument.

9. Reliance on FAA processes introduces external dependency. The AD’s acceptance of FAA-approved AMOCs makes compliance contours dependent on a foreign regulator’s approval timeline and determinations. An operator who chooses to rely on a revised SB needs to confirm FAA AMOC approval status before asserting compliance under this AD.

10. The SB is the operative technical source. Any discrepancies between what the SB requires and what in-house practice has been may create an apparent conflict: the AD makes the SB the controlling technical document. Failure to align company maintenance data cards, wiring routing instructions or parts lists to the SB where it is relevant to the DA panel may lead to non-compliance.

These are operational “gotchas” that flow from the Directive’s structure: narrowly referenced applicability, a prescriptive definition of inspection, conditional acceptance of SB revisions, temporal compliance constraints, and the delegation of technical detail to the manufacturer’s service bulletin.

The AD specifies concrete steps and timing for compliance; operators and maintenance organisations should follow a sequence that maps to the Directive’s three Requirements and Compliance statements. The following process aligns strictly with the AD text and the SB reliance it prescribes:

1. Confirm applicability. Obtain and consult Raytheon Service Bulletin SB 24-3772 dated February 2006 to determine whether the operator’s Hawker 800XP airframe(s) are identified in that SB (Applicability). The AD’s applicability is defined by the SB; without confirming identification, an operator cannot determine AD applicability.

2. Schedule the detailed inspection within the required window. The Directive requires the inspection “within 600 hours time in service or 12 months after the effective date of this Directive, whichever occurs first” (Compliance). Calculate the earliest applicable deadline for each affected aircraft and schedule maintenance slots to perform the inspection within that window.

3. Prepare inspection resources to meet the “detailed inspection” standard. Note 1 defines a detailed inspection to require supplementary direct lighting, potential inspection aids such as mirrors and magnifying lenses, and possibly surface cleaning and “elaborate procedures.” Ensure maintenance personnel have appropriate lighting, mirrors, magnifiers, access equipment, cleaning supplies and time allocated to perform a thorough, recorded inspection “to detect damage, failure or irregularity.”

4. Conduct the inspection in accordance with SB 24-3772. The AD mandates that the inspection be carried out “in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of SB 24-3772” (Requirement 1). Follow the SB’s step sequence, torque/clearance checks, and inspection points for panel DA wiring. Record the inspection findings in the aircraft’s maintenance logbooks and any maintenance tracking systems.

5. If defects are found, carry out repairs or replacements in accordance with the SB before further flight. Requirement 2 mandates repair or replacement “with new ones, in accordance with SB 24-3772” if any wire is touching the panel, structure or equipment, or if chafing or exposed conductors exist. Do not attempt alternative repairs unless the alternative is documented in a later SB revision that has FAA AMOC approval accepted under Requirement 3.

6. Ensure parts conformity. Where replacement is required, obtain parts that meet the SB’s specifications. The AD’s text requires replacement “with new ones, in accordance with SB 24-3772.” Confirm part numbers and installation practices from the SB.

7. Validate any later SB revisions before relying on them. If an operator intends to comply using a later revision of SB 24-3772, confirm that the FAA has approved that revision as an AMOC to FAA AD 2007-21-08. Requirement 3 makes FAA AMOC approval the condition for a later SB revision to be “considered acceptable for compliance” with this Directive.

8. Document compliance. Record the inspection date, findings, the SB version used, details of any repairs (parts installed, work card references), and the name and signature of the licensed maintenance certifier. Although the AD text does not state record-keeping specifics, maintaining clear documentation evidences compliance with the AD’s mechanics and is best practice.

9. Maintain readiness for audit. The AD provides objective compliance metrics , timing, inspection standard, repair triggers, reliance on SB methods. Keep those records accessible for regulatory audit or internal safety assurance reviews.

10. Plan for operational impact. Because repairs that follow validated defects must be completed “before further flight,” schedule contingency time and spare parts so that aircraft downtime is managed if defects are found during inspection.

11. Engage regulators where necessary. If there is any doubt about applicability, whether a particular inspection method meets the Note 1 “detailed inspection” standard, or whether a proposed repair method is acceptable, seek clarification through the regulator or follow the SB and, if relevant, the FAA AMOC process referenced in the AD.

This sequence follows directly from the AD’s Requirements and Compliance clauses and from the detailed-inspection definition in Note 1. The AD does not provide alternative compliance paths other than the FAA-AMOC-accepted SB revisions; therefore, compliance should default to the SB’s Accomplishment Instructions unless an FAA AMOC for a revised SB is in place and verifiable.

Practical checklist (mapped to AD text)

• Obtain and review SB 24-3772 (Feb 2006) to confirm aircraft identification (Applicability).
• Calculate 600-hour/12-month compliance deadline (Compliance).
• Assemble inspection tools per Note 1: direct lighting, mirrors, magnifiers, cleaning supplies.
• Perform and document the detailed inspection per SB (Requirement 1; Note 1).
• If wires touching or chafing/exposed conductors found, effect repair/replacement per SB before further flight (Requirement 2).
• If relying on a later SB revision, obtain confirmation the revision has FAA AMOC approval to FAA AD 2007-21-08 (Requirement 3).
• Archive maintenance records showing SB revision used, inspection findings, and repairs.

Following these steps aligns operational practice with the AD’s explicit requirements and timing.