AD/INST/57 - Harco Labs, Inc. Pitot/Angle of Attack Probes

The instrument operates through a small set of operational levers: identification, operational restriction, functional test, replacement, and reversion. Identification is a records exercise, the first gate. Requirement 1 requires a logbook check to determine whether the specified P/Ns with serial numbers 740000-799999 are installed. If the logbook check is conclusive that affected serial numbers are not present, the Directive imposes no further mechanical work. The instrument therefore prioritises a low-cost records-based screen as the initial compliance step.

Operational restriction is a temporary mitigation measure. If affected serial numbers are present or cannot be identified, Requirement 2 requires insertion into the AFM Limitations Section of two explicit limitations, quoted verbatim: “Operate Only under Day Visual Flight Rules (VFR)” and “File Only a VFR Flight Plan.” The insertion permits continued flight operation subject to VFR-day-only constraints while technical verification occurs. The instrument expressly allows owner/operators with at least a private pilot licence to make this AFM insertion and record compliance in the aircraft logbook.

Testing forms the substantive confirmatory mechanism. Requirement 3 prescribes measurement of heater performance for the probes, with the test methodology recited by reference to specific service bulletins and a named test-procedure document: Eclipse Aviation Alert Service Bulletin SB 500-34-019 Rev C for Eclipse Model EA500 installations, or Harco Labs SB-34-10-10-001 Revision F together with Harco Pitot AOA Probe Internal Tubing Heater Verification Test Procedure P1149 Rev E, as referenced in Appendix A of the Harco bulletin. The instrument therefore delegates the technical content of the testing regime to manufacturers’ service bulletins and an internal Harco test procedure. Completion of testing with all probes passing removes the AFM limitations established under Requirement 2.

Replacement is the remedial route if tests fail. Requirement 4 sets three acceptance pathways for a replacement probe: (a) replacement probe serial number is not affected by the Directive, (b) the replacement probe successfully passes the Requirement 3 test, or (c) if the replacement fails or is not tested, the failed probe’s Requirement 3 test must be accomplished and then a compliant probe meeting 4.a or 4.b must be installed within 90 days after 30 December 2008. Replacement must follow either the Eclipse service bulletin SB 500-34-019 Rev C, or an approved repair procedure such as the approved aircraft maintenance manual, showing that installation work must follow approved maintenance processes.

Prohibition is immediate for installation of affected P/Ns unless the Requirement 4 criteria are met, per Requirement 5, which is effective as of 18 December 2008. Reversion, in practical terms, occurs under Requirement 6 when the AFM limitations must be removed once the tests are passed or compliant replacements are installed.

Two ancillary concepts are embedded in the instrument text. First, the instrument relies on cross-reference to FAA action, explicitly noting "Note 2: FAA AD 2008-19-01 Amdt 39-15668 refers." Second, the instrument limits some compliance tasks that may be carried out by non-maintenance personnel: the owner/operator with at least a private pilot licence may conduct the logbook check, make entries, and insert information into the AFM Limitations Section, reducing the need for workshop time for those steps.

The instrument therefore combines a records filter, an operational limitation that reduces operational envelopes pending technical verification, a manufacturer-specified test protocol, and a constrained remedial pathway that links replacement to either non-affected serial numbers or successful test results. These mechanisms allocate the immediate operational decision to the operator for low-cost tasks, while reserving technical verification and physical replacement for procedures governed by service bulletins or approved repair manuals.

The Directive names the affected hardware and the immediate class of operators and maintenance actors. The class of hardware is restricted to Harco Labs pitot/AOA probe P/Ns 100435-39, 100435-39-001, 100435-40 and 100435-40-001 with serial numbers in the range 740000 through 799999. The owner/operators of aeroplanes on which these probes are installed are directly affected. The instrument lists Eclipse Aviation Model EA500 aeroplanes as known platforms for these probes, specifically those with serial numbers 000001 through 000189 where the affected probe was installed at manufacture, and any EA500 or other aeroplane serial number where an affected probe was installed in the field. The instrument does not limit applicability to EA500s alone; it lists them as a known but not exhaustive example.

Who pays: the owner/operator bears the primary compliance costs for testing, replacement, AFM modifications, and downtime. The instrument authorises certain low-cost compliance acts to be performed by an owner/operator holding at least a private pilot licence, specifically the logbook check required by Requirement 1 and inserting the AFM limitation statements in Requirement 2, along with making the relevant logbook entries. The instrument requires functional testing under Requirement 3 to be carried out using procedures in manufacturers’ service bulletins and Harco's test procedure; the text does not explicitly assign who must perform those tests, but the requirement to follow service bulletins and approved repair procedures places the tests within the domain of appropriately authorised maintenance personnel or organisations when physical inspection and test fixtures are needed.

Maintenance organisations and certificated maintenance engineers are implicated by the replacement and repair instructions. Requirement 4 directs that any replacement be accomplished according to Eclipse Aviation Alert Service Bulletin SB 500-34-019 Rev C, or an approved repair procedure such as the approved aircraft maintenance manual. That language frames replacement work as maintenance-level interventions that typically require appropriately certificated maintenance personnel and facilities.

Regulators and delegated CASA officers are indirectly affected as decision makers in enforcement and oversight, although the instrument itself records that it was issued by James Coyne, Delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. The Directive’s references to FAA AD 2008-19-01 indicate cross-jurisdictional regulatory coordination, which may be relevant for internationally operated aeroplanes or those subject to FAA airworthiness directives.

Operational actors whose flight profiles rely on instrument flight rules (IFR), night operations, commercial passenger or charter operations, or other uses beyond Day VFR will be affected by any occasion where Requirement 2 limitations must be inserted and maintained until testing or replacement is completed. The Directive’s explicit VFR-only limitation, and the requirement to “File Only a VFR Flight Plan,” constrains where and how affected aeroplanes can be legally operated pending technical clearance.

Finally, suppliers of Harco probes and parts distribution channels bear demand-side effects: operators may seek probes with serial numbers outside the affected range, certified replacements, or accelerated supply of replacement stock. The Directive does not state supply mechanisms or replacements provided by Harco; operators must source compliant parts through normal procurement channels or through approved repair processes.

Duties

• Logbook check (Requirement 1). The owner/operator must carry out a logbook check of the maintenance records to determine whether any of the specified P/Ns with affected serial numbers are installed. The instrument permits the owner/operator holding at least a private pilot licence to perform this check and to make an entry into the aircraft logbook showing compliance. If the check positively identifies that all probes of the specified P/Ns do not have affected serial numbers, no further action is required under the Directive.

• AFM limitation insertion (Requirement 2). Where an affected serial-number probe is found or the serial number cannot be positively identified, the owner/operator must incorporate two mandatory statements into the Limitations Section of the aircraft flight manual: “Operate Only under Day Visual Flight Rules (VFR)” and “File Only a VFR Flight Plan.” Inserting a copy of the Directive into the AFM satisfies this duty. The owner/operator holding at least a private pilot licence may insert the AFM information and make a logbook entry evidencing compliance.

• Heater performance test (Requirement 3). If an affected probe is installed or cannot be positively identified, the pitot/AOA probe heater performance must be tested. For probes installed on Eclipse Model EA500 aeroplanes, testing must use Eclipse Aviation Alert Service Bulletin SB 500-34-019 Rev C dated 20 August 2008. For all probes otherwise, testing must use Harco Labs Service Bulletin SB-34-10-10-001 Revision F dated 19 August 2008, together with Harco Pitot AOA Probe Internal Tubing Heater Verification Test Procedure P1149 Rev E, as referenced in Appendix A of the Harco bulletin. Completion of the test with all probes passing terminates the AFM operational limitations required by Requirement 2.

• Replacement obligations (Requirement 4). If any probe fails the test, the owner/operator must replace it. Acceptable replacements are those whose serial number is not affected by the Directive, or replacements that pass the Requirement 3 test. There is a conditional path where a replacement that fails or is not tested may be temporarily accepted provided the failed probe’s Requirement 3 test is accomplished and a compliant probe is installed within the next 90 days after 30 December 2008. Any pitot/AOA probe replacement must be accomplished following Eclipse SB 500-34-019 Rev C, or an approved repair procedure such as the approved aircraft maintenance manual.

• Prohibition on installation (Requirement 5). No pitot/AOA probe with the specified P/Ns may be installed on any aeroplane unless it meets one of the Requirement 4 criteria. This prohibition is effective as of 18 December 2008.

• Removal of limitations (Requirement 6). The AFM limitations required by Requirement 2 must be removed from the Limitations Section of the AFM once all probes pass the Requirement 3 test or all failed probes are replaced with probes meeting Requirement 4.a or 4.b. The instrument sets the timing for removal as “before further flight after completion of the Requirement 3 test with all pitot/AOA probes passing or replacement of all failed pitot/AOA probes” with the same qualifying conditions.

Rights, delegations, and permitted actions

• Owner/operator actions. The Directive explicitly allows the owner/operator holding at least a private pilot licence to carry out the logbook check in Requirement 1, to insert the AFM limitation statements under Requirement 2, and to make the corresponding logbook entry showing compliance. The text uses the phrase “The owner/operator holding at least a private pilot licence may carry out” which grants the right to perform those particular actions without requiring a maintenance organisation for those documental tasks.

• Use of service bulletins and authorised procedures. The instrument specifies that testing and replacement must be carried out using manufacturer service bulletins and approved repair procedures. That creates a right to follow those referenced technical documents as the approved method for compliance. Requirement 3 references service bulletin titles and revisions by date, and Requirement 4 requires replacements to be accomplished according to the listed Eclipse service bulletin or an approved repair procedure, such as the approved aircraft maintenance manual. The Directive therefore authorises those documents as compliance pathways.

• Reversion right. Once testing demonstrates that all probes pass, or once compliant replacements are installed, the owner/operator has the right to remove the AFM limitations. Requirement 6 directs removal before further flight after those conditions are met.

The instrument in its text does not specify fines, administrative penalties, or criminal sanctions within the Directive itself. It sets out obligations, deadlines, and technical standards for compliance. Enforcement processes and penalties, if any, are not specified within the instrument text provided.

The Directive text does not set out monetary penalties, sanctions, or a formal enforcement regime within its body. It prescribes mandatory actions, effective dates, and compliance timelines, but does not include explicit penalty provisions or processes for administrative enforcement in this document. The instrument is identified as an Airworthiness Directive, it becomes effective on 18 December 2008, and it allocates deadlines by which specific Requirements must be met: Requirements 1 and 2 before further flight after 30 December 2008; Requirements 3 and 4 within the next 90 days after 30 December 2008; Requirement 5 effective 18 December 2008; Requirement 6 before further flight after the relevant tests or replacements.

Because the instrument itself does not list penalties, the immediate textual observation is that compliance obligations and effective dates are the primary enforcement levers within the Directive. The instrument requires affirmative acts,logbook checks, AFM insertions, heater-performance testing according to named service bulletins, and replacement procedures following specified repair procedures. These acts create documentary trails (logbook entries, AFM changes, test records, maintenance records) that are standard regulatory compliance evidence in aviation oversight. The instrument explicitly contemplates documentary evidence: for example, the owner/operator is to make an entry into the aircraft logbook showing compliance for Requirement 1 and for the AFM insertion under Requirement 2.

Because the Directive references service bulletins and the approved aircraft maintenance manual as the procedures for testing and replacement, compliance will typically involve certified maintenance providers and associated paperwork. In practice this paperwork and adherence to referenced technical documents are the means by which aviation regulators monitor and confirm compliance. The Directive's lack of internal penalty rules means that enforcement and consequences for non-compliance would operate through the wider civil aviation regulatory framework, oversight and surveillance activities, and any enforcement powers that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) or delegated officers have under aviation statutes and regulations.

The Directive records that it was issued by James Coyne, Delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, which identifies the issuing authority and the instrument’s place within CASA’s delegated administrative actions. The instrument also references an FAA airworthiness directive (FAA AD 2008-19-01 Amdt 39-15668), indicating regulatory coordination; however, the Directive does not itself specify how cross-jurisdictional enforcement would be implemented.

In summary, the Directive creates mandatory technical and operational duties with specified compliance deadlines, but does not itself set out penalties in the text provided. Enforcement of the duties will rely on compliance monitoring, logbook and AFM documentation, adherence to referenced service bulletins and approved repair procedures, and the enforcement powers available to CASA under the broader legislative and regulatory framework outside this instrument.

The instrument primarily interacts with technical and operational aviation documents and indirectly with regulatory oversight frameworks, as evidenced by the language and cross-references within the Directive. It requires modifications to the aircraft flight manual Limitations Section, and it requires testing and replacement following service bulletins or approved repair procedures such as the approved aircraft maintenance manual. Those directions create explicit linkages between the Directive and the content and governance of AFMs and maintenance manuals.

The instrument cites specific manufacturer service bulletins and a Harco test procedure as the required test and repair methods: Eclipse Aviation Alert Service Bulletin SB 500-34-019 Rev C dated 20 August 2008 for Eclipse Model EA500 installations; Harco Labs Service Bulletin SB-34-10-10-001 Revision F dated 19 August 2008; and Harco Pitot AOA Probe Internal Tubing Heater Verification Test Procedure P1149 Rev E referenced in Appendix A of the Harco bulletin. By prescribing those documents, the Directive incorporates technical standards produced by manufacturers into the compliance obligations, creating an interaction where manufacturer documentation becomes the de facto standard under this instrument.

The Directive’s AFM insertion requirement interacts with the regulatory significance of the AFM as an operative document for flight operations. Requirement 2 compels AFM Limitations changes that constrain operations to “Day Visual Flight Rules (VFR)” and to filing “Only a VFR Flight Plan.” That operation-limiting content will intersect with any statutory or regulatory rules governing AFMs, operator flight authorisations, and operational approvals. The Directive does not name the specific civil aviation regulations that govern AFM content, but by mandating AFM content it operates within the structural ecosystem where AFMs are operationally binding documents for pilots and operators.

The instrument also cross-references an FAA AD, noting “Note 2: FAA AD 2008-19-01 Amdt 39-15668 refers.” That cross-reference signals coordination with foreign regulatory action and may affect aeroplanes that are also subject to FAA requirements, especially aircraft certificated under bilateral agreements or operated internationally. The Directive does not elaborate the legal mechanics of cross-jurisdictional interaction, but it establishes that the FAA AD is a relevant reference.

Testing and replacement must follow service bulletins or the approved aircraft maintenance manual. That requirement ties the Directive to the standards and approvals that govern maintenance procedures. The phrase “approved repair procedure (eg the approved aircraft maintenance manual), as applicable” indicates an interaction with approval processes for maintenance procedures and with maintenance organisation approvals that permit use of specific repair methods.

Because the instrument does not contain penalty provisions, enforcement relies on the broader regime under which CASA operates, and so the Directive interacts implicitly with the Civil Aviation Act, Civil Aviation Safety Regulations, and other enforcement instruments that govern regulatory compliance. The text does not itself cite those Acts or regulations, so any specific statutory cross-reference would be outside the instrument's text. Practically, however, the requirement to make logbook entries and AFM changes means inspectors and auditors will use those documents when assessing compliance under the wider regulatory framework.

Finally, the Directive’s operational constraints (Day VFR only) will interact functionally with pilot licences, operations approvals, and airspace use rules. Operators relying on IFR or night operations will need to ensure their AFM no longer contains the Directive-inserted limitations if they intend to resume such operations, and that will require completion of tests or replacements as set out in the Directive. The instrument thus imposes short-term operational constraints that interact with broader operational approvals and flight planning obligations.

The instrument itself contains internal references to the dates of service bulletin revisions and the effective date of the Directive, and it records its issuance details. The Directive is identified as AD/INST/57, 13/2008 and the effective date is expressly stated: “This Airworthiness Directive becomes effective on 18 December 2008.” The document also records a signing line, “James Coyne, Delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, 6 November 2008,” which provides a record of issuance.

Within the body of the Directive, the test and replacement procedures are tied to specific service bulletin revisions and dates. Requirement 3 directs use of Eclipse Aviation Alert Service Bulletin SB 500-34-019, Rev C, dated 20 August 2008 for probes installed on Eclipse Model EA500 aeroplanes. For all probes, Requirement 3 directs use of Harco Labs Service Bulletin SB-34-10-10-001, Revision F, dated 19 August 2008, and Harco Pitot AOA Probe Internal Tubing Heater Verification Test Procedure P1149, Rev E, referenced in Appendix A of the Harco bulletin. Those references show that the Directive incorporates particular revision levels of manufacturer service documents as at the time of issuance.

The compliance schedule includes explicit temporal markers: Requirements 1 and 2 must be satisfied before further flight after 30 December 2008; Requirements 3 and 4 within the next 90 days after 30 December 2008; Requirement 5 is effective as of 18 December 2008; Requirement 6 requires removal of AFM limitations before further flight after the completion of the Requirement 3 test or replacement actions. The use of these calendar references creates a temporal amendment effect insofar as, after the effective date, subsequent compliance actions are tied to the deadlines referenced.

The Directive contains “Note 2: FAA AD 2008-19-01 Amdt 39-15668 refers,” which records a linkage to the FAA’s airworthiness directive. The inclusion of that note functions as a historical cross-reference, indicating that the CASA instrument follows or echoes action taken by the FAA AD 2008-19-01.

The instrument text does not include any later amendments or revision history within the document provided. No subsequent amendment dates, cancellation notices, superseding directives, or revising clauses appear in the supplied text. Therefore, within the confines of the provided instrument, the amendment history begins with the referenced service bulletin revision dates and culminates in the Directive’s issuance and effective date. Any subsequent amendments, revocations, or supersessions would need to be located in later instruments or database entries outside this document.

The records in the Directive , the specified service bulletin revisions and the instrument’s effective date , serve as its internal temporal anchors. They also determine the exact technical standards required for compliance, since the Directive ties testing and replacement to specific revisions and dated procedures. If those referenced documents were later revised, compliance under this Directive would remain governed by the revision levels named in the Directive text, unless and until the Directive itself were varied to change the referenced documents or to accept later revisions.

The text of the Directive contains no references to litigation, court decisions, or judicial challenges. It does not enumerate any cases, appeals, administrative reviews, or determinations arising from this instrument. The document records that it is issued by a CASA delegate, James Coyne, and it references FAA AD 2008-19-01 as a related regulator action, but it provides no information about disputes, enforcement actions carried to litigation, or precedent-setting decisions connected to this Directive.

Because the Directive does not include litigation material, any account of legal challenges or court interpretation would be external to this instrument. The absence of litigation references in the Directive limits what can be stated on litigation history on the basis of this document alone. If a reader requires litigation history relevant to this Directive, they would need to consult court records, administrative review files, or CASA enforcement records, which fall outside the content of this instrument.

Within the Directive text itself, there is no appeal mechanism described, no provision for review, and no statement about dispute resolution regarding compliance requirements. The document simply records the compliance duties, technical references, and effective dates. In the absence of litigation references, the instrument’s legal history, insofar as it exists, cannot be stated from this document.

Therefore, with strict reliance on the provided source, the accurate statement is that no litigation history is documented in this Directive text.

1. Serial-number limitation specificity. The Directive applies only to Harco Labs pitot/AOA probe P/Ns 100435-39, 100435-39-001, 100435-40 and 100435-40-001 with serial numbers 740000 through 799999. If an operator checks the part number but fails to identify or record the serial number, Requirement 2’s AFM limitations apply. The instrument therefore makes serial-number identification dispositive: absence of a positive serial-number check or inconclusive identification triggers operational constraints.

2. AFM insertion is a permitted owner/operator act, but it has operational consequences. The owner/operator holding at least a private pilot licence may insert the two limitations into the AFM and make logbook entries. That action is low-cost administratively, but it constrains operations to Day VFR only and requires filing a VFR flight plan, which may be operationally unacceptable for users who need IFR or night operations. Operators must therefore weigh the administrative ease of AFM insertion against the operational limitations that follow.

3. Temporary acceptance pathway complexity. Requirement 4.c allows a replacement that fails testing or is not tested to be installed provided that the failed probe’s Requirement 3 test is accomplished and a compliant probe is installed within the next 90 days after 30 December 2008. That conditional pathway permits temporary acceptance but it creates compliance-tracking complexity: operators must ensure the failed probe’s test was indeed accomplished (the language “the Requirement 3 test of the pitot/AOA probe is accomplish” is present), and they must track the 90-day window for installing a compliant probe. Administrative oversight errors or missed deadlines could leave the aircraft out of compliance.

4. Exact service-bulletin revisions matter. Requirement 3 and Requirement 4 reference specific service bulletin revisions and dates: Eclipse SB 500-34-019 Rev C dated 20 August 2008; Harco SB-34-10-10-001 Revision F dated 19 August 2008; and Harco Test Procedure P1149 Rev E. The Directive ties compliance to those named documents. Operators must use those specific revisions as the compliance standard, rather than an unspecified or later revision, unless and until the Directive is amended to accept newer revisions. Using a later revision without explicit acceptance could raise compliance questions.

5. No internal penalty clause, but likely external enforcement. The Directive does not set out monetary penalties or direct sanction mechanisms. That does not mean failure to comply is consequence-free. Compliance will be assessed under broader aviation safety law enforcement regimes; however, the instrument does not spell out those mechanisms. Operators should not assume leniency because the Directive itself lacks penalty language.

6. Supply and maintenance capacity risks. The Directive requires functional testing and possibly replacement of probes. If affected probes are common across a fleet or in a region, demand for replacement probes or certified maintenance time may exceed local supply or capacity. The Directive does not address supply-side issues or provide temporary alternatives beyond the limited 90-day pathway in Requirement 4.c.

7. Documentation and evidence expectations. The Directive requires logbook entries and AFM changes to evidence compliance for Requirements 1 and 2. Operators must ensure records are contemporaneous, accurate, and retained consistent with standard maintenance recordkeeping, otherwise an audit or inspection could find non-compliance even if the physical condition of the aeroplane is compliant.

8. Operational consequence of AFM removal timing. Requirement 6 allows removal of the AFM limitations only after all probes pass testing or have been replaced with compliant probes. Operators must not remove the limitations prematurely. The Directive requires removal “before further flight after completion of the Requirement 3 test with all pitot/AOA probes passing or replacement of all failed pitot/AOA probes with” compliant probes. That timing is exacting: removal is permitted only after evidence of fulfilment exists.

9. Applicability beyond Eclipse Model EA500s. The instrument notes that the probes are known to be installed on, but not limited to, Eclipse EA500 aeroplanes. That means operators of other aeroplane types must also check logbooks and installations; the EA500 examples may create a false sense that only EA500s are affected. The Directive’s applicability text is broader than the example.

10. Cross-reference to FAA AD. The Directive notes FAA AD 2008-19-01 as a related reference. Operators subject to international registry rules, export certificates, or operating under multiple jurisdictions may need to reconcile compliance with both instruments. The Directive does not provide guidance for multi-jurisdictional compliance timing or documentation cross-acceptance.

Step-by-step compliance checklist, mapped directly to the Directive’s Requirements and their timing.

1. Determine applicability, immediately.

   • Identify whether any installed pitot/AOA probes are Harco Labs P/Ns 100435-39, 100435-39-001, 100435-40 or 100435-40-001.
   • If none of those P/Ns are installed, no action under this Directive is required.
   • If any of those P/Ns are installed, identify serial numbers. The Directive applies only to serial numbers 740000 through 799999.

2. Requirement 1 , Logbook check, before further flight after 30 December 2008.

   • Conduct a maintenance-records logbook check to determine whether any of the specified P/Ns with affected serial numbers are installed.
   • If the check positively identifies that all probes of the specified P/Ns do not have affected serial numbers, record that result in the aircraft logbook and document compliance. The Directive allows the owner/operator holding at least a private pilot licence to perform this logbook check and make the logbook entry showing compliance.
   • If the serial number cannot be positively identified, treat the result as if an affected serial-number probe is present and proceed to Requirement 2.

3. Requirement 2 , AFM Limitations insertion, before further flight after 30 December 2008 if Requirement 1 is inconclusive or finds affected probes.

   • Insert the following into the Limitations Section of the AFM: a. “Operate Only under Day Visual Flight Rules (VFR)”; and b. “File Only a VFR Flight Plan.”
   • Inserting a copy of the Directive into the AFM satisfies this requirement.
   • The owner/operator holding at least a private pilot licence may insert the AFM information and make an entry into the aircraft logbook showing compliance.
   • Note: maintain the AFM limitations until Requirement 6 permits removal.

4. Requirement 3 , Heater-performance testing, within 90 days after 30 December 2008 if affected probes are installed or serial numbers are not positively identified.

   • For probes installed on Eclipse Model EA500 aeroplanes, perform tests in accordance with Eclipse Aviation Alert Service Bulletin SB 500-34-019 Rev C dated 20 August 2008.
   • For all probes (or where relevant), use Harco Labs Service Bulletin SB-34-10-10-001 Revision F dated 19 August 2008 together with Harco Pitot AOA Probe Internal Tubing Heater Verification Test Procedure P1149 Rev E, as referenced in Appendix A of the Harco bulletin.
   • Document the test results. If all pitot/AOA probes pass, you may remove the AFM limitations per Requirement 6 prior to further flight.
   • If any probe fails, proceed to Requirement 4.

5. Requirement 4 , Replacement procedure when tests fail, within 90 days after 30 December 2008.

   • Replace any probe that fails the Requirement 3 test following the procedures required in this Directive.
   • Acceptable replacement outcomes: a. Replacement probe has a serial number not affected by the Directive, or b. Replacement probe successfully passes the Requirement 3 test, or c. If the replacement probe fails or is not tested, ensure that the Requirement 3 test of the replaced probe is accomplished, and install a compliant probe meeting 4.a or 4.b within the next 90 days after 30 December 2008.
   • Replacement must be accomplished following Eclipse SB 500-34-019 Rev C dated 20 August 2008, or by following an approved repair procedure such as the approved aircraft maintenance manual.
   • Maintain records of replacement actions, serial numbers installed, and test results in the aircraft maintenance records and logbook.

6. Requirement 5 , Prohibition on installation of affected P/Ns, effective as of 18 December 2008.

   • Do not install any pitot/AOA probe with P/Ns 100435-39, 100435-39-001, 100435-40 or 100435-40-001 unless the installed probe meets one of the Requirement 4 acceptance criteria.

7. Requirement 6 , Removal of AFM limitations.

   • Once all probes pass the Requirement 3 test, or all failed probes have been replaced with compliant probes per Requirement 4.a or 4.b, remove the Requirement 2 operating limitations from the AFM Limitations Section before further flight.
   • Make appropriate logbook entries and retain test reports and replacement records as evidence of compliance.

Documentary best practice

• Keep a contemporaneous maintenance file with copies of all test reports conducted under Requirement 3 and any service bulletin compliance sheets used during replacement.
• Record all logbook entries and AFM amendment entries showing dates, signatures, and licence/approval numbers of persons performing the actions. Where the owner/operator with at least a private pilot licence performs the logbook check or AFM insertion, ensure the entry clearly records that fact in accordance with standard logbook practice.
• When replacements are performed, record part numbers and serial numbers of removed and installed probes, the service bulletin revision used for the work, and the approved repair procedure authority (for example the maintenance organisation or certificated engineer identification).
• If temporarily installing a replacement that fails testing under Requirement 4.c, document the failed test, the date of the test, and the timeline for installing a compliant probe within the 90-day window after 30 December 2008.

Technical compliance considerations

• Use the specified service bulletins and test procedures by the cited revision and date. The Directive names exact revisions: Eclipse SB 500-34-019 Rev C dated 20 August 2008, and Harco SB-34-10-10-001 Revision F dated 19 August 2008 with Harco Test Procedure P1149 Rev E. To ensure compliance with the Directive as written, follow those revisions unless the Directive is subsequently amended to accept later revisions.

Operational planning

• Review any planned flights that depend on IFR or night operations. If an affected probe is installed or the serial number cannot be identified, plan for the AFM limitations under Requirement 2 and schedule testing and replacement within the timelines provided to restore full operational capability.
• Anticipate possible supply or maintenance lead times for replacement probes, and schedule testing and replacement accordingly to avoid prolonged operational restrictions.

Coordination with oversight

• Be prepared to present test results, replacement records, AFM entries, and logbook evidence to a CASA inspector or delegated officer upon request, as the Directive establishes these documentary obligations as the means of proving compliance.

By following the above checklist and maintaining clear records, an owner/operator or maintenance organisation can demonstrate compliance with the Directive’s Requirements and remove operational limitations once the technical standards are met.