AD/JETSTREAM/104 - Main Landing Gear Radius Rod

The AD rests on a small set of concrete technical and regulatory concepts, each explicitly stated in the text.

1. Targeted applicability: The AD is limited by model (Jetstream Series 3100 and 3200), by serial number scope ("all serial numbers") and by installed part numbers (radius rod cylinder part numbers 1847/A-L and 1862/A-L without strike-off 12 or 13). That precise combination of airframe and installed component defines the population subject to the directive (Applicability).

2. Flashline cracking as the hazard: The Background identifies the defect locus , "the flashline near the microswitch boss" of the main landing gear radius rod forged cylinder , and the operational consequence: possible loss of the normal hydraulic system and “may lead to a landing gear collapse.” The AD therefore ties mandated actions directly to mitigation of that identified failure mode (Background).

3. Inspection-driven compliance: The AD makes inspection the primary compliance mechanism. It prescribes a visual or non-destructive inspection of the flashline per BAE Systems Service Bulletin 32-JA060741 (or later EASA-approved revision) and either the APPH service bulletins or a fluorescent dye penetrant inspection of the cylinder counterbore per APPH Component Maintenance Manual 32-10-16 Rev 11 (Requirement).

4. Replacement-before-flight rule: Where cracking is discovered, the AD imposes an immediate operational constraint: "before further flight, replace the radius rod assembly with a serviceable unit" (Requirement). That produces a hard stop on continued aircraft operation until rectification.

5. Repetitive and overhaul-linked inspections: The AD establishes recurrence (initial inspection within 3 months after 10 June 2007, then at intervals not to exceed 12 months) and ties inspection to existing maintenance events ("during each radius rod overhaul") (Compliance). The AD therefore layers periodic and event-triggered checks.

6. Terminating action via defined parts: The AD provides a path to terminate the repetitive inspection requirement by installing radius rod assemblies with specific strike-offs or later part numbers , 1847 with strike-off 12 or 13, or 1847/M or later; 1862 with strike-off 12 or 13, or 1862/M or later , which "constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspection requirements of this Directive" (Note 1). That creates a discrete upgrade/replace option that ends the AD’s ongoing inspection obligation for that assembly.

7. Spare parts control: The AD restricts installation of spare assemblies held by operators after a specified date: "After 7 September 2007, no radius rod assembly held as spares shall be installed on an aircraft unless it has been inspected in accordance with the requirements of this Directive" (Note 2). This imposes an administrative constraint on spares logistics and inventory cycling.

8. Deference to external approvals and documents: The AD repeatedly defers to BAE service bulletin instructions "original issue, or later EASA approved revision" and to APPH documents "Revision 11, or later approved revision." It also cross-references EASA AD 2007-0087 (Requirement; Note 3). The AD therefore operates within a framework that incorporates manufacturer and EASA-approved technical material.

Those concepts define the regulatory mechanism: identify affected units; require specified inspections at specified intervals and events; mandate immediate replacement for detected cracking; allow an alternate terminating action through particular part installations; and control the use of spares after a date. The AD achieves mitigation by removing defective items from service or ensuring they are inspected before installation. The AD delegates the "how" of inspections to manufacturer's and APPH technical instructions and to EASA approvals.

The AD’s language identifies a narrow set of actors directly bound by its requirements; it also implies secondary effects on parts suppliers, maintenance organisations and fleet managers.

Primary affected parties, as named in the text:

• Aircraft operators and owners of "All Model Jetstream Series 3100 and 3200 aircraft, all serial numbers" that are "fitted with main landing gear radius rod cylinders part number 1847/A through 1847/L and 1862/A through 1862/L, without strike-off 12 or 13" (Applicability). If an aircraft of those models has one of the identified cylinder parts installed and that part does not carry strike-off 12 or 13, the operator is subject to the inspection and replacement obligations set out in the AD.
• Maintenance organisations and engineers who perform the inspections and overhauls. The AD requires inspections "in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of BAE Systems Service Bulletin 32-JA060741 original issue, or later EASA approved revision" and mandates APPH Service Bulletin procedures or fluorescent dye penetrant inspection "in accordance with APPH Component Maintenance Manual 32-10-16 Revision 11, or later approved revision" (Requirement). Those technical instructions will be executed by certificated maintenance personnel and organisations.

Secondary affected parties, implied by the AD:

• Parts suppliers and spares managers who hold, sell or install the specified radius rod assemblies. Note 2 expressly constrains spares logistics: "After 7 September 2007, no radius rod assembly held as spares shall be installed on an aircraft unless it has been inspected in accordance with the requirements of this Directive." This affects decisions about which spares can be installed and requires inspection records or actions before installation.
• Operators seeking the terminating action will be affected financially and operationally if they choose to replace units with parts bearing strike-off 12 or 13, or later part numbers 1847/M or 1862/M; those replacement parts are identified as the route to cease the repetitive inspection requirement (Note 1).
• Regulatory coordination parties: since the AD references EASA AD 2007-0087 and EASA-approved revisions of the BAE service bulletin, entities that monitor EASA directives (for example, European operators or organisations that maintain cross-jurisdictional fleets) will need to reconcile both CASA and EASA documents when planning maintenance.

The AD does not list penalties or enforcement bodies in the text beyond the issuer’s signature block. The issuer is CASA (the delegate signed and dated the instrument) and the AD carries effect within the Australian regulatory framework by being issued by CASA. The instrument’s effective date is 7 June 2007; the initial compliance window is tied to 10 June 2007 (Compliance). Operators therefore must map those dates into their inspection and spares-installation planning.

Finally, the Background identifies the safety consequence (loss of the normal hydraulic system and potential landing gear collapse). That creates a safety imperative that operators are expected to remediate via the AD’s inspection and replacement requirements. The AD is narrowly targeted to operators and maintenance organisations that possess the specified part numbers without the specified strike-offs.

The AD prescribes specific duties and identifies limited options that function like rights to adopt particular corrective actions. All duties and permissible alternatives are stated in the text and associated notes.

Duties expressly required by the AD:

• Inspect the Main Landing Gear Radius Rod Forged Cylinder Flashline in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of BAE Systems Service Bulletin 32-JA060741 original issue, or later EASA approved revision (Requirement 1). This duty is mandatory for applicable aircraft unless the initial inspection has already been carried out (Compliance).
• If cracks are found during any inspection, replace the radius rod assembly with a serviceable unit before further flight (Requirement 1). This is an immediate operational duty to remove an affected component prior to continued operation.
• Accomplish APPH Service Bulletin 1847-32-12 or 1862-32-12, as applicable, or alternatively perform a fluorescent dye penetrant inspection of the cylinder counterbore in accordance with APPH Component Maintenance Manual 32-10-16 Revision 11, or later approved revision (Requirement 2). This creates two execution pathways: follow APPH SB procedures or perform the specified non-destructive test per APPH CMM.
• Meet the timing requirements: initial inspection within 3 months after 10 June 2007 unless already done; thereafter inspections at intervals not exceeding 12 months; and an inspection during each radius rod overhaul (Compliance).

Permitted actions and rights (explicit alternatives and terminating action):

• Operators may choose between specified inspection methods: BAE Service Bulletin instructions for flashline inspection and either APPH service bulletin work or fluorescent dye penetrant inspection for the counterbore (Requirement).
• The AD explicitly grants a terminating action option: installation of radius rod assemblies with particular strike-offs or later part numbers , specifically, "part number 1847/A through 1847/L with strike-off 12 or 13, or 1847/M or later, and part number 1862/A through 1862/L with strike-off 12 or 13, or 1862/M or later" , "constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspection requirements of this Directive" (Note 1). That is an alternative to repeated inspections; it gives operators the right to end the recurring inspection obligation for a given assembly by effecting the replacement/upgrade the AD describes.

Other obligations affecting behaviour:

• Spare handling duty: after 7 September 2007, an operator may not install a radius rod assembly held as spares unless it has been inspected in accordance with the AD (Note 2). This imposes pre-installation procedural duties on spares management.
• Cross-reference duty: the AD points operators to EASA AD 2007-0087 (Note 3) and repeatedly defers to "later EASA approved revision" versions of the manufacturer's service bulletin or "later approved revision" of the APPH CMM (Requirement). This requires operators to track and comply with the applicable approved revisions.

Rights not specified or reserved:

• The AD does not create express waiver mechanisms in its text, nor does it provide a process for alternative methods of compliance (AMOC) within the posted content. It simply references "or later EASA approved revision" and APPH manual revisions for procedural detail. The AD also contains no text about appeals, exemptions or penalties.

In practice, the AD’s duties operate as mandatory maintenance and operational constraints: perform inspections on the specified cadence and during overhaul, replace cracked units before further flight, follow specified technical documents for inspection methodology, and either repeat inspections annually (or at overhaul) or install specified parts to terminate the inspection cycle. Responsibilities therefore fall on the operator to plan inspections, on maintenance organisations to execute them per the referenced documents, and on spares managers to ensure pre-installation inspections post the 7 September 2007 date.

The AD text itself contains no express penalties, monetary fines, or criminal sanctions, and it does not specify an enforcement procedure within the document. The instrument is signed by a CASA delegate (David Villiers) and dated 24 April 2007, and it states that "This Airworthiness Directive becomes effective on 7 June 2007" (signature block; effective date). The presence of the CASA delegate’s signature identifies the issuing authority, but the AD text as supplied does not recite the statutory or regulatory enforcement mechanisms, penalty provisions, or sanctions for non-compliance.

As a matter of what the source provides:

• There are no penalty clauses, enforcement timeframes beyond the compliance schedule, or administrative processes stated in this text. The document sets out mandatory inspections, replacement conditions, timing requirements, spare-handling restrictions and terminating actions, but it does not say what sanctions follow if an operator fails to comply.
• The AD references EASA AD 2007-0087 and defers to EASA-approved revisions of BAE service bulletins and APPH manual revisions, but it does not attach penalties from EASA or describe cross-border enforcement in this text (Requirement; Note 3).

What the text does show about enforcement architecture indirectly:

• The AD is an instrument issued under CASA authority (the signature indicates CASA delegation). In that sense, compliance is framed as a regulatory requirement set by the national aviation safety authority. The AD imposes operational constraints that, if not adhered to, are likely to affect an operator’s fitness for airworthiness certification, maintenance records, and the ability to operate legally, but those consequences are not set out within this AD text.
• The AD’s operational directives , “replace before further flight if cracks are found” and the spares-installation restriction after a specified date , create immediate operational limits. Failure to follow them would leave an aircraft in a condition the AD identifies as potentially unsafe. The document therefore creates clear regulatory duties, even though it does not enumerate enforcement penalties.

Users of this AD should therefore not expect to find enforcement mechanisms or sanction schedules in the AD text itself. The AD identifies the issuing agency (CASA via its delegate), the effective date and the mandatory technical actions, but practitioners must look to CASA’s broader regulatory framework and enforcement instruments (not contained in this text) for how non-compliance would be handled administratively or legally.

Within the content of the AD itself, interaction with other regulatory instruments and technical documents is explicit and limited to a few references. The AD both imports and defers to external approvals and documents, thereby creating cross-references that operators must incorporate.

Explicit cross-references:

• EASA AD 2007-0087: The AD includes Note 3: "EASA AD 2007-0087 refers." That signals an explicit external reference to a European Union safety directive addressing the same or similar subject matter. The AD therefore connects to another jurisdictional regulatory action, and operators are signposted to that document for parallel guidance or requirements (Note 3).
• BAE Systems Service Bulletin 32-JA060741 (original issue, or later EASA approved revision): The AD requires inspection of the flashline "in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions" of this service bulletin, and it allows use of that bulletin "original issue, or later EASA approved revision" (Requirement 1). The AD thus incorporates the technical inspection method contained in the manufacturer's service bulletin, but only to the extent that it is the original issue or a later EASA-approved revision.
• APPH Service Bulletins 1847-32-12 and 1862-32-12; APPH Component Maintenance Manual 32-10-16 Revision 11 (or later approved revision): For the cylinder counterbore inspection, the AD requires either APPH SB execution or a fluorescent dye penetrant inspection "in accordance with APPH Component Maintenance Manual 32-10-16 Revision 11, or later approved revision" (Requirement 2). This imports APPH technical material by reference.

Consequences for legal and compliance interaction:

• The AD’s deference to EASA-approved revisions signals that compliance may require operators to track approvals that originate with EASA. This creates an operational dependency: the applicable technical method is the one that is EASA-approved, not necessarily every revision published by the manufacturer. The AD’s wording therefore integrates external approval processes into the scope of acceptable compliance methods.
• The spare parts restriction (Note 2) and terminating-action part numbers (Note 1) affect parts-management and procurement law in the narrow sense that they impose conditions on installing parts and thereby interact with any maintenance log, airworthiness certification, or parts traceability obligations that are part of an operator’s regulatory duties (though those wider obligations are not stated within this AD text).
• Because the AD prescribes inspections "during each radius rod overhaul," it interacts with maintenance cycle rules and the existing overhaul schedule an operator uses. The AD therefore imposes additional or clarified requirements that sit alongside other maintenance obligations (Compliance).

What the AD does not state about interaction with other laws:

• The AD does not itself specify the legal consequences, penalties, or enforcement procedures in the event of non-compliance, nor does it reference the specific statutory provisions that empower CASA to issue ADs. Those institutional and enforcement connections are outside the content supplied.
• The AD does not describe whether compliance with EASA AD 2007-0087 alone suffices for CASA purposes; it only “refers” to that AD. Operators will need to consult both documents and the broader regulatory framework to determine cross-acceptance or duplication of effort.

In sum, the AD interacts with other legal and technical instruments by importing and deferring to manufacturer service bulletins and APPH manuals subject to EASA approval, and by directly referencing an EASA AD. It consequently creates an operational requirement to follow those external documents’ approved revisions and to reconcile CASA’s AD with EASA material where relevant.

The supplied text contains limited explicit amendment history. From the document itself, the following items can be extracted:

• Document identification: The AD is titled AD/JETSTREAM/104 and dated 6/2007. The signature block indicates it was signed by David Villiers, Delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, on 24 April 2007. The AD states an effective date: "This Airworthiness Directive becomes effective on 7 June 2007."

• References to later revisions of referenced technical material: The AD authorises the use of the BAE Systems Service Bulletin 32-JA060741 "original issue, or later EASA approved revision" and APPH Component Maintenance Manual 32-10-16 "Revision 11, or later approved revision" when performing mandated inspections (Requirement). Those clauses allow future EASA-approved revisions of the referenced technical documents to be used to satisfy the AD’s inspection requirements. This is a form of built-in permissive amendment for the technical methods specified by reference.

• Terminating action provisions referencing part-numbered strike-offs and later part numbers: Note 1 identifies parts with particular strike-offs (12 or 13) and later part-number increments (1847/M, 1862/M) as actions that "constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspection requirements of this Directive." That creates a one-off modification pathway within the AD that has the effect of amending the ongoing applicability of inspection obligations for assemblies replaced in that manner.

What the AD does not contain about amendment history:

• The document does not include a history of prior versions of this AD. It does not record earlier amendments of AD/JETSTREAM/104 nor state that it replaces or supersedes prior CASA ADs. The only chronological markers in the text are the signing date (24 April 2007) and the effective date (7 June 2007), and the compliance timetable referring to "within 3 months after 10 June 2007," which requires attention to the specific dates.

• The AD does not include an annex tracking revisions, nor any explicit subsequent amendments or revocations. Any further amendments to this AD or to the referenced service bulletins and manuals would be captured only by later instruments or EASA approvals; such later documents are not included here.

Operational implication of this limited amendment information:

• The AD explicitly allows use of "later EASA approved revision[s]" of key technical documents, which reduces the need for immediate CASA amendment when a future EASA-approved revision supplies a different or improved inspection method. However, the AD text itself is a single, dated instrument without recorded successive revisions in the supplied material.

Practitioners should therefore treat the AD as a standalone instrument dated 6/2007 with an effective date of 7 June 2007, and note that the AD authorises compliance using later EASA-approved revisions of some referenced technical documents. For an authoritative amendment history, operators will need to consult CASA’s AD registry or subsequent AD publications, because no further amendment log appears in the text provided.

The supplied AD contains no litigation history, case citations, or references to judicial review within its text. It does not name any court cases, disputes, or decisions that have interpreted or challenged the AD. The only external legal reference made in the AD is to EASA AD 2007-0087 and to manufacturer and APPH technical documents; none of those references are described as subject to litigation in this instrument.

What the AD provides on the subject:

• The text does not record any appeals, enforcement actions, contested proceedings, or legal challenges. There are no case names, no mentions of tribunal decisions, and no procedural history related to legal proceedings.

What this absence implies for analysis:

• The lack of litigation history in the AD means that, based solely on the provided text, there is no publicly recorded judicial interpretation, challenge or enforcement dispute embedded in this instrument. Practitioners seeking a record of litigation or precedent involving this AD must consult external legal databases, CASA enforcement records or court registries; none of those sources or entries are included in the supplied material.

• Because the AD cross-references EASA AD 2007-0087 and allows use of EASA-approved revisions of service bulletins and APPH manual revisions, any litigation addressing the substance, scope or approved methods for these documents would not be captured here unless specifically referenced. The AD, as supplied, contains no such material.

In short, the AD contains no litigation history. Any statements about disputes, precedent, or judicial scrutiny would need to be drawn from sources outside the text provided.

The AD contains several specific phrasing choices and date/part-number conditions that create practical risks or traps for operators and maintenance organisations. The following are precise items to watch for because they can produce non-obvious compliance problems if overlooked.

1. Narrow applicability keyed to part numbers and strike-offs. The Applicability states this AD applies only to aircraft fitted with main landing gear radius rod cylinders part numbers 1847/A through 1847/L and 1862/A through 1862/L "without strike-off 12 or 13." That wording means assemblies with those part numbers that do carry strike-off 12 or 13, or later iterations (for example 1847/M), are treated differently , specifically, installation of parts with strike-off 12 or 13 or later part numbers is identified as terminating action (Note 1). Practically, operators must verify the exact part-number suffixes or strike-off marks on installed components; assuming applicability by broad part-number family without checking strike-offs could lead to unnecessary inspections or missed obligations.

2. Two different dates appear in the compliance schedule and the effective date. The AD becomes effective on 7 June 2007 (signature block), but the initial inspection timeframe is expressed as "within 3 months after 10 June 2007" (Compliance). Operators should not conflate those dates; the compliance timetable references 10 June 2007 and therefore creates a specific window relative to that date. The reason for the 10 June anchor versus the 7 June effective date is not explained in the text. Compliance planning must therefore use the explicit compliance wording ("within 3 months after 10 June 2007").

3. Spare-parts installation prohibition after a set date. Note 2 states, "After 7 September 2007, no radius rod assembly held as spares shall be installed on an aircraft unless it has been inspected in accordance with the requirements of this Directive." That means spares held in inventory that have not been previously inspected under this AD cannot be installed after that date without inspection. Operators need to track spare inventories and inspection status; failure to do so could inadvertently result in installation of an uninspected spare post the cutoff date.

4. The AD offers two inspection pathways for the cylinder counterbore. Requirement 2 allows either APPH Service Bulletin 1847-32-12 or 1862-32-12, as applicable, or a fluorescent dye penetrant inspection in accordance with APPH Component Maintenance Manual 32-10-16 Revision 11, or later approved revision. That creates an option but also a potential inconsistency: operators must ensure the chosen method is the one "as applicable" to the part or to the maintenance task and must use the CMM revision 11 or a later approved revision. Selecting the wrong method or an unapproved revision could fail to meet the AD’s requirements.

5. Terminating action depends on precise part identification. Note 1 lists several acceptable terminating part identifications: installation of 1847/A-L with strike-off 12 or 13, or 1847/M or later; and 1862/A-L with strike-off 12 or 13, or 1862/M or later. Operators should not assume that a replaced assembly automatically terminates inspection obligations; the part must be one of the enumerated strike-offs or part-number updates. Maintenance records must document the exact part-number/strike-off to demonstrate termination.

6. The AD defers to EASA-approved revisions of the BAE service bulletin and APPH manual revisions. The AD’s instruction to use "original issue, or later EASA approved revision" and "Revision 11, or later approved revision" means compliance requires monitoring the approval status of future revisions. Using a later manufacturer revision that has not been EASA-approved may not meet the AD’s standard. That approval-step is a critical compliance gate often overlooked.

7. No explicit penalty, appeal, or alternative compliance process is listed. The AD sets mandatory actions but does not contain a process for obtaining alternative methods of compliance within the text provided. If an operator considers an alternative approach, the route to formal acceptance is not specified here.

8. Interplay with overhaul scheduling. The AD requires inspection "during each radius rod overhaul." If an overhaul is scheduled beyond the AD’s initial inspection window, operators must still meet the initial inspection timing (within three months of 10 June 2007), and then ensure future overhaul events include the specified inspection. Synchronising these schedules requires active planning.

9. Cross-referenced EASA AD. The AD simply states "EASA AD 2007-0087 refers" (Note 3) without specifying whether compliance with that EASA AD fully satisfies CASA’s AD. Operators with multi-jurisdictional fleets must check whether following EASA AD 2007-0087 alone meets CASA expectations or whether additional steps are necessary.

Each of these points is explicitly supported by language in the AD. They are practical hazards because they require precise part identification, attention to multiple dates, selection of approved inspection procedures, and maintenance of records that demonstrate compliance. Failure to track strike-offs, revision approval status, or spare inspection history are concrete routes to non-compliance under the wording of this AD.

The AD sets a discrete compliance pathway. The following steps synthesise the AD’s explicit requirements into an operational checklist. All actions and timings below are drawn directly from the AD text.

1. Determine applicability for each aircraft. For each Jetstream Series 3100 or 3200 aircraft in your fleet, inspect records and the installed radius rod cylinder to confirm whether the part is one of the affected numbers: part number 1847/A through 1847/L, or 1862/A through 1862/L, and confirm whether the part is "without strike-off 12 or 13." If the installed part has strike-off 12 or 13, or is 1847/M or later or 1862/M or later, the AD treats that assembly differently as described in Note 1. The Applicability clause sets the scope.

2. If applicable, schedule the initial flashline inspection. Unless the initial inspection has already been accomplished, complete the initial inspection "within 3 months after 10 June 2007" (Compliance). Use the Accomplishment Instructions of BAE Systems Service Bulletin 32-JA060741 original issue, or a later EASA-approved revision, to inspect the Main Landing Gear Radius Rod Forged Cylinder Flashline (Requirement 1). Ensure that the service bulletin revision you use is EASA-approved as required by the AD.

3. Execute the cylinder counterbore inspection per AD options. For the cylinder counterbore, either:

   • Accomplish APPH Service Bulletin 1847-32-12 or 1862-32-12, as applicable, or
   • Perform a fluorescent dye penetrant inspection in accordance with APPH Component Maintenance Manual 32-10-16 Revision 11, or later approved revision. Choose the applicable APPH SB or the CMM fluorescent dye penetrant procedure and ensure you use Revision 11 or a later approved revision (Requirement 2).

4. Replace cracked assemblies immediately. If any inspection reveals cracks, take the aircraft out of further flight until the radius rod assembly is replaced with a serviceable unit. The AD is explicit that replacement is required "before further flight" when cracking is detected (Requirement 1).

5. Implement recurring inspection schedule. After the initial inspection, plan to inspect the flashline at intervals not to exceed 12 months and during each radius rod overhaul (Compliance). Ensure the inspection is recorded in maintenance logs with dates, methods used and findings.

6. Manage spare parts per the spare-installation restriction. For any radius rod assemblies held as spares, do not install them on an aircraft after 7 September 2007 unless they have been inspected in accordance with the AD (Note 2). That requires reviewing spare inventories, documenting whether each spare has been inspected under the AD’s required methods, and ensuring pre-installation inspection records are in place if a spare is to be fitted after 7 September 2007.

7. Consider terminating action if operationally economical. If you wish to remove the repetitive inspection requirement for a given assembly, replace the affected radius rod with one of the parts that Note 1 lists as terminating action: 1847/A-L with strike-off 12 or 13, or 1847/M or later; or 1862/A-L with strike-off 12 or 13, or 1862/M or later. Ensure maintenance records substantiate the exact part-number and strike-off to demonstrate terminating action compliance (Note 1).

8. Record-keeping and cross-references. Document all inspections, findings, replacements, part-number details (including strike-off marks), APPH and BAE service bulletin references and revision numbers, and any dye-penetrant certificates. The AD’s compliance depends on using EASA-approved revisions where specified, so record which revision and whether EASA approval applied at the time of inspection.

9. Monitor EASA and manufacturer approvals. Because the AD allows the use of "later EASA approved revision" versions of BAE Service Bulletin 32-JA060741 and "later approved revision" of APPH CMM 32-10-16, maintain a process to check for EASA approvals of later revisions. If you use a later revision, confirm it is EASA-approved per the AD’s wording.

10. Cross-check EASA AD 2007-0087. The AD notes that "EASA AD 2007-0087 refers" (Note 3). Obtain and review EASA AD 2007-0087 to ensure any additional or alternative instructions are reconciled with CASA’s AD and to confirm whether compliance with the EASA AD impacts your CASA obligations.

11. Plan logistics and costs. The AD requires inspections and potential replacements; plan for technician hours, possible ground-time when replacements are necessary, parts procurement where terminating action or replacement is chosen, and inspection consumables (for dye-penetrant testing). While the AD does not quantify costs, operations must allocate resources to execute the inspections within the mandated timeframes and to manage spare inventories in accordance with Note 2.

12. Ensure qualified execution. Execute inspections and replacements using appropriately certificated maintenance personnel and organisations in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions and APPH/BAE technical documents. Use the specific service bulletins and the specified CMM revision to ensure the inspection methodology matches what the AD explicitly requires.

Following these steps will align an operator’s maintenance and parts-management practices with the AD’s explicit requirements: initial inspection within the stated time window, recurring inspections at annual intervals and during overhaul, immediate replacement before further flight when cracks are found, restricted installation of uninspected spares after 7 September 2007, and an option to eliminate the recurring inspection obligation by installing specified terminating parts. All of these steps are mandated or authorised by clauses in the AD as quoted above.