AD/LYC/105 Amdt 2 - Oil Filter Converter Plate Gasket

The directive rests on a small number of concrete regulatory concepts drawn from the text supplied. These concepts determine who must act, what must be done, and by when.

• Applicability by model and part history. The directive applies to engines identified by model in Textron Lycoming MSB No. 543A that meet one of two criteria: engines released new, rebuilt or overhauled by Textron Lycoming between 1 April 1999 and 4 October 2000; or engines that have had P/N LW-13904 oil filter converter plate and/or P/N LW-13388 gasket installed at overhaul or in service since 1 April 1999 (Applicability). This ties regulatory exposure to manufacturing, overhaul, and parts history rather than to installation date alone.

• Inspection trigger states. Two physical states trigger mandatory repair action: (a) evidence of an oil leak from the oil filter converter plate gasket, and (b) evidence of the gasket extruding beyond the plate perimeter (Requirement). The inspection is therefore targeted and visual/functional rather than requiring full strip-down or laboratory testing.

• Rectification and replacement methods. Where an issue is found, rectification must be achieved by replacing the gasket in accordance with Textron Lycoming MSB 543A or Part II of Supplement 1 to that MSB (Requirement). Replacement of P/N LW-13388 is also specifically required in accordance with MSB 543A (Requirement). The MSB and its supplements are referenced as the technical method; the directive delegates the procedural detail to the manufacturer’s service documentation.

• Time-limited inspection and replacement scheduling. The compliance section sets tight time windows measured in hours time in service, referencing 20 September 2000 as the effective date of the original issue for those timing requirements. Inspection windows are either within 5 or 10 hours time in service depending on prior gasket replacement history; rectification is mandatory before further flight; and replacement per MSB 543A must occur within 50 hours time in service from 20 September 2000, and thereafter at intervals not exceeding 55 hours time in service until compliance with certain parts of Supplement 1 to MSB 543A is achieved (Compliance).

• Exception for canister style filters. Engines fitted with a canister style oil filter are expressly excluded (Applicability, Note 1). That renders the directive inapplicable to a defined equipment configuration.

• Connection to FAA regulatory actions and manufacturer solutions. The background explains the root cause and the regulatory and manufacturer response pathway: the directive originated after reports of engine fires and oil leaks associated with P/N LW-13388 gaskets installed since April 1999; Amendment 1 follows manufacturer release of an improved gasket that eliminated the need for repetitive reinspections and provided a terminating action; Amendment 2 is administrative and updates the FAA AD reference to AD 2002-12-07 which introduced terminating actions and AMOC stateside (Background).

• Delegation and effective dates. The instrument is signed by a CASA delegate, and the amendment becomes effective on 15 February 2013 (signature and effective date lines). Several requirements nonetheless reference dates in 2000 for historical compliance triggers.

These concepts show that the directive blends short timing windows for inspection and mandatory in-service replacement with a manufacturer-provided terminating action path through MSB Supplement compliance. The directive enforces safety by mandating inspection and replacement tied to specific part numbers and model lists, while relying on manufacturer service bulletins as the technical compliance path.

The directive directly affects operators, owners and maintainers of Lycoming piston engines listed by model in Textron Lycoming MSB No. 543A that meet the specified historical criteria. The text sets out two distinct categories of engines within its applicability scope: those released new, rebuilt or overhauled by Textron Lycoming between 1 April 1999 and 4 October 2000, and those that have had either oil filter converter plate P/N LW-13904 and/or oil filter converter plate gasket P/N LW-13388 installed at overhaul or in service since 1 April 1999 (Applicability). Engines fitted with a canister style oil filter are excluded (Note 1), so owners/operators of aircraft with that configuration are outside the directive.

Who pays. The directive itself does not reference funding or compensation. The operational requirements are inspections and part replacements performed in accordance with Textron Lycoming MSB 543A or its Supplement 1; responsibility for undertaking those inspections and replacements lies with the operator/owner and their maintenance provider because the directive requires actions be completed and rectifications done before further flight (Requirement, Compliance). Therefore, the immediate economic burden for labour time, parts and downtime will fall on owners/operators or their contractors, unless separate commercial arrangements apply between overhaul facilities and owners. The directive does not provide for state funding or reimbursement.

Who decides. CASA, through its delegate (here named Mike Higgins), issues the directive and sets the mandatory requirements and effective date (signature and effective date lines). The technical methods of compliance are specified by Textron Lycoming MSB 543A and Supplement 1; these documents, authored by the manufacturer, set the procedures that maintainers must follow to satisfy the directive (Requirement). The directive also refers to FAA AD 2002-12-07, which, as noted in the background, introduced terminating actions and AMOC for the USA; that implies a parallel decision process for alternative methods in the FAA context, although the directive itself does not set an Australian AMOC regime (Background).

Maintenance providers. Licensed maintenance organisations and individual certifying staff who perform the inspections and replacements will be directly engaged in the work and responsible for using MSB 543A or applicable supplements as the standard operating procedure. The directive’s instruction that replacements be done “in accordance with Textron Lycoming MSB 543A or Part II of Supplement 1 to Textron Lycoming MSB 543A” places the maintenance process under the manufacturer’s prescribed procedures.

Operators of aircraft with older engines. The applicability window and the historical timing references (e.g., time in service measured from 20 September 2000) indicate that the population primarily affected is engines and aircraft that were overhauled or had parts fitted around 1999-2000. Even though this amendment is dated 2013, the underlying technical requirement and compliance timings relate to earlier service lives and replacement cycles. That has implications for record-keeping, because owners/operators will need historical overhaul and parts-installation records to determine applicability and to calculate required inspection timing (Applicability; Compliance).

Other stakeholders. The manufacturer, Textron Lycoming, is implicated as the source of the technical remedy (MSB 543A and Supplement 1). Parts suppliers holding inventories of P/N LW-13388 or the improved gasket referenced implicitly in the background may see demand from operators complying with the directive. The directive also interacts with the FAA’s regulatory framework through reference to the FAA AD that it supersedes (Background).

The directive lays down a set of explicit duties for operators/maintainers and ties the technical methods to Textron Lycoming's service documentation. It does not enumerate rights such as appeals or exemptions within the text itself; rather, it imposes prescriptive duties and references manufacturer materials for methods of compliance.

Duties

• Determine applicability. Owners/operators or maintainers must first establish whether an engine falls within the directive’s scope by reference to the model list in Textron Lycoming MSB No. 543A and by checking whether the engine was released new, rebuilt or overhauled by Textron Lycoming between 1 April 1999 and 4 October 2000, or whether the engine has had P/N LW-13904 and/or P/N LW-13388 installed since 1 April 1999 (Applicability). This is a duty of record verification.

• Inspect for two specified conditions. The directive requires inspection of the engine for: (a) evidence of an oil leak from the oil filter converter plate gasket, and (b) evidence of the oil filter converter plate gasket extruding beyond the perimeter of the plate (Requirement). The duty is to perform that inspection within the timing windows set out in the Compliance section, which depend on the engine’s recent service history.

• Rectify identified problems before further flight. If the inspection reveals an oil leak or a damaged, displaced, deteriorated or extruding gasket, the directive mandates replacement of the oil filter converter plate gasket in accordance with Textron Lycoming MSB 543A or Part II of Supplement 1 to MSB 543A (Requirement). The Compliance clause states rectification must be done before further flight.

• Replace P/N LW-13388 within specified intervals. Whether as a corrective action or as ongoing preventive maintenance where the terminating action is not yet achieved, the directive requires replacement of P/N LW-13388 in accordance with MSB 543A, within 50 hours time in service from 20 September 2000 and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 55 hours time in service until compliance with Part II or Part III of Supplement 1 to MSB 543A (Compliance). This imposes a recurrent duty on operators to manage parts replacement cycles.

• Follow manufacturer’s procedures. The directive explicitly defers the method of replacement and rectification to Textron Lycoming MSB 543A or the specified supplements (Requirement). The duty is therefore not only to replace but to use the manufacturer’s specified procedure.

Rights and procedural notes appearing by implication in the text

• Exception for canister style filters. Engines fitted with a canister style oil filter are excluded from applicability, which operates as an explicit exemption within the drafting of this directive (Applicability, Note 1). Owners/operators of such engines therefore have the right not to comply with these specific requirements because the directive does not apply to their configuration.

• Manufacturer terminating action route. The background states that Amendment 1 reflected the manufacturer’s release of an improved gasket which eliminated the need for inspection and repetitive gasket replacement and provided a terminating action for the requirements of the original issue (Background). That creates an implied right for operators to achieve compliance by adoption of the manufacturer’s terminating action in the relevant supplement, after which repetitive inspections/replacements cease. The directive itself references compliance with Part II or Part III of Supplement 1 to MSB 543A as the condition under which the recurrent replacement intervals are no longer required (Compliance).

• Reference to FAA AD and AMOC. The Background records that Amendment 2 changes the FAA AD reference to the superseding FAA AD 2002-12-07 which formally introduced terminating actions and AMOC for the USA (Background). The inclusion of this material indicates alignment with FAA determinations about terminating actions and alternative compliance routes in the US context. The directive text does not itself define or provide an Australian AMOC process.

Not specified within the directive

• Administrative appeal or enforcement procedures. The document does not set out rights of appeal, penalties, or detailed enforcement processes. It only sets out what is required to be done and the timing; procedural rights or contest mechanisms, if any, are not included in the text provided.

• Compensation or cost recovery. There is no provision dealing with costs, funding or compensation to affected parties. The duty to inspect and replace parts is stated without attendant financial provisions, which means the economic obligation falls to the responsible party in the aviation operation or maintenance chain.

Overall, the directive converts a manufacturer-identified safety defect and manufacturer remedy into a mandatory regulatory duty for specified engines, with exclusions and a manufacturer-defined terminating action route included.

The directive text supplied does not specify statutory penalties, monetary fines, or the enforcement procedures that CASA would deploy for non-compliance. The document sets clear operational constraints and mandatory requirements, which imply regulatory enforceability, but it does not itself detail sanctions or enforcement mechanisms.

What the directive does specify that bears on enforcement

• Mandatory work before flight. The directive requires rectification of any identified oil leak or gasket extrusion “before further flight” (Compliance). That command functions operationally as an immediate prohibition on continuing flight with an unrectified condition. In practical terms, an operator who does not comply with that duty would be operating in breach of the directive while flying.

• Prescribed timing windows. Inspection windows are specified in hours time in service measured from the effective date of the original issue, 20 September 2000. Initial inspections are to be accomplished within 5 hours time in service for engines that have completed more than 50 hours since replacement of the gasket, or within 10 hours time in service for other cases. Replacement per MSB 543A is required within 50 hours time in service from 20 September 2000, and thereafter not more than 55 hours between replacements, until compliance with Supplement 1 is achieved (Compliance). These prescriptive windows provide objective markers that an enforcement body could use to assess compliance.

• Reliance on manufacturer MSB for method of compliance. The directive delegates the technical compliance method to Textron Lycoming MSB 543A or Supplement 1. That creates an objective standard against which maintainers’ work can be judged: compliance includes following the specific procedures and parts specified in those documents (Requirement). Inspectors or auditors assessing compliance would look to maintenance records and MSB adherence.

What the directive does not provide

• No penalties described. The text contains no statement of civil or criminal penalties, no fines, no suspension powers, and no administrative sanctions. It does not provide a compliance enforcement schedule beyond the timing and "before further flight" statements.

• No enforcement process or appeal mechanism described. There is no description of how CASA will inspect, audit, or otherwise enforce compliance, whether operators will be given notices, or whether there is an internal appeals or review mechanism for disputing the directive’s application. The directive also does not set out a process for seeking an equivalent level of safety or alternative compliance within the Australian regulatory framework.

Implied enforcement instruments and practical enforcement points

• Operational control through flight prohibition. The “before further flight” rectification requirement is an operational control that, if enforced, would ground aircraft not meeting the directive. In practice, CASA or its inspectors have various regulatory tools to ground aircraft or suspend certificates, but no such instruments are specified here.

• Maintenance records as evidence. Compliance will be demonstrated through inspection entries and maintenance records showing compliance with MSB 543A or the Supplement procedure, parts installed, and time-in-service tracking. Because the directive sets hour-based windows and specific part numbers, records are essential to demonstrate compliance.

• Interaction with FAA ADs. The directive notes its relationship to FAA AD 2002-12-07 which introduced terminating actions and AMOC for the USA (Background). That suggests that enforcement in other jurisdictions has been coordinated to some extent, but the directive does not import any of the FAA’s enforcement mechanisms.

In sum, the directive prescribes mandatory actions and timing but leaves enforcement details and sanctions unspecified in its text. Those would be found in the broader regulatory enforcement framework or CASA operational procedures outside the instrument as provided.

The directive explicitly references and therefore interacts with two categories of external documents: Textron Lycoming mandatory service documentation, and United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) airworthiness directives. The directive delegates technical methods of compliance to the manufacturer’s service bulletin and acknowledges prior and superseding FAA regulatory actions.

Interaction with Textron Lycoming MSB No. 543A and its supplements

• The directive’s technical methods are defined by reference. Replacement and rectification are required “in accordance with Textron Lycoming MSB 543A or Part II of Supplement 1 to Textron Lycoming MSB 543A” (Requirement). Replacement of P/N LW-13388 is similarly required in accordance with MSB 543A (Requirement). This creates a legal dependency: compliance with the CASA directive requires adherence to the manufacturer’s MSB procedures. The directive therefore operates as a regulatory overlay that makes manufacturer procedures mandatory for the engines and parts in scope.

• Termination route through manufacturer supplements. The background records that the manufacturer released an improved gasket eliminating the need for inspection and repetitive gasket replacement, and that Amendment 1 reflected that release, providing a terminating action for the original issue of the directive (Background). The current directive’s compliance schedule specifically terminates the recurrent replacement requirement once compliance with Part II or Part III of Supplement 1 to MSB 543A is achieved (Compliance). Thus, the directive interacts with manufacturer-specified modifications or part changes by recognising them as regulatory terminating actions.

Interaction with FAA airworthiness directives

• The directive is aligned with a chain of FAA actions. The Background states that Amendment 2 is an administrative action that changes the FAA AD reference from AD 2000-18-53 to the superseding FAA AD 2002-12-07 which formally introduced terminating actions and AMOC for the USA (Background). The directive therefore cross-references FAA regulatory findings and remedies as part of its rationale and amendment record. That means that FAA determinations about terminating actions and any FAA AMOC processes may be relevant to operators who operate in both jurisdictions, or where records and parts compliance trace to FAA guidance.

• No automatic cross-jurisdictional enforcement described. The directive does not expressly import FAA rules into Australian law. It references FAA ADs as background and notes the administrative update, but it does not state that an FAA-approved AMOC in the USA is automatically effective in Australia. The directive itself prescribes actions and methods in accordance with MSB 543A and its supplements.

Other legal interactions not specified

• The text does not mention how the directive interacts with aviation insurance, contractual obligations between owners and overhaul facilities, or civil liability frameworks. Those interactions will depend on separate contractual terms and national aviation liability laws not addressed in the directive.

• The directive does not set out how alternative compliance methods would be handled within the Australian regulatory system. The background’s mention of AMOC in the FAA context signals that alternative methods exist in some jurisdictions, but the directive does not establish an Australian AMOC or similar procedure within its text.

Summary of legal relationships

• The CASA directive makes mandatory specific actions and timings, and it delegates technical method to the manufacturer’s MSB and supplements. It also records administrative alignment with FAA regulatory documentation. Compliance therefore sits at the intersection of CASA’s directive, the manufacturer’s MSB instructions, and the historical FAA ADs referenced; operators must treat the MSB procedure as the operative technical standard and CASA’s directive as the mandatory regulatory requirement.

The document itself records a short, explicit amendment history spanning the original issue, an earlier amendment, and the present administrative amendment.

• Original issue: The directive was originally issued to require inspection and replacement of certain oil filter adaptor plate gaskets in response to reports of engine fires and oil leaks associated with P/N LW-13388 gaskets installed since April 1999 (Background). The compliance schedule in the directive references the effective date of the original issue as 20 September 2000, which is the anchor for inspection windows and replacement intervals given in the Compliance section.

• Amendment 1: The background reports that Amendment 1 reflected the manufacturer’s release of an improved gasket which eliminated the need for inspection and repetitive gasket replacement and provided a terminating action for the requirements of the original issue of this directive (Background). That indicates Amendment 1 incorporated a manufacturer-specified terminating action into the regulatory approach, allowing operators who adopt the improved gasket per the MSB Supplement to cease the repetitive replacement cycle.

• Amendment 2 (this instrument): The present instrument is Amendment 2, described as an administrative action. Its explicit mechanical change is to update the FAA AD reference from AD 2000-18-53 to the superseding FAA AD 2002-12-07 (Background). The background says FAA AD 2002-12-07 formally introduced terminating actions and AMOC for the USA. The present amendment therefore aligns the CASA instrument’s cross-reference with the later FAA AD. The instrument states the amendment becomes effective on 15 February 2013 and is signed by Mike Higgins, Delegate of CASA, on 5 February 2013 (signature and effective date lines).

Notable features of the amendment history

• The underlying safety concern and remedy pathway remain consistent. The original safety trigger was reports of engine fires and oil leaks associated with a specific gasket part number. The manufacturer developed an improved gasket and associated Supplement parts to MSB 543A providing a terminating action, which Amendment 1 recognised. Amendment 2 does not introduce new technical requirements; it is described as administrative, updating the FAA AD reference to reflect the superseding FAA action (Background).

• Time lag between original issue and amendment. The original effective date anchor is 20 September 2000, while Amendment 2 becomes effective on 15 February 2013. The directive therefore records ongoing regulatory attention to an older service-life cohort of engines and parts, and the amendment’s role is confined to administrative cross-referencing rather than substantive technical change (Background; Compliance).

• References to MSB Supplements. The directive’s repeated references to Part II and Part III of Supplement 1 to MSB 543A as the compliance path for terminating the recurrent replacement requirement mean that the amendment history is intertwined with manufacturer-supplied supplementary instructions.

The directive’s amendment history, as recorded, demonstrates a shift from initial reactive safety measures to a manufacturer-supplied terminating action, with the current amendment recognising a superseding FAA AD and updating cross-references accordingly.

The supplied directive contains no references to litigation, court decisions, or case law. It does reference FAA airworthiness directives, manufacturing service bulletins, and internal CASA amendment actions, but it does not cite or record any judicial or administrative litigation involving the directive, the manufacturer, or affected operators.

What is explicit in the text

• No cases or disputes cited. The instrument does not name any court case, tribunal decision, or administrative tribunal proceeding.

• Regulatory rather than judicial record. The document contains administrative history and amendments but remains within the regulatory record rather than the litigation record (Background, Amendment notes).

Implications for practitioners

• Absence of litigation history in the instrument. Because no litigation or formal disputes are mentioned, practitioners seeking to understand enforcement precedent, judicial interpretation, or contested challenges to the directive’s substance will not find such material in this directive. Any litigation developments would need to be sought outside this text, in court records or CASA enforcement archives.

• Potential for enforcement challenges not addressed. The directive does not set out appeal routes, AMOC procedures within Australia, or dispute resolution processes in the text provided. While the background mentions that FAA AD 2002-12-07 introduced AMOC for the USA, the directive does not state that Australian operators have a parallel AMOC or how disputes about technical compliance would be resolved under Australian administrative law. That means any litigation history that might exist would likely be external to this document.

• Records required for potential disputes. Given the directive’s dependence on hours time in service dating from 20 September 2000 and its reliance on MSB procedures, maintenance records, parts installation logs and compliance records will be the primary documentary evidence in any future dispute. The instrument itself does not supply evidentiary guidance, but the prescriptive nature of timing and parts references creates objective markers for litigation if any arises.

Overall, the directive’s text contains no litigation history. Practitioners needing to assess past enforcement or disputes must consult CASA enforcement records, administrative decisions, or court filings outside the text of the directive.

This directive contains several points that can be operationally tricky. The following issues are grounded in the directive text and affect interpretation, compliance timing, and practical management.

• Historical timing anchors that predate the amendment. The compliance requirements repeatedly reference 20 September 2000 as the effective date of the original issue, and inspection and replacement windows are measured in hours time in service from that date. Amendment 2 itself becomes effective in 2013. Operators must therefore reconcile current maintenance scheduling and historical time-in-service data to determine compliance obligations (Compliance). The presence of both a 2000 anchor and a 2013 amendment can cause confusion if historical records are incomplete.

• Applicability tied to MSB model list and parts history. The applicability is not a simple model-year cut-off. It requires cross-checking engine model lists in Textron Lycoming MSB No. 543A and confirming whether the engine was released new, rebuilt or overhauled by Textron Lycoming between 1 April 1999 and 4 October 2000, or whether the specific adapter plate P/N LW-13904 and/or gasket P/N LW-13388 were installed since 1 April 1999 (Applicability). Operators without precise overhaul and parts-installation records may find it difficult to determine whether the directive applies.

• Narrow physical inspection criteria. The mandated inspection looks for two conditions: oil leak evidence and gasket extrusion beyond the plate perimeter (Requirement). These are visual and functional criteria. Distinguishing between “deteriorated”, “displaced” or “extruding” gaskets may require maintenance judgement and could lead to differing interpretations between different maintenance personnel.

• Repetitive replacement until terminating action compliance. The compliance schedule requires replacement of P/N LW-13388 at intervals not to exceed 55 hours time in service until compliance with Part II or Part III of Supplement 1 to MSB 543A is achieved (Compliance). That creates a potentially high-frequency recurring maintenance obligation which has practical and cost implications for operators until the terminating action is achieved.

• Dependency on manufacturer documentation. The directive mandates replacement “in accordance with Textron Lycoming MSB 543A or Part II of Supplement 1 to Textron Lycoming MSB 543A” (Requirement). If MSB documents or supplements are updated, operators must ensure they use the correct edition referenced by the directive. The directive does not itself reproduce technical steps, so compliance depends on access to and correct application of MSB and Supplements.

• Exception for canister style filters. Engines fitted with a canister style oil filter are not covered (Applicability, Note 1). Operators must verify filter configuration. Misidentifying filter type could lead to unnecessary work or incorrect assumption of applicability.

• Administrative amendment vs substantive technical change. Amendment 2 is described as administrative, updating the FAA AD reference (Background). Practitioners should not assume the 2013 amendment altered technical requirements; it updated a cross-reference. However, because timing windows in Compliance still reference 2000, there is risk of confusion about when actions were to have been performed and whether outstanding obligations remain.

• FAA AMOC mention without Australian AMOC detail. The Background notes that FAA AD 2002-12-07 introduced terminating actions and AMOC for the USA (Background). The directive does not specify whether Australian authorities accept FAA AMOCs or how an alternative method would be approved in Australia. That creates uncertainty for operators contemplating non-standard methods of compliance that might be accepted in other jurisdictions.

• No stated enforcement or penalty scheme within the instrument. The directive prescribes mandatory actions and “before further flight” rectification but does not set out penalties or the enforcement pathway (Penalties and enforcement). That gap may leave operators uncertain about enforcement risk and how non-compliance would be treated administratively.

• Part number specificity. Compliance obligations refer to specific part numbers P/N LW-13388 and P/N LW-13904. Operators must ensure part number traceability in maintenance logs. Mistakes in part number recording, or use of non-standard or superseded parts without documented compliance, may create non-obvious compliance risk.

These items require careful record-keeping, clear maintenance procedures, and attention to the exact text of MSB 543A and its supplements in order to avoid inadvertent non-compliance or misinterpretation.

The directive provides a prescriptive set of actions and timing, and compliance requires following those steps precisely and recording the work. Below is a practical, step-by-step compliance checklist grounded in the directive text.

1. Confirm applicability

   • Obtain Textron Lycoming Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. 543A and check the model list contained therein to determine whether the engine model is included. The directive applies only to engines listed by model in MSB 543A and meeting the additional criteria (Applicability).
   • Check engine history records to determine whether the engine was released new, rebuilt or overhauled by Textron Lycoming between 1 April 1999 and 4 October 2000.
   • Alternatively, check maintenance and parts records to establish whether an oil filter converter plate P/N LW-13904 and/or oil filter converter plate gasket P/N LW-13388 was installed at overhaul or in service since 1 April 1999.
   • If the engine is fitted with a canister style oil filter, the directive explicitly does not apply (Applicability, Note 1).

2. Schedule and perform inspection

   • Determine the relevant initial inspection timing by reference to engine time since the last gasket replacement:
     • If the engine has completed more than 50 hours since replacement of the oil filter converter plate gasket, inspect within 5 hours time in service from 20 September 2000.
     • In other cases, inspect within 10 hours time in service from 20 September 2000 (Compliance).
   • The inspection must check for:
     • Evidence of an oil leak from the oil filter converter plate gasket.
     • Evidence of the oil filter converter plate gasket extruding beyond the perimeter of the plate (Requirement).
   • Document inspection findings in the aircraft/engine maintenance log, including date, time in service, inspector identity and specific observations.

3. Rectify any identified problems before further flight

   • If the inspection reveals evidence of an oil leak, a damaged, displaced, deteriorated or extruding gasket, replace the oil filter converter plate gasket in accordance with Textron Lycoming MSB 543A or Part II of Supplement 1 to MSB 543A (Requirement).
   • Do not return the aircraft to service until the rectification is completed and recorded.
   • Ensure the replacement gasket part number and source are recorded in maintenance logs, and that the work follows the procedural steps in MSB 543A or the specified supplement.

4. Replace P/N LW-13388 per ongoing schedule until terminating action

   • Replace P/N LW-13388 oil filter converter plate gasket in accordance with Textron Lycoming MSB 543A within 50 hours time in service from 20 September 2000, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 55 hours time in service, until compliance with Part II or Part III of Supplement 1 to MSB 543A is achieved (Compliance).
   • Maintain records of each replacement, including time in service at replacement, part number installed, and reference to the MSB procedure used.

5. Achieve terminating action via MSB Supplement compliance

   • Review Part II and Part III of Supplement 1 to MSB 543A to determine the terminating action (the improved gasket or other modification) described in those documents (Requirement, Compliance, Background).
   • Perform the terminating action as specified in the relevant supplement to cease the requirement for repetitive inspections/replacements. Record compliance with the supplement including serial numbers, parts, and work history.

6. Maintain documentation for record and audit

   • Keep maintenance entries and part installation records that demonstrate adherence to the exact MSB procedures cited by the directive. Because compliance and inspection windows are measured in hours time in service referenced to 20 September 2000, historical records are necessary to justify current compliance status (Compliance).
   • If any work is performed pursuant to Part II or Part III of Supplement 1, retain documentation showing the work followed the Supplement and that the terminating action was applied.

7. Address uncertainty and alternative compliance

   • The directive references FAA AD 2002-12-07 and notes introduction of terminating actions and AMOC for the USA (Background). If considering an alternative method of compliance, consult CASA directly to determine whether an Australian AMOC or equivalent approval route exists, because the directive does not set that process out.
   • For operators that operate internationally, coordinate any alternative compliance approvals with the relevant foreign authority as appropriate.

8. Verify canister filter exception

   • If the engine has a canister style oil filter, confirm this configuration in records and document the basis for concluding the directive does not apply (Applicability, Note 1).

9. Use qualified personnel and approved parts

   • Ensure that inspections and replacements are carried out by appropriately licensed maintenance personnel and that parts used match the specified P/N or the improved gasket specified in MSB Supplement procedures. Follow the procedural steps and torque/specification values provided in the MSB.

10. Track recurring obligations until terminated

    • Until the terminating action is achieved, track recurring replacement intervals and schedule replacements so that no interval exceeds 55 hours time in service (Compliance).

Practical notes for implementers

• Access MSB 543A and its Supplements. The directive’s technical directions are in the Textron Lycoming MSB and its supplements; obtain the correct versions and follow them precisely to demonstrate regulatory compliance (Requirement).

• Resolve historical record gaps promptly. If historical overhaul or parts-installation records are incomplete, take conservative action: inspect and, if doubt remains about gasket condition, replace in accordance with the MSB and document the decision rationale.

• Keep a compliance trail. Because the directive anchors many obligations to time-in-service measurements dating from 20 September 2000, maintain a clear, auditable trail showing inspections, replacements and actions taken under the relevant MSB procedures.

• Consult CASA for clarification. For questions about whether an alternative method is acceptable in Australia, or to clarify the administrative effect of Amendment 2 beyond the text, approach CASA directly since the directive itself does not establish an AMOC process or penalties (Background; Penalties and enforcement).

Following these steps will align operational practice with the directive’s prescriptive requirements and provide the records necessary to demonstrate compliance.