AD/PA-44/18 Amdt 1 - Combustion Heater Fuel Pumps

The central legal concept is an Airworthiness Directive or AD. Under Australian aviation law, an AD is a mandatory requirement issued by CASA under the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and the Civil Aviation Regulations (CAR) or Civil Aviation Safety Regulations (CASR). An AD is a legislative instrument that imposes conditions on the continued airworthiness of an aircraft type. Failure to comply renders the aircraft unairworthy, which has cascading effects on its registration, its eligibility to fly, and the liability of the operator and owner. The concept of “time in service” (TIS) is critical: it is measured in hours flown, not calendar time. The AD distinguishes between “within the next 10 hours TIS” and “prior to further flight”. The former gives a short grace period from the effective date; the latter imposes an immediate grounding obligation if a leak is detected. Another key concept is the distinction between Group 1 and Group 2 aeroplanes. This is not merely cosmetic: each group references different versions of the service documents (Service Bulletin No. 1127 versus No. 1127B; Service Information Letter A-110A versus A-110B). Maintenance providers must identify which group their aircraft falls into by serial number range and then use the correct, dated technical data. The service bulletins themselves are incorporated by reference into the AD, meaning they are given legal force. Any deviation from the procedures set out in those bulletins would be a deviation from the AD itself, unless separately approved by CASA via an alternative means of compliance. The concept of “before further flight” is a strict prohibition on operating the aircraft after the condition is identified. It imposes an immediate maintenance burden. The AD also creates a product installation restriction: a heater fuel pump that has not been inspected and corrected cannot be installed. This affects the market for used or spare parts and imposes a compliance obligation on any person installing such a pump, not just the aircraft owner. There is also a background note explaining the safety rationale: quality control problems with the heater fuel pump could lead to failure, and such failure could cause fire or explosion in the cockpit. This is the stated purpose for the mandatory action. However, the AD itself does not create a private right of action or a contractual warranty; it is a public law obligation enforced by CASA.

The primary subjects are the registered owners and operators of the specified Piper PA-44-180 and PA-44-180T aeroplanes. For Group 1, that includes aircraft with serial numbers 44-7995001 through 4496168 (PA-44-180) and 44-8107001 through 44-8207020 (PA-44-180T). For Group 2, it includes PA-44-180 serial numbers 4496169 through 4496190, which were added by this amendment. Anyone who has custody or control of such an aircraft is affected, including flying schools, charter operators, or private owners. The AD also directly binds licensed aircraft maintenance engineers (LAMEs) and approved maintenance organisations (AMOs) who perform the inspections, corrections, or replacements. They must comply with the specified service bulletins; using the wrong version (e.g., using the older Bulletin No. 1127 on a Group 2 aircraft) would constitute non-compliance. Parts suppliers and distributors are affected by the installation prohibition: they cannot supply a heater fuel pump model 91E92-1 or 91E93-1 for installation on any affected aircraft unless it has been inspected and any abnormalities corrected. This imposes a due diligence burden on parts retailers and brokers. The AD also indirectly affects insurers, because an aircraft operated without compliance may be unairworthy, voiding hull and liability insurance. Prospective purchasers of any PA-44-180 or PA-44-180T should verify AD compliance status during pre-purchase inspections; non-compliance may reduce resale value or require immediate corrective expenditure. The manufacturer, The New Piper Aircraft, Inc. (now Piper Aircraft, Inc.), is not directly subject to the AD (it is not an aircraft operator), but the AD relies on its service bulletins, so the manufacturer effectively dictates the substantive technical requirements. Kelly Aerospace Power Systems, as the pump manufacturer, also has its service information incorporated. Regulatory authorities beyond CASA are implicated: the note referencing FAA AD 2005-15-10 means that a US-registered aircraft of the same type would face similar requirements under FAA rules, so the AD affects bi-national operations and aircraft imported from or exported to the United States. Compliance with the Australian AD alone may not satisfy US requirements, and vice versa. For Group 1 aircraft, the compliance clock started running on 27 June 2003; for Group 2, it starts on 29 September 2005. Any operator who acquires an aircraft after the effective date must verify whether the actions have already been accomplished; if not, they must do so within 10 hours TIS of the effective date (not of acquisition). This creates a trap for new owners: they inherit deferred compliance. Finally, the AD affects the CASA regional offices responsible for approving alternative means of compliance or extensions, should an operator be unable to meet the deadline.

The duties imposed by AD/PA-44/18 Amdt 1 are prescriptive and time-bound. For Group 1 aeroplanes, the duty to perform the initial visual inspection arose within the first 10 hours of time in service after 27 June 2003. That date has long passed; therefore, for any Group 1 aircraft that has flown since that date, the duty has already crystallised. An operator who acquires a Group 1 aircraft today must verify that the inspection was done. If it was not, the duty to inspect is triggered immediately and must be completed before further flight if a leak is suspected or if the aircraft has not yet been inspected at all (because the “10 hours TIS” window has expired). For Group 2 aeroplanes, the duty to inspect arises “within the next 10 hours TIS after the effective date of this Directive” (29 September 2005). Again, that window has passed, so the inspection is overdue for any aircraft that has flown since. The duty to correct leaks is more urgent: if any leak is found during inspection, the aircraft must not be flown again until the abnormality is corrected (or the pump replaced). This is a “before further flight” obligation. The duty to inspect the sealing surface for nicks, gouges, or warping is contingent on first finding a leak. If an abnormality is found, the duty is to correct it; if correction is impossible, replacement is mandatory. A duty not to install any heater fuel pump unless it has first passed inspection and any necessary correction applies to all persons, irrespective of whether they are the operator. This restricts the freedom to choose replacement parts and imposes a verification step that may be administratively burdensome. On the rights side, the AD does not explicitly grant a right to apply for an alternative means of compliance or an extension, but such rights exist under the general law (e.g., CAR 1988 regulation 39 or CASR Part 21 Subpart 39). An operator or maintainer may seek CASA approval to use a different method if the service bulletins cannot be followed (for example, if the pump model is superseded or the part is no longer available). The AD does not create a right to compensation for the cost of compliance; those costs lie with the owner. There is also a right to obtain a copy of the referenced service bulletins from the manufacturer, though these may be proprietary. The AD does not impose a duty to maintain a logbook entry for compliance, but good practice and other regulations require recording the AD number, the action taken (inspection passed or pump replaced), and the date and TIS. Finally, the operator has a right to operate the aircraft only if the AD is complied with; non-compliance may be enforced by direction from CASA.

The source text does not explicitly state penalties, but because this AD is issued under the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and the regulations, standard enforcement mechanisms apply. Operating an aircraft that is not in compliance with an applicable AD is a breach of airworthiness requirements. Under the Civil Aviation Act, the maximum penalty for an individual is 50 penalty units (currently $313 per unit, so $15,650) and for a body corporate up to 250 penalty units ($78,250) or higher as prescribed by regulation. Additionally, CASA can issue an immediate grounding direction, effectively suspending the aircraft’s certificate of airworthiness until compliance is demonstrated. This can cause significant economic loss through aircraft downtime, cancellation of charters, or training disruption. For a repeat or wilful breach, CASA may suspend or cancel the aircraft’s registration or the operator’s air operator certificate (if applicable). There is also potential for criminal prosecution under section 20A of the Act for operating an unairworthy aircraft, which carries imprisonment in serious cases, particularly if the breach leads to an accident. Beyond direct aircraft operations, a maintenance organisation that certifies an aircraft as airworthy without having complied with the AD could be found in breach of its approval conditions, leading to suspension of its AMO certificate or personal disciplinary action against the responsible LAME, including possible loss of licence. The installation prohibition in the AD also exposes parts suppliers: supplying a pump that has not been inspected and corrected, if installed, could attract liability for assisting or causing a breach of the AD. Enforcement may be initiated by CASA inspectors during routine ramp checks, audits of maintenance records, or in the aftermath of an incident. The AD itself is a legislative instrument, not a mere recommendation; therefore, ignorance of it is no defence. The burden of demonstrating compliance lies with the operator. In practice, CASA often provides education and reminders before resorting to penalties, but the seriousness of the potential consequences (fire or explosion) means that non-compliance is likely to be treated severely. There is no express limitation of liability in the AD for the manufacturer or for CASA; the costs of compliance are entirely on the owner.

This AD sits within a hierarchy of aviation safety regulations. It is issued under the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and must be read together with the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 and the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998. Specifically, an AD is typically made pursuant to CAR 39 or CASR Part 21 Subpart 39 (depending on the age of the aircraft and the applicable regulatory regime). The AD has the force of law, meaning its requirements are mandatory conditions for the continued airworthiness of the aircraft. The AD also incorporates by reference two sets of external documents: The New Piper Aircraft, Inc. Service Bulletin No. 1127 (and its revision 1127B) and Kelly Aerospace Power Systems Service Information Letter Bulletins No. A-110A and A-110B. These service documents become legally enforceable to the extent that they prescribe the method, materials, and standards for inspection and correction. Any deviation from those procedures requires an alternative means of compliance approved by CASA under the relevant regulation. The AD notes that it refers to FAA AD 2005-15-10 Amdt 39-14199. This indicates coordination between CASA and the US Federal Aviation Administration. For an aircraft on the Australian register that was previously US-registered, compliance with the FAA AD may have already been accomplished; however, the maintenance records must show compliance with the Australian AD, which has different service bulletin dates and aircraft groupings. The two directives are not necessarily identical, and an operator cannot assume that FAA compliance equals CASA compliance. The AD also interacts with state and territory laws governing workplace health and safety, particularly if maintenance is performed in a workshop, as well as with contract law (since maintenance contracts must price in compliance) and insurance law (non-compliance may void cover). If the aircraft is used for commercial passenger transport, the operator must also comply with the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations Part 135 or 121, which impose additional record-keeping and maintenance control requirements. The AD does not override the common law duty of care owed by a maintainer to the operator or by an operator to passengers, but it sets a minimum standard: performing the AD inspection is evidence of reasonable care, while failing to do so would be strong evidence of negligence. Finally, the AD may intersect with international agreements on the mutual recognition of airworthiness approvals; for example, an aircraft imported from New Zealand may need to show compliance before the Australian certificate of airworthiness is issued.

The source text is AD/PA-44/18 Amdt 1. The original issue was AD/PA-44/18, which became effective on 27 June 2003. The original directive required a one-time inspection of the combustion heater fuel pumps for fuel leakage and corrective action if leakage was found. Amendment 1 was signed on 18 August 2005 and became effective on 29 September 2005. The amendment does two main things: it adds new serial numbers (PA-44-180, 4496169 through 4496190) to the applicability, creating a new Group 2, and it updates the referenced service documents. For Group 1 aeroplanes, the existing requirement to use Service Bulletin No. 1127 (February 2003) and Service Information Letter A-110A (March 2003) remained unchanged. For Group 2, the amendment specifies newer versions: Service Bulletin No. 1127B (April 2005) and Service Information Letter A-110B (December 2004). The compliance time for the original Group 1 was left unchanged: inspection within 10 hours TIS after 27 June 2003. For Group 2, the compliance time is within 10 hours TIS after the effective date of the amendment (29 September 2005). The prohibition on installation of uninspected pumps applies from the effective date for both groups. The background explains that further investigation revealed that additional fuel pumps that did not meet quality control requirements had been installed in PA-44-180 aeroplanes, necessitating the expansion. The AD does not indicate whether any aircraft were grounded between the original and amended versions; it simply updates the airworthiness regime prospectively. The note referencing FAA AD 2005-15-10 suggests that the FAA amended its own directive around the same time, and CASA’s amendment was coordinated to maintain harmonisation. No subsequent amendments are referenced in the source text.

The source text does not mention any litigation directly associated with AD/PA-44/18 Amdt 1. This is typical for individual airworthiness directives, which are rarely the subject of judicial challenge. ADs are legislative instruments subject to judicial review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 or the common law, but successful challenges are infrequent because CASA has a broad discretion in setting airworthiness standards and courts typically defer to technical expertise. There is no recorded case in which this specific AD was struck down or its application qualified. However, there is potential for indirect litigation. For example, if a fire or explosion attributable to a heater fuel pump occurred on an aircraft that was allegedly compliant with the AD, a question might arise as to whether the AD’s inspection regime was adequate. Conversely, if an aircraft owner was penalised for non-compliance and challenged the severity of the penalty, a court might consider the AD’s wording. The AD itself contains no waiver or limitation of liability, so claims for damage caused by pump failure could proceed under common law negligence or contract. The incorporation of the service bulletins could also lead to disputes over whether the maintainer followed the correct version; such a dispute could be heard in a civil suit between the operator and the maintenance provider. Despite the absence of direct litigation, the AD functions as a standard of care: a finding of non-compliance would strongly support a negligence claim. Additionally, the AD’s prohibition on installing uninspected pumps could give rise to disputes over the sale of aircraft parts if a pump is sold as compliant when it is not. In sum, while no litigation history is recorded in the source, the AD’s legal effect can influence private disputes even without judicial interpretation of the AD itself.

Several traps await the unwary. First, the compliance times are expressed in hours time in service, not calendar days. An aircraft that sits idle for months after the effective date does not trigger the inspection until it accumulates 10 hours TIS. But once it flies again, the 10-hour window starts anew? No - the AD says “within the next 10 hours TIS after the effective date”. For Group 2, that means if the aircraft flew even one minute after 29 September 2005, the 10-hour clock started then and has long expired. A new purchaser who acquires the aircraft in 2025 cannot rely on the “within 10 hours” being reset; the AD requirement was already due and not complied with, making the aircraft unairworthy. Second, the two groups reference different service bulletin revisions. A maintenance provider unaware of the difference might use the old bulletin on a Group 2 aircraft, which is non-compliance. The bulletins have different dates and content; the older one (No. 1127) does not reflect later design improvements or inspection criteria. Third, the “before further flight” obligation for leaks is immediate and absolute. If a leak is found during a routine inspection, the aircraft cannot fly for any purpose, including a ferry flight to a maintenance base. This could leave an aircraft stranded, requiring on-site rectification or a mobile service unit. Fourth, the installation prohibition applies even to pumps that are already in stock or on the shelf. A parts supplier who sells a heater fuel pump without documentation showing it has been inspected and corrected risks supplying a non-conforming part, even if the pump is new old stock. Fifth, the AD does not specify record-keeping requirements explicitly, but under CAR and CASR, any maintenance action must be entered in the aircraft maintenance record/logbook. The entry should reference the AD number, the service bulletin used, the inspection result (no leaks found, or leak found and corrected/replaced), and the date and TIS. Failure to document makes it difficult to prove compliance if audited. Sixth, there is a hidden trap for owners of PA-44-180T models: Group 1 includes serial numbers 44-8107001 through 44-8207020. An owner with a serial number just outside that range may believe the AD does not apply, but the amendment only added PA-44-180 serials, not PA-44-180T serials. If a later variant exists, the AD may still apply based on other directives. Seventh, the note about FAA AD 2005-15-10 may create confusion: an operator who complies only with the FAA AD thinking it is equivalent may discover that CASA requires different service bulletin versions. Eighth, the cost of compliance is not trivial. Even a simple visual inspection may require access panels to be removed, and if a leak is found, replacement parts may be difficult to source for older aircraft. Budgeting for possible pump replacement should be considered. Finally, the AD is effective from 29 September 2005, but the original AD for Group 1 has been in effect since 2003. Anyone buying a Group 1 aircraft without confirming compliance after 2003 inherits that non-compliance with no grace period.

Compliance requires a methodical approach based on the aircraft’s serial number grouping. Step one: determine whether the aircraft is Group 1 or Group 2. For Group 1, check if the serial number falls within PA-44-180 (44-7995001 through 4496168) or PA-44-180T (44-8107001 through 44-8207020). For Group 2, check if it is PA-44-180 (4496169 through 4496190). Step two: verify whether the required inspection has already been accomplished by reviewing the aircraft maintenance records. The records should show that the heater fuel pump (model 91E92-1 or 91E93-1) was visually inspected for leakage per the applicable service bulletin on a specific date and TIS. If the records do not show this, or if the records show only partial compliance (e.g., inspection done but no record of corrective action for a leak), the aircraft must be treated as non-compliant. Step three: for Group 1, use The New Piper Aircraft, Inc. Service Bulletin No. 1127 (dated 26 February 2003) and Kelly Aerospace Power Systems Service Information Letter Bulletin No. A-110A (dated 6 March 2003). For Group 2, use Service Bulletin No. 1127B (dated 18 April 2005) and Service Information Letter Bulletin No. A-110B (dated 20 December 2004). Obtain the correct documents from the manufacturer or from CASA’s website if archived. Step four: perform the visual inspection per the service bulletin. If no leak is found, record that fact and date, and the AD compliance is satisfied. If a leak is found, proceed to inspect the pump sealing surface for nicks, gouges, warping, or other abnormalities. Correct any abnormality found. If correction is not possible (e.g., the sealing surface is warped beyond repair), replace the heater fuel pump with an approved unit. The replacement pump must also be inspected per the AD before installation, unless it is a new pump that is a different model not listed, but caution: the AD prohibits installation of models 91E92-1 or 91E93-1 unless they have been inspected and corrected. So if you source a used pump of those models, you must inspect it first. Step five: document everything in the aircraft logbook. The entry should list the AD number (AD/PA-44/18 Amdt 1), the applicable group, the service bulletins consulted, the TIS at the time of inspection, the inspection result, and any corrective action. If a pump was replaced, record the new pump’s part number and serial number. Step six: for aircraft that have had the inspection done but the records are missing, the safest approach is to repeat the inspection rather than assume compliance. Step seven: if you are unable to comply for practical reasons (e.g., the service bulletins are not available, or the required pump model is no longer manufactured), apply to CASA for an alternative means of compliance or an extension before the aircraft flies. Flying without approval is a breach. Step eight: if you are a parts supplier, develop a procedure to verify that any heater fuel pump of models 91E92-1 or 91E93-1 you sell has documentation of AD compliance. Do not sell a pump without that documentation. Step nine: if you are purchasing an affected aircraft, make AD compliance a condition of the sale contract and insist on seeing the logbook entries. Factor the cost of compliance into your budget even if the seller claims compliance. Step ten: maintain ongoing awareness; no further recurring inspections are required by this AD (it is a one-time action), but if the pump is later replaced with a non-compliant unit, the AD prohibition on installation is re-triggered. Keep the records indefinitely with the aircraft records, as future owners will rely on them.